The defining legal issue of our generation is not the right to life or even the definition of the family, but whether the United States of America through its laws, its charters, its magistrates, and its public institutions can and will meaningfully acknowledge the God of the Bible. The acknowledgment of God is the first principle of liberty, a fact which was recognized by the Founding Fathers who declared that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.The short answer is that leaders may, acting as individuals, freely profess any and all religious beliefs, or none at all. This is protected in Article VI of the Constitution, which states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Additionally, the First Amendment forbids Establishment of a state religion. Clearly this forbids the government from taking a position on whether or not the Bible was divinely inspired.
Note that despite the Declaration's references to a Creator, the Constitution is silent on the issue. Save the ambiguous matter of the date, there is no reference to the Bible or to any Deity or other divine figure.
This is not a pretty picture, but many of the far right will support his position, and will be demoralized when they find out the Roy Moore is not on Bush's short list for the USSC.
Pro-God (walking the walk, not just talking the talk)
than the republican he's running against I'll be happy to vote for him. I haven't seen one so far. I'd even happily pay higher taxes, well maybe not happily, to a democrat who will uphold these values. Sorry to say, the republicans haven't impressed me with their committment to the above values.
This is pathetic. Obviously this guy couldn't care less about the Constitution, so why would anyone care about his opinions regarding who should or shouldn't be on the Court? Why did you even post this?
The [first] test is this: Will the nominee publicly acknowledge and fear the God of Scripture as the lawgiver from whose revelation all valid laws of man are derived?This is not necessary. The position of Supreme Court justice is of one to interpret the Constitution, not the Bible or Christian theology. There is sufficient documentation from the period that, when coupled with one's intuition, to come to a reasonable approximation of what the Founders had in mind when they drafted and ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I think one may recognize the influence of the Bible on the Constitution, but it is not necessary for a justice to be born again to properly interpret the document.
'The United States Supereme(sic)Court's War on the Sovereignty of God'
Prediction: God wins.