Posted on 07/10/2003 11:57:09 AM PDT by KriegerGeist
The History of the Supreme Court
By David Barton,
The founder of WallBuilders talks about the Supreme Court, then and now.
Guest of the 700 Club.
July 10, 2003.
The History of the Supreme Court
The Founding Fathers of this nation laid out their elaborate plans for the city of Washington and made no provision for the Supreme Court to have a separate building. As intended by the Founders, the Court met inside the Capitol building for 135 years, first bouncing around from room to room and then finally residing in the vacated Senate chambers. The Founders intended that the Court should not have a major role in shaping the policy of our nation. In the first ten years of its existence, the entire Court term lasted less than two weeks a year; and for the next fifty years, the Court met only six to eight weeks a year.
Contrary to current policy, early sessions of the Supreme Court never saw the practice of public prayer as contrary to the intent of the Constitution. Records show that the Court commenced only after a minister had come into the Courtroom to pray for the Court, jurors, and their deliberations. Communion was often served before the session began, and records even show that early judges would offer a salvation message to those who were sentenced to die. Lawyers would sometimes pray for Justices as part of their arguments in Supreme Court cases. Supreme Court decisions were rendered by the Justices in defense of retaining the Bible as part of official public life.
Early Justices lived lives that exemplified their beliefs. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, also served as the President of the American Bible Society. Through his efforts, thousands of Bibles were printed and distributed across America. Other Justices served as officers and encouraged Christianity in the government and public arena. The Founding Fathers had godly requirements for those who served in public office. Noah Webster based those qualifications on Exodus 18:21, to "rule in the fear of God." Chief Justice John Jay declared, "It is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christian for their rulers."
Branching Out
In 1935 the Supreme Court began to branch out, extending its powers by constructing a separate building. After moving into the new building, they extended the length of the Court’s term from only a few weeks per year to nine months per year. By rendering more and more decisions, they drew more power to themselves.
Americans quickly forgot their founding principles. The Court ignored the American government articulated by George Washington who declared that "the fundamental principle of our Constitution enjoins that the will of the majority shall prevail." By 1947 the Everson v. Board of Education case, which dealt with the First Amendment and the wall of separation of church and state, began to pave the way for the intrusion of the state into religious expressions. In the early '60s, the Earl Warren Court, with little judicial experience on the part of any but one of its Justices, began to make decisions without regard to historical practices. In 1962 the Court took prayer out of public schools; in 1963 they took the Bible out of classrooms; in 1980 they ended the teaching of creation in schools. The court continues to refuse to intervene in important rulings that differ with an overwhelming majority of Americans. For example, 70 percent of Americans approve the posting of the Ten Commandments in the classrooms and courts, and 78 percent support volunteer school prayer, yet the courts refuse to reconsider these cases.
However, despite these and other current rulings, many reminders of our godly heritage are etched in wood and stone throughout the building. Inside are several carvings of the Ten Commandments, including an etching on the upper right side of the Justices’ seats that shows Moses displaying these sacred laws. When seated, the Justices face a marble relief called "The Struggle Between Good and Evil with Good Prevailing."
David says now is a critical time to persevere in prayer for our courts to return to the godly system on which they were founded.
Approving race-based university admissions assistance with a "wink, wink" from the Court is a direct violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Ammendment.
ANY deviation from the US Constitution is "bad enough" to warrant impeachment. There is no, "well, that's not really baaaaaaaad enough to get rid of them" Constitutional priciple. If the "other branch" of Government lacks the testicles to rain in these unelected black-robed bastards, the Executive Brach needs to grow some.
Let me guess.........when the US Supreme Court rules that Wahhabi Islam is the only religion allowed by the 1st Ammendment to the US Constitution, your response will be...."justshutupandtakeit". Your posting name sounds like a rapist's mantra.
Stop sampling the novacane.
The Colonists had no power over the British Empire, until they took it. If the US Supreme Court grabs power and legislates from the bench SOMEBODY had better stop them. That's the point.
Here's a clue for future nominees to the Supreme Court ---- the President should make them sign a resignation letter BEFORE he nominates them. All he has to do, if they crap on the Constitution is to accept the resignation. Too bad Eisenhower never thought of that.
I know. Judges start to see themselves as gods, when they've been there too long.
Looks like YOU are the one lacking in historical understanding. Read about the American Revolution for starters.
"And NO potential justice would sign a letter of resignation which would be irrelevent since nothing could happen should they decide not to retire. Cabinent ministers can be fired, Justices cannot."
Says who? "Tradition"? Give me a break. We are NOT slaves to a corupt Judiciary. The history of the Civil War shows that. On that note: Abe Lincoln IGNORED numerous "rulings" by judges during the Civil War. Nobody stopped him. That's the point. Power is as Power takes. Lincoln had testicles.
Ah HAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!! So there is no legal basis for requiring a resignation letter from a Supreme Court nominee, only a feel-good tradition against it. F%$k tradition. I'm glad we settled that one.
The American Colonist took their freedom by force. That's history.
Lincoln ignored numerous Writs of Habeus Corpus issued by Federal judges to force the release of numerous Confederate sympathizer politicians (from Maryland, I believe). He kept them in prison for the duration of the War and used the Writs to light his pipe. The Supreme Court did not exist in the form that it does today as was stated in the article.
"Ah HAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!! So there is no legal basis for requiring a resignation letter from a Supreme Court nominee, only a feel-good tradition against it. F%$k tradition. I'm glad we settled that one."
This should read: ....for NOT requiring and letter of resignation........"
My mistake.
hahaha. Typical rude blind Bush backer. I can play that game too and tell you not to pretend you are a supporter of the U.S. Constitution when you vote for people who ignore it! Talk about a waste of a vote! I vote moral principle, not party! Both parties stink when it comes to honoring their oaths to the U.S. Constitution. Any questions?
So what you advocating is the rewriting of the constitution to eliminate the supreme court?
In case you didn't notice, most of the LIBERAL justices on the court were appointed by Republicans! Put that gun down!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.