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.
Then you say:"What "people" are you referring to? Your writing is as unclear and confused as your understanding of the constitution."
My "fantasies" are "irrelevent" to you, but you ask me another question..........????????
Ok, be inconsistant. I'll answer, anyway. The Supreme Court is out of control. There is no effective check on its power and it knows it. We (including a sitting President) can bitch and moan about that fact, or take action to check its power. Adding more ammendments to the Constitution (as Mr. Frist has proposed) won't work. The Supreme Court will just "re-interpret" it to THEIR liking.
You write: ".....FACT that the Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government altogether outside, BY DESIGN, the control of the executive and only answerable to the Congress through the Impeachment mechanism."
THAT is a "fantasy". The Supreme Court see itself as a SUPREME BRANCH of Government. THAT'S the problem that must be tackled.
Any time you want to match knowledge on history, I'm ready for ya, pal. You need to READ THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. I doubt you have ever read it. It states plainly that CONGRESS is the only branch that can MAKE LAWS. Got it? The SC has no authority to make laws. The SC has invented new laws and rights not found in the Constitution. Tell you what - I'm sick your rude insults.
O'Connor has always been considered a "moderate" don't blame me for it.
I make my own judgments based on facts. I'm not like you - I don't believe everything I'm told. O'Connor is no moderate in my opinion. You can call her anything you want. I don't have to sign on to your judgments - I have a mind of my own, and a good one.
Why is it that Bush, who should have plenty of knowledge of all the problems with illegals since Texas is one of the states most affected, not in the same panic as the experts here? Could it be that, for the most part, it is not a killing issue or one that is easily solved? For all the raving about it there is not ONE practical, implementable idea ever presented on how to solve it
They are not only not solving it, THEY ARE ENCOURAGING IT!!! Put the freaking army on the border! Again, read the freaking constitution - it says the job of the Fed. Govt is to protect the U.S. FROM FOREIGN INVASION! Precisely ONE Congressman is supporting the Constitution on this. ONE - Tancredo. The rest are ignoring their oaths.
Now go away, you bore me boy.
Any time you want to match knowledge on history, I'm ready for ya, pal. You need to READ THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. I doubt you have ever read it. It states plainly that CONGRESS is the only branch that can MAKE LAWS. Got it? The SC has no authority to make laws. The SC has invented new laws and rights not found in the Constitution. Tell you what - I'm sick your rude insults.
O'Connor has always been considered a "moderate" don't blame me for it.
I make my own judgments based on facts. I'm not like you - I don't believe everything I'm told. O'Connor is no moderate in my opinion. You can call her anything you want. I don't have to sign on to your judgments - I have a mind of my own, and a good one.
Why is it that Bush, who should have plenty of knowledge of all the problems with illegals since Texas is one of the states most affected, not in the same panic as the experts here? Could it be that, for the most part, it is not a killing issue or one that is easily solved? For all the raving about it there is not ONE practical, implementable idea ever presented on how to solve it
They are not only not solving it, THEY ARE ENCOURAGING IT!!! Put the freaking army on the border! Again, read the freaking constitution - it says the job of the Fed. Govt is to protect the U.S. FROM FOREIGN INVASION! Precisely ONE Congressman is supporting the Constitution on this. ONE - Tancredo. The rest are ignoring their oaths.
Now go away, you bore me.
Many of the founders owned slaves - founders and slavers were not separate distinct groups. Go away, you bore me with your blind loyalty to a political party. You vote for who you want - I don't give a flip. But I will vote for who I want and it won't be Bush or the cowardly republicans. Now blow.
That's a judgment call not a fact. People don't tell me what to think about a candidate or how to categorize them. She's a liberal to me and Bush is a liberal in many ways. I don't care if you don't like it. I'm glad it bothers you. I hope you lose sleep over it.
Let me clarify it for you. The founders were principled but not perfect men, as I am. As far as I can, I will stick to moral principles. If a situation arises in which I must make a decision between conflicting moral principles, I will choose the greater moral good, as I believe our founders did. At that time, the British were also involved in the slave trade (british brought them here to begin with!). If not for principled white men, slavery would still be here. I believe the founders had more integrity in their little pinky than ANY politician does today, but they were not perfect. Slavery should have been dealt with sooner, but if it had, there would be no Republic and no Constitution and no United States as we know it today, so the issue was deferred so that a Republic could be established. Was it wrong to defer it? Yes, probably. Did some of the founders have blind spots when it came to slavery? Yes, probably. Could any politician today come up with the noble principles and documents as in our Decl. of Indep. and Constitution? I seriously doubt it. My moral authority is the bible, and even though ALL MEN sin, the moral principles contained therein do not change - ever. Bush swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. It's time he started honoring that oath along with the rest of the useless Congress and the SCOTUS. In the meantime, I am through with the Republican Party, and I don't care what you think about it. That's the end of the discussion between you and I. All future posts by you will be ignored.
I don't care about "unpopular" Court rulings. I care about rulings that are blatent violations of the Constitution (such as the Affirmative Action College Admisions case ruling that Sandra Day O'Connor just farted).
"There are numerous good books which could help. One really good one is John Marshall, Interpreter of the Constitution by Jean Smith."
This quote facinates me. It betrays EXACTLY where you are comming from and it ain't pretty. You accuse me of being ignorant of the Constitution and suggest that I read.......NOT the Constitution, but.................. a book about an "interpreter" of the Constitution.
The Constitution is written in English, not 'Martian', Chinese, or any other real, fictional, dead, or other type of language. To study the Constitution, you need to be able to read and understand English, a copy of the Constitution and several dictionaries to cross-reference any word whos meaning needs elaboration. You DON'T need John Marshal's spin on it, or Jean Smith's spin on John Marshal's spin on it. I've collected the definition of "militia" from 7 different dictionaries, so far, and they all point to one thing. It ain't what Sarah Brady thinks. There's one example of a good start on the proper study of the Constitution. If you want a history of what judges have ruled, that's another topic.
Actually, I have been reading the Federalist Papers with interest. That wasn't my point. My point was the fact that you forgot to even suggest reading the Constitution, itself. Reading the Bible on your own is a far better thing to do than to sit back and let a ......pedophile priest, for example,...... "interpret it" for you.
The Supreme Court has ruled that:
A) Slavery is Constitutional
B) All right!!! Slavery is gone, but seperate, but equal is Constitutional AND fashionable together with forced segregation
C) The Bill of Rights do not restrict the States from violating your rights, only the Federal Government
D) No, wait. forget we said part "C"
E) Seperate, but equal is no longer fashionable
F) ....but forced bussing is
G) Abortion was Constitutional all along, I guess...who cares what the unborn think? They can't vote.
H) Seperate, but equal college admmisions is constitutional, but not fashionable, so keep it quiet, ok?
Where, in God's name, does this leave "Constitutional Law"? It's all over the place to hell and back. I understand what people refer to as "case law" (rulings from the bench). I just reject the notion that we are prisoners of it for eternity. Oh, and.... I don't care what the Illinois State Constitution says.
"The founders were principled but not perfect men, as I am." Which means I am principled but not perfect just like the founders. Again, I don't care what you think. YOu are a blind follower, I think for myself. I have forgotten more history than you will ever know.
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.