In light of the Obama administration's plans, we need to take a little time out to reflect on our rights as citizens to own and bear arms.
Enjoy!
Thanks for visiting Conservatives United!
Showing posts with label Constitutional Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitutional Law. Show all posts
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Who Pays?
Oh goodness, a lot is going on, and most of it isn't very good news ... especially as it pertains to this health-care crisis that our government representatives are about to foist upon us, to not only destroy our economy but precious unborn lives. There is considerable debate about who is paying, and who should pay for abortions, whether it be private insurers, or if the government should get involved in subsidizing with large sums of the taxpayers money the funding of abortions.
One thing I must point out in all of this, is the fact that the majority of abortions being performed are being directed by Planned Parenthood, which redirects funds from the government to make it appear as if there is no government involvement in the financing of abortions...make no mistake, Planned Parent receives millions each year from the government through other subsidies that the government pays to 48% of the population in the form of welfare, or Medicaid, etc ... and the greatest percentage of abortions are done through low-income clinics according to one of the institution's largest supporters and data providers the Guttmacher institute, a fanatically pro-abortion organization in conjunction with Planned Parenthood, which Margaret Sanger founded, the largest abortion provider in the world, seeking to control the population via control over reproductive rights in much the same manner as Communist China, with their one child per family policy. So, we have to be careful when accessing information that comes from the Guttmacher institute, who claims that "74%" of all abortions are being payed for by "private insurers."
A couple of thoughts on this ... most families that are fairly well-off financially and that are organized morally/spiritually I don't think are going to think about going to the extreme of murdering a new beginning in their family, that being their unborn children...it would seem unthinkable for those families who have a sense of right and wrong about them. On the other hand, we have those who, by being constrained by the government through subsidizing their poor state of living, leads them to a mentality of complacency, and waiting upon the government to supply their needs, and thus, they acquire only enough of the finances they need to survive, but do not wish to step out of their cocoon that the government keeps them in, and this is how those who run for office garner support for their socialist or communistic ideas, and thereby, creating a state of complacency...or like the boiling frog analogy...if you put a frog in a pot of cool water on a stove-eye, if you turn the heat up all at once, the frog can sense the impending danger and will jump out...but if you turn the heat up in increments (small degrees at a time), the the frog becomes accustomed to the heat but does not realize its fate ... this same analogy can be applied to the unnecessary entitlement programs that the government provides in the form of welfare, SSI, etc.
These government programs subsidize whether directly or indirectly the funding of abortions, the greatest percentage of the funding being directed through Planned Parenthood, and then documented as "personal finances," or from "private insurers" on the books of Planned Parenthood and their alliance with the data provider, the Guttmacher institute.
Much debate is now being waged over the point at which point human life develops the status of personhood, which will determine to a great extent, how and by whom abortion should or should not be subsidized. There should be no question as to what point a human life develops the status of a person with a right to life, or "if" a child is human in the womb. Life begins at conception, and is due the same right to life as anyone else in this world ... a human in the womb is made up of human DNA, and therefore equals a human. So there is no question about a right to life. Little unborn children hold the same amount of worth as you and I who stand on two feet.
So the answer to this question of who is, or who should be funding abortion, is? As of right now, the only ones paying for abortion, are those who are committing the act of murder upon the unborn. As to who should ... no one, whether a private insurer or the government. Insurance, just like law, is there to protect and benefit what is good and right. Not destroy it.
God bless you, and thank you for reading!
Thanks for visiting Conservatives United!
One thing I must point out in all of this, is the fact that the majority of abortions being performed are being directed by Planned Parenthood, which redirects funds from the government to make it appear as if there is no government involvement in the financing of abortions...make no mistake, Planned Parent receives millions each year from the government through other subsidies that the government pays to 48% of the population in the form of welfare, or Medicaid, etc ... and the greatest percentage of abortions are done through low-income clinics according to one of the institution's largest supporters and data providers the Guttmacher institute, a fanatically pro-abortion organization in conjunction with Planned Parenthood, which Margaret Sanger founded, the largest abortion provider in the world, seeking to control the population via control over reproductive rights in much the same manner as Communist China, with their one child per family policy. So, we have to be careful when accessing information that comes from the Guttmacher institute, who claims that "74%" of all abortions are being payed for by "private insurers."
A couple of thoughts on this ... most families that are fairly well-off financially and that are organized morally/spiritually I don't think are going to think about going to the extreme of murdering a new beginning in their family, that being their unborn children...it would seem unthinkable for those families who have a sense of right and wrong about them. On the other hand, we have those who, by being constrained by the government through subsidizing their poor state of living, leads them to a mentality of complacency, and waiting upon the government to supply their needs, and thus, they acquire only enough of the finances they need to survive, but do not wish to step out of their cocoon that the government keeps them in, and this is how those who run for office garner support for their socialist or communistic ideas, and thereby, creating a state of complacency...or like the boiling frog analogy...if you put a frog in a pot of cool water on a stove-eye, if you turn the heat up all at once, the frog can sense the impending danger and will jump out...but if you turn the heat up in increments (small degrees at a time), the the frog becomes accustomed to the heat but does not realize its fate ... this same analogy can be applied to the unnecessary entitlement programs that the government provides in the form of welfare, SSI, etc.
These government programs subsidize whether directly or indirectly the funding of abortions, the greatest percentage of the funding being directed through Planned Parenthood, and then documented as "personal finances," or from "private insurers" on the books of Planned Parenthood and their alliance with the data provider, the Guttmacher institute.
Much debate is now being waged over the point at which point human life develops the status of personhood, which will determine to a great extent, how and by whom abortion should or should not be subsidized. There should be no question as to what point a human life develops the status of a person with a right to life, or "if" a child is human in the womb. Life begins at conception, and is due the same right to life as anyone else in this world ... a human in the womb is made up of human DNA, and therefore equals a human. So there is no question about a right to life. Little unborn children hold the same amount of worth as you and I who stand on two feet.
So the answer to this question of who is, or who should be funding abortion, is? As of right now, the only ones paying for abortion, are those who are committing the act of murder upon the unborn. As to who should ... no one, whether a private insurer or the government. Insurance, just like law, is there to protect and benefit what is good and right. Not destroy it.
God bless you, and thank you for reading!
Thanks for visiting Conservatives United!
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Defining Article III section I
Powers of the Supreme Court
Article III section I - and what it says -
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their Services and Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Supreme Court's purpose -
In my own words...(opinion)
To oversee cases that may or may not come into conflict with the Constitution; and to uphold the Constitution to the fullest extent of the powers delegated to them. Not breeching the trust of the will of the People of the States.
Has the Supreme Court acted in defiance of the Constitution? Yes.
A short list of cases where the Supreme Court defied the Constitution --
Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
Nebbia v. New York (1934)
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation (1937)
Helvering v. Davis
Cantwell v. Connecticut
United States v. Darby overruling Hammer v. Dagenhart (1941)
U.S. v. Carolene Products Co.
Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township (1947)
Engel v. Vitale - the School prayer clause (1962)
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)
Lee v. Weisman (1992)
County of Allegheny v. ACLU
Texas Monthly, Inc v. Bullock (1989)
Larkin v. Grendel's Den (1982)
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Burnette
Wilkinson v. Jones (1987)
Stanley v. Georgia (1969)
City of Erie v. Pap's A.M. (2000)
...And this list doesn't even begin to scratch the surface, much less touch the cases that the Court's have forsaken the Constitution and literally forced their "standards of morality" on the American people as a whole.
What do we call this form of government? None other than...Tyranny!!!
The Amrican system of Law has essentially, went from God-Fearing & embracing to hating God, Christianity.
Evidently, something has went tragically wrong...
It seems as if people have lost their will...to defend...their will....Or, maybe the people of society at large are "comfortable" with the Supreme Court making their decisions for them? ... Maybe the people are like the Supreme Court and don't care about the Constitution and its Founding intent? Maybe they want to invent "new" standards of morality, and thus, permit the Supreme Court to legislate immorality without any consent, or thought, or care as to the outcome?
There remains much to be answered in that respect, for sure.
There is one thing we can be absolutely sure of though, and that is, those who stand for all that is right and moral in America, have allowed the Supreme Court to get away with their destructive legislation, and we are paying the price as we speak...and will pay the price for generations to come, by sitting by, and watching as America goes down the gutter, as the State of California has already.
So, what do we say then? "I don't care what happens to America, just so long as I have my monthly pay check on time?"
Or ... Say...
'NO! This is not a "Judgeocracy" We want America back!!! We're not going to allow no stinkin' Judges to force their depraved views on America any longer!!! We want America back!!!'
What say you? It's up to you...
God bless you!
--Jeremiah--
Thanks for visiting Conservatives United!
Article III section I - and what it says -
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their Services and Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Supreme Court's purpose -
In my own words...(opinion)
To oversee cases that may or may not come into conflict with the Constitution; and to uphold the Constitution to the fullest extent of the powers delegated to them. Not breeching the trust of the will of the People of the States.
Has the Supreme Court acted in defiance of the Constitution? Yes.
A short list of cases where the Supreme Court defied the Constitution --
Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
Nebbia v. New York (1934)
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation (1937)
Helvering v. Davis
Cantwell v. Connecticut
United States v. Darby overruling Hammer v. Dagenhart (1941)
U.S. v. Carolene Products Co.
Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township (1947)
Engel v. Vitale - the School prayer clause (1962)
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)
Lee v. Weisman (1992)
County of Allegheny v. ACLU
Texas Monthly, Inc v. Bullock (1989)
Larkin v. Grendel's Den (1982)
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Burnette
Wilkinson v. Jones (1987)
Stanley v. Georgia (1969)
City of Erie v. Pap's A.M. (2000)
...And this list doesn't even begin to scratch the surface, much less touch the cases that the Court's have forsaken the Constitution and literally forced their "standards of morality" on the American people as a whole.
What do we call this form of government? None other than...Tyranny!!!
The Amrican system of Law has essentially, went from God-Fearing & embracing to hating God, Christianity.
Evidently, something has went tragically wrong...
It seems as if people have lost their will...to defend...their will....Or, maybe the people of society at large are "comfortable" with the Supreme Court making their decisions for them? ... Maybe the people are like the Supreme Court and don't care about the Constitution and its Founding intent? Maybe they want to invent "new" standards of morality, and thus, permit the Supreme Court to legislate immorality without any consent, or thought, or care as to the outcome?
There remains much to be answered in that respect, for sure.
There is one thing we can be absolutely sure of though, and that is, those who stand for all that is right and moral in America, have allowed the Supreme Court to get away with their destructive legislation, and we are paying the price as we speak...and will pay the price for generations to come, by sitting by, and watching as America goes down the gutter, as the State of California has already.
So, what do we say then? "I don't care what happens to America, just so long as I have my monthly pay check on time?"
Or ... Say...
'NO! This is not a "Judgeocracy" We want America back!!! We're not going to allow no stinkin' Judges to force their depraved views on America any longer!!! We want America back!!!'
What say you? It's up to you...
God bless you!
--Jeremiah--
Thanks for visiting Conservatives United!
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Interpreting the 8th amendment
Here we go again, boys and girls, it's a neverending battle to save America: From Liberals trying to subvert the Constitution, and ignoring the will of the people through despotic judges on our Supreme Courts.
So, round two, of constitutional interpretation.
Today were going to talk a little bit about the 8th amendment...What's it say?
AMENDMENT VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
How do we interpret it?
Well, it's quite clear that it should mean exactly what it says; but what is it speaking in reference to? It's speaking in reference to after a person who has committed a crime and has been afforded a fair trial (to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that said "criminal" should be deemed 'guilty' or non-guilty), and given a sentence. This is where it gets tricky though...
Now, any justice system should treat any human being with the "fairness" that they deserve, but after a careful study of the nature in which the crime was committed, and the competency of the individual carrying the crime out, and the capacity of the individual to reconcile his/herself to the fact that he/she did something wrong, it is the sole purpose of those who are standing in judgment of the individual to determine the proper sentence for the crime.
What about murder? Can we call self-defense..."murder"? Of course not!
Murder is an act of hatred against someone who is innocent and done nothing wrong...such as an innocent unborn child. Murder is the most reprehensible behavior known, because it takes the life of our loved ones!
Ok, now, I'll use myself for an example here for a second...What if I was called to be on jury duty, and I was the only one they could find...Is my sole judgment and verdict going to be good enough? Even if I had another fellow juror, or two, or three, or eleven or a hundred, would our judgment be correct from our basis without any outside influence? No! I'm afraid not, because there's only one place that a verdict in the face of law can stand worthy to be defined as 'Just'... and whose judgment might that be? The Word of the Almighty! Look in chapter 9 verse 6 of Genisis in the Old Testament...What does God say? 'Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man, his blood shall be shed' ... Right there folks, God ordained/ordered the Death Penalty as a universal punishment against murder! He didn't say "some" should be punished by Death Penalty, but 'ALL' who commit murder. And He reaffirms this throughout both the Old and New Testament - One is commandment number 6 in the Ten Commandments, and Leviticus chapter 20 is another, and the book of Romans in the New Testament. (Ed note: Correction - Exodus 21 is the correct chapter.)
Then you may ask...Why is this? To compel the hearts of the people to fear our God ordained government...Did you know that? The government is 'ordained' by God? Sure is! Read Romans 13. But not just to fear the government, but to show willingness to accept that we have a place in society, and that place is not to go recklessly about to do as we please, but to show that we are willing to forgive others for our petty little arguments and differences...not to flare up and get mad, and go on a shooting rampage, no, this is when we get in trouble, and is why the law man of the government was created, to maintain or restore order and peace.
One thing that must be stressed here though, is, once a life is taken, it can't be brought back, therefore, reconciliation is only possible with the individual and God on a one on one basis, and which, is something that we can't know for sure...nonetheless, is why a careful study of the individual's mental nature must be studied, in any event, the law must follow suit to fit the intentions of the convicted.
We are entitled to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as we strive to maintain those goals in mind. In other words, we can't violate the Fourteenth amendment, but that does not give us a license to violate the Law above the Fourteenth amendment - The Law of God. When we violate God's Laws, then God's judgment will be thusly, meeted out to us.
God bless!
--Jeremiah--
[Ed Note: I may have more on this tomorrow. For now...have at it]
Update: 12:01 AM May 21, 2008
Ok, I just wanted to add a few more thoughts to what I've already said...
If we interpret the 8th amendment as an argument against the Death Penalty then we place more weight upon our own consciences in regards to our duty to the familys of the victims slain. Thus, society begins to deteriorate to the point that no standard of decency and morality may be mandated...This is what has happened over the last several decades in America...As one justice opined..."The Court need not apply the law...but the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" In other words...If the majority of the Court's opinion, or "standards" differed from the elected officials within each States' own elected government, then the Court's "standards of decency" had simply "evolved" beyond the States and the Will of the People, and that the Court's "standards of decency" need to be applied.
What does this mean? In criminal law, it would mean forcing the States to treat criminals with more leniency. Therefore, subverting the Constitution, and taking away each States' powers to enforce the law. This is what we have found over and over again in Liberal activism, and is why, as I explained in a former thread...We need to avoid a Liberal controlled White House...because Liberal Activists have no respect for the Constitution, which is the rule of law, and its original, or Founding intent contained within it.
Just think about your Second amendment rights, and our Christian heritage that is afforded to us in the First and Fourteenth amendments.....ALL of that will be breeched if say someone like Barack Hussein Obama is nominated for President.
I will say this, if the people do decide to elect Mr. Obama to be our next President...then I would issue a call to my Brothers and Sisters who believe in the American way, and who cherish your Constitutional right to bear arms to join together and stick together and not let him take our guns away, and to make it clear, that we will worship Church service wherever we so choose, and however we choose.
Ok? Stick together!
God bless America!
(Ending time: 12:36)
Thanks for visiting Conservatives United!
So, round two, of constitutional interpretation.
Today were going to talk a little bit about the 8th amendment...What's it say?
AMENDMENT VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
How do we interpret it?
Well, it's quite clear that it should mean exactly what it says; but what is it speaking in reference to? It's speaking in reference to after a person who has committed a crime and has been afforded a fair trial (to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that said "criminal" should be deemed 'guilty' or non-guilty), and given a sentence. This is where it gets tricky though...
Now, any justice system should treat any human being with the "fairness" that they deserve, but after a careful study of the nature in which the crime was committed, and the competency of the individual carrying the crime out, and the capacity of the individual to reconcile his/herself to the fact that he/she did something wrong, it is the sole purpose of those who are standing in judgment of the individual to determine the proper sentence for the crime.
What about murder? Can we call self-defense..."murder"? Of course not!
Murder is an act of hatred against someone who is innocent and done nothing wrong...such as an innocent unborn child. Murder is the most reprehensible behavior known, because it takes the life of our loved ones!
Ok, now, I'll use myself for an example here for a second...What if I was called to be on jury duty, and I was the only one they could find...Is my sole judgment and verdict going to be good enough? Even if I had another fellow juror, or two, or three, or eleven or a hundred, would our judgment be correct from our basis without any outside influence? No! I'm afraid not, because there's only one place that a verdict in the face of law can stand worthy to be defined as 'Just'... and whose judgment might that be? The Word of the Almighty! Look in chapter 9 verse 6 of Genisis in the Old Testament...What does God say? 'Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man, his blood shall be shed' ... Right there folks, God ordained/ordered the Death Penalty as a universal punishment against murder! He didn't say "some" should be punished by Death Penalty, but 'ALL' who commit murder. And He reaffirms this throughout both the Old and New Testament - One is commandment number 6 in the Ten Commandments, and Leviticus chapter 20 is another, and the book of Romans in the New Testament. (Ed note: Correction - Exodus 21 is the correct chapter.)
Then you may ask...Why is this? To compel the hearts of the people to fear our God ordained government...Did you know that? The government is 'ordained' by God? Sure is! Read Romans 13. But not just to fear the government, but to show willingness to accept that we have a place in society, and that place is not to go recklessly about to do as we please, but to show that we are willing to forgive others for our petty little arguments and differences...not to flare up and get mad, and go on a shooting rampage, no, this is when we get in trouble, and is why the law man of the government was created, to maintain or restore order and peace.
One thing that must be stressed here though, is, once a life is taken, it can't be brought back, therefore, reconciliation is only possible with the individual and God on a one on one basis, and which, is something that we can't know for sure...nonetheless, is why a careful study of the individual's mental nature must be studied, in any event, the law must follow suit to fit the intentions of the convicted.
We are entitled to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as we strive to maintain those goals in mind. In other words, we can't violate the Fourteenth amendment, but that does not give us a license to violate the Law above the Fourteenth amendment - The Law of God. When we violate God's Laws, then God's judgment will be thusly, meeted out to us.
God bless!
--Jeremiah--
[Ed Note: I may have more on this tomorrow. For now...have at it]
Update: 12:01 AM May 21, 2008
Ok, I just wanted to add a few more thoughts to what I've already said...
If we interpret the 8th amendment as an argument against the Death Penalty then we place more weight upon our own consciences in regards to our duty to the familys of the victims slain. Thus, society begins to deteriorate to the point that no standard of decency and morality may be mandated...This is what has happened over the last several decades in America...As one justice opined..."The Court need not apply the law...but the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" In other words...If the majority of the Court's opinion, or "standards" differed from the elected officials within each States' own elected government, then the Court's "standards of decency" had simply "evolved" beyond the States and the Will of the People, and that the Court's "standards of decency" need to be applied.
What does this mean? In criminal law, it would mean forcing the States to treat criminals with more leniency. Therefore, subverting the Constitution, and taking away each States' powers to enforce the law. This is what we have found over and over again in Liberal activism, and is why, as I explained in a former thread...We need to avoid a Liberal controlled White House...because Liberal Activists have no respect for the Constitution, which is the rule of law, and its original, or Founding intent contained within it.
Just think about your Second amendment rights, and our Christian heritage that is afforded to us in the First and Fourteenth amendments.....ALL of that will be breeched if say someone like Barack Hussein Obama is nominated for President.
I will say this, if the people do decide to elect Mr. Obama to be our next President...then I would issue a call to my Brothers and Sisters who believe in the American way, and who cherish your Constitutional right to bear arms to join together and stick together and not let him take our guns away, and to make it clear, that we will worship Church service wherever we so choose, and however we choose.
Ok? Stick together!
God bless America!
(Ending time: 12:36)
Thanks for visiting Conservatives United!
Friday, May 16, 2008
Interpreting The Fourteenth Amendment
In the wake of yesterday's California Supreme Court decision to defy the good will of the people of California and permit same-sex marriage, I thought it would be an appropriate time to take a look at the implications of just such a decision and how the Court is flawed in their decision.
Just about every single instance in which same-sex marriage is brought up the Courts seem to always trot out the Fourteenth amendment as "justification" for same-sex marriage.
What the Fourteenth amendment says...
Amendment XIV Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or inforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immuniities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Take note of that last part there..."nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within it jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Now, how do we interpret such as Clause? Well, Life, Liberty and property are all our basic rights as are stated within the confines of the Declaration of Independence as they are our God-given rights, and something that must be remembered when we say God-given - We are responsible, and held accountable to God for our rights...not to the government or any earthly individual. This is what the Fourteenth amendment says in relation to when the Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution created it, and what they intended for it to mean. Thus, no one can deny us those rights that Almighty God is the sole Provider thereof.
Ok, onward we shall go...There are many laws, but, what, in general terms does law actually mean?
Law \'lo\n 1 a: a rule of conduct or action laid down and enforced by the supreme governing authority (as the legislature) of a community or established by custom b: the whole collection of such rules by enforcing rules c: the control brought about by enforcing rules 2 : a or principles stating something that laways works in the same way under the same conditions 4 cap : the first part of the Jewish scriptures - compare HAGIOGRAPHA, PROPHETS 5 : trial in a court to determine what is just and right according to the laws 6 : the department of knowledge that deals with laws and their interpretation and application 7a : the profession of a lawyer b : lawyers as a group.
Definitions #s 1&5 are what I want to capitalize on, both of significant importance to the subject at hand. Before I begin, it's critical to remember here, that, when we speak of law in the above stated terms...these are all definitions created by, and stated under man's conditions.
As was stated in definition #5 - law is determined by what is 'just' and 'right' or 'good' and 'bad' behavior and actions, and thus, in most instances, the laws are created (in most cases) to fit and protect what is good, likewise, resisting what is bad or evil, and ruling that conduct of persons within any said jurisdiction should do the very best they can to conform to what said law states, or suffer the consequences of disobeying said law.
So, where does yesterday's California Supreme Court decision stand in the face of 'Right' and 'Wrong'? The Supreme Court of California acted in false pretension to what the will of the people of California's intentions were. The people of California never intended for same-sex unions to be permissible under the law of California...the same as the majority of the American people don't want same-sex unions in this country. Why? Because homosexuality is 'wrong' and it goes against the Law of the Land, which is bound by and rest upon the Will of, and Law of Almighty God.
In the crux of it ... the Supreme Court Justices of California were never given any authority what-so-ever to enact, or put into effect such a law to allow same-sex unions, they just flat out made it up, and as some well know, the Founders never intended for the intent of the Constituion which they; themselves had framed and ratified under the auspice and authority of Almighty God and the good will of the people of the United States to be changed to support the disemmination of evil througout our God-given, God-blessed land and country, America!
The Fourteenth amendment gives no allusion to the allowance, nor "protection" of same-sex marriage, None!
--Jeremiah--
Thanks for visiting Conservatives United!
Just about every single instance in which same-sex marriage is brought up the Courts seem to always trot out the Fourteenth amendment as "justification" for same-sex marriage.
What the Fourteenth amendment says...
Amendment XIV Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or inforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immuniities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Take note of that last part there..."nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within it jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Now, how do we interpret such as Clause? Well, Life, Liberty and property are all our basic rights as are stated within the confines of the Declaration of Independence as they are our God-given rights, and something that must be remembered when we say God-given - We are responsible, and held accountable to God for our rights...not to the government or any earthly individual. This is what the Fourteenth amendment says in relation to when the Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution created it, and what they intended for it to mean. Thus, no one can deny us those rights that Almighty God is the sole Provider thereof.
Ok, onward we shall go...There are many laws, but, what, in general terms does law actually mean?
Law \'lo\n 1 a: a rule of conduct or action laid down and enforced by the supreme governing authority (as the legislature) of a community or established by custom b: the whole collection of such rules by enforcing rules
Definitions #s 1&5 are what I want to capitalize on, both of significant importance to the subject at hand. Before I begin, it's critical to remember here, that, when we speak of law in the above stated terms...these are all definitions created by, and stated under man's conditions.
As was stated in definition #5 - law is determined by what is 'just' and 'right' or 'good' and 'bad' behavior and actions, and thus, in most instances, the laws are created (in most cases) to fit and protect what is good, likewise, resisting what is bad or evil, and ruling that conduct of persons within any said jurisdiction should do the very best they can to conform to what said law states, or suffer the consequences of disobeying said law.
So, where does yesterday's California Supreme Court decision stand in the face of 'Right' and 'Wrong'? The Supreme Court of California acted in false pretension to what the will of the people of California's intentions were. The people of California never intended for same-sex unions to be permissible under the law of California...the same as the majority of the American people don't want same-sex unions in this country. Why? Because homosexuality is 'wrong' and it goes against the Law of the Land, which is bound by and rest upon the Will of, and Law of Almighty God.
In the crux of it ... the Supreme Court Justices of California were never given any authority what-so-ever to enact, or put into effect such a law to allow same-sex unions, they just flat out made it up, and as some well know, the Founders never intended for the intent of the Constituion which they; themselves had framed and ratified under the auspice and authority of Almighty God and the good will of the people of the United States to be changed to support the disemmination of evil througout our God-given, God-blessed land and country, America!
The Fourteenth amendment gives no allusion to the allowance, nor "protection" of same-sex marriage, None!
--Jeremiah--
Thanks for visiting Conservatives United!
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Exposing the Truth: The Issue of Pornography Part II
In part one of Exposing the Truth: The Issue of Pornography we touched upon the anti-moral faction pertaining to it, and indeed, too, the horrors that are a part of the industry of pornography. What we haven’t discussed, however, is how pornography became covered under the law to legally sanction its protection.
Let me first begin by saying…If the American people wanted the media covered under the First Amendment recognizing it as “freedom of the press” then all they would have to do is make a Constitutional amendment adding it as one of their basic “rights” … But why doesn't the Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights have it included within their bounds? They don't. It is not ‘Self-evident,’ that the media is identical to “the press” (newspapers, magazines, book publications). The intent, then, of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and Declaration of Independence was based by the Founders and ratifiers not on their “own” thinking and decision making, but backed by and absolute reliance on a higher authority. Why? If they used their own ideas and opinions concerning morality during the making of the Constitution, then they would have erred on the side of ignorance as to the origin and purpose of their existence and too, the goal to be reached. Hypothetically speaking, it can be translated this way and easier for us to understand…We don’t go to school to make up our own rules, and teach ourselves what we need to learn. For what could we gain by thinking that we can instruct ourselves when we don’t already know what needs to be learned? Nothing…So then, it can be said, is the reason we need a ‘Teacher’, someone who has the knowledge, and can share that knowledge with us. So it was, with our Founding Fathers who penned our “Rights,” and the laws of the land into effect. They were confident that no earthly human-being had any authority what-so-ever to grant us our rights, thus, they relied on the Beginning of Knowledge - That Being that is All-Knowing, and who gives us our rights. Where can they (our rights) be found? The Holy Bible – God’s Word. So the intent of the Founders flowed from God’s intent.
So, if a decision is made, then, that is contrary to the Constitution, which is based upon the morals of the Holy Bible, and that is not listed in the Constitution as one of our God-given rights, where is its derivation? From a human being that has put him or hers self in a position of power, where they do not belong and have no authority, above the Law of God.
Pertaining to the issue of pornography, our Supreme Court Justices have done just that, they have put themselves in a position to defy the Will of God. Over time, the Supreme Court made rulings in which there was never any indication given, or reason for that matter to change the Constitution…but, in spite, they just HAD to go extra-constitutional and added “freedom of expression” and the “right to privacy.” This gave Sodomites and any individual which so chose to flaunt themselves in public graphically the “right” to do so. This was never the intent of the First amendment and Bill of Rights.
I can express to you how I feel in words, but does that give me the “right” to say it before a large audience? Apparently, to the Courts it “does”! And we wonder why there are so many obscenities and epithets thrown out on television and the radio. The fact is… it is not a wonder. Anyone in their right mind, and who has some morals about them, can see that the Courts have hijacked our elected Democratic process, and forced their sick, depraved opinions on the majority of the American people! The Courts know what they are doing is wrong, they know, but they are just too ignorant to realize it, and to see the damage that their decisions have cost America. The real problem being, however…is, they just don’t care how extreme and ignorant they really are! They have hijacked the law to mean wrong is “right”, and evil is “good.”
The really sad reality, the children will be affected the worst. The bright young minds of the future who will be taken advantage of by the State to do with them as they please, teaching them things not normal to human-nature, things not intended by God, and they will then go into the world confused and given unto a reprobate mind deceiving and being deceived. We can see the effects of the Courts decisions everywhere already in our land…STDs at an alarming rate among school girls, children as young as 11-14. Abortion, taking the lives of over 50,000,000 unborn children at the present and those numbers keep climbing rapidly, on an hourly, to minute by minute basis.
It is a gross under-statement to call the deeds and actions of our Supreme Courts decisions as 'immoral', no, they are criminal actions…so criminal that our Founding Fathers would have probably sanctioned their deaths on the grounds of treason.
When will America wake up and take their rights back, and restore the Constitution to its original meaning they way our Founders intended for it to be under the protection of the Divine Justice over all?
Well, I don’t know the answer to that, but you out there who are American certainly do…but one thing I do know…and that is, America will suffer under a Liberal Democrat administration, and is something we need to think about over the next few months, something that will need to be avoided at all costs. By avoiding a Liberal Democrat administration, we can go to work on ending the depravity that is so prevalent within our borders.
God bless!
--Jeremiah--
Thanks for visiting Conservatives United!
Let me first begin by saying…If the American people wanted the media covered under the First Amendment recognizing it as “freedom of the press” then all they would have to do is make a Constitutional amendment adding it as one of their basic “rights” … But why doesn't the Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights have it included within their bounds? They don't. It is not ‘Self-evident,’ that the media is identical to “the press” (newspapers, magazines, book publications). The intent, then, of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and Declaration of Independence was based by the Founders and ratifiers not on their “own” thinking and decision making, but backed by and absolute reliance on a higher authority. Why? If they used their own ideas and opinions concerning morality during the making of the Constitution, then they would have erred on the side of ignorance as to the origin and purpose of their existence and too, the goal to be reached. Hypothetically speaking, it can be translated this way and easier for us to understand…We don’t go to school to make up our own rules, and teach ourselves what we need to learn. For what could we gain by thinking that we can instruct ourselves when we don’t already know what needs to be learned? Nothing…So then, it can be said, is the reason we need a ‘Teacher’, someone who has the knowledge, and can share that knowledge with us. So it was, with our Founding Fathers who penned our “Rights,” and the laws of the land into effect. They were confident that no earthly human-being had any authority what-so-ever to grant us our rights, thus, they relied on the Beginning of Knowledge - That Being that is All-Knowing, and who gives us our rights. Where can they (our rights) be found? The Holy Bible – God’s Word. So the intent of the Founders flowed from God’s intent.
So, if a decision is made, then, that is contrary to the Constitution, which is based upon the morals of the Holy Bible, and that is not listed in the Constitution as one of our God-given rights, where is its derivation? From a human being that has put him or hers self in a position of power, where they do not belong and have no authority, above the Law of God.
Pertaining to the issue of pornography, our Supreme Court Justices have done just that, they have put themselves in a position to defy the Will of God. Over time, the Supreme Court made rulings in which there was never any indication given, or reason for that matter to change the Constitution…but, in spite, they just HAD to go extra-constitutional and added “freedom of expression” and the “right to privacy.” This gave Sodomites and any individual which so chose to flaunt themselves in public graphically the “right” to do so. This was never the intent of the First amendment and Bill of Rights.
I can express to you how I feel in words, but does that give me the “right” to say it before a large audience? Apparently, to the Courts it “does”! And we wonder why there are so many obscenities and epithets thrown out on television and the radio. The fact is… it is not a wonder. Anyone in their right mind, and who has some morals about them, can see that the Courts have hijacked our elected Democratic process, and forced their sick, depraved opinions on the majority of the American people! The Courts know what they are doing is wrong, they know, but they are just too ignorant to realize it, and to see the damage that their decisions have cost America. The real problem being, however…is, they just don’t care how extreme and ignorant they really are! They have hijacked the law to mean wrong is “right”, and evil is “good.”
The really sad reality, the children will be affected the worst. The bright young minds of the future who will be taken advantage of by the State to do with them as they please, teaching them things not normal to human-nature, things not intended by God, and they will then go into the world confused and given unto a reprobate mind deceiving and being deceived. We can see the effects of the Courts decisions everywhere already in our land…STDs at an alarming rate among school girls, children as young as 11-14. Abortion, taking the lives of over 50,000,000 unborn children at the present and those numbers keep climbing rapidly, on an hourly, to minute by minute basis.
It is a gross under-statement to call the deeds and actions of our Supreme Courts decisions as 'immoral', no, they are criminal actions…so criminal that our Founding Fathers would have probably sanctioned their deaths on the grounds of treason.
When will America wake up and take their rights back, and restore the Constitution to its original meaning they way our Founders intended for it to be under the protection of the Divine Justice over all?
Well, I don’t know the answer to that, but you out there who are American certainly do…but one thing I do know…and that is, America will suffer under a Liberal Democrat administration, and is something we need to think about over the next few months, something that will need to be avoided at all costs. By avoiding a Liberal Democrat administration, we can go to work on ending the depravity that is so prevalent within our borders.
God bless!
--Jeremiah--
Thanks for visiting Conservatives United!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)