SCOTUS Control
The First Amendment doesn’t require disobeying the First Commandment
The Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) has convinced most of our culture that if you have a manger scene at the State Capitol depicting the Author of Liberty, you have to let a Satan idol depicting the avowed Enemy of Liberty leer down at Him. This is a strategy for unwelcoming the mortal Enemy of Liberty in our public spaces without equally unwelcoming the Author of Liberty. The main obstacles are (1) courts, (2) culture, and (3) our own ignorance of how Freedom of Religion worked in America before 1947.
The logic of equalizing all religions would also require allowing Satanists to represent their “religion” with a doll, like the doll of Jesus in the manger. Except the Satanist’s doll would be strapped to an altar prepared for ritual sacrifice. Then the Moslems should be allowed to display their doll with its head cut off by a nearby toy machete. The Voodoo priests must be allowed their doll stuck with pins. Cannibals must be allowed their doll simmering in a cooking pot.
Has God, Who gave us His First Commandment, left us no way to obey it without violating our First Amendment? Fortunately, God has preserved for us the legal tools to obey Him. The principal tool is that very same First Amendment, as understood by its authors and their descendants for a century and a half, but with a renewed emphasis on evidence that our pre-Darwin Founders perhaps didn’t imagine could ever be so dismissed as “irrelevant”.
The principles written here are designed to be equally irrefutable in courts of law and the “Court of Public Opinion”. They are designed to achieve “SCOTUS Control”. If you find anything here that you can refute, let me know! SCOTUS’ War Against God is today’s Goliath, and our “five stones” need to be well chosen and aimed. Your criticism can help.
Contents:
I. Three Reasons (“Compelling Government Interests”) government needs to promote Bible religions over others.
Reason #1: Free government depends on considerable voluntary compliance with its laws, which the Bible nurtures
Reason #2: Freedom requires character in citizens which only the Bible nurtures
Reason #3: Freedom requires evidence-based Truth, not reality-defying “belief” in superstition
II. SCOTUS redefines “Establishment of Religion” in order to usurp jurisdiction over state and local religion policy which the 1st Amendment prohibits.
III. Four ways SCOTUS usurps jurisdiction over state and local policy, which the Constitution prohibits
a. “Privileges and Immunities”
b. “Section 5, 14th Amendment”
c. “The Five Frauds of Marbury v. Madison”
d. Declaration of Independence
IV. Solutions in the Constitution
a. Impeachment for overturning constitutional laws!
b. Congress can limit SCOTUS jurisdiction to what the Constitution provides.
c. Congress can nullify rulings that overturn laws that aren’t unanimous
d. Basing religion policy on evidence, not “discrimination”
e. Not allowing lower courts to overturn laws
f. Impeachment hearings that cross examine judges
I. Three Reasons (“Compelling Government Interests”) government needs to promote Bible religions over others.
Examples of why a greater public platform for God than for Satan is essential for the maintenance of Freedom, which makes it a “compelling government interest” (courts like that phrase a lot) for government to support . Historical quotes prove that this “favoring” of Light over Darkness was how the 1st Amendment was understood and practiced for its first century and a half. Quotes from SCOTUS precedents and analyses by law professors prove the court-ordered equalization of all religions is arbitrary, counterproductive, and unconstitutional. Quotes from the Bible establish Biblical support for the broad outlines of American Freedom, and development of the kind of citizens needed for Freedom to work, greater than most Americans know, and far beyond any support from other religions.
See article: Why a display of baby Jesus in a state capitol gives no right for an idol of Satan glaring down at Him. “1st Amendment won’t let you obey 1st Commandment”?
Original sources:
“Rep. No. 24: Chaplains in Congress and in the Army and Navy,” March 27, 1854, Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives Made During the First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress (Washington: A. O. P. Nicholson, 1854), 6, 8.
March 2, 1863, Journal of the Senate of the United States of America Being the Third Session of the Thirty-Seventh Congress (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1863), 379.
Reason #1: Free government (as opposed to a “police state”) depends on considerable voluntary compliance with its laws, which the Bible nurtures by the harmony between its legal and moral principles and the broad outlines of American laws, to a degree not touched by any other religion. Examples from Scripture: Equal Rights. Elections. Freedom of Speech and Religion. Low crime. Slavery outlawed.
See article: “Proof: the basics of Freedom and Blessings are Bible commands: thus, enforcing American law 'favors' the Bible” “Crime, Slavery: basics of Freedom and Blessings that American law copied from the Bible”
Reason #2: Freedom requires character in citizens which only the Bible nurtures, which other religions do not value or even oppose. Examples: Serving others out of love for “neighbor” is the essence of Capitalism, Civilization, and Freedom. The goal of healing conflicts by forgiving, relationship skills that even heal marriages, respect for all humans as equals before God. Honesty. Not mere “tolerance”, but appreciation for morally neutral differences.
See articles: “Proof: the character in citizens needed for American Freedom to function are developed through honoring, trusting, and obeying the Bible” “Stable Marriages fuel Freedom: the Bible fuels stable families – American Freedom needs the Bible”
Reason #3: Freedom requires evidence-based Truth, not reality-defying “belief” in superstition. Free government has a “Compelling Interest” in promoting a culture that values evidence over fantasy, superstition, and general denial of reality. The Bible is easily proved to be accurate and true, in contrast to the utter want of evidence supporting other religious writings. Respect for false religions is achieved by dismissing evidence. “I believe the Bible” is met with “but others don’t”, as if belief is evidence. Try comparing the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus with that for Confucious or Buddha. Compare confirmation from archaeology of the Bible with that for the Koran, the Vedas, or the Gita. How about a record of fulfilled prophecies? How about the medical accuracy of the Bible’s description of life in the womb compared with the Koran and Hindu scripture? The equalization of all religions is the equalization of facts with fantasy, science with stupidity. America and its courts need to stop treating religions as matters of “discrimination” and stop censoring evidence. It’s OK to “discriminate” against superstition, against tyranny, against cruelty, and against stupidity. It’s OK to demote
II. SCOTUS redefines “Establishment of Religion” in order to usurp jurisdiction over state and local religion policy which the 1st Amendment prohibits.
Courts think that means the mere presentation of good, accurate, character-building information which stupid selfish people have the perfect freedom to ignore. But when the 1st Amendment was ratified and for a century and a half after, it was never called an “establishment” where there is no bureaucracy with the legal and physical power to make people say, pay, participate, or agree with anything, and to punish noncompliance, which in those days meant with everything from fines to dungeons to torture to execution.
The First Amendment says Congress may not pass any law prohibiting the “free expression” of religion, and the 14th Amendment makes that an individual right to what is commonly called “Freedom of Religion” which no state or city can prohibit. And if they do, Congress is assigned the power to “enforce” the right. The First Amendment also says Congress may “make no law respecting establishment [on the subject of] of religion”. That means at least two things: Congress was not allowed to mess with the “establishments of religion” which existed in several states when the 1st Amendment was ratified, and Congress was not allowed to create its own religion bureaucracy at the federal level.
The 14th Amendment assigns enforcement of rights, in states where rights are trampled, to Congress. But how can Congress enforce a right to be free of any federal law on the subject of religion policy? By not passing federal laws on the subject of religion policy, right? Unlike all the other rights in the first eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights, this right shelters state and local religion policy from federal intrusion.
Yet courts redefine “establishment of” to mean “information about”, and then take Section 5’s assignment to Congress of rights enforcement to mean assignment to courts of rights enforcement. By that “logic”, courts rule that posting the 10 Commandments in a school hallway is “establishment of religion” which courts are authorized to crush. Never mind that posting the 10 Commandments freely expresses religion; “free expression of religion” is the new SCOTUS definition of “Establishment of Religion”.
By redefining “establishment of” to mean “information about”, courts make “establishment” mean the same thing as “free expression”. So that instead of no federal oversight of local religion policy and no federal ban on free expression, courts must crush free expression because that is “establishment”.
Justices Thomas and Rehnquist explain how this is not only the opposite of what the 1st Amendment means, but it has led to a long string of insanely contradictory, unpredictable rulings because SCOTUS interpretation of the 1st Amendment is not only unconstitutional but it has no clear meaning. Justice Clarence Thomas explains what is irrational, illegal, and unconstitutional about courts driving God out of public spaces. Thomas is not personally against the equalization of all religions, so long as it is the choice of local and state governments responding to their voters and subject to their own constitutions and state courts, but his reasoning is firmly against courts having any federal jurisdiction over local and state decisions, and he explicitly states that federal courts have no business with local and state policy on religion.
However, he states that conclusion with jargon not often heard outside courts. He said “I would take this opportunity to begin the process of rethinking the Establishment Clause. I would acknowledge that the Establishment Clause is a federalism provision, [“federalism” recognizes areas of state authority that are free of federal control] which, for this reason, resists incorporation.” [“Incorporation” is SCOTUS’ made-up term for its usurped power to pick and choose which of the Constitution’s listed rights to protect. A right that SCOTUS likes is “incorporated” into the Constitution by the will of SCOTUS.] Concurrence by Thomas, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 US 1 (2004)
See www.Saltshaker.US/RehnquistsWarAgainstSCOTUSWarAgainstGod.pdf | “What Chief Justice said courts have to “favor” the Bible over religious myths - that doesn’t “establish religion”?”
III. Four ways SCOTUS usurps jurisdiction over state and local policy, which the Constitution prohibits
a. “Privileges and Immunities”: SCOTUS nullified the Constitution’s list of Fundamental Rights – the meaning of the “privileges and immunities” clause of the 14th Amendment, in order to begin manufacturing its own “rights” which often scandalously collide with genuine Constitutional Rights. This is a primary way SCOTUS supported a century of KKK tyranny against blacks after the Civil War, beginning with the Colfax Massacre on Easter Sunday, 1873. It justified making up the right to murder your own baby, which is nowhere in any constitution, to counter every baby’s right to life which is in the Constitution.
See articles:
“181 Words to Give America Back her Constitution”
“The Constitution tells Congress to overturn Supreme Court precedents that violate rights, not vice versa!”
“How SCOTUS replaced the Constitution’s list of Rights with its own”
b. “Section 5, 14th Amendment”: The Constitution assigns enforcement of rights to Congress – courts aren’t mentioned; SCOTUS reverses that assignment. Congress and SCOTUS sparred over this; based on Congress’ Section 5 authority it enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993 by a unanimous vote. SCOTUS overturned it in 1997 in a battle with both Congress and with its own prior precedents in 1966 and 1880.
See articles:
“How SCOTUS replaced the Constitution’s list of Rights with its own”
“1st Amendment won’t let you obey 1st Commandment”?
c. “The Five Frauds of Marbury v. Madison” – judges LOVE to cite this precedent for their authority to declare laws “unconstitutional”. But the case is founded on fraud. It is a precedent that should warn us of rogue courts, not impress us with SCOTUS’ superhuman wisdom. Alexander Hamilton, and even John Marshall, author of that precedent, assumed “review” (of the constitutionality of laws) was only permitted when their unconstitutionality was beyond reasonable doubt, and judges who overturned constitutional laws would be impeached.
But today, legal authorities say impeachment must NEVER touch any judge over anything he rules, no matter how blasphemous, illegal, or unconstitutional. Impeachment is only for unethical behavior, experts say today, even though unethical behavior threatens our freedoms a whole lot less than unconstitutional rulings.
The power of courts to overturn laws that courts allege are “unconstitutional” springs from Marbury v. Madison (1803) which itself was patched together from five frauds: (1) the law it overturned did not expand SCOTUS authority, which is what the case claimed was unconstitutional; (2) the case itself expanded SCOTUS authority way more than they said the law did that SCOTUS overturned; (3) it never was unconstitutional for Congress to expand SCOTUS authority – courts never complained when Congress did so – but it is certainly unconstitutional for courts to expand their own authority; (4) Chief Justice John Marshall got his brother to lie about his involvement in the case in order to get facts in the record enough for there to be a case; and (5) The case was not the first time courts affirmed the duty of courts to disregard a law that obviously contradicts something in the Constitution, as legal authorities claim today. It was the first time SCOTUS overturned a law which was obviously constitutional while fraudulently alleging it was not. It is a precedent for SCOTUS’ claim of power to overturn laws without ensuring that their unconstitutionality is beyond reasonable doubt. Although Marbury was at least a unanimous ruling, courts today continue the spirit of nullifying laws whose supposed unconstitutionality is not at all “clear” even to themselves, much less BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, when their dissents eloquently defend the constitutionality of the laws they overturn. Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) was an example where not only was the ruling not unanimous, but the ruling did not even have a majority! Only four of the 9 justices signed the prevailing decision! So they called it a “plurality” decision!
See articles:
The Four Frauds underpinning Marbury v. Madison
The Four Frauds underpinning Marbury v. Madison – Part 2
Marbury v Madison Fraud #2: misreading the Constitution to say the jurisdiction of courts can’t be expanded beyond what the Constitution says
d. Declaration of Independence: Rights are given by God and are “unalienable”, meaning government has no jurisdiction to diminish them but its only legitimate power is to protect them. “Life” is the first right specified. Which means SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to diminish the right to Life of unborn babies. “Liberty” is the second specified right. Which means SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to trample our religious liberty by ordering that a Satan idol be allowed to leer down at a display representing the baby Jesus in the state capitol while state officials may not exercise their Freedom of Speech and Religious Expression to post plaques pointing out that the Bible is the source of Freedom, the developer of Free People, and its reliability is documented by every test which humans have devised to try to disprove it, while the writings of Satanists are full of hate, woe, tyranny, and their accuracy is not confirmed by one shred of evidence; the only thing we know about Satan for sure, is what we read in the Bible, and according to that, Satan is a pretty pathetic object of worship.
The Declaration assigns to voters the authority to arrange government so as to serve that purpose. That clearly rules out any authority SCOTUS has to displace rights listed and ratified by 75% of state legislatures with the endorsement of voters, [“privileges and immunities” referred to in the 14th Amendment], with “rights” from Hell approved by not even 75% of the SCOTUS justices! Much less to displace very clear unalienable rights given by God!
Since “the people” are recognized as the authority commissioned to reorder their rogue courts to better protect their freedoms and rights, logic assigns the reordering to the branch of government most accountable to voters: the House, not to the least accountable branch: courts. Which fortunately is where the Constitution specifically places it.
So then why do legal experts, including the Federalist Papers, say how wise it was to endow judges with their office for life, so that they can fearlessly focus on faithfulness to the Constitution, insulated from the back and forth waffling of public opinion? Why else does the Constitution appoint them for life? Why else did the framers want judges for life and Congressmen for only 2 years between elections?
Interesting question. But the Constitution doesn’t leave them in for life when they rule in violation of the Constitution. The Constitution neither says nor implies what most legal scholars today say: that no judge should ever be impeached for anything about his rulings. Scholars today say impeachment should only be for unethical behavior. But unethical personal behavior is galaxies less threatening to Freedom than unconstitutional rulings! And when President Bill Clinton was impeached, public disgust with his oral sex with White House page Monica Lewinsky was not unethical enough to be considered grounds for impeachment. It had to be a prosecutable crime, people said.
Besides, why doesn’t a judge have every bit as much right to waffle back and forth as popular opinion? Indeed, the history of SCOTUS is a history of a lot of waffling. SCOTUS has certainly not proved a reliable partner in either defending, or correctly identifying, constitutional rights. Or in ruling consistently, without reversing itself every few years.
Imagine with me a SCOTUS motivated to follow, not rewrite the Constitution, by the serious threat of impeachment when they don’t, as was assumed by Federalist Papers author Alexander Hamilton, and by Marbury v. Madison author, Chief Justice John Marshal.
The threat of impeachment for overturning laws whose unconstitionality is not beyond reasonable doubt would be an effective motivation for judges to take the Constitution seriously. Judges for life, with that threat from Congress for unconstitutional rulings, would produce a branch of government very faithful to the Constitution while remaining wholesomely “insulated” from fickle popular sentiments.
IV. Solutions in the Constitution
a. Impeachment for overturning constitutional laws! No “review” (overturning a law) of laws whose unconstitutionality is not “clear”, which ought to mean “beyond reasonable doubt”, which is not the case when even one of the judges files a dissent eloquently defending the law!
When Alexander Hamilton, author of many of the Federalist Papers, wrote approvingly of the power of courts to overturn unconstitutional laws, it was in the context of their unconstitutionality being “clear”.
How about impeachment of judges who stubbornly rule unconstitutionally?
Alexander Hamilton assumed that judges who rule unconstitutionality would be impeached. Even Chief Justice John Marshall, right after he had unconstitutionally overturned a constitutional law, told his fellow jurist Samuel Chase when Chase was being impeached that impeachment is the correct remedy for overturning a constitutional law!
This solution is available also at the state level. Iowa’s constitution, like many others, says “The powers of the government of Iowa shall be divided into three separate departments —— the legislative, the executive, and the judicial: and no person charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any function appertaining to either of the others....” and gives the legislature the power to impeach judges for “malfeasance in office”, and that the supreme court is “a court for the correction of errors at law, under such restriction as the general assembly may, by law, prescribe . . .”
This was drafted in an Iowa bill. See its bill language and FAQ’s, at http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Judicial_Accountability_Act:_How_Legislatures_can_stop_judges_from_legislating
b. Congress can limit SCOTUS jurisdiction to what the Constitution provides. It should be irrelevant whether SCOTUS thinks Congress is right about what the Constitution provides; it is inarguable that the Constitution grants power to limit jurisdiction for any reason, without the slightest concern for what courts think about it.
How about a federal law asserting Congress’ Article III authority to limit the jurisdiction of SCOTUS – an authority assigned without any limit beyond Congress’ own judgment – and then clarifying in the law the limits to SCOTUS jurisdiction given in the Constitution? Limits such as I have documented in these articles: enforcement of rights limited to “privileges and immunities” listed in the Constitution, deference to Congress’ judgment about how to defend those rights, no federal jurisdiction over state and local decisions about religion, etc.
See 181 Words to Give America Back her Constitution
c. Congress can nullify rulings that overturn laws that aren’t unanimous – beyond reasonable doubt – before overturning law. How about not allowing SCOTUS to overturn a law unless its finding that the law is unconstitutional has at least a 6-3 majority? Or how about a 9-0 majority? Congress debated that solution in 1868 when SCOTUS was about to snatch newly won Freedom from millions of blacks, as SCOTUS had scandalously done 11 years before, and Congress’ arguments for such a measure’s constitutionality were pretty solid. It was pointed out that the very first Supreme Court, and the court that gave us Marbury v. Madison, needed a 2/3 majority (which would be 6-9 today) to overturn a law.
See “When Congress Nearly Made the Supreme Court Agree 6-3 before they could overturn a law”
d. Replacing discrimination-based religion policy with evidence-based policy at the state and local level. It’s OK to discriminate against fantasy, fraud and superstition. It’s OK to discriminate against attacks on Freedom and Law and fundamental rights in the name of religion. It’s OK to speak the truth wherever necessary to heal stupidity. The trial that established Freedom of the Press in America was “The Tryal of John Peter Zenger”. He was charged with libel in 1735 for parodies of the governor of New York who had been appointed by the English king. His defense was that what he reported was true. The judge said that is no defense against libel; in fact if a libel is true that makes it an even great libel! So since truth was no defense, Zenger was not allowed to submit evidence that his libels were true. But he assumed the jury did not share the judge’s theory that truth is irrelevant, so, unable to directly submit evidence, he said, “Suppression of the evidence ought always to be taken for the strongest evidence”! He was acquitted, and America’s press became free.
See https://www.encyclopedia.com/law/law-magazines/john-peter-zenger-trial-1735 and https://www.jurist.org/archives/famoustrials/the-trial-of-john-peter-zenger/ for details of Zenger’s trial. For evidence that the God of the Bible is spectacularly real and relevant, see “Our Constitution favors God, who guides bullets, over demons who shoot bullets” and “The New Republican Party – Awakened by a Miracle”
e. Not allowing lower courts to overturn laws – only the Supreme Court can; state legislatures could codify that with regard to their laws subject to their state Supreme Courts, and Congress with regard to federal laws subject to SCOTUS. How about requiring expedited hearings of challenges to new laws rather than injunctions lasting months or years before a new law can go into effect?
This was drafted in an Iowa bill. See its bill language, and FAQ’s, at http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Judicial_Accountability_Act:_How_Legislatures_can_stop_judges_from_legislating
f. Impeachment hearings that cross examine judges. And how about, in the course of an impeachment trial, subpoenaing the offending judges to be cross examined about their rulings? What an interesting, nationally educational event that would be! Judges spar with Senators during their confirmation, but that is a detached conversation about hypotheticals compared to what an accusation of unconstitutionality would be! The Fifth Amendment right to not be compelled to “incriminate” yourself would not be available because that is only for a criminal case, and impeachment is not a criminal proceeding.
This was drafted in an Iowa bill. See its bill language, and FAQ’s, at http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Judicial_Accountability_Act:_How_Legislatures_can_stop_judges_from_legislating
Should any court find the evidence given here unpersuasive, let it do its own fact finding. Let it try to disprove it. Let it try to find a religion/philosophy friendlier to American Freedom, more drawn upon for its development. Let it go down a list of the institutions requisite for Freedom, and the character essential in citizens to sustain it, and chart the degree of support for them in the Bible versus anywhere else.
But let it not dismiss the inquiry as irrelevant, while stating with zero support from evidence or reason, supported only by “precedent” - by SCOTUS’ long line of Landmark Abomination Cases, that the Establishment Clause prohibits government from telling the truth about its own origins and what it needs to survive.
It does not.