Friday, May 16, 2008

Of the Judges, for the Judges, and BY THE JUDGES

Today I am troubled. Troubled by a country and culture which is seemingly attempting to rewrite history and thus plunge this nation into a free fall from which she may never recover. It is sad to say that our nation does not seem to possess the "deep-thinking-intellectual" men as we did in the early days of this great country. Anyone who has taken the time to read our foundational documents (I.E. the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, etc) find it amazing that our founding Fathers said so much and used so few words. It is increasingly interesting to note that the "interpretations of these documents in our day" given by OUR deep-thinkers(?) are almost always diametrically opposed to the interpretation given by the very men who penned these documents. We saw this happen again yesterday in California when their Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, overturned not just the law but, THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. It was as recent as 2000 that Proposition 22 was passed (in Calfornia) by over 60% of the voters. Read the simple text of Proposition 22 :

“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
The only metropolitan area which voted against 22 was, you guessed it, San Francisco. Here's the big rub; "The seven men on the Supreme Court over-ruled the will of the people." Inasmuch as history tells us that "as California goes, so the rest of the nation will follow", this ruling might well put our great nation on a course which parallels the last days of the Roman Empire.

At the risk of being a bore, let me remind us of several historically documented truths;

We find in The Declaration of Independence the concept of "the consent of the governed" and that when any "form of the government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the PEOPLE to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Governement." Reading this makes me wonder why legal and learned people have not taken action with respect to the Judicial misconduct being witnessed today. The duties of the Judiciary are to interpret and uphold the law, NOT ESTABLISH LAW, that is the responsibility of the Legislative branch of government.

If the Declaration of Independence does not serve a strong enough motivation to see the error of the courts, then perhaps a reminder of the 10th Amendment (still in the Bill of Rights) might do the trick. Now remember, the framers of the Constitution ranged in age from the mid 20's to the early 80's. We have all ages of men who worked out the verbiage and yet managed to keep it simple. Here is the simple, overlooked, and I believe misinterpreted, wording of this amendment;
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In legal terms it appears we see this as the POWERS OF THE STATES (or to the people). However, with the attitude surrounding the rest of the document, it is my sincere belief that if 24 year old Charles Pinckney or 82 year old Ben Franklin (the seemingly youngest and oldest of the writers) were alive today, they would reverse the emphasis on the 10th commandment. Based on an honest assessment of the "original intent" the USA is to be a nation "of the people, by the people, and for the people." It truly seems that we have made our land a nation "of the courts, for the courts, and by the courts" and for some reason, our leaders refused to hold our Justices accountable for "legislating from the bench."

Having scanned the 172-page decision, several things are obvious to me. First, with almost every written decision of any court at any level we see the simpliest of circumstances, situations, and even the core elements of our society being masked under hundreds of pages of useless provisions, language, expressions, and terminology, designed to confused the average person. (My personal opinion about this is; this is done to make us need attorneys - but that discussion will have to wait). Next, the written decision is trying to find a way to legitimize a behavoir which the majority of voters have labeled illegitimate. Next, they try to cloud this moral issue with other issues which are more "civil" than "moral" in nature. Finally, it seems that the 4 Justices (get this 4 people) who, by admission of the written opinion, are changing years of legal understanding, more than one "vote" of the people, and numerous legislative action, are simply attempting to make a name for themselves.

Presently I am reading an interesting book by Gordon McDonald entitled, "Who Stole My Church?" Right now I'm asking, "Who stole my nation?!?!" These are truly sad times.

My prayer for our nation is that the good and godly men who have access to our system of juris prudence will become proactive in the righting of our Court system. If not, the future of this nation is dim.

Admittedly I have a belief deeply grounded in the teachings of our Lord, that "homosexuality" is a sin, a perversion, and an abomination before God. (without question, this was the belief of our founding fathers even though revisionist historians now recant this truth) An honest study of history will reveal that every society who has "embraced" this ungodly lifestyle eroded from within. This death is not quick, is not painless, but it is inevitable.

1 comment:

  1. Mr. Watts,
    You state in this article with firm confidence: "An honest study of history will reveal that every society who (sic) has embraced this ungodly lifestyle eroded from within." I wonder if you could provide such a study for me, or tell me where I might find such a study. Thank you.


Past Blogs