Liberty and Justice - The Crisis of Our Time
Concerning the Courts, the Constitution, and our National Birthright
The Battle for Justice and the Nation
The battle over justice and the jurisdiction of the federal courts of our Land has become the decisive point of conflict that will determine the course of our nation for at least a generation to come. The judicial branch has become the national rudder that has continually shifted the course of this great nation toward imminent - if unseen - danger, and if not corrected will end in national tragedy and devastating shipwreck. Over the last 40 years, repeated judicial decisions, contrary to the will of the people and increasingly overstepping Constitutional boundaries, have finally reached a point where - apart from radical correction - we will soon see our Republic crumble, and all that our founding fathers’ held dear utterly abandoned and forsaken. When future generations reflect on this crisis of our time, ignorance will not excuse us, nor apathy justify us (thinking it was for another to do), but only the embracing of our responsibility to speak, to act, to pursue, to persevere until this course is corrected, will be the response worthy of those who have gone before us, and worthy of our children who will come after us. Though we did not ask for this responsibility, it has been entrusted to us – may we be found faithful.
This will truly be a defining year for this nation in many ways (even the presidential election this year has 40 year rather than 4 year implications, as the next administration will without doubt appoint some number of U.S. Supreme Court Justices for life, tipping the national scales of justice toward righteousness or unrighteousness for a generation). The controversial rulings in the federal courts over the last four decades are primarily based on interpretations of:
1.) a right to privacy used to justify abortion on demand and the present holocaust of the unborn (contrary to the laws in all 50 states),
2.) rulings based on international law rather than the Constitution, used to justify sodomy and rulings on gay marriage, etc. and
3.) the establishment clause in the Constitution (often confused with separation of church and state, which is not in the Constitution). The establishment clause simply states that "Congress" shall make no "law" regarding the "establishment of religion." Somehow this has been perverted to justify removing of Prayer, the Bible, the Ten Commandments, and other signs or acknowledgements of faith from public places (schools, city or government property, etc.) -- none of which are Congress, none of which are making laws, and none of which are establishing national religion through legislation. Both the establishment clause of the Constitution and Jefferson's letter with the phrase "separation of church and state" were regarding Congress establishing a national church/denomination by legislation (i.e. not wanting to permit a Church of America, as there had been a Church of England).**
A recent example of the confusion with the establishment clause being the original memorial in Montgomery, which violated none of these things (i.e. Congress was not involved, no law was being made, and no state religion/denomination was being established through legislation). Rather, some took offense over the freedom and right for the state to acknowledge God publicly, for where there had been silence, the rock of granite cried out as a witness to our nation’s heritage quoting the Declaration of Independence, Judicial Acts of the past, founding fathers, political and judicial leaders though history, the pledge of allegiance, and national motto all publicly acknowledging a trust in Almighty God, and testifying that the state and governmental leaders have long held and preserved (through the Constitution) the freedom and right to make such a declaration publicly and politically. All three branches of federal government acknowledge God; All fifty of our state constitutions acknowledge God; the U.S. Declaration of Independence acknowledges God; yet somehow when a federal court ruled the state does not have such a right in Moore ’s case, the only question asked was whether Moore should obey a federal court order. Wrong question. The point of the case was to confront this nation with the question that continues to go unaddressed, “Does a federal court have the Constitutional right to give such an order?” The honest answer for any willing to search it out is, “Absolutely not.”
Putting the Axe to the Root
Through wisdom, our founding fathers foresaw the possibility of our present dilemma. They even made Constitutional provision to address it. Though this has not been necessary in our past (so many of us are unaware of the option), there is provision for Congress to restore the intended balance of power among the branches of government by further legislating boundaries for the judiciary, as well as to impeach judges who do not honor those proper limits. This is the necessary course we must take. Constitutional amendments will address the specific issue (such as the Federal Marriage amendment being considered), but legislation will lay the axe to the root of this national crisis where courts have increasingly overstepped their Constitutional boundaries resulting in the present judicial chaos.
For this reason, the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 - the national legislation that has been inspired by Judge Moore, and introduced to Congress by U.S. Representative Robert Aderholt (H.R.3799), and U.S. Senator Richard Shelby (S.2082, S.2323) - is of critical and national importance. This would not only impact and address the root issue in Moore ’s case in Alabama , but would address the broader issue of judicial crisis nationally after the High Court avoided it, knowing the quagmire that would be before them. This act of Congress would clarify the jurisdiction of the courts regarding the acknowledgement of God, address rulings based on international law, and detail impeachment of judges who abuse their authority.
Alabama and the Nation
To judge is more than to condemn the guilty - it is also to defend the right and cause of the innocent. There is a fierce passion in Alabama to judge/defend our right and cause. The state motto, "We Dare Defend Our Rights" certainly reflects this, as does history (the flashpoint in Alabama in relation to the civil war, later civil rights, and more recently with Judge Moore were all issues related to real or perceived "rights"). This zeal to judge/defend one's right or cause is both noble and just, though to it must be added wisdom for, though intended for great good, it also carries with it the danger of rebellion to proper authority. May we have wisdom to discern clearly the time we must cast off the cords of tyranny, from the time we must honor established authority. May we have the wisdom to know when not to bow, willing to suffer whatever consequence (as the three Hebrew children in the days of the prophet Daniel), and when it is needful to still honor those in authority (even under strong disagreement, offence, or even injustice). It can be a hard thing to discern. Let us be slow to judge another in this.
Consider how the specific issue in Judge Moore’s case is much deeper and more far-reaching than the display of the Ten Commandments in Alabama ’s Judicial Building. The issue is the long-standing right and freedom (protected not prohibited by the Constitution) for the state and government to acknowledge God publicly. If such rulings continue to go unaddressed, this will no longer be the case, and what follows will be nothing less than a castrating of both our rights and history - consider the removal of “God” from our National Motto, our Money, our Pledge of Allegiance, “Creator” from the Declaration of Independence, sand-blasting of national memorials to remove quotes whether from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address or Dr. Martin Luther King’s, “I Have a Dream.” What legacy will we leave our children and our children’s children? Will we give up Our Birthright?
It is fitting that Alabama has provided the necessary spark to ignite this flame, and become a catalyst in this national issue which is rooted in rights, but she alone cannot carry this to completion. History testifies, and wisdom gives witness, that she without others will not see the sweeping national impact that must come. But, together - joined with others - aligned in the way that is right, strength-to-strength, gifting-to-gifting, the impact may shake a nation.
May we be found worthy of the freedom and rights we have been entrusted and, in this crisis of our time, stand strong, let our voice be heard, see our nation’s honor restored, and “Dare to Defend our Rights.”
For the sake of our nation …
For the sake of our children …
May the Gates of Justice open wide!
“Let justice run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.”
**Note: The common thread in these and many other rulings of such national consequence being these are areas in which the courts do not have proper jurisdiction, and the inappropriate rulings have gone unaddressed. The proper jurisdiction of the courts being matters where authority has been extended (or limited) by the Constitution or Congress (certainly not international law), and with that jurisdiction comes the right to interpret law, not define or effectively legislate it by rulings or opinions. All matters outside of this Constitutional jurisdiction are the responsibility of the states.