Supreme Court’s Major Misruling - Ignore Precedent
June 30, 2006 by Conservative Culture
Filed under General
Rush pulled out some good material on the recent Supreme Court decision. In essence it appears that ignores “super” precedents of past Court Rulings, tramble on Executive powers to wage war and doesn’t know the difference between uniformed soldiers and terrorists.
The editors at National Review Online have also done a deep analysis of this decision. Let me start with Armor first. He says, “Reading the actual decisions, and there were six of them, reveals a different and more dangerous result,” meaning what took place in the court. “To begin with, there was a unanimous Court decision, In Re Quirin in 1942, which upheld the military trials, convictions and in two cases executions, of eight German saboteurs who sneaked into the US from German submarines with plans and preparation to bomb various facilities… The majority Opinion by Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, avoids that prior decision.”
Should the war on terror be considered to have started on the 17th when we declare war or when the enemy attacks.
Meaning: that according to the majority, Kennedy and Souter, Stephens, Ginsburg, and Breyer, the 9/11 attacks are not part of the war on terror because the war on terror didn’t start, for these justices, until September 17th of 2001. That would mean that Somalia, the Khobar Towers, the embassy bombings, and the Cole attack, you remember, are also not part of the war on terror. So it really is stunning when you learn what actually happened. They just threw out an act of — well, they failed to make it retroactive to apply to the war on terror in its totality so, in essence, they threw it out, they just said it doesn’t apply here, an act of Congress.
The High Court may bring new meaning after the liberal judges get done in the smoke filled room. Thankfully there are some conservatives on the court. However, it is painfully apparent that 1-2 more originalists are needed desperately.
The dissents of Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas are especially powerful. The majority of the court here, folks, has thumbed its nose at both the Constitution and the Congress by refusing to obey the 2005 law withdrawing its jurisdiction, meaning the court’s jurisdiction. Congress wrote a law saying that federal courts have no say in these prisoners at Guantanamo and the courts just threw that out, said, “Oh, yes, we do.” The court is in effect saying, according to Mr. Armor, “We own the law, and neither the Congress nor the Constitution should control the actions of the court.” That is a pretty good summation of what this decision ultimately meant yesterday.
Will we now free Gitmo prisoners and put the President for violations and various war crimes. I already see the drool dripping off the rabid liberal press.
Abortion kills…
June 30, 2006 by Conservative Culture
Filed under General
…and not just the unborn child. Click here to visit The Blackmun Wall, a list of documented cases of mothers who were killed by abortion doctors performing “safe, legal” abortions. It is worth a visit.
But be forewarned. To paraphrase a layman’s preface I once read to Foxe’s Annals of Martyrs, there are no happy endings. Everybody dies in the end.
Episcopalian Church Splitting
June 30, 2006 by Conservative Culture
Filed under General
CNSNews.com is reporting that several U.S. Dioceses started the process of withdrawing from the liberal denomination this week.
Dioceses in South Carolina, California, Pennsylvania, and Texas have asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to provide them some alternative form of oversight.
After the Episcopalians voted down a resolution declaring Jesus “the only name by which any person may be saved,” and voted in a leader (Katharine Schorri) who opposed the Bible’s teachings on the marriage issue, we could see this coming.
What does it mean to be free?
June 29, 2006 by Conservative Culture
Filed under General
Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD… Ps. 33:12??
What does it mean to be free? One might say we are free because we can can choose those who represent us giving us the old adage, “A government of the people by the people and for the people.” Others might argue we are a free people because we have ‘freedoms’ (creating a bit of a circular argument). Many of us have concerns about the direction of the nation but it is also understood that we enjoy many things other nations only might dream about. But is this what makes us free?
Two Sources of Freedom
America derives its freedom from two main sources. The first source of course are the founding documents of our nation, namely the Constitution and the Delectation of Independence. The second is mentioned in the Declaration which is our Creator.
In the end, the colonists left the bonds of England’s monarchy who ruled both men and ‘church’ with little regard to the welfare of those ruled. In seeking freedom it was also understood that role of government needed to meet two ends. Thomas Pain mentions it in his book called “Common Sense”.
Two Purposes of Government
“Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and of reason will say, it is right.”
In breaking free from the monarchy the architects of America’s government drew upon Scripture, understanding that a nation under God needed no king but in fact was a deplorable condition.
“The Jews, elate with success, and attributing it to the generalship of Gideon, proposed making him a king, saying, RULE THOU OVER US, THOU AND THY SON AND THY SON’S SON. Here was temptation in its fullest extent; not a kingdom only, but an hereditary one, but Gideon in the piety of his soul replied, I WILL NOT RULE OVER YOU, NEITHER SHALL MY SON RULE OVER YOU _THE LORD SHALL RULE OVER YOU._ Words need not be more explicit; Gideon doth not decline the honour, but denieth their right to give it; neither doth he compliment them with invented declarations of his thanks, but in the positive style of a prophet charges them with disaffection to their proper Sovereign, the King of heaven.” (Thomas Pain’s Common Sense)
Meant to provide and protect
So what kind of government might we form to ensure both the freedom of the citizens while also providing security for its people. The result was a Constitutional Republic. A Republic where its people acknowledged God as their creator, where certain laws were in place for “law breakers”. The fundamental principle that love provides and protects was instrumental to the nation. A nation where God helped a nation know both its inalienable rights and the laws meant to protect its people. A system of rights and responsibilities developed (often from Scripture) so that this nation might receive the blessings of God our Creator.
A nation Under God must Listen to Him.
To hold the society together would require a majority of its people to fear God and listen to his precepts. Even if it was only for the public eye the precepts would protect in many ways.
The importance of both the leaders of a nation and its people in listening to the Creator is seen in the old Testament. When a leader and its people listened the nation was blessed. When a nation didn’t it suffered from its foolishness.
“When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness.” Rom. 6:20
Freedom From God???s Control is Not Freedom
People are never freed from everything. True freedom comes from the Creator and listening to Him. For the New Covenant that means listening to Jesus Christ. Ultimately when a nation wants freedom while trying to be ‘free’ from God there can only be one result. That the nation will come into bondage and the control of sin. Freedom without being under the control of righteousness only results in bondage to depravity and the loss of freedoms for everyone.
Can a nation that wants freedom from God ultimately remain a free nation? Something each American needs to seriously consider this 4th of July week. For if we will not come under the domain of a loving God there only remains the tyranny of sin’s bondage.
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.??? John 8:32
It is up to us to know and speak the truth. For by it we will be freed and those who listen will also discover that freedom as well.
Independent Conservative has an article here on True Freedom.
Stop the ACLU open trackback participant
Cao’s Blog Open Trackback participant
State Constitutions Acknowledge God
June 29, 2006 by Conservative Culture
Filed under General
My friend Deering at the God and Gump Blog recently looked at State Constitutions to see whether they do, indeed, acknowledge God. He found that they do.
Carnival of Ohio Politics #29
June 28, 2006 by Conservative Culture
Filed under Ohio
Carnival of Ohio Politics is full of good articles from around Ohio. Check them out here.
