Judicial tyranny

Not even an hour after President Bush signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003, a self-righteous federal judge in Nebraska sharply questioned the law's constitutionality and issued a limited temporary restraining order against it. U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf immediately blocked efforts of many years of work, reasoning, debating, and many votes to come up with the law. There is overwhelming support for the legislation by the people.

How could anyone support such an evil???
The people's efforts are negated by one proud scum bag.

It isn't even that the ban would save lives (see an explanation here). It is an immoral philosophy that this elitist man, unworthy of a black coat, rams down our throats as if he has more brains and power than the people and our choices of representative government, including the president himself. What gives him the right? Does this even make sense? The ink had not even dried on the President's signature. Yet the judge decided he could teach us a lesson.

In fact, William O. Douglas, one of the Court's most creative con men, had written Griswold v. Connecticut. He wrote that "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that . . . create zones of privacy." This helped set a precedence of judges imagining what the law should be, according to their own particular biases, and destroying the meaning of the original, careful wording of the founding documents and legislation.

This is just one more example of a long stream of horrible abuses by the courts. Prayer in schools. Prayer at football games. Abortion on demand. Taking God out of our Pledge of Allegiance. The Ten Commandments monument. A judge deciding that killing young children while they are being born must be protected. Innumerable other examples of profound tyrrany by out of control judges who have no shame and are above their oath to the Constitution.

In the Declaration of Independence, when explaining the reason for leaving English rule, it is emphasized that these rights are for the pursuit of God's gifts of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness which had been violated. In their words,

Folks, we are losing since we do not use tactics approved by God Himself. His tactics? No compromise on His moral issues. Win, lose or draw, we please Him when we take His direction regarding how we should live our lives. It isn't with worthless legislation. It isn't by having a seat at the table. It is by insisting on righting our own morals, beginning with ourselves, and to stand against evil before God's judgment completely destroys us.

First, we must insist that our Representatives, Senators, and President remove judges like Judge Kopf for unethical, immoral behavior through impeachment. We must remind our representatives that they must get rid of judges who take their own Constitutional power, vested in them by the people, away when they reverse duly written and enacted legislation. Jefferson, particularly, wrote on this.

Second, through legislation by a simple majority vote, the boundaries for the courts can be established through Congress.

Third, the Constitution sets up the judicial branch with provision for a single Supreme Court of the United States, and simply allows the lesser federal courts to exist at the behest of Congress, completely dependent on that body for their existence, and potentially, disbandment.

We must insist our congressment to be active in reeling in the courts or they will be removed in the next election by someone who will.

Fourth, we have a great opportunity to make the right stand in the case of Chief Justice Roy Moore. We should not allow him to be marginalized by the press and the politicians as he has been fighting in our stead.

What about the Ten Commandments? It seems like a sideshow until you clearly look at the significance of this struggle at the hands of a courageous Chief Justice Roy Moore in the Alabama Supreme Court who has been marginalized by those who should be fighting this battle with him. As Dr. Alan Keyes points out, at the time the First Amendment was written (the Establishment Clause), most states had their own "official" state church. For many, it was the Church of England. In this light, it is absolutely clear that the original intent of the First Amendment was to prohibit the federal government from establishing a specific "official" church. The federal government, including the federal courts have no jurisdiction in the decisions the states may make regarding religion. None. It was expressly prohibited and lately wrongly interpreted as layers upon layers of case law pile up with incorrect conclusions.

Even the Tenth Amendment limits the jurisdiction of the federal government by placing the power over things not expressed in the Constitution into the hands of the states or to the people. Simply put, the Ten Commandments monument violated no written law established through our representative government. If you think it did, then, which law was Judge Moore violating?

Some claim that Moore has violated the "rule of law". The Constitution and inferior laws have not been violated at all as seen above. People claim that he has embraced civil disobedience to the federal judge's ruling. This is incorrect as well. Again, he has violated no law. Civil disobedience is to a law, not to a judge out of control who has himself violated his oath of office by ignoring and defying the Constitution which he had promised to uphold, in his attempt to levy an illegal court order. The decision to starve Terri Schindler-Sciavo in the name of humanity is also an outrage. Here, again a federal judge is violating his oath of office, specifically with defiance of the protection of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" in the organic Declaration of Independence.

The Texas sodomy law at the Supreme Court level had justices justifiying the majority opinion that struck it down based on European law. Their allegiance is not to the Constitution which they swore to uphold, but to 'progressive' legal interpretations illegally based on law from other sources, such as international laws. They must be removed. Again and again the oath of office to the Constitution of the United States is ignored as these tyrants choose their own agendas. Many more examples are mentioned below, a short, not all-inclusive list.

In the case of Moore, he alone is upholding the Constitution of the State of Alabama and of our United States. The Constitution allows no jurisdiction by the federal courts in the Ten Commandments. It is as if a judge in Saudi Arabia told Moore that he cannot have the Ten Commandments monument. The federal courts, except by stealing power, unopposed by our representatives, have no say in the matter, without violating the law themselves. They should be on trial for failure to keep their oath of office and to be summarily impeached as a lesson to others of like mind. The founders wanted a separation of powers but our Executive and Legislative branches have chosen to allow the courts to trample on the Constitution and the people. Without an outcry by the people, they will not act.

We should all encircle Chief Justice Moore, support his battle against these outrageous rulings. He had the Constitutionally derived power, power given to him by the people of Alabama in an election, to place the Ten Commandments in the courthouse. He broke no law.

He is being railroaded by his opponents who understand that if and when he should win, this case would cause a complete reinterpretation of all of the tyrannical church-state rulings based on faulty interpretations piled on top of each other. Since the Supreme Court has refused to take the case so far, members of that court also deserve removal, even moreso because of the other reasons as above.

Republicans are entrenched with the faulty reasoning that nothing can be done against the courts. This is wrong. They have the Constitutional powers as quoted above. Their duty is to remove individuals who are trampling on the law as legislated. Our representatives must also be held accountable. If impeachment proceedings began against the worst offenders, others may get a sorely needed wake up call.

If not, our freedoms are history. We will get only those freedoms allowed to us by judicial tyrants. This absolutely defies for what our founding fathers risked their lives and property. Why won't we do our duty to say "enough" and insist on some action now. Support Judge Moore. Get rid of elected politicians who wimp out on something so important.

If we really want to know who is at fault here, it is us for not holding these folks accountable. Yes, me first. It is long overdue and time for a painful correction back to the Constitutional boundaries. We must. If we wait, it becomes more painful.

How many more will it take to wake us up? In Canada now it is illegal to broadcast preaching on parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality. Leave the courts alone and this will soon follow. It is up to you. We must repent and perhaps then we have a chance.

Our founders risked everything for freedom. What about us? You? Is our Almighty God ready to correct us for our failures to stand for His values against the surge of the tidal wave of evil? The people have chosen to accept these evils, begging for judgment against us, ultimately by the righteous hand of God. If we are silent, we are complicit. May God forgive us and have mercy upon us. May He send the Spirit to awaken us.

James Madison in 1778:

We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.

In 1819, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.

In 1804, Jefferson wrote:
Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them... But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.

Thomas Jefferson on April 21, 1803 wrote:
My views... are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others...

September 28, 1820 Thomas Jefferson wrote:
You seem... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so ... and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.

In 1821, Jefferson wrote:
The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in...the federal judiciary; and irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States.

Please see the exchange between Attorney General Bill Pryor and Chief Justice Roy Moore during the Court of the Judiciary which found Judge Moore violated "ethics" charges. Remember, Bill Pryor is one of the best that President Bush has nominated for the federal bench and who spits on the Constitution. Why would the Democrats oppose him?