The Constitution Is Not A Mere List Of General Principles

I was in the car at 11 A.M. today and listened to the first part of President Obama's futile nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia. It is a futile and empty gesture because the Senate has declared that they will not hold hearings until a new President is elected, sworn in and makes their own selection. The type of nominee to be selected to replace a towering legal intellect like Antonin Scalia will rightly be a major focus of the upcoming election. Of course President Obama nominated someone anyway. What was troubling about his statement occurred early in his speech at around the 00:41 mark. When I heard this in the car I caught this right away. I am sure others caught it as well but it really rang a warning bell for me. Here is the part that is at issue.

"The men and women who sit on the Supreme Court are the final arbiters of American law. They safeguard our rights. They ensure that our system is one of laws and not men. They're are charged with the essential task of applying principles put to paper more than two centuries ago to some of the most challenging questions of our times"

So what is wrong with that? At a glance it is just some political speech mumbo-jumbo, meaningless prattle especially from a man who has decreed that because he has a pen and a phone, he is within his imaginary Constitutional rights to make laws apart from Congress. What struck me though was the deeper meaning behind the carefully selected words in his announcement. This was no off-the-cuff speech.

There are two problems. First, President Obama said: " They (the justices of the Supreme Court) safeguard our rights".  Incorrect. The Supreme Court does not safeguard our rights. The Constitution safeguards our rights. The rights enshrined in the Constitution lay out rights, responsibilities and restrictions, the rights of the people and by proxy the states; the responsibilities of the three branches of the Federal government; and the myriad restrictions placed on that Federal e government. There are a lot more restrictions placed on the Federal government than there are areas of authority by the way. The Constitution is a document that places the people above the state and that has a bias toward the individual states over  the Federal government. I do not trust the Supreme Court, no matter who nominates the nine Justices, to safeguard my rights and our rights as a people. This is not without reason. Time and time again the Justcies have circumvented the very Constitution that they are sworn to uphold to either take away rights guaranteed by the Constitution or to create from their own imaginations new "rights" that have no mention or implication in the same Constitution (ex. the "right" to an abortion, the "right" of homosexuals to marry, etc.). The whimsy and prejudices of man are precisely why we have a very specific and limited Constitution, leaving little up to chance, at least when properly applied. So right away President Obama is showing either a naïveté about the nature of man or he is shrewdly exhibiting his own bias toward a super-Constitution activist Supreme Court that overrules the unwashed masses when they are not sufficienly enlightened.

The other problem is similar. President Obama said: "They're are charged with the essential task of applying principles put to paper more than two centuries ago ". This is also incorrect. The Constitution of the United States is not and never intended as a series of general and malleable principles that we apply selectively as we see fit based on the current whims of popular culture or the vagaries of the masses. Being a good neighbor is a principle. Always being honest is a principle. Principles have to do with beliefs and moral assumptions. The various articles and amendments that make up the Constitution are rather the governing laws of these United States, the highest law of the land. The President clearly sees the Supreme Court as a sort of super legislative branch, nine  unelected and essentially unimpeachable men and women who feel free and even encouraged to make law from the bench to override the laws made by the people and the states. When the Constitution is relegated to a mere set of guiding principles, it loses it's most powerful safeguards against encroaching tyranny, a very real threat when the Constitution was written and I would argue a very real threat today. President Obama has, I believe, a very different and a very dangerous notion of what the Constitution is and what it was intended to do compared to the men who actually wrote the document.

This sort of subtle deception by the President is precisely why I agree that the next President should be the one to appoint the next Supreme Court justice. If the people choose the next President foolishly, then we will have to live with that decision which quite possible could be the next and perhaps decisive step toward an end to the dream that is America and our Republic. If they choose wisely then we ought to see a principled nominee who will apply the Constitution under the restrictions placed on the Court and the entire Federal government by that same document. For once in my lifetime, let the people have a voice in how the Supreme Court will be constituted for the next several decades to come.

A quick note about the entire charade and the faux outrage by the Democrats. The authority to nominate a Supreme Court Justice does indeed reside in the office of the President. Please note that word: nominate. Under what conditions does a nominee become an appointee? The language of Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution is quite clear: "...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...Judges of the supreme Court..." (Emphasis mine) That is pretty clear. A nominee only becomes an appointee with both the advice and the consent of the Senate. No consent means no appointment and the nomination is null and void. I am sure that President Obama is aware of this but in the kabuki theater that is our government he still needs to play his part in this farce. I always point back to the hatchet job done to besmirch the character of one of the most qualified men to ever be nominated to the Supreme Court, Judge Robert Bork. With that atrocity perpetuated on a legal giant without peer in our generation the nominating process became completely politicized. To the Democrats I say: You made your bed, now you get to lie in it.

I will be writing my Senators to encourage them to deny a hearing and vote to Judge Merrick Garland. He seems like a decent man who has the unfortunate distinction of being a sacrificial lamb sent forth by the President. However he should not be the next Justice of the Supreme Court unless he is nominated in 2017 by our new President.

Reaping what was sown

Last fall, many self-described evangelical Christians and around half of all Roman Catholics voted for Barack Obama. With the announcement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s retirement we are left with the specter of what could have been and what will be.

Had John McCain won, I can be sure that he would have nominated a less conservative person to fill this vacancy than I would have but certainly whoever Senator McCain nominated would have been more conservative than the arch-liberal President Obama is going to nominate. Justice Souter has been a consistent liberal vote on the court and his nomination is one of the many disappointments of the first Bush presidency. With his retirement and a hypothetical GOP administration, the final vote needed would be within reach to overturn Roe v Wade. Instead we have the most far left President we have seen in my lifetime who is a devoted follower in the blood soaked legacy of Margaret Sanger and a defender of America as an enabler of state sanctioned mass murder.

Instead of seeing Roe v Wade rightly fall, we now will see what the fruit of the Obama election really is. I am discussing the slide into socialism we are seeing on The Arsenal of Liberty, but from a sanctity of life point of view this is a major blow. Expect President Obama, emboldened by his rock star popularity, the cover provided by his adoring fans in the “press” and a virtually filibuster proof Senate to nominate a leftist ideologue, someone who will be a rabid supporter of the make-believe “right to choose” decision Roe v. Wade. Expect Obama to name a young, far left female candidate who will be able to serve on the court for perhaps the next 30 years. There are other issues that will be impacted by this move for decades, from homosexual “marriage” to property rights, but all of the rest take a backseat to the genocidal, profit-driven sacrifice of innocent children on the altar of “choice”.

Make no mistake. The votes cast by people who name the name of Christ last fall for Barack Obama will enable more abortions to be performed in this country and the conscience of those who made that choice should be heavy with the ramifications of what they wrought in a vain attempt to protect their own pocketbooks.

John Piper is indeed fallible...

...and he is dead(ly) wrong in this case

In a brief and kind of random post, Pastor John Piper posted a brief note on the Desiring God blog regarding the recent decision overturning the D.C. gun ban. His full post reads as follows:

What do the supreme court ruling on guns and the martyrdom of missionaries have to do with each other?

Noël and I watched Beyond Gates of Splendor, the documentary version of End of the Spear, the story of the martyrdom of Jim Elliot, Peter Fleming, Ed McCully, Roger Youderian, and Nate Saint in Ecuador in 1956. That same day we heard that the Supreme Court decided in favor of the right of Americans to keep firearms at home for self-defense.

Here’s the connection. The missionaries had guns when they were speared to death. One of them shot the gun into the air, it appears, as he was killed, rather than shooting the natives. They had agreed to do this. The reason was simple and staggeringly Christlike:

The natives are not ready for heaven. We are.

I suspect the same could be said for almost anyone who breaks into my house. There are other reasons why I have never owned a firearm and do not have one in my house. But that reason moves me deeply. I hope you don’t use your economic stimulus check to buy a gun. Better to find some missionaries like this and support them.

With all respect due to John Piper, and he is a man I respect theologically as much as almost anyone out there, that is a poor argument. Should these missionaries, intentionally in harm's way to bring the Gospel to an unreached people have shot the natives? Of course not. But is it the same thing as defending your home against a criminal? What if the natives had attacked the family of the missionaries?

Dr. James White responded on his blog and his response is far better thought out than John Piper's original statement.

This is the best part of his response...

In the spirit of Christian freedom and with the deepest respect for brother Piper, I could not disagree more strongly with the sentiment here expressed. First, I see no parallel whatsoever between missionaries in the jungle seeking to open contact with a violent and primitive tribe and a meth-laden gang member seeking to rob, rape, and murder. In fact, I see many, many reasons to view the two very, very differently. The gang member in the streets of Phoenix has every possible opportunity to do good, to obey the gospel, to work and abide by the law. But he chooses, purposefully and knowingly, to do otherwise. He chooses to enter into my home, threatening the lives of my family. And he comes armed. In the second place, I don't believe a Christian is a martyr if they fall prey to the random, drug-induced violence of a gang member or criminal. There is a difference between being a victim because you did not take the proper precautions and being a martyr because you purposefully expose yourself to danger and even death in the service of the gospel.

From my stand point, in agreement with Dr. White...First, we are not called on to cast our lives aside randomly, for no reason. Should a Christian not drive a car because he might get in an accident and kill someone else? Well it is OK if I die, but I might kill an unbeliever!

Second, I would imagine that John Piper, a man who has published a number of hugely successful books, lives in a pretty decent house in a nice neighborhood. And good for him, he is a talented and blessed writer and speaker. Unfortunately the people who are left defenseless under confiscatory gun laws probably don't live in a similarly nice neighborhood. Dr. Piper has never really had his gun rights under our Constitution violated, but those who live in D.C. have. They have lived in fear all of these years and been left with a choice: arm themselves against violent criminals and in doing so become law breakers themselves or leave themselves at the mercy of the worst criminals in our society and hope the cops show up before the criminals get in.

Third, Piper is one of the strongest proponents of the sovereignty of God in salvation. I hardly think that God would permit one of His elect sheep to break in my house, only to have me gun him down defending my family and thwart His will to save that person. He will let no one snatch from His hand any of those given Him by the Father. There is no exemption there for knuckleheads who break into my house.

Again, Dr. Piper and his ministry have blessed me greatly along with countless other Christians, but I believe in this case he has let an emotional reaction override his judgment. If Dr. Piper chooses to not have a firearm in his home, that is his right and I respect that. But when he suggests that I ought not defend my family from potential harm, with faulty reasoning I believe, I choose to respectfully let him know he is wrong. I am in total agreement with Dr. White's closing statement:

And should any evildoer think of looking up my home, thinking he will find an unarmed victim, think again. I will be glad to proclaim the gospel to you today, but if I find you coming through the window of my bedroom tonight, you will be ushered into eternity post-haste. Some decisions are, indeed, final.

A tale of two court decisions

Two fairly disparate cases and some pretty disparate reasoning from the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional the sentence of the death penalty in cases where someone is found to be guilty of raping a child. Whether or not that is the right way to deal with child rapists is not the issue here, the proper role of the Supreme Court specifically and the judiciary in general is. On what basis should decisions be made by the courts? Should it not be the underlying constitution of the nation or the state? Apparently not.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Supreme Court narrowly ruled Wednesday that a man convicted of raping a child cannot be sentenced to death, saying capital punishment must be reserved for murder cases.

By a one-vote majority of 5-4 the justices said the US constitution which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment" bars the imposition of the death penalty "for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim's death."

In its written ruling, the court specified that even if a rape was particularly atrocious, it was impossible to set down a list of circumstances under which the death penalty would be justified, without opening the door to arbitrary decisions.

But in its ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court cited a "national consensus" across most US states that do not have laws allowing capital punishment for the crime of child rape.

Given previous court rulings and its interpretation of the US constitution, the justices held that "the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the crime of child rape."

So is the rape of a child now more acceptable in our society and no longer worthy of the death penalty, or is it that we have become so squeamish about using the ultimate penalty that even those convicted of this heinous crime against children under 12 years of age don't deserve it, that you actually have to intentionally kill another person to be sentenced to death. Apparently the "national consensus" trumps the Constitution. You see, the Court is supposed to be above the political fray, interpreting the law based on what the Constitution of our country says. If the "national consensus" changes, then the nation can amend the Constitution. We have a process in place for overriding the Constitution, and it is not judicial fiat.

What is unfortunately true in this country is that it is far easier for a group with an agenda to get top notch lawyers and convince five justices to change the law than it is to convince the majority of people in a state to make sweeping changes. See Roe v. Wade, see the California Supreme Court imposing homosexual "marriage" on that state and the rest of the country.

Most people have no idea what cases are before the court, what they are arguing and yet the rulings that come down have far reaching implications for our every day life. I don't pay as close attention as I should, because what is being decided on my behalf directly impacts me and in many cases skirts the legal process.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court at long last actually made a decision today from the bench that was the correct one. Not just because I agree with it, but because it deals with something the Constitution actually addresses (guns) and they did so in a way consistent with the clear original intent of the Founders that gun ownership was considered a fundamental, and an individual, right.

Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun control in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most federal firearms restrictions intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Predictable, the Left has come out predicting dire events...

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.

Sure Senator Feinstein, because the gun ban made law abiding citizens in D.C. so very safe, right!

What this means for the people of D.C. is that finally people who are not criminals will not be treated as if they are, and will have the means to legally defend themselves, their families, homes and property. It also means that other punitive gun laws across the country will be challenged very soon and likely struck down. We may see an end to many of the inane laws that assume that if you make something illegal, it will discourage criminals.

Guns don't kill people, criminals kill people!

Newsflash!

The Supreme Court's most liberal justices come out against Roe v. Wade!

It's true! In a recently announced decision regarding the enormous lawsuits that have been brought against Exxon, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens dissented from the majority, decrying "lawmaking" from the Supreme Court bench.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens supported the $2.5 billion figure for punitive damages, saying Congress has chosen not to impose restrictions in such circumstances.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also dissented, saying the court was engaging in "lawmaking" by concluding that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses.

"The new law made by the court should have been left to Congress," wrote Ginsburg. Justice Stephen Breyer made a similar point, opposing a rigid 1 to 1 ratio of punitive damages to victim compensation.

No doubt this new found disdain for making laws by judicial fiat will lead to a consistent refutation of the ultimate example of making laws from the bench instead of interpreting laws. Since Roe v. Wade is the ultimate example of judicial legislating, I would expect them to reverse their prior stance on abortion.

I commend Justices Stevens and Ginsburg for their upcoming courageous stance to overturn Roe v. Wade.