Within the last fifty years, the judicial branch of our republic has ceased to function as interpreters of the law as defined by the United States Constitution. Particularly, the Supreme Court has usurped from the legislative branch power that was never meant to be wielded by nine unelected, life-term officials. Instead of arbitrating the meaning of laws in existence, the over-zealous judges have set a precedent of over-stepping their bounds and creating their own laws at their whim, without consent of the governed as designed by our unparalled Founding Fathers.
Today, with President George W. Bush signing a bill that allows federal courts to step into the attempted Terry Schiavo execution, the executive and legislative branches are also grasping for power. Transplanting this case from the state to federal jurisdiction is an overtly brazen move.
However, the citizenry of the United States should not be alarmed at our President's and some members of our Congress' audacity. Instead, they should be thankful that there yet remain some men and women in D.C. that are not afraid to exercise their Constitution-defined duty. When the judicial branch has exceeded its bounds and crossed onto the realm of tyranny, as ours has for half a century, it is up to the executive and legislative branches to check those judges and wrest the inordinate power back from the court system. The self-imposed rule of the judges has gone on long enough, with casualties numbering in the millions. It's time to take the power back.
36 comments:
>>When the judicial branch has exceeded its bounds and crossed onto the realm of tyranny, as ours has for half a century, it is up to the executive and legislative branches to check those judges and wrest the inordinate power back from the court system.<<
Don't make it sound so one-sided. The other branches have regularly overstepped their bounds as well and the courts have been forced to strike down laws as unconstitutional. It is not necessarily wrong, it is just how the system was designed to work. Very inefficiently.
pepperdeaf,
You are historically wrong in your comment. If it were as even-handed as you suggest, there would be more instances in which the executive branch chose not to enforce the unconstitutional judgements of the judiciary and the unconstitutional laws passed by Congress. There also would be more instances of Congress getting rid of judges who do not rule according to strict constitutional interpretation.
Judicial review is out of control.
The fact is that the allocation of power is currently is one-sided in favor of the unaccountable judges.
I'm inferior? Who's inferior?
Yeah, we need to check the interior
Of the system that cares about only one culture
And that is why
We gotta take the power back
Yeah, we gotta take the power back
Come on, come on!
We gotta take the power back
I'm glad my main man, The General, caught that Rage insert. Misguided and all, one of my favorites...
Linds, I appreciate the heartfelt fulmination. Thanks for putting it all out there. Your commentary is so rife with contradictions that it is difficult where to begin.
The judicial branch has no constitutional authority to make new laws. None. This is the role of the able legislature, elected by the people and accountable to the people.
>>Congress getting RID of judges???<<
The fact that you are so astonished by this suggestion indicates you share in the widespread lack of understanding about checks and balances. It is the duty of the legislature to impeach judges that do not uphold the Constitution. This has not occurred, and thus, the judiciary's power has not been checked. It is also the president's role to pardon those wrongly convicted by the judiciary.
>>I don't understand how you can berate the judicial system for 'over-stepping their bounds and creating their own laws at their whim'... and then turn around and support the President and Congress for doing the exact same thing<<
This statement demonstrates a foundational ignorance of the specific roles of each branch of government. Again, it is the role of the legislature and the legislature alone to make laws.
>>It isn't about what one individual believes<<
I agree. However, currently, IT is about what five tyrannous Supreme Court justices believe. This oligarchy has been unaccountably creating law based on their personal worldviews.
>>its(sic) about how our system- how the CONSTITUTION- says we go about changing our system when it goes against our beliefs. <<
Great point. The Constitution says the way to add to change the system is by amendments, not by wanton judgements declaring laws unconstitutional. The process may be slow and arduous, but this is the most prudent course of action.
That's all the time I have right now.
Now who's nerve is touched.
>>The other branches have regularly overstepped their bounds as well and the courts have been forced to strike down laws as unconstitutional<<
Like Dredd Scott and Roe v Wade? Forcing free states to return slaves to the south was a great corrective measure.
>>It is not necessarily wrong, it is just how the system was designed to work. Very inefficiently.<<
No, it wasn't. It was meant to run much more INEFFICIENTLY than that. How it is supposed to run. It is supposed to await the will of the people to speak. Judges have not been doing that lately. Really at all.
>>You can't expect the Constitution to have anticipated and allowed for everything.<<
You're right... and when it isn't clear, you don't do anything. You wait for Congress to pass a law or an amendment that deals with it. Apparently, the catch all called the 10th Amendment isn't clear enough when it says the fed should stay out and make way for the states.
>>Different generations have had different interpretations of the constitution's meaning, and different generations have used the ability to accept new, if rare, interpretations where it would benefit our society.<<
They are hardly rare. Dredd Scott, Prayer in Public Schools, Abortion, Segregation, Minor Capital Punishment, Terry Schiavo, Government regulation of intrastate trade, and pretty much every decision that has come out of the ninth district.
The fed is specifically restricted from touching intrastate trade and is only allowed to legislate interstate and international trade. Even with extremely clear wording, the courts ruled that a farmer violated growing restrictions because he had a personal garden. His personal garden, it was determined, affected demand, however small, which allowed government regulation of: pretty much anything they want anywhere anytime for any reason.
>>Likewise, a human being kept alive by machines was simple science fiction back then. You can't expect the Constitution to have anticipated and allowed for everything.<<
Right again, the constitution didn't anticipate it. So how, in interpretting the constitution that doesn't say anything about it, have these judges found the authority to overturn executive orders from the governor and ruling from the legislature of Florida?
IN AREAS OF SILENCE IT IS THE PEOPLE THAT DETERMINE POLICY.
The judges do NOT represent the people. The legislature represents the people.
>>THEY WILL CREATE NEW LAWS. They must. There is no other choice.<<
Do you mean your local government's city council? Or maybe the state legislature? Or maybe you're talking about the House of Representatives? Perhaps you might be talking about the Senate? Because I KNOW you're not talking about the Supreme Court. They have NO authority in this area. We already have the ability to change laws, we don't need their help to do that.
>>Congress getting RID of judges??? Just what do you think the TRADITONAL, STRICT, and CONSTITUTIONAL system of checks and balances IS? Congress must have a check on its power, as must the president, as must our legal system of state and federal judges. And, according to our 'unparalled Founding Fathers,' we DO.<<
Wrong! It is fully within the power of Congress to remove judges that are not upholding their duties, but it is almost never done because it is not easy to do. There are stacks and stacks of papers and letters written from the time our constitution was written concerning the LACK of judicial checks and balances.
>>A hundred year ago or so, black men weren't citizens. Neither were women. The Constitution reflected those societal beliefs. Now, we have new societal beliefs, and hopefully in the future we will advance even further as a nation.<<
I hope so too. But I hope that it is the values of the people that institute this change, and not the values of 5 people that force these values upon us. I'm also pretty sure Women's suffrage was an amendment, not a ruling by the Supreme court. The emancipation proclamation was also not passed down by the supreme court, it was an executive order.
>>Changes will be made, and unmade, and even made again.<<
I don't think you fully understand the gravity of unmaking judicial decisions. Repealing a law is pretty easy. Repealing a judicial decision is incredibly difficult. Ending Slavery required an executive order. Restricting abortion now requires an amendment to the constitution, which are not real easy to come by. Even though the will of the people is largely in support of such restrictions, it will not happen because somewhere, written in invisible ink, there is a constitutional right that forbids such laws.
I can handle a slow and lumbering Congress if it means that in the long-term the government will continue to be one of the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE, and by the PEOPLE. WE decide what is permissable and impermissable.
The actions of the judicial branch have been unacceptable. And I see no reason to water down criticism of them because the other branches are also doing it. It's all bull.
Fine. I shouldn't have bothered weighing in with my opinion- I knew better, really, and did it anyways. There are plenty of quotes below, if anyone cares to comment on them further. I will say... where does the legislature hear the voice of the people from? I say, they hear it in the courthouse, when people bring cases that stand little to no chance of winning but go against laws the plaintiffs feel should be changed. That's it, that's all. Enjoy.
Above. Plenty of quotes are above. LOL.
Why are congressmen so responsive to seniors?
a) When they are outraged, they write their congressmen, and then they write them again, and again.
b) They vote.
where does the legislature hear the voice of the people from? I say, they hear it in the courthouse
I am honestly dumbfounded by this comment. The legislature hears the voice of the people come election time. Votes speak more loudly and clearly than anything else.
The #1 abuse of power of the Supreme Court in the history of the United States was Roe v. Wade. If liberals were really all about the power of the people and democracy in action, they'd be a-ok with taking the abortion issue to the election booths...not literally of course, we live in a democratic republic and not a pure democracy, but you get the point I'm sure. Liberals won't take the abortion issue to the people (ie to the ELECTED congress) because they know they'd lose. Just like they knew they'd lose back in the early '70s. So instead they usurp the power of the legislature and activist judges legislate from the bench. Liberals are kidding themselves if they think that getting their way via activists judges will bring them support from the electorate. On the contrary, it disgusts most people that APPOINTED judges usurp the power of ELECTED officials.
Mike
Is Rush on this blog posting as different people? Is that O'Reilly I hear? Let's get past the talking points and actually have a dialogue.
Y'all act like judges regularly make stuff up simply to solidify their political agenda. I am not sure if you have read a lot of judicial opinions, but any legal scholar will tell you that even the cases they staunchly disagree with are based on fairly reasonable rationales. They have some legal basis. You may not agree, but it is careless and elementary to presume that certain decisions were made without regard for the Constitution.
Let's talk some law.
Marbury v. Madison (1803) - the Constitution is law and it is the province and duty of the judiciary to declare what the law is.
The law is about interpretation. Judges interpret the law. You may disagree with their interpretation, but do not act like they are inherently wrong based upon some nonexistent standard.
>>It is also the president's role to pardon those wrongly convicted by the judiciary<<
Not really. If you read the constitution, it says, "to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States. . ." The President can pardon whomever he wants as long as his conditions are not independently unconstitutional.
>>You are historically wrong in your comment. If it were as even-handed as you suggest, there would be more instances in which the executive branch chose not to enforce the unconstitutional judgements of the judiciary and the unconstitutional laws passed by Congress.<<
What? Presidents are not in a good position to determine the Constitutional validity of a statute. That is the job of the judiciary. Many times the President is even on Congress' side of unconstitutional mistakes. (Can you say "enemy combatants?" - talk about making up your own laws) You can borrow my Constitutional Law book if you would like. It is full of cases where the judiciary has been forced to strike down Congressional Acts because they were unconstitutional. If you consider between 1776 and now history, then it should count.
>>There also would be more instances of Congress getting rid of judges who do not rule according to strict constitutional interpretation.<<
Do you realize that this is the issue? You frame the problem as if everyone is seeking a strict interpretation of the Constitution, but some are making mistakes. Your premise itself is heavily debated. Many believe that the Constitution is organic and is more accurately interpreted with an eye on the present.
It is humorous to me that strict constructionists wail about certain legal interpretations, but then manipulate the political process so that the Terri Schiavo case can be heard before 15+ different judges. Is it that the interpretation is wrong (each judge has found the same thing) or that they do not like the results?
>>The judicial branch has no constitutional authority to make new laws.<<
How about common law? It is not statutory; in some sense something new is created each time a case is decided. It has to be that way because most cases contain new and varying facts.
>>So how, in interpretting the constitution that doesn't say anything about it, have these judges found the authority to overturn executive orders from the governor and ruling from the legislature of Florida?<<
It is fairly simple; they have chosen to follow Florida state law with regard to guardianship. I may not agree with Terri's hustand's decision, but he is her legal guardian and he is legally permitted to act on her behalf. Are you advocating that the judges disregard the law in order to respond to the emotional issues involved in this case?
It sounds like y'all would be for popularly elected judges. Good luck with that one. Goodbye concern for the law; hello concern for the pocketbook.
---
I think too often you take the truth that we have in Christ and presume that this same indisputable truth exists in political ideologies. The people who disagree with us are not necessarily "tyrannous." And they do not necessarily have a "widespread lack of understanding," or a "foundational ignorance." I disagree with the Pope on a lot of things, but I still think is probably smarter than I am and a pretty swell guy. I do not see any need to tear him up.
Yes I know . . . no ratified Constitution in 1776 . . . 1789 . . .
How do you defend judges that site foreign sources?
How do you defend judges that site popular opinion?
How do you defend Roe v Wade?
That's really great that you think the system is just fine.
Now tell me how these judges were justified in their decisions?
Because I've read the dissents, and I agree with them. These decisions were not made with consideration for the constitution. They are the agendas of special interest.
I know it's difficult to be completely objective, I am more likely to be strict in some cases and activist in others. That doesn't invalidate my criticism of those decisions.
Basically, what I'm hearing is that we live in a relativistic society that doesn't want to interpret anything strictly anymore. Words mean what you want them to mean. Truth is what you believe it to be.
I'm not really down with that.
I didn't want to do this, but you leave me with no choice:
It's a slippery slope.
Every interpretation becomes a foothold for a more liberal interpretation (and when I say liberal, I am using it in the strict sense of 'generous', I can do things like that because I still believe that words have meaning outside my own personal interpretation).
Thanks for getting us past "the talking points", I don't know what we would have done without you. It seems that you have a fixation on Rush and O'Reilly that has nothing to do with this post.
I'm a sucker for that disarming country drawl, but so was Monica.
>> based on fairly reasonable rationales<<
>>some legal basis<<
All of this is inconsequential. "Reasonable rationales" that legal scholars attest to can and have made cases for utter foolishness.
>>You may not agree, but it is careless and elementary to presume that certain decisions were made without regard for the Constitution.
<<
This is a baseless statement.
>>do not act like they are inherently wrong based upon some nonexistent standard.<<
We arrive at the center of the dispute. The gravest error the American people have made is believing relativistic lies such as these.
Any law the corrupt courts create, or that Congress passes, or that the President signs, that goes against the Divine Law is to be summarily disobeyed by the bride of Christ, the Church.
Let's play a game.
You say: >>Any law the corrupt courts create, or that Congress passes, or that the President signs, that goes against the Divine Law is to be summarily disobeyed by the bride of Christ, the Church.<<
I say: Right on. The Church should oppose tax benefits that enable the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. The Church should oppose the death penalty. The Church should oppose government measures that harm the environment for the protection of profits. . .
I think you would cut in at this point and say something like. . .no, no, those things do not go against "Divine law."
I say: What? Jesus speaks more about the poor than any other group of people. . . We are called to be stewards of God's creation. . . I cannot imagine Jesus killing the criminals on the cross next to him. . .
The point is that two good people disagree on how their faith translates into politics.
You may then say: >>The gravest error the American people have made is believing relativistic lies such as these.<<
I say: Until someone finds a new political Gospel that meets the canonization requiremnts for the Bible, we are probably going to disagree on how Jesus is calling us to live our political lives.
>>because I've read the dissents, and I agree with them. These decisions were not made with consideration for the constitution. They are the agendas of special interest.<<
Do you really believe that pepperdeaf is saying that he has never disagreed with a Supreme Court decision? Of course there are many decisions that you, me, and everyone else disagree with, but this does not automatically mean that there was no consideration for the constitutional. You would be much more honest in saying that these decisions were not made according to YOUR interpretation of the constitution.
>>Thanks for getting us past "the talking points", I don't know what we would have done without you. It seems that you have a fixation on Rush and O'Reilly that has nothing to do with this post.
I'm a sucker for that disarming country drawl, but so was Monica.<<
Lot of wasted space to lift yourself up. It bothers me how we so easily mix statements regarding Christian Truth with self-affirming comments soley in an attempt to strike back where you feel you have been stricken.
When did relativism begin to be used as a label for any idea that is not a part of your direct pipeline to God?
Like it or not, Christians disagree on certain things. They always have. Good ones disagree. Calvin disagreed with Luther. Polycarp disagree with Clement. And so on.
This does not mean that one of them is a relativist and the other is a truth-holder. They may both be brilliant people, but things tend to get very distorted when Biblical truth is filtered through dirty people. And we are all dirty people.
It is naive to think that the Constitution by itself is enough. The Constitution simply does not cover certain circumstances. It could not. There is no possible way that the founders could have written an exhaustive document.
Thus, judges must interpret what is in the document and what was meant by the document . . . or by other cases that have tried to determine what was meant by the Constitution.
People disagree. That is why they have 9 justices on the Supreme Court. It ensures that a majority of the legal geniuses on the Court will agree with the legal analysis.
You may be confident enough to say that a majority of the Supreme Court is just making stuff up, but having suffered through law school I find that a little hard to swallow.
>> How do you defend judges that site foreign sources?<<
Well, I do not think that the U.S. has a monopoly on the proper path a government should take. Believe it or not, some other countries come up with better solutions than the United States. Foreign sources are only consulted when few national sources exist.
>>How do you defend judges that site popular opinion?<<
This is a little confusing, because I have read several times on this blog about how the people are to be the standard for decision making. Unfortantely, the judiciary has succumbed to popular pressure at times.
>>How do you defend Roe v Wade?<<
I do not think I have. I am opposed to abortion, but I am not naive enough to say that the decision was baseless. If you want to overturn the decision, you must fight their logic, not their intentions. And instead of fighting for legal changes, you should probably be talking to women who are considering the procedure.
I will try to post the rationale for the Roe decision. I will have to reread the opinion, though.
>>Do you really believe that pepperdeaf is saying that he has never disagreed with a Supreme Court decision?<<
I believe what he tells me he believes, and when he tells me which court decisions he agrees with and which he does not agree with, I will take him at his word. As of yet he has only offered a broad defense of the judicial system as it stands. I offer that the judicial system is flawed based on bad decisions in cases I have already mentioned, a lack of ability to counter poor court decisions, and a vulnerability to continued abuse of the constitution.
>>You would be much more honest in saying that these decisions were not made according to YOUR interpretation of the constitution.<<
I don't do that. It's against my policy. I try not to clarify my statements with: "I think", "in my opinion", "from my understanding", or "my interpretation". I am also trying to stop saying "I don't know" as a verbal pause. It's very common when people talk politics to finish making a point and then say, "I don't know." It goes without saying that everything I say is my opinion. If you disagree with one of my statements then argue against it, don't tell me it's just my opinion, I already know that. I'm not being arrogant, I'm using the most of the facts and reason that have been given to me. If other people have other opinions, that's great. I will probably disagree with them unless they bring new facts to light or present those facts in a perspective that I agree with that I had not considered previously. Talking about his interpretation and her opinion presumes that everyone's thoughts are equal. I think that's garbage. And they are not exclusively MY interpretations or opinions, they are also the opinions of lawyers, politicians, and judges that, in MY opinion, don't suck at their jobs.
>>The point is that two good people disagree on how their faith translates into politics.<<
And it's our job as Christians to debate and discuss how to live as Christians in a secular society, and not to back down because someone happens to have an opinion about something so long as it does not cause division in the church. The only things worth dividing over are issues which would cause me conclude that one is not a Christian, and therefore not a part of the Bride of Christ. Logically, however, that still means that the Church should never divide since you can't divide from someone who was never a part of the unity in the first place.
I don't know, that's just my opinion.
In an effort to be productive, this is my proposal:
Judges should no longer have life terms.
I understand the reasoning behind the life terms; it keeps them from becoming anyone's lackey. But perhaps 10 year terms could be a better approach. Every 10 years judges would go before congress to have their appointment upheld. To keep congress from removing a judge just to bring in "their guy", it should only take a 1/3 or 3/5 vote to uphold an appointment.
If you disagree I ask that you refrain from telling me it's not a perfect solution, as I already know that, and focus on how my suggestion is worse than the current model.
I am o.k. with that, but again I think that everyone should have only one defined term. Eliminate reelections altogether. That is what public service is about. It is not supposed to be a career. No one wants campaign finance reform so this seems like a viable alternative.
Oneway: >>Thanks for getting us past "the talking points", I don't know what we would have done without you. It seems that you have a fixation on Rush and O'Reilly that has nothing to do with this post.
I'm a sucker for that disarming country drawl, but so was Monica.<<
4jesus72: >>Lot of wasted space to lift yourself up.<<
Huh? How was Oneway lifting himself up with that comment? He was simply responding to a ridiculous comment/insult about Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly that had no relevance to this conversation. Why don’t you stay away from the personal attacks and stick to discussing the issues? We’ll all be better off.
Pepperdeaf- As for your comments about the poor and taxes...it is not the job of the government to redistribute wealth. There's no such thing as a tax CUT that makes poor people poorer. Giving money to help the poor is something I see as MY personal responsibility, and not the government's role to take a huge chunk out of my paycheck, waste most of it on bureaucracy, and then give the remainder to programs that on the surface look like they help the poor but actually do the opposite. If the government didn’t take so much of my paycheck I’d have even more to give away to worthy organizations and the like that actually do good things for the poor, unlike the government that allows the welfare state to flourish. The old adage is true…give a man a fish and he eats for one day…teach a man to fish, and he eats for the rest of his life. The government is giving fishes out left and right…I’d rather they give me back some of my paycheck so I can help teach more people to fish.
T-Rae
I'm sorry to see that Linds deleted her comments. I hope that you all understand that I am very appreciative of all the comments, especially the ones I disagree with. I hope that we understand that we are attacking ideas, and not people's self-worth that is fixed in God. I can forget.
We got a "Rush O' Reilly" and a "4jesus72" up in this now. Thanks for your two cents.
4jesus72, I will feel free to take a friendly jab at anyone. I noticed that you didn't care to mention what I was "striking" back at.
pepperdeaf,
>>Presidents are not in a good position to determine the Constitutional validity of a statute. That is the job of the judiciary<<
You realize this means that you are giving absolute authority to an unelected group of people. Not a good idea. What should happen when the judiciary is wrong? What is the check, and how can there be a check if only the elite judiciary can determine whether the judiciary needs to be checked?
I don't need to be reminded how often the judiciary exercised their check, ruling laws unconstitutional. When has the judiciary been checked? Maybe they are all geniuses and untouchable.
>> When did relativism...<<
Let's not confuse the issue. What you're suggesting is that we should proceed using our own feelings and thoughts as the foundation. The shift that has occurred is from shaping one's thoughts to reality to shaping reality to one's thoughts. Relativism establishes each individual as their own standard.
Luther and Calvin operated freely under the premise that the Word of God was the ultimate standard. I would gladly begin at this point with anyone.
It is difficult to find your way in the political landscape as a believer. There are issues that the Church may be divided on. This is starkly different from saying there is no standard at all.
I like the idea of no reelections altogether, that public service isn't supposed to be a career. That's how it was back in the day. George Washington volitionally declined a third term. What politician here or in the world would do that?
>>When has the judiciary been checked?<<
At the state level it is checked directly by the people. At the federal level it is checked by Congress. Also, the judiciary is always checked by itself. The appeals system ensures that cases are seldom heard only by one judge unless no party disputes the decision. Judges are checked every day when their decisions are overturned by higher courts.
>>It is difficult to find your way in the political landscape as a believer.<<
I would love to hear the Biblical justification for a strict interpretation of the United States Consititution. Could you please explain that to me?
What are some decisions that you (plural - apparently y'all conjures up bad memories for some) perceive as judge law-making? I have heard Roe v. Wade several times. What else? I would like to get a sense of the legal issues that you are actually disagreeing with.
>>If the government didn’t take so much of my paycheck I’d have even more to give away to worthy organizations and the like that actually do good things for the poor<<
This is a very common argument, but there is no evidence that most people would give more money if they had more. Actually, sociology and the Bible generally tell a different story. The more money you have, the harder it is to give it up.
>>At the federal level it is checked by Congress. Also, the judiciary is always checked by itself. The appeals system ensures that cases are seldom heard only by one judge unless no party disputes the decision. Judges are checked every day when their decisions are overturned by higher courts.<<
Please explain this further. In my understanding, Congress' only check on the federal judges is impeachment. When has this occurred? The Supreme Court is the highest court. What happens when they are wrong?
You are suggesting a self-governing, unaccountable, absolute authority.
I would hope that we stay away from the poverty issue, as it is separate and deserves its own spotlight, considering its weight.
I don't have time right now to defend strict Constitutional interpretation. But those that oppose it must also give way for every word that's ever been written to change meaning as those in power demand. Hello, 1984.
>>You are suggesting a self-governing, unaccountable, absolute authority.<<
Not true. State circuit judges run for retention every six years. State appellate and supreme court judges run for retention every 10 years. They are elected by the people and then retained by the people. The people hold them accountable.
The federal courts have less popular influence because they were designed not to be influenced. They are protected from popular passions and political influence. Federal judges can only be impeached and convicted for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. They are not subject to reelection or persuasive influence from the legislative or executive branches.
Here is a list of Federal judges who have been impeached. Click Me.
Someone has to has to make the ultimate decisions and protect the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Like I said, this is why you put 9 on the Supreme Court and not 1. The hope is that they will not be wrong.
Is your solution that the President could say the Supreme Court is wrong? That would be one person telling us what is right. That is a worse solution.
Is your solution that the general public could say the Supreme Court is wrong? Then the Courts would be subject to the emotional swings of a legally uneducated mass.
Is your solution that the Congress could say the Supreme Court is wrong? Congress is heavily influenced by the people and their emotional whims (i.e. Terri Schiavo).
It seems that you are arguing for a strict construction of the Constitution, but then arguing that we should not accept the way that our Constitution has set up the federal courts. Me confused?
You are confused. Obviously, what I'm saying is that the Constitution did not set up the Supreme Court to be the elite shepherds of the poor, dumb masses.
It really is beyond me how you can have such faith. I wonder if it's your law school background. Some lawyers think they have all the answers.
The same with some doctors, redefining what life is at a drop of a hat.
The same can be said of some physicists, proposing creation is random.
Also, some sociologists, telling us gender is a construct, that the family is archaic, that religion is hallucination.
On and on, the list goes. We have already been duped into believing we need college educations to survive. Experts create the need for more experts, every branch of education clawing to the top of the hill, content in their self-fulfillment.
This is a direct result of our culture's pact with the Self. The applications are bigger government, more taxes to fund pet social engineering projects, and less for the individual.
I mention these examples not to cloud the issue and touch off divergent discourse, but as evidence of the sanctimonious shift that is occurring. No longer is Truth for the common man. We must be led, blind-folded, drugged, and shackled en masse by our exalted superiors, unable to question our destination, but comforted by the reassuring image of their office walls, covered in framed pedigree.
Not me. And not the Church. One of the greatest blessings that Western culture grasped was that Truth is knowable. "Seek, and you shall find.."
You do recognize that in order for a federal judge to be impeached, the House must try to apply the oh so confusing words of the Constitution as their basis, because the Constitution gives them their authority. They probably just take an ABC poll. The fools.
>>You are confused.<<
I think I already said that in my last post.
>>Obviously, what I'm saying is that the Constitution did not set up the Supreme Court to be the elite shepherds of the poor, dumb masses.<<
I am not sure why this is obvious. Your adjectives are intended to incite emotion, but I am confident that the founders were at least concerned about the courts being influenced by popular passion and political influence.
The Founding Fathers of the nation considered an independent federal judiciary essential to ensure fairness and equal justice for all citizens of the United States.
>>It really is beyond me how you can have such faith.<<
It is similar to your faith that people would donate more money to help the poor if taxes were not so high. It is debatable.
>>This is a direct result of our culture's pact with the Self. The applications are bigger government, more taxes to fund pet social engineering projects, and less for the individual.<<
This is a contradiction. You criticize culture because of its focus on self and then criticize the "applications" by saying that they result in less for the individual (self). Huh? It sounds like you are focused on self too.
-----------
I think your difficulties are with absolute truth. You seem to presume that there is a clearly ascertainable absolute truth that pervades everything. Some stuff is not so clear. Some things fall under the preference category. For instance, you may think that it is absolutely right that you gulp your gatorade after a long run. I think you should drink it slowly. Is one of us absolutely right? Even if one of us was, I would not know which one of us. We would have to consult an expert who could tell us the medical implications of each approach.
Unfortunately, Constitutional interpretation is not the resurrection. Jesus absolutely did rise from the dead or he did not. There is absolute truth there.
With Constitutional interpretation it is not so clear. Is allowing private schools to use public school buses a violation of the Establishment Clause? It's tough. We can't interview the founders; we have to interpret the Constitution and do our best with the evidence that we have.
Don't confuse your preference with absolute truth. And don't confuse what is best for you with what is best for the common good.
>>It is similar to your faith that people would donate more money to help the poor if taxes were not so high.<<
I never said this.
>>This is a contradiction. You criticize culture because of its focus on self and then criticize the "applications" by saying that they result in less for the individual (self). Huh? It sounds like you are focused on self too.<<
It is paradoxical, an far too imperfect reflection of "He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal."--Jesus
Or try C.S. Lewis, "Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither."
The wonder of submitting to God as Lord over all is that it leads to the greatest existence for an individual.
>>You seem to presume that there is a clearly ascertainable absolute truth that pervades everything. Some stuff is not so clear.<<
So, are you saying that the truth is that I'm wrong? Isn't this an appeal to the absolute?
How can we discuss the nature of Truth when it is unknowable? I cannot fathom why we should exchange ideas if it is all personal preference. Or if some is personal preference, how have you drawn your dividing line?
>>Is one of us absolutely right? Even if one of us was, I would not know which one of us.<<
This is where we part ways, my friend. Your analogy even seeps out a truth claim. You are right in saying "I would not know". It is a great improvement from "we cannot know".
There is Truth that pervades all of creation. It makes foolish the wisdom of men. Thankfully, the Truth is knowable to the humbled.
You were also right in mentioning the Resurrection of Jesus. This is the starting point for the intimately knowable Truth. But do not try to contain it here, creating a dictotomy where there is none. "All things have been created through Him and for Him"
I am now more confused than ever with your logic.
>>The wonder of submitting to God as Lord over all is that it leads to the greatest existence for an individual. <<
True. But how does submitting to God over all get you to a strict construction of the U.S. Constitution? Or to believing that certain judges are wrongly making law as opposed to interpreting it?
>>So, are you saying that the truth is that I'm wrong? Isn't this an appeal to the absolute?<<
No. I am saying I do not know who is right or wrong. And neither do you. Most likely neither of us are entirely wrong or right, perhaps misguided. All I can do is look at a bunch of evidence and make an informed decision.
You're still trying to use faith-based arguments for stuff that God does not probably care that much about. It is like saying Arizona is a better basketball team than Illinois. Is there some discoverable absolute truth to that statement? Probably not, it ends up being a matter of opinion. It is debatable. People will use different standards. Some will use win-loss records, others head to head competition, etc.
>>Thankfully, the Truth is knowable to the humbled.<<
I understand what this means in a Biblical context. But is it fair to the text to apply it to Constitutional interpretation? Should I invoke absolute truth every time I get in an argument with my wife? What about when my congregation is arguing over worship styles? Should I tell them that I humbly know the way that God intended us to worship and it is through electric guitar? Is this what you think absolute truth is?
What we are contending with requires more than logic and reason and experience. We need the Spirit of God to teach us.
>>No. I am saying I do not know who is right or wrong. And neither do you.<<
Is this statement, then, truth?
You continue to make declarations regarding the nature of truth (what God cares about, what is debatable, what context to apply the truth, etc.) which cannot stand on your premises that 1. we cannot what the Truth applied to every situation is, or 2. there exists some subject matter for which the Truth is not applicable, the boundaries of which you have failed to determine.
The world, having failed to delegitimize the Cross, is now convincing the Church to keep Jesus bottled up to "religion".
This is not giving Jesus lordship over all of life. You have, essentially, given yourself dominion over a number of decisions. This is humanism.
Humanism tainting a Christian worldview:
God--Truth
The Enemy--Lies
Me--Personal Preference
Each on the left ruling their domain on the right.
Just because we might not know the truth regarding a situation, doesn't mean that truth doesn't exist. God promises that the Truth can be found, and that is the only hope for man.
I sincerely pray that you will stop and consider this seriously. I'm thankful for the dialogue. I cannot adequetely illustrate the Truth, but I have been doing my best. The Spirit must teach.
It's Good Friday. Oh, the wonderful cross.
I think my attempts to get you to understand my approach are futile. I do not necessarily expect you to agree, but at least understand intellectually.
I understand what truth is.
>>We need the Spirit of God to teach us.<<
Of course.
>>Is this statement, then, truth?<<
Yes. You keep using these Josh McDowell arguments to prove to me that absolute truth exists. I know this. I BELIEVE in absolute truth.
>>You have, essentially, given yourself dominion over a number of decisions.<<
Really. So because I do not absolutely know who is the better basketball team, Arizona or Illinois, I am giving myself dominion over that decision? Hmmmm.
I just think it is arrogant to assume that I ALWAYS know the Truth. I am a sinner. Yes, a sinner saved by grace, but still a sinner.
I can be confident in the Truth that is explicitly contained in the Bible. But those things that are not explicitly contained there in (i.e. who is a better, Arizona or Illinois), I must rely on my God guided judgement filtered through my sin.
>>Just because we might not know the truth regarding a situation, doesn't mean that truth doesn't exist.<<
Once again. I am NOT saying truth does not exist.
---------------
Perhaps you are trying to tell me that you are a prophet to whom truth has been uniquely revealed with regard to Constitutional interpretation. Hey, if that is true more power to you and I should indeed trust in your direct line to God. But for me, I must try to determine what is true through the Biblical text, my experience with Jesus Christ as my Savior, and the Spirit's guidance.
Amen to the cross.
I must say that I have grown weary of this debate. Not so much because of the original content as because of the odd turn that it has taken to a debate between two brothers on absolute Truth.
>>I sincerely pray that you will stop and consider this seriously.<<
This statement really bothers me. I know that your heart was not feeling what this statement seems to infer. It sounds as if you are saying that pepperdeaf just jumps on here and types the first thing that pops into his head in an attempt to refute your highly intellectual and prayerfully considered comments.
I too must confess that God has not revealed to me the absolute Truth regarding strict constitutional interpretation. Does making this statement mean that I do not believe in absolute Truth? Of course not. Does making this statement mean that an absolute Truth does not exist regarding constutional interpretation? No, again.
God is as deliberate with the things that He has not revealed as He is about the things that He has revealed. This does not mean that I have chosen to cease my quest in pursuing the truth in such things. It simply means that I must find my contentment in knowing THE Truth.
Oneway knows THE Truth, Pepperdeaf knows THE Truth, I know THE Truth. Jesus said that HE was the way THE TRUTH, and the Life. I find my way through this life with THE Truth as my foundation. All other pursuits of truth are mere extensions of THE Truth, and this Truth will be my guide in these pursuits.
I do understand your approach.
It was unnecessary to mention McDowell, as I have never read any of his work, and I'm sure it is better written than my comments.
It is also misleading to keep referring to Arizona vs. Illinois, because we haven't defined what "better" means. There is an absolute answer to 'which team scores more on average?' or 'which team has the best record against ranked teams?'.
>>Perhaps you are trying to tell me that you are a prophet...<<
I never even hinted at this.
>>I just think it is arrogant to assume that I ALWAYS know the Truth.<<
What you really think is that I am arrogant to claim I know the truth. Including "Always" makes it easier to satisfy the urge for denial.
Please, don't be distracted from the issue. Also, don't placate your desire to dilute the offense of this worldview so that it is easier to ignore. I am not trying to be hurtful. A biblical worldview is a stumbling block and foolishness to many.
>>because I do not absolutely know who is the better basketball team, Arizona or Illinois, I am giving myself dominion over that decision?<<
No, you have given yourself dominion over the truth regarding that decision by saying there is no knowable truth that reigns, leaving a vacancy that you will fill.
What I am attempting to describe is a biblical worldview. It’s merits have nothing to do with my many weaknesses or few strengths. It stands alone, separate and self-actualizing. It would still be the Truth even if I wasn’t shown its existence.
You have claimed you believe in absolute truth. But you do not. The Truth is absolute not only in its essence but also in its scope such that anything apart from it is a lie.
You mentioned guidance by the Holy Spirit, but this only occurs for one that surrenders the individual will, personal preference, natural tendencies, etc. which all stand apart from the Truth. There is no "God guided judgement filtered through sin."
>>But those things that are not explicitly contained there in (i.e. who is a better, Arizona or Illinois), I must rely on my God guided judgement filtered through my sin.<<
This also the modern Church has believed, creating a man made separation between the spiritual life and the working life, the academic life, the political life, the artistic life, etc., compartmentalizing God, leading to the present-day weak Church life for so many believers.
I didn't see you, Teef, till after I published. I gotta get to work. I'll comment later.
Thanks for your comment, Teef. It's good to hear from you. I didn't know you read this blog.
>>
>>I sincerely pray that you will stop and consider this seriously.<<
This statement really bothers me. I know that your heart was not feeling what this statement seems to infer.<<
I am sad to hear this. I hesitated to mention prayer in the first place. I probably would have been better off saying first that I have been in prayer regarding what Truth is. I need to remind myself that the goal is not to exalt me.
It is telling that despite the fact that you are giving me the benefit of the doubt, which I appreciate, you were still bothered enough to say something.
If my communication has degraded to a point at which me saying:
>>I sincerely pray that you will stop and consider this seriously.<< leads to my friends thinking that I am boasting, I have failed.
I would rather stop the discussion than continuing to create strife.
Let me know.
Backblaster,
There's a new rule. Everything you write from now on has to make sense.
Post a Comment