Saturday, December 15, 2007

Judge Declares Declaration Of Independence Unconstitutional

by Mario Diaz - December 13th, 2007 -

Ever since the Supreme Court erroneously elevated Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation between church and state” metaphor to a constitutional doctrine in the 1947 landmark decision Everson v. Board of Education, a growing sort of legal fog has been setting in on our constitutional religious freedoms, ending in what can only be described as a requirement of government hostility towards religion. This is, of course, not only a far cry from what our founding fathers intended, including Thomas Jefferson — a staunch religious liberty advocate — but it is a far cry from what “We the people” intended when the Constitution was ratified.

The many perils of reading into the Constitution a “wall of separation between church and state” where none exists came as no surprise to many of us. Nothing good ever comes from deviating from the clear text and context of the Constitution. Many well-intentioned, smart people have argued for a “living, breathing” Constitution, changing with the times and looking for small immediate “advances,” but this interpretation has only one result in the long run: tyranny.

That is the major goal of the trial lawyers and judges in their campaign for power. Tyranny. The extortion based, revolving door system of corruption and greed that our court system has become depends on ignoring the Constitution, and creating a new Constitution that only the judges can see. In this new Constitution they find "rights" that were never considered, like the right to abortion. They simultaneously ignore rights that are clearly enumerated, like the prohibition on taking private property.

The writer here has come up with one of the funniest examples yet of where this "rule of judges" could lead. Voiding the Declaration of Independence would certainly be an interesting move allowing them to appeal to the British House of Lords for a final decision on what our laws mean. Then again that act would not be significantly more ridiculous than what the "rule of judges" has already demanded.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home