Political Vel Craft

Veil Of Politics

Judge Rules To Censor Jesus Christ: Disregarding The Establishment Clause Of The U.S. Constitution.

Jesus The Christ The Son Of God!

The 10th. Amendment

WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States, states in part, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” and the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; and

WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court ruled in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states by compelling them to enact and enforce regulatory programs.

Pastors and priests in five states cannot mention ‘Jesus’ more than once or twice if they pray in public at an official function after the U.S. Supreme Court stunned constitutional law experts earlier today by letting stand a lower court ruling.

Legislative prayer’ is what courts call the tradition of legislative bodies (Congress, state legislators, town councils, etc.) beginning their meetings with an invocation.

Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that when pastors and priests offer such prayers, it’s okay to mention the name of Jesus Christ once or maybe twice.

But if Jesus’ name is mentioned frequently, or if the prayer includes statements of Christian beliefs (such as the forgiveness of sins, Jesus’ resurrection, or Jesus as the Son of God), then the prayer violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, and must be banned.

This was a 2-1 split decision written by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson. Judge Paul Niemeyer wrote an outstanding dissent, showing how judicial censorship of clergy-led prayer goes to the heart of what the Establishment Clause was designed to prevent.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to take up this case and reverse the Fourth Circuit’s wrongheaded decision. Multiple states filed briefs supporting this petition, as did a group of U.S. congressmen.

The case had all the elements of being cert-worthy (i.e. deserving of the justices agreeing to decide the case). Yet in today’s orders, the Court denied the petition, thereby declining to review the case.

That means the Fourth Circuit’s decision is now the law of the land in the five states in Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

David Cortman, ADF’s lead counsel said, “we are obviously disappointed that the Supreme Court did not agree to hear our case on behalf of the Forsyth County Commissioners and the local community.

“We continue to believe that the lower court’s decision requiring public officials to censor the prayers of private citizens is inconsistent with historical practice and constitutional requirements.  ADF will continue to defend legislative prayer throughout the country until the Supreme Courts hears a case that clears up the confusion.”

Just last week, the Court handed down the most significant victory for religious liberty in decades, recognizing a ministerial exception to federal employment laws. Yet the Court today allows this Fourth Circuit decision stand, at least for now.

Other legislative prayer cases are in the federal court system, including another ADF case, Galloway v. Town of Greece, before the Second Circuit.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will take one of these cases soon and end this form of censorship of religious expression in the public square.

Examiner legal contributor Ken Klukowski is director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council and on the faculty at Liberty University School of Law.

By: Ken Klukowski | 01/17/12 3:07 PM

Washington Examiner

States Check & Balance Obamacare: 10th. Amendment ~ States May Null & Void Supreme Court Decision On Obamacare!

ONLY THING MISSING IS A NICE FROSTY COLD BUDWEISER LIGHT BEER

This photograph released by the Obama Transition Team shows US president-elect Barack Obama (L) and vice president-elect Joe Biden (R) with Justices during a visit to the US Supreme Court January 14, 2009 in Washington, DC. From left are: Obama, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Clarence Thomas, David Souter and Biden. AFP PHOTO / Obama Transition Team / Pete SOUZA == RESTRICTED TO EDITORIAL USE / GETTY OUT == (Photo credit should read Pete SOUZA/AFP/Getty Images)

 “sovereignty over certain powers pursuant to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, to notify Congress to limit and end certain mandates, and to insist that federal legislation contravening the Tenth Amendment be prohibited or repealed.”

WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States, states in part, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” and the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; and

WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court ruled in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states by compelling them to enact and enforce regulatory programs.

FLIP FLOPPER ROBERTS

(NEWSER) – The Supreme Court’s chief justice yesterday defended the right of his fellow justices to rule on Obamacare, the New York Times reports. John G. Roberts didn’t mention justices Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan by name, but both are facing calls to withdraw from the ruling because of their past interest in the health care program. The issue, as Roberts sees it, is that Supreme Court justices are too far up the legal totem pole to be judged or replaced.

WITHOUT THE HOLY BIBLE OF COURSE! ~ WASHINGTON - JANUARY 21: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. administers the oath of office to President Barack Obama a second time in the Map Room of the White House January 21, 2009 in Washington, DC. Today was the president's first full day in office. (Photo by Pete Souza/The White House via Getty Images) *** Local Caption *** Barack Obama;John G. Roberts Jr.

“There is no higher court to review a justice’s decision not to recuse in a particular case,” Roberts wrote in his annual report. When a lower court judge steps aside, “there is another federal judge who can serve in that recused judge’s place,” but not so in the Supreme Court—which would be left “without its full membership.” In sum, a justice can’t pull out “simply to avoid controversy.” The Supreme Court is scheduled torule on the constitutionality of Obamacare by the end of June. (See why Democrats are seeking a probe of Clarence Thomas.)

Newser

Michael Boldin
The Tenth Amendment Center

By a vote of 19-12 today, the Ohio State Senate passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 13 (SCR13).  (h/tOhioFreeState.com)

The resolution claims “sovereignty over certain powers pursuant to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, to notify Congress to limit and end certain mandates, and to insist that federal legislation contravening the Tenth Amendment be prohibited or repealed.”

If passed by the House of Representatives, Ohio will become the 8th state to have passed such a resolution.  Other states that have reaffirmed their sovereignty are Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee.

While sovereignty resolutions do not carry the force of law behind them, supporters say that they are a long-overdue first step in moving the country towards constitutional government.

Charles Key, state representative from Oklahoma and author of that state’s sovereignty resolution, compared these resolutions to a cease and desist notice a landlord gives a non-paying tenant.

“If you’ve got a tenant that’s not paying rent, you don’t just show up one day with an empty truck,” said Key in a recent interview with the Tenth Amendment Center.  “First, you serve notice.  That’s how we see these resolutions, as a notice to the federal government.  And there defintely will be follow up.”

The follow up that Rep. Key is referring to has been popping up all over the country.  Legislation that calls upon the Jeffersonian principle of “nullification” has already been advancing a number of causes, and some success has been gained, too.

today.parcoltop33.89736.ImageFile

A state-level rebellion to the Bush-era Real ID act has rendered the law virtually null and void.  Thirteen states have passed various marijuana laws in direct contravention to federal laws.  Two states have passed laws nullifying some federal gun regulations.

Groups in multiple states are pushing their governments to withdraw their state’s guard troops from Iraq and elsewhere. And people in up to 10 states may have the opportunity to vote on state constitutional amendments effectively banning national health care.

The long-term success of all these efforts remain to be seen, especially with a Federal Judiciary which has not often been too friendly to the Constitutional intent of the Founders and Ratifiers.

But, many supporters point to the growing success on issues like Real ID and Medical Marijuana as examples which prove that with enough state-level resistance, the federal government has no option but to back off, with or without judicial approval.

Convicted Felon George Soros

Convicted Felon George Soros

Read the full text of SCR-13 below:

WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and

WHEREAS, Many federal laws directly contravene the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, We believe in the importance of all levels of government working together to serve the citizens of our country, by respecting the constitutional provisions that properly delineate the authority of federal, state, and local governments; and

WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States, states in part, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” and the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; and

WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court ruled in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states by compelling them to enact and enforce regulatory programs; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court, in Printz v. United States/Mack v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), reaffirmed that the Constitution of the United States established a system of “dual sovereignty” that retains “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty” by the states. The majority of the United States Supreme Court noted in that case (521 U.S. 898, 921-922):

“As [President] Madison expressed it: ‘[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.’ The Federalist No. 39, at 245.

Nazi Muffin Harry Reid

Virulent Nazi Muffin Harry Reid

This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. ‘Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.’ . . . To quote [President] Madison once again:

‘In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.’ The Federalist No. 51, at 323″; and

WHEREAS, A number of proposals by previous administrations, some now pending proposals by the present administration, and some proposals by Congress may further violate the Tenth Amendment restriction on the scope of federal power; now therefore be it

RESOLVED, That the State of Ohio hereby acknowledges and reaffirms its residuary and inviolable sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and be it further

RESOLVED, That this resolution serves as notice to the federal government as agent of the states, to end federal mandates that are beyond the scope of the constitutionally delegated powers; and be it further

RESOLVED, That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalty or sanction or that requires states to enact legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the Clerk of the Senate transmit authenticated copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate of each state’s legislature, and each member of the Ohio Congressional delegation.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,296 other followers