Tag Archives: Supreme court

Kavanaugh’s Accuser Worse than Thought

by Rev. Austin Miles

Who can forget Christine Blasey Ford, the dim-witted blonde with the mature face and little girl voice who blatantly accused Supreme Court Candidate Brett Kavanaugh of the unthinkable? It was an orchestrated effort to torpedo his appointment to the High Court.  First of all, she is a Democrat who wants to sabotage anything Republican.

Question: So what was the motive behind her desperate attempt to keep Judge Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court?

Answer: She knew he would overturn Roe v Wade. Yes, Ford lied to protect Roe v Wade.

Why was it so important to her?

“Corcept Therapeutics (Corcept.com) manufacturers and markets an abortion pill drug called mifepristone, and Christine Blasey Ford is a co-author of at least eight published scientific papers produced by the pharmaceutical giant to promote its pills. You can see Blasey’s name listed on several publications at this Corcept.com web page detailing their research papers.”

You ask why Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford would do this? Here are 4 reasons:

1) She owns a major portion of the company that makes the morning after abortion pill and she is afraid Kavanaugh will overturn Roe v Wade, therefore making her million dollar empire go caput.

2) She’s a professor at the same college (Palo Alto U) where Diane Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum, is on the board of directors. She has worked with Blum on the “resist Trump” movement for two years.  

3) Dr. Blasey-Ford’s brother,  Tom Blasey, is business partners with Peter Strzok’s cousin Jill Strzok for a company called Exelis Inc. Enough said there.

4) Feinstein and Chuck Schumer appointed lawyers to set up three GoFundMe pages for her the week BEFORE she testified, which are currently up to over a million dollars for her to keep as payment for her testimony. 

No doubt more info will be coming as this writer has a “Secret Source.” Don’t believe for one minute this “professor” came out of nowhere.

Now the real issue concerning Professor Ford. Not only has she hurt a very good man and his family, but in doing so she committed a serious sin in the eyes of God who commands us not to bear false witness against anyone. And she received over a million dollars to do so making it doubly offensive to God.

She may think now that she was clever but ahead she will face God and the horror of the “White Throne”Judgment just before the trapdoor opens and she is plunged into the pits of hell and remain there forever.

False witness causes loss of reputation, divorce, job loss, harassment, harm by others, destruction of families, tearing down of relationships, humiliation and in general puts the victim in what seems to be, hell–where she is now headed.

This is not preaching…..this is a reality. And that million bucks will do her no good there.

Direct appeal to Ms. Ford: Please spend some time alone and think. Think about God, He is real. Talk to a pastor, let him tell you about Jesus. Accept Jesus as your Savior after confessing your sin and asking forgiveness for that sin. He will forgive you. Also confess your sin to the entire Kavanaugh family and ask their forgiveness. We can almost guarantee that they will forgive you.

You cannot keep that ill-gained million dollars. You must give that to the poor, like a homeless shelter or to homeless veterans’ housing. THEN you can attain salvation, forgiveness, start all over, and you can be assured that as you do, a peace will cover your face, making you an attractive woman. Again, Please Ms. Ford…..T H I N K.  And Christians, pray for her that she will come to Christ.

READERS, please redistribute this story widely so it will eventually come to her attention.

GORSUCH NOT A SURE VOTE IN TRUMP IMMIGRATION BAN


NewsWithViews.com

Shortly after Donald Trump announced the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, it was revealed that Gorsuch had picked a Henry Kissinger quotation to caption his 1988 Columbia yearbook photograph: “The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer.” -Henry Kissinger, August 29, 1967

It’s an odd remark for someone whose primary credential is his supposed textual fidelity to the Constitution, but then people often change from their college days. Yet many questions remain about our President’s first nominee for the Supreme Court.

In nominating Tenth Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch, a Harvard Law School graduate who was unanimously confirmed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006 by George W. Bush, President Trump believes he has effectively chosen to restore the Court to the status quo. Unfortunately, a number of strong Constitutional conservatives are not so sure.

In my February article, The Pros and Cons of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, I stated the facts as we knew them, hoping my readers would come to their own decision on the man, but now even more about this judge has come to light. There are some good things, and there are some very disturbing things that we need to immediately consider.

A very troubling factor to me was the fact that Neil Gorsuch was a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations, listed in the 2008 CFR Annual Report Membership Roster. He is not listed in the 2017 Annual Report, but is listed as a member in his 2006 nomination by President George W. Bush. (See part 8)

Gorsuch on Executive Privilege

Judge Gorsuch’s record indicates that he is neither a staunch defender nor a harsh critic of immigrants’ rights. (We’re talking about illegal immigrants here.) In his time on the bench, Judge Gorsuch has dealt with only a handful of prominent immigration law cases. Of those, he has ruled in favor of the immigrant slightly less than half of the time.

However, while Judge Gorsuch and Justice Scalia are similar in many ways, many have noted that they disagreed sharply on how much deference to give to federal agencies’ interpretations of the law.

Under what’s known as “Chevron deference,” courts play only a limited role in reviewing an agency’s interpretation of a law within its area of expertise. Although Justice Scalia was a staunch supporter of this principle, Judge Gorsuch has openly criticized Chevron deference, asserting instead that only judges should get to decide what the law is.

Do you see the danger here? This would lead anyone to understand that Judge Gorsuch could side with the tyrannical judges who have stopped the Constitutionally legal executive orders of our President, Donald J. Trump, who wishes to limit the influx of Islamic foreigners immigrating to the United States, (foreigners who may well be a danger to American citizens that our President has sworn to protect), to oppose our President’s Constitutional duty and legality.

To top it off, our globalist Vice President is taking the exact opposite opinion of his boss and saying, “A judge ‘certainly’ has the right to stop Trump’s travel ban.” I’m sorry, VP Pence, but the Constitution allows the Executive branch to deny entry into the United States. [Link] It has been done in the past by Democrats Jimmy Carter, and Barack Hussein Obama. The President has sworn to protect American citizens!

Remember VP Pence’s pledge of commitment to the unelected councils (read Soviet) of the dictatorial European Union! [Link] And, God forbid anything happens to our President because with globalist Pence, you can forget the wall, forget repealing Obamacare, forget stopping the trade deals, and everything else that encouraged us all to vote for the man who spoke our language.

Gorsuch on Travel Ban

The Drudge Report revealed a Bloomberg article where some experts and academics say Gorsuch’s criticism of executive overreach in the Gutierrez-Brizuela case and others could lead him to reach decisions at odds with the 45th president’s policies. The judge’s thinking in those cases is likely to be a subject of intense interest in confirmation hearings next week.

Here’s the Bloomberg Story:

A Mexican immigrant who twice entered the U.S. illegally has one man in particular to thank for being able to live and work in Oklahoma City with his family — Judge Neil M. Gorsuch.

Gorsuch, the nominee President Donald Trump is betting on to be his Supreme Court tie-breaker, wrote a 2016 ruling permitting Hugo Rosario Gutierrez-Brizuela to stay in the U.S. and, his lawyer hopes, within a few years become a citizen.

“Without it we were done,” said Timothy Cook, the attorney. Had the decision gone the other way, Gutierrez-Brizuela would have been promptly deported, he said.

As Trump vows to fight all the way to the nation’s top court to preserve his temporary ban on travel from six mostly Muslim nations and immigration agents turn to more aggressive tactics on city streets, Gorsuch’s conservative credentials have been hailed as likely to swing the divided court in the president’s favor.

But as lawmakers scrutinize Gorsuch’s decade-long tenure on a federal appeals court for clues about how he might rule on hot-button issues such as abortion and gun control, his record shows that on immigration rights, he can’t be easily categorized.

Moreover, some experts and academics say Gorsuch’s criticism of executive overreach in the Gutierrez-Brizuela case and others could lead him to reach decisions at odds with the Republican president’s policies. The judge’s thinking in those cases is likely to be a subject of intense interest in confirmation hearings next week.

Conclusion

I am not at all convinced that this choice coming from the left leaning Federalist Society is one that will resonate with the Trump supporting American electorate.

Gorsuch belongs to an extremely liberal, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage church, and he and his wife and daughters are very involved in this church.

Secondly, Gorsuch’s stance in this Gutierrez-Brizuela case would worry anyone about American citizens’ safety with this judge on the Supreme Court.

Please pray for our President, and pray for our nation. And above all, get off your couch and get involved. Run for a county commissioner seat, city council, school board, whatever. Trump is giving us an opportunity of a lifetime to take America back, if not for yourself do it for your grandchildren. The corrupt swamp is not just in Washington DC, it’s also in your state, county and city government as well.

Our country needs citizens who will stand up for her and for her Constitution. This is the call of the publisher of NewsWithViews. He has put his reputation and finances on the line for our country. Please help him keep the truth arriving daily in your mailbox. You can donate here, even if it’s just a small amount every month, it will definitely help. Thank you, and keep reading. New NewsWithViews website will be launching soon. Its a sneak peak of where your donations go.

THE PROS AND CONS OF JUDGE NEIL M. GORSUCH

NewsWithViews.com

Our young are so full of innocence and capabilities that are not yet known. Why would anyone want to destroy that through abortion? One of the most absurd pro-choice claims is that those who are pro-life do not like or care for the baby after he or she is born. In fact, pro-lifers find equal importance of life inside and outside of the womb. The gravity in a baby’s eyes, showing such extreme happiness for life, is one of the most beautiful things in the world. —G. K. Chesterton

I am overjoyed that Donald J. Trump is our 45th President, and I’m thrilled with 95% of his nominees. Nevertheless, unlike the sycophants who supported Obama and Hillary, when I am in doubt, I’m going to let my readers know about it.

God Said, CHOOSE LIFE

The Lord said in Deuteronomy to Choose Life! When those of us who hate Roe v. Wade think of the suffering of millions of little babies in their mothers’ wombs when abortion is chosen, we cry out for it to come to a screeching halt. We know too what happens to those little murdered bodies. It is why our 45th President has promised to put pro-life justices on the Supreme Court. We can thank God Hillary Clinton is not nominating a justice.

My first choice would have been Judge Charles Canady from Florida. While he was in Congress, Canady was credited for coining the term “partial-birth abortion” while developing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995. He has proven to be stellar on pro-life issues.

Neil Gorsuch and Antonin Scalia

When introducing Neil Gorsuch, our President said, “I took the task of this nomination very seriously. I have selected an individual whose qualities define, really, and I mean closely, define what we’re looking for. Judge Gorsuch has outstanding legal skills, a brilliant mind, tremendous discipline and has earned bipartisan support.” He added that Gorsuch’s resume was as good as he’s ever seen.

As he searched for a nominee to ultimately take Scalia’s empty seat, Trump said he spoke “regularly” with Scalia’s wife, Maureen McCarthy Scalia, according to Kellyanne Conway. Mrs. Scalia has been a rock throughout this entire process,” Conway said. “She has been somebody who the President has talked to regularly throughout this process and he has very much enjoyed his time with her in person and over the phone.”

Gorsuch is better than half of those on the list who really don’t see much that can be done in stopping abortion. He does have sterling credentials, and in theory believes in the Constitution. However, no one can truly say whether or not he’d vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, which is ultimately the definition of pro-life.

Gorsuch and Scalia were friends, and obviously had enjoyed time together in Colorado as the signed photo suggests.

The insignia reads, “To Neil Gorsuch, Fond memories of a day on the Colorado. With warm regards, Antonin Scalia.

After President Trump’s announcement of Neil Gorsuch as his nominee, Gorsuch met Mrs. Scalia and chatted amiably with her and her son, Fr. Paul Scalia.

Gorsuch and Hobby Lobby

Many believe Gorsuch is pro-life because he ruled for the Christian Hobby Lobby stores against Obamacare’s demand (via Secretary Sebelius) that this Christian for-profit organization provide all contraceptive funding in their insurance. The left would have you think that Hobby Lobby was against all contraception for women, which is untrue. The reality is that the FDA approved 18 forms of female contraception, and Hobby Lobby took offense to only the ones that killed an already fertilized egg, Plan B “morning-after pill,” Ella “morning-after pill,” and two hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs). They didn’t object to most birth control pills, sponges, condoms and even sterilization.

The key issue on appeal in the 10th was whether or not a “for-profit corporation” may be considered a “person exercising religion” under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which came into play in the decision for Hobby Lobby from the lower court. The case was about religious freedom, not about abortion per se. Gorsuch sided with the Little Sisters of the Poor in a similar religious freedom case involving Obamacare.

In the Supreme Court decision, Justice Alito wrote that, “The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients.”

According to ABC News, Gorsuch “is a defender of the ‘Free Exercise Clause,’ which says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” As such, he has also championed the rights of religious groups to display their religion in public places. And that’s a big Amen.

Gorsuch and Assisted Suicide

Gorsuch disagreed with Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Posner has written in favor of permitting physician-assisted suicide, arguing that the government should not interfere with a person’s decision to take his or her own life, especially in cases where the patient is terminally ill.

Gorsuch rejected that view, writing it would “tend toward, if not require, the legalization not only of assisted suicide and euthanasia, but of any act of consensual homicide.” Posner’s position, he writes, would allow “sadomasochist killings” and “mass suicide pacts,” as well as duels, illicit drug use, organ sales and the “sale of one’s own life.”

Gorsuch concludes his book by suggesting that the law could allow for terminally ill patients to refuse treatments that would extend their lives, while stopping short of permitting intentional killing.

In his book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (2006), Gorsuch praised the pro-abortion ruling that upheld Roe v. Wade as follows: “The plurality in Casey expressly sought to provide a firmer basis for the abortion right and to shore up the reasoning behind Roe’s result.” (p. 79) This is extremely troubling, as no one who is pro-life would ever assert that there is a “firmer basis” and better “reasoning” that can support the horrifically unjust result of abortion-on-demand.

Citing the Judge’s book as proof that he is pro-life is not valid inasmuch as pro-abortion supreme court judges have ruled against physician assisted suicide in the past.

Gorsuch and Stare Decisis

Gorsuch also clings to bad precedent, and is an extreme supporter of stare decisis, both of which are excuses for upholding Roe v. Wade rather than overturning it. “Our duty to follow precedent sometimes requires us to make mistakes,” Gorsuch declared in ruling against the Second Amendment rights of a man before his court. United States v. Games-Perez, 667 F.3d 1136, 1142 (10th Cir. 2012) (Gorsuch, J. concurring).

What is stare decisis? It is Latin for “to stand by things decided,” and is the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. Generally, courts will adhere to the previous ruling, though this is not universally true. See, e.g. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US 833. The doctrine operates both horizontally and vertically. Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court adhering to its own precedent. A court engages in vertical stare decisis when it applies precedent from a higher court. Consequently, stare decisis discourages litigating established precedents.

Although courts seldom overrule precedent, Justice Rehnquist explained that stare decisis is not an “inexorable command.” On occasion, the Court will decide not to apply the doctrine if a prior decision is deemed unworkable. In addition, significant societal changes may also prompt the Court to overrule precedent; however, any decision to overrule precedent is exercised cautiously. (Cornell University Law School)

Gorsuch Nominated by George W. Bush

“Not a single Democrat opposed #NeilGorsuch’s confirmation in 2006,” tweeted Mitch McConnell on February 1st. Both Bush families stated they were pro-choice after they were out of office. It is likely the Democrat Senators knew the families were really pro-choice and thus confirmed their nominee. Here’s the list of the leftists who confirmed him.

Gorsuch and the CFR

Neil Gorsuch was a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations, listed in the 2008 CFR Annual Report Membership Roster. He is not listed in the 2017 Annual Report, but is listed as a member in his 2006 nomination by President George W. Bush. (See part 8)

Aside from his stint at Harvard Law, can we conjecture that his term membership in the CFR might have influenced him with the One-World-Socialist-Police-State-under-the-United-Nations goals of the CFR? Here is a short tutorial on the CFR. You can also purchase a booklet about the CFR.

Because of his membership, will he will be a shoe-in for the post, as he was in 2006? Other CFR Members of the Court are Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

The only way you can find out about CFR Membership rosters is to obtain the CFR Annual Reports through purchase from Amazon for a nominal fee. (Hat tip to Sue.)

Gorsuch’s Pro-Abortion Church

Neil Gorsuch and his wife attend the apostate St. John’s Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colorado, that has a woman rector, Rev. Susan Springer, who considers homosexuality as acceptable, and who believes that women have the right to kill their unborn babies. Springer also promotes climate control and gun control. [Link]

Homosexuals have had union blessing ceremonies in the church. Here is an article written by Rev. Susan Springer in 2010 supporting homosexuals and their behavior.

In 1994, as the anti-abortion movement mobilized to restrict reproductive freedom of American women, the Episcopal Church added this resolve:

“The Episcopal Church expresses its unequivocal opposition to any legislative, executive or judicial action on the part of local, state or national governments that abridges the right of a woman to reach an informed decision about the termination of pregnancy or that would limit the access of a woman to safe means of acting on her decision.”

From this article in Huffington Post, it appears Gorsuch is also pro-gay marriage, and unlikely to ever change Roe v. Wade.

Gorsuch’s membership in an Episcopal church in Boulder, Colorado, whose female senior pastor attended the Women’s March in Colorado, and has been associated with other liberal causes, gives great pause to most pro-life conservatives.

Lobbyist Influence

The influence, primarily by the pro-abortion Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation lobbyists, over the Supreme Court decision by our President was unprecedented. Why did Trump lock himself into only 21 names given by these organizations?

According to media accounts Trump considered only candidates whom the Federalist Society recommended, and no others. Florida Supreme Court Justice Charles Canady is pro-life and more qualified than Gorsuch, but apparently, Trump never even interviewed Canady. Other prominent pro-life candidates, both on and off the list, who Trump cited during his campaign, were also not seriously considered.

If this were merely the first time that a Supreme Court nominee was supposedly pro-life, but was actually pro-choice, then perhaps a “wait and see” approach might be reasonable. However, unborn children have been sacrificed time and time again by this deception. President Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor, who was supposed to be pro-life but wasn’t, and then likewise for Anthony Kennedy. The first President Bush appointed David Souter, who was also supposed to be pro-life, but became stridently pro-abortion instead.

As well, the pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage billionaire Koch brothers have thrown their weight behind Judge Gorsuch. [Link] They launched a digital campaign urging senators to confirm Gorsuch, and they plan to mobilize the network’s 3.2 million activists to put pressure on lawmakers.

Gorsuch on Other Issues

In an analysis by Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, he pointed out that Gorsuch joined an opinion that adhered to the anti-gun view that “concealed weapons create an immediate and severe danger to the public.” United States v. Rodriguez, 739 F.3d 481, 490 (10th Cir. 2013).

On the transgender issue, Gorsuch joined an opinion holding that “it is unlawful to discriminate against a transgender (or any other) person because he or she does not behave in accordance with an employer’s expectations for men or women.” Kastl v. Maricopa Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 325 F. App’x 492, 493 (9th Cir. 2009).

Where will Gorsuch come down on in the issue of whether men, who claim to be women, may enter women’s public bathrooms, showers and locker rooms. His opinion would affect children in public school facilities. Will he even be questioned on this issue by senators during his hearing proceedings?

Conclusion

Unfortunately for us, Gorsuch’s views on abortion are not well defined. In his book, he wrote, “In Roe, the Court explained that, had it found the fetus to be a “person” for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, it could not have created a right to abortion because no constitutional basis exists for preferring the mother’s liberty interests over the child’s life.”

For the sake of the unborn babies in America, I pray that Gorsuch truly is pro-life.

Like Joe Friday of Dragnet, I’m just giving you the facts, the decision is yours.

The Role of the Supreme Court

BY SUE LONG

The United States Constitution is a contract between the states giving the national government only limited and enumerate         powers. (Most are found in Article One, Section Eight.) The Constitution is unique in that its creators recognized that rights are God-given and it is the function of government to protect those God-given rights. As with all contracts, it should always be interpreted as to the original meaning and intent.   If you buy something and sign a contract as to the payments, you don’t expect the terms to be changed. So it is with our Constitution.

But that has been greatly undermined by decisions of the Supreme Court.

Although Chief Justice John Marshall has been touted as a Supreme Court icon, his role has been less than desirable. In 1816 he made a ruling which was clearly a breach of constitutional limitation on congressional power. His ruling was based on the fallacy that “… let the end be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate … which are not prohibited but consistent within the   letter and spirit of the Constitution …”   In other words, the federal government can do anything the Constitution does not specifically bar it from doing. This has set a precedent that has been destructive to our freedoms ever since. Example, because the Constitution doesn’t specifically say that the government can’t dictate medical care or that it can’t round up all people who pledge allegiance to the flag and put them in detention camps, it is entitled to do so.

Another departure is what is known as The Elastic Clause, which gives Congress the power “To make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested in the Government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof.” This has been misconstrued to apply to any and all things considered to be “proper” totally ignoring the part that says that it applies “to the foregoing powers and all other powers vested “ – only the enumerated powers, but nothing more.   The enumerated powers are the specific things listed in the Constitution that the states authorized the federal government to do.

Why would those who formed the Constitution list what the government could do if, according to adherents of Marshall’s philosophy or the “Elastic Clause”, government could do anything it wants?

And likewise, are those who use the “Welfare Clause” which authorizes Congress to “provide for the common Defense and general Welfare.”   The definition of welfare is key.   At the time of the writing of the Constitution it meant that Congress was to arrange for the conditions throughout the nation that would allow every citizen to prosper. In no way did it mean government handouts.

It is generally believed that it is the function of the Supreme Court to “interpret the Constitution.” But actually it is their role to determine whether or not a law is constitutional. More often than not, they should declare it unconstitutional and send it back to the states or the people.

The first sentence of the Constitution clearly states that “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.“ Since all legislative powers are granted exclusively to Congress, none are given to the Judiciary. (For that matter that also applies to the President.) Yet we are all too familiar with the many court rulings that are, in fact, the equivalent of a law.

Then, too, there is the disregard for the Constitution when it comes to Treaty Law.   The often heard “treaty law supersedes the Constitution and is the law of the land” is quite simply – NOT TRUE. What the Constitution states is that treaties that are pursuant to the Constitution are the law of the land. “Pursuant to the Constitution” makes the difference.   Only those treaties that are consistent with the terms of our Constitution are the law of the land.

One of the arguments used to promote a constitutional convention/Article V convention et al, which is a very risky measure, is that it is the only way to rein in the overreach of the Supreme Court. But, once again, that is not so.

Although we hear that “The Supreme Court Justices serve life terms,” more accurately, they only serve at the pleasure of Congress which has the responsibility, when needed, to impeach, try and remove them from office.

And, in another opinion, Marshall proclaimed that the Supreme Court would have the final say on what is constitutional and what is not.   But this ignores constitutional checks and balances. .

One way that Congress can check the Supreme Court rulings is to exercise the power of the purse and refuse to fund their unconstitutional rulings. An example would be their ruling on ObamaCare. It is clearly unconstitutional; health care is clearly not listed as an enumerated power in the Constitution. But government cannot carry out any actions supporting ObamaCare without funds.

Another way that the Constitution provides checks and balances in regard to the Supreme Court is that of limiting their jurisdiction of any particular matter. Article lll, Section 2 states that “the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” A majority in the House and Senate could have prevented the court from ruling on such matters as housing, congressional district makeup, education, energy production and all other unconstitutional measures.

Then there is State Nullification. If a state should determine that a federal law is invalid because it steps outside the boundaries of the Constitution, then that state can determine that the law is invalid.

Those who disagree cite what is called the Supremacy Clause, which they interpret to say that federal law is supreme over state law. But, what does that clause say? Article Six, paragraph two states: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the land. The unknowing – or perhaps deliberately misleading – contend that this clause says that U S law trumps state law. “Thereof” refers to the Constitution. Thus laws are to be made in pursuance to the Constitution. What about “shall be made in Pursuance”? Pursuance means following or in keeping with. Thus only those laws that are in keeping with the Constitution are the supreme law of the land. Those not in keeping with the Constitution are not valid laws. In order for them to be constitutional they must be found in the enumerated powers – those that are allowed and listed.

Whereas it is true that states cannot pick and choose which federal laws they choose to obey, the litmus test is whether the law is constitutional. And, who is to say what is constitutional? The states. It was the states that formed the contract that spells out the rules. If a law is found within the listed powers in the Constitution, then it is constitutional. That power was ceded by the states to the federal government. But, if a law is not found in the listed powers, powers that were not ceded, then it is unconstitutional and the Supremacy Law does not apply as trumping state laws.

Any law that abridges the right to keep and bear arms falls into the same category. The Constitution specifically prohibits Congress from making laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Any such law – or judicial ruling or executive edict – is unquestionably unconstitutional and does not have supremacy over state laws.

The better question would be: When does federal law trump state law? It is clear that it does so only when the federal law is constitutional, i.e., when it is found in the enumerated powers.

What can be done?   Inform the electorate in order to elect members of Congress who will honor their oath of office and rein in the Supreme Court.

By Sue Long

The Committee for Constitutional Government, Post Office Box 972, Gloucester, VA   23061

States Rights – 10th Amendment

From LEGALINSURRECTION.COM

scotus

DEMAND Impeachment of the Supreme Court Legislators on the Bench

The US Supreme Court, acting more like our Supreme Rulers committed two unconstitutional and unlawful acts of legislative activism this week. Ruling for Gay Marriage, they basically turned the United States into the modern day equivalent of Sodom & Gomorrah. On Obamacare, or the “Affordable Care Act” the Court simply determined to physically re-write the law. The court does not have the power to make law, and so we are asking people to begin screaming LOUDER THAN A HOMOSEXUAL for their immediate impeachment. Please!

http://www.regularguy.com/?p=127

Chief Justice John Roberts Trader Traitor

By Rev. Austin Miles

roberts

What did Chief Justice of The Supreme Court, John Roberts, TRADE to make the totally anti-American, anti God rulings that have been barreling down the track with him at throttle for the past few days? He MUST have traded something to sell out his integrity that would be in his own self interest to cause him to betray his country.

Within this past week he has ruled for ‘housing non-discrimination equality.’  This means that anyone, no matter who they are, what background they have, or even jobless, whenever there is a house vacant, they have the RIGHT to move into that house and banks MUST give them the loan to move into that house, even in upscale neighborhoods, when they are incapable of even making the payments.

Yep, that is their right to live in any house they desire, so saith our “leaders.”

This is exactly what happened years ago when Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other big loan companies were forced to lend money to those who were unemployed and had no way to repay their debt, meaning it would be absorbed by the taxpayers, us, with OUR money, that we worked for. This caused the crash of several loan companies and banks. Roberts just resurrected that nutty bill that will again cause chaos with our economy.

Next, a couple of days later, he ruled that Obama-care is legal and stays put, despite it being unconstitutional.

Then today, the decision came down to destroy the traditional American family, which of course affects the church and ministers.  In the white picket fence apple pie state of Idaho, the politicians recently ruled that any minister who refuses to do a same sex marriage will be jailed.

Roberts obviously was threatened or intimidated by Obama and the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) who performed the silent coup d’état to place Obama in the Oval Office. That combination has also put the Supreme Court under their command.  It is curious what they may have on John Roberts to make him their puppet.

Do not be quick to dismiss this possibility. When I wrote for The Christian Post, located in D.C., not far from The White House, I did a critical piece about Obama. It was published, then it was suddenly yanked off the site. When I asked for an explanation, the editors would not give a straight answer.

A year later the editor left CT, then called me to reveal that yes, they had a ‘visit’ from down the street, that required them to scrub my story.

It is personally distressing to observe John Roberts cooperating with CPUSA.  When the televised hearings showed the confirmation hearings, which lasted a couple of days, regarding his candidacy for Justice of The Supreme Court, this man was brilliant. The questions about law were profound, yet Roberts immediately answered all of the questions telling what each case referred to was about, who the judge was, the decision rendered, and even the dates. It was incredible! He displayed the most competent legal mind of anyone I have ever studied.

He was used as an example in a speech class I taught. I greatly admired him. But that admiration has nose-dived, especially during these last few days [as] he has ruled exactly as the Communist Party dictated which would be in their interest:

A ruling that greatly affects our economy by being forced to grant loans for those who are not employed, to make certain that the government controls the health care of all citizens, and now this latest ruling which is a slap at the church, and God, since churches are illegal in any Marxist, Communist led countries. We are almost there.

The responses from various news sites express outrage, with calls to ‘lock and load,’ with many more calling for Revolt. That of course can be done without ‘locking and loading.’

Let’s call it” RemoveEveryViciousOscillatingLyingTraitor.  That’s REVOLT.

And how can we accomplish this? Flood House speaker John Boehner with phone calls, emails and regular mail, telling him it is his duty to call in the Sgt. at Arms to remove Obama from office for defying the Constitution, not once, but many, many times.  That is a legitimate law to remove a traitorous “president.” We must demand that now.

This is the path to begin. This procedure is legally set up. Use it.  Rise and act NOW. There is little time left.

 

 

SCOTUS Failure Casts Doubt On Court’s Support Of The Second Amendment

Posted by  on BEARINGARMS.COM

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a lower court ruling that requires gun owners in San Francisco to keep their guns locked up and bans the sale of hollowpoint ammunition in what can only be viewed as judicial cowardice:

The refusal to review the case of Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco was the latest in a string of such orders, declining to clarify the personal right to have a gun, first established seven years ago and extended nationwide five years ago, but not explained further in the years since. Once again, as is its custom, the Court did not explain why it was choosing to remain on the sidelines.

In the 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court had ruled that the right created by the Second Amendment included a right to have a gun for one’s own use in self-defense, at least within the home, and with such a weapon in a condition allowing it to be quickly used. That is the right that the Court said applied all across the country, in the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago. But McDonald marked the last time the Court had spoken on the amendment’ s reach.

Much of the uncertainty that has spread to courts across the country has involved the core question whether the personal right extends anywhere beyond the home. That has been the issue that the Justices have most often declined to sort out. The San Francisco case, however, sought to bring the Court back inside the home, to determine how far government could go to regulate access to a weapon there.

Under the city-county ordinance at issue, a handgun in the home could be carried on the body of the person, but otherwise had to be stored in a locked container or else disabled with a trigger lock. The right to carry a handgun within the home was restricted to those over the age of eighteen.

Lower federal courts had upheld those restrictions, despite gun-owners’ claims that the ordinance directly contradicted the access that the Court supposedly had assured in the Heller decision. The main rationale for upholding the ordinance was the need to prevent gun-related accidents within the home.

Six San Franciscans who own guns, and want easy access to them in their homes, asked the Supreme Court to strike down the local law. Their plea argued that the lower courts’ rulings were “perhaps the most direct repudiation of this Court’s holding in Heller since the decision was handed down.”

That was the plea that the Court chose to bypass, over a dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas that was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the majority opinion in the Heller case. The rulings upholding the San Francisco ordinance are “in serious tension with Heller,” the dissenters argued. The Court should have granted review, they contended, “to reiterate that courts may not engage in . . . judicial assessment as to the severity of the burden imposed on core Second Amendment rights.”

Jackson was very similar to Heller in its overreach, and should have been taken up by the court for review. Unfortunately, SCOTUS had cravenly fled every opportunity to further define the borders of the Second Amendment since McDonald.

SEARCHING FOR “MARRIAGE” IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

Reposted from NewswithViews.com

During April 2015, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Obergefell v Hodges and consolidated cases. The questions presented for the Court to decide are: [1]

1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a State to license a marriage of two people of the same sex?
2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage of two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of state?
[2]

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.” [emphasis mine] [3]

Obviously, §1 says nothing about “marriage” or “homosexuality”. So how can it be said to authorize the supreme Court to FORCE States to accept same sex marriage?

Simple! All they have to do is redefine “liberty” in §1 to get it to mean whatever they need it to mean in order to get the result they want in the cases before them.

And that is precisely what the supreme Court has been doing. In Roe v. Wade (1973), they looked at the word, “liberty”, in §1 and said it means “privacy”, and “privacy” means you can kill your baby. The Court said under Part VIII of their Opinion:

“…This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is … is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy…”

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), they looked at the word, “liberty”, in §1 and said it means “consulting adults have the right to engage in private acts of homosexual sodomy”:

“We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment…” (1st para under II)

“…The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct …” (3rd para up from end) [emphasis mine]

Do you see? The supreme Court uses the word, “liberty”, in §1 of the 14th Amendment to justify practices they approve of and want to force everybody else to accept.[4]

And by claiming that these practices constitute “liberty rights” which arise under §1 of the 14th Amendment, they evade the constitutional limits on their judicial power.

I’ll show you.

The Judicial Power of the Federal Courts is Strictly Limited by The Constitution!

The Constitution does not permit federal courts to hear any case the Judges want to hear. Instead, a case must fall within one of a few categories before federal courts have jurisdiction to hear it.

Article III, §2, clause 1, lists the cases federal courts have the delegated authority to hear. They may hear only cases:

1. Arising under the Constitution, or the Laws of the United States, or Treaties made under the Authority of the United States [“federal question” jurisdiction];

2. Affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; cases of admiralty & maritime Jurisdiction; or cases in which the U.S. is a Party [“status of the parties” jurisdiction]; and

3. Cases between two or more States; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States; and certain cases between a State and Citizens of another State or Citizens or Subjects of a foreign State [“diversity” jurisdiction].

Alexander Hamilton writes in Federalist No. 83 (8th para):

“…the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction…” [emphasis mine]

If a case does not fit within one of these categories, federal courts may not lawfully hear it.

In Federalist No. 80, Hamilton explains the categories of cases over which federal Courts have jurisdiction.

Since the “right” to same sex marriage is claimed to arise under §1 of the 14th Amendment, we will focus on Hamilton’s discussion of cases “arising under this Constitution”; or, as Hamilton puts it, cases:

“…which concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union…” (2nd para) [emphasis mine]

“Expressly contained”. Hamilton then gives examples of such cases: If a State violates the constitutional provisions which prohibit States from imposing duties on imported articles, or from issuing paper money [Art. I, §10], the federal courts are in the best position to overrule infractions which are “in manifest contravention of the articles of Union. [i.e., Constitution]”

Do you see?

So! Where are provisions addressing marriage and homosexuality “expressly contained” in our Constitution?

The answer any competent 8th grader should be able to give is, “Nowhere!”

Fabrication of “constitutional rights” in order to Usurp Judicial Power.

So now you see how Justices on the supreme Court evaded the constitutional limits on their judicial Power: They fabricated individual “constitutional rights” so that they could then pretend that the cases “arise under the Constitution”!

But power over abortion, homosexuality, and marriage is nowhere in our Constitution delegated to the national government over the Country at Large.[5]

The supreme Court has usurped power over these objects. Their opinions are void for lack of jurisdiction and are proper objects of nullification.[6]

It is time for The People and The States to man-up and smack down the supreme Court. Scrape the Court’s barnacles off Our Constitution! State Legislatures must make laws directing all State and local governments and Citizens to ignore such usurpatious opinions of the supreme Court.

© 2015 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

Endnotes:

1. The briefs of the parties are HERE. The Questions Presented are set forth on pages 2 & 3.
2. If a same-sex marriage is contracted in one State pursuant to the laws of that State, are other States obligated, under the “full faith and credit clause”, to acknowledge the marriage as valid? Article IV, §1 states:

“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” [boldface mine]

At the time of our Framing, “marriage” does not appear to have been encompassed within “public Act or record”. In Federalist No. 42 (next to last para), Madison comments on the clause in connection with criminal and civil justice. An Act of the First Congress (May 26, 1790) which implemented the clause addresses laws made by State legislatures. An amendment to the 1790 Act (March 27, 1804), addresses “records” which may be kept in any public office of the State. But this cannot have included marriage records because a number of the original 13 States recognized common law marriage. And even for States which required formalities (e.g., Virginia), marriages could be accomplished by publication of banns and subsequent recordation in church and parish records – which were not “public records”. Marriage licenses issued by the States were a later development. The meaning of the clause which prevailed when the Constitution was drafted and ratified remains until changed by formal Amendment to the Constitution. So the full faith and credit clause does NOT require States to recognize marriages contracted under the laws of other States.
3. Professor Raoul Berger shows in Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, that the purpose of §1 of the 14th Amendment was to extend citizenship to freed slaves and protect them from southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights.

Professor Berger shows in Chapter 11 (page 222 of his book) that “due process” is a term with a “precise technical import” going back to the Magna Charta. It means that a person’s life, liberty or property can’t be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers pursuant to a fair trial! Berger stresses that “due process of law” refers only to trials – to judicial proceedings in courts of justice. It does not involve judicial power to override State Laws!

In short, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment was to protect freed slaves from being lynched, imprisoned, or having their stuff taken away except pursuant to the judgment of their peers after a fair trial! It had nothing to do with “liberating” the American People from moral laws established thousands of years ago.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is badly written, uses vague terminology, and violates the “expressly contained” rule. One has to read, as Professor Berger did, the discussions in Congress and the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1864 to know what § 1 is about. But our moral and spiritual decline began in the early 1800s; from there, intellectual collapse quickly follows.
4. They even claim the right to keep on redefining “liberty” to include additional practices they might in the future want to force everyone to accept. They said in Lawrence v. Texas:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom. (majority opinion, next to last para) [emphasis mine].

5. Because Congress has “exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” over the federal enclaves described at Art. I, §8, next to last clause; Congress may make laws addressing these objects for those limited geographical areas. See also Art. IV, §3, cl 2. And pursuant to Art. I, §8, cl. 14, Congress may make laws addressing these objects for active duty military personnel.
6. The short and clear paper HERE proves that nullification of unconstitutional acts of the national government is the remedy advised by our Framers. One cannot honestly dispute this.

Supreme Court upholds American flag ban–for Cinco de Mayo

mexico

The Supreme Court quietly declined to hear a new case, involving a San Francisco-area high school, who banned students from wearing an American flag t-shirt on Cinco de Mayo.

Back on May 5, 2010–Cinco de Mayo–staff members at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, California, told several students that they had to change out of patriotic-colored clothing, because it could incite violence–apparently from the school’s Hispanic population. Some students refused–with two even choosing to return home, rather than turn their shirts inside-out.

Live Oak High School struggled with gang tensions, which tended to break down by race: white vs. Hispanic. They feared that, by wearing patriotic clothing during an event celebrating a Mexican holiday, Cinco de Mayo, they would be exacerbating those racial tensions.

The parents of three affected students–Daniel Galli, Matt Dariano, and Dominic Maciel–filed the lawsuit on their behalf.

Their lawyers argued that Live Oak High School violated their free speech–by censoring their clothing.

But the notoriously liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, ruled against them, deciding that Live Oak High School authorities acting out of legitimate concerns of violence.

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court essentially agreed. By refusing to hear this case, the 9th Circuit Court decision stands as the official ruling in the case.

This case represents the worst of liberalism: the idea that American imagery, like our flag, should be censored as to not “offend.”

Last month, student government members at University of California-Irvine tried to ban the flag from their (taxpayer-funded) office–but, after nationwide outcry, were overruled by university officials. Their logic was that the flag is “divisive” and reminds minority students of “colonialism.”
At both UC-Irvine and Live Oak High School, none of the alleged “victims” of the American flag complained before the ban.