[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: High court on verge of destroying the family
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: May 4, 2015
Author: James Dobson
Post Date: 2015-05-04 07:02:10 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 11573
Comments: 99

Dear Friends,

May I urge you to read this letter carefully? It has been written with a fervent prayer that you will recognize the urgency it conveys. It deals with a decision that is about to be announced by the U.S. Supreme Court, dealing with the definition of marriage. In late June or early July, the justices will reveal their decision to either affirm the definition of marriage as being exclusively between one man and one woman, or it will redefine this institution to include same-sex unions. If marriage is to be reconfigured in the law, which court-watchers predict is almost certain, every dimension of the culture will be adversely affected. It will be one of the most momentous rulings in U.S. history, tantamount to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. As we know, that terrible ruling 42 years ago divided the nation irreparably and has resulted in the deaths of 58 million babies.

I do not recall a time when the institutions of marriage and the family have faced such peril, or when the forces arrayed against them were more formidable or determined. Barring a miracle, the family that has existed since antiquity will likely crumble, presaging the fall of Western civilization itself. This is a time for concerted prayer, divine wisdom and greater courage than we have ever been called upon to exercise.

For more than 50 years, the homosexual activist movement has sought to implement a master plan that has had as its centerpiece the destruction or redesign of the family. Many of these objectives have largely been realized, including widespread support of the gay lifestyle, discrediting of Scriptures that condemn homosexuality or sexual immorality, muzzling of the clergy and Christian media, inclusion of gays and lesbians in all branches of the military, granting of special privileges and rights in the law, overturning laws prohibiting pedophilia, indoctrinating children and future generations through public education, and securing all the legal benefits of marriage for any two or more people who claim to have homosexual tendencies. By promoting what is known as LGBT, we must remember that the “B” stands for bisexuality. That would include acceptance of sexual relations between both genders in groups and among every category of sexual expression outside the bonds of marriage. Now the proponents of LGBT seek to legalize gay and lesbian marriage, which could mean anything or nothing in a few years.

These objectives seemed unthinkable just a few years ago, but they are now within reach. We in North America and Europe are not simply “slouching towards Gomorrah,” as Judge Robert Bork warned in his best-selling book; we are hurtling toward it. The old earthen dam that has held and protected the reservoir of Judeo-Christian values since the days of our Founding Fathers has given way. Traditional marriage is the last bulwark to fall.

Let’s put this issue in perspective. The institution of the family is one of the Creator’s most marvelous and enduring gifts to humankind. It was revealed to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and then described succinctly in Genesis 2:24, where we read, “For this cause, a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh.” With those 20 words, God announced the ordination of male-female marriage, long before He established the two other great human institutions, the church and 
the government.

At least 5,000 years have come and gone since that point of origin, yet every civilization in the history of the world has been built upon it. Despite today’s skeptics who claim that marriage is an outmoded and narrow- minded Christian concoction, the desire of men and women to “leave” and “cleave” has survived and thrived through times of prosperity, famine, wars, peace, epidemics, tyranny, and every other circumstance and human condition. It has been the bedrock of culture in Asia, Africa, Europe, North America, South America, Australia and even Antarctica. Given this history, one might begin to suspect that something mystical exists within human nature that draws the sexes together – not just for purposes of reproduction as with animals – but to satisfy an inexpressible longing for spiritual bonding. Indeed, how can it be doubted? Clearly, our loving Creator placed the desire for intimacy and companionship deep within men and women – and referred to everything he had made and pronounced it “very good” (Genesis 1:31).

Admittedly, there have been various societies in history where homosexuality has flourished, including the biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, in ancient Greece and in the Roman Empire. None of these civilizations survived. Furthermore, even where sexual perversion was tolerated or flourished, the institution of marriage continued to be honored in law and custom. Only in the last few years has what is called “gay marriage” been given equal status with biblical male-female unions. In fact, to date only 18 countries in the world recognize the legitimacy of same-sex marriage. America appears on the verge of becoming No. 19. God help us if we throw the divine plan for humankind on the ash heap of history.

The impact of experimenting with the meaning of marriage is no longer speculative. We can see where it leads by observing what has happened in Scandinavian countries. Leaders in Norway, Denmark and Sweden first embraced de facto marriages between homosexuals in the 1990s. The consequences for families in those countries were devastating. The institution of marriage began dying, with most young couples cohabitating or choosing to remain single. More than 80 percent of children in some areas of Norway were and continue to be born out of wedlock. It appears that tampering with the ancient plan for males and females spells doom for the family and for everything related to it.

To put it concisely, marriage represents the very foundation of human social order. Everything of value sits on that base. Institutions, governments, prosperity, religious liberty and the welfare of children are all dependent on its stability. When it is weakened or undermined, the entire superstructure begins to wobble. That is exactly what has happened during the last 45 years. The American people didn’t demand the sea change that is occurring. In fact, the populations in 31 states voted individually on the definition of marriage. Every one of them affirmed it as being exclusively between a man and a woman. Those proclamations were ensconced in their state constitutions.

Now, however, many of those popular elections are being overridden by imperious federal judges who are changing the course of history. In mid- 2012, only six states had legalized same-sex marriage. Now, three years later, there are 37, and the Supreme Court is poised to make it 50! Whatever happened to Abraham Lincoln’s pronouncement in the Gettysburg Address that ours is a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”? It is rapidly being replaced by a government “of the courts, by the courts, and for the courts.”

How did this happen to us? How could such a great and freedom-loving people have allowed themselves to be dominated by a handful of unelected, unaccountable, arrogant and often godless federal judges, who have been appointed for life and continue to violate the democratic process? It is an ominous development. Was it the desire of the Founding Fathers when they designed this great representative form of government? Hardly!

Thomas Jefferson warned repeatedly about the emergence of an out-of-control judiciary that would destroy the Constitution and, along with it, America’s fundamental freedoms. He first became alarmed when, in 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision called Marbury v. Madison. It allowed the justices to rule on the constitutionality of every legal issue, both inside and outside the government, giving themselves unrivaled imperial power. The concept of “checks and balances” that was intended to keep one branch from eclipsing the other two was no longer in force – at least not with regard to the judiciary.

When Jefferson recognized the full implications of the Marbury decision, he wrote this prophetic statement: “It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

BINGO! What we have today, 235 years later, is an oligarchy (meaning rule by a small cadre of elites). The courts simply strike down laws and policies they don’t like, whether their opinions reflect the provisions of the Constitution or not. Furthermore, the activist judges and those who support them have turned the Constitution into what they call “a living, breathing document,” in which its actual words no longer mean what they say. The Constitution “evolves,” they tell us, to fit the biases of the court. The people are no longer given the opportunities to vote on issues that matter to them, or to elect representatives who will do their bidding. That is not what the Founding Fathers designed for us.

The Marbury decision in 1803 continued to agitate Jefferson for many years. Nearly two decades later he wrote: “The Constitution … is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” “It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression … that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”

Jefferson issued one more warning in 1823, just three years before his death. This time, however, he was not simply predicting the rise of an imperious court; by then he had observed it firsthand. Jefferson said, “At the establishment of our constitution, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous. …”

Now, the misfortune that worried Jefferson has produced for us a culture of death that is steeped in moral relativism. We are victims in our day of the grab for power that should have been squelched two centuries ago. Since then, the Supreme Court has overridden the will of the people, regularly and without apology. Every time the justices convene as a body it is like a mini-constitutional convention in which the meaning of the foundational document is changed without the consent of the governed. Henceforth, their pronouncements are the ultimate law of the land.

Let’s get to the bottom line. If the U.S. Supreme Court redefines marriage to include same-sex unions, I guarantee you that it will not be the end of the matter. An avalanche of court cases will be filed on related issues that can’t even be imagined today. Here are a few that we can foresee:

1. Religious liberty will be assaulted from every side. You can be certain that conservative churches will be dragged into court by the hundreds. Their leaders will be required to hire people who don’t share the beliefs of their denominations and constituents. Pastors may have to officiate at same-sex marriages, and they could be prohibited from preaching certain passages of Scripture. Those who refuse to comply will not only be threatened legally, but many will be protested and picketed by activists. Perhaps this is a worst-case scenario, but maybe not. Prison is also a possibility.

2. Christian businesses and ministries will be made to dance to the government’s tune. We’ve all seen examples of photographers, bakeries and florists being required to serve at gay weddings, on penalty of closure or bankruptcy. This kind of legal oppression is coming all across the nation.

3. Christian colleges may be unable to teach scriptural views of marriage. Any nonprofit Christian organization that opposes same-sex unions, including our own, will likely lose its tax-exempt status. Many will be forced to close their doors.

Do these consequences sound draconian to you? If so, consider an editorial published in the New York Times a few weeks ago. It was written by liberal columnist Frank Bruni, who insisted that Christians must be “made” to change their church doctrines on sexual morality. He actually wrote, “Church leaders must be made to take homosexuality off their sin list.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, wrote this in response to Bruni’s statement: “These activists aren’t after a ‘live-and- let-live’ policy. They’re on a march to force all Americans to celebrate and affirm what they do under the penalty of law.”

Indeed. I wonder if Frank Bruni has read the Bill of Rights in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Now let’s look at what the law may require of parents and their children in the future:

4. Here’s an example of what is to come: A few weeks ago, President Obama actually demanded legislation prohibiting parents from seeking professional therapy to assist their children who were dealing with sexual identity crises. What business does this man have telling parents how to help their confused and disoriented kids even after they have been abused and exploited sexually? This is outrageous! In some states, counselors can lose their licenses if they try to assist their troubled children in this way. These intrusions appear to be forerunners of things to come.

5. Any professional with a state license of any kind may be stripped of his or her right to practice or do business if he or she doesn’t conform to the court’s biases on same-sex relationships.

6. Textbooks for children of all ages will almost certainly be rewritten and republished to illustrate gay and lesbian marriages.

7. The most outrageous interference with parental rights will come from public schools that require children as young as 5 to be taught gay and lesbian concepts. It will matter not that this teaching will contradict the beliefs and convictions of parents. This could become a requirement in every public school by judicial decree. It is already the law in California and Massachusetts.

There are many other things I could write about at this crossroads of history. Let me summarize my concerns this way: Down one path are millions of strong and vibrant families with their children growing up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Down the other path is a nation drifting away from its spiritual roots in a culture that will teach a dangerous ideology to today’s younger generation and those yet to come.

What can we do to save the nation? Prayer is our only hope, but it is a powerful one. Even at this late hour, the Lord could still respond to the petitions of millions of godly people. Shirley and I are among those who are praying for a miracle. Will you join us?

God bless you. And may God bless America.

James C. Dobson, Ph.D.
, President and Founder, 
Family Talk

Before I close, I want to share a portion of a speech given by my great friend, professor Robby P. George. … He is a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University and a graduate of Harvard School of Law. He also has a Ph.D. from Oxford University. He is one of the most brilliant people I know. On Good Friday last year, he spoke to the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast. Professor George is a committed Catholic scholar, and I am an Evangelical, yet I find myself in complete accord with his speech. I hope you will be blessed as you read his address about standing boldly in defense of the Gospel.


Poster Comment: Everyone that supports imaginary "same sex marriage", and those who don't give a shit. They are parasites that need RAID sprayed on them.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)

When Jefferson recognized the full implications of the Marbury decision, he wrote this prophetic statement: “It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

BINGO! What we have today, 235 years later, is an oligarchy (meaning rule by a small cadre of elites). The courts simply strike down laws and policies they don’t like, whether their opinions reflect the provisions of the Constitution or not. Furthermore, the activist judges and those who support them have turned the Constitution into what they call “a living, breathing document,” in which its actual words no longer mean what they say. The Constitution “evolves,” they tell us, to fit the biases of the court. The people are no longer given the opportunities to vote on issues that matter to them, or to elect representatives who will do their bidding. That is not what the Founding Fathers designed for us.


We, have but two ways out of this mess, either Christ comes and raptures His bride, or we use force as demanded of us by the Declaration of Independence.

We can no longer cower and threaten, it is time for either the Lord to rescue us or for we ourselves to rescue the freedom our founders envisioned and enshrined, for our posterity.

The day of hiding behind a few misinterpreted and abused verses, such as "Judge not lest ye be judged" and Romans 13:1-6, are either gone or we surrender to the evil which has become our g0vt.

Digital money has made it impossible for us to take back our nation at the ballot box, now that bribes can be paid to any and all via digital transfers of money into accounts any where in the world, much like your paycheck is direct deposited, except when it comes from the federal reserve there is no value in return other than a congressional or judicial vote. We here in Maine have seen this first hand, we elected Republicans yet our state still finds abortion, we elected Republicans yet we can still not buy ethanol free gas in Maine.

Nationwide we have given control of our congress to republicans, yet more money still goes to the care and providing for illegal alines and then that which goes to honorably discharged veterans including retirement pay and the total cost of the VA.


As long as politicians are allowed by us, to love money, power and sex with underage children more than they fear you and/or their ultimate judgement by Christ, nothing will change, it is up to the men and women of this nation to reverse that.

Rush Limbaugh and the other multi millionaire and billionaire talking heads do a great job of articulating the problem but will not even hint at the only two ways for them to be ended.

I address this response to Christians for it is only true Born Again Christians who believe in the Trinity, the One God with three distinct rolls. Who gave the orders for Saul in first Samuel? Jesus. What caused them to fall to the ground in John 18: 4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon Him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? 5 They answered Him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am He. And Judas also, which betrayed Him, stood with them. 6 As soon then as He had said unto them, I am He, they went backward, and fell to the ground.

Did they fall by themselves? No, God, Jesus, without raising a hand forced them to the ground.

Our g0vt is pure evil, it is the g0vt of satan it is the g0vt of abortion, of euthanasia, of sodomites, of murder, of lies, of corruption, of the pursuance of evil and destruction of both the Word and the word of God.

Ultimately Christ will come and He will rescue those who are left, but let me leave you will a chilling thought concerning those who are not saved, your very own posterity, read carefully what Jesus asked:

In Luke 18:8b Jesus asked this: Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?

If something is not done soon, it will be all but impossible for you to overcome what is taught your children, grandchildren, etc in the public indoctrination centers, the media, the schools, the sports arena etc.

BobCeleste  posted on  2015-05-04   8:32:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: BobCeleste (#1)

We, have but two ways out of this mess, either Christ comes and raptures His bride

It is my opinion that the "rapture" is not biblical.

Here is one reason.

But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Why would God tell us to pray that this doesn't happen in the winter meaning the christians are still here.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-05-04   9:03:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: A K A Stone (#0)

Excellent find.

There are too many salient points to comment on; the re-definition and subversion of "marriage" is a true destroyer of family, country, the sovereignty of personal faith, and of God's own Law. Thanks to individual or panels of fascist judges -- NOT thru the consent of We-The-People -- that is, legislatively.

Jefferson noted almost immediately that an over-officious, activist judiciary would be our undoing:

(After Marbury v. Madison, 1803) “The Constitution … is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please...the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”

In 1823, just three years before his death:

“At the establishment of our constitution, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous. …”

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-04   10:22:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: BobCeleste (#1)

The day of hiding behind a few misinterpreted and abused verses, such as "Judge not lest ye be judged" and Romans 13:1-6, are either gone or we surrender to the evil which has become our g0vt.

THAT is indeed the unrepentant sinners/moral relativists' favorite scripture card to play, isn't it? Purposely and conveniently misinterpreted -- without context.

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-04   10:27:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: A K A Stone (#2)

Marbury v. Madison was a power grab by the Judiciary that went unchallenged by the Executive and Legislative Branches.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

tomder55  posted on  2015-05-04   10:49:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Liberator, A K A Stone (#3)

Jefferson noted almost immediately that an over-officious, activist judiciary would be our undoing:

(After Marbury v. Madison, 1803) “The Constitution … is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please...the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”

Was this before or after Jefferson violated the Consitution himself?

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-04   10:57:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: SOSO (#6)

Was this before or after Jefferson violated the Consitution himself?

How did he do that?

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-05-04   10:57:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: A K A Stone (#7)

Was this before or after Jefferson violated the Consitution himself? How did he do that?

Louisiana Purchase for one.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-04   10:59:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: SOSO (#8)

Louisiana Purchase for one.

I had a feeling you were going to say that.

How is that unconstitutional?

I've heard that before but I disagreed.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-05-04   11:00:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: A K A Stone (#9)

How is that unconstitutional?

I've heard that before but I disagreed.

Read the 10th Amendment. The Constitution does not give the Fed the power to purchase land.

You may disagree but that is the stuff on the nature of the Consitution. Since no authority challenged him he got away with it. The Consitution has been "interpreted" many, many times starting with Washington himself.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-04   11:08:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: SOSO (#10)

The Constitution gives the Presidency the power to negotiate treaties . Jefferson negotiated the terms of the treaty ,and the Senate Ratified the Louisiana Purchase Treaty October 20, 1803. Madison ,one of the authors of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers assured Jefferson that the purchase was Constitutional under strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

tomder55  posted on  2015-05-04   12:09:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: tomder55, SOSO (#5)

Marbury v. Madison was a power grab by the Judiciary that went unchallenged by the Executive and Legislative Branches.

...thus opening Pandora's Box.

Ironic that the power most directly allocated to the People, BY the People, and FOR the People, AND most important -- Congress -- winds up as the most impotent, usurped branch of gubmint.

Coincidence?

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-04   12:24:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: SOSO (#6)

Was this [a Judiciary advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped” ] before or after Jefferson violated the Consitution himself?

Dunno.

In the context of things, were Jefferson's unconstitutional violations and damage to We The Peoples' sovereignty and liberty in any way comparable to the eventual wreckage and usurpation wreaked by the Courts?

The main point remains: That Jefferson's observations of a judiciary that exceeded its jurisdiction back in 1803 WAS and would eventually be "a thief" that would indeed wind up usurping ALL the authority of We the People.

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-04   12:35:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: SOSO, A K A Stone (#8)

Louisiana Purchase for one.

Come on. Seriously.

THAT is your case against Jefferson's "unconstitutional violations" vs. the Judiciary? That's comparing jaywalking to murder. No, it's more than that; It's comparing BUILDING a country to TEARING it down.

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-04   12:38:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: tomder55 (#11)

The Constitution gives the Presidency the power to negotiate treaties . Jefferson negotiated the terms of the treaty

Riiiiiiight...... The Louisiana Purchase was nothung but a land deal.....period. Jefferson himself believe the purchase was unconstitutional but weasled his conscience because "it was for the common good". Heil Jefferson!! Heil Obama!!

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-04   12:41:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: tomder55, SOSO (#11)

The Constitution gives the Presidency the power to negotiate treaties . Jefferson negotiated the terms of the treaty ,and the Senate Ratified the Louisiana Purchase Treaty October 20, 1803. Madison ,one of the authors of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers assured Jefferson that the purchase was Constitutional under strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Interesting.

Who are these days' SCOTUS and activist judges "consulting" when they crater the republic with impunity?

(Answer: Polls, lobbyists, and the devil himself.)

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-04   12:41:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: A K A Stone (#0)

High court on verge of destroying the family

The Supreme Court has been packed with idiots who have no business there but are inclined to make kook decisions to bolster their sense of power and importance. Addionally some of the members have an aggressive countercultural point of view.

The cases defending a sane culture are not adequately presented by lawyers.

rlk  posted on  2015-05-04   12:44:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: A K A Stone (#2)

The warning is to the Jewish people in Israel. God returns to the Jewish people following the Church Age, I.e. after the Rapture. The Jewish people are restricted in their movements at certain times. For example, the Jewish people can do no work or lengthy travel on Sabbeth Days.

Don  posted on  2015-05-04   12:45:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: SOSO, tomder55 (#15)

The Louisiana Purchase was nothung but a land deal.....period. Jefferson himself believe the purchase was unconstitutional but weasled his conscience because "it was for the common good".

What are you saying? That The Louisiana Purchase was a sneaky scam?

Napoleon made Jefferson (and the US) a deal we couldn't refuse. Plus no war was waged over it, PLUS it was "good" for the new republic. It increased our national security while creating wealth and natural resources. Same case as with our "purchase" of Alaska from the Ruskies.

Heil Jefferson!! Heil 0bama!!

You have GOT to be kidding. Comparing ZERO to Jefferson is like comparing Hitler to Reagan.

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-04   12:47:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Liberator, tomder55 (#14)

Ah, the ends justify the means argument. This has been the Democarts core belief since the days of Jefferson 'cause only they know what is best for the country and each of its citizens.

"But in order to buy Louisiana, Jefferson had to change his vision of the Constitution. Initially, Jefferson had believed the Constitution did not permit the acquisition of new territory or its incorporation into the Union as new States. Even before he had sent Monroe to France, Jefferson had raised doubts before his cabinet about the constitutionality of adding territory to the Union. Surprisingly, the Constitution has no express provision providing for the addition of territory. Article IV, section 3 gives Congress the power to “dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”93..........

Jefferson and his cabinet, however, sought refuge in a position that was “virtually indistinguishable” from Hamilton’s arguments in the debates over the Neutrality Proclamation and the Jay Treaty.101 Gallatin argued that: 1st. That the United States as a nation have an inherent right to acquire territory.

2d. That whenever that acquisition is by treaty, the same constituted authorities in whom the treaty-making power is vested have a constitutional right to sanction the acquisition.

3d. That whenever the territory has been acquired, Congress have the power either of admitting into the Union as a new state, or of annexing to a State with the consent of that State, or of making regulations for the government of such territory.102

In other words, the federal government had powers that included the sovereign rights held by all other nations, even if they were not explicitly set out in the Constitution. Gallatin claimed, as had Hamilton, that the treaty power vested the national government with the ability to exercise these inherent national powers. Gallatin’s opinion concluded that the people had implicitly delegated to the national government the authority to acquire territory by vesting it with the powers to make war and treaties, and to govern the territories. This is a broad reading of the executive power because it would allow the President and Senate together to exercise power that is nowhere set out in the Constitution, but must be deduced by examining the rights of other nations in their international affairs. As the primary force in treaty-making, this power would benefit the President.

This was strong drink for a man who believed the Constitution did not allow a national bank. Nevertheless, Jefferson accepted Gallatin’s reasoning, though he predicted that new territory would enter the Union as a matter of “expediency” rather than constitutional principle.103 Perhaps he felt he was making a small compromise when only New Orleans was on the table. When Jefferson learned that Livingston and Monroe had succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, he could not escape his constitutional quandary. To John Dickinson, he admitted that “[o]ur confederation is certainly confined to the limits established by the revolution. The general government has no powers but such as the constitution has given it; and it has not given it a power of holding foreign territory, & still less of incorporating it into the Union.”104

He confessed that “[a]n amendment to the Constitution seems necessary for this.”105

Jefferson did not limit himself to private letters to friends, but expressed his views to his close ally in the Senate, John Breckinridge of Kentucky, in August of that year: “The Executive in seizing the fugitive occurrence which so much advances the good of the country, have done an act beyond the Constitution.”106

Jefferson initially believed that if the Executive were to violate the Constitution for the public good, it would best be done publicly and with the support of the other branches. He would ask Congress to support the unconstitutional act. “The Legislature in casting behind them metaphysical subtleties, and risking themselves like faithful servants, must ratify & pay for it, and throw themselves on their country for doing for them unauthorized what we know they would have done for themselves had they been in a situation to do it.”107

Jefferson believed it was best to openly admit the violation of the Constitution and seek popular support, which he believed was healthier for the constitutional system. “[W]e shall not be disavowed by the nation,” he predicted, “and their act of indemnity will confirm & not weaken the Constitution, by more strongly marking out its lines.”108 Jefferson even went so far as to personally draft at least two constitutional amendments adding the Louisiana territory to the Union.109

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-04   12:58:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: rlk (#17)

The Supreme Court has been packed with idiots who have no business there but are inclined to make kook decisions to bolster their sense of power and importance. Addionally some of the members have an aggressive countercultural point of view.

Moreover, the entire judiciary is saturated with ax-to-grind counter-culture ex-hippie commies, militant Queers, and Feminazis.

This particular SC membership has TWO fascist-activist lesbians (Sotomayer, Kagan), one blackmailed closet queer (Roberts), and one mentally-ill leftist man-hating LGQBT crusader (Bader-Witchburg).

The three so-called "woman" of SCOTUS don't even bother to hide their respective disdain for men and the Equal Protection clause of the hideous 14th Amendment.

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-04   13:02:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Liberator, tomder55, All (#19)

Napoleon made Jefferson (and the US) a deal we couldn't refuse.

Absolutely false. History has it that Jefferson sent Monroe and Livinston to France to buy New Orleans and New Orleans only. Monroe and Livingston exceeded their authority and bought the whole damn thing WITHOUT Jefferson's knowledge, much less consent.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-04   13:06:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: A K A Stone (#20)

ping #20

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-04   13:07:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: SOSO (#20)

I cannot fault Jefferson for this one.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-05-04   13:11:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: A K A Stone (#24)

I cannot fault Jefferson for this one.

What then is the value of the COnstitution when any President and/or Congress can do what they please "for the good of the country"? If you have an ounce of integrity you shouldn't fault Obama for de facto rewriting ObamaCare or any of his executive actions, especially those that de facto rewrite our immigration laws.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-04   13:16:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: SOSO (#20)

Ah, the ends justify the means argument. This has been the Democarts core belief since the days of Jefferson 'cause only they know what is best for the country and each of its citizens.

Aaah, the old "apples = oranges" rebuttal.

So what's your beef? That Jefferson supposedly stole the land bought and ceded in the Louisiana Purchase from the French?? Or that he acted just outside the fringe of the Constitution while ensuring American security and resources? It sure came in handy during the war of 1812, didn't it?

How did that act destroy or usurp US and citizenry sovereignty, liberty, and rights? Answer: It doesn't AT ALL.

Meanwhile, 200+ years of unconstitutionality by the Judiciary has been murdering the republic -- except instead of death by a thousand cuts, it's been death-by-a-MILLION-cuts from Klintoon-thru-Dubya-thru ZERO's regime. PERSONAL LIBERTY AND RIGHTS HAVE BEEN THE CASUALTY.

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-04   13:18:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: SOSO (#22)

History has it that Jefferson sent Monroe and Livinston to France to buy New Orleans and New Orleans only.

"History"? Whose??

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-04   13:19:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Liberator (#26)

So what's your beef?

So what's your beef with Obama's unilateral executive actions that are clearly unconstitutional?

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-04   13:25:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Liberator (#27)

History has it that Jefferson sent Monroe and Livinston to France to buy New Orleans and New Orleans only.

"History"? Whose??

Now you are acting like a fool and have lost the argument. Over and out.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-04   13:26:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: SOSO, Liberator, Redleghunter, All (#22) (Edited)

History has it that Jefferson sent Monroe and Livinston to France to buy New Orleans and New Orleans only. Monroe and Livingston exceeded their authority and bought the whole damn thing WITHOUT Jefferson's knowledge, much less consent.

So what you are saying is that the purchase of New Orleans was within his executive authority ..... But purchasing the rest of the territory wasn't ? Yes he has reservations about the constitutionality . However ,the author of the Constitution convinced him he was wrong as long as the Senate approved the treaty that made the purchase. The House had the authority to deny the funding for the purchase .But they failed on that by 2 votes.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

tomder55  posted on  2015-05-04   14:18:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: tomder55 (#30)

So what you are saying is that the purchase of New Orleans was within his executive authority ..... But purchasing the rest of the territory wasn't ?

I didn't say that at all. How far up your ass did you have to go to find that stupid point of attack?

"However ,the author of the Constitution convinced him he was wrong as long as the Senate approved the treaty that made the purchase. The House had the authority to deny the funding for the purchase .But they failed on that by 2 votes."

What does that have to do with the Consitutionality of a Presidential action? Just look at what Obama has done with just having control of the Senate. Only the President's party can control Obama and it was only Jefferson's party that didn't control Jefferson.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-04   14:56:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: A K A Stone (#2)

It is my opinion that the "rapture" is not biblical.

My friend, at this point, your disbelieve in Rapture is not relevant, it is either Christ fights for us or we fight for ourselves, that is the bottom line, if you don't believe in Rapture, then it only leaves one path open to you.

BobCeleste  posted on  2015-05-04   15:24:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Liberator (#4)

The day of hiding behind a few misinterpreted and abused verses, such as "Judge not lest ye be judged" and Romans 13:1-6, are either gone or we surrender to the evil which has become our g0vt.

THAT is indeed the unrepentant sinners/moral relativists' favorite scripture card to play, isn't it? Purposely and conveniently misinterpreted -- without context.

Yes it is and it traces it routes back to the same that say that Thou shalt not kill, means war and or hunting, neither is correct. The Hebrew word, ratsach, means defenseless human life. Funny how it is those that embrace abortion who want ratsach to mean war and hunting, for it is abortion that is the biggest violator of ratsach in the US.

BobCeleste  posted on  2015-05-04   15:28:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: SOSO (#28)

(So what's your beef?)

So what's your beef with Obama's unilateral executive actions that are clearly unconstitutional?

Answering a question *with* a question didn't help explain your position; Comparing 0buma to Thomas Jefferson in the context of "Constitution" is just ridiculous. Come on, man!

One of the two helped create the Constitution; The other is tearing it to shreds. Only *you* can't tell the difference.

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-04   16:41:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: SOSO (#29)

(History"? Whose??)

Now you are acting like a fool and have lost the argument. Over and out.

Chyeah. *I'm* the "fool" for having the audacity to ask you your source for your authority of history? At least give me a hint; Does it begin with "HUFF and end with "PO"??

For someone who can't tell the difference between 0buma and Thomas Jefferson, my question for your source of "history" was perfectly reasonable. Ready to answer, or are you bailing?

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-04   16:45:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: tomder55, SOSO (#30)

SOSO: "History has it that Jefferson sent Monroe and Livinston to France to buy New Orleans and New Orleans only."

So what you are saying is that the purchase of New Orleans was within his executive authority ..... But purchasing the rest of the territory wasn't ?

SOSO, Tom construed your statement fairly; that you asserted the supposedly authorized purchase was for New Orleans ONLY and NOT the rest of TLP.

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-04   16:59:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: SOSO, tomder55 (#31)

I didn't say that at all. How far up your ass did you have to go to find that stupid point of attack?

15 yard un-sportsman-like conduct penalty.

That wasn't an attack; Just begged for clarification.

Just look at what 0buma has done with just having control of the Senate. Only the President's party can control 0buma and it was only Jefferson's party that didn't control Jefferson.

Are you somehow making the assertion that "controlling" Jefferson's authority with respect to The Louisiana Purchase might have stopped 0bola's fascist, dictatorial over-reach?

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-04   17:09:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: BobCeleste (#33)

It [the "Judge not" card] routes back to the same that say that Thou shalt not kill, means war and or hunting, neither is correct.

Exactamundo. Another cute, often exploited card the Left plays. They never refer to Ecclesiastes ("a time to kill") do they?

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-04   17:16:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Liberator (#38)

It [the "Judge not" card] routes back to the same that say that Thou shalt not kill, means war and or hunting, neither is correct.

Exactamundo. Another cute, often exploited card the Left plays. They never refer to Ecclesiastes ("a time to kill") do they?

nor do they ever explain 1 Samuel 15

BobCeleste  posted on  2015-05-04   17:20:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: BobCeleste (#32)

I too do not believe in a pre-trib "rapture" but the time is here for fight or flight whether it be by your own effort or an escape by otherworldly means. We still must fight for ourselves and our country. To do less is to tempt God in a manner that Yeshua himself would not do by throwing himself off the mountain. We must live like we will be on Earth till a natural death, and our children and grandchildren also. To do less is to not give our all. NO ONE knows the day or the time, but the Father. We can though guess fairly closely on the "season". Whether it be my fervent hope, or misguided wish, it seems that the time for the fact to be known is within this generation.

jeremiad  posted on  2015-05-04   19:50:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (41 - 99) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com