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

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten

Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam

Terrorists shut down Park Avenue.

Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala.

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US

Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

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


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: 11662
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

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 94.

#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   Untrace   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?

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-04   10:57:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   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   Untrace   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.

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

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


#64. To: Liberator, SOSO (#26)

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.

He's got you there Jasper.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-06   13:58:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: redleghunter, Liberator (#64)

He's got you there Jasper.

BS, the ends justify the means rationalization rarely, if ever, suffices as a winning argument. But to the contrary he proves my point. He agrees with me that the Consitution has been violated since its beginning. This is exactly my point which he knowingly chose to deflect to something else becuase he was nailed. WTF does the Consitution mean in practice when it can and has been so readily violated virtually since its day one?

He, and apparently you as well, corrupt your position by defending the ends justify the means rationalization. This is pure BS and intellectual dishonest in a pure form. You applaud when the Consitution is violated when you approve of the ends but moan and groan and demand fidelity to the Consitution when you do not approve of the ends. Shame on you, you should know better, Ram.

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-06   14:07:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: SOSO (#67)

He, and apparently you as well, corrupt your position by defending the ends justify the means rationalization.

Monroe and Livingston got a better deal. That deal passed the Senate as a treaty, which is in the Constitution.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-06   17:08:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: redleghunter (#78)

Monroe and Livingston got a better deal.

That was a totally subjective view at the time.

"That deal passed the Senate as a treaty, which is in the Constitution."

Casting the LP as a treaty was a guise, a ruse to give Jefferson and his controlled Congress cover. Besides, BFD. Not too much earlier Congress approved tha Alien and Sedition Act which was clearly unconstitutional.

Flash forward 140 years or so.

"A month later {Feb. 19, 1942}, a reluctant but resigned Roosevelt signed the War Department’s blanket Executive Order 9066, which authorized the physical removal of all Japanese Americans into internment camps. A clearly unconsitutional act.

Further:

"Over 127,000 United States citizens were imprisoned during World War II. Their crime? Being of Japanese ancestry.

Despite the lack of any concrete evidence, Japanese Americans were suspected of remaining loyal to their ancestral land.

Fred Korematsu decided to test the government relocation action in the courts. He found little sympathy there. In Korematsu vs. the United States, the Supreme Court justified the executive order as a wartime necessity. So initially SCOTUS sanctioned the consitutionality of the internment.

But there is more to the story.

"The FBI immediately arrested hundreds of Japanese and German aliens it suspected of disloyalty. However, with West Coast residents living in fear of another attack, many politicians and military men asked the federal government to detain all Japanese immigrants and natural-born citizens of Japanese descent.

The Roosevelt administration debated how it could legally carry out a mass detainment. “Department of Justice representatives raised constitutional and ethical objections to the proposal, so the U.S. Army carried out the task instead,” according to the National Archives’ Our Documents.

On Feb. 19, 1942, Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, allowing the military to create military areas and exclude any persons from those areas at its discretion. These excluded people would be given accommodations provided by the military. The measures were justified, according to the order, because “successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage.”

On March 2, the military designated the western halves of California, Oregon, and Washington, and the southern part of Arizona as military zones. Japanese- Americans were ordered to leave these areas, and Roosevelt soon signed an act allowing the military to forcibly remove those who refused to leave.

“The government made no charges against them, nor could they appeal their incarceration,” according to Our Documents. “All lost personal liberties; most lost homes and property as well.”

Conditions in these camps were poor and Roosevelt himself called them “concentration camps.”

The constitutionality of exclusion was challenged in three Supreme Court cases. In the last two, both decided on Dec. 18, 1944, the court ruled that exclusion itself was constitutional, but exclusion of loyal citizens was not. The War Relocation Authority had just prior to the decisions decided to begin closing camps, a process that lasted until 1946, after World War II had ended."

So SCOTUS finally came around to defend the Constitution. It didn't happen earlier because most "real Americans" and all of Congress did not protest this unconsitutional action, if fact they applauded it as hatred for the Japanese was to sentiment of the day.

Once again the ends justify the means rationalization was used to shatter the Constitution. No-one spoke up for the U.S. citizens that happened to be of Japanese decent. So just as with the Alien and Sedition Act 140 years earlier, FDR's act being uncosntitutional didn't stop it from being implemented (or from being initially formally sanctioned by SCOTUS).

But fear not, our Govenrment made things right in the end.

"In 1948, the Federal government distributed a mere $37 million in reparations, but in 1988 after 40 years of political agitation, Japanese Americans persuaded Congress to approve legislation providing an official apology and an additional payment of $20,000 to each surviving internee.

How great we are, no? How great the Consitution in preventing this, no?

MORAL OF THE STORY: Not every act of POTUS, Congress and/or SCOTUS is Consitutional. Unconsitutional actions have become the law of the land and remained so for decades, if not centuries. In the case of the LP, this unconsitutional act will never be reversed as it is too much of the fabric of the country.

Did you ever wonder why Obama studied Consitutional Law? What do you think he learned from the examples of Adams, Jefferson, and most Presidents through FDR and beyond? He is playing the game exceedingly well to his advantage and Congress continues to give him cover to do so inspite of the REPS controlling both Houses of the Congress. Bizarre? Not really, as those that do not know history are condemned to repeat it.

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-06   22:04:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: SOSO, redleghunter (#82)

MORAL OF THE STORY: Not every act of POTUS, Congress and/or SCOTUS is Consitutional.

No. The MORAL OF THE STORY is that it was absurd to compare the THOUSANDS of subversive treasonous unconstitutional acts of Brock 0bummer with the SINGLE act of Thomas Jefferson's you claim was "unconstitutional," citing flimsy, questionable evidence.

In the case of the LP, this unconsitutional act will never be reversed as it is too much of the fabric of the country.

Who cares? IS it still your contention that The Louisiana Purchase was somehow is a bad thing for America? That TJ "stole" it? And that IT somehow enabled 0bummer to wipe his arse with the USCON?

Did you ever wonder why 0buma studied Consitutional Law?

Only a rumor, and most likely a lie. According to 0bummer, Dems, libs and Wiki, he's a "scholar." Obviously another lie.

What do you think he learned from the examples of Adams, Jefferson, and most Presidents through FDR and beyond?

Ok, I'll concede his picked up a few tricks fron klintoon and Dubya. Other than engaging in a raw display of blatant dictatorship, the Constitution for 0bummer is kindling.

What he's "learned" best, he learned from Nero...Stalin and Hitler. One last point -- SCOTUS' nine black-robed partisan hacks -- owned and bought by special subversive interests -- are the current final arbiters of what is "Constitutional."

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-07   1:53:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#86. To: Liberator, redleghunter (#84)

IS it still your contention that The Louisiana Purchase was somehow is a bad thing for America?

It never was other than an Executive action in violation of the Consitution that help set or contribute to precedence. I challenge you to show that it was anything other that what I claim. You used this as an escape hatch for your indefensible position. Nice try at deflection but it didn't work.

"That TJ "stole" it?"

It never said this or anything of the kind and I challenge you to show that I even implied this. You used this as an escape hatch for your indefensible position. Nice try at deflection but it didn't work.

"And that IT somehow enabled 0bummer to wipe his arse with the USCON?

Yes, to illustrate the whole host of such violations starting with Washington right through to the present. I used the LP to illustrate how POTUS, Congres and our SCOTUS has been abusing the COnsitution virtually since the beginng. It seems that you have difficulty in grasping concepts, especially abstraction (the quality of dealing with ideas rather than events).

Good luck to you.

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-07   11:30:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: SOSO, redleghunter (#86)

I challenge you to show that it was anything other that what I claim.

You claimed Jefferson = 0buma in the context of constitutional governance. I'd challenge that ridiculous claim until Doomsday.

You DID imply or infer that TJ unconstitutionally and illegally plotted to steal the Land acquired through the Louisiana Purchase, even going as far as claiming ONLY New Orleans was a constitutionally sanctioned "purchase." But let me humor your theory for a moment; What then was Jefferson's motive?

ME: [Are you conceding] Jefferson's act of facilitating The Louisiana Purchase enabled 0bummer to wipe his arse with the USCON?]

Yes, to illustrate the whole host of such violations starting with Washington right through to the present. I used the LP to illustrate how POTUS, Congres and our SCOTUS has been abusing the Consitution virtually since the beginng.

So now it's your further contention that the acts of American Founders Washington as well as Jefferson have pave the way for 0buma, Congress, and SCOTUS to declare war on the Constitution AND We The People?

THAT is a dog that won't hunt.

Here's one simple observation most people make in life; Some rules are bent. Others are smashed into a million pieces. You can't seem to make that distinction. To you, going 26 MPH in a 25 Zone is the same as going 100 MPH in the same zone.

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-07   12:12:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: Liberator (#88)

You claimed Jefferson = 0buma in the context of constitutional governance.

Again, I never made such a claim. I merely pointed out that Obama had ample histroical precedence fo bending, if not breaking, the Consitution and that a Consitutional attorney he was well studied on how to do it. Sorry, you continuing attempts at defelction are still not working.

But I will stop pulling the wings off of flies and help you out. In the context of my real statements (not your attemped distortions) tell me what you think about the Consitutionality of the Alien and Sedition Acts advocated (and signed) by John Adams and passed by Congress? Did Adams, with the aid of Congress, shatter the Consitution? Did anyone challenge it with SOCTUS?

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-07   12:26:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: SOSO (#90)

You claimed Jefferson = 0buma in the context of constitutional governance.

Again, I never made such a claim. I merely pointed out that 0bama had ample histroical precedence fo bending, if not breaking, the Consitution and that a Consitutional attorney he was well studied on how to do it.

Ok. So again you're merely blaming Thomas Jefferson....for the acts of 0buma. AND that somehow 0buma "studied" Jefferson in order to "borrow" his template of cratering the US Constitution repeatedly, with gusto, with contempt. GOTCHA. Oh, BTW:

#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 0bama!!

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

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

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-07   12:39:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 94.

#96. To: Liberator (#94)

Ok. So again you're merely blaming Thomas Jefferson....for the acts of 0buma.

You can't possibly be that dense. Or maybe so? Good luck to you.

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-07 12:51:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 94.

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