[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 U.S. Constitution See other U.S. Constitution Articles Title: The Lone Man Resisting Judicial Tyranny Source: afa URL Source: http://www.afa.net/the-stand/news/2 ... an-resisting-judicial-tyranny/ Published: May 9, 2016 Author: Bryan Fischer Post Date: 2016-07-04 13:06:24 by Dead Culture Watch Keywords: Zombies Views: 5154 Comments: 26 By: Bryan FischerPosted: Monday, May 9, 2016 1:08 PM Select Language​▼ Bryan FischerHost of "Focal Point" Connect Follow More Articles If Judge Moore goes down, the last vestige of true freedom will go down with him. - Bryan Fischer The Constitution gives absolutely no authority, none, to the federal government to dictate marriage policy to the states. You can read the Constitution left to right, right to left, backwards, upside down while hanging from the ceiling, and in Sanskrit and you will not find the word “marriage” in there anywhere. That means under the Founders’ Constitution - not the Constitution as mangled and shredded by the judiciary - marriage is an issue reserved exclusively for the states. When the Obergefell case was decided by the Supreme Court, its ruling legally applied only to the plaintiffs before it, as is true in any case before any court. The concept of “judicial review” - in which the Court, and not Congress, gets to decide what the law is - is not found in the Constitution anywhere. It was invented out of the ether by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803 as a way for the Court to grant dictatorial authority to itself over the freedom-loving Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was well aware of the lethal results to our republican form of government if the concept of judicial review were ever accepted. The Court would become a super-legislature where laws would be made rather than applied. His warnings were prescient but went unheeded. Lincoln echoed Jefferson when he declared that if we ever accept the conceit that the Supreme Court has the final word on any subject, the people will have “ceased to be their own rulers.” His warning likewise went unheeded. Until, that is, Judge Roy Moore, chief justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama came along. Judge Moore seems to be the only jurist in America who understands the constitutional limits to the Supreme Court’s authority. The Supreme Court’s authority is only supreme in cases in which it has jurisdiction according to Article III, and only with respect to the plaintiffs before it. Judge Moore quite correctly observed that Alabama was not a litigant before the Court in the same sex marriage controversy that led to the Obergefell opinion. So while the 16 couples who were before the Court in Obergefell can get their “marriage” licenses, its ruling has no binding authority on the state of Alabama. Abraham Lincoln said exactly the same thing with regard to the obscene Dred Scott opinion. He accepted the Court’s ruling with regard to Scott and his owner, but flatly denied that the Court’s ruling had any binding or precedential effect anywhere else in the Union. So Judge Moore fulfilled his sacred oath of office to uphold the federal Constitution (which leaves marriage to the states) and the Alabama state constitution (which defines marriage as a man-woman institution) by declaring that same-sex-marriage is still illegal in the state of Alabama. In other words, the only judge in the entire marriage debacle who is actually following the Constitution is Judge Roy Moore. And he’s about to be disrobed and defrocked for having the temerity to actually do what he was sworn into office to do: “The Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission on Friday filed ethics charges against Moore, saying that the state chief justice abused the power of his office and displayed disrespect for the judiciary. Moore, 69, has been automatically suspended from the bench until there is a resolution.” Moore is being represented by Mat Staver, the attorney who so capably and resolutely stood with Kim Davis, the county clerk who was imprisoned for her faith by a federal judge in Kentucky. Constitutional liberty now has just one lone judicial defender in America. If Judge Moore goes down, the last vestige of true freedom will go down with him. We truly will no longer be citizens but serfs, abjectly submissive to our judicial overlords. Judge Roy Moore has picked up the banner of constitutional liberty and is standing resolutely against our black-robed tyrants. Who will rally behind him? Poster Comment: Figured this place needed another zombie thread. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 10. #9. To: Dead Culture Watch, tpaine (#0) [Bryan Fischer - Article] The Constitution gives absolutely no authority, none, to the federal government to dictate marriage policy to the states. [...] When the Obergefell case was decided by the Supreme Court, its ruling legally applied only to the plaintiffs before it, as is true in any case before any court. [...] The Supreme Court’s authority is only supreme in cases in which it has jurisdiction according to Article III, and only with respect to the plaintiffs before it. Judge Moore quite correctly observed that Alabama was not a litigant before the Court in the same sex marriage controversy that led to the Obergefell opinion. So while the 16 couples who were before the Court in Obergefell can get their “marriage” licenses, its ruling has no binding authority on the state of Alabama. Abraham Lincoln said exactly the same thing with regard to the obscene Dred Scott opinion. He accepted the Court’s ruling with regard to Scott and his owner, but flatly denied that the Court’s ruling had any binding or precedential effect anywhere else in the Union. If you desire to know what the law is, I recommend reading lawbooks, not the online blatherings of Bryan Fisher, whoever he is. If you desire to know what Abraham Lincoln said, I recommend the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln or any other good collection of the speeches and writings of Lincoln. If you desire to know what was held, what was opinion and dicta, and how the Court decided the case of Scott v. Sandford, I recommend reading the opinions in the case. Unlike the Bill of Rights, the sloppily drafted 14th Amendment speaks in undefined generalities and give an appearance similar to an Omnibus Bill rather than a constitutional amendment. It should not have been adopted in such form, it's adoption was very irregular to say the least, it has unintended consequences, and it should be repealed and redone if desired. That said, it is part of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment provides in relevant part: 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 laws. What are the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, as opposed to the priviliges and immunities of citizens of a member state of the United States? It does not apply the BoR to the States, it applies "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" against the States. Due process of law differs from state to state and is whatever process the law says is due. The equal protection of the laws arguably can be stretched to cover Obergefell. The Court so stretched it. If Judge Moore actually thinks the opinion Obergefell only applies to Obergefell, and has no binding authority in Alabama, he should be removed from the bench and disbarred. And no, Lincoln did not say the same thing with regard to the Dred Scott case. While Fischer fails to quote or identify what Lincoln said, or when, Lincoln said: Lincoln, Speech at Springfield, Illinois, June 26, 1857 And now as to the Dred Scott decision. That decision declares two propositions—first, that a negro cannot sue in the U.S. Courts; and secondly, that Congress cannot prohibit slavery in the Territories. It was made by a divided court—dividing differently on the different points. Judge Douglas does not discuss the merits of the decision; and, in that respect, I shall follow his example, believing I could no more improve on McLean and Curtis, than he could on Taney. He denounces all who question the correctness of that decision, as offering violent resistance to it. But who resists it? Who has, in spite of the decision, declared Dred Scott free, and resisted the authority of his master over him? Judicial decisions have two uses—first, to absolutely determine the case decided, and secondly, to indicate to the public how other similar cases will be decided when they arise. For the latter use, they are called "precedents'' and "authorities.'' We believe, as much as Judge Douglas, (perhaps more) in obedience to, and respect for the judicial department of government. We think its decisions on Constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control, not only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the Constitution as provided in that instrument itself. More than this would be revolution. But we think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it, has often over-ruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it to over-rule this. We offer no resistance to it. Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents, according to circumstances. That this should be so, accords both with common sense, and the customary understanding of the legal profession. If this important decision had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and had been in no part, based on assumed historical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in some of these, it had been before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and re-affirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, to not acquiesce in it as a precedent. But when, as it is true we find it wanting in all these claims to the public confidence, it is not resistance, it is not factious, it is not even disrespectful, to treat it as not having yet quite established a settled doctrine for the country—But Judge Douglas considers this view awful. [...] There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races; and Judge Douglas evidently is basing his chief hope, upon the chances of being able to appropriate the benefit of this disgust to himself. [...] But Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: agreed for once—a thousand times agreed. [...] This very Dred Scott case affords a strong test as to which party most favors amalgamation, the Republicans or the dear Union-saving Democracy. Dred Scott, his wife and two daughters were all involved in the suit. We desired the court to have held that they were citizens so far at least as to entitle them to a hearing as to whether they were free or not; and then, also, that they were in fact and in law really free. Could we have had our way, the chances of these black girls, ever mixing their blood with that of white people, would have been diminished at least to the extent that it could not have been without their consent. But Judge Douglas is delighted to have them decided to be slaves, and not human enough to have a hearing, even if they were free, and thus left subject to the forced concubinage of their masters, and liable to become the mothers of mulattoes in spite of themselves—the very state of case that produces nine tenths of all the mulattoes---all the mixing of blood in the nation. Of course, I state this case as an illustration only, not meaning to say or intimate that the master of Dred Scott and his family, or any more than a per centage of masters generally, are inclined to exercise this particular power which they hold over their female slaves. I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform—opposition to the spread of slavery—is most favorable to that separation. Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization; and no political party, as such, is now doing anything directly for colonization. Party operations at present only favor or retard colonization incidentally. The enterprise is a difficult one; but "when there is a will there is a way;'' and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be. Speech at Chicago, Illinois, July 10, 1858 A little now on the other point—the Dred Scott Decision. Another one of the issues he says that is to be made with me, is upon his devotion to the Dred Scott Decision, and my opposition to it. I have expressed heretofore, and I now repeat, my opposition to the Dred Scott Decision, but I should be allowed to state the nature of that opposition, and I ask your indulgence while I do so. What is fairly implied by the term Judge Douglas has used "resistance to the Decision?'' I do not resist it. If I wanted to take Dred Scott from his master, I would be interfering with property, and that terrible difficulty that Judge Douglas speaks of, of interfering with property, would arise. But I am doing no such thing as that, but all that I am doing is refusing to obey it as a political rule. If I were in Congress, and a vote should come up on a question whether slavery should be prohibited in a new territory, in spite of that Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should. That is what I would do. Judge Douglas said last night, that before the decision he might advance his opinion, and it might be contrary to the decision when it was made; but after it was made he would abide by it until it was reversed. Just so! We let this property abide by the decision, but we will try to reverse that decision. We will try to put it where Judge Douglas would not object, for he says he will obey it until it is reversed. Somebody has to reverse that decision, since it is made, and we mean to reverse it, and we mean to do it peaceably. What are the uses of decisions of courts? They have two uses. As rules of property they have two uses. First—they decide upon the question before the court. They decide in this case that Dred Scott is a slave. Nobody resists that. Not only that, but they say to everybody else, that persons standing just as Dred Scott stands is as he is. That is, they say that when a question comes up upon another person it will be so decided again, unless the court decides in another way, unless the court overrules its decision. Well, we mean to do what we can to have the court decide the other way. That is one thing we mean to try to do. Speech at Springfield, Illinois, July 17, 1858 Now, as to the Dred Scott decision; for upon that he makes his last point at me. He boldly takes ground in favor of that decision. This is one-half the onslaught, and one-third of the entire plan of the campaign. I am opposed to that decision in a certain sense, but not in the sense which he puts on it. I say that in so far as it decided in favor of Dred Scott's master and against Dred Scott and his family, I do not propose to disturb or resist the decision. I never have proposed to do any such thing. I think, that in respect for judicial authority, my humble history would not suffer in a comparison with that of Judge Douglas. He would have the citizen conform his vote to that decision; the Member of Congress, his; the President, his use of the veto power. He would make it a rule of political action for the people and all the departments of the government. I would not. By resisting it as a political rule, I disturb no right of property, create no disorder, excite no mobs. nolu chan  posted on  2016-07-07   20:22:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: nolu chan (#9) Abraham Lincoln said ----- with regard to the --- Dred Scott opinion. (That) He accepted the Court’s ruling with regard to Scott and his owner, but flatly denied that the Court’s ruling had any binding or precedential effect anywhere else in the Union. Nothing in your lengthy spam of the subject refuted the opinion above. And, your comment that: --- Due process of law differs from state to state and is whatever process the law says is due. Is one of the most insane statist opinions I've ever seen. You actually contend that a State in this union can simply pass 'Laws' decreeing what due process it's citizen's are subject to, in disregard of their inalienable/unalienable rights as outlined in our Constitution? Unbelievable. I doubt they even teach crap like that in the most leftist of law schools. tpaine  posted on  2016-07-08   3:23:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 10. #11. To: tpaine (#10) Is one of the most insane statist opinions I've ever seen. You actually contend that a State in this union can simply pass 'Laws' decreeing what due process it's citizen's are subject to, in disregard of their inalienable/unalienable rights as outlined in our Constitution? You are sick. Get help. Each state has its own constitution and criminal laws. Contrary to your desire for an all powerful Federal government, Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. There is plenty of room for difference without bothering the Federal Constitution. Not only can states enact laws establishing due process within a state, each and every state has done so. In some states a grand jury is used where in other states it is not. Due process in each state is different. In Louisiana it is very, very different. It uses an entirely different system of jurisprudence than the other 49 states. And remember that Lincoln said: I say that in so far as it decided in favor of Dred Scott's master and against Dred Scott and his family, I do not propose to disturb or resist the decision. nolu chan  posted on  2016-07-08 14:23:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 10. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/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