Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.
The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both.
James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution
Legal Experts Blast Judge’s Decision: ‘If National Day of Prayer Is Unconstitutional, the Constitution Is Unconstitutional’
Conservative legal experts say a federal district judge in Wisconsin had no legal basis for declaring the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional – and predict the decision cannot stand. Read full article
Court Rules National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional
A federal district court in Wisconsin ruled on Thursday that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional, a decision that has angered a constitutional law firm that filed an amicus brief defending the National Day of Prayer. Read full article
U.S. Courts Should ‘Download’ International Law into Domestic Law, Obama Nominee Says
Harold Koh, nominated by President Barack Obama to be the State Department’s top legal adviser, once argued that U.S. federal court judges – including the Supreme Court – are the “critical link” between international and domestic law and play a critical role in bringing international norms into force as domestic law. Read full article
Frontrunner for Supreme Court Believes Constitution Grows 'With the Times'
Judge Diane Wood, reported to be on President Obama’s short list of possible nominees to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court, believes a judge's interpretation of what the Constitution means must "grow with the times." Read full article
Obama Pushes For Anti-Religion Judge
President Barack Obama has just nominated federal Judge David Hamilton, who has issued controversial rulings (banning public prayers offered "in Jesus name," and hastening the abortion of unborn children), to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (the same court that has reversed his aggressive decisions for many years).
Judge Hamilton is the worst of Obama's 15 new liberal appeals court appointees. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals covers Wisconsin, Indiana and Illinois.
Since most cases never reach the Supreme Court, the federal appellate circuits often provide the last word on cases affecting life and liberty.
READ THE FACTS:
The Judicial Confirmation Network quickly opposed Hamilton's nomination, stating that "President Obama's first nominee to the federal appeals courts -- specifically the appeals court based in Chicago -- is an ultra-liberal named David Hamilton who is a former fundraiser for ACORN and former leader of the Indiana chapter of the ACLU. He was nominated to the district court bench by President Clinton even though he had no judicial experience and was rated as 'not qualified' by the American Bar Association
Hamilton ruled in 2005 to ban the practice of opening the chamber's business with prayers mentioning Jesus Christ or using terms such as "Savior." He said that amounted to
state endorsement of a religion. (But he ruled prayers to "Allah" were perfectly lawful.)
ANTI-JESUS, BUT PRO-ALLAH?
Judge Hamilton wrote: "The injunction orders the Speaker...that the prayers should not use Christ's name or title or any other denominational appeal...If those offering prayers
in the Indiana House of Representatives choose to use the Arabic 'Allah'...the court sees little risk that the choice of language would advance a particular religion or disparage
others."
In other words, Judge Hamilton ruled the words "Jesus" or "Christ" are illegal words, prohibited for public speech, banned by the First Amendment, which somehow prohibits freedom of religious expression, and makes Christian prayers ILLEGAL in a public forum. (What crazy version of the First Amendment is he reading?)
Thank God, I took action in 2007 and provided legal arguments to the Indiana Attorney General who appealed to the 7th Circuit Court and WE WON a 2-1 decision overruling Hamilton,
restoring the right to pray "in Jesus name" in Indiana.
PLEASE CLICK TO SIGN AND FAX YOUR PERSONALIZED PETITION TO ALL 100 U.S. SENATORS, OPPOSING THE ANTI-LIFE, ANTI-CHRISTIAN JUDGE DAVID HAMILTON.
ANTI-LIFE BUT PRO-ABORTION?
In 2003, Judge Hamilton struck down part of an Indiana law on abortion. The reasonable law had required abortion clinics to simply give women information about alternatives to abortion in the presence of a physician or nurse, 18 hours before the procedure, until Hamilton ruled to hasten abortions. But thank God, the 7th Circuit Court also reversed Hamilton's bad decision in that case.
If confirmed now Hamilton will sit on that 7th Circuit Court (the same court that frequently overruled him) with terrible power to rule the heartlandwith his anti-life, anti-liberty, anti-Christian agenda.
Bad Precedent and Wayward Judges
In our court system, judges must base their decisions on sound legal principles. High regard for following prior judicial decisions, known as precedent, has always been an important concept in our law, but such precedents are only valid if based on the United States Constitution, which all judges are sworn to uphold. Lately, there has been a great deal of criticism of the new "conservative majority" on the United States Supreme Court for disregarding "long-standing precedents" and "running roughshod over the Constitution." I submit that such criticism is wrong
In her dissent in Gonzales v. Carhart involving partial-birth abortion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a former ACLU lawyer, complained that for the majority of the justices "moral concerns are at work, concerns that could yield prohibitions on any abortion. ... By allowing such concerns to carry the day and case, overriding fundamental rights, the Court dishonors our precedent." In another Supreme Court case involving the use of race in public school assignments, another liberal justice, Steven Breyer, echoed this theme when he remarked from the bench, "It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much. Read full article
Court Adjourned
How far have we slipped from the intent of our founders? A legal system that was based on Biblical teachings and who's bedrock was the Ten Commandments is now being guided by the believe that God has no place in public life and morality is best defined by the individual. While there are certainly some who would argue the point, our judicial system at it's very core is scriptually based from both the old and new testament.
In an attempt to secure "religious freedom" our courts have been engaged in an effort to take those freedoms from Americans. The very principles that have made our Government the most successful and our country the envy of all freedom loving people have been systematicly critized, demonized & marginalized because of their Christian enfluence. It would appear that tolerance is only required when you're talking Gay Rights or accepting Muslim ideology.
Our founding fathers, while being comprised of both Clergy and secular members, made it quite clear that the teachings of Christ were to be the cornerstone of the American judicial system. At the same time, they were determined that our country would not be plauged by the religious tyranny of England and much of Europe. The emphasis was "freedom of religion" not "freedom from religion" as groups such as the ACLU and Americans United for Seperation Of Church of State would like us all to believe.
In the 1931 case of U.S. v. Macintosh, the U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion stated,
"We are a Christian people . . . according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience
to the will of God." The dissenting opinion also recognized God, noting, "One cannot speak of religious liberty . . . without assuming the existence of a belief in
supreme allegiance to the will of God." "
Be it their incorrect interpretaion of Jefferson's "wall of separation", creating rights in the Constituition they've decided should be there, or ignoring ones they think should not, our courts and judges have made decisions that have dangerously changed the course of our nation. Much of the decline of our Country is the direct result of these people who we've entrusted to protect our rights and ensure our freedoms. The increase of crime, our failing educational system, the decline of the family and the eroding of our national morality can all be laid at the feet of the courts.
But the high courts are not filled with leftist judges all by themselves. We place them there directly by our votes or indirectly by the person we put into the White House. While Ronald Reagan & George Bush were able to appoint Constructionist judges, the election of Barack Obama has the real potential of reversing the convservative direction these appointments promise. Americas future faces some very dark days because of ill informed people buying into a mantra of change and the speeches of a man who's philosophy is contrary to the American Way.
