Monday, June 04, 2012

US Supreme Court: Ultimate Moral Arbiter?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
This month the US Supreme Court will hand down a ruling as to whether Obamacare is constitutional, specifically in forcing citizens to buy a product---in this case, insurance.

The ruling on Obamacare, aka, Affordable Care Act, will also have a significant moral impact and if allowed to stand, will knock down the right to religious freedom of many Americans who have deeply held beliefs regarding the sanctity of life.

Should the Supreme Court be the ultimate moral arbiter?

A few months ago, President Obama declared DOMA "unconstitutional" and withdrew from his obligation as president to defend the law of the land.

Now DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) has been declared unconstitutional by the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, and is headed to the Supreme Court.

Neither Obamacare, nor DOMA have been voted on by the people---both have moral significance.

The Supreme Court, as most will admit, made a questionable legal decision, at best, in Roe v. Wade---the abortion case.

Should the Supreme Court be the ultimate moral arbiter?

President Obama, reverting to his career as a community organizer and agitator, said publicly in an attempt to impact the High Court, "Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

A Congress, we remember, that did not even have time to read the bill before it was rammed through.

What is extraordinary is that a sitting president would attempt to bully the Supreme Court to affect the outcome of a pending case.

Sen. Leahy followed with his own threat, saying if the Court doesn't uphold Obamacare, it would "be the height of judicial activism."

Nancy Pelosi is even predicting that the Supreme Court will vote 6-3 in favor of Obamacare.

One can only imagine the threats that will be directed toward the Court when they hear DOMA in the next year or so, should the present administration stay in office.

Should the Supreme Court be the ultimate moral arbiter?

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Spencer Roane (1762-1822), a judge on the Virginia Court of Appeals, cautioned that the Supreme Court's power to determine constitutionality must be curbed or it will continue to consolidate the power of the federal government.

America has changed since the Founders drafted our founding documents. In a moral sense, we have lost our way.

The Founders looked to Sir William Blackstone and others like him in the drafting and creating of the most important elements of what would become the greatest and most exceptional nation in the history of the world.

Blackstone, whose treatise, "Commentaries on the Laws of England," long stood as the leading work on English law and was instrumental in the development of American common law and the entire legal system, should be re-visited by every American who wants to see our nation restored, rather than remade into the image of secular socialist Europe.

Blackstone took it as self evident that God is the source of all laws, whether they are in found in Scripture or were observed in nature. His per-suppositions were thoroughly Christian, founded upon a belief that there exists a personal, omnipotent God, who works in and governs the affairs of men. In consequence, man is bound by those laws, which in turn provides a system of absolutes.


Because man is a derivative being, created by God in His Image.

Blackstone wrote, "Man as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of the Creator...for he is entirely a dependent being ... depending absolutely upon his Maker for everything ... it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker's Will."

Blackstone's influence is clearly expressed in the Declaration of Independence, as the Founding Fathers wrote, "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" was the source of their rights and freedoms.

Blackstone believed the words, "Rights" and "Laws" and "Freedoms" are meaningless without their divine origin.

And so in 2012, the year of our Lord, we have forgotten Him, and in some cases mocked Him, redefined His Scriptures to affirm our sins and passions, and now deny the very Truth that gave birth to this great nation.

No wonder James Madison said, "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked our future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

The entire future of American civilization hangs in the balance.

We have grown government, while eliminating God from the culture.

John Hancock said on April 15, 1775, as the fight for freedom loomed, "In circumstances dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that, whilst every prudent Measure should be taken to ward off impending Judgements...All confidence must be withheld from the Means we use; and reposed only on that God who rules in the Armies of Heaven, and without whose Blessing the best human Counsels are but Foolishness...and all created Power Vanity."

Thank you for standing with Faith and Freedom as we work to advance those Principles in our present culture that made America the most free, blessed nation in the history of the human race.

May God help us.


  1. This needs to be read by every Christian. Let's forward it. Thanks, Gary.

  2. God is our only hope and He does not change.

  3. "Blackstone took it as self evident that God is the source of all laws"

    That's the sort of thing you have to say when you have absolutely no ACTUAL evidence.

    1. Actually that is quite accurate . Our Judicial system was based on Common Law , quite different then today in many ways .

      To give you an idea , say you were speeding because you were fleeing from someone trying to hurt your children .
      The RCW speeding is a statute , based on law . Actually you could get a ticket , I am using something absurd so you could understand better . . Of course the situation shows you are doing what would be expected under the circumstances , common law does that . I would think even a secular judge would also . But say why horse thieves were hung , because horses were often the sources of someones livihood . If you stole their livihood you effected their ability to ffeed and house his family . We allow car thieves standard sentences which are quite light , but Common Law would take in effect if you stole a persons car and it caused a problem with his job etc . It is also based on what you would consider important under the world view of a Bibical believer . Property rights , etc . It would have a hard time working today for one you could have an ordinance saying sodomy was illegal with Common Law views, or stores closed on Sundays based on Honoring God . Divorces requiring evidence of wrong doing etc . We are much more secular . But Common Law also dealt with justice and our law today seems more based on having a good lawyer .

      Also all Judges would look at it the same way basically with Common law , there would be disagreement but not based on objective truth , based n subjective understanding of objective truth . Now we have Constitutional law based on how Presidents that appoint Judges are republican or democrats. Law should be based above world views . The system we have now in my opinion at least dealing with Constitutional issues has gotten worse. Rights defended were meant to be rights no one can give or take . A gaysay as a person has a right to own property , that is Constituional and no one can deny them that right . Those rights are not subject to rcws etc .

    2. Mick, thank you for using an absurd example to help me understand. Coherent sentences would probably help more, though.

      I'm familiar with the concept of English Common Law and I don't accept that it's all religiously based.

      But, that whole discussion is actually off point.

      The claim is that it's "self evident that God is the source of all laws". My point was that you have to rely on 'self evident' because you can't prove that laws came from something you can't prove even exists, let alone mandated anything at all.

      So our discussion on the source of laws needs to begin with verification that the source you claim even actually exists. The term 'self evident' is in itself an acknowledgement that it's speculation.

    3. Excuse my English skills . Slow learner , actually dylexia caused in part , in my day third reading group . But the more I read the better I get . I believe they help kids much better then in my day . Sometimes I proof read and it helps , sometimes not . I apologize.

      Its not all religiously based in effect it comes from the Bible . It does come from the concepts . Common Law is not all based on the Bible , just like many aspects of religion are not all Bibically based . Our Constitution was taken from a host of sources and some original thought also . Not sure why that is so hard to understand . Almost all the colonies all had religious oaths required to hold office at our beginnings , not sure why this is so hard for you to grasp . Insulting disabilities shows at least part of your ability to think or accept something new that goes against assumed idealogical assumptions is causing you a problem that makes you look a little more then silly .
      many of our Early legal documents and legal binding Contracts included God .

      Read about Blackstone . All the lawyers in America were being taught in schools where Jesus Christ was taught as the only God , all America's Universitys in our eraly years were religiously based .

      For you not to believe in God or not has nothing to do with the law being taught with a God as an important factor in Justice . Self evident is in reverence to Bibical teaching and scripture that God makes Himself evident to us .

    4. OK, one last time, the claim is that "God is the source of all laws"

      There is no proof to verify this claim until you can verify the existence of God. Until then, it is speculation. You can argue all you want about the thought process that went into our legal system, but that is a completely separate argument.

      Until you can prove that the entity you believe is the source is actually an entity, you are speculating and use the term 'self evident' to cover the lack of evidence.

  4. 1:59 Yeah, the Founders were really confused wern't they when they spoke of self evident truth? Too bad they were unable to establish a successful country. Now that Obama and Rev. Wright are present things will get better.

    1. Perhaps you could address the actual point and provide some evidence? There is none. Founders or Blackstone, you rely on 'self evident' when there's no proof behind your claim.

  5. I agree with Blackstone. What does rights and freedom mean outside a spiritual context? Rights compared to what? Who says the law should be a law? Barrack?

    1. This has been educational. I've wanted to get the speed limit lowered in my neighborhood, but wasn't sure who to talk to. Apparently it's God, I just hope he doesn't require a lot of paperwork.

    2. Commentaries on the Laws of England (published between 1765 and 1769) by Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780) are available , His writings were used in this country as the standard till the 1840’s . Lincoln used them .In the United States, copies influenced John Marshall, James Wilson, John Jay, John Adams, James Kent. His writings are still cited in Supreme Court Hearings .. Read the Magna Carta, you can see the influence God had on England in their legal dealings . Should not be surprising that a country that had a State Religion supported a legal system that used Common Law based on a belief in God . That someone who able to write comprehensive legal principles were used in a new country with aits own new legal system . Kind of silly , your anti religious bigotry appears to make you look like your unable to learn basic concepts of our origins as a country , history does not reflect your views of today or mine . But it is what it is .

    3. Mick, you are confusing 'everyone's God with the narrow interpretation of God that this blog advances. Our founding fathers were Deists, Unitarians, Freemasons, atheists and Christians. The 'Creator' mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is the Deist small 'g' god of its author, Thomas Jefferson. We have the original draft he passed around in his own hand with the small 'g', that this isn't Jehovah isn't even open to debate.

      Christian 'morality' derives from the two Christian principles, love God, love your neighbor as God loves you. If the people who read this blog would just do this then all these issues they fret about wouldn't even be important. Its not Christian to impose a religion on others, its not Christian to tell others they have to live by their rules.

      Of course they tried to rationalize the pagan Rome and Anglo Saxon roots of the legal system with the current religious paradigm of the time but the legal system isn't dependent on it, you could do the same with Star Wars novels (and some do) with the same functional result.

      Regardless if your rationale is Hebrew, Roman, or Vulcan, the basics of law are really pretty simple.

      • You exist and because of that biological fact you have rights.
      • Others exist and have the same rights as you do.
      • The law is a system by which we attempt to externally balance the interaction of your rights with the rights of others.

      And in the US we encoded some of those basic rights that law must respect, virtually none of them are Christian in origin or even compatible with the way Christianity had been practiced for over a millennium at the time of their writing.

      Our most basic civil rights are because we AREN'T a 'Christian' nation and were never intended to be in the sense this blog advocates.

      I sincerely wish that those reading this would live up to the Judeo-Christian values and principles that the banner because then these people would be acting more like the good Samaritan rather than the Pharisees.

    4. You're confusing open minded skepticism with anti-religious bigotry, but I can understand how they might look the same from your viewpoint. We see history through different filters.

    5. Oshar Blackstone and our legal system came for England . Remeber the Revolutionary War ?

      Church of England was not the religious right of today . But indeed they were a Christian Belief and they were the official State Church of England . I would not subcribe to the Church of england either , in fact people came here because of their governing . But the people broght their legal system with us here .

      Your being weird here . Jefferson used Blackstone and so did John Jay , You know the first Supreme Court Justice ? Blackstone is cited in rulings .

      You arguing about if the world is not round in because God said it was so in the Bible . Just because Bibical precepts were used and you do not agree with the Bible does not make it so . The Bible was used to justify slavery , because I believe in the Bible and read it differently then slavers does not mean people did not use the Bible in a way I disagree with either Because you don't believe in God had no bearing that scripture confirms the world is round . The majority of the Founders came from colonies where it took oaths that confirmed their belief in Jesus Christ , God of the Bible . Your attemting to make false arguments and loosing here . It makes your other statements suspect . Understand that the Founding Founders were reps of colonies that made them take religious oaths . If what you say was true , they were liars . perhaps saying that about the republicans and democrats in Congress now is debatable , but I do have more respect for the Founders honesty and integrity . Also when you look at a persons Faith you do realize their are times in the life of someone that Faith changes . Look at King David , for a while he was hanging ou and serving the bad guys . One could say he was not a Believer in the Jewish God if you took selective writings and selective statements .

      Yoy are allowing your opinions of people writing this blog hurt your ability to understand history .

      Thomas Jefferson when running for the Presidency had a small book written for his behalf stating he was strong Christian man with religious values . the Adams campaign , especially Abrigail his wife , was using his different religious views and using it to smear him . The belief in God is still used today , ever hear Obama say after a speech and GOD BLESS AMERERICA . We Americans like our politicians religious for some reason , I think it comes from our roots . The roots you seem to claim are not there .

    6. I guess this is pointless since you are going to rationalize what you want. yes Mick, I know our laws are primarily English just as I know that they are primarily Roman and AngloSaxon based. Christianity arrived in a country with well established legal precedence and foundations when it went to England. There is no 'Christian law' since all european Christian nations grew out of Roman principalities and their legal structure.

      And of course belief in God isn't the issue - the Christ had nothing bad to say about gay people in loving relationships, many churches perform blessings for same sex couples, just as the Catholics did before their Fall.

      The Declaration of Independence references the Diest Creator, the small 'g' god. The God 'blessing' America is the generic god of Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Wiccan, Muslim and even atheists. its not the discriminatory one that the writers of this blog worship.

  6. 4:01 America flourished under the Christian values system. When we began t "secularize" her and get rid of God, etc. etc., things began to regress. Education is failing and the economy is upside down. The blessing is gone. You want evidence of how democracy can crumble without the blessing of God. Open your eyesand take a drive through any inner city, or just look at the stats.

    1. Thank you, that's exactly the kind of answer I was looking for. Cold, hard, analytical cause and effect that would stand up under the toughest scientific scrutiny!

  7. Now that the Supreme Court has spoken concerning the constitutionality of Obamacare, what am I to learn from what they said?

    Maybe I should quiz myself.

    When can something be enforced when it can not?
    a. When it's Obamacare.

    I wonder if it covers mental health? Obamacare always did seem scary. If the root is bad what about the fruit?

    Their ruling is divided against itself.

    I wonder what they thought the Constitution was, a document that says things are while they are not? I don't think they had a very clear view of it at the time of their decision.

    When the Constitution was written, I don't think their intent was to write something that no one could figure out, though it was to be the rule over many a complex problem.

    I don't think the writers of the Constitution decided they should write something that explodes the minds of it's readers or look both ways at a matter, having two faces. I think they wrote it to solve problems rather than create them. I believe they wrote it so a nation could stand, not being divided against itself, even though many people will be against one another at times.

    I think I know that a nation divided against itself can not stand. (Matt 12:25) I think the Devil knows it too.

  8. Clearly when a people treat their maker wrongly consequences will follow sooner or later. Some people see them sooner than others. Such things stand to reason. The clear evidence of God's existance is all around us. All of creation tesifies to his goodness and grace which is unto the sparrows that fly, the kittens and the puppies that show their love for each new morning, and every creature he has made. Every breath we take is testimony of his great love for us.

    We see men deny God and his existance, yet his love endures and his kindness prevails. God is more than rock solid in who and all that he is.
    Men see the fruit of those that honor God as well as the fruit of those that deny what is due his name.

    The athiest proves to me that God exists. They prove to me that God's love is unconditional being great toward all men everywhere.
    I don't have to prove to an athiest that God exists. They have proven it to themselves even though they don't want to admit it.

  9. As the moral fabric of a nation decays, how can we not expect violence to escalate, for when God is not honored, life is cheapened, and when life is devalued in the eyes of men, and nonsense takes the place of good sense, what will prevent men from violent behavior? If not God, then what?

  10. The whole creation is in pain waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God. (Rom 8) If we were to see the sons of God manifest in the courts, much more than we now see, as well as in the seats of governors, congressmen, senators, and such, God would be honored, life would be valued more than it is right now in the minds of men, and we should see violence, thefts, and all forms of corruption go down in number, and this would be only the beginning of seeing the favor of God.

    If government continues in it's the crime rate.

  11. Isn't there a spirit behind the evil deeds of the government which causes problems in hopes that the government will be the thing used to control the effects of all the trouble it created? Anmerica is under spiritual attack. That is certain.
    The constitution is constantly being undermined.


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.