SATAN MARRIAGE AND THE SCOTUS
One of the most importing things in history is about to take place via the Supreme Court of the USA. It will happen in the ruling of that court on marriage. Anthony Kennedy is the one man on the court that can change what we have inherited from nearly all of history. One man, who has already, been the deciding factor against the banning of samesex marriage and DOMA in 5/4 decisions. The question should be asked, can the SCOTUS Constitutionally rule anything that it chooses? Could they completely reach opposite understandings of what the Constitution actually says? Would we then have to follow it as law? For instance, could they rule the below:
1. That there is no God
2. That religious speech is therefore what government says it is.
3. That secular humanism only can be in the public square
4. That marriage is anything 2 or more people say it is
5. That society only can decide what is right or wrong
6. That animals are person with the same rights as any other person
Well theoretically, they could rule that we are actually living on the moon. Yet there is a natural limit to what courts can actually rule. A limit that over the last 100 years has been forgotten or is now no longer understood. The founders specifically sought to take government and the creation of rights and the laws that comes from that concept, out of the realm of mans imagination. How did they presume to do this for our government? Well, everyone knows how they divided the powers of government into 3 branches. But there is something even more fundamental. You might think the only check is a Convention Of States as a last resort. You would be wrong. Before that is the natural forgotten check on the scope of any ruling. Let’s look at that check as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, which is the generic law of the land from whence the Constitution is made. Everyone know it says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But did you know that in the paragraph before that it gave the nearly secret natural limit to what could constitutionally be ruled and legislated. It explained that we see and derive those rights and laws from, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them;”
Nothing that cannot be discerned and derived from nature’s laws can constitutionally be imposed on the people. I know man and the courts want that power but it is not given to them. Why? It is because man cannot be trusted not to go off on a whim. Am I saying this from my own imagination? Once again let’s take a look at what the founders said.
“We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come.” (Samuel Adams, during his signing of the Declaration)
“A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” –Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134
“The evidence of [the] natural right [of expatriation], like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of Kings.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1817. ME 15:124
What we have here is but a few quotes by a couple of well know founders who signed the Declaration and knew upon what basis they established the country. We see as Samuel Adams points out they saw themselves as removing other men out from between an individual and his rights and out from between the individual and his God. All people, whether they believe in God or not is brought together at the point of nature. The law of which is not subject merely to the whim of man, but on science. In other words, the creator’s given rights are shown in natures law’s which all can see, whether they believe it was done by a personal God or not. Rights and the laws that come from them were not left to the desire of men and their imaginations. They are naturally limited under the constitution by the laws of nature.
The questions asked above can be fairly easily answered if we realize the natural limits of the courts and legislation. If they refuse to hear the fact that the founders did not place them in an almighty situation to make any ruling that they want, they are in effect, bringing back what the founders sought to get rid of. That is human beings acting like God. If it turns out that we the people must take charge with a Convention of the States, which is safer than what we have now. We, contrary to issues that some think most important, should make it so clear that it cannot be forgotten again, what this natural limitation is on how far our legislators and courts can go. If they are following it, they could not have claimed without science that the unborn is not human. They could not have claimed that two people of the same sex is naturally or scientifically made for each others. They could not claim that science proves God does not exist. They could not take the place of God as originator or rights and thus laws. It would save us a lot of trouble in the future. If you want two different things to be equal under the law, it is simple get government out of it and they are then treated equally under the law. Don’t go around as gods creating non scientifically demonstrable rights as Jefferson would say, with the ‘feeble and sophistical investigations of reason’ of man.
New Single from POB Production