We need to reclaim the Constitution from the Supreme Court

  • Share on Tumblr

Dr. Robert Lowry Clinton has a fantastic article in the National Review this week. (h/t Mike Rogers)

Here’s an excerpt:

Many Americans are puzzled and angry about the judicial assault on religion, morality, and common sense that has been going on for the past few decades. People wonder, for example, how the First Amendment (which guarantees freedom of religion as well as separation of church and state) could possibly require the expulsion of religion from public life, or outlaw prayers at high-school football games and graduation ceremonies. To answer questions like these, one must understand how federal judges got the power to make such controversial political decisions in the first place, and how the judges used that power to bludgeon the American citizenry into believing that their power was legitimate.

Plato tells us in the Republic that democracies will always succumb to tyranny. The Framers of our Constitution certainly troubled themselves to prevent that from happening here, but the anti-Federalist who wrote under the name Brutus did not believe they had gone far enough — especially when it came to the Supreme Court. Though Alexander Hamilton described the Court as the “least dangerous branch,” Brutus thought that the Court would eventually expand its own power and, in the process, enable the national government to expand its power at the expense of the states.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST

About Michael Boldin

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on twitter - @michaelboldin, on LinkedIn, and on Facebook.

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Enjoyed This Post?

,

1 comments
Lonny Eachus
Lonny Eachus

I am unaware of a SCOTUS decision that would "expel religion from public life". But I am aware of decisions that would prevent, for example, allowing a Christian prayer -- but only a Christian prayer -- to be given before a football or basketball game that is being held in a stadium built or maintained with taxpayer money. That would not be "freedom of religion", that would be ENDORSEMENT of a particular religion by government. There is a very big difference.

You might feel that allowing such a prayer simply allows you to express your personal beliefs freely without imposing them on others. But the Jewish person sitting 3 seats away may feel very differently about that.

Our local City Council, for example, allows prayer before each meeting. But each time the faith is different. One day it might be a Protestant giving the prayer, another day a Catholic. I was present one day when the prayer was from someone of the Baha'ai (sp?) faith. That is legal. But if it were the same person or faith every time, it would not be. It would violate several state and federal laws.

Keep in mind that true freedom of religion must ALWAYS include the option to be free FROM religion. Even yours. Anything else would be unworkable, and the "freedom" would not be real, but lip-service only.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TenthAmendmentCenter, Cat 1000, Nancy Mistele, Barack OFA Urkel, gerald loeffers and others. gerald loeffers said: RT @Texas_Tea_Party: RT @TenthAmendment: #10th: We need to reclaim the Constitution from the Supreme Court http://bit.ly/cApPhb [...]