Religious Freedom & The Supreme Court

supreme-court

The road to serfdom for America comes closer to reality day by day. The courts, departing from the rule of law to the rule of men is a disaster for those who love freedom, whether it be of religion or political.

The Constitution’s Bill of Rights is the clear and final word on both.

Nationalists, such as Madison and Hamilton, both influenced by the monarchy, failed to see the danger of the Supreme Court and its almost unlimited powers over the other branches of Government, especially the Legislative. On March 20, 1788, “Brutus” wrote, #XV Anti-federalist Papers, in contrasting the Courts of England with the proposal for such in the National Government said, “I question whether the world ever saw, in any period of it, a court of justice invested with such immense power, and yet so placed in a situation so little responsible. The Judges in England, it is true, hold their offices during good behavior, but then their determinations are subject to correction by the house of lords; and their power is by no means so extensive as that of the proposed supreme court of the union.” 

“The judges in England are under the control of the legislature, for they are bound to determine according to the laws passed by them. But the judges under this Constitution will control the Legislature, for the Supreme Court are authorized in the last resort, to determine what is the extent of the powers of Congress; they are to give the Constitution explanation, and there is no power above them to set aside their judgment…the Judicial under this system, have a power which is above the Legislature, and which indeed transcends any power before given to a judicial by any free government under heaven. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation, will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself….The Supreme Court then have a right, independent of the Legislature, to give a construction to the Constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct or do it away. If the Legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the Constitution, they will declare it void.”

“Brutus” closes his argument with these words: “…when this power is lodged in the hands of men independent of the people and their representatives, and who are not, Constitutionally, accountable for their opinions, no way is left to control them but with a high hand and an outstretched arm.”

The court, in failing to deal with the words of the Constitution with its freedom of religion clause, has left the door open for smaller, but powerful governments on the state and local level to control the life and destinies of those who would be free of the manipulations by religious and humanistic factions. These elitists, governing bodies, who act in the name of the good of the whole, too often act for the good of the powers that be. These bodies can always find a compelling interest to reach their goal. One must realize the truth of Ludwig Von Mises, the famous Austrian economist, who described government as “essentially the negation of liberty” (Liberty and Property). When the majority of those who sit on the governing boards of the State, City or Town councils represent the will of those who oppose Christianity, they can, by law, govern out the very existence of such as to its public witness. The only real check to the power of the Supreme Court is that of the Executive branch, which is responsible for the enforcement of the Law of the land. But when evil men in the Executive branch would be lawless, being in agreement with lawless judges, then, the people are without any defense. I know of only one case in our history when the president stood his rightful ground against the Supreme Court in this respect. The grasp for power on the part of those having power makes this unlikely for our day.

The national government has primary responsibility to see, as does every governing official who swears to uphold and defend the Constitution, that all governing bodies follow the Law of the land, rather than the laws of men.

The debate of the moment is, “What shall we do?” Some suggest a Constitutional amendment. Yet, if the Bill of Rights has not controlled the federal judiciary and has been used by the ACLU to destroy our Republic, what will an amendment of an amendment do? If the President were bound to the Law of the land, rather than the laws of independent men, and upheld his sworn loyalty to the Constitution, the brakes could be applied to an activist judiciary. If the Constitution be amended it must be amended to correct the flaws regarding the Supreme Court. Better that it should be followed in strict accord as written. We are not a Monarchy but a Constitutional Republic. Both religious and political freedom are at stake.