On A Fine Mess

 I see, by way of an article in the current edition of TNA magazine entitled ‘Judges Courting Condemnation,’ that New York State’s senior federal senator, Chuck Schumer, in a rather rabble-rousing speech “before a cheering crowd” of ‘Reproductive Rights’ partisans in front of the federal Supreme Court building shouted: “I want to tell you, Gorsuch!  I want to to tell you, Kavanaugh!  You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price!  You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions!”

Er, excuse me just a sec.  Before possibly going into whatever “these awful decisions” that the Hon. Sen. Schumer from New York was referring to (says the voice of a little boy just passing by, and overhearing these impassioned words, redolent with righteous indignation): What makes this ‘abortion rights’ business a federal issue??

Ah yes: the erroneous and infamous ruling of the majority of the SCOTUS justices in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.  Which elevated abortion to a federal issue, on faulty, and flimsy, premises.  About as flimsy as the premises for their 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision which elevated same-sex marriage to a federal issue.  This article referred to that decision thusly:*

“Dissenting in the case, late Justice Antonin Scalia condemned the opinion as ‘lacking even a thin veneer of law,’ while fellow dissenter Justice Roberts lamented that the decision had ‘nothing to do’ at all with the Constitution.”

The article goes on: 

“Scalia and Roberts were responding to justifications in the majority opinion, penned by now-retired justice Anthony Kennedy.  He wrote, for example, that without 'marriage,' homosexuals’ ‘children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser.  They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents…The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.’  [My emphasis.]  Some could respond that just being raised by a same-sex couple harms and humiliates children or that perhaps the above is an argument for criminalizing divorce, as it leads to children having ‘unmarried parents.’  But that’s not the point.  It is, rather, that the Obergefell decision concerned nothing more than five lawyers’ judgment that, as Roberts also wrote, ‘same-sex marriage is a good idea.’”

Maybe.  Maybe not.  And depending on individual circumstances.  However, the salient point here - surely - is that         

there is no constitutional basis for this being a federal issue.

Except in the minds of those sleazy characters amongst us who want the Constitution to be a wet noodle - excuse me; a ‘living document’ - that they can manipulate to their hearts’ content.

Faulty precedent…

This matter is of a piece with another such SCOTUS decision, this one regarding the so-called ‘Establishment Clause’ decision - as dealt with in this same issue of TNA, in an article entitled ’Separation Of Church And State: What Did The Founders Intend?’  The gist:  

The whole business about ’Separation of Church and State’ was, and is, a canard, based on a faulty reading of a comment that then-President Thomas Jefferson wrote in a private letter to a A Baptist Association, allaying their concerns “about a rumor that Congress was preparing to establish the Congregationalist denomination as a national religion”.  (Which was the key reason for the First Amendment in the first place: to guard against sectarianism.)  “Thus, from a simple missive with no force of law sprang the nefarious phrase which, from that point [i.e.,from a case decided in 1947], courts began to cite so often that in 1958, New York Supreme Court Judge Elbert T. Gallagher complained that people were going to think it was part of the Constitution.  Associate Justice William Rehnquist further protested in 1985: ‘The establishment clause had been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly forty years…There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation…Recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or intent of the framers.’”  (Lack of caps to the Framers in original.)

So, what’s going on here.

I see two main issues here.  The first, more legalistic one, has to do with faulty precedent.  And my response to that issue:

If a precedent be in error, then it needs to fall, and the whole edifice built on it to fall with it.

Secondly.  And the more substantive issue. 

Besides corruption by anti-Christians (and by those miscreants who wish to take over the country ‘wholesale,’ rather than piecemeal, as they would have to do in a federal system), the point in this matter is that, as the article quotes the House Judiciary Committee in 1854: “‘Christianity…must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure [of the the United States] rests…That was the religion of the founders of the republic…’” 

So now the main reason for all this chicanery and deceit comes clear:

The desire of the Marxists/NWO crowd to take this nation down basically   

is to reject it to its roots.

As standing in their way fundamentally in their attempts to take over the world.  For non-religious reasons.  For, at the best, secular humanistic reasons.  And at the worst:

for satanic reasons.     

The bottom line:

You want to change the Constitution substantively? There is a procedure for that, built in to the contract.  To say, to what is in effect a contract (not just a ‘compact’), between the several States and the thus-created federal level of government.  Any substantive changes to which needs the authorization of both parties to the contract.  Else it is not a binding contract.  To say, in other words: Is null and void.  At the least, until it is set right.

At the least.  

P.S. And I say all this, not in the name of Jesus Christ.  Since I don’t subscribe to that religion.  Having read my way out of it years ago.  But I say it in the name

of

Truth. 

And commitment to that principle above all else.

    

—

* And prefaced the reference thusly:

   “A justice’s ‘job’ is to rule based on the Constitution, without favor toward party, power, or political position.  Yet for at least a century, ‘activist’ judges have been imposing their biases from the bench — without consequence.

   “To illustrate the point, consider that the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to hear a faux (same-sex) marriage case in 1972 already.  While the justices back then likely thought the notion absurd, they voiced no such sentiment but simply declined to take the issue up, citing ‘want of a substantial federal question.’  Just so.