Life Changing Scotus Decisions
by Pete Ketcham
The Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS) has had a far greater impact on the moral course of this nation, than I believe most of us are aware of. I have attributed the beginning of our moral decline solely to the actions of the 60’s baby boomer generation as they progressively gained political power, but failed to fully realize how solidly the SCOTUS decisions locked that power into place. A decision by the SCOTUS is almost impossible to reverse, and becomes a beacon of guidance for the philosophy of the entire nation. All fifty states must abide by these decisions which impact the life of every US citizen. It is somewhat mind boggling, how nine politically connected lawyers, appointed by one man (POTUS) are able to determine how the entire 325 million citizens of this nation will conduct their lives.
For example, the demise of christian biblical principles, which had been the guiding underpinnings of the American education system began in 1948, with the following US Supreme Court decisions erroneously based on the establishment clause of the first amendment, which prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” :
1948: No religious instruction permitted in schools.
1962: No prayer permitted in school.
1963: No Bibles can be distributed in schools.
1985: No meditation permitted during school hours.
1992: No invocation or benediction at graduation ceremonies.
1995: No prayer at school sporting events.
As you can see, SCOTUS has literally wiped out any christian influence in our education system after 200 plus years of it being the moral foundation of national education.
In addition to the preceding SCOTUS school decisions, the following are more of the same harmful life changing SCOTUS decisions:
1857: The Dred Scott decision affirmed that black people were not citizens, and basically were considered as property. This brainless prejudicial decision did not settle any slavery issue, but actually helped lead the nation into a bloody civil war four years later.
1973: Roe Vs Wade, making abortion (the killing of unborn babies) during the first trimester, legal throughout the entire nation.
1992: Through a lawsuit by Planned Parenthood, SCOTUS declared that abortion was legal through the entire pregnancy period. As we now know, this decision facilitated Planned Parenthood’s ability to sell aborted baby parts.
2015: Same sex marriage was made legal as SCOTUS ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This insane ruling overturned thousands of years of cultural norm that marriage was between a man and a woman. Not only that, but this decision has created nationwide strife, perversion, and bitterness. It has no more settled the marriage issue than the Dred Scott decision settled the issue of slavery. This ruling will not stand indefinitely, as it flies in the face of nature, God’s law, and plain common sense.
CONCLUSION
As we review these past SCOTUS decisions, it becomes clearly evident that as our nation declined in cultural values and morals (brought on by the progressive liberal left), the nine black robes of the SCOTUS have facilitated this decline by their inane irreversible decisions that have become the “law of the land.”
I realize that there needs to be a final authority concerning the interpretation of our constitutional laws, but these nine judges should not be appointed for life by one man, the president, (even though they do have to be confirmed by congress). They should be elected by the public to a four or six year term, and limited to two terms. But, as it now stands these nine lawyers (judges) are entitled to maintain their position of power for life, are practically immune to impeachment, and are able to project their political bias into everyone of their decisions with impunity.
Somehow, someway, we need to bring this rogue judicial branch of our government back under control, including the lower courts.
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: Paypal.me/RedoubtNews
The danger of the Supreme Court’s lifetime tenure and the degenerate benchmark’s noted in this article are spot on. But attributing the decline starting mid-1900’s is excluding some serious degenerations that happened before then.
I’m reading a book called “The Bootleggers” about Prohibition in Chicago from 1920-33 and the competing gang-warfare; it was a wide open corrupt town. And the point was made that Capone and O’Banion could not have existed for one hour had it not been for the “good” people becoming the customers of the Gangsters. Moreover, the “Good” people engaged in wholesale fermenting of beer and wine and distilling moonshine breaking the law…and their kids saws this. This disrespect of the law took a firm foothold during Prohibition.
Another significant point is the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913; did no one at that time say, “Uhm, why is America passing a law about their money that is strikingly similar to the authoritarian Communist Plank #5?”
“Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.” – Communist Plank #5
Once our money became socialized how easy to then herd us toward other social goals?
Richard Henry Lee (6th President of the United States) wrote a warning concerning the usurpation of rule of law by a National (not federal) Court System of crime under the color of law.
“A federal, or rather a national city, ten miles square, containing a hundred square miles, is about four times as large as London; and for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings, congress may possess a number of places or towns in each state. It is true, congress cannot have them unless the state legislatures cede them; but when once ceded, they never can be recovered…
“The city, and all the places in which the union shall have this exclusive jurisdiction, will be immediately under one entire government, that of the federal head, and be no part of any state, and consequently no part of the United States. The inhabitants of the federal city and places, will be as much exempt from the laws and control of the state governments, as the people of Canada or Nova Scotia will be. Neither the laws of the states respecting taxes, the militia, crimes of property, will extend to them; nor is there a single stipulation in the constitution, that the inhabitants of this city, and these places, shall be governed by laws founded on principles of freedom. All questions, civil and criminal, arising on the laws of these places, which must be the laws of congress, must be decided in the federal courts; and also, all questions that may, by such judicial fictions as these courts may consider reasonable, be supposed to arise within this city, or any of these places, may be brought into these courts. By a very common legal fiction, any personal contract may be supposed to have been made in any place. A contract made in Georgia may be supposed to have been made in the federal city; the courts will admit the fiction. . . .”
George Mason, also against the usurpation in 1789 warned:
June 17, 1788
George Mason:
“Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union.”
What was the Dred Scott case? Was the Dred Scott case an example of criminals claiming to be National Judges, and their true color as criminals is confessed in that case?
If someone claims that you are exempt from the law of the land, either you can’t be accused of a crime, or you have no protection at all, then it stands to reason that the one claiming such a libelous claim is confessing their criminal mind.
As to the usurpation of rule of law through campaign promises that sound reasonable on the surface, but are unreasable when considering the routine breaking of promises by politicians, those promises to get power, are unreasaonble, and once in power the criminals show their true colors:
“But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year’s interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government’s discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt’s benefits. “In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence,” explained Hamilton, “it assumes most of the purposes of money.” Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton’s debt program.
“To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because “[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law,” such taxes would be little used by the national government.
In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter.” Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and their Legacy by William Watkins
The move from rule of law that moved to rule by criminals under the color of law was 1787.
“…attributing the decline starting mid-1900’s is excluding some serious degenerations that happened before then.”
The law of the land still is the common law with trial by jury: see Bill of Rights for confirmation if needed. That means that the people are a branch of the government as powerful as any other branch. If the people learn their power of consent, instead of having counterfeit consent forced upon the people by some nebulous aristocracy, then government returns to a voluntary assocation for whatever the people unanimously (through their tribunals) want, and government does not become otherwise.