OATH

I hadn't thought of the Supreme Court justices violating their oath to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies. That is a very intriguing thought. I just wonder who would have the courage to pursue it. It seems that Americans are less and less willing to stay the course in any fight.

You asked for people "better educated" than you to comment. I don't think I fit that category (!) but I still wanted to comment on your blog because I read your comments about Pat Buchanan in today's post by Burt Prelusky. You said EXACTLY what I have thought of Mr. Buchanan for about the last 1 to 1-1/2 years now. I suspect his ego is similar to Senator McCain's, so he just laps up whatever attention the media gives him. I usually just ignore his columns, but every now and again the title will intrigue me, and I'll take a look and then get disgusted all over again!
-Lucy

Consultation of extra-constitutional documents to decide a case is not wrong. After all
we have used case law, common law, natural law, the Federalists Papers, and other such
sources in the past; as long as such references were used in support of, or to clarify the
Constitution. Decisions should still be based solely on the Constitution.

One of the major difficulties in interpreting our Constitution is culture and language. Our
culture and language have changed since the late 1700s, i.e., the connotation of words and
their cultural context have evolved. Just reading the 2nd amendment illustrates this.

The original intent must be the major deciding factor in deciding Constitutional law. To
use anything other than original intent is to open ourselves up to the personal whims,
opinions, and political agendas of whoever happens to be serving as a judge at that
moment. But as our language and culture evolve we must use extra-constitutional
documents to help in our interpretation.

In other words, three fundamental elements should accompany all decisions. Tradition,
reason, and history must be equally applied in helping us understand the authors’ intent.
All three must be used and applied to any decision based on the Constitution. Any of
these three, used alone, or worse, not at all, can and will lead us astray, as evidenced by
recent decisions.

But we must be careful with the present direction of the Supreme Court and its
application of extra-constitutional documents. The current generous interpretations and
the application of international law to the Constitution will become part of tradition and
history, and thereby it will become increasing difficult to distance ourselves from their
use in the future. Only persons that agree or “swear an oath” to uphold use of the three
fundamentals should be allowed to be judges.

So what is an “oath” and what should be the penalty for not abiding by one’s oath? In
times past it was a solemn promise “with God as my witness” or “so help me God”
accompanied by one hand on the Holy Book and the other raised toward God. Of course
many Christians refused to give an oath simply because they felt it was unnecessary. The
Apostle James said, “Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or
by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or you will be condemned.”

In form it is still practiced, but not in function. With honor and the fear of eternal
damnation only a fairy tale for many “intellectuals” there is no personal motivation to
abide by one’s oath. In our secular culture we must provide secular motivations. At the
very minimum, if one violates his oath, he should be removed from office and banned
from serving in like capacity again. Fines and imprisonment could be argued, but that
generally offers the offender a status of victim hood and possibly martyrdom. The shame of public
condemnation, removal from office, and a lifetime ban should serve the cause of “justice
for all” adequately.

As you can probably deduce from my writing I am not legally trained. This is all in
MHO.

FOWG, I'm copying your post here, from 10/22. This is a special post, i think. I've read many good posts, but the superiority of this one, is that it goes to the ROOT problem of our problems with islam, i think.
Even if it doesnt, in a material sense, in a spiritual sense, it does, and so, i think it's the most important post ive seen about problem causes. This would be a starting point about finding problem solutions, such as, "If my people humble themselves, and pray, i will heal their land."
What i mean by the above "material sense", is that perhaps, even if america was currently moral, perhaps muslim murderers would have made the same trouble, anyway, with the "crusades" as their excuse, or whatever other excuse they choose for their evils. Still, i put the spiritual above the material, as i think you do, by this post. Thus, like you, i blame america for being attacked, because of its spiritual decadence, as you say. Thus, the more important work is to eliminate american decadence, than fighting islam, isnt it. (but i think we have to deal with islam, too. i'm not even close to a pacifist. I just mean that probably the more important part of the equation to address, is probably american decadence. That's what we're trying to do in these forums, isnt it. I hope that the movement grows of addressing it. Didnt Jesus say, "Occupy until i come." It seems hopeless, short of Jesus coming, but we should obey, and try to occupy until He comes. Maybe it will do some good, after all, or He wouldnt have told us to do it. (by occupy, i think He meant for us to take command, rather than continuing to cower before the evil liberals and other evils, letting them do the occupying. (i dont mean that ive cowered for a minute, but i think that overall, Christianity has been absurdly silent for decades, in letting the evil ones take over. I think too many Christians have been too concerned about their comforts, and thus, have acted politically correct (fashionable name for cowardly), while at the same time, pretending that theyre being loving to evil doers by letting them progress with their evils.)
FOWG, keep up the good work, and keep digging out the roots of issues. The Bible often refers to farming. As we know, the best farmer pays most attention to the roots, (whether roots of weeds (sin), or roots of worthy plants), like youve done, here. For carpenters, the Bible refers to the house on the solid foundation, compared to the house on shifting sands. Again, addressing the core issues, rather than superstructure. Let's fight evil. ("Having done all to stand, now stand.")
And for reminders, here's your excellent post. (i also posted to kevin's column today, your post, with some comments.):
FOWG writes: Sunday, October, 22, 2006 9:12 AM
Militant Islam
President Bush has been criticized by liberals for "recruiting more terrorists".

The critics ignore the clear fact that the Muslims involved do have a set of moral veiws.

Extremist recruiter: "We must kill them because they kill their own babies, they allow their own women to be sexually exploited for 'entertainment' in magazines, videos, stage and television. Their popular 'music' urges sexual promiscuity and perversion, they show no respect for the reigious and legal foundations of ther own culture etc. (you fill in the blanks)".

They do not want this pollution exported to their world.

Who is it who makes suicide bombing atractive? Is it Dubya or the liberals?

Readers, please understand that I am no supporter of Islam in any of its guises, but the radicals do have a point. We in the west have degenerated our society to the point where something has to be done to restore us to our pevious moral high ground in the world, and our acceptance in the eyes of G0D.

It is refreshing to read a post that is so well articulated and thought-through. While I disagree with your views, they are well put, as are the posts above yours.

If everyone in the United States accepted the Christian worldview you expouse, I think you could probably get close to your utopia. The problem is that, as you say, the intelligent (and many less so) don't believe the fairy stories, and will not accept a narrow "Christian" world view, whatever that might be. This is particularly so because religions characteristically each claim that theirs is the only way to salvation/reincarnation/72 virgins and so on.
Pretending that religion is the only path to ethical behaviour is a major mistake.

Achieving a social concensus is really only possible in a secular way, on neutral ground with which everyone can identify, and agreement on a shared set of values based on common human experience. Currently religion only confuses that process by guilt-tripping the gullible. Perhaps the churches need to realise that if they really want to improve our lot they should drop the sky-fairies and encourage people to talk without the medieval dogmatic agendas.

The greatest asset of the US, in my view, is the separation of church and state, guaranteeing freedom of religion and freedom from it.

just a brief comment, for now, as it would take much more time than i have right now, to do justice to your post.
1) thanks for the compliment.
2) i also compliment you and others in kevin's blogs for rational discussion, even when disagreeing. In this light, i dont think i, or anyone else, thinks perfectly, so why see who can holler the loudest, pretending to be perfect, instead of trying to have honest discussion? Hopefully, if i am wrong about something, i can change.
3) i wasnt always Christian, so i understand where you're coming from, although, of course, i'm not pretending to know you completely. I wasnt Born Again, until age 39, so i've put in considerable years of secular thinking. In my own case, i had to have my pride broken, and then being Born Again, came quickly. I wouldnt be surprised if pride is always the issue, since the devil (as described in the Bible) is doomed because of his pride and his unwillingness to give it up.
Lastly, for now (but more later, if you want), I agree with those who say that real Christianity (having Christ as savior and Lord) isnt a religion, but rather a relationship with Christ. I think to say this because you mentioned the belief that a problem is the clashes of many religions. And certainly, your thought is very reasonable, and even evidence bears it out. It might color the issue a little different to think of it as a clash of one relationship (with Christ) with many religions (which to me, are many prideful attempts to avoid relationship with Christ). I think evidence of that is how the many religions try to force people to be in their religion, and try to kill Christians, or even their own people if they would dare to be Christian, and quit the false religion. I know of no cases of Christianity acting this way of trying to force Christianity on anyone. Christianity is about freedom, not trying to force a religion on anyone. Obviously, you might disagree, and perhaps violently disagree. I'm just saying what i believe, and converted to, when i felt strongly enough that it's of truth. The really good part, that i so much appreciate, is that i can say it to you, without wrath, because of your civil way of talking to me. Thanks for that. ("a gentle answer turns away wrath.")
it seems ironic running into you, here, on FOWG's personal blog, instead of on one of the more public forums. Being 1:35am, now, i have to stop, but if you want, we can continue another time. I'll try to remember to check FOWG's blog again, if this is where you want to meet (if you want to meet). (p.s., in these days of homosexual fanaticism, dont take the meeting idea as anything about sex. I just meant meet conversationally.)

just a brief comment, for now, as it would take much more time than i have right now, to do justice to your post.
1) thanks for the compliment.
2) i also compliment you and others in kevin's blogs for rational discussion, even when disagreeing. In this light, i dont think i, or anyone else, thinks perfectly, so why see who can holler the loudest, pretending to be perfect, instead of trying to have honest discussion? Hopefully, if i am wrong about something, i can change.
3) i wasnt always Christian, so i understand where you're coming from, although, of course, i'm not pretending to know you completely. I wasnt Born Again, until age 39, so i've put in considerable years of secular thinking. In my own case, i had to have my pride broken, and then being Born Again, came quickly. I wouldnt be surprised if pride is always the issue, since the devil (as described in the Bible) is doomed because of his pride and his unwillingness to give it up.
Lastly, for now (but more later, if you want), I agree with those who say that real Christianity (having Christ as savior and Lord) isnt a religion, but rather a relationship with Christ. I think to say this because you mentioned the belief that a problem is the clashes of many religions. And certainly, your thought is very reasonable, and even evidence bears it out. It might color the issue a little different to think of it as a clash of one relationship (with Christ) with many religions (which to me, are many prideful attempts to avoid relationship with Christ). I think evidence of that is how the many religions try to force people to be in their religion, and try to kill Christians, or even their own people if they would dare to be Christian, and quit the false religion. I know of no cases of Christianity acting this way of trying to force Christianity on anyone. Christianity is about freedom, not trying to force a religion on anyone. Obviously, you might disagree, and perhaps violently disagree. I'm just saying what i believe, and converted to, when i felt strongly enough that it's of truth. The really good part, that i so much appreciate, is that i can say it to you, without wrath, because of your civil way of talking to me. Thanks for that. ("a gentle answer turns away wrath.")
it seems ironic running into you, here, on FOWG's personal blog, instead of on one of the more public forums. Being 1:35am, now, i have to stop, but if you want, we can continue another time. I'll try to remember to check FOWG's blog again, if this is where you want to meet (if you want to meet). (p.s., in these days of homosexual fanaticism, dont take the meeting idea as anything about sex. I just meant meet conversationally.)

can use anything they want to use in order to reach a decision on a case.

They could use the Bible, the kuran, old issues of Superman comics, Australian law.

There's no prohibition about their looking elsewhere for ideas.

The problem arises when the Justices use precedent from other countries' cases, then site those IN THEIR WRITTEN OPINION as rationale for the decision. It seems . . . unAmerican.

In our system of check and balances, there can't exist a law or rule about what the court can use to reach a decision. They are expected to use American case law, English common law, legislative intent, etc. as stare decisis/precedent, but the congress and the president can't mandate that method.

The SCOTUS Justices understand the system and, usually, abide by it. They understand that each decision they make and opinion they render has tremendous and far-reaching consequences. Even the most liberal of Justices recognizes the gravitas of their positions.

That's not to say that ALL justices play fairly. Some make decisions to further their own political agenda or social ideology. That's called being human. I would like to think it's also rare.

Objectivity is the holy grail of all jurists (or should be). We expect that our cases won't be considered with jaundiced eye, but will be judged FAIRLY.

...and Senate did a fantastic job when it came to selecting and benching originalists judges. Problem is he will not be able to get anymore of these judges benched as a result of the 11/7 election. He and his, so called advisers, must shoulder responsibility for the 11/7 bloodbath. And so far they are not even aknowledging a problem. Unfortunately they are not being held responsible by our conservative commentators, either.
If you think things are bad now (judicially) just wait until Hillary/Obama are appointing judges.
The problems we're having now is not with the Dem's but with our own disfuntional GOP house. We must, first, get that in order.
Visit my blog if you have time. DD
http://streetlevel.townhall.com

With some Judges and legislators being of the opinion the Constitution is a living document it raises a question of what they believe their oath is to protect.
That said I will scoot out of here with my meager education.
Like you Blog though FOWG.

Charles Krouthammer shows his wisdom and sense of humor regularly on Fox News Channel where anyone who appreciates this gentleman's select choice of words of thoughtful and knowledgeable insight are especially needed at this time ... a solid structure when everything else is blowin' in the wind!

My comment was meant to be a little tongue-in-cheek. We all respect Charles' intellect. Too many readers at TH are too serious too often. A case in point is how many still don't 'get' LOYAL DEMOCRAT.

Thank you for you comment.

....................YES..........................

2nd amendment rights are both defensive and offensive. The best defense is an Offensive position. We have too many oath violators and not one has met "conventional" justice. Justice is mine saith the lord. The lord helps those who help themselves.

This republic was formed with the "help" of God, not of and by God. And the republic will or will not be saved by the "help" of God, and the sweat and toil and sacrifice of patriots. Understood.

Very intriguing idea, and worth pursuing. I am not sure if the current Administration is up for this kind of fight, but it needs to be addressed.

Check my blog, http://imsick.townhall.com, for my thoughts on another issue related to this.

Thanks for your comments on the foundations of American system. You are right to put Reformed Christianity at the top of the list.

The Reformation gave us an open Bible and the practical fulfillment of the New Covenant promise in Hebrews 8 and 10 that 'they shall all know the Lord.'