- The Washington Times - Tuesday, June 28, 2005

God’s law and the courts

It is a sad day for the United States of America. With the Supreme Court ruling that the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed in courthouses, the justices have removed the underpinnings of the laws on which they rule (“Court splits on Commandments,” Page 1, yesterday). What moral basis will the courts or government use now to determine right and wrong?

A compass that does not point true north is useless to the traveler as he makes his way home though the woods. How do we argue now against criminal behavior? If the standard of law is not to be displayed, how can it be enforced?

As unpopular as God’s laws are, at least they are unchanging. Man’s law changes constantly. Acts that were criminal in the past are now considered lifestyle choices or out of touch with today’s societal mores.

The minority may not approve, but this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values and beliefs. The First Amendment of the Constitution speaks of freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. By removing the Ten Commandments from courthouses today, public display tomorrow, the Supreme Court is destroying America’s past, leaving a wasteland where once grew a forest of liberty, justice and law.


Pleasant Hills, Pa.

I am a lawyer admitted to practice before the Supreme Court who has come to recognize that we in America live in neither a democracy nor a republic, but an oligarchy.

This oligarchy comprises the majority of the justices on the Supreme Court. These justices have defied their constitutional role by usurping the roles of Congress and the president to create law.

Who would imagine that our Founding Fathers believed that the Constitution they created would be used to ban prayer in public schools, legalize abortion on demand, protect the burning of the flag, permit the taking of private property by municipalities for private use and now bar the placement of copies of the Ten Commandments in our courts.

When justices cease being judicious, it is time for the people to petition Congress and the president to begin a process to redefine and limit the role of the judiciary in America.




In its recent decision, the Supreme Court said God’s law doesn’t belong in the courtroom, but what does the Constitution say as far as the government “endorsing” a religion?

The power for a state to acknowledge God (by having a display of the Ten Commandments, etc.) is nowhere prohibited in the Constitution. In fact, the First Amendment says only that Congress is prohibited from making a law that establishes a religion. According to the Tenth Amendment, a state can do whatever it wants as far as religion is concerned (including acknowledging God) as long as it abides by its own state constitution.

The Supreme Court has, once again, expanded the First Amendment to mean things it doesn’t say and, once again, has ignored the Tenth Amendment.

Congress has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the courts, but it doesn’t seem to care. A bill in Congress right now, the Constitution Restoration Act (S. 520 and H.R. 1070), would limit the courts. Among other things, it would prohibit the federal courts from using foreign law in their decisions and from taking a case on a state’s acknowledgement of God, which should, of course, be dealt with in the state governments. We need to force our senators and representatives to pass this legislation.


Biloxi, Miss.

Our Supreme Court justices sat in a building built by our forefathers and ruled on whether or not the Ten Commandments could be displayed in two Kentucky courthouses. Sections of the Ten Commandments are displayed in the Supreme Court building. They were put there by people closer to the time when our Constitution was written. What was the intelligent conclusion the justices came to? The Commandments cannot be displayed because that violates separation of church and state.

I think it’s time for them to vacate the building.


Itasca, Texas

Saddam the pacifier?

In the book review of “The New Militarism” by Andrew Bacevich (Op-Ed, June 21), Brendan Conway asked an interesting question. He wanted to know if allowing Saddam Hussein to become the Middle East hegemon in 1991 “would have pacified the region.”

Why should I care whether Saddam would have “pacified” that or any other region? During the 1980s, he was an American ally, neutralizing the influence and power of the Iranian mullahs in the Middle East when we thought, and rightly so, that Iran was a clear and present danger to our national interest.

At that time, Saddam’s secular regime was perceived as a counterweight to the malignant strains of radical Islam. By 1991, he had become the devil incarnate only because he had invaded Kuwait. We had no defense arrangement with that country. We had no vital interests to protect in that country.

If Saddam had been permitted to stay in Kuwait, how would that have threatened America? If he had decided to invade Saudi Arabia, how would that have threatened America?

I do not believe America would have been hurt or threatened in either case. In fact, had Saddam invaded Saudi Arabia, he might well have destroyed the militant Wahhabi sect, the primary religious influence over the September 11 hijackers, and, therefore, we well may have avoided the attack on the World Trade Center and the pain from mourning the deaths of 3,000 Americans.

Maybe George Washington was right. Maybe we should revisit the idea of just minding our own business.



Speak up, landowners

The American citizen seems to have a real penchant for bestowing blind trust in our government, with the spilling of our own blood as a result. Pearl Harbor and September 11 probably are the most vivid examples. In both of these cases, warning signs were ignored or overlooked until it was too late.

I think the recent Supreme Court decision allowing local governments to use eminent domain to take your home for the benefit of private entities is another glaring warning (“Supreme Court backs eminent domain,” Page 1, Friday). Past court rulings have gored some, but not all, Americans, so partisan differences have caused us to give deference to such decisions. This decision, potentially affecting every homeowner in the nation, should sound a warning that rouses us all to action.

Where is the outcry from our political leaders of any stripe? Can you imagine any of them in a town hall meeting convincing the gathering that it is in their best interest that someone else take away a home if the proposed new use of that property generates more tax income than the home does? If this decision were put to a vote, how many would vote in favor? I suspect almost zero. These leaders are out of touch with average families.

If there ever were an argument that should cause voters to demand some method of review and oversight of court rulings, this should be it. If we fail to act to protect our own homes, we certainly don’t fit our founders’ definition of Americans.

Where will the courts venture next?

We cannot allow our politicians to take issues on one at a time, as with the flag-burning amendment or possibly the marriage amendment. The process takes too long, and the courts’ error rate is too rapid to ever keep up. We need a global amendment providing some method of review and confirmation of court decisions by elected representatives.



Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide