There is an excellent website for reading leading "Christian intellects" on political and social issues. It is:

http://www.leaderu.com/index.html

Here is part of a paragraph from the introduction of a symposium, the title of is also the title of this thread.

"The proposition examined in the following articles is this: The government of the United States of America no longer governs by the consent of the governed. With respect to the American people, the judiciary has in effect declared that the most important questions about how we ought to order our life together are outside the purview of "things of their knowledge." Not that judges necessarily claim greater knowledge; they simply claim, and exercise, the power to decide."

Here is a bit of the next paragraph as well:

"As important as democracy is, the symposium addresses another question still more sobering. Law, as it is presently made by the judiciary, has declared its independence from morality. Indeed, as explained below, morality-especially traditional morality, and most especially morality associated with religion-has been declared legally suspect and a threat to the public order."

You would benefit from the articles found here. Check it out.

-- Anonymous, December 26, 2000

Answers

Mark.....

Not prophets.....just common sense....and the record of history.

-- Anonymous, December 27, 2000

Connie......

You said....

"We can be thankful that the founding fathers set our government up the way they did."

I could not agree more....including....the Second Amendment.

-- Anonymous, January 13, 2001

Sam,

Thanks for the link - there is some OUTSTANDING information and opinions there!

What is really scarey about this info, is that a lot of what is said there makes some of us on this Forum look like prophets...:~).

-- Anonymous, December 26, 2000

Brother Sam:

I am very happy to see you again in this forum. I trust and pray that all is well with you in your work.

I just wanted to respond and thank you for your diligent research and your giving us the benefit of it. The site to which you have referred us is EXCELLENT information concerning just what the Judicial branch of what is supposed to be "OUR" government has been doing to actually usurp the power that rightfully belongs to the people into their own "elite" hands by the process of judicial review.

It does seem that they do this to favor those in our society who want rights and priviledges that democracy will not give them by means of a required constitutional amendment or the making of law by a duely elected legislature. As an example. If one wants many of the things sought by the gay rights advocates, he must amend the constitution in order to have them. For our constitution does not provide for such. And if through the democratic process, they could obtain the results they wanted we would not see the courts taking any action. The very fact that the courts are taking action to "reinterpret" the laws in order to help special interest groups avoid the inconvienience and slow process of persuading the nation as a whole to favor their positions on abortion, physician assisted suicide, and euthanasia, etc. is evidence that the courts are deliberately usurping power that rightfully belongs to the people. None of our brances of government are to have any power other than that which we the people grant them. When any judge seeks to interpret the constitution in the light of our modern times and make the laws more reflective of our current situation has usurped power that we have not, through our constituion granted them. The Administrative, Judicial, and Legislative branches of this government of the people, by the people, and for the people are subject solely to the people through the constitution which can be amended only by them. Therefore, when the courts seek to gain by new and strained interpretations( which are actually revisions) rights and priviledges for any group of people. And allow, through such interpretations, required amendments of the constitution by our democratic process necessary to the granting those rights and priviledges by the majority of the people to be circumvented. They have thereby usurped the authority of the people and taken it to themselves. We had better watch this dangerous trend and check it.

In fact, it is interesting to note that some of the judges currently sitting on the supreme court are very much aware of and complain publicly in their writing about this very problem.

Thanks again Sam. I recommend that all read this site that you have recommended.

Your brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 29, 2000

California is a prime example. It seems every time there is a popular referendum (such as Proposition 186 a few years ago, which would have made illegal aliens unable to be on welfare and get other subsidies), a small group of liberals takes it to the courts and its thrown out as being "unconstitutional." I think a majority of Californians are getting really sick of it.

-- Anonymous, December 30, 2000

Talk about being prophetic. The Republician Florida Supreme Court "named" Bush as president and stopped the vote.

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

Chris Hawkins:

I think you mean the U. S. Supreme Court, not Florida. The Florida Supreme Court was for Gore.

John Wilson:

In Washington the popular initiatives are anti-tax, and generally supported by conservatives. The Eyman initiatives have been clearly unconstitutional, and even many supporters expected them to be thrown out in court. The state supreme court does not need to be conservative or liberal to recognize provisions in a law that conflict with the constitution. Conservative courts seem to recognize conflicts through strict construction, and liberal courts through more complicated reasoning. In many of the cases in Washington, the conflicts have been "black letter" law directly from the constitution, or long established constitutional and statutory interpretation that the initiative simply ignored.

The role of the courts in protecting the society from the majority can't be overlooked. If it is really a good idea, it needs to fit into the constitutional framework. Rather than complaining about courts doing their job of preserving the contitutional representative government structure, we should be thankful. In the absence of the courts and the constitution, the majority would rule without a check or balance of interests. And in the U.S. the majority is increasingly amoral, if not actually anti-Christian.

-- Anonymous, January 13, 2001

Chris and dbvz (Hi, Dwight), i re-post from above:

Talk about being prophetic. The Republician Florida Supreme Court "named" Bush as president and stopped the vote.

-- Chris Hawkins (peace@clover.net), January 12, 2001.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Chris Hawkins: I think you mean the U. S. Supreme Court, not Florida. The Florida Supreme Court was for Gore.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Florida Supreme Court was 7-1 Democrat (one was appointed JOINTLY by Lawton Childs (very liberal Democrat) and Jeb Bush. The other six were all appointed by the very liberal Childs.

They ruled in Gore's favor and were very partisan. The Supreme Court sent the first case back to Florida, because the FSC had overstepped its authority and the Federal Supreme Court gave them the opportunity to correct their previous postition.

The two lower courts (even with Democrat, but fair judges) ruled in GWB's favor. (No recounting unfairly in just a couple counties which highly favored Gore, and not throwing out the military ballots for a technicality having to do with APPLICATIONS NOT BALLOTS).

The Supreme Court (Federal) on a 7-2 ruling, declared that there was no way the ballots could be counted fairly with no uniform criteria to determine what each ballot revealed. The 5-4 ruling was that the high court had jurisdiction, if I am not mistaken.

We can be thankful that the founding fathers set our government up a it did.

There is one silver lining in this whole mess: we will get a fairer and more accurate system of voting in this country. The big city Democrat machines will not be able to steal votes anymore (for awhile until they learn how to steal with a new system) as they have for the whole past century.

Respectfully,

Connie

-- Anonymous, January 13, 2001