Americans
are sitting on the edge of their seat, putting all of their hopes in the
possibility that President Trump will not only pull through and win the
election, but finally drain the swamp in light of all the obvious election
fraud. The election fraud that is so blatantly obvious I might add, it is almost
like they wanted you to see it. One of the possible saving graces in the minds
of conservatives, if this fiasco should end up in the Supreme Court, is the
recent confirmation of Justice Amy Barrett. Many people believe that she will
be the deciding factor in any election fraud case that swings the results in the
Donald’s favor. This may well be however, there is another recent confirmation
of a Trump appointee who people put a lot of faith in that turned out to be
nothing that he seemed.
Supreme
Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, according to The
Daily Signal, stated while hearing Texas v. California, another court
challenge to the individual mandate in Obamacare, that if the mandate is struck
down, the rest of law should stand. Many people will be shocked by this
because they are under the illusion that every SCOTUS pick by President Trump
is a strict constitutionalist. This is far from the truth. Especially when it
comes to Brett Kavanagh. During the confirmation process, where the Democrats staged
a show accusing Kavanaugh of being a sexual predator, and portraying him as a
staunch opponent of abortion, he was behind the scenes assuring
pro-abortion senators like Susan Collins that he would never vote against Roe
v. Wade, because it is established law. Furthermore,
he promised Chuck Schumer, an ideological enemy of conservatism, the same
thing in his 2006 appeals court confirmation.
Brett
Kavanaugh was also instrumental, (something I tried to warn you about in this
article), in helping write opinions that enabled Justice Roberts, a liberal
in conservatives clothing, to justify the Obamacare
mandate as a tax in the first place. Kavanaugh’s opinion at the time
reflected his belief that the mandate was constitutional. What he is stating
now is that if the mandate is found to be unconstitutional, which no decision has
been made yet, the body of the law should stay in place without the mandate.
Many people believe that without the individual tax, Obamacare becomes unenforceable.
This is not true. If the law is unenforceable it is because it is 2,700 pages that went
unread not only by congress, but the Supreme Court as well. Furthermore,
there is an additional 20,000 pages of regulations which govern the
implementation of Obamacare and I can assure you that none of us peasants know
what the law fully entails. Getting rid of the mandate will not render the law
useless. It is unlikely that even Brett Kavanaugh knows what Obamacare fully entails
among those thousands of pages. He probably believes, like other liberals, that
healthcare is a human right, and he is virtue signaling his compassion to the
rest of the world by supporting the law.
There
is hope that Amy Barrett may indeed be a strict originalist in her constitutional
interpretations; however, the Brett Kavanaugh story warns us that we should
take heed and proceed with caution when it comes to putting all of our faith
into any politician. Many people aspiring to get into government service run on
popular positions simply to get elected. Once in office, they show their true
colors. Some people even run under the guise of the opposing party, if
possible. Like most people, I do not want to see a Kamala Harris presidency. I
do realize though, that sometimes people are not who they portray themselves to
be.
Yes, indeed!
ReplyDeleteAnd the reason why it's a bad idea to put faith in today's courts is because of the CRIMINAL Justice System created by the constitutional framers when they rejected the Bible's Criminal JUSTICE System as the law of the land:
"...According to Habakkuk 1:7, not only did the Chaldeans’ authority originate with themselves, but so did their justice. And so does the justice of WE THE PEOPLE: “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice….” What an audacious assertion. Only Yahweh is just, and only He can establish justice:
'Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy [Yahweh’s] throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.' (Psalm 89:14)....
"Anytime autonomous man attempts to establish justice outside Yahweh’s moral laws, the result is always injustice. In Isaiah 5:20, this transposition is depicted as calling good evil and evil good. The word “autonomous” comes from two Greek words: auto meaning self and nomos meaning law. The word, which literally means “self-law,” is just another way of describing humanism and, in this instance, constitutionalism...."*
"...The Bible stipulates, among other things, that judicial appointees must be men of truth who fear Yahweh and hate covetousness. (See Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” for a list of additional Biblical qualifications.) The United States Constitution requires no Biblical qualifications whatsoever. Nowhere does the Constitution stipulate that judges must rule on behalf of Yahweh, rendering decisions based upon His commandments, statutes, and judgments as required in Exodus 18. That not even one constitutional framer contended for Yahweh,3 as did King Jehoshaphat, speaks volumes about the framers’ disregard for Him and His judicial system:
'And he [King Jehoshaphat] set judges in the land throughout all the fenced cities of Judah, city by city, and said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for YHWH,4 who is with you in the judgment…. And he charged them, saying, Thus shall ye do in the fear of YHWH, faithfully, and with a perfect heart.' (2 Chronicles 19:5-9)...."**
*For more, see Chapter 3 "The Preamble: We the People vs. Yahweh" of free online book "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective: at https://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.html
*For more, see Chapter 6 "Article 3: Judicial Usurpation at https://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt6.html
I always appreciate your perspective Ted.
ReplyDelete