Disaster Relief For Religious Schools And Reimbursement Of Religious Organizations

From reading a Washington Post article I came to the conclusion that funding for disaster comes under the governments constitutional responsibility to promote the general welfare and President Bush shows a willingness to consider religious schools a part of the general public. This is a policy that the American Atheist and their ACLU allies detest, as you can see from the below excerpt from the earlier‘s web site.

Among the developments taking place is the unexpected fast-tracking of otherwise dormant legislation on Capitol Hill that would encourage tax-deductible donations to churches and other religion-based groups, along with serious weakening of government rules that prohibit the use of public funds to underwrite such organizations especially in times of an "emergency" like Hurricane Katrina. This is part of a larger effort by the White House to "outsource" social services and even emergency preparedness programs to the "armies of compassion," a buzz-phrase referring to churches and houses of worship that Mr. Bush wants to benefit from federal and other government funding.

The excerpt deals with the plans of the Bush administration to reimburse faith based organizations for their aid during hurricane Katrina ACLU makes this declaration on their web cite.

President Bush's creation of a White House office to fund religious organizations' participation in social service programs violates the U. S. Constitution's prohibition against government-sponsored religion and opens the door for tax-funded discrimination in the provision of desperately needed social services and employment.

FEMA defended their actions in deciding to reimburse faith based organizations with these words.

FEMA officials said religious organizations would be eligible for payments only if they operated emergency shelters, food distribution centers or medical facilities at the request of state or local governments in the three states that have declared emergencies -- Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. In those cases, "a wide range of costs would be available for reimbursement, including labor costs incurred in excess of normal operations, rent for the facility and delivery of essential needs like food and water," FEMA spokesman Eugene Kinerney said in an e-mail.

Lets actually look at the Constitution and see what all this hoopla is about. First the first amendment which was put into place that any citizen’s of the United States would not have to support a government established religious organization whose teachings they such as the Church of England. I understand that as I do not like supporting the Atheistic Religion pushed on us by the Federal Courts. I can also understand not wanting to support another religions evangelism such as the Atheistic creation theory of evolution through random mutation. But in no way was the first Amendment meant to stop the reimbursement for the work and resources used to aid other or the actual aid of those in need. To suggest that shows a total disregard not only of the Constitution but the history behind it. The Virginia Bill of Rights states

That no free government, nor the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles; and by the recognition by all citizens that they have duties as well as rights, and that such rights cannot be enjoyed save in a society where law is respected and due process is observed.

It also states in support of ACLU argument but not disagree with Bush’s stance through FEMA.

to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry; but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support such private contract as he shall please.

So I agree that when allotting funds the government needs to take care not to allow funds to advance a particular religions ministry whether that religion be Atheism, Christianity, or other. They can do this by asking organizations who submit claims not to include any funds that were used for that purpose much like the IRS does when considering tax deductions for using private property for business. I am also against using public funds to advance the Atheistic theory of creation of evolution through random mutation in preference to others as the Constitution requites equal protection under the laws whether you are Atheist or Christian. My preferred solution to the dilemma presented by government supporting education and disaster relief is that when doing so; they honor the Constitution by making no religious test in the execution of it.

Planned Parrenthood Vs Parental Rights in New Hampshire

I am addressing a lawsuit involving the ACLU and Planned Parenthood against the state of New Hampshire that is anti family as well as anti life though I only address the earlier.

I admire the United States Declaration of Independence and hold the values summed up therein to be very important but know that many in the state and federal government do not share my esteem for the founding document of our once free country.

The Statement “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America” makes the Declaration a legal document binding on all thirteen states whose ideals have ever been retracted by the governments of the United States. In the United States Constitution acknowledgement of its legal status is given by admitting that it and not the treaty with Great Britain granted independence to the United States by numbering the Independence of the United States from its signing.

The phrase “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” establishes the philosophy of natural law as legal fact within the boundaries of the United States. This ideal was so important that the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution protects “rights retained by the people” from being denied or disparaged because they are not mentioned in the Constitution.

The axiom “that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” Mentions three rights that the United States is to regard as fact but implies the existence of others. One of the sources of information about natural law is John Locke’s "The Second Treatise of Civil Government".

In his chapter by the title of "Paternal Power" John Locke defines the natural law of parenthood with the following words.

Sec. 58. The power, then, that parents have over their children, arises from that duty which is incumbent on them, to take care of their off-spring, during the imperfect state of childhood. To inform the mind, and govern the actions of their yet ignorant nonage, till reason shall take its place, and ease them of that trouble, is what the children want, and the parents are bound to

And

But whilst he is in an estate, wherein he has not understanding of his own to direct his will, he is not to have any will of his own to follow: he that understands for him, must will for him too; he must prescribe to his will, and regulate his actions; but when he comes to the estate that made his father a freeman, the son is a freeman too.

He is not stating that parents have absolute authority over their child for earlier in his chapter entitled Of The State Of Nature he declared that liberty did not justify license as the following cite demonstrates.

… yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it.

Ayotte v.Planned Parenthood of Northern New England is a case before the Supreme Court after lesser courts have made the following decisions.

Reviewing the Act, the district court adopted the standard of review from Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pa. V. Casey and Stenberg v. Carhart, which provides that laws may not impose an undue burden on the right to choose abortion, and ruled that the Act violates the Constitution. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, rejecting the argument of the New Hampshire Attorney General that the plaintiffs were required to show that under “no set of circumstances” is the Act valid. Applying the “undue burden” standard, the First Circuit held that the act violates the Constitution because of the narrowness of the death exception and because the Act lacks an exception that would protect the health of a pregnant minor. The court rejected the argument that the judicial bypass mechanism could be used to preserve the health and life of a minor, stating that the procedure, which might take as long as two weeks, allows the health or life of the minor to be jeopardized for too long a time.

I previously laid out proof of the right of parenthood and proved it is an established legal right of our country. The right of parenthood overrides the right of privacy of a minor as the minors liberty is subject to the parents will, which renders the undue burden ruling irrelevant. Knowing this the New Hampshire law is in fact Constitutional as according to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution the only way the parental right can be taken from someone is the due process of law.

The law of most or all states has means to legally handle suspected child abuse. The first is to call the state Child Protective Service and report the suspected crime. CPS in their police roll then has the authority to take custody of the child and have their own doctor check her out for evidence of abuse or if her life is threatened by the baby she is carrying. Once they have that evidence in hand they can order an abortion if they determine that is the best interest of the child and the parents have abused their parental rights. Like the police the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution limits CPS by the need to obtain a warrant from a judge to accomplish all of this.

Roy Moore Was Impeached For Keeping His Constitutional Oath

Roy Moore is an American Patriot because when he took his oath to defend the United States Constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic he strived to keep it even in the face of corrupt federal judges. Among his enemies are the ACLU and atheist groups such as the Mobile Atheist. Blair Scott of the later group either is completely ignorant of the legal history of the United States or just a plain liar states "The Bible is not the 'moral foundation of our law’. Since the so called separation of church and state that he is addressing was proposed by a Christian denomination on the grounds the it was a violation of an individual’s religious right to make them support a religion they did not proscribe to or to force a person not to practice their own religion. You can see this in the cite below.

according to the dictates of Protestantism, we claim and expect the liberty of worshipping God according to our consciences, not being obliged to support a ministry we cannot attend, whilst we demean ourselves as faithful subjects.

In a May 8, 2002 call for action the American Atheist quote the Blair Scott’s misinformation. They do this in their zeal to force others to follow their religion. Their method was to call for a demonstration demanding his impeachment thus punishing Moore for defying the dictates of their religion voiced by federal judges. Moore did in fact loose his job for both telling the truth and keeping his oath of office to uphold the Constitution; which shows we are indeed a corrupt society ruled by the Secular denomination of the Atheist religion

I back up Moore’s claim that Christianity is the basis of our laws by challenging them to read the Constitution itself and tell me with logic and reason without lying that the writers do not claim Jesus as Lord with the words “in the year of our Lord”. They did this just before signing the Constitution into law and thus legally made Jesus Lord of that document and thus the United States as a whole.

The Government Backs The Atheist Doctrine Creation By Random Mutation

The federal courts get to decide if intelligent design can be taught in school or not after several families sued over a small exercise of it in schools as you can see in this cite from the Associated Press article " 'Intelligent Design' Advocate Testifies" by Martha Raffaele. Eight families sued to have intelligent design removed from the biology curriculum, contending the policy essentially promotes the Bible's view of creation and therefore violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

I am going to ignore the fact that legally this case should only be tried in state courts as it is clearly not within federal jurisdiction. Instead I am going to attack Evolution as an Atheistic doctrine of creation. In fact the real question is not Evolution v. Intelligent design but it is random chance v. intelligent design.

It is no surprise that according to the cite below the champions of the Secular denomination of the Atheistic religion, the ACLU, are involved in the case as is the AUSCS.

The plaintiffs are represented by a team put together by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The school district is being represented by the Thomas More Law Center, a public-interest firm based in Ann Arbor, Mich., that says its mission is to defend the religious freedom of Christians.

Thomas More Center is correct in that evolution is a clear violation of the religious non-establishment clause. This is because the non-establishment clause was placed in the Bill of Rights to protect citizens of United States from supporting a doctrine they did not agree with. When the Antipaedobaptist churches in New England sent Isaac Backus to the First Congress of the United States he carried an introduction that carried to following plea for religious freedom.

according to the dictates of Protestantism, we claim and expect the liberty of worshipping God according to our consciences, not being obliged to support a ministry we cannot attend, whilst we demean ourselves as faithful subjects.

Even though years have passed a significant number of people of the United States are still desirous of the same freedom from religious oppression whether it be Atheism, Christianity, or some other religion. It is better to give consideration to all theories of creation, Than to embrace any religions specific doctrine such as Evolution.

Provide For The Common Defence By Immigration Reform

According to the Associated Press article titled Chertoff Vows End to 'Catch and Release' by Jim Abrams, Secretary of Homeland Security said ``Return every single illegal entrant - no exceptions,'' when in hearings on overhauling the immigration system that are before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He and President Bush took an oath to provide for the common defense of this country as that is one purpose for what the Constitution was developed and there is no excuse for either of them or any other government official in not following through on that oath to the best of their ability. The first thing that came to my mind upon hearing his claim is that sure he might do that while the eyes of the nation are upon him but can we trust him when our eyes are not upon him. The second think is that the executive branch has the right to enforce the law or not as they see fit, a point I brought up in a earlier post.

His excuse for the policy was summed up in the following excerpt from the above article placing the blame on Congress.

Chertoff said that the nearly 900,000 Mexicans who are caught entering United States every year are returned immediately to Mexico, ``but other parts of the system have nearly collapsed under the weight of numbers.''

In the budget year that ended last month, the Border Patrol apprehended more than 160,000 non-Mexican nationals, but only 30,000 were removed from the United States. The others were released, often on their own recognizance, because there is no place to hold them. Few return for immigration hearings, he said.

I am not interested in placing blame just on correcting the problem that I am well aware is the result of political finagling that most likely involve all three branches of the federal government who were trying to pander to their supporters and therefore made the complex and contradictory spaghetti code that passes for immigration policy.

A leading proponent of changes in immigration has stated the obvious as testified in the following cite.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, in prepared remarks, agreed that Congress must approve more money to enforce immigration law and make substantive changes to existing laws so the Homeland Security Department can quickly remove illegal aliens.

But he also said there must be improved avenues for legal immigration.

The article also states that if the bill is not put together until 2006 the legislative members will not want to pass it as it is a political sensitive issue and 2006 is an election year so the may apply a temporary fix. That is not acceptable as patching the system will only add one more piece of legislation to an already existing mess. We have to pressure our congressional members to respect the Declaration of Independence that holds that all human beings including immigrants are granted by Nature with the right to live and liberty. This includes the right to legally and safely enter this country provided they pass screening to determine whether or not they are a significant risk to the safety of our country, whether health, security, justice or other. This process needs to be streamlined as much as possible at the same time the border needs to be toughened and border policy enforced. The sooner this overhaul is done the better for the United States and as loyal Americans we cannot let our representatives back out or put it off.

The following bills are being proposed, both of which I approve; providing that those who apply for a visa meet the same criteria as those wishing to immigrate.

Cornyn and Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., are sponsoring a bill that would give illegal immigrants five years to leave the country, but allow them to return through legal channels, including a guest worker program.

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., back a bill that would let illegal immigrants apply for a temporary work visa for up to six years, after which they must return home or apply for permanent residency.

I advance the opinion that anyone wishing to immigrate or work in the United States show a desire that they with to become a member of the United States by displaying knowledge of English, The Declaration of Independence, and The Constitution. If we can afford to offer a semester course in each of these within their country to candidates while doing a background check that should be sufficient for them to enter our country.

The Supreme Courts Is A Despotic Branch

According to the Federlist #78 the Judicial branch of the government is supposed to be the weakest branch because as for themselves they should have no ability to make laws or execute them. Our federal court as it is practiced today does both simply because the other two branches fail to stand up for their rights. They have exceeded their jurisdiction as well as their powers and the states have not stood up for their own rights. In short they have become tyrants pushing that no longer honor the rule of law but force their own agenda on the people. The people of the United State will not be truly free until the federal courts are brought back under the control of the Constitution and to that we need to pressure our state and federal officials to uphold and defend the Constitution.

In Article 3 Section 2 which I cite below you will see the scope of laws that the federal courts are to operate under,

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority

In Article 7 which I cite you will see these further defined and applied to state judges. The exception being federal laws not meant to uphold the Constitution.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Now in reading these do you see any provision made for the use of foreign law or case law to adjudicate. It is true that foreign and case law like other documents can be used to help determine the original intent of the articles and amendments of the Constitution and for that purpose its use is acceptable. We are not obliged to live according to other countries laws even if a large number of countries hold to them.

Below I cite from Article 3 Section 2 the type of cases

to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Amendment XI reads as follows.

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

The point I am trying to make from the following is that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction in any cases that are between a state and a citizen of the same state. I say this because that case is not mentioned and the Tenth Amendment states that if the Constitution does not give the federal government a power then that power remains the state’s. So if the courts were obeying the Constitution how did Roe v. Wade even make it into federal courts. For it to make it into federal courts a federal law would have had to been violated or a dispute between the federal government started either which would have the United States as one party. In Roe v. Wade the parties were Roe a citizen of Texas and the state of Texas.

I leave you with the below words from Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.

"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. but the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804.

For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."

Alexander Hamilton in The Federlist #78 Saturday, June 14, 1788

Congresses Right To Interpret The Constitution

When the Constitution is properly adhered to. then Congress is the most powerful branch of government because they have the right to make all laws and regulations, distribute money, and impeach the President, Vice President and all civil officers including Supreme Court justices. Contrary to the belief of most they are also given the power to interpret and apply the Constitution to their duties because of their constitutional oath . They are not bound by oath to support Supreme Court precedent but only to support the Constitution itself. If they have a different understanding of the Constitution than that of the Supreme Court they are to act according to it and let their constituents decide whether to vote them in again. They are to look at those whom attempt to corrupt or alter the meaning of the Constitution as domestic enemies; even if they are members of the Supreme Court. That is what they took an oath to do upon obtaining their office and if they do not do it, then they make themselves a criminal by committing perjury.

Congress has all legislative powers reserved to them as well as the power to borrow money, lay and collect taxes, and pay depts. They can use this power to influence various departments but they must pay the President and the members of the federal courts. They can make rules for the government which includes the federal courts and the executive departments. They can make various laws effecting the states such as those related to civil rights, interstate trade, and other situations specified in the Constitution. They can impeach members of any of the three branches..

So Congress can pass a law in contradiction to a ruling of the Supreme Court with explanation of why the have found the law Constitutional and allow the Executive branch to enforce it until it is challenged in the courts. Congress can override the Supreme Courts “veto” by impeaching the Justices for violating their constitutional oath. Congress can cut funding to the federal courts in retaliation. Congress can also make it tougher for the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional by altering the rules the federal courts operate on.

We as constituents have the duty to encourage our Congressional representatives to use their powers to put brakes on the runaway Supreme Court. We also need to keep them accountable that they interpret the Constitutional according to what we believe its original intent was and let the majority rule; since the ideal is that people though capable of oppressing others are also capable of watching out for their own rights if they have the tools to do so.

The Presidents Right To Interpret The Constitution

In the Constitution of the United States you will find listed the range of powers of the President of the United States. The sphere of influence of the President is a mere four years after which time he/she is once more directly accountable to the people. The President is limited to two terms in office in case the fondness of the People grow to much for him/her and their loyalty gives birth to a tyrant as they disregard his/her shortcomings.

The Presidents power is also limited in his/her ability according to the Constitution to intervene within the borders of a state. The intervention in that case is at the behest of Congress, not necessary the sitting Congress and can be to enforce civil rights, interstate or international trade rules, or other selected instances. Even then due consideration should be given to the state governments to enforce the rules in their own borders before resorting to federal enforcement. Should the state still dispute the intervention as unconstitutional and Congress and the President insist the action is Constitutional then the Supreme Court should weigh in and their decision held to by all at that time. Even then at a later time after elections have been held in all elected positions the dispute may be renewed and re-decided. This later allows the people to weigh in by voting for those backing the position they the people prefer or are willing to concede and allows the Supreme Court to overcome any error they might have made previously.

The President as the executive power of the federal government has the power to enforce or not to enforce the legislative actions of Congress and the judicial decisions of the federal Courts. The President has no power to legislate which is reserved to Congress or to judge which is reserved to the Supreme Court but he/she does have power to giver orders to the executive branch including the military as long as those orders are not in violation of the Constitution. The President can choose to not enforce legislation or judicial orders that he/she personally feel are a violation of the Constitution because he/she took an oath to do just that. Should the other two branches disagree with The President on what the Constitution means in the case and Congress has overcome a presidential veto The President should wash his/her hands of the affair and reluctantly agree to enforce their interpretation and allow the voters to weigh in at a later date before challenging it again.

If you read the Federalist papers #78 you will see that what I wrote about the federal government agrees with what Alexander Hamilton also wrote when urging the support of the Constitution. So it is clear that on the federal level no constitutional issue should be decided without the concurrence of at least two of the three branches of government thus maintaining the balance of power. If in addition we follow the ideals of Abraham Lincoln, who declared “That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend;…”, then it becomes clear that the federal government should not intervene within a states borders unless two branches and the state agree or all three branches of the federal government agree.

At this time the President enforces the laws of Congress and the decisions of The Supreme Court automatically claiming to be upholding the Rule of Law. The claim is false as he is committing perjury by violating his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. We as the people of the United States have to demand that our President uphold his constitutional oath and defy the Supreme Court or Congress, but not both; once he has exercised his right to veto the later‘s legislation.