American Courts Violating Constitution?

Are the courts in America violating the Constitution by interpreting the laws and the Constitution itself incorrectly? Some people in the United States certainly think so, but sometimes if you read their writings closely, you'll often find that insofar as their comments are coherent, they display absolutely no clue about the issues they are writing on.

At least, that’s the impression that I get from a piece which Dorothy Anne Seese published with The Sierra Times. Let's take a look at a couple of key passages which you are likely to find in many similar complaints:

[T]he rulings of numerous United States Supreme Courts and federal courts are actually in violation of the supreme law of the United States because such decisions, rulings and opinions are in violation of the written words of the Constitution and its intent.

Dorothy Anne Seese assumes, without even attempting to make an argument for it, that the Constitution must either be read from the perspective of textualism (written words) or originalism (intent) or both. Many jurists and lawyers disagree and suggest that other methods of interpretation are better — but you won’t find any acknowledgment of this debate in Seese’s editorial. Even if she is convinced that her perspective is correct, she should at least have pointed out the debate and given a couple of reasons for why she believes that others are mistaken.

Such subverted justices and judges have committed impeachable offenses. They have twisted the First Amendment to their own prejudices rather than adhering to the law of the land, and as such, are guilty of creating case law that is repugnant to the Constitution.

“Judges I disagree with should be removed from office.”

‘Nuff said (though not really, I suppose, since the same thing is repeated several times throughout the editorial).

Today the agenda of the politicized federal courts, including SCOTUS, is to drive all expressions of the Christian faith out of the United States, first out of federal buildings, then in violation of the Tenth Amendment out of all state buildings, and further, out of all public displays.

Dorothy Anne Seese doesn’t seem to realize that much of the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment, applies to the states as well as the federal government, so holding them to its standards is not a violation of the Tenth Amendment. Imagine if the First Amendment didn’t apply to the states: state or local governments could jail journalists, establish churches, and ban public gatherings without there being any ability to challenge it.

Even worse, Dorothy Anne Seese can’t seem to distinguish between personal expression of religion, which is everyone’s right, and the government expressing a religious message, which amounts to the support and endorsement of a particular religion that violates everyone’s rights. Individuals, when acting as private citizens, have broad rights of expression; the government, even when represented by individuals, doesn’t have such rights.

Personal religious expression, when truly personal, is not being driven out of any government buildings. Government speech, however, has always been more closely regulated — when acting in their capacity as officers of the government, a person doesn’t have the right to promote a religious message. Many evangelical Christians just don’t get this — but that seems to be because they always assume that it will be their religious message that the government promotes. Suggest that the government promote messages from Wicca or Islam, and these Christians change their tune rather quickly.

To try to justify such actions based on “separation of church and state” -- a phrase not even in the Constitution or its amendments -- is to belabor a point and mangle it beyond recognition!

Presumably, Dorothy Anne Seese doesn’t believe that anyone has a right to a “fair trail” — after all, you won’t find that phrase in the Constitution either. What about the concept “separation of powers”? That phrase doesn’t appear in the Constitution, so I guess it doesn’t exist in the Constitution, either. If it doesn’t appear in the text of the Constitution, it isn’t true — just like something can’t be true if it doesn’t appear in the Bible.

Wait, the term “Trinity” doesn’t appear in the Bible, either... so I guess that’s an un-Christian doctrine?

It is today's courts that are attempting not only to deny the religious foundation upon which this nation was founded, but to obliterate it. Such rulings are repugnant to the Constitution.

The Constitution is the founding legal document of this nation and.... guess what? You won't find any mention there of the nation being founded on either religion in general or Christianity specifically. For someone so concerned with the original text of the Constitution, Dorothy Anne Seese shows an amazing blindness to it when it serves her purpose.

There are arguments that can be offered for some of what she claims, but she either doesn't respect her audience enough to make those arguments or she just isn't educated enough to realize that there are arguments to be made. Perhaps she, like some, assumes that what she believes is so plainly obvious that no one could possibly dispute it and arguing on behalf of it would be like trying to argue that the sky is blue. That, however, would prove that Dorothy Anne Seese simply has no understanding of the issues at hand - as if any further proof beyond the above quotes were necessary.

 

Separation of Church & State:

• Separation of Church and State 101
• Secularism 101
• What is the Separation of Church and State?
• Religion's Place in the Public Square
• Myths About Church/State Separation
• Church and State News
• Church & State Polls

 

Secularism & Secularization:

What is Secularism? Religious Origins of Secularism Secularism as Philosophy Secularism as a Political & Social Movement Secularism vs. Secularization Religion in a Secular Society Critiques of Secularism

 

Christian & Religious Privilege:

• Religious Privilege
• Christian Privilege
• Hidden Christian Privileges
• Christian Supremacy