A Weak Congress Leads to a Tyrannical Judiciary

A weak Congress leads to a tyrannical judiciary. Do you doubt it? How else can a district court judge dictate immigration and foreign policy contrary to established statutes and constitutional prerogatives? Not only can a lowly judge suspend the laws of the land but he can force the president of the United States to go hat in hand before the Supreme Court to overturn his ruling. Whatever happened to checks and balances? Who’s to check and balance the only branch of government that is unelected and therefore unaccountable?


For every problem that this country faces, I can point to a rogue judicial ruling: Plyler v. Doe legitimized illegal aliens by forcing states to educate their children; Reynolds v. Sims diluted the rural vote and attacked the very premise of a republican form of government which has led to secession movements in California and Colorado; Abington School District v. Schempp forbade Bible reading in public schools and without a doubt has a direct correlation to pervasive immorality and school shootings, and how else can an unelected body of activist judges force the citizenry to uphold their dictates? Well in Cooper v. Aaron they bound the states to uphold their decisions. Isn’t that convenient?


The dirty little secret is Congress has the constitutional authority to check a rogue judiciary. Article III Section 2 states the following:


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;--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.



In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.


The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Therefore, Congress can limit the scope on which federal courts can rule. Here is an excerpt from Limiting Judicial Review by Act of Congress written in 1935:


It is well settled that the inferior federal courts are dependent upon Congress for their existence and the powers they exercise. Once in our early history Congress abolished the inferior federal courts altogether, and in our own time, Congress abolished the United States Circuit Courts. Congress frequently has limited the jurisdiction of the inferior federal courts. Since 1867 the inferior federal courts have been prohibited from enjoining the assessment or collection of a federal tax. For twenty five years District Courts have been prohibited, except by a specially constituted court of three judges, from enjoining the action of the Interstate Commerce Commission or of state officers, under state statutes, claimed to be violative of the-Federal Constitution. And a little more than a year ago Congress passed a statute depriving the United States 'District Courts of jurisdiction under certain circumstances to restrain the enforcement of the orders of state or local utilities' commissions under the due process clause of the Constitution of the United States.


Make no mistake about it, Congress has the constitutional authority to check and balance the federal courts. The only problem is weak leadership and/or a complete ignorance of Congress’ constitutional prerogatives.


Source:


https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://search.yahoo.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3789&context=californialawreview


https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://search.yahoo.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1327&context=facpubs


http://prospect.org/article/overruling-court


https://www.theconstitutionproject.com/portfolio/one-person-one-vote/

Federal Judges Attempt Coup in Red State, America

Democrats have an uncanny way of demonstrating their professed love of democracy while denying the American people the free exercise thereof. When they win, Republicans are told elections have consequences and that we have to suck up it up; after all, they won. However, when Democrats lose they’ll use the courts and the deep state to subvert the public will. 

No one can deny the disturbing revelations that progressives elements in the FBI and DOJ were behind a conspiracy to drive President Trump from the oval office; or, that the courts have transgressed their constitutionally defined roles. We have judges who are dictating immigration and national security policy. Where in the Constitution do these judges get the authority to determine who can and cannot come into this country?


The federal judiciary is not content with just undermining the Trump administration. They are attempting a coup by redistricting red state, America. North Carolina is currently under the throes of a judicial takeover. A three judge panel has determined that the Old North State’s General Assembly violated the Constitution. Here is an excerpt from the Atlantic:


A three-judge panel, including one circuit-court judge and two district-court judges, ruled Tuesday evening that the Old North State’s redistricting plan relied too heavily on partisan affiliation in drawing constituencies, violating citizens’ rights under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, the First Amendment, and Article I of the Constitution. The decision is the first time a federal court has ever struck down a redistricting plan as a partisan gerrymander. The final word, however, will likely come from the Supreme Court, which is considering two partisan-gerrymandering cases


Redistricting is a violation of the 14th Amendment? The Equal Protection Clause was put in place so as to ensure ex-slaves and their progeny were afforded due process under individual state laws. It had nothing to do with congressional districts which is solely a political question determined by individual states. And how is this a violation of the First Amendment? Where is this nonsense coming from? It just so happens left-wing activists are the plaintiffs in this case. Here is another excerpt from the Atlantic:


Nonetheless, Common Cause and the League of Women Voters both challenged the law, and their two suits were consolidated into one. The plaintiffs argued that the plan violated the Equal Protection Clause, because it discriminated against non-Republican voters; the First Amendment, because it discriminated against voters based on previous political expression; and Article I, because it interfered with the right of the people to elect their representatives.


They’re concerned that these districts discriminate against non-Republican voters? Republican voters threw out a well entrenched Democratic Party that ruled North Carolina for over 100 years. Where was their concern for non-Democratic voters then?


Of course, these plaintiffs found an Obama judge who agreed to this nonsense.


“A partisan gerrymander that is intended to and likely has the effect of entrenching a political party in power undermines the ability of voters to effect change when they see legislative action as infringing on their rights,” Judge James Wynn, an Obama appointee, wrote for the court. “We agree with Plaintiffs that a wealth of evidence proves the General Assembly’s intent to ‘subordinate’ the interests of non-Republican voters and ‘entrench’ Republican domination of the state’s congressional delegation.”


So what we have here is a coup by progressives judges and a malcontent minority who believe elections only have consequences when they win. Take a look at North Carolina’s fabled 12th Congressional District before and after the great 2012 repudiation of the Democratic Party.

Doesn’t the current district make sense? By the way this solidly Democratic district gerrymandered its way into my neighborhood and now I have a moron for a congressman. Now take a look at the grotesque districts of Maryland and Illinois.

Now tell me that these two districts aren’t political motivated. But that’s okay, since both are in blue states.

Source:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/north-carolina-partisan-gerrymander/550139/?utm_source=feed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland%27s_3rd_congressional_district

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland%27s_3rd_congressional_district

Federal Judges Have a Union?!

Did you know federal judges have a union?  I didn’t, until I read an article about President Trump’s new policy on improving our immigration courts.  Apparently, our so-called public servants are incapable of processing this tidal wave of illegal aliens in an efficient manner.  Here is an excerpt:

The White House says it aims to reduce an "enormous" backlog of 600,000 cases, triple the number in 2009, that cripples its ability to deport immigrants as President Donald Trump mandated in January.

 The National Association of Immigration Judges called the move unprecedented and says it will be the "death knell for judicial independence" in courts where immigrants such as political dissidents, women fleeing violence and children plead their cases to stay in the United States.

"That is a huge, huge, huge encroachment on judicial independence," said Dana Leigh Marks, spokeswoman and former president of the association and a judge for more than 30 years. "It's trying to turn immigration judges into assembly-line workers."

First of all, why do we allow federal judges to have a union?  This really didn’t sink in until I read the following paragraph and then I knew unions for judges actually existed:

The judges' union says its current contract language prevents the government from rating them based on the number of cases they complete or the time it takes to decide them.

 But now, they say, the department is trying to rescind that language, and advocates say it could violate a federal regulation that requires judges to "exercise their independent judgment and discretion" when deciding cases.

This is amazing!  Shouldn’t this raise a red flag to everyone?  Exactly how are these judges supposed to “exercise their independent judgement and discretion” when they belong to a union.  Unions promote a socio-political ideology that is the antithesis of independence and free thought.  Name a union that’s not!

Come to find out this is more pervasive than I thought.  Administrative judges in Washington D.C. voted to join a union in 2014.  Here is an excerpt from a press release:

Washington DC -- Administrative law judges who work for the District of Columbia’s Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), the office which provides adjudication services for several DC agencies, voted overwhelmingly Thursday to join the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE). Eighty percent of judges voting cast ballots for the union. Judge Jesse Goode, who hears cases related to unemployment insurance, said, “This has been a long time in coming. We wanted a union because we wanted a voice in making improvements to our courts. We specifically wanted to be members of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers because IFPTE represents nearly 2,000 federal administrative law judges. Sometimes the wheels of justice turn slowly even for judges, but today democracy prevailed and the union was voted in.”

Now they want an independent court system completely outside of the Department of Justice:

WASHINGTON — The federal immigration court system should be separated from the Justice Department and operated independently of federal law enforcement, the top two leaders of the immigration judges’ union said Wednesday.

 Judge Dana Leigh Marks, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, said immigration judges act as arbiters in deportation cases being argued by Homeland Security Department lawyers but judges also are treated as attorneys for the government.

This is a serious problem.

Source:

http://www.ifpte.org/news/details/DC-Judges-Vote-for-a-Union-with-IFPTE

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Justice-Department-proposes-quotas-for-12274271.php

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/immigration-judges-union-wants-independent-court/

Activist Judge Ruled Illegal Aliens Don't Have to "Show Papers"

When historians look back at this time in history, they’ll condemn Congress for dereliction of duty.  It’s bad enough that our elected representatives take five week vacations without addressing our national healthcare crisis, which they created, or a looming budget showdown.  No, this body would rather conduct oversight hearings that accomplish nothing and pass continuing resolutions that fund a bloated government.

However, I’m here to say that their real sin is not reining in an out-of-control federal judiciary.  We have judges who’re adjudicating and enforcing policies that are way beyond their jurisdiction.  Congress is the only body that has the authority to pass immigration laws.  It is Congress, who dictates what the federal judiciary can and cannot address as per Article III in the U.S. Constituion.

We have a crisis of epic proportions in this country due to judicial activism.  We have judges actively endangering the lives of citizens and undermining the value of citizenship.  Here is the latest outrage as reported by USA Today:    

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia halts the planned implementation Friday of Senate Bill 4, according to the American-Statesman.

The law allows local law enforcement to ask anyone who is legally detained or arrested for their immigration status during routine interactions such as traffic stops, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Garcia granted the preliminary injunction after five Texas cities, several counties and sheriffs challenged the law's constitutionality.

The judge wrote in his 94-page order that there is "overwhelming evidence" that the law "will erode public trust and make many communities and neighborhoods less safe," the Los Angeles Times reported.

Garcia also wrote that "localities will suffer adverse economic consequences which, in turn, will harm the state of Texas.”

Immigrants' rights groups complained that the measure could force anyone who looks as if they are in the country illegally to "show papers."

Do they not teach American history in law school?  Citizens have been demanding immigrants to “show papers”  before there was a United States.  Here is an excerpt from The Great Wagon Road by Parke Rouse, Jr. that I found interesting:

In the November rains, the two Moravians started southward again.  They found creeks swollen with muddy rainwater.  When they reached the Rappahannock, they crossed in a canoe and stopped at an inn kept by a German emigrant named Christopher Kuefer.  For several days they plodded through Virginia’s highlands in the rain.  Near Orange County Courthouse they were stopped by an English settler who demanded to see their passport.  When Schnell demurred, several farmers conducted him with rifles to a justice of the peace of Orange County.  But the German produced his passport there, and he and Hussey were permitted to proceed.

A federal judge does not have the authority to create law, that is Congress’ responsibility.  It’s also Congress’ responsibility to limit the jurisdiction of these rogue justices and if possible eliminating repeat offenders.  

Source:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/08/30/federal-judge-blocks-texas-tough-sanctuary-cities-law/619168001/

Oh Congress, Where Art Thou?

These past few months I’ve noticed a common theme from Republicans that is disturbing.  They’ve bought into the progressive ideology which renders Congress as overseers of the executive branch.  Speaker Paul Ryan stated as much in a press conference and so has Kenneth Starr in an op-ed published in the Washington Post.

How convenient for the legislative branch to concede its constitutional prerogatives to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats while they sit and conduct inconsequential hearings on all the president’s men.  These congressmen can’t even pass a budget without resorting to continuing resolutions or omnibus bills.  It must be nice sitting from on high and pass judgement on others who are doing the jobs they were elected to do.

But this is the administrative state that Woodrow Wilson and his ilk envisioned for America.  They wanted an efficient federal government unencumbered by the constraints of the Constitution or the citizenry.  Here is an excerpt from a blog post I wrote back in 2012:

Where did this paternalistic attitude of an administrative state come from? Ronald J. Pestritto summed it up best in his book, Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism:

If bureaucracy, as it administers progress, is to act on behalf of the general interest, what is the role for public opinion? Wilson, after all, seems a consistent advocate of connecting politics much more directly with popular opinion. Yet, his writings on the separation of politics and administration show that public opinion is not to be brought more directly into the realm of administrative decision making. “The problem,” Wilson explained, “is to make public opinion efficient without suffering it to be meddlesome.” Public opinion is a “clumsy nuisance” when it comes to the “oversight of the daily details and in the choice of the daily means of government.” So while public opinion ought to be introduced more directly into politics, politics must confine itself to general superintendence – to the role of setting only the broad goals of the nation. “Let administrative study find the best means for giving public criticism this control and for shutting it out from all other interference,” Wilson wrote.

So the American people are a nuisance and the administrative state is the vehicle to stop us from interfering with the grand schemes of the masterminds.

Congress does have an oversight role and that is over the federal judiciary which they, once again, have conveniently neglected.  Article Three specifically states Congress shall regulate federal courts.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Congress can limit the scope of the federal courts.  However, they refuse to do it.  

Marbury v. Madison is considered one of the biggest power grabs in American history.  I contend the judiciary’s abuse of the 14th Amendment ranks alongside it.  Section 5 states:

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.  

Oh Congress, where art thou?

Professional Progressives Demonstrate Elections Don't Matter

Americans are finding out who runs this country and it isn’t our elected representatives.  For over a hundred years, professional progressives have plotted to usurp the Constitution of the United States.  They’ve created bureaucracies that circumvent Congress and are now in open defiance of our president.  They’ve implanted judges who decree policies and rewrite laws that are clearly unconstitutional.  And now a lowly district court judge has assumed the mantle of commander in chief.

What’s next?  Will district court judges demand national security briefings?  Is our commander in chief supposed to consult with the 9^th Circuit Court before addressing imminent dangers?  Let’s disabuse ourselves of this check and balance nonsense.  No one checks and balances these rogue federal judges whose sole allegiance is to a progressive ideology.

Professional progressives declare this is resistance to a Trump agenda.  What they are really demonstrating is elections don’t matter as long as they have control of the bureaucracies and the federal judiciary.  

Judgocracy Rules the United States

Have you asked yourself, why does the federal government force local communities to educate, house and feed illegal aliens?  And why are they allowed to flood and bankrupt our hospitals?  The answer is activist federal judges set immigration policy by writing laws from the bench.  Now we have another outrageous ruling by another black robed, super-legislator.

A federal judge in Seattle issued a temporary nationwide restraining order Friday stopping President Trump's executive order banning citizens of seven countries from entering the United States.

Judge James Robart, who was appointed by former President George Bush in 2003, ruled the executive order would be stopped nationwide, effective immediately.

“The Constitution prevailed today,” Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in a statement after the ruling. “No one is above the law — not even the President.”

"It's our president's duty to honor this ruling and I'll make sure he does," Ferguson added.

The ruling, made at the request of Washington and Minnesota, is the broadest to date against Trump's executive order.

Ferguson, a Democrat, filed the lawsuit three days after Trump signed the executive order. The suit argued that the travel ban targets Muslims and violates constitutional rights of immigrants and their families.

So foreign nationals have a constitutional right to come to this country?  I don’t think so!

One of the basic tenets of our Constitution is separation of powers.  It has become quite apparent there are no checks on the federal judiciary.  They write laws from the bench and now they have taken over the plenary powers of the president of the United States.  Judgocracy rules the United States.

Source:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/317884-washington-state-judge-halts-trump-immigration-ban-nationwide

Liberal Judges Infest U.S. Appeals Courts

What Barack Obama hasn’t accomplished through executive orders and the federal bureaucracy he’ll obtain through the judiciary.  The United States is being fundamentally transformed from an American ideal into something otherworldly, or should I say third worldly.  The Daily Signal reports on how successful progressives have been in taking over the courts with aid from candy-ass, Senate Republicans.

 

 Obama also has left his mark on the U.S. District Courts, which are the lower federal courts, successfully appointing 268 judges—seven more than President George W. Bush.

 Obama didn’t push federal courts to the left by himself, though, since the Senate must confirm a president’s judicial appointments. And some conservatives complain that Senate Republicans handed over the keys to the judiciary without a fight.

 “These nominees can’t be characterized as anything but radical liberals, and the senators knew that when they were voting,” said Ken Cuccinelli, a former attorney general of Virginia who is now president of the Senate Conservatives Fund, a political action committee.

While there’s “no singular explanation” for how the majority of federal appeals judges flipped, Cuccinelli told The Daily Signal, Senate Republicans have adopted a strategy of “knee-jerk surrender” on nominees.

These judges do not believe in federalism.  We’ve already seen them rule against states that tried to implement common sense laws that would ensure the integrity of the vote.  Their allegiance isn’t to the Constitution of the United States; it’s to the Democratic Party or worse.

  

Source:

http://dailysignal.com/2016/09/04/how-liberal-judges-took-control-of-70-percent-of-us-appeals-courts/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=

Early Theft Begins in North Carolina

Early theft began in North Carolina yesterday.  Absentee voters can file their ballots two months prior to Election Day without added insight of debates or the usual October surprise provided by a biased media.  However, you still have to provide some form of ID on the request form.  That’s more than what’s required at the polls, thanks to liberal judges.    

These activists in black robes openly declared the citizens of the Old North State a bunch of racist bigots for ensuring the integrity of the vote.  If you ask me the real bigots are these black robed thugs who have implicitly stated minorities are too stupid and lazy to present an ID and vote within the prescribed time by our state legislators.  Here is what one bigot judge had to say:

Citing "the inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina," a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said state lawmakers intentionally imposed the restrictions to make it more difficult for blacks to vote.

"The new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision," the judges said. "They constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist."

Where in this legislation did it say only blacks must show an ID or vote within a prescribed time frame?  It doesn’t.  But that didn’t stop these demigods in black robes from divining the intent of our state’s legislators.

I find it amazing the director of the FBI can state Hillary Clinton had no criminal intent when she conducted government business on a private server in her basement, destroyed subpoenaed emails with bleachbit and demolished cell phones with hammers; yet, these black robed thugs can strike down a state law because they believe it was intended to disenfranchise minority voters.  Unbelievable.

Absentee ballots and same day registration are the vehicles for voter fraud and we all know what party benefits from that.  We also know what party these federal judges belong too as well. 

Source:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/07/29/appeals-court-north-carolina-voter-id-law-discriminatory/87728254/

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/so-it-begins-early-voting-starts-north-carolina-n645701

http://costonscomplaint.blogspot.com/2016/08/democrats-mobilize-to-strike-down-voter.html

http://costonscomplaint.blogspot.com/2014/10/voter-fraud-rampant-in-north-carolina.html

http://www.wral.com/election-changes-coming-in-2014-2016/12750290/

http://www.ncsbe.gov/absentee-voting-mail

Federal Judge Buries U.S. Constitution

Progressives continuously try to delegitimize our federalist system and the rule of law by attacking the U.S. Constitution.  You can go to YouTube and watch politicians laugh at the very notion of following the dictates they pledge allegiance to.  Every year we can expect the Supreme Court to gather more power unto the federal government by bastardizing the 14^th Amendment.  Now we have a judge who has basically declared himself a demigod in a black robe.

Richard Posner, a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, wrote, “I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, [days], hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation.”

“Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century,” he continued. “Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today.”

“In short, let’s not let the dead bury the living,” Posner concluded.

Instead, let’s have living judges bury liberty, the rule of law and federalism.  This man has no business on the bench.  He should be impeached.

Source:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/06/27/veteran-federal-judges-stunning-declaration-about-the-constitution/

Obamacare's Tentacles Squeeze U.S. Constitution

Since the Affordable Care Act has been deemed sacrosanct by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Obama administration feels as though they have a free hand when it comes to funding it.  They believe it’s unnecessary to follow the constitutional process of having Congress appropriating funds.   

It’s absolutely pathetic that Congress has to sue the executive branch when it comes to the power of the purse.  It’s even worse when they have to go hat in hand to a federal judiciary that has an even less regard for the Constitution than the Obama Administration.  But every once in a while there is sanity in a lawless Washington D.C. 

“This suit remains a plain dispute over a constitutional command, of which the Judiciary has long been the ultimate interpreter,” wrote U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, who said that House Republicans have legal standing to sue.

The Constitution, Collyer wrote, “could not be more clear: ‘No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by Law.’ Neither the president nor his officers can authorize appropriations; the assent of the House of Representatives is required before any public monies are spent.”

Republicans had argued the Obama administration violated the Constitution by spending money on Obamacare without Congressional approval. House Democrats had called the Republicans’ suit “a political stunt.” The suit focuses on the $175 billion Obama wants to spend as part of a cost-sharing program with health insurance companies.

If this suit makes it to the Supreme Court, you know damn well Chief Justice Roberts will rewrite the law to accommodate this constitutional abomination.

Source:

 http://www.westernjournalism.com/federal-judge-hands-republicans-historic-unexpected-win-over-obama/

Gov. Chris Christie Supports Black Robed Thuggery

Some of these republican candidates are making it easy to be winnowed out of consideration for the presidency.  Birthright citizenship eliminated over half of them and now we have a Kentucky county clerk jailed for exercising her First Amendment rights and defying a lawless federal judiciary.

Gov. Chris Christie has eliminated himself on both counts.  Here is his excuse for allowing birthright citizenship:

Christie: It’s in the Constitution and I don’t think we should be looking to change it. Now, what I said was, if we wanted to have comprehensive immigrant reform, I’d be willing to listen to anything. But the truth of the matter is that it’s not something that, that’s not something that we should be focused on, that is an applause line. The fact is that it is in the Constitution, let’s talk about the things we can fix, and fix simply without having to amend the Constitution where we would need two-thirds of the Congress and 38 states to agree.

Birthright citizenship for foreign nationals and their anchor babies is not in the Constitution.  I’m tired of politicians and media pundits perpetuating this lie.  The citizenship clause was designed to protect ex-slaves and their progeny.  That’s it!

Here is Gov. Christie’s response to the jailing of a Kentucky county clerk:

Earlier Tuesday, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said Davis should be given another government job, because those licenses “have to be issued” under the law.

 “People have a right to practice their religion,” Christie said on “Fox and Friends” Tuesday morning. “Now, I’ve said what I would do with this woman is to move her to another job where this is not an objection for her. Because you have to follow the law — and the law has to be these licenses have to be issued.”

“I think we should give her an option to do another job where her religious concerns are not going to be put into the cross hairs on this. So we have to have respect for people, but the government also has to function,” Christie said, adding that fellow 2016 Republican candidates shouldn’t “play politics” with the case.

Do we have to remind Gov. Christie that Kim Davis is an elected official?  Maybe a federal judge can find him a new job too.  How about janitor?  I’m sure a black robed thug can divine that in the 14^th Amendment as well.

Source:

 http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/23/christie-abolishing-birthright-citizenship-is-an-applause-line-video/#ixzz3lCK9c7Ys

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/kim-davis-the-kentucky-clerk-who-was-jailed-last-128638521231.html

Federal Judge Criminalizes Christianity

The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment right of freedom of religion is under assault.  Black robed thugs are preying upon a religious people by driving them out of public life and they do this under a false premise that the 14^th Amendment grants gay marriage.  The historical record indicates otherwise.  The activist on the Supreme Court completely manufactured a right.  This ruling is an attack upon our federalist system.

Now, thanks to the activist on the Supreme Court, Christianity is becoming criminalized in a land that once believed in God’s covenant.  Secularism is America’s new religion and the federal judiciary is its priest.

 ASHLAND, Ky. (CBSDC/AP) — A defiant county clerk was sent to jail for contempt Thursday after insisting that her “conscience will not allow” her to follow a federal judge’s orders to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

“God’s moral law conflicts with my job duties,” Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis told U.S. District Judge David Bunning. “You can’t be separated from something that’s in your heart and in your soul.”

The judge said she left him with no alternative but to jail her, since fines alone would not change her mind. A deputy escorted her out of the courtroom, although not in handcuffs, to be turned over to the custody of federal marshals.

“Her good faith belief is simply not a viable defense,” Bunning said, noting that allowing an individual’s beliefs to supersede the court’s authority would set a dangerous precedent.

“I myself have genuinely held religious beliefs,” the judge said, but “I took an oath.”

“Mrs. Davis took an oath,” he added. “Oaths mean things.

  

Oaths do mean something.  I wonder whose allegiance Judge David Bunning belongs to.  It sure as hell isn’t the U.S. Constitution.

Source:

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/09/03/mike-huckabee-kim-davis/