Livefyre Profile

Activity Stream

 @John Englehutt This is wrong on so many levels, which I will reply to later when I have more time.  This sounds like the response of a closeted liberal.  The Constitution, Dec. of Independence and the Founders were abundantly clear on all of these points, as I indicated above.  Turn to God in repentance, yes, and have your eyes opened to our Founding, true history and the original intent of the Puritans, Pilgrims, Magna Carta, Dec. of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Any 7th grade Civics student in the 60s could decimate your flawed arguments.

1 year, 10 months ago on Constitutional Purism or Bust

Reply

 @zbrugman  @Admiral America I'm thinking neither.  I think it lies with the central banksters and the Bohemian Grove/Illumnati bunch...

1 year, 10 months ago on Constitutional Purism or Bust

Reply

 @Patrick Henry I do not think that death is the proper response of the state to this sin, but those practicing such sin do "receive in the body the due penalty for their sin," in any case, the laws of God never change, regardless of the state's response to it. 

 

As to the changing of God's laws to positively allow the state to endorse homosexual marriage, however, the Bible makes clear what the result will be; it will be the destruction of that nation. This crosses the line of God's mercy and tolerance and brings the nation into certain judgment of God.

1 year, 10 months ago on Constitutional Purism or Bust

Reply

 @Patrick Henry Here is another article that deals with the position of the Founders with regard to homosexuality.

 

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1126

 

Excerpt:

 

The Founders on Homosexuality by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Of those living today in America who were alive 50 years ago, few could have imagined, let alone predicted, that homosexuality would encroach on our culture as it has. In fact, it would have been unthinkable. The rapidity with which homosexual activists continue successfully to bully the nation to normalize what once was universally considered abnormal is astonishing. And toleration has not satisfied them. Allowing their views to be taught in public schools has not appeased them. No, they insist that societal endorsement extend to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.

A pernicious plague of sexual insanity is creeping insidiously through American civilization. Far more deadly than the external threat of terrorism, or even the inevitable dilution of traditional American values caused by the infiltration of illegal immigrants and the influx of those who do not share the Christian worldview, this domino effect will ultimately end in the moral implosion of America. Indeed, America is being held captive by moral terrorists. The social engineers of “political correctness” have been working overtime for decades to restructure public morality.

The Founding Fathers of these United States would be incredulous, incensed, and outraged. They understood that acceptance of homosexuality would undermine and erode the moral foundations of civilization. Sodomy, the longtime historical term for same-sex relations, was a capital crime under British common law. Sir William Blackstone, British attorney, jurist, law professor, and political philosopher, authored his monumental Commentaries on the Laws of England from 1765-1769. These commentaries became the premiere legal source admired and used by America’s Founding Fathers. In Book the Fourth, Chapter the Fifteenth, “Of Offences Against the Persons of Individuals,” Blackstone stated:

IV. WHAT has been here observed..., which ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence, of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast.... But it is an offence of so dark a nature...that the accusation should be clearly made out....

I WILL not act so disagreeable part, to my readers as well as myself, as to dwell any longer upon a subject, the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law, which treats it, in it’s very indictments, as a crime not fit to be named; peccatum illud horribile, inter chriftianos non nominandum [“that horrible sin not to be named among Christians”—DM]. A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: ubi fcelus eft id, quod non proficit fcire, jubemus infurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquifitis poenis fubdantur infames, qui funt, vel qui futuri funt, rei [“When that crime is found, which is not profitable to know, we order the law to bring forth, to provide justice by force of arms with an avenging sword, that the infamous men be subjected to the due punishment, those who are found, or those who future will be found, in the deed”—DM]. Which leads me to add a word concerning its punishment.

THIS the voice of nature and of reason, and the express law of God, determine to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance, long before the Jewish dispensation, by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven: so that this is an universal, not merely a provincial, precept. And our ancient law in some degree imitated this punishment, by commanding such miscreants to be burnt to death; though Fleta says they should be buried alive: either of which punishments was indifferently used for this crime among the ancient Goths. But now the general punishment of all felonies is the fame, namely, by hanging: and this offence (being in the times of popery only subject to ecclesiastical censures) was made single felony by the statute 25 Hen. VIII. c. 6. and felony without benefit of clergy by statute 5 Eliz. c. 17. And the rule of law herein is, that, if both are arrived at years of discretion, agentes et confentientes pari poena plectantur [“advocates and conspirators should be punished with like punishment”—DM] (1769, 4.15.215-216, emp. added).

1 year, 10 months ago on Constitutional Purism or Bust

Reply

 @Patrick Henry Here is an excerpt from a website that addresses that issue clearly and comprehensively.

 

"

INTRODUCTION

An examination of the true foundation of American law must begin with the question: "Is the law of God supreme or is it subject to the laws of peoples and nations?" Two answers to this question are possible. The first answer is that God exists and his law, including his laws pertaining to the creation of nations, governments and constitutions, are supreme, right and absolute. The second answer is that whether or not God or his law exist, the law of peoples and nations, are supreme, right and absolute at least until they are changed.

Ascertaining the requirements of any law - human or Divine - requires people to make judgments about what the rule of law is and what that law commands. It requires people to understand the sources and foundations of law.

This essay explores the sources and foundations of American law. The thesis of this essay is that the essential American legal principles of equality, rights and government by consent, are derived from the laws of God, articulated in the Declaration of Independence under the general appellation of the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," and incorporated into the various state constitutions and the federal Constitution. This essay briefly surveys the laws of nature and of nature's God as that law was first expressed in Creation and then verbalized in the Declaration's text and the Constitution's clauses.

It is hoped that as a result of this examination and survey, the basic outline of God's law of Creation as it has found expression in the American legal and constitutional context will plainly emerge. The emergence of such an outline will enable students of law generally, and of constitutional law specifically, to begin thinking in terms of the law of God with an eye toward reinvigorating the true foundations of American law and government.

WHAT ABOUT THE BIBLE?

As one might expect, the Bible is fairly clear on the subject of the supremacy of God and his law. It indicates that there is no God except the Lord God.1 God is the God of creation and He is the Creator of all things visible and invisible.2 God impressed his laws upon creation and he governs its operation accordingly.3 God gave his law so that people would seek after God and know what God requires of every person.4 Of course, the laws of God are right, perfect, and eternal.5 They apply over the entire globe and are written in God's creation because God is the Creator of all the earth.6 These rules also apply to all people and are written within each man, woman and child because God is the Creator of all people.7 God also reiterated the basic elements of his rules of right and wrong in the Bible.8

The implications of this situation are straightforward. Since God created all things, he also has the right to rule them according to his laws.9 He rules the nations according to his laws.10 His laws rule the nations irrespective of whether a given nation believes in God or recognizes his laws.11 This does not mean that the nations are perfect nor does it mean that people who do not worship God cannot rule.12 Nor does it mean that God will judge lawbreakers according to our timetables of justice.

It does mean, however, that God will not let a corrupt government rule forever.13 God judges justly on the earth and punishes lawless leaders and nations.14 Nations which forget God may completely perish.15 Nations which honor God and try to follow his laws, however, can expect to receive his care and protection.16"

 

The rest of the article may be read at:

http://www.lonang.com/conlaw/1/c12a.htm

1 year, 10 months ago on Constitutional Purism or Bust

Reply

 @Patrick Henry Actually, there is.  It speaks of the "laws of Nature and of Nature's God," that is the law of God which is the Bible and the Ten Commandments.  The Bible is VERY clear that marriage is between one man and one woman, and never anything else.

1 year, 10 months ago on Constitutional Purism or Bust

Reply

Good article, but where do you get the notion that "the Founders left marriage rules to the states"??  The Founders were Christians and even those who were deists would never have said that marriage under God was ever ANYTHING but between a man and a woman!  Thos. Jefferson had strong things to say about homosexuality, so your statement is a HUGE misconception and distortion of anything the Founders would ever have stood for!

1 year, 10 months ago on Constitutional Purism or Bust

Reply