Stalling a Rogue Court


With the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court has become a critical issue in the 2016 presidential election. The next president will replace Scalia. It is documented and discussed in Chapter 14 of The Bible and Constitution Made America Great, how the philosophy of the judicial nominees has differed greatly, depending on the nominating party. There are currently four liberal-activist justices on the Supreme Court (one short of a majority). These judges usually vote as a block on issues favored by the political left. Issues such as ObamaCare, abortion “rights”, the “right” for homosexual marriage and removing religious acts/symbols from the public square.

The activist justices are rogue. Rogue justices ignore constitutional clauses that they dislike and create law to support their rulings. Courts are to enforce law, not create it. Their rulings are in fact illegal, violating the Constitution, the ultimate law of the nation. The next president will nominate at least one justice. Hillary has promised a liberal-activist. Trump has promised a constitutionalist.

The judicial philosophy of the current Supreme Court is dominated by liberal-activism. The justices by their philosophy:

4 Liberal-Activist: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. These justices (all appointed by Democrat presidents) consistently rule in the liberal politically preferred way regardless of the constitutional text.

2 Swing: John G. Roberts, Anthony Kennedy. These justices move back and forth between constitutional and activist rulings. My opinion is that Roberts rules in a constitutional manner about 75% of the time, while Kennedy does so about 50% of the time.

2 Constitutional: Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito. These justices consistently rule according to the Constitution. The deceased Antonin Scalia was also a constitutionalist.

These latter four justices were all appointed by Republican presidents.

Three Supreme Court rulings illustrate the judicial activist philosophy in action. In each case the liberal-activists vote as a block for a political objective that a straightforward reading of the Constitution would not allow.

ObamaCare: In 2012, the four liberal-activist justices ruled to give Congress the power to control healthcare. They were joined by swing-justice Roberts to get the needed 5th vote. The ruling ignored the 10th Amendment.

Amendment X:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The 10th Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, limits what Congress can do. A constitutionalist would rule that managing a national healthcare program is not a federal power/responsibility according to this amendment, therefore is illegal. It can be made constitutional by passing an amendment, as was done with Prohibition, where the 18th Amendment granted the federal government the power to ban alcohol.

Homosexual Marriage: In 2015 the Court decided in Obergefell v. Hodges, that the right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples. The four liberal-activist justices were this time joined by swing-justice Kennedy as the 5th deciding vote. The activist justices misused the 14th Amendment in their ruling. This amendment granted rights to newly freed black citizens after the Civil War. It did not mention sex or gender. The ruling also violated the 10th Amendment which leaves marriage law at the state level (where it resided for the first 225 years of America).

Liberal logic has already forced Christian bakers, photographers, restaurants, and florists to either participate in homosexual weddings, or close their businesses. It is very likely that a block of five liberal-activist Supreme Court justices will one day mandate churches either perform homosexual weddings or cease performing weddings. No one should be shocked if justices who make a practice of ignoring constitutional amendments they disagree with, will also ignore the 1st Amendment’s religious protections.

Mojave War Memorial Cross Case: In 2010 four liberal-activist justices ruled that a cross must be removed from a memorial on federal land. The cross had stood for 75 years, being erected after World War I by The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW). In this case the two swing justices both went with the constitutionalists, foiling the liberal-activist block. The federal courts have no right to ban any cross or any religious symbol according to the 1st Amendment (free exercise of religion cannot be prohibited). The owners of the land can decide whether a cross can be displayed (discussed in the book). In this case the landowner was the federal government, so decisions should have fallen to the President and/or Congress as the managers of the federal land. Both approved of the cross memorial. Our elected representatives decide what can be displayed or constructed on the land.

It is disturbing that Democrat presidents have been committed to placing liberal-activist justices on the Supreme Court. Our Constitution was designed to be changed by amendment (requiring a super-majority of the nation), not through the vote of five unelected justices. In essence, the Supreme Court has been acting as an illegal ongoing constitutional convention that requires 5 votes for ratification. constitutionalist justices remove this power from the court.

The practical implications of presidential voting are easily deduced. Had Obama lost the election in 2008 (McCain won), two of the liberal activist Obama appointees would almost assuredly be constitutional or swing justices. If Hillary becomes President this year, there will most assuredly be a liberal-activist justice replacing Scalia.

The Supreme Court philosophy and power is indeed a major factor in the 2016 presidential election.


What Will Liberals Do Now That Muslims Are Targeting Homosexuals?

1465845942599This time Muslims targeted homosexuals.

First, my sincere condolences to those killed and hurt in the latest terror attack, and especially to their grieving families. It has become way too common in America for citizens to grieve after loved ones are killed by Muslims. How many Muslim attacks do we need in America before we deal with the problem? Fort Hood Texas, Boston Marathon Bombing, Chattanooga TN, San Bernardino CA, … The lengthy list continues to grow.

In the latest attack, Omar Mateen opened fire early Sunday morning in Pulse, “the hottest gay bar” in Orlando, killing 50 people and wounding at least 53 more. Omar was a Muslim U.S. citizen, born in New York to Afghan parents. Mateen lived in Florida. Omar’s Muslim parents immigrated to America and gave us a faith-based radical terrorist.

Omar’s attack illustrates the differences between Christianity and Islam. Jesus clearly teaches His followers to not go around wantonly killing sinners in His name. What did Mohamed teach? A sizable number of Muslims believe he taught killing infidels pleases Allah. And they act on it. Not all Muslims of course, but if it only 1 in 1000 are killers, and you bring in 1000, the odds are you are going to get a Muslim terrorist killer among them.

The tragic attack of Omar tells us that radical Muslims do not assimilate into American culture with time. Omar was born here, yet he was still following the radical Muslim teaching of killing homosexuals. What mosque did Omar study at? Who taught him his radical Islam? Did he listen to this Muslim cleric in Orlando who advocated a “death sentence for homosexuals” as being “compassionate” earlier this year? A government serious about protecting its citizens would investigate and find out. In America, freedom of religion does not include the right to kill or terrorize others.

To protect law-abiding citizens, the federal government should immediately:

  1. Stop the importation of Muslims (immigration and refugee)
  2. De-radicalize Islamic teaching on American soil

A great place to start the de-radicalization would be mandatory “sensitivity” classes for Muslims where they are taught about the Constitution’s 1st Amendment, and respecting the right of every citizen to follow their own religion of choice, including atheism.

Supposedly, affluent homosexuals are big supporters of, and donors to, Democrats. After the Pulse Massacre, maybe it is time for them to have a talk with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton about homosexual hate crimes, radical Islam, and the importation of more Muslims into America.


This Is Why I Will Not Be Casting a “Protest” Vote in November


Americans have always compromised when the issue is important.

The Presidency is such an issue.





Constitutional Convention and Slavery Compromise

When America formed her current government, they were facing an incredibly divisive issue: slavery. Slavery is an abomination. It takes away every aspect of freedom from a fellow human being. Northern states followed the teachings of the Declaration of Independence, and ended slavery. Yet a number of southern states depended on slavery to run their plantation agrarian economies. They refused to join a nation that would not allow slavery, and their current economic system, to continue. Finally, a compromise was reached. The new national government would be allowed to stop the importation of new slaves, but slavery was to be allowed to continue if a state wanted it. (Read more about slavery in America in Chapter 17.) Compromise was used to achieve the greater good of forming the nation, even if an evil was allowed to continue.

My Perspective: Immigration Dominates in GOP Nomination

Every voter has the free will and the right to use their personal criteria in selecting a candidate. In my view, immigration is the most important issue facing the nation today. We have at least 45 millionpeople (14% of the population) in our nation that were not born here. NOT including 10-30 million illegals in America that most politicians dream of granting amnesty too. If we continue to import this number of poor 3rd world people, having no knowledge of self-government under a representative Republic, our Constitution is doomed. America will become a 3rd world nation just like those nations the masses she has imported came from.

In light of this, there were only two candidates I could support. Ted Cruz , who fought the DC “Gang of 8” amnesty effort in 2013, and Donald Trump, who promises to build a wall to stop illegal immigration, and to halt Muslim refugees. I viewed Cruz as more reliable and trustworthy, with Trump being more likely to crush Hillary and win the general election. (This is my perspective. You may disagree.)

However, if needed, I would have compromised my beliefs for a greater good. I would have voted for Jeb or Marco Rubio had they won the GOP nomination rather than protest vote. Even with the knowledge that conservatives would likely have to fight either of them on amnesty just as we fought G. W. Bush during his presidency. Sometimes compromise is needed to achieve a greater good. In this case keeping the entire executive branch, and the judicial branch (through appointment) out of the control of liberal activists.

Note: I personally AM willing to strategically protest vote for less important races like Congress. A Congressional seat’s power pales in comparison to the presidency. A representative should earn your support with their actions in my opinion.

The Cost of President Hillary (or Bernie, or Biden)

Anyone wishing to protest vote should consider the harm that a Democrat will do to the nation. Hillary Clinton will fill the federal bureaucracy with the same type of people as Obama – dedicated big government liberals. Do you like the recent trans-bathroom edicts from the feds? Expect more. Hillary will replace recently deceased Justice Scalia with a dedicated liberal-activist judge. Enjoy the “new” constitutional right for homosexuals to marry? Expect way more as a Hillary judge will give the activists a solid 5-judge majority to control the top-court in the land.

Note: Some argue that a Hillary justice will finally expose the corrupt activist courts. But does it really matter if every state governor accepts the ruling? Going to court to fight will NOT work, as the case is predetermined against you by the 5 activist judges. A governor must be willing to tell the courts to go pound-sand by ignoring the unconstitutional ruling. Not a single governor did this on homosexual-marriage. They bowed to the court’s decree. Why would you think governors will offer opposition to judicial tyranny in the future?

3rd Party vs 3rd Person

A third party is a legitimate party running candidates at every level of office. The last example of this was the Republican Party forming in the 1850’s and 60’s. It succeeded in replacing the Whig Party. A third party does not begin with the presidency; it should begin at the state or congressional level. A third person is someone (usually popular) running for president outside of the two main parties. Two examples of this are Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, and Ross Perot in 1992. Neither of these candidates had a broad slate behind them in the ticket. They were one man shows. Both 3rd person efforts resulted in the opposing party (Democrat) winning the presidency. This may or may not have been the intent of the third person, but it was the result.

A vote for a 3rd person presidential candidate is a protest vote. This will always be true unless there is polling data within a week of the election, showing a legitimate chance for the 3rd person to win. Protest votes for President carry enormous costs as detailed above.

Not voting is a protest vote where the voter sends the message that they do not care about the future of the nation at all. That is how a politician will read the inaction.

To conclude, every vote cast in America is a compromise. The only candidate who agrees with you 100% of the time is YOU. So unless you write in your own name (protest vote) you are compromising when voting.




Courts Need their Power Checked on Bathroom Issue

Recent court ruling bans bathroom gender-segregation


Our Constitution is based on checks and balances between the three branches of the federal government. The President (Executive), the Congress (Legislative) and the Supreme Court (Judicial) are all supposed to have their power limited by checks/opposition from the other two branches. All three branches are sworn to uphold the Constitution.

The Fourth District Court of Appeals overturned a Virginia high school bathroom policy. The common-sense policy was: only biological girls can use the girls’ room, only biological boys can use the boys’ room, and any student can use one of the three single-occupancy bathrooms, which the school created specifically to accommodate transgender students.

The three judge panel ruled that “transgender students in public schools must be allowed to use the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity.” The ruling cited a regulation issued by the Obama Administration Department of Education. The ruling was determined by Judge Henry F. Floyd and Judge Andre M. Davis, both appointees of Democrat President Barack Obama. The remaining judge Paul V. Niemeyer, was appointed by Republican President George H.W. Bush.

The ruling means that a high school boy claiming to be trans-gendered has a “right” to enter the girl’s locker rooms and restrooms in school. A girl claiming to be a boy must also be allowed in the boy’s areas. Separate areas for transgender-thinking students are not equal or acceptable in the eyes of the judges.

A side note: Presidential elections have consequences. As discussed at length in Chapter 14 of The Bible and Constitution Made America Great, Democrat presidents have consistently placed liberal activist judges on the federal courts that give us ridiculous rulings such as this, while Republican presidents do not. This case further validates that premise.

The liberal Obama judges are trying to equate race rights with gender rights. Three constitutional amendments were passed after the Civil War that prohibit government (federal and state) from discriminating based on race. These amendments say nothing about gender or sex. Thus the need for a later amendment (XIX) granting women the right to vote. The federal government has no authority to intervene unless a gender amendment is added to the Constitution. Do we really want an amendment that states segregation of restrooms (men/women) is illegal and must be abolished? Do we want a common restroom for everybody?

So are gender-neutral bathrooms now the law of the land? No. The Courts have no authority to pass any laws. So where are the checks and balances on the Courts?

The President: Obviously Democrats support open bathrooms, but a future Republican president administration could simply state they will not enforce un-constitutional court rulings like this one.

Congress: Congress is constitutionally the most powerful branch of government. Congress can declare the federal courts have no jurisdiction in this area. (Article III and 10th Amendment) Congress could also impeach the two lawless judges. Even an unsuccessful Senate trial should reign in future rulings.

State and local governments can refuse to uphold unconstitutional rulings. The Constitution trumps judicial fiat.

These checks must be used with care. In the early years of the nation they were never needed. But recent decades have seen judges ignoring the Constitution in their rulings. This abuse of power needs to be checked.

US Constitution’s Forgotten Role in Government

Stock Photo of the Consitution of the United States and Feather Quill
Photo of the Constitution of the United States of America. A feather quill is included in the photo.The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America and is the oldest codified written national constitution still in force. It was completed on September 17, 1787.

At this point in our history, it is important for citizens to reeducate themselves and understand the foundation of American government, the Constitution. This document is what enabled America to become the great nation we are blessed to live in.

The Constitution… approaches nearer to perfection than any government hitherto instituted among men. (1788)

The Constitution is the guide which I will never abandon. (1795)

– George Washington, 1st President and Commander of the Revolutionary Army.

The US Constitution is a contract between the American citizens and their government. The terms of the contract list the specific responsibilities the federal government is tasked to perform. In 1833 Chief Justice Joseph Story wrote a series of commentaries on the Constitution.

In our future commentaries upon the constitution we shall treat it then, as it is denominated in the instrument itself, as a constitution of government ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves and their posterity. They have declared it the supreme law of the land. They have made it a limited government. They have defined its authority. They have restrained it to the exercise of certain powers and reserved all others to the states or to the people. It is a popular government. Those who administer it are responsible to the people. It is as popular and just as much emanating from the people as the state governments. It is created for one purpose, the state governments for another. It may be altered and amended and abolished at the will of the people. In short it was made by the people, made for the people, and is responsible to the people.

– Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Vol.1 P382.

Let’s unpack some key points:

  1. a constitution of government ordained and established by the people of the United States…” The Constitution was written by delegates from the state governments. It was ratified by the state legislatures, the representatives of the citizens of each state. Therefore ordained by the people.
  2. They have declared it the supreme law of the land.” The people decided it was better to have a common supreme law that would supercede their state laws in certain areas.
  3. They have made it a limited government. They have defined its authority. They have restrained it to the exercise of certain powers and reserved all others to the states or to the people.” Although the Constitution gives the federal government supreme authority, this authority is limited to specific areas, decided by the people, listed in the Constitution. Note that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to change or add to these areas – only the people do.
  4. It is created for one purpose, the state governments for another.” Because the federal government is the most removed from the voter, it should be the least present in the lives of citizens. It will be most efficient when it focuses only on its constitutionally approved tasks. Today we have the federal government trying to do almost all governmental tasks, with very poor results.
  5. It may be altered and amended and abolished at the will of the people.” The state legislatures created the Constitution, therefore they have the power to change it. The procedure to amend the Constitution is spelled out in Article V of the Constitution.

The Constitution is the rulebook for the government, but it is also a mere piece of paper. It has no power except for that accorded it by government authorities. In America, citizens elect those representatives, and can choose whether to vote for constitution-abiding candidates or not.

When asked by a citizen about the type of new government created by the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” This is still true today. We as citizens must work to keep our constitutional republic.

Religious Freedom Association (RFA) is Needed

American citizens, their churches and synagogues, need to form a voting bloc to protect religious freedom in America – A Religious Freedom Association (RFA). The purpose of this organization is simply to return America to the freedom at her founding, and the position clearly spelled out in the Constitution. A RFA is needed because many politicians, sadly, care little about the law as defined by the Constitution. They also care very little about a single voter, but care tremendously about a large bloc of voters – members of a RFA.

Remember that the first settlers in America came here for religious freedom, to worship God as they believed appropriate. This belief was codified into national law with the 1st Amendment at the nation’s founding which states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,

The Amendment prevented a national church of America that would discriminate against other Christian denominations (Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist….) or other religions. All citizens were free to worship God as they wished, or to not worship Him. The 1st Amendment strictly prevents government from “prohibiting the free exercise of” religion. What does this mean? If a public school wants to offer a religion class or graduation prayer, it is up to those who run the school – the elected school board. If a city wants to have a religious monument in a public space, it is up to the city council or mayor – elected office holders. The constitutional method allows voting citizens to ultimately decide what if any religion is found in the public square.

While allowing freedom for all religions, America was still a nation formed by Christians, and the early government promoted belief in the God of the Bible. This is documented in The Bible and Constitution Made America Great. Including the following quote from a Supreme Court Chief Justice:

Now there will probably be found few persons in this or any other Christian country who would deliberately contend that it was unreasonable or unjust to foster and encourage the Christian religion generally as a matter of sound policy as well as of revealed truth.

– Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Volume 3. 1833. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story. P723.

It is amazing to contrast the early Supreme Court thinking expressed by Chief Justice Story with modern court thinking. In the last century, judges began removing God from the public square, based on the judges’ personal preferences rather than constitutional text. Recall the Constitution is a contract between the people and their government. The contract can be altered by amending it, but that is the only way. For example, the Constitution was amended to ban slavery, to allow the federal government to prohibit alcohol, then to prevent it from prohibiting alcohol. There have been 27 Amendments in total.

Americans used to realize and believe that the Constitution could only be changed by amendment, not by the whim of judges. But judges on the Supreme Court have seized the power to amend.

Going back to religion and the 1st Amendment, look at historical Supreme Court rulings that began to emerge in the 1940’s:

  • States can’t offer voluntary or elective religious courses in school. (1948)
  • It is unconstitutional for students to recite a long-standing prayer. (1962)
  • Public school children can not read the Bible at school. (1963)
  • States can not require creationism be taught in the public schools. (1968)
  • Abortion is a “right”. Voided abortion laws in every state. (1973)
  • States can not post the Ten Commandments in their public school classrooms. (1980)
  • Clergy may not offer an invocation or benediction at a public school graduation ceremony. (1992)
  • Students may not publicly pray before a football game. (2000)
  • A 75 year old cross monument on public land was not ordered dismantled. (A 5-4 decision that could have gone either way) (2010)
  • States must allow homosexual couples to marry. (2015)

Next up: Editing the Bible. $70M Suit Against Bible Publishers due to offensive verses on homosexuality.

These court rulings are all unconstitutional, either under the 1st , 9th, or 10th Amendments.

The trend is obvious. The Supreme Court has, with no constitutional authority, relentlessly forced states to follow a secular liberal agenda that has eliminated God and the Bible from the public arena. What has the response of Christians and their churches been? Largely nothing. With the current judicial trend, does anyone doubt that the courts will eventually force the editing of the Bible to remove politically incorrect portions?

The courts were never intended to be an un-checked super-authority ruling on every aspect of life in America. Elected leaders at the state or national level were intended to resolve most of these issues. American government is a system of checks and balances. What checks are present on the court? Congressional representatives can restrict the courts’ jurisdiction or impeach rogue judges. State legislatures or governors can ignore obviously unconstitutional judicial rulings (as their oaths require). What is missing is the will for our elected representatives to act to check the courts.

This is where Christians and churches (as well as others seeking religious freedom) must now take a stand. We must educate fellow citizens on the true meaning and intent of the Constitution with respect to religion. This book is one way. We must talk to our representatives and educate them. We then must vote for those representatives willing to take action to stand up for religious liberty and the Constitution (and not vote for those who do nothing).

To do this, it is time for a Religious Freedom Association (RFA) to be formed to guard the 1st Amendment, similar to the way the NRA has protected the 2nd Amendment. The RFA doesn’t necessarily need to donate to politicians, rather it can spearhead the effort to educate Americans on the 1st Amendment, and become an uncompromising voting bloc of members to protect the right to Freedom of Religion. Those representatives who fail to take any action can be identified, and notified that they will no longer receive votes from RFA members. Votes must now be earned.

The RFA will be a force to prod reluctant representatives to follow their oaths to uphold the Constitution, and to use their authority to check unconstitutional actions by courts.

Ted Cruz on Birthright Citizenship

Ted_Cruz,_2I believe Ted Cruz to be the most Reaganesque candidate, By that I mean the most articulate on conservative principles, and the one most likely to rebuild the Reagan voting coalition that won two landslide presidential victories.

But his position on birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment is troubling. Briefly the 14th Amendment was ratified to ensure newly freed slaves were granted US citizenship. It states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”

It was understood at the time of amendment ratification that someone born to a non-citizen in America was NOT a citizen by birth. Non-citizens included Native Americans who owed allegiance to their tribes, and foreigners in America who gave birth while in the country. (Foreign diplomats for example.)

This view has been forcefully expressed by constitutional scholar Mark Levin ( here) and Daniel Horowitz (here).

When running for the Senate, Cruz disagreed with the above analysis stating : “I’ve looked at the legal arguments against [birthright citizenship], and I will tell you as a Supreme Court litigator, those arguments are not very good. As much as someone may dislike the policy of birthright citizenship, it’s in the U.S. Constitution.”

It is entirely possible to learn more about an issue and change one’s views, but Cruz is claiming to be an expert on the issue. It is also possible that Cruz was expressing his opinion on how Courts would rule on the issue were a case to be brought before them. Such a case would be a crapshoot, as there are only 3-4 solid constitutionalist justices on the Supreme Court right now.

Cruz is evolving on the issue. Stating recently: “Well, as a policy matter, Megyn, it doesn’t make any sense anymore, that people who are here illegally, that their children would have automatic citizenship. That what that does is it serves as an incentive encouraging people to break the law and come here illegally. And we ought to change that policy. Now, as you noted there is a legal dispute about the best means to do it. And there are serious scholars who argue that Congress could do it through statute defining what it means to be subject to the jurisdiction, the language of the 14th Amendment. There are other serious constitutional scholars who argue the only way to change it is through a constitutional amendment.

The nation needs a President who will fully follow and implement the entire Constitution as written. Especially when the Supreme Court may not do so. Let’s hope Senator Cruz continues to evolve on birthright citizenship to the point where he realizes and publicly states there is no constitutional support, nor Congressional action, to make anchor babies US citizens.

Scot Wolf is the author of The Bible and Constitution Made America Great By Providing Freedom and Liberty to Citizens, available at, or as a Nook or Kindle eBook.