Law on Blog 



[ Links ]
Covenant Media Foundation

[ Blogs That I Read ]
Rabbi Saul
The Blog According to John
Aaron's Baseball Blog
Whilin' Away the Hours
Dr. G's Blog
Le Sabot Post-Moderne Societas Christiana
Just Mark
Contra Tyrannus
View from Peniel
Doug's Blog
40 Bicycles
The Whirlwind Musings of a Reformed Catholic

"The Law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes." -- Psalm 19:7-8 (ESV) --

Friday, February 27, 2004


So they blew up that infamous foul ball from Game 6 in last year's playoffs between the Cubs and Marlins. The villified the fan because he tried to get a souvenir, and because of that, the Cubs didn't make it to the World Series, and they are cursed. Well, let's make sure we stamp out the curse entirely. We must also now blow up the ball:

1. with which Mark Prior gave up that RBI single to Ivan Rodriguez

2. that Alex Gonzalez botched, which would have given the Cubs a double play.

3. that Prior used to give up that double to Derrick Lee

Yeah...I think they should destroy the balls that the Marlins actually scored runs on.

Thursday, February 19, 2004


I was reading the local fish wrap here, otherwords known as The Orange County Register. In the editorial section was an interesting column by Trudy Rubin of the Philadelphia Inquirer. It is interesting, and I found a little parallel that I wonder if it was lost on her as she was writing.

The issue she is writing about is the upcoming elections in Iran, and the possible implications that it can have on the upcoming elections elections in Iraq.

Here's one of the juicy tidbits in this column:

"Paul Bremer, the U.S. czar in Baghdad, has said he will block any effort to make Islamic law the basis of the temporary constitution. But eventually Iraqis will write a permanent constitution without U.S. control. I have talked to moderate Iraqi Shiite clerics who espouse democracy but see no problem with making Islam the main source of all laws. They also want some sort of Council of Guardians to vet the laws of parliament and ensure that they comply with God's law."

Granted, this is a fair concern. In our society, assuming it were Christian, the church could have an advisory role in guiding the State over the correct Biblical principles to insure that pending legislation did go against the extent that the Bible sets for the State, nor that it violated the rights that the Law of God guarantees to its citizens. In essence, this is no good to Rubin. The implication is that constitutions must be free of any external constraints, but as we should now, and certainly the founders of the United States knew, a constitution does not grant rights. Rights come from God, and as repressive as Islamic theology is, the Mulsims do understand the Islamic parody of Christianity regarding this.

But, look at what else Rubin writes:

"That slippery slope would ultimately give unelected imams control over elected legislators. Down that path lies another variant of Iran's clerical rule."

True, but let me change the words a little bit: "That slippery slope would ultimately give unelected Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court over elected legislators." Hmm, sounds interesting. The U.S. Constitution does give the Supreme Court authority: "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[.]" The Supreme Court does have the right to judge the constitutionality of cases that arise "under this Constitution." And now, what has happened? It seems that slippery slope has given us a Supreme Court that is not bound by any Constitutional authority. And they have control over elected legislatures. Let's forget Congress, because that is explicit. The Supreme Court now has jurisdiction over the States, something that, prior to the end of the War of 1861, was totally foreign. Unless explicitly written into the Constitution, the federal government cannot regulate the States. However, what do we have today? Today, the Supreme Court (which is part of the federal government, folks) and the rest of the federal judiciary must now give their blessing on all state laws before they can be enacted...laws that were voted upon by the legislators of the individual States. The courts now bully the States into submitting to the judge's individual ideology. Sounds a lot like what's going on iran, huh?

Loos like our constitution is not compatible with our society. Perhaps the United States is also...a theocracy? Perhaps a theocracy ruled by a god...called Molech. Burkeley had a very good blog entry on Molech, and you can access it here. We are a theocracy. We're ruled by men, who set their own rules, and then wantonly violate them at their own will. Again, other countries are much worse than this one. There is no disputing that; but to think that this is a "free" country is...ugh.

Everyone, let's sing...

Molech bless America
land we should abhor.
Kill your children
sacrifice them
to our god who grants us life from below.
From the cradle
to the grave
let us submit
our lives to him!!!
Molech bless America...
our home


It's ashamed he will be leaving the U.S. Senate at the expiration of his term. May the people of the State of Georgia elect someone as equally competant and with like values in the November election. Men and women like Sen. Miller used to be a influential guidepost to the Democratic Party. Not anymore. Not since 1992.

Wednesday, February 18, 2004


Josh was kind enough to email me his answer to his constitutional law test (see the 2/15 entry, with the comments). It was very good, and he pretty much said some of the same views that I hold regarding the Constitution,so basically, he agrees with me. =) Seriously, though, if more kids start thinking of the Constitution as the foundational docuent for the country in which words mean thigngs and not as a flavor of the month as Justice Brennan once had the gaul to write in print while on the bench of the United State (no, this is not a typo...I make enough of them, so I should point out intentional typos) Supreme Court, then maybe the United States can go back to their roots as a true constitutional republic.

Sunday, February 15, 2004


I would say R.I.P, but why would I want that decision to rest in peace? Anyway, this may prove to be very interesting as time goes on. I can see the angle that the lawyers are taking, and legally, it does seem to have some teeth. The original decision said that the State's could prohibit abortion after the point of viability. Let's overlook the slight error that the Supreme Court can actually tell the States what is legal and illegal abortion. Scientific technology since 1973 has certainly caused the point of viability of the "fetus" to be much closer to conception than the later than 6th month period originally prescribed. With the advent of artificial wombs and the like, one can only be amazed at how early premature babies can survive outside the mother's womb.

God is certainly good in giving man this knowledge to promote life. God is good that he touch Norma McCorvey's heart, the original Jane Roe that ushered in the modern holocaust.


Alastair has begun a critique here against Dr. Fred Malone's new covenetal arguments against infant batism. It will be a series, and he is starting off with the role of the Church. Much of what he says is right on. I encourage you to read it.

Friday, February 13, 2004


Nah, won't go there, but these girls are certainly full of something that makes the grass green.

In one sense, they are deffinitely correct that the state is much more diverse than it was when the State was founded. However, somehow, that logically implies to ammend the state Constitution? And here's the kicker. These girls think this line should be added instead: "all persons have a natural and unalienable right to worship any deity, god, religious entity or supreme being in any way that that they see fit" so long as this doesn't affect public order and safety."

Really? Do tell, what is the source of this "natural and unalienable" right? What makes a right "unalienable"? Furhtermore, why the restriction of worship not affecting public safety? But what if their "inalienable and natural" right interferes with public safety? Or maybe their religion allows for killing those whogo against religion? What philosophical reason for the exception?

Then again, you expect anything less than mediocrity?


Here's an interesting story. It will be interesting to see how far this progresses, but I doubt it will go very far. Today's new God is the Federal Courts, so I doubt God will like it too much. However, here's the kicker. Get a load of this crap:

"Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the proposal is just the latest attempt to punish courts for unfavorable rulings.

"It is itself an unconstitutional end run around the separation of powers," Lynn said. "It tries to subvert the role of the courts in the defense of fundamental civil liberties.""

Hmm, last time I remember, "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." And, the lower federal courts are a creation of Congress, not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, and if Congress has the power to restrict the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, an office created by the Constitution, it can certainly restrict the lower court's. So, constitutionally, Congress has every right to tell the Courts that they cannot tell a State that they cannot curb State rulings that acknowledge God. Abd this has been done

Of course, the Constitution never allowed the federal courts to interfere with the State's except where explicitly denied by the Constitution (remember...something called the 9th Ammendment?)

But then again, since when was the last time words meant anything?

Tuesday, February 10, 2004


Let's hope and pray that what she is said to have done is true.

"If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the the truth will set you free." John 8:31-32

"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." James 2:24

Sunday, February 08, 2004


I added Josh's blog to my list, The Musings of a Reformed Catholic.


Yeah, did I really expect him to die in 2 days? Ha! Even the most optimistic postmillennialist would believe it'll take longer than that.

"Education is the backbone of our democracy and society. If we want to know what this country would be like without public education, look at Great Britain during the 1700s or 1800s. Only the rich could afford education, the rest had to remain bascially ignorant of the world. The ones who couldn't afford an education would have to find jobs. Thus, it would be a few rich people with knowledge and a mass of ignorant people. In a democracy, the people make the decisions. Thus, in order for the people to make good, informed decisions, they must be educated. Without education, people would even be more stupid and ignorant then they already are. Thats a scary thought!"

Maybe Al could enlighten us as to how it was in Great Britain during then. In any event, this was certainly not the case in the United States.

Besides, what's really scary is that kids in the US are being educated in the public school system, and they're still idiots..for the most part, but hey...

Ain't that America
for you and me?
Ain't that America,
something to see, baby?
Ain't that America,
home of the free? (although if you read this fascinating blog entry, you'd wonder)
Little pink houses for you and me.

OK, it was an excuse to do some lyrics. =)

Friday, February 06, 2004

Compared to everyone else's, mne looks so bare...

create your own visited states map

Wednesday, February 04, 2004


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

Yeah, there are a lot of problems with Bush's executoion of the war, but for Democrats to go after Bush because he actually attacked Iraq?

Three words..."Pot---Kettle---Black"


Well, at least his philosophy does. Just consider some of the responses here to a very interesting question, "What if education didn't exist?" (Of course, the original poster means "What if public eduation didn't exist?" "Education" is not a tanglible thing, but I know that what they meant...well, I *hope* it is.) The reason why I said that Hegel lives is that he viewed the State as God walking on earth, and some of these remarks basically show that people believe that the State is the Savior of man, and the means of grace that the State uses to save man

Robert Dale Owen and John Dewey, if they were still alive, would be doing summersaults.

Tuesday, February 03, 2004


I found this article linked from Dr. Grant's by John Armstrong about the alleged heresy that many people call "Auburnism."

This page is powered by Blogger.