Why all the homo marriage surprise? There is nothing new under the sun.

On the unconstitutional Court legislated homo-marriage surprise.  Ho-hum, heavy sigh and here we go again.

Vic Biorseth, Tuesday, June 30, 2015
https://www.catholicamericanthinker.com/

Why the surprise at a continuing long-running trend?

This descent of the Supreme Court into utter nonsense didn't suddenly just go "poof" and pop out of a phony celebration cake.  And it's not like it's the first time the Court legislated or unconstitutionally created entirely new federal law that didn't exist before.  That's what they do; its what they have become accustomed to doing, and what they ever increasingly do, because they can, and because no one from the other two co-equal branches of federal government stops them. The fact of the matter is, the rest of the government is now just as nonsensical as the Court. 

Part of the dumbing-down of the the American citizenry through Mal-education - Disinformation, indoctrination, etc. - and News Media propaganda, and "fashionable" Leftist trend-setting entertainment, has involved schmoozing us all into accepting the normalcy of the abnormal, the naturalness of the unnatural, the virtue found in vice, and even the non-existence of evil and sin.  Beneath it all: belief in the "truth" of falsehood. 

Even Judao-Christian religious doctrine has been similarly infected and malformed, to the point where love of neighbor is now expanded to include love of evil and love of sin, where no activity and no evildoer is ever to be reproved or anathematized or discriminated against. 

There he goes again, blaming Marxism for everything. 

Some of you accuse me of seeing a Marxist under every bed in America, and you're right about that.  I do.  But the Marxism that is now everywhere in our society and in our collective psyche is not the overt, out-in-the-open variety of yesterday, but a sly, deceptive form masquerading as something else.  Here's how Professor Wessell described what I'm talking about in a comment after the Refuting Free Love page:  

That's what we're really up against.  Cultural Marxism today not only dominates the Marxocrat Party and it's entire obviously anti-American and obviously anti-Christian political agenda.  Cultural Marxism today infects the thinking of "Republicrat" politicians and "Conservative" thinkers.  Most American Cultural Marxists do not even know that they are Cultural Marxists.  Glenn Beck is a perfect example.  He epitomizes the "Libertarian" form of the Cultural Marxist; and, quite typically, he doesn't even know it.  His thinking has been successfully funneled toward individual liberty issues to the detriment of the larger American culture. 

Glenn can say, in the same paragraph, sometimes even in the same sentence, that:

1. He is a strong believer in Objective, Absolute Truth, and the Moral Absolutes that stem from it; and,
2. He does not believe in imposing his morality on anyone, or anyone imposing their morality on him. 
   

The first of Glenn's beliefs describes fixed, Objective Truth that exists and does not change.  But the second of Glenn's beliefs describes moral relativism, which says that whatever any of us thinks is moral is moral for us, regardless of what Objective Truth says about it.  These are opposites.  They are incompatible, and irreconcilably opposed to each other.  Objective Truth and Moral Relativism cannot coexist in the same social system.  The mistaken belief that they can coexist represents, to me, the greatest success ever achieved in the whole Cultural Marxism movement. 

There is either such a thing as right and wrong, or there is not. 

The Libertarian approach to not imposing our moral code on others works well for relationships between a culture and other cultures, and between a culture and the whole outside world.  But it cannot work well for human relationships within a specific civilized culture, such as American culture, without eventually breaking down and destroying the defining moral code of that culture.  It is, after all, a commonly held moral code that makes a unique and identifiable people, identifiable because of an overwhelming majority willingly and voluntarily oriented in the same moral direction, without force.  Representative civil law is only required to protect the moral majority from the minority violators of the common moral code. 

The Fatal Error in Libertarianism and/or Social Issue Neutrality.

"Love of neighbor" cannot be expanded to include love of dedicated evil.  "Tolerance" cannot be expanded to include tolerance of absolute intolerance.  "Diversity" cannot be expanded to the point of eliminating homogeneity and good order in society.  "Judgmentalism" cannot be expanded to the point of precluding common sense and simple adult judgment.  If they are, then sooner or later the culture will lose any proper sense of what is right and what is wrong.  And that is the goal of Cultural Marxism.

That quote of Jefferson might represent the most important foundation stone of Libertarianism.  He was talking about maintaining religious liberty within a new nation of 13 States, each with its own officially declared Christian denomination.  The new Federal government was to be precluded from picking one of them, or any other, as the official religion of the whole nation.  It did not mean that he would favor anything approaching atheism being imposed upon the people from above, and it did not mean that he would favor any dangerous non-Christian religion, or any foreign morality, to be included and tolerated in America. 

He was raised in a Christian household and held the Christian moral code, and lived by it.  That means, at the least, recognition of the Commandments of God, and Scriptural prohibitions of behaviors, as exemplified by 1 Cor 6:9-10 and many others like it.  But Jefferson was perhaps more lenient than most of his brethren at the time, for he favored simple castration for convicted sodomites and polygamists rather than death or life imprisonment. 

Today, the fact that we abhor the Islamic murder of homosexuals does not mean that we should welcome, bless and approve open homosexuality as an acceptable and normal part of our Christian culture.  We should stop the murders and we should protect the homosexuals; but we should not bless open homosexuality.  1 Cor 6:9-10 still says now what it said then.  No matter how far Cultural Marxism advances here, or anywhere, those words will never change. 

Is that judgmental?  In John 7:24, the Lord tells us to judge; not as the world judges, but to judge with right judgment.  And in 2 Thes 3, among other places, we are instructed to be apart from and have nothing to do with those outside the teaching, that they may be ashamed until they return to the way. 

All the earlier Supreme Court unconstitutional legal precedents.

The Supreme Court has a long history of legislating from the bench.  Because of this history of uncontested decisions, most people and most elected Representatives, Senators and Presidents seem convinced that the Court has a Constitutional right to do that.  It does not.  It never did.  Legislating new law is the Constitutionally exclusive domain of the Congress.  Signing new legislated law into existence, and executing the law, is the exclusive domain of the Presidency.  Adjudicating law is the exclusive domain of the Supreme Court.  The Constitution says so. 

Adjudicating does not mean interpreting.  It means sitting in judgment as the last court of appeal in criminal and civil cases. The Constitution nowhere grants the Court any special interpretive authority that in any way differs from than that of the other two co-equal branches of government.  The Constitution is quite short, and it is written in quite simple and clear English, and it needs no special interpreters. 

The Court is limited in what it can adjudicate, just as the Congress is limited in what it can legislate, just as the President is limited in what he can execute or prosecute, by Article One Section Eight of the Constitution.  If it isn't in there, the Congress cannot legislate on it, the President cannot execute or prosecute it, and the Court cannot adjudicate it.  It is not a federal case.  It is a state or local issue, subject to local or state community standards, and no branch of the federal government has any jurisdiction over it.  This is one of the main Constitutional principles the Marxocrat Party - I mean Cultural Marxism - must break down in order to gradually assume dictatorial control over the American government. 

Separation of Church and State:  1947 Everson v Board of Education.  The First Amendment Establishment and Exercise clauses place two restrictions on government, and no restrictions on anyone else.  The government could not (1) establish an official national religion, and the government could not (2) interfere with anyone's open exercise of their religion.  Very simple; nothing to it.  Quite clear English.  The Black Court did something very nearly the exact opposite of the intention of the Framers.  Let me quote his decision from the Separation of Church and State page: 

In point of fact, as President, Jefferson did all the very things Black said he intended to not do.  He built a Catholic Church for the Indians and got them a Catholic Priest, with tax dollars.  His "Wall of Separation" letter is included as a reference, to show how it was misquoted.  This was an absolute twisting of the Constitutional meaning of the First Amendment in the interest of the not so gradual Secularizing - the religious cleansing - of the American people.  Go to the link for the details. 

Constitutional right to privacy:  There is no such right in the Constitution, and privacy is not listed in Article One Section Eight.  The Fourth Amendment right to security in our homes and personal "papers and effects" pertains more to private property than to blanket privacy.  Here's how it came to be, via legal precedent, quoted from the Abortion in America page:

Note that a right to privacy was not to be found in the Constitution or anywhere in previously legislated federal law.  That makes this Court established legal precedent New Law, un-legislated, not originated by Congress and not signed by a President, and it is therefore illegal and unconstitutional.  It was Interpreted into being by the Court, out of thin air. 

Abortion Law.  1973 Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton.  Abortion is not to be found in Article One Section Eight, nor was there any previously existing federal legislated abortion law, so  again, the cases should not have even been heard.  See Abortion in America for the details.  It was out of constitutional scope for the federal government.  Thus, the Court unconstitutionally established un-legislated, un-signed, un-representative New Law by route of establishing case law legal precedent. 

Sodomy Law.  1986 Browers v Hardwick; the Court upheld Georgia State Sodomy law.  2003 Lawrence v Texas; the Court struck down Texas' same sex sodomy law.  The Court never should have even heard either case.  Sodomy is not listed in Article One Section Eight nor is it represented in legislated federal law.  That makes this Court established legal precedent New Law, un-legislated, not originated by Congress and not signed by a President, and it is therefore illegal and unconstitutional.  It was Interpreted into being by the Court, out of thin air. 

Obamacare Law.  2010 Affordable Care Act; 2012 upheld by Supreme Court.  Neither health care nor insurance are to be found in Article One Section Eight, and so Obamacare is out of Constitutional scope for the federal government in the first place.  Members of both houses of Congress admitted to not having read the bill before voting to approve it.  All sorts of arm twisting, rule changes and borderline illegal shenanigans were employed to barely get it passed in Congress.  The Supreme Court unconstitutionally rewrote part of it in order to "interpret" it into being somehow "Constitutional".  Every member of Congress who voted for it, the President who signed it, and every member of the Supreme Court who voted to uphold it, thereby violated their own oaths of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States.  A glaringly obvious impeachable offense.  As a legal precedent, Obamacare very nearly trashed the whole Constitution. 

Sodomite "Marriage" and Obamacare II.  2015 Supreme Court decisions that "surprised" everybody, for some reason.  Sodomy is defined as anal or oral sex, bestiality or any other non-procreative sex.   It is promoted by Cultural Marxism for the obvious reason that it leads to the destruction of culture, and the ultimate goal of Marxism is the overthrowing of all social institutions, as it says in its Manifesto.  Again, marriage is not to be found in Article One Section Eight, and there was no related existing legislated federal law, so once again, socially destructive, unconstitutional New Law was interpreted into being.  Just as predictable as sunrise. 

A Court gone wild, and Candidates without a clue. 

Can anyone show me a candidate for high office or a holder of high office who wants to do anything other than modify or correct or improve or or fix or repeal and replace any of these unconstitutional laws that should not exist in the first place?  Why do some of them even entertain the idea of going through the rigmarole and complex political process of repealing any of them, or legislating against them, or amending the Constitution, instead of quite simply declaring them to be unconstitutional, which they clearly are, and thus null, void and no law, effective immediately. 

That's what the Court did in 1803 Maybury v Madison, the landmark case that established the principle of Judicial Review.  The Court declared a legislated law to be unconstitutional, null and no law from that day on.  Judicial Review did not exist until that precedent. 

The only thing necessary for a landmark case establishing a similar principle of Presidential Review is a President who will take any one or all of the example unconstitutional precedents above and declare it to be unconstitutional, null and no legal precedent from that day on. 

The only thing necessary for a landmark case establishing a similar principle of Congressional Review is a Congress who will take any one of all of the example unconstitutional precedents above and declare it to be unconstitutional, null and no legal precedent from that day on. 

If legislated law is subject to Judicial Review, then a legal precedent is subject to Congressional or Presidential Review, and a Presidential Executive Action is subject to Congressional and Judicial Review. 

Very simple; nothing to it.  There is nothing tough about this.  Once we are back under the protection of our Constitution, if we ever are, and once we have a Congress composed of a majority of men of high principle, if we ever do, those who voted to legislate unconstitutional law and those on the Court who voted to uphold it could be impeached from office, and replaced by principled real Constitutionalists. 

The Court is currently composed of four absolutely anti-American Justices who are always absolutely certain to vote right down the Marxocrat Party line, always, with no deviation.  Ruth Bader Ginsburgh, Elana Kegan, Sonia Sotamayor and Stephen Breyer may always, always be depended upon to advance moral depravity and oppose Judao-Christian morality, and to advance Marxist redistributionism at the expense of private property.  Never any deviation there. They always vote together; they always vote the same; they always vote in favor of the Marxocrat Party agenda.  Which is to say, they always vote in opposition to the clear wording of the Constitution. 

John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy are baseless, amoral, unprincipled men who drift with the political wind, for whom the Constitution, if it is considered at all, is of less importance than popular political opinion of the moment.  They are unpredictable, as are all men guided by impulse rather than solid principle. 

Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito are the only current highly principled Constitutionalists on the Court.  A clear minority. 

What makes a civilization?

To be civilized is to be raised up from primitive, savage or barbarian status, into increased valuing of art, science and industry.  Civilization is cultural refinement; it is refinement of thought accompanied by an increasing appreciation of culture itself.  Science, technology and industry advance in civilization through written language, recorded history and the never-ending increase in learning afforded by the written word. 

The greatest of all civilizing factors for a culture is a commonly held and highly moral behavioral standard for that culture.  A highly moral cultural standard is the one unique quality found in the most successful and longest lasting cultures. 

The commonly held moral standard of the United States of America is, exactly, of the American Judao-Christian Ethos, descendent of the ethos once common to all of Western Civilization.  That commonly held moral standard comes out of the religion of the American Culture, which is, Christian, in many denominational forms. 

What is the purpose of law in a civilized society? 

Even in the most highly civilized societies, and especially in a self-governing society such as the USA, law is still required to keep the whole culture on the tracks and within the bounds of the commonly held cultural moral standard.  Recognizing that the world is imperfect and that evil exists, law is therefore required to protect the moral majority from the immoral minority.  Whenever immorality is allowed to predominate, the whole culture will crash.  In a self-governing culture - meaning rule by fixed law rather than rule by man - the high morality of the citizenry is an absolute necessity for the continued life of the culture.  When cultural morality breaks down, the whole civilization breaks down with it.  When the people are no longer willing to live within the law, there is no law, there is no recognizable culture, and there is no civilization. 

"You can't legislate morality" says the moral relativist.  The hell you can't.  Morality is exactly and precisely what must be legislated.  And  morality comes out of religion, whether the moral relativists like it or not.  Where do they think our government ever got the idea that murder, or stealing, or whatever, ought to be against the law in the first place?  See the Legislating Morality page. 

Demonized "Social Issue" moral laws, which are all sexual, are all local or state issues anyway, not subject to federal law because they are not covered in the Constitution.  And there is a wide and wild variation of localities where such things as sodomy, abortion, dope, gambling, prostitution, etc., are quite legal, and even advertised.  If you don't believe me, go to San Francisco or Orlando where they encourage and celebrate sodomy.  Go to Colorado and smoke dope.  Or go to Las Vegas where they encourage and celebrate gambling and prostitution, and where they even advertise that they won't blackmail you, saying "What happens, here stays here".  No, really.  Seriously.  If you can't trust the open advertisement of the government of a whorehouse, who can you trust? 

What is the goal of the Marxocrat Party?  (I mean Marxism)

The ultimate goal of Marxism-Leninism is the end of soveriegn nations, the end of religion, the end of the normative family, the end of the concept of private property, and, "the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions".  The end of all existing culture and cultural institutions.  Collectivization of everything.  A New World Order. 

What is the ultimate goal of Gramski's Cultural Marxism and the work of the Frankfurt School?  The collectivization of thought.  The spread of delusional belief throughout society, beginning with the youngest children, and advancing delusional beliefs throughout all of higher university education.  The demoralizing, i.e., making immoral, of a whole culture, from within, through education, news reporting and entertainment.  Capitalizing on the fact that, if a man can be taught (or deluded) to tolerate sodomy in his culture, he can be taught to tolerate anything at all, to his own destruction. 

The path to the destruction of religion is through the destruction of the religion's morality.  Religion itself is the next target.  Mark my words. 

The glaringly obvious evil intent of the President and his Party.

I really can't believe more people don't see all this for what it is, this deep into a second term of an obviously anti-American President.  He is not stupid; he is not naive; he is not merely inexperienced; he is not in over his head.  He knows exactly what he is doing.  He is a Marxist-Leninist.  He is rabidly opposed to Constitutional America.  Every single thing he has done in office has been harmful to some part of the American nation, be it the Constitution itself, the morality of the people, religious liberty, freedom of speech, racial tensions, border security, national security, the economy, the currency, police relations, promoting sexual perversion, jobs, you name it.  It's obvious.  He intends to bring us down. 

He negotiates with and is friendly to our deadliest enemies, and he alienates and insults our closest allies.  He not only consorts with Islamic Jihadists, he has Jihadist Moslem Brotherhood members in our government among his closest national security advisers.  And it's not as if he were ignorant of who they are.  He is one of them.  And it's not the first time Islam and Marxism joined hands against a common enemy. 

The Ottomans allied with Germany in World War I.  Hitler and Haj al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, formed a partnership in World War II.  Whatever differences there may be between today's Marxists and today's Jihadists, they both have a common enemy to unite against:  Us.  And Israel.  He hates Christianity and Jews, and so do they.  He hates America, and so do they.  He hates Israel, and so do they. 

He just keeps taunting us and hoping for an excuse to use force to put down an instigated rebellion, and take over.  He has demonstrated how he can use the word nigger, but you cannot, taunting free speech for me, but not for thee.  He lights up the White-house in rainbow colors to publicly celebrate sodomy after the latest Supreme Court corruption of the Constitution. 

Am I the only guy in the world who sees him for who he is? 

Do not think America cannot be brought down.

All the worst atrocities committed against God and man came to be in the 20th century, by Marxists and Moslems.  By anti-Christians and anti-Jews.  If you think it cannot happen here, you are mistaken.  You cannot "Love" these people into repentance and conversion.  You cannot peacefully demonstrate or nonviolently resist, thinking, they cannot arrest everybody.  Yes, they can.  History proves it.  Millions have been arrested, millions have disappeared, millions have been enslaved, millions have been exterminated.  We're talking about Evil here, not your neighbor.  Not someone you can understand.  Not someone civilized.  They are barbarians. 

They will happily crucify you so that the birds can begin feeding on you before you die.  They will put your head on a pike, rape your wife and sell your children.  They are the ones our President consorts with.  His goal is theirs - the end of America. 

It's obvious. 

And the Republicrats have vowed to not impeach him. 

It's up to us, in the next election, if we make it that far. 

---

Added Friday 7/24/2015

Gay Priest Cavalcade

In this Church Militant offering we see that Cultural Marxism has invaded the Church, too, and made it's mark.  When ordained clerics join the cause of evil, or, at best, see nothing wrong with evil, from inside the very institution formed by God to save us from evil, the institution itself is put at risk. 

Notice the Rainbow Flag, and remember, every time and every place you see it.  Companies and organizations and retail stores and governments and localities who fly that flag favor sodomy over Christianity, and oppose Christianity in support of sodomy.  Have nothing to do with them. 

They deny nature in favor of the unnatural.  They deny science, in claiming homos are born homo.  They deny reality in claiming genders are other than what they are.  They deny mathematics in claiming homosexuality is more than 2% of the whole population.  The destroy the normative family, in promoting perverted fatherless / motherless "families".  They deny Scripture, in claiming sexual sin is not sin. 

Have nothing to do with them. 

=====

Sarcastic Acronym Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" it over a link without clicking just to see the simple acronym interpretation. Click any footnote link to see the acronym and a detailed explanation; "Hover" the mouse over it just to see the simple interpretation.)

SLIMC¹ Secularist Liberal Intellectual Media Complex
GESGOEAEOT² Gradually, Ever So Gradually, Over Eons And Eons Of Time
PEWAG³ Punctuated Equilibrium's Wild-Assed Guess
TTRSTF⁴ Them There Real Scientifical-Type Fellers
TTRSPTF⁵ Them There Real Smart Perfesser-Type Fellers
TTRSJTF⁶ Them There Real Smart Journalistical-Type Fellers
SNRTACBT⁷ Surely No Right Thinking Adult Could Believe Today
STNSEACPB⁸ Surely Today No Serious Educated Adult Could Possibly Believe
WDN⁹ We Don't Know
BMDFP¹⁰ Baboons, Mongrel Dogs, Filthy Pigs and ...
HBAACOTE¹¹ Human Beings Are A Cancer On The Earth
ACLU¹² Anti-Christian Litigation Union
FLORMPORIF¹³ Flagrant Liar, Or, Mindless Parrot, Or, Innocent Fool
MEJTML¹⁴ Marxist Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
IEJTML¹⁵ Islamic Ends-Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
MPAV¹⁶ Marxist Principles And Values
WBESSWG¹⁷ Wise, Benign, Elite, Super-Scientific World Governance
TRMITM¹⁸ The Reason Man's In This Mess
IYI¹⁹ Intellectual Yet Idiotic
TTRSCBTF²⁰ Them There Real Smart Catholic Bishop Type Fellers
IACMPVND²¹ Illegal-Alien-Criminal Marxocrat-Party-Voting Nation-Destroyers
PEJTML²² Palestinian Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
PSYOP²³ "Psychological Operation" Mind Trick
CDC²⁴ Covid Developmentally Challenged
LGBTQ+ Every Letter Represents A Serious Psychotic sexual Identity Disorder
HEJTML²⁶ Hedonist Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
SEJTML²⁷ Scientistic Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar

Reference Material

[All Web Pages listed in Site Map by date-of-publication;
oldest at the top, newest at the bottom of the list.]

Culture=Religion+Politics;  Who Are We?  Vic Biorseth

The Brilliantly Conceived Organization of the USA;  Vic Biorseth

Live Interviews

Return to the BLOG page

Return to the HOME PAGE

Subscribe to our Free E-Zine News Letter

---

Date:  Thu Jul 02 03:22:52 2015
From:  Catherine
Email:   benga.koli@gmail.com
Location:  
Comment: 

As usual I agree with what you wrote and also learned some new things. I found it very interesting the history of the colonies regarding the different religions and how the separation of church and state was formed. Also you wrote about the Supreme Court. I can't understand why it can pass into law just about anything and it's not challenged. Like the unholy same sex stupidity. Why is the House of Representatives not even making a showing of rejecting it?! It is interesting to read that Presidential candidate Ben Carson has questioned this very subject--say that the House could fight it. Here is a quote from him recently:  Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson, who acknowledged on Friday that the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling is “the law of the land,” seems to be retooling his position, telling Iowa talk radio host Simon Conway later in the very same day that Congress could pass a “creative” law to “negate” the court’s decision.

When Conway asked Carson if he thought the decision was “a done deal,” Carson replied that it was not.

“I hope it will be revisited because the reason that we have separation of powers is to prevent runaway courts, runaway executive branch, runaway legislative branch,” he said. “The laws are made by the legislative branch. And, you know, you can make a law to negate virtually anything, you just have to be creative in the way that you do it. So no, I don’t think it’s over by any stretch of the imagination.”

Carson added that if he were to become president, he “would certainly get involved” in undoing the marriage decision because although he wants to “respect everybody and let everybody do what they want to do,” if “everybody gets the right to change things for their group” that will lead to “chaos.”

Carson also told Conway that the founding fathers certainly did not intend to have “people who are appointed and not elected making decisions about the lifestyle of the people.”

See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ben-carson-congress-could-pass-creative-law-undo-marriage-equality-decision#sthash.VjsWzkyN.dpuf

---

Date:  Thu Jul 02 2015
From:  Vic Biorseth
Comment:  

Catherine:

That's the problem. 

Why "revisit" it when it could be simply declared unconstitutional, null and void.  Very simple, nothing to it.  If the Court does that to legislated law, and it does, then Congress or the President can do that to Court established legal precedent.  But the other two co-equal branches are either not smart enough to do it, or they are too evil to do it. 

Regards,

Vic

---

Date:  Thu Jul 02 12:03:29 2015
From:  marlene
Email:   rhetorektum@aol.com
Location:  philadelphia, pa usa
Comment: 

All 3 branches are corrupt to the point of refusing to make a distinction  between our rights and our liberties and, thus, are traitors and should be tried for high treason against our constitutional Republic.

---

Date:  Thu Jul 02 14:28:05 2015
From:  Magdalen
Email:   
Location:  WI
Comment: 

Dear Vic,

Insightful, brutally honest and learned commentary as usual.
As for the term, 'penumbra', it does have a legal definition. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/penumbra There is a bit of history of use of the term at this website, too.

That the Roe v Wade decision was found "in the shadow of a penumbra" is indeed very dishonest. I pray it will be overturned in due time.

Thanks also for listing the times SCOTUS has acted unconstitutionally in creating law. I was looking for this recently, wanting to inform someone on facebook (which is quite rainbow-ish these days).

Thanks for providing some sanity in this ever-increasing world of chaos. God is in control, and we know who wins in the end!
God bless.

---

Date:  Thu Jul 02 2015
From:  Vic Biorseth
Comment:  

Magdalen:

This shows how rapidly English "evolves" when over-educated (indoctrinated?) elitists are in charge of updating the dictionary.  Even an illegitimate, abusive use of a word eventually becomes listed among the possible definitions of the misused word.  So now, thanks to Douglas' dumb-assed obfuscation of what he was doing, "a doctrine that refers to implied powers of the federal government" suddenly becomes a valid part of the definition of the abused word.  It would have been more accurate to explain it as "a purposeful obfuscation of a legal interpretation", and maybe name it after Douglas. 

Penumbra:  A Douglas Obfuscation of truth.

Regards,

Vic

---

This Form cannot be submitted until the missing fields (labelled below in red) have been filled in

ADD COMMENT

Please note that all fields followed by an asterisk must be filled in.

Name / Pseudo-Name:*

E-mail Address:

City / State / Country:

Comment:*

Please enter the word that you see below.

Copyrighted Material