When it’s so obvious that the “average Joe” questions “how can this be,” it really must be a humdinger! Consider our right to freely worship from the following, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Compare this clearly defined restriction to the Court’s 1947 Everson v. Board of Education ruling; “The First Amendment has erected ‘a wall of separation’ between church and state.
That wall must be kept high and impregnable.”
Such a case finding, depicting a “wall,” its height and its sturdiness was previously assured with four words: ‘shall make no law.’ Having a constitutional amendment as its enforcement, such later-day fine-tuning is of irrelevant and redundant wordage that, even if not intended, might be for another time and purpose. In fact, by identifying and restricting Congress, our Foregathers barred the only recognized law-making body in government. So, how are these later-day Supreme Court findings from individual cases as weighty as a Congressionally enacted law? Obviously, this is a mismatch and more so when confronting a Constitutional Amendment!
As a result, today’s educational product has been adversely affected by the removal of the Bible from the classroom. There are those who would argue this conclusion, but as this removal remains, so do its overall results.
Compare today’s quality of classroom behavior, the degree of learning, common decency, personal attire, and overall respect, not to mention the possibility of violence. All tend to muffle negative commentary. Based upon the generations that have matriculated over the years, this devaluing has negatively affected current parenting quality. Permissiveness and leniency abound in today’s society, directly contributing to these school results, which all tie into that questionable Supreme Court ruling.
However, there is a glimmer arising as today’s times just might be calling for a return to societal normalization, of which the Bible should also return to command its central role. Recently, the Louisiana Governor signed a law approving a fair-sized display of the Ten Commandments in all public classrooms, a move which the Texas Lt. Governor is also expressing similar intentions of sponsoring.
Long ago, the fallibility of the Supreme Court was affirmed with its finding in the Dred Scott case, indicating the need to revisit the accounting role of the judicial system’s “good behavior” standard. This mandates black robe loyalty to the meaning and intent of the Constitution at the time of its ratification without exception. Another legal hiccup was the Court’s infamous Roe v. Wade decision. Proper jurisprudence returned when three newly appointed jurists joined with the majority to return the abortion issue to the States. Also, this ‘Roe’ finding illustrates the ability to conjure up a right of “privacy” that did not exist Constitutionally.
Recall the fact that Congress, not the Supreme Court, is the only authorized law-making body in government. While ‘times’ are modern compared to that quip of “those old horse and buggy days,” human nature remains stationary due to its very nature! What is missing, accountability, needs a return, and with an eye towards its effective impact, and this is most pressing within our Court systems. Such a need is expected as each branch is charged to watchdog the other two. In a perfect world, this would have little call or need, but human nature never changes, so the world will never be perfect.
This all connects with today’s need to rebuild our American diligence and appreciation for what She represents and offers to us all. Therefore, the government should begin by adhering to an unwritten tradition within the Congressional chamber, even though it may conflict with one’s running beforehand due to a personal religious decision. As it is, today’s Congressional acquiesce irks since prayer was removed from schools based upon the few offended, yet now, the many in Congress agree to conform to the religious traditions of a few new and loudly defiant arrivals?
The title Supreme Court infers that those appointed and confirmed are well versed and qualified as to their Constitutional allegiance rather than from a personal bias. Therefore, when the latest one facing confirmation refused or was unable to define ‘what a woman is,’ this act of defiance reflected upon a possible future jurist’s judicial approach being swayed by a similar personal preference. This should have nullified that confirmation. Having ignored such an indication, the probability of more ‘dreadful’ decision-making or mythical structures being included as a judicial matter of fact just increased!
