Where are you in your spiritual journey?

June 13, 2021

Christ's Internet.com

Christian News Portal

DARREL SMITH: Judicial decisions undermine voter results

2 min read

Our democratic vote is excluded in many ways. The National Governors’ Association and the US Educational Department decided they should centralize and communize our educational system without our or our legislature’s approval. U.S. departments and agencies have controlled us with over a million regulations with little of our involvement. The Supreme Court also removes many issues from our democratic vote.

In 1947 the Supreme Court started a series of decisions removing certain Christian principles from community affairs. The series Darrel Smithstarted with the Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947) decision that substituted a phrase that isn’t found in any of our founding documents–“separation of church and state” for what is actually written in the First Amendment. I expect to write about this issue in later columns, but for now these decisions told the Christian population, who includes a majority of our country’s voters, that they must exclude their Christian beliefs from governmental affairs.

In 1973 the Supreme Court decided in the Roe V. Wade and Doe V. Bolton decisions that abortion was permissible because of a vapor that was arising from a privacy shadow in the Constitution. In Justice Byron White’s dissent he called the decision, “an exercise of raw judicial power.” These decisions overturned the elected statues in South Dakota plus many other states. While we can still vote around the edges of the abortion issue, the central questions are excluded from our votes. As a result, approaching 60 million living unique unborn babies have been killed in the United States. Every one of us started our lives just as these babies did.

In the recent Obergefell v. Hodges homosexual decision, the Supreme Court again overturned the elected statues of South Dakota and many other states. Let me share some quotes from Chief Justice John Roberts about this decision, “But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening.” He quotes Justice Curtis as saying, “‘we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is,

according to their own views of what it ought to mean.’” Roberts says, “Neither petitioners nor the majority cites a single case or other legal source providing any basis for such a constitutional right.  None exists, and that is enough to foreclose their claim.” He also says, “The Court’s accumulation of power does not occur in a vacuum. It comes at the expense of the people. And they know it.”
Unlike me, you might be happy with the judgments in every one of these court decisions, but you still should be concerned about what compromised judicial orders do to our right to live under the results of our votes.