Recently in The Constitution Category

Post-modern philosophy denies absolutes — reality isn’t absolute, only what popular opinion or someone believes at the time. Think that’s absurd? The current occupant of the White House believes firmly in post-modern philosophy, admitting in a speech on the Senate floor concerning the Supreme Court he holds firmly to post-modern philosophy.

Another court case involving religion and the First Amendment popped up recently. Unfortunately, the ACLU once again shows they’ve never actually read the First Amendment.

We previously noted Obamacare ends the republic, but at least one judge stands against the absurd and twisted idea not buying a product is commerce. For those judges and others needing a refresher, let’s review the definition:

com·merce — noun. An interchange of goods or commodities, esp. on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce); trade; business. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/commerce

What is judicial activism? Many slap it on any court decision they don’t like. In reality it’s failing to follow The Constitution, changing the clear and plain meaning. We recently noted how the government would defend Obamacare (using an abuse of the commerce clause). The Virginia court cites that bizarre activist ruling as a precedent in upholding forced nationalized healthcare.

Much has been written for and against the TSA’s new screening policies. We won’t wade into the battle here, because one point missed in the media frenzy — according to current legal case law, once you enter a “secured” area of an airport you’re essentially under Federal arrest as you may not leave the secured area without permission — even if you choose not to fly, as someone in San Diego found out the hard way after he decided he rather not fly than be subjected to the new enhanced procedures.

Perhaps you’ve heard the controversy over Obamacare and its Constitutionality, specifically regarding the commerce clause, as Pelosi and company claim the commerce clause gives the Federal government the authority to force you to purchase a product — you’re a criminal simply for being born if you don’t take action.

The “debate” continues over the founding of the United States on Christian principles. When Sarah Palin stated the US is a Christian Nation, atheists went into full spin mode. Can the question be decided as a matter of facts, or is it only a matter of opinion?

Recently a storm erupted regarding the change in phrasing from “freedom of religion”, to “freedom to worship”. As the administration’s comments and speeches are vetted and approved in advance (and usually read from a prompter), it’s not simply a slip of the tongue but an intended policy change; it’s a conscious change in language, and since the phrase has been used by the President himself, it’s reasonable to conclude he is not only aware of the shift, but approves of it.

Freedom of religion makes the news quite a bit as atheists attempt to stomp out any and all references to God frequently claiming “separation of church and state” as meaning a valedictorian can’t mention God in their commencement speech, or nativity scenes can’t exist in public places, or crosses on hills, or any public display of religion anywhere.

The “separation of church and state” phrase gets thrown around frequently as a first amendment issue, but you’d be surprised to see the phrase doesn’t appear where it’s frequently credited—in the first amendment to the Constitution.