Judges have assumed the role of gods and lords, telling us poor ill-informed subjects what the Constitution really means. This is especially so with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. These judges are true trailblazers, having recently put themselves in control of border security and immigration rather than President Trump!
The Ninth Circuit really shows its genius in matters of religion. Any judge knows that the government is cannot establish a religion. It simply cannot be associated with any religious symbols or text. Thank judges they discovered the separation of church and state!
For example, in the case of Buono v. Norton, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled to prohibit the display of an 8-foot-tall cross in the middle of the Mojave Desert. A group of World War One veterans had placed the Cross atop a hill in the desert to memorialize their fallen brothers. But one retired National Park Service employee was offended by the war memorial. The Courts stated that the “primary effect of the presence of the cross” was to “advance religion.”
Every god-judge knows that the government simply cannot be allowed to offend anyone, especially with respect to religion.
This applies to words as well. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because the phrase ”one nation under God” violates the separation of church and state. The First Amendment prohibits a state endorsement of religion. The ruling stated: “Under God” is as objectionable as a statement that ”we are a nation ‘under Jesus,’ a nation ‘under Vishnu,’ a nation ‘under Zeus,’ or a nation ‘under no god,’ because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion.”
What about a nation under judges? Would that be acceptable to the lords on the Ninth Circuit?
With all of the delicate politically-sensitive people living in California, the judges really do need to take additional action to keep their subjects from being offended.
Have the judges reviewed The Declaration of Independence? The document that birthed our country on July 4th, 1776, contains multiple references to God and acknowledges human rights come from Him.
…When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,… the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them,…..
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…..
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions…..
Surely the almighty judges will ban this document. The Declaration must be “objectionable” as it is not “neutral with respect to religion” as defined by judges. Won’t atheists find it offensive?
Thankfully, the 1st Amendment had not been ratified yet, or King George could have just sued in an American court and had the entire Declaration thrown out!
On a more serious note, the 9th Circuit judges must soon rule on the Constitution of the State of California. It obviously is not “neutral with respect to religion” as defined by judges. California became a state in 1879 and its constitution begins:
We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom…..
How was California even accepted into the union with offensive unconstitutional words like these in its governing legal document? Where are the judges??? Quick, some atheist must file a lawsuit now!
Unfortunately, California is not alone in its judicial sins. The rest of the states living under the Ninth Circuit rule need to be punished too for having unconstitutional offensive language in their constitutions.
Alaska: We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land…… Arizona: We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution…
Hawaii: We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance … establish this Constitution. Idaho: We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings…
Montana: We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty. establish this Constitution. Nevada: We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom establish this Constitution,…..
Oregon: All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences…
Washington: We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution…
Isn’t it outrageous that the Ninth Circuit judges would allow unconstitutionality in every state they oversee? Maybe these judges aren’t so omnipotent if they have missed such glaring violations of the law they create and enforce.
At least the judges can take solace that the US Constitution, the legal document they all swore to uphold, meets their lawful standard. After all, this document contains the 1st Amendment where they supposedly draw their authority to ban offensive religious speak.
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America
Uh Oh! Let’s see. There must have been many lords who were on the earth 1787 years before the Constitutional Convention. Allah? Budda? Anyone?
The lords of the Ninth Circuit Court better get cracking. Obviously, this is another legal oversight on their part. If “God” is objectionable and cannot can be “neutral with respect to religion” how is a reference to Jesus, our Lord, allowable?
Inquiring minds want to know if the Constitution is un-constitutional! Judges, please tell us! Your subjects are very confused!