The reason I am writing this article is because Senate confirmation hearings start this week to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court. Will it happen? Read on.
Let’s start by defining the phrase, “Judicial Oligarchy.” The word “judicial” refers to the judges and the word “oligarchy” is defined as a form of government in which power is vested in a few persons. Therefore, a judicial oligarchy would refer to power given to the judges. Let’s see if this is what the framers of the United States Constitution had in mind.
Eleven years after signing the Declaration of Independence, delegates from the 13 states (they were called colonies at the time) met in Philadelphia to craft a Constitution for a more perfect union. The Constitution of the United States was ratified on September 17, 1787. The United States Constitution contains roughly 2700 words for the legislature and only 200 words for the judiciary. The obvious conclusion is that the courts were to serve the people and their Congress, rather than the people being subservient to the courts. In other words, power and law-making reside with the Congress, not with the judges – with the Legislature, not the Supreme Court.
The phrase “Judicial Oligarchy” means the government is ruled (and unconstitutionally controlled) by the judges. This is one of the reasons judicial oligarchy destroys the U.S. Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson confirmed the detriment to society of a judicial oligarchy when he said: “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one that would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
Contrary to popular belief, the United States is not a democracy; it’s a Constitutional Republic. A Constitutional Republic is a state in which the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government’s power over its citizens. The United States Constitution was written to limit the government’s power over the citizens.
The fact that a Constitution exists that limits the government’s power makes the state constitutional. The fact that the head of state and other officials are chosen by election, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review, makes the state a republic. In a Constitutional Republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers can be separated into distinct branches so there is a safeguard against the abuse of power in any one branch. This safeguard against the abuse of power equates to limited government as opposed to big government.
A Republic is a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. This form of government is from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people, and any law-making by the executive or judicial branches instead of the legislative branch is simply unconstitutional.
Patrick Henry was one of the founding fathers and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. He made the famous statement, “Give me liberty or give me death.” Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, Virginia makes this statement: It is the position of the [center] that the interpretation of the Constitution according to the original intent of the Founders is the only safe basis for the preservation of limited government and all rights including those important to our association.
Big government, not limited government, is what gives power to an unconstitutional judicial oligarchy. Here’s why: The United States government was originally designed to serve the people, but under a judicial oligarchy, the people are forced to serve the government.
Judicial Oligarchy was seen in both the same-sex marriage ruling and in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) ruling. The Supreme Court Justices ruled unconstitutionally in both rulings because the legislative branch of government makes the laws, not the judicial branch of government. This is yet another reason judicial oligarchy destroys the U.S. Constitution.
The contrast here is the battle between the people being able to govern themselves versus the people being controlled by a judicial oligarchy. In a Constitutional Republic, self-government by moral citizens equates to the power of the people to govern themselves. This is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind, with one stipulation as stated by our second President. John Adams said this: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our Constitution was designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other…Free government rests upon public and private morality.”
The stipulation for the people to govern themselves is self-government according to biblical truth. The United States of America was founded upon a Judeo-Christian heritage based on the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament and the Sermon on the Mount in the New Testament. This foundation should be the basis upon which all laws are made, reviewed, and enforced because only when a righteous people govern will a nation truly succeed. John Jay,
Original Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court said this: “The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the Word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts.”
The majority of the founding fathers used the Bible as the foundational document to write the Constitution of the United States. The idea of a republic originated with Exodus 18:21. The concept of three branches of government – Executive, Legislative, and Judicial – was taken from Isaiah 33:22, and the concept of separating those three powers using checks and balances was based on the wisdom found in Jeremiah 17:9. Knowing this, it is the duty of Christians to insure that biblical truth and national righteousness remain the foundation of our governing bodies.
The Scriptures speak extensively about judges. In fact, the seventh book of the Bible is called the Book of Judges. The Scriptures also speak extensively about the direct impact judges have on the righteousness of a nation. Perhaps the most poignant is Proverbs 29:2. Proverbs 29:2 (NKJV) When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when a wicked man rules, the people groan.
This verse states that people are happy when there are righteous public officials, which would include righteous judges. Even though everyone may not realize it, righteousness is what makes people happy, not sin, and certainly not public policies that oppose biblical truth.
Ezra 7:25 directs that we are to appoint judges who know (and teach) the Word of God. Ezra 7:25 (NKJV) And you, Ezra, according to your God-given wisdom, set magistrates and judges who may judge all the people who are in the region beyond the river, all such as know the laws of your God; and teach those who do not know them.
Exodus 18:21 exhorts us to appoint representatives who will rule in the fear of God. Exodus 18:21 (NKJV) Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.
Isaiah 1:26 confirms that the righteousness of a nation is directly affected by its judges. Isaiah 1:26 (NKJV) I will restore your judges as at the first, and your counselors as at the beginning. Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city.
Unfortunately, the truth of these scriptures has been undermined in the United States because it has been the judges, not the legislators who have imposed most of the unbiblical policies now in place, including but not limited to, abortion-on-demand, same-sex marriage, and prohibitions against public acknowledgments of God.
The most important consideration when selecting judges is whether they are original constitutionalists or living constitutionalists. Let me explain: In recent years, two competing philosophies of judicial nominations have emerged; namely, to follow original intent, or to judicially rewrite the Constitution and treat it as a daily evolving document. This is referred to as the living Constitution approach.
Under original intent, judges actually read the Constitution and attempt to follow its clear written meanings until such time as the people themselves amend the Constitution to give it a new direction in a specific area. The result is that originalist judges acknowledge the people and the legislature, not the judiciary, as the national policy-making branch of government. This rightly honors both the will of the people and the legislature, and it rightly leaves power with the people and their elected representatives.
Under the living constitution approach, history and precedent are largely irrelevant. The argument is that people today should not be bound by a two-centuries-old document. Under this approach, judges become super-legislators and create national policy. Their “Constitution” is therefore completely flexible (or “living”) and is always evolving as they rewrite it at will from decision to decision.
Here are some examples of the current judicial oligarchy that exists in the United States of America.
- Even though over 80% of the nation supports school prayers, living constitution judges disallow that practice.
- Even though well over 60% of the nation supports marriage as being between one man and one woman, living constitution judges reject that, while instead mandating same-sex marriage.
- Even though only 20% of the nation supports abortion-on-demand for any reason, living constitution judges have made it national policy.
Consider these facts: 76% of the nation supports the display of the Ten Commandments. 81% of the nation supports public displays of holiday symbols. 82% of the nation supports prayer at school events. 75% of the nation supports government funding of faith-based programs.
Living constitution judges also overturn popular elections with which they disagree, including elections in New York and Washington that banned physician-assisted suicides, in Arkansas and Washington that enacted term limits, in Missouri that rejected a tax increase, and in California that defined legal marriage as between one man and one woman.
All of this goes completely against what the president of the United States promises during his inauguration in the oath of office pledge. The presidential oath of office pledge reads this way: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” This is yet another reason judicial oligarchy destroys the U.S. Constitution – a living constitutional approach directly violates the presidential oath of office pledge.
At this point, it’s worth noting that the Democratic Party Platform describes the Constitution as a “blueprint for progress,” while the Republican Party Platform states, “We believe the Constitution was written not as a flexible document, but as our enduring covenant.”
A President will be gone in eight years or less, but the judges he appoints may remain on the bench for decades afterward, and as a result, their influence is far greater than his. Therefore, a President should be selected first and foremost on the type of judges he will nominate. It’s worth noting that our current President, Donald Trump, has appointed more originalist judges in favor of national righteousness than any other President in history.
Sometimes I ask people who oppose President Trump why they hate him. After all, before he became President he was well-liked by people from all political persuasions – many who now oppose him vehemently. After they give me answers with no substance, I tell them this: The reason you hate President Trump is that you’ve bought into a biased mainstream new media smear campaign – plain and simple. Our current President has done more to support righteousness and the U.S. Constitution than probably any other President in our lifetimes. You can text “Actions” to 51555 to get The Trump Administration Accomplishments texted directly to your mobile device.
Here’s what we could conclude: Original intent empowers the people whereas the living constitution empowers the unaccountable elite. The President, more than any other individual, will determine which approach becomes national policy through the judges he appoints. Biblical voters should make their selection for President first and foremost on the basis of each candidate’s judicial philosophy – the original intent philosophy or the living constitution philosophy.
The reason the U.S. Senate should confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States immediately is twofold: 1. She has a constitutional philosophy of a limited judiciary – this means she opposes judicial activism whereby judges act as super-legislators writing laws from the bench. 2. She is in favor of national righteousness – this means she supports traditional family values instead of godless policies like abortion and same-sex marriage that weaken a society and ultimately destroy a nation.
When Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States, you will have seen the answer to the prayers of millions of Americans who believe in God, Jesus, and biblical truth as opposed to those who believe in a one-world antichrist government. And those same prayers, being prayed by millions of God-fearing Americans, will be answered once again on November 3rd
as the one-world antichrist government is once again postponed.