Constitution Party Unhappy With High Court

The Constitution Party has formally denounced the recent Supreme Court rulings that allow the placement of a Ten Comandments monument on state property, but at the same time rejected the right to display them within a courthouse.

“While the Supreme Court correctly upheld the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments on government land,” Shearer says, “it rejected certain renderings inside courthouses, arguing that they violate the separation of church and state. This sets the stage for a new wave of lawsuits to apply on a case by case basis the Court’s conflicted and confusing decisions, while we are treated to the spectacle of federal judges acting as the legal equivalent of interior decorators trying to decide which version of a Ten Commandments display conforms to whatever doctrine of `separation of church and state’ happens to be in fashion. All of this ignores the historical fact of the influence of the Ten Commandments on America’s constitutional government and judicial system.

Read More

4 Responses to “Constitution Party Unhappy With High Court”

  1. Joe Says:

    I think this is a great press release and I am glad to see Bill explaining that civil law needs to be conformed to biblical law.

  2. Mikey Says:

    It’s a well written piece, but it glosses over one key point. This isn’t a biblical issue. It’s an interpretation issue. The concept of “separation of Church and State” as we all know comes from a letter from Jefferson to a church, and not in any official legislative or judicial documentation. The Supreme Court however used it as their argument a century ago (don’t have the dates with me here at the moment . . . sorry) to put a wedge between politics and the free practice of religion. This is in violation of the First Amendment. No where in the amendment does it say that politicians cannot openly express their views on religion or religious icons be displayed on public land. All it says is that it will not endorse one religion as a national religion. However, the extremists have turned this around to strip ALL religion from politics and the public, and it’s very sad to see politicians be so soft on trying to set the record straight.

  3. Mikey Says:

    Sorry for the rant.

  4. Eaglet Says:

    Mikey,

    I agree with your point from a legal perspective. If the Constitution were really defending the first amendment, they would defend the freedom of exercise of religion of those who want to display the Ten Commandments.

    I am grateful for the Constitution Party reminding us that the Bill of Rights is still the supreme law of the land. Many in all 3 branches of the federal government seem to ignore this.