The Testing of Article VI


 

United States Constitution - Article VI


All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

 

I guess it's just a sign of the times that we live in, but I have to admit, I never thought I would live to see this side of Article VI. I mean, seeing it used to say that you can't keep an atheist off the court? Sure, that's been a fight for over two centuries now, but to actively see it defending the right of a Christian to serve in public office? The very thought flummoxes and shocks me to the core.


Here's the deal, if the Democrats had managed to block her confirmation to the SCOTUS, Amy Barrett would have had all kinds of legal grounds to sue them for discrimination after what they said about her and her faith leading up to and during the confirmation hearing. They essentially created a secular / anti-religion litmus test and attempted to put her through it in order to get her to agree with their perspective or to keep her off the court. In the process, as they always do, they BUTCHERED the idea of separation of Church and State (even though that's NOT in the constitution) in order to justify their unconstitutional obstruction against Article VI.


But here's the more important thing, WHY did they do it?


WHAT POSSIBLE REASON could they have for making such a bold move?


The answer? JUDICIAL ACTIVISM


The Democrat party is used to being able to get the court to side with them, against the written Constitution, by reading things into it based on how they "think" the founders intended it to work. They use fancy terms like "living law" and "modern adaptation," but make no mistake, it's creating law from the bench because they couldn't get it done through the legislature. And now they're worried that all of their "work" will be undone. Well, when you pass illegal judicial fiats, you have to constantly worry about them being struck down. Live by the sword, die by the sword. It's a simple as that.


But what about this scare tactic that ACB's appointment will undo things like minority rights and women's right (other than abortion, because there is no right to murder)? Well, the 14th and 19th AMENDMENTS ensure that you don't have to worry about them. Because they aren't judicial fiats, minority RACIAL populations and BIOLOGICAL women have nothing to worry about. THEY. ARE. PROTECTED. Everyone else who was retroactively "read-in" to those amendments? Well, that's a different story, but I'll deal with that in a moment.


Make no mistake, what you're seeing is the ultimate game of Simon Says, except now that Simon is changing, the Democrats don't want it to work that way anymore. Yes, you read that right, BECAUSE they can't use the court to bully the right and ram their agenda through when they can't get it through the legislature, they now want to change the way the courts work in order to restore that power to themselves.


They have NO INTEREST in participating fairly in the legislative, judicial, or constitutional process, and have proven that compromise is "beneath" them. That is why they are losing their collective minds about the ACB confirmation, they're worried that not only will they not be able to force their will on others moving forward, but that the will that they've forced on people so far will be overturned, but let's explore that for a moment shall we? What does overturned really mean FOR YOU??


Well, contrary to the "SKY IS FALLING" scenario that is being painted, what it really means is that everything struck down by the court as Judicial fiat will be returned to the states. That's what people forget. Overturning Roe v. Wade won't illegalize abortion, it'll just return the issue to the states. Overturning Obergefell v. Hodges won't illegalize gay marriage, it will simply return it to the states. Obviously, an amendment can't be overturned, it can only be amended, so anything WRITTEN in the 14th and 19th amendments can't be changed. So why are people so worried? If you want liberalism, live in a liberal state, if you don't, don't. It really should be that simple.


Yet for those who have imposed their will by force and fiat, the thought of having people living in a way that THEY don't like is so upsetting to them, that they can't ever allow that. Your state can't decide that, we don't like it! Well, then this fight will continue until it reaches its natural conclusion, and neither of us will like that process.


If the reaction of the Democrats shows you anything, it's that they KNOW what they've done, and they'll do ANYTHING to prevent it from being overturned. That includes shredding the Constitution if needs be. I HONESTLY wonder how long it will be before we hear a Democrat (my money is on one of three people) say that we need to re-write the Constitution.


Just remember, you read it here first, and when it happens, get ready for fireworks like you've never seen before. We just hope they'll stay political.

20 views0 comments