Originally Posted by Ralph

Tangent ranting without answering any of the queries? I asked for you to show me in the constitution where "precedent" was to be the final factor in the Judicial Review process and often made from exterior sources other than the words of the constitution. The founding fathers indeed allowed for changes to be made in the constitution to adapt to changes that were sure to come in society. This process is called an "amendment", and this amendment was only to be finalized by .75% will of the states (We the People).

This process worked just great, as blacks were allowed to be considered human instead of just a piece of property, women were made just as equal as men in the governmental process...etc. Now the seculars claim the right to evolve our constitution just by words of their mouth instead of words actually found in the constitution, by falsely declaring that some imagined power of Judicial Review allows them to ignore the constitution in favor of prior opinion. Thus, they in effect made non-effect the true power of this nation the... representation of its people by the only authorized branch of government to make new law or change the constitution. The Legislative. And its all due to "we the people" allowing our legal system to be hi-jacked by the pragmatism of secular humanism instead of actually making them adhere to the true process on which this nation was founded...a very strong belief in the transcending authority of the creator over man and all forms of government.

Thus, another query that went unanswered by you, why was the "Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law" shelved in favor of "legal precedence"? An oxymoron in and by itself sense this Reference Book of Law was found sitting "legal precedence" from 1776-1920. Its almost as absurd as the Roe v Wade nonsense that "ignored" historical precedence of 200 years to falsely cling to an amendment that was created to empower the the rights of people instead of the right to legislate from the bench. Its seems, the Supreme Court plays fast and loose with their opinions, they use the constitution when it suits their agenda and ignore and declare "the power of Judicial Review" when no words are to be found in the constitution that they can twist and contort to their political ideology of human secularism. And all this constitution amending performed not by elected officials, but by political appointees, that have lifetime appointments and have no oversight whatsoever....as I said, the best of both worlds. Thats why the Judicial Appointment process as turned into such a circus of lies and hypocrisy. For they know where the true power rests in this morphed socialized republic, and it sure as hell is not possessed by "we the people", as was intended.

And as far as the "THEORY" of evolution, just where in the constitution is it made illegal not to accept any idea as fact? Does it really matter how many accept this false science as actual truth? If indeed it were truth, we would have the law of evolution. That's exactly why the founding fathers demanded that each state remain a republic and not be allowed to morph into a "mobocracy". So, the majority could not run roughshod over others with only their "beliefs". I have no problem whatsoever with "YOU" preferring to accept this "IDEA" as fact, but what right to you have in imposing this "IDEA" on the public at large as if it were fact, and this is very much demonstrated in all our public schools. (R)