So today we had a “duh” ruling. This is so obvious that one has to wonder when the four dissenting judges are going to be impeached by Congress for blatantly denying Constitutional rights.

What should worry people who care about the Constitution is that this was a 5-4 ruling. That means that there was actually a “swing vote” over such an obvious and clear right protected by the Bill of Rights. That means that it would only take one Constitutionalist judge being replaced by a liberal to erase this obvious, clear right from existence.

I won’t bore people with more punditry — it’s all been said. I’m glad that the Supreme Court has affirmed an obvious fact, and struck down an obviously unconstitutional law. I’ll be happy about that and shut up now.

Here we go: Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant.

This interesting molecule, without which life on earth would not exist, has been shafted by the US Supreme Court. And I felt sorry for Pluto. This beats what happened to Pluto by a mile.

The problem with this ruling is not the absurdity of calling CO2 a pollutant (which is certainly absurd), but is, yet again, the US Supreme Court ignoring their Constitutional role and pretending to be legislators.

The Supreme Oligarchy essentially decided that Congress erred in not including CO2 in the list of “pollutants” that the EPA is charged with regulating, so they decided to simply amend the law by fiat.

When are people going to wake up and realize that the United States is no longer a country of law, but one of authority? This is not the government described by the Constitution.

And, if you’re a Republican voting in a primary, remember that McCain doesn’t think Americans should have the right to pool their resources during election time to support politicians and issues, and oppose politicians and issues, without restrictive guidelines that he sets.

Now, in San Francisco, the mayor has ordered that marriage licenses be given to homosexual couples, despite the fact that California citizens voted overwhelmingly to make it law that a marriage is between one man and one woman. In this case, the mayor is clearly breaking the law, and no legal or constitutional acrobatics are necessary to realize that. Unlike in the Alabama Ten Commandments issue, there is a clear law on the books in California prohibiting what is being allowed in San Francisco.

And yet, nothing is being done. It is in fact the responsibility of the governor of California to oversee the execution of California’s laws. However, Governor Schwarzenegger has simply issued a statement that he “encourages” San Francisco officials to abide by the law. How nice… and the courts? They are allowing this show to go on for a while because someone misplaced a semicolon in a legal filing. Perhaps the California courts will eventually affirm that the marriage licenses in question are invalid, but the damage has been done.

What we have here is a clear and blatant double-standard. Where Judge Moore broke no law and merely did not bow to the whim of an activist judge, the mayor of San Francisco is openly defying a law recently passed by the majority of California voters, and getting away with it. Whereas Judge Moore could be attacked and vilified because he was upholding what he believed was the foundation of law in Alabama, Mayor Gavin is untouchable because his cause is politically correct and designed to completely dismantle the traditional definition of a family unit.

If this continues and so-called “gay marriage” eventually becomes legal in the US, a government marriage license will be utterly meaningless.

The question I have is: what law? The US Constitution states clearly: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The first thing that must be understood is that “respecting” does not mean “giving respect.” It means that Congress is prohibited from making laws with respect to the establishment of religion. In other words, the establishment of religion is none of Congress’ business. There can be no law regarding religion from the federal government. The Constitution makes it perfectly clear (to one who deigns to read it) that there can be no federal law that applies to Roy Moore’s monument. It is clearly a matter of the people of Alabama (who, let us remember, elected Moore while he was being called “the Ten Commandments judge”).

The question of whether or not a granite monument of the Decalogue constitutes “establishing religion” (which it does not) is irrelevant to the issue. More relevant, but of limited importance to the issue at hand, is the prohibition of the free exercise of religion being imposed on the state of Alabama by Judge Thompson.

The real issue is what constitutes law. Judge Moore is being accused of not respecting the law by not submitting to the will of Judge Thompson. How is it that the dictates of a Judge are law? When the US Constitution prohibits the federal government from making any law regarding religion, how can Judge Moore be breaking a law by ignoring the ruling? In this case, what people mean when they say “obeying the law” is “obeying the Judge.” But a federal judge cannot create law by fiat.

In order for Judge Moore to break federal law, there would have to be a law with respect to religion prohibiting religious symbols from appearing on state property. Again, the First Amendment prohibits such laws from being made by Congress, so all that Moore can be accused of is not submitting to the dictates of a judicial despot.

It is a matter of ignorance to insist that the First Amendment was written to prohibit state organizations from incorporating religious aspects into their functions. The First Amendment was written when several states actually had official state religions, and representatives from those states wanted an amendment guaranteeing that their states could be free to do what they wish in regards to religion. It wasn’t until the sixties that the First Amendment became the scalpel of the left used to excise any acknowledgement of religion from public life.

Further complications arise from this faulty reading. For example, what is to be done with the Alabama state constitution itself? After all, it begins by “invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God,” acknowledging that the very source of the law is God. How can this be allowed to stand if Judge Thompson is correct in his interpretation of the First Amendment? Judge Thompson noted in his ruling that the monument caused people to be “offended.” If a mere engraved rock is offensive to a secularist, what more a preamble to the state constitution citing God as the source of the law!

Interpreting the First Amendment to say that religion cannot be acknowledged by the state is more than just wrong; it is of itself a “religious” point of view. In the end, all it can accomplish is the establishment of secularism as the official State Religion; a system that all but denies the very foundation it is based upon.

There is something much deeper to this than a Judge putting a granite monument of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. If it were truly wrong to allow a religious expression like this to exist, one would need to begin tearing down all of the statues of the Grecian goddess Themis that we call “Lady Justice.” But nobody is clamoring to abolish Themis from state property. This is probably because nobody believes that Themis is actually the source of anything in our legal system.

So, we are left with a system that allows the expression of religious themes as long as they are expressed without belief. Therefore, Judge Moore is in the wrong because he actually believes that the Decalogue is an important historical aspect of the Alabama legal system.

The saddest part of this tale is that the eight Supreme Court justices in Alabama have decided that obeying a Federal Judge’s bidding constitutes “the rule of law.” It will be impossible to do anything about the oligarchic advancement of the judiciary if everyone concedes their usurpation of authority over law.

US federal judges have hijacked the Constitution. Case in point: An Alabama monument to the Ten Commandments has been deemed “unconstitutional.” Never mind that the first amendment prohibits the ESTABLISHMENT of religion (not the acknowledgement of it as a source for moral code or basis for a legal system). The larger issue would seem to be the Alabama state constitution — apparently it is unconstitutional, too, because it recognizes God as superior to the government. Activist judges don’t like the idea that there is anything superior to the government (or the judiciary, for that matter). [Article]

I must admit to becoming a little frustrated over the California governor race to replace Davis. Frustrated is probably too harsh a word… Annoyed is probably better. There is a big push for Bill Simon and Tom McClintock, the two conservative candidates, to drop from the race and support Schwarzenegger. But this only makes sence if you only value that “R” being next to the governor’s name. But if the “R” comes with a candidate who doesn’t seem to hold any Republican positions, what is the point? The only hope for the state, as far as a new governor goes, is someone who will make liberal (no pun intended) use of the line-item veto to cut all the garbage spending that the state legislature constantly passes. But so far, Arnold has not ruled out higher taxes and his only political experience is in getting a massive proposition passed turning the state government into an afternoon babysitter. Sigh. [Related article]