The Confusion of the Constitution

Many people, most infact, don’t really understand the constitution. When the courts are rule on something they disagree with, or they want the government to do about something almost immediately they say;

“The constitution is Out of date”

Is it really, or is it rather the person’s understanding of the constitution rather limited.

The Constitution is Time Tested

Ever since 1776 we in America have watched democracies all over the world succumb to a dictatorship. In each of these dictatorships the rights outlined in the US constitution were striped from the people. Yet in this time America itself has never fallen into a dictatorship or a totalitarian society. One must ask; what sets America apart from these countries?

The answer is very clear, We the people set laws on our government in our Constitution, not the other way around. We hold our government accountable to those laws, and in no way shape or form can the government re-write them. The constitution in Germany however is very different from America’s. The rights of the people are written by the government for the people to abide to, thus those laws are subject to change… and so this is how Germany fell into a dictatorship when the National Socialist Party decided the German constitution was out of date. You see the difference?

Yes our government can make laws we the people must follow. However the government is bound to the laws we the people put on them. The government can not make any law that conflicts with the laws put forth in the constitution. This is what sets us apart from every country in the world, even to this day when every country in the world is a democracy or form there of.

The laws we the people put on the government are created for the sole reason the government can not become a dictatorship. The reason we have these laws is due to the fact the world has always had dictatorships, and because every dictatorship does  the same things time and again – we made it so the government was incapable of repeating the means of a dictatorship. The bests way to explain this is reviewing the constitution itself.

Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”

There’s 5 things going on here:
1. Freedom of religion
2. Freedom of speech
3. Freedom of the press
4. Freedom of assembly
5. Freedom to petition the government.

In any dictatorship one of the first things that always occurs is to try and control religion. The reason is if you can control religion you could make people think you are god, therefore you posses all authority, because no one will question god. It is more then that however, dictatorships require people to fully believe the dictator is a good guy. In order to do that there can be no dissent in the way people talk about the dictator. The news reports must also agree with the dictator. Any assembly meeting against the dictator must be punished. Lastly dictatorships don’t often accept petitions, however in order to put together a strong petition people must be able to speak to each other… you simply can not do that in a dictatorship, and this is why the very first thing we the people put in the constitution was these 5 freedoms.

Think I’m kidding?

Emperor Qin Shi Huang was the first emperor of China in 210 b.c. after he launched a successful military campaign to conquer all of china, the very first thing he did was name himself god. He made the old religion of Shangdi illegal and mandated everyone to worship him and honor the religion he invented called “Confuciusionism”. Naturally he was the god of that religion and all who disobeyed it, or found violating the laws of that religion was put to death by order of the state. But that’s ancient history right?
Communist Russia is but another great example. According to Joseph Stalin – “In the age of reason morality is no longer given to us by books based on a magical man in the sky or fairy tales, it is now issued to the people by the state”.

After this statement, Stalin decreed it was the moral obligation of the people to hand their friends, family and anyone they knew reading the Bible over to police. Anyone found protecting people, or keeping silent about people they knew reading the Bible were also guilty of treason.

You see in a dictatorship it’s about absolute control. The dictator doesn’t just want to rule the country, they want to rule people’s hearts and minds and very souls. He wants everything from people and absolute loyalty and agreeince on everything he does. He can not get that if people are reading books written 2000 years ago that often conflict with his interest.

Equally a dictator can not have complete compliance if people are meeting with each other, or talking about things they think the dictator is doing wrong. The media especially must also be censored to conform to his views or else words of dissent will spread quicker then he can handle it. At which point even more people will be talking against the dictator. Very soon action will be taken by the people and the fact is there is more people then any given leader… about 2 million or more to 1 person is very bad odds, and every dictator knows it.

Amendment 2

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

No we are not talking about “Hunting” at all, we are actually talking about a lot of things…. that is self defense.

1. Defense against foreign invaders
2. Defense against tyrannical government.

Yes we the people have the legal right to form a militia and take out the US government…. I know it’s tempting sometimes, we don’t really want to do it but we do have that right. In a dictatorship one of the first things taken away from people is their guns, swords, or other weapons for the very reason there can be no resistance or dissent against the government. This happened in Germany, russia, china, egypt, brazil, japan, tonga, france, and many places.

Where people get this is about “Hunting” is first their lack of even reading the amendment, second their assumption that in 1776 this was the only way people could eat… I am sorry to tell those people that they did have food markets and general stores in the 1700s, most people did not hunt for survival, many others did not even work on a farm. They bought groceries more or less the same way we do now. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting plain and simple.

The bombing of pearl harbor clearly illustrates the reason we have this amendment. There was a real reason the Japanese did not send troops to attack America. Instead they sent a plane to bomb an army base, and the plane was to run away as quick as it can.  The reason was the same reason Jihadist sent a suicide bomber to fly a plan into the twin towers. In the words of a Japanese admiral who was asked why they didn’t send an army to invade:

“We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand.”

Now how can I explain this any better then the Japanese military themselves?

Indeed he would be correct. If the Japanese had sent an army they would have been immediately surrounded by average citizens with perfect knowledge of how to use a gun. Imagine if you will how in the world would such an army survive marching to DC if they faced people gunning them down behind every bush, tree, rock, or window along the way?

It is because of the second amendment it is impossible for an invading army to succeed in conquest. There is no possible way they can take on over a 100 million people with firearms, and take on the US military at the same time. There is no army on earth with the resources that can compete with that. 

Why do people say the constitution is out of date?

Usually people who say this never even read the constitution, or perhaps they think it is a complex document. It isn’t. Infact I’ve only given the first 2 amendments, as you see they are very simple and straight forward. There is no possible room for confusion and the constitution itself is only about 5 pages long. Anyone who says it is out of date simply hasn’t looked at the thing, or they are trying to manipulate it.

Gay Marriage

I would like to specifically target the main reason people try to dismiss the constitution. I remember before the Supreme court decision to legalize gay marriage christians loved the constitution while liberal supporters hated it. The argument then from Christians was unfounded to support the constitution because of the fact the constitution does not grant the right to get married however it does support freedom of religion as well as states rights. Liberal gay rights supporters loathed the constitution because of the same reason. However the case Obergefall vs Hodges reversed both sides of that argument, today I see Christians loathing the constitution while liberals love it.

As a constitutional conservative and a christian let me tell you why this case was perfectly in line with the constitution. First it had nothing to do with marriage, it was about property. The constitutions 14th amendment states plainly :

“…No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The case is straight forward because a person getting married in a state where gay marriage is legal, is not recognized by the state they live in. Which means in the event of death of spouse they loose their home, pensions, insurances, everything. Also the case extends to divorce…. The entire reason we have government in marriage is to protect property. It has nothing to do with the church, or for the matter the laws of Leviticus of which is rescinded anyway by the bible itself by Christ.

When you have 2 people who have been together for a life time, naturally they build a life, a home and possibly children. When one of them dies the living person has to fight the family to keep their house they’ve lived in for say 20 years. They have to fight the state in order to keep their adopted child or child from their spouses previous marriage. This happens all the time to many who are widowed. The difference is in gay marriages the home is not protected, nor is the child…

Then some people say; “just call gay marriage something different like civil union”.

A civil union does not protect property whatsoever. The term is a legal term that means absolute nothing, and is used by people who do not really want their property shared by the other person. It is a non binding contract under the law, where as the term “marriage ” is a binding contract under the law.

Again the problem is in some states gay marriage was legal, where as others it was not legal. When the couple got married in a state where gay marriage was legal, they would come back to their own state and their property was not protected under the law. This violates the constitution.

What would be unconstitutional about the Supreme courts ruling is if they were simply deciding federal laws to impose on states. The reason being it is not the place of the Supreme Court to determine laws or make rulings on social issues. The case was not about social issues at all, it was about property.

What this case presented was very simple, either the US was all in for gay marriage or it was all out against it. The fact gay people will get married in states that allow gay marriage and come back to their own state where their marriage isn’t recognized means their property is not secured. It has nothing to do with discrimination, or “right to get married”. It is because of this, the ruling can not be overturned even if states change their laws to define marriage as “between a man and a woman”, this would only be a show law that could not be enforced by the state, as the property of the Gay couple will still be protected by the constitution and decision of the Supreme Court ruling.

How to stop gay marriage

There is no possible way to stop gay marriage and the ruling was perfectly fair. It is not in Christ’s teachings nor is it in the constitution for people to deny people their own property. I would accuse anyone saying otherwise a communist. However the only real thing Christians care about is their churches and ability to preach against gay marriage. Such is also protected by the constitution, which sets America up for a fine mess doesn’t it?

Well the fact is a church can deny a gay wedding because it is their property and it is their beliefs. A christian school can also deny children from attending their school by whatever grounds they deem, including gay parents or a gay teenager or otherwise differences of opinion. No one is saying otherwise, and infact since the Supreme Court ruling many lawsuits against churches denying gay weddings have been overturned.

It is simply for the Christians to convince their pastors to deny gay weddings at their churches. Additionally each denomination has a panel of bishops who determine if such things are allowed within the whole of the denomination where Christians can bring their theological case to. There is no reason a church can deny a gay wedding without first pointing to the pastor rather the government.

Matthew 18: 15-17
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican


Jesus tells us to handle our problems within the church. If the person does not wish to comply with the church treat him as a stranger. This includes your pastor who refuses to give up gay weddings. What this particular verse also suggests is christians are to try to handle their own problems among each other rather running to the government for every little thing.

The summary of this being if you don’t want gay marriage don’t get married to a gay person. Spend less time worrying about other people and worry about yourself and your own local church. Evangelize to the lost as a christian should, and do not think for a second suing people is going to convert them to christ – because it isn’t.

There is no excuse for Christian’s to find the constitution out of date anymore the liberal atheists. What I find is worse there are pastors who deliberately lie to their congregation about their losses in court over a gay marriage case.

Lieing pastors

Here’s a case I’ve seen many times lately. The pastor meets with with a gay couple about their wedding, they agree to the wedding and the couple pays the pastor whatever the cost… say $5000. Then the day before the wedding the pastor says:

“We can’t do the wedding because it’s against the religion, your money is also not refundable”.

The pastor wants the money, but he doesn’t want to loose face in front of the congregation. When brought to court over this the pastor looses and is forced to pay $5000 plus legal fees. He turns to his congregation and the press and says:
“We lost the case because we lost the 1st amendment”.

The congregation doesnt know about the deal the pastor reneged on, nor do they care. The pastor then plays martyr after trying to rip off a gay couple so the congregation will cover the losses of the lawsuit by donations.

Again as a constitutional conservative and a christian, this is by no means ethical. Such a pastor is wicked and ungodly and he is using his congregation to do nothing but sow the seeds of discord to rip someone off. By no means is it justified by either the bible or by the law.

Again every pastor has the right to refuse a gay wedding. They do not have the right to try to con people out of money for a gay wedding. Nor does loosing to such a case represent a loss in the 1st amendment. It represents the fact the pastor was trying to play games and steal by lieing, and manipulating.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s