Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
The Rights of the People - Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    HERE IS THE DECISIVE POINT

    The Supreme Court of the United States is constitutionally authorized to interpret and declare the meaning of the Constitution. Whatever the Supreme Court says the meaning of the Constitution is, that is legally its meaning so long as said decision stands. The meaning which the court gives to the Constitution may be utterly false, as in the Dred Scott decision and in this one, but that matters nothing; the false meaning stands as firmly as though it were true, until the decision is reversed either by the Supreme Court itself, or by the higher court-the people-as was done in the matter of the Dred Scott decision, of which this decision now under consideration is a complete parallel.ROP 119.5

    Such, then, is indisputably the meaning which the Supreme Court of the United States has given to the Constitution of the United States-a meaning the purpose of which is “the establishment of the Christian religion.” This is a meaning which, by every particle of evidence derivable from the makers and the making of the Constitution, is demonstrated to be directly the reverse of that which it was intended to bear and which it did bear while the makers of it lived. Therefore, as certainly as logic is logic and truth is truth, it is demonstrated that in this decision the Supreme Court of the United States has subverted the Constitution of the United States in its essential meaning as regards the Christian religion or the establishment thereof.ROP 120.1

    Nor was the court content with a little. These declarations of Ferdinand and Isabella, Elizabeth, James I., et al., were not sufficient to satisfy the zeal of the court in behalf of “Christianity, general Christianity,” as the established and national religion here; but it must needs heap upon these fifteen more, from different sources, to the same purpose. Having extracted the real substance of the court’s argument throughout, in the foregoing analysis, it will not be necessary for us to apply the set formula to each citation in all the long list. This the reader can readily enough do in his own mind. We shall, however, present all of the court’s quotations and its application of them, with such further remarks as may be pertinent.ROP 120.2

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents