If you are still following this blog, I am writing specifically to you, so, please, hang with me for a moment and I’ll get to the point of this post.  But first, to anyone who might happen to stumble across this post, please understand that there is a long history behind this blog page.  It started out as an attempt to explain the ‘secular’ path for preserving the individual rights and liberty of Man.  I can no longer do this because I no longer see this world in the way I used to see it.  Therefore, the tone of TRTC will be changing.  If you are interested, I have left the old archives in place so you can go back and see what TRTC used to be.  I say ‘used to be‘ because, starting today, September 27, 2019, I am changing the entire tone of this blog.  If the new tone is not for you, I understand.   However, I cannot state this with enough emphasis: if you seek to understand and preserve the individual rights and liberty of Man, the information and commentary that will presented on this blog page from this day forward have proven to be the only way Man has ever achieved those goals.  If you choose to dismiss them, you do so at your own peril. own peril.

Now, to those who still follow TRTC:

If you are still following me, I feel I owe you a bit of an explanation.  Mercifully for you, this will be short.

For more than a year now (probably closer to two years), I have struggled to maintain what might be called a ‘secular’ focus to my blogging on TRTC. I never separated God from my blogging, but I tried not to sound as though I were preaching.  I did this in an attempt to attract readers who might not agree with the connection between God and Liberty.  But I cannot do this anymore; I can’t do it because I absolutely cannot see how Man can ever preserve and protect his Rights and Liberties without the civil application of the Biblical Scriptures.  I have grown in my understanding to the point where I can no longer see or understand this world outside of that Biblical perspective.  I cannot separate the Creation of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or His laws and ordinances, from the material world in which we live.  I see them as inextricably intertwined.  This is why I have not written that much for so long: because I could not bring myself to write something I no longer believe.

Therefore, I am no longer going to try to separate my understanding of this world from my blogging.  I will simply write to explain what I have found in my personal research and do my best to explain how I think it all ties together, both in human history and — more importantly — with God’s Laws.  If you still find TRTC to be useful to you in your own life, then I have been obedient by trying to serve you to the best of my abilities.  But, if you do not find value in the new tone of this blog, then I understand.  I will simply wish you well, but I will also warn you that you will not find what you seek apart from what I will be trying to explain from this point forward.  Therefore, if you leave us now, I will pray that the Lord eventually leads you back to us — or to others who believe the same way.

Thank you, and God bless.

B3A

 

I do not listen to the American ‘legacy’ media (i.e. NY Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc).  They are no longer pretending to be journalists.  They have dropped their mask and have exposed themselves as the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party.  Neither do I trust cable news (this includes FOX News).  They are just as corrupt.  Finally, I believe that the leadership of the Republican Party is in bed with the Democrat Party.  Therefore, I spend a great deal of my time looking for sources of information that present facts — those things they can verify and give to me so I can verify them for myself.  As a result, I have been learning a great deal more about this Trump-Ukraine story than the average American will ever know.  This is why I am issuing a warning:

THIS TRUMP-UKRAINE STORY MAY WELL BE ABOUT THE VERY SURVIVAL OF THE UNITED STATES!!!
This is actually about a confrontation between Trump and the Deep State, and, if Trump looses, we will lose the U.S. — FOREVER!!!

As soon as I can put it all together, I will post everything I am learning.  Until then, this is one of those areas where I would strongly urge my readers to find and follow Glenn Beck’s coverage of this story.  Remember, it is not Beck, but the people he has hired who I trust.  They do their homework, and they tell you where to find it so you can verify it for yourself.

This is a serious question for whoever reads this post:

Do blogs like The Road to Concord do any good in our society?

I ask this because, try as I might to do my part, it seems that society is becoming less rational every day.  People such as myself can beat ourselves to death trying to explain how reason works, and how to apply reason to current events so that we can make informed, rational decisions; yet, the people who listen to and read our work seem to be going in the exact opposite direction.  So why should any of us bother wasting our time?

THIS POST WAS INSPIRED BY THE ON-GOING COUP IN OUR GOVERNMENT

Please explain this to me:

The Russian Collusion ‘investigation’ has made it public knowledge that the Steele dossier was created by foreign intelligence operatives hired by and paid by Hillary Clinton. It was then planted inside the Trump campaign by the FBI and U.S. Intelligence community.  Afterward, this fake document was knowingly used to unlawfully obtain a search warrant to spy on Trump (the exact same thing Nixon did, just in a different way).  Then, when Trump won the election, they used this fake information to accuse Trump of colluding with the Russians when the evidence — now in the public record — shows that Obama and Hillary are the ones who actually colluded with the Russians.

This is a coup, folks.  It is illegal.  Everyone involved should have been arrested and tried for collusion.  But nothing was done to them.  So, now, they have put forward another Democrat operative who has been assigned the false status of ‘whistle-blower.’  I say fake because the person in question has no first-hand knowledge of the thing they have allegedly reported.  This means it is hearsay.  Hearsay is not allowed in a U.S. court.  Furthermore, the Inspector General’s office has said this person is politically motivated, therefore, they are not credible.  yet, the Democrats, the Republican leadership and the media have all reported this as ‘proof’ of treason.  In reality, it is just the exact same thing they tried with the Russian collusion hoax, it’s just in a different form.  Same exact pattern, different specific details.

HERE’S THE PROBLEM

No one cares!

I can explain this until it kills me.  Others can do the same.  But who is listening?  And, if they hear, why do they not believe?  Why are so many people in this nation choosing to go insane instead?  And yes!  I mean they are literally choosing to go insane.  Any person who accepts, embraces or advances the narrative that is being put forth by the enemies of Trump are literally accepting falsehoods as reality.  That is the definition of delusion, which is a characteristic of insanity.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN I AM DEFENDING TRUMP

I am not defending Trump.  Long-time readers of TRTC know that I have never supported Trump, but I have always sought the truth.  And, in this case, the truth is: Trump has not done what his enemies are accusing him of doing.  The evidence actually supports charges against the people who are attacking him, yet, no one cares.

SO WHY FIGHT THIS ANYMORE?

So, this leaves me with this question: If Americans would rather live in a fairy-tale world, a world where they are animals and not human beings (animals follow pure desire, humans are ruled by reason)., then why should I or anyone else try to convince them to turn away from the cliff?  Why not just let the lemmings jump off to their deaths?

THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE

The answer is simple: because the few humans left among the lemmings will be killed along with the lemmings as they carry us over the cliff with them.  Mind you, it will be against my will and the will of all others like me.  We have no desire to become animals, or to jump off the cliff in a fit of insanity.  It’s just that we are part of the same society so, when the lemmings commit national suicide, we will be killed along with them.  And lest the reader think I jest, history records that, when the folks who are orchestrating all of this finally gain control, they typically kill every free thinker they can find.  This is because they know we represent the Truth, and the Truth is the only thing that can threaten their new rule over the masses.  Thus, we must be killed.  Which is why Obama’s buddy, Bill Aires, was and remains committed to their original goal:

If you think the people this informant were reporting on have gone away, you could not be more wrong.  They are the very same people who are now in control of our schools, Hollywood and the entertainment media, the ‘News’ media, the government and the Deep State.  Their goal has not changed.  They seek to establish a Communist dictatorship.  They have openly said so since the time of Woodrow Wilson.  Only, today, it will be some 35 million people who will have to be ‘re-educated’ or ‘eliminated.’

But many of us have tried to explain this, as well.  Same result: the lemming animals call us crazy and charge for the cliff — dragging the sane humans with them.

 

NOTE: This is the second of a two-part post.  You can find Part I here.  This is a lengthy post, but it is crucial that all Americans understand the argument made here. I cannot urge the reader strongly enough to read and — if necessary — re-read this post until the reader fully understands that the argument made here is that of the Founders and, as such, represents the only legitimate understanding of the issues involved.

THIS IS WHERE THE REAL DAMAGE WAS DONE TO THE 1st AMENDMENT

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) had been actively working to destroy the Constitution for over one hundred years. Nowhere is this more clearly evident in its attack upon the First Amendment. In this post, I am going to show how this was done, and in doing so, I will demonstrate that the SCOTUS is no longer a legitimate agent of the law, but a lawless body of oligarchs. This time, we start with Section I of the 14th Amendment:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.

In the 1947 case of Everson v Board of Education, SCOTUS applied the ‘Establishment clause’ of the First Amendment to the States.  This was the first time this had been done.  SCOTUS used a judicial interpretation of the 14th Amendment to justify this action.  In the opinion of the Court, religious liberty is covered by or included in the ‘life, liberty or property’ mentioned in the 14th Amendment.

To make a long, murky legal argument understandable, what SCOTUS did was to rule that the 14th Amendment re-wrote the entire U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Originally, the U.S. Constitution established a Federal system of government subordinate to the States.  Originally, the Constitution mostly restricted that Federal government. It also established a strong system of checks and balances.  What this 1947 SCOTUS ruling did was affirm that the 14th Amendment had re-written the Constitution.  Now, the Constitution is understood to establish a National government to which the States are subordinate.  Furthermore, the entire Bill of Rights now applies equally to the States.

This is the real damage that was done by the 1947 SCOTUS ruling in Everson v Board of Education: it incorporated the 1st Amendment against the States.

The ramifications of this ruling cannot be under-stated.  In short, with one ruling, SCOTUS declared the destruction of the Constitution and system of government that was established by our Founders and replaced it with one that is thoroughly Progressive in its foundation and totally illegal in its establishment.

Normally, this is the point where I would show you that SCOTUS distorted the plain meaning of the language in the 14th Amendment to demonstrate that this ruling is a perversion of the law.  I could do this here — if I wanted to do so.  However, researching the history behind the 14th Amendment, I have discovered that this was most likely what the authors of the Amendment actually wanted to do: erase the original constitution and replace it with a Progressive version of its former self.  Therefore, on the surface, it would appear that the States did — in fact — replace the original, federal Constitution with a Progressive, national constitution.

Now, because I do seek the Truth, and because I have built much of my understanding of the founding of this nation upon what the Founders said they were trying to do, I am loath to deviate from that same standard in evaluating the original intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment.  So I won’t bother to risk committing a fallacy by explaining how — even assuming the intent to totally replace the Constitution — the 14th Amendment still does not say what the 1947 SCOTUS ruling claims it says.  I am not going to do that because I do not have to do so to defeat the 14th Amendment.  this is because the 14th Amendment was not legally ratified!!!

I want to start by stating a very clear and irrefutable fact:

The Founders clearly, forcefully and repeatedly affirmed that the States had the right to secede from the Union.

This was well known and understood by the States when the original Constitution was ratified.  Therefore — no matter what the cause used to justify the act — when the Southern States succeeded, they were within their rights to do so.  And — no matter what the cause used to justify the act — when the Northern States attacked, they acted unlawfully.  It is true that slavery was central to the Civil War, but the central fact of the matter is that the war was about the right of a State to determine its own destiny — a right asserted and defended in the Declaration of Independence.  This mean, by that same Declaration, the North was and has ever been in the wrong.

[NOTE: Please do not bother commenting to call me a racist, or claim I am supporting slavery.  I am neither.  I have already stated that slavery was the issue of the Civil War, but States’ Rights was undeniably the principle under-pinning that issue.]

Now that we know that the North was the aggressor, and by the principles of the Declaration, it was acting unlawfully, let us look at what followed.  When the Southern States surrendered, the North started dictating to them.  This includes the new State Constitutions.  In the 1871 case, White v. Hart, the argument was even made that parts of the Georgia Constitution should be changed because the Constitution had been written under the duress of Northern hostility.  Not surprisingly, the SCOTUS ruled against the plaintiff.  The North also passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866.  In that law, the Southern States were ordered to ratify the 14th Amendment.  Here again, this represents clear duress.  The North had instituted martial law in the South, which means the Southern States were doing nothing voluntarily.  This represented yet another clear violation of the U.S. Constitution — by the North!

If the North was purporting to operate according the U.S. Constitution, not only did it not have the right to attack the Southern States for seceding, but it also had a Constitutional duty to insure each and every State had a republican form of government.  Now, to be clear, this is what the North claimed it was doing.  But, in reality, a republican form of government requires open and free agreement by the People of that State — something the North was denying them by acting as the government of the Southern States while directing that the Southern States create governments suitable to the North’s liking.

To sum this up, all of this means that the Northern States essentially dictated the changes to the Constitution to the South.  At the very least, this means the original Southern States still retain a legal right to not only secede — again — but also to reject this unlawfully altered Constitution under which we are all now enslaved.

NOW ABOUT THE GOP

In the course of researching his post, I realized that the Republican Party is now and has always been thoroughly Progressive.  It was established on the pretense of ending slavery, but its true goal was to establish a Progressive, National government.  It is a goal from which neither the GOP or the later Democrat Party have ever deviated.  Therefore, the GOP is not and has never been ‘Conservative.’  It is nothing less than the flip side of the Progressive Democrat coin, and both Parties are working toward the same goal: the enslavement of Man!

 

NOTE: I do not know how I could have missed the ramifications of the 14th Amendment for so many years.  I just today discovered them.  I studied the basics of this issue as best I could today, and threw this post up in response to what has been a shock to my sensibilities.  As I get a better understanding of how this happened and what it means for the future liberty of Man, I will amend this post and update the board with additional posts.

NOTE: This is a lengthy post, but it is crucial that all Americans understand the argument made here.  I cannot urge the reader strongly enough to read and — if necessary — re-read this post until the reader fully understands that the argument made here is that of the Founders and, as such, represents the only legitimate understanding of the issues involved.

UNDERSTAND THIS: THE COURT SIDED WITH THE SCHOOL IN THIS CASE!

This post just covers how the phrase, ‘Separation of Church and State,’ was inserted into the Constitutional debate.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) had been actively working to destroy the Constitution for over one hundred years.  Nowhere is this more clearly evident in its attack upon the First Amendment.  In this post, I am going to show how this was done, and in doing so, I will demonstrate that the SCOTUS is no longer a legitimate agent of the law, but a lawless body of oligarchs.  We start with the 1st Amendment:

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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, let’s take this apart.

First: To whom is this Amendment addressed?  To Congress!

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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second: with respect to religion, what does the First Amendment say to Congress?

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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Next, let us make sure we understand the meaning of the language in the First Amendment, as it would have been understood at the time it was written and ratified!

The two most important words here are:

RESPECT’ING, participle present tense Regarding; having regard to; relating to. This word, like concerning, has reference to a single word or to a sentence. In the sentence, ‘his conduct respecting us is commendable, ‘ respecting has reference to conduct. But when we say, ‘respecting a further appropriation of money, it is to be observed, that the resources of the country are inadequate, ‘ respecting has reference to the whole subsequent clause or sentence.

This means that Congress shall make no law that has anything to do with…

The next word we need to understand is:

ESTAB’LISHMENT, noun The act of establishing, founding, ratifying or ordaining.

This means Congress shall make no law that has anything to do with the creation of religion.

Now, let us consolidate what this means.  In the plain meaning of the language in the First Amendment, there is no doubt that the Founders were clearly and forcefully stating that Congress is prohibited from writing any law that creates a National religion.  With respect to religion and the First Amendment, this is the original intention of the Founding fathers and, until it is properly amended according to one of the two the Constitutionally provided methods of doing so, this remains the clear and undeniable meaning of the First Amendment.

[NOTE: this is clearly and unquestionably affirmed by the U.S. Congressional records dealing with the construction of the language of the First Amendment, in which the Founders’ intent was clearly to place a wall between the Federal government and anything to do with religion in any way: meaning the creation of a National religion, or blocking any American from freely exercising their religion.]

 

Next, let us look at the Constitutional authority of the SCOTUS:

Article III.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

On the surface, this would appear to give SCOTUS the authority to hear religious cases arising from disputes between the States and/or citizens of different States.  But this is not the case!  Let me explain:

First, we need to understand that the debates between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists make it clear that the Founders understood that they were giving very limited authority to the Federal government.  The areas of authority that the Federal government was given were clearly stated in the ‘enumerated powers.’  Religion and matters dealing with religion were not listed in the enumerated powers.  Furthermore, the First Amendment clearly and forcefully prohibits Congress from meddling in matters of religion.  Finally, the Ninth and Tenth Amendment reserve the authority over religion to the States and the People, respectively.  This means SCOTUS has and can have no — zero — authority over matters of religion.  To the extent that there is a wall between Church and State, this is that wall: a separation between religion and the Federal government — not the States and their governments, but the Federal government only!

[NOTE: Here again, that this is the correct understanding of the Founders’ original intent is clearly stated in the records of the time.  This cannot be rationally disputed.]

So, what does this mean?  This means that SCOTUS should refuse any and all cases dealing with matters of religion.  Even in the case of a citizen of one State claiming their rights have been violated by another State, or between a conflict arising between States, SCOTUS cannot claim jurisdiction as it is part of the Federal government, and the Federal government has been clearly and forcefully forbidden from touching any matter of religion.

This is the extent of my argument and, by rights, it should be sufficient to end Federal meddling in matters of religion.  This is because my argument is entirely based on the historic record of what the Founders said and did, not upon what others have said the Founders meant.  However, I know that there will be many readers will not be satisfied with this argument.  Therefore, I want to examine additional aspects of this issue.  We will start with Jefferson’s infamous letter:

Letters Between the Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson

You can read the full text of the complete exchange by following the link posted above, but, for the purposes at hand, this is the section we need to address:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man
and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship,
that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people
which declared that their legislature would “make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall
of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the
supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall
see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend
to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right
in opposition to his social duties.

First, understand that this is where the phrase, “separation of Church and State,” was found.  The words are not in the U.S. Constitution.

The plain language of Jefferson’s letter affirms the argument I just made: that Jefferson understood the Federal government had zero authority to act in matters of religion and that, as President, he had a duty to defend this understanding.  So, how did we arrive at the popular belief that the ‘separation of Church and State’ means the opposite: that the Federal government has a duty to keep any and all religion out of the public square?  Well, it started here:

In the 1947 case, Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court wrote:

“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.'” 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.

OK, let’s start taking this apart.

First, notice that the 1947 SCOTUS affirmed the argument I made above!

“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another…

Had the 1947 SCOTUS believed in the rule of law, they would have stopped there and dismissed the case without any ruling as they just admitted that they had no jurisdiction to hear the case.

[NOTE: As a legal aside, the Court is want to scream about case law and stare decisis (previous SCOTUS rulings).  According to modern Courts, these — and not the language of the Constitution or its Framers — are the final word on Constitutional interpretation.  Well then, when the 1947 SCOTUS issued its ruling, it violated its own standard of Constitutional interpretation.  This is because, at that time, there were some 158 years of legal precedents dictating the opposite of their ruling, and several hundred years more of common law rulings also in opposition to the 1947 ruling.  This means that the 1947 SCOTUS effectively amended the Constitution by decree, thereby nullifying both their ruling, as well as the legitimacy of that Court and any/all rulings it made from that point.]

However, the 1947 SCOTUS stated a legal falsehood.  In other words, it lied!  Notice these words:

“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another…

This is absolutely not true!  The 1947 SCOTUS lied!

READ THIS NEXT SECTION VERY CAREFULLY!!!

At the time that the Founder’s ratified the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, there were official, legally-mandated or protected State religions!!!  In fact, to one degree or another, at the time of ratification, all thirteen State governments supported religion!

It was not until 1877 that the last State government, New Hampshire, ceased to officially support religion!

[Religion in the Original 13 Colonies.  NOTE: this article claims that the 14th Amendment finally ended the States’ rights to control religion.  Here again, this is not true!  The 14th Amendment is yet another place where the 1947 SCOTUS deliberately twisted the plain meaning of the language and intent of the people who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment to justify their twisting of the 1st Amendment — but addressing this violation of the law is a subject for another post.]

What does this mean?  It means that the Founders had no problem with an official State religion!  They simply did not want a Federally mandated, National religion.  Therefore, the way the Founders lived the Constitution they wrote and ratified bears witness to their intentions and understandings.  This is why it cannot be denied: the Federal government has no authority over religion, and — since SCOTUS is part of the Federal government — SCOTUS has no authority in matters of religion.  NONE!

 

Now, before we end this discussion, let us return to the 1947 SCOTUS ruling:

“…Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa….”

Dear Reader, here me clearly!  THIS IS NOT LAW!  This is a personal opinion that has no place in the law — especially since, as I have just shown, it is based in a lie!

Let me explain:

First: I have shown that the Founders did not give any authority over matters of religion to the Federal government, but they allowed the States to control and even establish official religions.  This means that the 1947 SCOTUS ruling was clearly lying when they included the States in their opinion.  Even if the 14th Amendment is wrapped into this issue, all we have is a twisting of the 14th Amendment used to support a twisting of the 1st Amendment.  Or, if you will, a lie upon a lie.  No matter how this is sliced, the 1947 SCOTUS unlawfully attacked the Constitution of the United States!

Second: when the Court claims that it has jurisdiction over things that any government does not do, or does by inaction…  Dear Reader, this is a declaration of Oligarchal dictatorship!  There is literally nothing that cannot be claimed to be allowed or denied by this reasoning.  One need only claim that a State is allowing or prohibiting an action by silence and to claim jurisdiction to dictate to that government.  It does not even have to be proven that this is the case.  The 1947 SCOTUS didn’t even prove that the States were guilty of such action/inaction: it just accused and acted as though there had been a conviction.

But throw all this aside.  The simple matter of law is this:

If there is no law, then there is no judicial jurisdiction!

In other words, unless there is a law for the SCOTUS or any other Court to interpret, then there is no authority for SCOTUS or any other Court to act — period!

Taken all together, it is clear: the 1947 SCOTUS acted lawlessly.  They claimed dictatorial power over the entire nation, and SCOTUS as increasingly acted as a dictatorial Oligarchy ever since.  This cannot be rationally nor legally denied.  However, unless and until we stop these rogue courts, we will increasingly grant them legitimacy by our passive acceptance of their rule.  The issue is this simple.  We either dissolve and replace the Courts — all of them — or we become their slaves.

ADDITIONAL READING:

The Supreme Court’s Decisions on the Separation of Church and State Are Flawed

How to Respond to “Separation of Church and State.”