Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Southern Heritage
Truth In Politics

Home

Our Purpose
A.P.Hill Corps. Speaks Out!
Voices Of Liberty
Calendar of Events
Letters to the editors:
Southron Points Of View
"Forgotten History"
We Have A Dream
A.P.Hill Chapter Past & Present Projects
A.P.Hill Corps Links Page
Becoming a Member
Contact Us

Truth In Politics

By Elliot Germain

The so called "separation of church and state" is not found in the Constitution. What is in the Constitution is that Congress shall make no law establishing or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The truth of the matter is that all but two states, at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, financed "church structures" or paid the pastors. This separation of church and state is the fabrication of the anti-Christian elements within the American political structure (like the ACLU). However, what is stipulated in the Constitution is the "separation of powers." But on this issue, the political circus is silent, and that silence is dangerous to our Liberty, very dangerous.

The Constitutional separation of powers is found in four groupings: Legislative; Executive; Judicial; and States. None have powers over the others except as specified in the U.S. Constitution (and its empowering documents). Since 1913, concerning strictly "federal government" matters, there are only three national powers (States were removed from the Senate).
But even so, none of those three are to have powers over the others except as stipulated in the Constitution.

For a Law to pass and stand as Law, the process would involve all three. In the Legislative Branch, the House passes a bill and the Senate approves. [Under the original Constitutional government, this legislative step - of Senate approval over bill proposals by the House - was to get the "States" approval to federal laws, because the Senators were chosen by the States' Legislatures. But after the "reconstruction" of "America" and after the subsequent Seventeenth Amendment (1913), State Powers have been "separated" from the national power.] After a bill passes the Legislative Branch, it must be signed by the President (Executive Branch). If signed, the bill becomes Law, albeit, not tested or proven. If the President does not sign (vetoes), the bill goes back to Congress where it now must pass by a 2/3s vote (instead of a simple majority). If it passes by a 2/3s vote, the process circumvents the Executive's negative to become a Law not tested. The Executive Branch is the federal police power, and if that Branch enforces that law, the violators of that law will go to the Judicial Branch to "prove or disprove" the Constitutionality of the law (as well as its legislative intent). If the Court sides in favor of the defendant, then the Law was not a law at all and the Executive Branch will cease to enforce that law. If the three branches do not cooperate, then nothing will happen; and nothing happening is better than bad law.

In a struggle between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch, it is sometimes the weight of the Judicial Branch that tilts the balance of power. The separation of powers was designed to give our nation the best chance of preventing the accumulation of power into one branch which could then create an autocratic rule of central power. With a hunger for powers not given them in the Constitution, the Executive and Legislative Branches have both attempted to co-op the Judicial. The Executive Branch nominates the Federal Judges, and the Senate approves the nominations [this originally was designed to be the "State" appointed U.S. Senators allowing "States" to approve federal judges]. The two Presidents who abused the
Constitution more than any other, Lincoln and Roosevelt, both stacked the Supreme Court which reveals that the use of unconstitutional powers goes hand in hand with trying to control the Judiciary.

The most egregious violation of the Constitutional Separation of Powers came with Judicial Politics. Political parties are not a branch of our government and yet they set the criteria of judicial selection. Republican Presidents will nominate Republican judges, while the Democratic Senate will oppose those selections, and vise versa. Federal Judges are not elected, but are selected by political parties. The two parties compose the federal judiciary based upon political alignments so that the judicial branch can serve their political agendas. The Judiciary is suppose to be free of political "considerations" but neither party is willing to rise above partisan politics to choose a judge based upon his enforcement of the Constitution. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is decided by a 5 over 4 majority, which leaves our nation in the hands of a One Judge swing vote. Justice is supposed to be the blind (objective) weighing of the facts, but the Truth-N-Politics is that American Judicial Politics is only blind ambition.

Enter supporting content here