On 12/29/2017 I learned that forms at this address do not process in XP
I use Windows 10 On my other computer - it works I don't have
Florida Federal Office Holders
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION and the Declaration of Independence
Executive Branch Web Link
|Army||Marine Corp||Defense Link||
U.S. Department of Justice - web mail
|Navy||Coast Guard||Home||DOJ local pages|
I received this comment from a legislator, read my
The Bayview Cross case: On June 19, 2017 the U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the large cross near the boat ramp at Bayview Park was unconstitutional. I was deeply saddened by this ruling. The cross, which has been there since 1969, is a part of our community. While the separation of church and state is an important American principle, I have a hard time accepting that a single cross, located in a hard-to-find and remote area of a park, constitutes an “establishment of religion” by the government. I hope that one day, common sense and an acknowledgment of American values will find their way back into the judicial system, and rulings like this will be a thing of the past.
......... my reply .........
The above is from your 6/23/2017 message. I am glad you find the ruling objectionable. But you are in a position to oppose this kind of judicial illogical sense. The words "separation of church and state" do not exist in the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that demands a separation of government from religion. There is However, a Constitutional requirement to oppose interference by government with citizens freedom of religion.
The government does not establish a religion by allowing a Christian cross on public land. The judge is wrong and congress should immediately inform the judge he is wrong. A "sense of Congress" should be enough to redirect Judicial thinking. Congress has already past at least 3 bills protecting Christians from outrageous declarations of the courts.
I have been aware of an out of control, unconstitutional judiciary for decades, yet Congress has chosen to do nothing about it.
Let me remind you of the following from the Constitution:
Article II Section 2
But the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Article III Section 1:
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,
Article III Section 2
with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
In other words Congress has the authority to educate and direct the Judiciary regarding law, especially in any case where the judiciary oversteps or misinterprets their Constitutional authority.
The three branches of government are not equal, Congress is the law giver, The President is required to execute those laws, and the court applies the law produced by Congress to adjudicate disputes.
Courts can not make nor change law, especially they can not change the Constitution by decree. Some time in the past, I think it was the Marshall Court, assumed to usurp Congress as law giver and Congress abdicated their duties by allowing that action to stand. It seems Congress has an aversion to the job we hired them to do.
|U.S. Bankruptcy Courts||U.S. District Courts||U.S. Courts of Appeals|
|U.S. Supreme Court|
or use the new GOA site its very good GOA HERE
Virtual Reference Desk: A clearinghouse of Senate information on the Web and guides to resources in libraries and archives.
Find How the Senate Voted here - Senate Glossary of Terms
McConnell Republican Leader
Senator McConnell - Republican Leader
Cornyn, John (R-TX) - Republican Whip
Senator Thune - Republican Conference Chair
Senator Barrasso - Republican Party Committee Chair
Senator Blunt - Republican Conference vice chair
The Constitution states that a judicial nominee is to be confirmed by a majority of the Senate, that's 51 votes. Given the above oath does a filibuster against a nominee (which requires 60 votes to break) violate that oath? What about attempting to pass laws that infringe on other amendments such as the 2nd, 4th, and 10th?
The big question is: Is there a Senator that gives a damn what the Constitution says?
|14th Amendment - Being born on US soil does not make a citizen.|
|CIA World Fact Book||NRSC e-mail the National Republican Senatorial Committee|
|Committee on Appropriations - US House|
|Constitutional Law and Criminal Procedures||Search US Government web sites|
|Copyright Office||Social Security|
|Government Exec||THOMAS Search engine for Government files|
|Library of Congress Research Center||U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953|