Of Judges and Demodogs

I hear that the old schoolers may very well be replaced by young upstarts. Justice Stevens for instance is 800 years old. I was hoping that he could be replaced under Bush, but its not looking like it. He's a proud upholder of such evils as legalized murder and gay marriage and I was hoping that the Psalm could ring true here.

Psalm 139:19-24 "Oh, that You would slay the wicked, O God! Depart from me, therefore, you bloodthirsty. For they speak against You wickedly; Your enemies take Your name in vain. Do I not hate them, O Lord, who hate You? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You? I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them my enemies. Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my anxieties; and see if there is any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting."

So I would argue that we should pray for the destruction of Stevens, Ginsburg, and the other wicked judges who pervert justice and promote the abominations God hates. Pray that they either repent and turn from their wickedness or be destroyed that they may be replaced by the righteous.

Good point . . . see also Psalm 82 . . .

God wrote:<A Psalm of Asaph.> God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Well said. Although, don't rule out the fact that God uses the faithful to uphold his decrees, commands, and revealed will. It may by incumbent upon us to some day judge the perverters of justice and call them to account. As true authorities are called out from God's elect, I pray they bring justice to any unrepentant "justices." (Some of whom have gone so far as to admit they intend to uphold "international law" above the US Constitution. By voilating their oaths of office, they have effectively voided their position in that office as a justice.

I believe that we as Christians are to pray for God's mercy on those who are breaking God's laws. God is responsible for justice; we are all sinners and should not condemn each other. God will distribute final justice.

Of course, we should also pray for the current justices and that when they leave, they would be replaced with Godly men and women.

Here is a ethical puzzle for you:

Would it be lawful (under God's Perfect Law) for a man who has sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. (See here Oaths) to slay men such as are mentioned above and their like?

NOTE: I am not supporting or calling for the murder of government officials, I am simply asking for dialogue on the subject.

YoungStonewall wrote:Here is a ethical puzzle for you:

Would it be lawful (under God's Perfect Law) for a man who has sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. (See here Oaths) to slay men such as are mentioned above and their like?

NOTE: I am not supporting or calling for the murder of government officials, I am simply asking for dialogue on the subject.

Do you mean to ask if the civil magistrate should execute those in office who refuse to abide by their oaths?

No I was refering to the oaths I linked, the US armed forces enlisted and officer oaths.

They are sworn to defend the Contitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

Since the "justice" system itself is corrupt and no longer upholding even a parody of justice, considering they punish the righteous and reward the wicked, how can they biblically be brought to account?

Who has the authority (besides the King of course) to try and punish these evil doers?

The US armed forces have no authority to do such. They have not been granted authority to act apart from elected officials. They may in good conscience disobey an unconstitutional order. And they may even fight against a tyrant (even a home born one) ONLY if there is a duly elected magistrate to lead them. Otherwise you would have continual instability with power arbitrarily passing from one bully to another.

I do not mean to say that only the congress and president have authority to use force. A lesser magistrate may also employ that (even at the county level). I would like to see sheriffs, city councils, state legislatures, and governors resisting the tyranny from above . . . much like what Cromwell did in England. That was the first time in England's long history that a king was tried by Parliament and executed for his crimes. But notice it was not a mob of soldiers, but led by elected and lawful officials.

If you would like to see what happens when an army takes matters into their own hands, you need look no further than the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, Robert Mugabe in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, and our neighbors in Central and South America. It never has worked and cannot work.

This is what puzzles me, this clause:

"...I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;"

In light of Posse Comitatus Act LINK

What domestic threats are they allowed to defend against?

The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the Federal Government from using the military for policing . . . keeping law and order. It was made to provide future prevention for what happened in the South, namely the destruction inflicted on the Christian South AFTER the war. In other words, the army is not a police force and cannot be used as one.

If however, members of our own civil government decide to make war against their people, the military may be used in defense of the liberties secured in the Constitution if they are lead by a duly elected civil magistrate.

On the local level, you do not need the military to resist. Why not a city police force lead by the city council? Why not the sheriff of a county led by the board of supervisors? Why not the national guard led by the governor? All elected officials take this oath and are required to uphold it.

Is that what you are getting at?

I am seeking to generate discussion of the subject of a biblical revolt against the unjust tyrant which we now live under (and have lived under for some time).

YoungStonewall wrote:I am seeking to generate discussion of the subject of a biblical revolt against the unjust tyrant which we now live under (and have lived under for some time).

Then what do others think? I've exhausted my thoughts on the matter. CheeseKing? Nerdy? Bennet? Survivor? Etc.? C'mon guys (and gals for that matter).

I pretty much agree with Mr. Eschen. We must hold to the Doctrine of the lower magistrate with some aspects of the Just War Theory for not engaging in battles that have no probability of success, though that shouldn't stop us if we are being led into certain battles, for God's spirit and leading triumphs over all human knowledge.

Such an act like this would still allow a tyrant to do whatever he wants with the armed forces. A law or act can say one thing and be perfectly black and white, but a little law won't stand in the way of greedy warmongers. They'd either bypass such a law or try to reason why their cruel actions would fall under the protection of such an act. The ungodly are not law abiders, for they feel they aren't accountable to anyone but themselves. Straight humanism. My conclusion is that they'll let themselves defend against anything they consider to be a threat and laws are really meaningless seeing how they can find the elusive right to kill babies in the Constitution. We are under tyrannical rule and we just need to find a lower magistrate who can say "no" and then need to support that magistrate with all our being.

Any idea of revolution in this country is absolutely ridiculous. We have methods for trying and convicting people guilty of capital crimes - and it's not by an old fashioned Western lynch mob. Any such action, even by an "official group" such as local government, would be viewed as treasonous. With this form of government, the rule of the majority/the representatives elected by the people is supreme, and until we can get laws passed overturning abortion and other evils, there is no other action that we should take.

So shall we hope and pray the courts don't overturn Prop 8 and if they do, let the churches be shut down by the government for not marrying sodomites? If FOCA passes, should we just permit the federal government to override all our state laws and force us all to allow abortion in all cases? Wouldn't that just put the blood guilt on our hands and make it so we share in the destruction of the wicked? An act like FOCA would be law, but unconstitutional. We can appeal all we want, but if it passes, its law we are expected to obey. I would expect all true believers to stand against FOCA even if it passes. Would it be better to obey God and receive the judgment by man or obey man and receive the judgment by God?

cruisin'n5thgear wrote:Any idea of revolution in this country is absolutely ridiculous. We have methods for trying and convicting people guilty of capital crimes - and it's not by an old fashioned Western lynch mob. Any such action, even by an "official group" such as local government, would be viewed as treasonous. With this form of government, the rule of the majority/the representatives elected by the people is supreme, and until we can get laws passed overturning abortion and other evils, there is no other action that we should take.

What you are proposing is what is called the "Divine Right of Kings" only you transfer ultimate authority to the majority and the representatives they elect. This idea is unbiblical and unconstitutional. The rule of this country is to be under God and under law. It is not as Abraham Lincoln asserted "of the people, by the people and for the people." That is tyranny.

On the other hand the Bible and our legal history affirm the right of lesser magistrates to resist the tyranny of greater magistrates. It is recognized that a king/president can commit "treason" as well as a mayor. Therefore all are subject to govern according to law . . . not the whims of the majority or elected demagogues. That is liberty. You are proposing tyranny.