Bill Dilks
Introduction:
1. “What to do about Christmas?” A problem that is facing New Testament Christians.
2. In beginning to study this problem, let’s realize what we need to do as far as our religious practice. For us to practice something relating to the spiritual:
a. The practice must be given as a command to be obeyed; a principle to be kept; or a precept to be practiced.
b. We must therefore be given enough information by the word of God to do the will of God, lest we practice tradition for tradition’s sake.
3. What follows is an attempt to show from scripture what our practice and attitude should be towards Christmas......
I. The Question Concerning the Date — December 25th.
A. Under the Jewish system, specific dates were given to observe special days along with instructions concerning what to do on those days. See Leviticus 23:4-44. In the New Testament the teaching and practice of Christians meeting on the first day of the week to worship together is documented in Acts 2:42; 20:7; I Corinthians 11 - 16:2.
B. Do we have enough information concerning the birth of Jesus to determine the date from Matthew 2 and Luke 2?
1. Dionysis Exiguss (6th century monk) gave us the B.C. - A.D. dating system. However, this system is at least 4 years off since according to Matthew 2:1 Jesus was born BEFORE Herod died. Herod died in 4 B.C. Also take into account the fact that there is no time reference to date the birth of Jesus from the death of Herod.
2. The census in Lk. 2:1
a. Recent discoveries have shown that there was a census taken every two years for a 14 yr. period for tax purposes.
b. It is however interesting to note that this action fulfilled the prophecy of Micah 5:2 concerning the location of Messiah’s birth.
3. The wise men - Matthew 2
a. The problem concerning Mary’s purification and the consecration of Jesus, see Luke 2:22-24.
• According to Lev. 12, Mary had to be purified and Jesus dedicated 40 days after his birth.
• Mary and Joseph offered the LESSER sacrifice of 2 doves (Luke 2:24) and not lamb, see Leviticus 12:6-8. They made the lesser sacrifice because they could not afford the lamb. How could they not afford a lamb if they had already received (according to tradition) gold, frankincense and myrrh?
• The conclusion is that they didn’t have the money to offer a lamb 40 days after the birth of Jesus because the wise men had not yet arrived.
b. The Killing of the Children by Herod - Matthew 2:16
• “Two years and under” - If Jesus was just an infant when the wise men came, why kill toddlers?
• “According to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men” - Why the time reference? Could it be that the star appeared and led the wise men to where Jesus was after His birth with the star appearing on the night when he was born? (An interesting sidelight on the star is that it lead them to Herod..only after they consulted God’s word in Micah 5:2 did the star lead them to Jesus.)
c. Where they met Jesus - “In the house” - Matthew 2:11
• Tradition says 3 wise men met Jesus, Mary and Joseph in a stable in Bethlehem on the night Jesus was born.
• Scripture points out: Mary and Joseph were too poor to afford a lamb as a sacrifice 40 days after Jesus was born (thus not having yet received the gifts of the wise men). The wise men cannot be numbered although they brought three types of gifts, see Matthew 2:11. They met Jesus with Mary and Joseph in a house.
• Conclusion: even if we could date when the wise men came to Bethlehem, the star appeared, the children killed by Herod, etc., it would not and could not give us the date of the birth of Jesus.
4. The shepherds - Luke 2:8
a. Shepherds came in from the hill region and corralled their flocks from around October 15th to around the middle of March.
b. An interesting note on this is that they may have been watching over lambs and sheep raised for sacrifice in the temple. If this is the case, what a parallel!
5. Conclusion: all material in scripture leads away from December 25th, even to the point of not even giving the exact month, let alone giving an exact date.
C. Where did December 25th come from?
1. The Roman Catholic church started celebration of the birth of Christ on December 25th in the 5th century.
2. The context of the date:
a. December 25th coincides with the winter solstice.
b. With this in mind, most pagan cultures calculated this as being the time when all gods related to the sun (Mithra, Osiris, Horus, Hercules, Bacchus, Adonis, Jupiter, Tammuz) were born.
c. In Rome this time was called the “Saturnalia” where a great feast was held and gifts were exchanged in celebration of the birth of the sun.
3. What happened in the 5th century was that the Roman church adopted a pagan practice and set a date from it.
II. A Possible Answer
Note: the following is from “Babylon Mystery Religion” pp.160-162 by Ralph Wilson. Although I can’t agree with everything he says, he does make some interesting points on when Jesus could have been born.
A. Dating Back
1. The ministry of Jesus lasted about 3½ years.
2. The ministry of Jesus ended in the spring during the Passover - John 18:39.
3. Jesus began His ministry shortly after He turned 30 - Luke 3:23.
4. If Jesus died in the spring, and had a ministry for 3½ years, and started that ministry shortly after He turned 30, then a more reasonable time for His birth would be in the early fall.
B. Contrast to the Birth of John the Baptizer
1. John was born about 6 months before Jesus.
2. Zacharias, John’s father, was serving as a priest in the course of Abia in Luke 1:5-13. According to 1 Chronicles 24:10 and the Jewish calendar, Zacharias would have been serving in the Temple (besides on the major feasts) from June 1-8. He would have been obligated to serve the following week which was Pentecost. Soon after this, he left to meet Elizabeth and she conceived John (Luke 1:23-24). If you add about 9 months to this you arrive with John’s birth sometime in the early spring. Add six more months to this and you have Jesus being born sometime in the early fall.
C. Other proof:
1. Taxation (see Luke 2:1-5), which was the reason for the census, took place in the fall after the harvest. Also, there would be no reason for Mary to go with Joseph except that she wanted to go and attend the Feast of Tabernacles with Joseph in Jerusalem.
2. “No room in the inn” (Luke 2:7). This phrase seems a little unusual if you realize that everyone had to report to their own city for the census, which would have meant a shifting of people, but not to the extent of overcrowding This phrase in Luke does however have meaning if one realizes that during the Jewish feasts Jerusalem (according to the Jewish historian Josephus) swelled from 120,000 to over 2 million. The overflow from this surge of people would have spilled over into Bethlehem. This would happen only in the fall and in the spring.
D. Conclusion: although this evidence is not what I would call conclusive, it does seem to logically point to Jesus being born in the early fall and not in December. Note that no specific month or date can be given.
III. A Definite Conclusion: since no exact date, even an exact month, can be arrived on as to the date of the birth of Jesus, then it would be pure speculation to arrive at a date, pure tradition to make religious practice of celebrating that date, and finally, it would be a definite addition of man’s will to God’s will in celebrating that date.
IV. Two Ways of Dealing with the Holiday Season...
A. The Ba-Humbug Complex - premise: it would be wrong to do anything remotely associated with Christmas.
1. Scriptural arguments
a. The keeping of days is mentioned in Galatians 4:8-11 and Colossians 2:16-23, but it needs to be stated that the days mentioned refer to those kept by the Jews under the law. If we wanted to assign religious practice to Christmas, then this argument would be valid.
b. Jeremiah 10:1-5 refers, as some have thought, to the Christmas tree. The context is, however, talking about making an idol. The background of the Christmas tree was in worship of the Scandinavian god Odin, but there is a great difference between an item of household decoration and an item of worship!
2. Contextual arguments
a. Since the word “Christmas” meant Christ’s Mass and “Holiday” meant Holy day, then we cannot have anything to do with them. There Is a problem with this line of reasoning. . . if we eliminate all words that come from such a background, then how will you rename the days of the week since just about every name came from a Roman god. What I’m trying to say is that in the course of time certain words denote something different from what the original intention denoted. One would do well in taking a close look at I Corinthians 8- 10 for the way we need to view matters of this sort.
b. Well, some may argue, if you say that you can’t observe this time in a religious context, then why have anything to do with it at all. This argument pivots on the concept that if people decide to put up a Christmas tree, decorate the house, send out cards, and exchange gifts, then I can’t do it because they do it. Some actions are wrong in themselves (sin), some actions could be called questionable, and others just fall into the realm of opinion. When we take a look at our actions, we need ask ourselves what is our attitude in doing that action. If we assign no religious importance to this season, but choose to celebrate it as a family holiday, then what would be wrong with December 25th as opposed to July 4th or the last Thursday in November?
B. An Alternative Complex — premise: we can use this as an opportunity to reach others and to encourage and build up the church and our families.
1. A principle in the book of Acts: Paul preached in the synagogues (see Acts 9:20) and related to the Greeks in Acts 17 from the point of their “unknown god”. In each case Paul took advantage of the situation and the inclination of the people for things spiritual. If anyone had an inclination to be spiritual in today’s world, it would be at this time when the world would be thinking of the birth of Christ. We need to be careful to be thinking about trying to fulfill the great commission more than filling a gift list!
2. We need to keep priorities right. Answer the following:
a. Do you spend more time trying to cultivate a “Christmas Spirit” over letting the Spirit bear fruit in your life?
b. Does your giving and attendance and work for the church drop because of other obligations?
c. Do you find yourself trapped into giving gifts under compulsion instead of giving freely with love?
d. Are you motivating your children to be good because Santa is watching or because Jesus wants them to be good?
3. Our motivation needs to be right in this. There is no reason why we can’t make this a time of togetherness and love, but the proper perspective needs to be in operation: we are servants of Christ who put the will of God and His kingdom FIRST (see Matthew 6:33).
Thursday, December 11, 2008
A dream unfulfilled
By Dan Clements December 7, 2008
“Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity. But one hundred years later, we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still not free.”
“I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.”
These are a few excerpts from Martin Luther King Jr. speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Washington D.C. August 28, 1963. I was about one and a half years old at the time of this speech. I first read this speech in high school and thought it was one of the most moving speeches I had ever read. Here was a man that wanted nothing more than to be judged on who he was not on what he looked like. We can’t go back and change history, nor should we try to rewrite it. What has happened in our past is what makes us who we are as a nation today. Do I wish that slavery never existed in this country? You bet, but what was done was done and we need to learn from it so we don’t repeat it. It’s a black eye on this nation and I’m thankful for men like Martin Luther King Jr, who had the courage to point out to a nation the injustice that was still going on in the country at that time.
Fast forward to today and the recent presidential election, and from what I have seen and heard from multiple sources, Mr. King’s dream is still unfulfilled. We have a president elect that was not examined on his character, but was looked at with favor because of his skin color. You would be hard pressed to find much of anything the Lamestream media wrote about concerning Barack Obama’s character.
The conservative thinkers, writers and talkers of America examined Obama’s character and found it wanting. From Obama’s associations with radicals in this country, to his campaign’s projecting Obama as the “ONE”, conservatives were putting out the information the country needed to make an informed decision about who Barack Obama is. For the most part conservatives were and still are pointing out Obama’s character and who he is, and for the most part a majority of the country who voted for him has ignored the facts and has been caught up in the euphoria of making history by electing the first black president.
Members of the 60’s civil rights movement should be ashamed of what has happened in this last election. My fear is that they are not. From my reading and understanding of Martin Luther King Jr. this is not what he wanted for his children or any American, no matter their skin color. Mr. King was not, in my estimation, caught up in being part of history or making it. Mr. King was doing what was needed at the time, no matter how unpopular it was. Mr. King saw an injustice in America and sought to make it right. Martin Luther King Jr. was putting forth THE AMERICAN DREAM, FREEDOM, Freedom from racism, freedom from ignorance, freedom from superficial judgments. Mr. King believed that all people are created equal by God, and this equality should be held sacred by all people. God is no respecter of persons, what gives us the right to be.
When we look at those we give consent to govern over us, we need to use the yardstick of the Bible and the U.S. Constitution when examining what kind of person they are. Never judge a book by its cover. Never judge an individual by the color of their skin. Follow Martin Luther King Jr. in his dream “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.”
Dan Clements is a member of the Constitution Party and the host of BACK TO BASIC a Christian/political internet talk show. You can listen to Dan live from 10am-12 noon EST. M-F at www.blogtalkradio.com/dan-clements and www.constitutionalwarrior.com
“Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity. But one hundred years later, we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still not free.”
“I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.”
These are a few excerpts from Martin Luther King Jr. speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Washington D.C. August 28, 1963. I was about one and a half years old at the time of this speech. I first read this speech in high school and thought it was one of the most moving speeches I had ever read. Here was a man that wanted nothing more than to be judged on who he was not on what he looked like. We can’t go back and change history, nor should we try to rewrite it. What has happened in our past is what makes us who we are as a nation today. Do I wish that slavery never existed in this country? You bet, but what was done was done and we need to learn from it so we don’t repeat it. It’s a black eye on this nation and I’m thankful for men like Martin Luther King Jr, who had the courage to point out to a nation the injustice that was still going on in the country at that time.
Fast forward to today and the recent presidential election, and from what I have seen and heard from multiple sources, Mr. King’s dream is still unfulfilled. We have a president elect that was not examined on his character, but was looked at with favor because of his skin color. You would be hard pressed to find much of anything the Lamestream media wrote about concerning Barack Obama’s character.
The conservative thinkers, writers and talkers of America examined Obama’s character and found it wanting. From Obama’s associations with radicals in this country, to his campaign’s projecting Obama as the “ONE”, conservatives were putting out the information the country needed to make an informed decision about who Barack Obama is. For the most part conservatives were and still are pointing out Obama’s character and who he is, and for the most part a majority of the country who voted for him has ignored the facts and has been caught up in the euphoria of making history by electing the first black president.
Members of the 60’s civil rights movement should be ashamed of what has happened in this last election. My fear is that they are not. From my reading and understanding of Martin Luther King Jr. this is not what he wanted for his children or any American, no matter their skin color. Mr. King was not, in my estimation, caught up in being part of history or making it. Mr. King was doing what was needed at the time, no matter how unpopular it was. Mr. King saw an injustice in America and sought to make it right. Martin Luther King Jr. was putting forth THE AMERICAN DREAM, FREEDOM, Freedom from racism, freedom from ignorance, freedom from superficial judgments. Mr. King believed that all people are created equal by God, and this equality should be held sacred by all people. God is no respecter of persons, what gives us the right to be.
When we look at those we give consent to govern over us, we need to use the yardstick of the Bible and the U.S. Constitution when examining what kind of person they are. Never judge a book by its cover. Never judge an individual by the color of their skin. Follow Martin Luther King Jr. in his dream “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.”
Dan Clements is a member of the Constitution Party and the host of BACK TO BASIC a Christian/political internet talk show. You can listen to Dan live from 10am-12 noon EST. M-F at www.blogtalkradio.com/dan-clements and www.constitutionalwarrior.com
Selective Constitutionalism
By Chuck Baldwin
December 9, 2008
Many conservatives are up in arms regarding the charge that President-elect
Barack Obama may not have been born in the United States and is, therefore,
not qualified under the U.S. Constitution to be President of the United
States.
Article. II. Section. 1. of the U.S. Constitution states, "No Person except
a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of
the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of
President . . . ." Some accuse Mr. Obama of not being born in the State of
Hawaii as claimed, but in Kenya, Africa. Several people have filed various
lawsuits challenging Mr. Obama's U.S. citizenship.
Historically, "natural born Citizen" has always been understood to mean
someone born in the United States of America. If Barack Obama was not born
in the United States, he is absolutely unqualified to be President. Hawaii's
secretary of state says Obama was indeed born in that state. However, to
date, Obama's actual birth certificate has not been publicly released, which
only serves to add fuel to the accusations that he was not born in Hawaii.
Many conservatives seem to be obsessed with this controversy, calling it a
"constitutional crisis." The fact is, however, we have been in a
"constitutional crisis" for years! The problem is, most conservatives only
get worked up over a potential abridgement of constitutional government when
it serves their partisan political purposes. In other words, when a Democrat
appears guilty of constitutional conflict, conservatives "go ballistic," but
when Republicans are equally culpable of constitutional conflict, they yawn
with utter indifference.
For example, the one man who has the notoriety and political clout to
actually bring about some meaningful investigation and resolution to the
Obama citizenship brouhaha is none other than Senator John McCain. After
all, he was Obama's principal opponent in the race for the White House.
Plus, as the standard-bearer for the only other major political party, he
has the attention of the national media, as well as the national legislative
and judicial branches of government. So, why is John McCain not at all
interested in the Obama citizenship issue?
Perhaps one reason that John McCain is so uninterested in where Barack Obama
was born is because he, John McCain, was not born in the United States. He
was born in the country of Panama. So, let me ask readers a question: Does
anyone believe if John McCain had been elected President instead of Barack
Obama that any notable conservative would have been distressed about a
"constitutional crisis"? Get real!
Yes, I know McCain was born to a naval officer serving in Panama at the
time. That fact changes nothing. John McCain was still born in a foreign
country, and under a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, is not
qualified to be President of the United States. Even our current State
Department policy (7 FAM 1100) reads: "Despite widespread popular belief,
U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular
facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th
Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship
by reason of birth."
Does anyone not remember the controversy surrounding the potential
Presidential campaign of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger? Born in
Austria, Schwarzenegger is a naturalized citizen of the United States and is
now Governor of California. However, since Schwarzenegger is a naturalized
citizen, but not a natural born citizen, he is considered unqualified to run
for President.
But, again, most conservatives care little about the Constitution's
requirement that a President be a "natural born Citizen." Like liberals,
most conservatives are afflicted with a very debilitating disease that I
call Selective Constitutionalism. They only want to apply constitutional
government when it helps Republicans or hurts Democrats. Most of them really
could not care less about adherence to the Constitution. If they did, they
would have been up in arms for the last eight years as President George W.
Bush repeatedly ignored--and even trampled--the U.S. Constitution.
Where were these "constitutional" conservatives when George W. Bush was
assuming dictatorial-style powers and contravening Fourth Amendment
prohibitions against warrantless searches and seizures? Where were they when
Bush was ordering our emails, letters, and phone calls to be intercepted by
federal police agencies without court oversight? Where were they when Bush
was obliterating the Fifth and Eighth Amendments? Where were they when Bush
overturned Posse Comitatus by Executive Order? Where were they when Bush
dismantled the constitutional right of Habeas Corpus? Where were they when
Bush lied to the American people about the invasion of Iraq and took the
United States to war without a Declaration of War from Congress? Where were
conservatives when Bush turned nine U.S. military installations over to the
United Arab Emirates? Where were they when Bush ordered his Department of
Transportation to open up America's airlines to foreign ownership? Where
were they when President Bush nullified (using "signing statements") over
1,100 statutes he did not like? Where were they as President Bush and his
fellow Republicans reauthorized one of the most egregiously unconstitutional
pieces of legislation in modern memory: the USA Patriot Act? Where were they
when Bush signed the blatantly unconstitutional McCain/Feingold Act? I could
go on and on.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican Party has been just as culpable in
violating constitutional government as the Democrat Party has--maybe more
so! If the Republican and Democrat parties had any allegiance to the U.S.
Constitution, neither John McCain nor Barack Obama would have been chosen as
their respective Presidential nominees.
While we are on the subject, if anyone cared about constitutional
government, Hillary Clinton (or any other U.S. Senator or House Member)
would obviously be determined as ineligible to be given any appointment in
the Obama administration under Article. I. Section. 6. of the U.S.
Constitution. Why? Because the Constitution prohibits House or Senate
members taking Presidential posts if the salary of the job they would take
was raised while they were in Congress.
However, several past Presidents have skirted this constitutional
prohibition (including Presidents Taft, Nixon, and Carter) by lowering the
salary of the job back to what it was so the nominee could accept the job
without receiving the pay increase that was approved while the appointee was
in Congress. In fact, this sleight of hand actually has a political name. It
is called "the Saxbe fix," after Nixon's appointment of Senator William
Saxbe to be attorney general.
Do we have a "constitutional crisis"? You bet we do; but it is not limited
to Barack Obama or the Democrat Party. The real constitutional crisis is the
manner in which the American people have, for years, allowed civil
magistrates from both major parties to routinely violate their oaths to
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. God
help us!
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php
Chuck Baldwin
December 9, 2008
Many conservatives are up in arms regarding the charge that President-elect
Barack Obama may not have been born in the United States and is, therefore,
not qualified under the U.S. Constitution to be President of the United
States.
Article. II. Section. 1. of the U.S. Constitution states, "No Person except
a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of
the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of
President . . . ." Some accuse Mr. Obama of not being born in the State of
Hawaii as claimed, but in Kenya, Africa. Several people have filed various
lawsuits challenging Mr. Obama's U.S. citizenship.
Historically, "natural born Citizen" has always been understood to mean
someone born in the United States of America. If Barack Obama was not born
in the United States, he is absolutely unqualified to be President. Hawaii's
secretary of state says Obama was indeed born in that state. However, to
date, Obama's actual birth certificate has not been publicly released, which
only serves to add fuel to the accusations that he was not born in Hawaii.
Many conservatives seem to be obsessed with this controversy, calling it a
"constitutional crisis." The fact is, however, we have been in a
"constitutional crisis" for years! The problem is, most conservatives only
get worked up over a potential abridgement of constitutional government when
it serves their partisan political purposes. In other words, when a Democrat
appears guilty of constitutional conflict, conservatives "go ballistic," but
when Republicans are equally culpable of constitutional conflict, they yawn
with utter indifference.
For example, the one man who has the notoriety and political clout to
actually bring about some meaningful investigation and resolution to the
Obama citizenship brouhaha is none other than Senator John McCain. After
all, he was Obama's principal opponent in the race for the White House.
Plus, as the standard-bearer for the only other major political party, he
has the attention of the national media, as well as the national legislative
and judicial branches of government. So, why is John McCain not at all
interested in the Obama citizenship issue?
Perhaps one reason that John McCain is so uninterested in where Barack Obama
was born is because he, John McCain, was not born in the United States. He
was born in the country of Panama. So, let me ask readers a question: Does
anyone believe if John McCain had been elected President instead of Barack
Obama that any notable conservative would have been distressed about a
"constitutional crisis"? Get real!
Yes, I know McCain was born to a naval officer serving in Panama at the
time. That fact changes nothing. John McCain was still born in a foreign
country, and under a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, is not
qualified to be President of the United States. Even our current State
Department policy (7 FAM 1100) reads: "Despite widespread popular belief,
U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular
facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th
Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship
by reason of birth."
Does anyone not remember the controversy surrounding the potential
Presidential campaign of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger? Born in
Austria, Schwarzenegger is a naturalized citizen of the United States and is
now Governor of California. However, since Schwarzenegger is a naturalized
citizen, but not a natural born citizen, he is considered unqualified to run
for President.
But, again, most conservatives care little about the Constitution's
requirement that a President be a "natural born Citizen." Like liberals,
most conservatives are afflicted with a very debilitating disease that I
call Selective Constitutionalism. They only want to apply constitutional
government when it helps Republicans or hurts Democrats. Most of them really
could not care less about adherence to the Constitution. If they did, they
would have been up in arms for the last eight years as President George W.
Bush repeatedly ignored--and even trampled--the U.S. Constitution.
Where were these "constitutional" conservatives when George W. Bush was
assuming dictatorial-style powers and contravening Fourth Amendment
prohibitions against warrantless searches and seizures? Where were they when
Bush was ordering our emails, letters, and phone calls to be intercepted by
federal police agencies without court oversight? Where were they when Bush
was obliterating the Fifth and Eighth Amendments? Where were they when Bush
overturned Posse Comitatus by Executive Order? Where were they when Bush
dismantled the constitutional right of Habeas Corpus? Where were they when
Bush lied to the American people about the invasion of Iraq and took the
United States to war without a Declaration of War from Congress? Where were
conservatives when Bush turned nine U.S. military installations over to the
United Arab Emirates? Where were they when Bush ordered his Department of
Transportation to open up America's airlines to foreign ownership? Where
were they when President Bush nullified (using "signing statements") over
1,100 statutes he did not like? Where were they as President Bush and his
fellow Republicans reauthorized one of the most egregiously unconstitutional
pieces of legislation in modern memory: the USA Patriot Act? Where were they
when Bush signed the blatantly unconstitutional McCain/Feingold Act? I could
go on and on.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican Party has been just as culpable in
violating constitutional government as the Democrat Party has--maybe more
so! If the Republican and Democrat parties had any allegiance to the U.S.
Constitution, neither John McCain nor Barack Obama would have been chosen as
their respective Presidential nominees.
While we are on the subject, if anyone cared about constitutional
government, Hillary Clinton (or any other U.S. Senator or House Member)
would obviously be determined as ineligible to be given any appointment in
the Obama administration under Article. I. Section. 6. of the U.S.
Constitution. Why? Because the Constitution prohibits House or Senate
members taking Presidential posts if the salary of the job they would take
was raised while they were in Congress.
However, several past Presidents have skirted this constitutional
prohibition (including Presidents Taft, Nixon, and Carter) by lowering the
salary of the job back to what it was so the nominee could accept the job
without receiving the pay increase that was approved while the appointee was
in Congress. In fact, this sleight of hand actually has a political name. It
is called "the Saxbe fix," after Nixon's appointment of Senator William
Saxbe to be attorney general.
Do we have a "constitutional crisis"? You bet we do; but it is not limited
to Barack Obama or the Democrat Party. The real constitutional crisis is the
manner in which the American people have, for years, allowed civil
magistrates from both major parties to routinely violate their oaths to
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. God
help us!
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php
Chuck Baldwin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)