No Compromise

I cried as I drove home from school today. My heart was heavy for my country and I prayed for it. I prayed for the Lord to find a faithful people. For Him to turn hearts to Him, for Him to give us more time, to change the hearts of our leaders, to raise up a generation that really knows him.

I was inadvertently called a closed-minded religious bigot today. I don't mind really. I told one of my classmates yesterday, "People think I'm closed minded and I am."  When it comes to the Gospel and it comes to God's word, I will not move.

I was basically called a closed-minded religious bigot today because I said that I have a problem with a Mormon being president. What he believes is not just different than what I do, but is an affront, a complete corruption of the Gospel and the Word of God and consequently the heart of the very thing upon which this country was founded. This individual's statement was indicative of something that I have been noticing a lot of lately and that is compromise.

When I was a little girl, my dad had a Keith Green cassette tape called "No Compromise." Every time I hear that word, I think of the tape. On the cover is a crowd of people bowing to an earthly king, worshiping him, and just one man standing up refusing to go along with the crowd.

Here it is: (wonders of Google!)

There is not much of this left today. Not in the church, not in the political arena. Those who do stand are called crazy, closed minded, the list goes on and on and on. There is nothing new under the sun. The Lord has really been impressing on my heart not to compromise and I have been crying out to Him to strengthen me for the fight ahead.

I got used to "being the only one" at my very liberal, very unchristian alma mater, but who would think I would also have to get used to it at a "Christian" university or among "conservative" Americans. I might not be actually alone here, but I can safely say "one of the only ones."  I have been brought to tears numerous times recently thinking of what we are throwing away because of our willingness to compromise. I watch a nation's leaders and  I watch a church willing to toss away so much because of the uncomfortableness and lack of popularity that comes with taking a stand.

Politics today disgusts me. The more I study the Constitution, and the more I study the biblical foundation that we had as a young country, and the more I see what we are throwing away, it breaks my heart. Why do I cry when I think about it? Because those who wish to so flippantly throw something away are touching something so dear and precious to my heart. I love my country. I love the idea that we were a nation of law and not of men.  I love that we looked to God's Word as our authority for our laws. Above all these things, I love the Savior of my soul.

Some of the very first people here in America came because they were being persecuted for the Gospel and were unwilling to compromise. This country was a refuge for those who wished to worship God freely, who wished to spread the Gospel freely. Men shed their blood for the idea that God gave us rights that we could not give away even if we wanted to. Some of the most influential men in the American Revolution that you never hear about were the preachers and those who were in the Black Regiment, who proclaimed, "No king but King Jesus!" Many died proclaiming this, but I am alive and saved today because of this foundation and their sacrifice. Surely, the Gospel goes forth in other countries where it must be done secretly, but how glorious to live in a country that protected the freedom to preach unashamedly.

My heart breaks for my country, tears flow freely down my cheeks and I ask that God have mercy on this country and change the hearts of our leaders. He is the only one who can change them. I pray that He will use me to restore those ancient paths and that I will serve no king but King Jesus.

A Look Back on My Third Semester of Law School...

I never published this post, but here it is. It's some thoughts about last semester. I have some thoughts on this current semester, so I figured it would only make sense to post this first. :) 


Intense self doubt and fear. It was crippling and it displeased the Lord and He wanted it out of me. This is what I learned this semester in law school, which is even more important than mens rea, Commerce Clause, and the Business Judgment Rule. I came to law school this semester completely absent of any confidence. Maybe it all wore off last year, maybe they worked it all out of me over the past year or so of law school, but I felt so small, so unable to put one foot in front of the other. There were no thoughts of arguments to make that I would think without thinking to myself how dumb I was or how someone else would surely be smarter than me.

It started with Appellate Advocacy. I was giving an oral argument on why being a 2L is better than being a 1L and suddenly the very thing that I really love in law school, oral arguments,  became an insurmountable mountain. I stood behind the podium and began strongly, and then I just quit. Right in the middle I just quit and I looked at my professor and asked if I could start again, after I said, “ I can’t do it.” These are words that I know that God does not like. I’m His child and He has placed within me the ability to do this and I was telling Him He was wrong, that He picked the wrong girl. Certainly, what I learned is that in my flesh, I really can’t do anything—apart from Him. I can feel Him working that out of me and it has been painful. This semester has been like an emotional boot camp, but I have been forced to look to the Lord. Forced perhaps is the wrong word, but I saw very clearly in front of me the choice I had to make: Fail because I relied on myself, or succeed because I relied on Him and worked as unto Him. Success here, does not mean in a worldly sense. For me, it meant pleasing the Lord. When I stopped looking at failure and started looking to the one who put the talents and skills that I have inside of me, my joy was full, in spite of outcome.

Then came the 2L/3L Moot Court tournament. Where did the love of the competition go? I called my pastor’s wife in tears because I truly wanted to drop out. I can't do it. Over and over and over. These words ran through my mind and shot out of my mouth like a reflex. It was my natural reaction to everything. Fear and I can’t do it. Where did this come from? Well, for one, I know that those thoughts are not from the Lord; nowhere in the Word does the Lord come to his children with fear and doubt, but rather He speaks to them of His strength being perfected in weakness.

My confidence comes from the Lord. Maybe I’m not one of those dean's listers to whom all of this legal analysis comes easily, but I know that I am a vessel of the Lord and He wants to use me. I’m not the best, I’m not the brightest, but I am His child in his will and with His calling; how could I look around to the left or to the right at anything else?

In my own life I am not allowed to say I can’t. Now, hear me correctly, I am not advocating some kind of prosperity gospel... It’s only because I’m saved that I find my identity in my Lord Jesus Christ. There was a time recently  that I was covicted about only coming to Him when I needed something, but truly looking to him in my weak moments, and in my “strong” moments. If I am truly looking to him in all those moments, then I won't need to worry about whether I’m looking to him....

I have all I need in him.

The Constitution and the Family

Ooooooooh, boy.


Last time it was abortion and this time it is the family. Somehow, I'm feeling more and more controversial lately. No, actually, it's just the more I study law, particularly Dean Tuomala's ConLaw class, the more I see how the further we get from God's standards, the more... how shall I say... problems we have in our society.


Now, I have to figure out how to summarize my thoughts quickly and succinctly because there is much to be done...


We were discussing cases today in class having to do with a parent's fundamental rights to custody. For the past several classes, Dean Tuomala has been emphasizing the difference between a covenantal relationship and a biological relationship. We discussed the saying, "Blood is thicker than water," and we were presented with a way of thinking about that saying that I have never considered before. Blood is actually a covenant relationship and the water represents the water of birth, reminding me of the verse:
"For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." Romans 8:15 


And then we were discussing a case (Stanley v. Illinois) in which a couple had been living together off and on for 18 years and had actually had 3 children together. The mother died, and under the law of the state, the children became wards of the state. The father of course challenged this making a weak equal protection argument and ultimately saying that it was a fundamental right of his to have custody of these children that he had fathered. The father's contention was that if he was actually married he would not have been deprived of this right and that this was an unfair distinction. The court allowed him to have custody of his children because, "the procedure risks running roughshod over the important interests of both parent and child [it] cannot stand." Naturally, it would be sad for these children to be taken from their biological father who had mostly been around.  However, what I find sadder is that the sacredness of the family has been forsaken. If I had been a judge and he had made that whiny complaint about how a married father would have been given custody, I would have had a really hard time not  being snarky and saying, "Of course, because he manned up and married the woman." 


It's more than "manning" up. (I think I'm about to beat a dead horse, but here goes...) We have a case of a court and judges that simply will not acknowledge the fact that our laws were founded to reflect a higher standard and that these laws that do distinguish a marriage relationship from a living together relationship reflect God's institution and order of marriage and family. When they are faced with upholding these laws, they have nothing to hang their hat on other than notions of history and tradition and the ebb and flow of society's conscience, not a godly and biblical foundation, which they simply will not acknowledge. So we have little by little thrown away any hint of a biblical foundation of law through, yep, you guessed it, man's reasoning and desire to justify his sinful nature. 

Some Thoughts...

In ConLaw we've been studying abortion cases and exploring the new ideas defining fundamental rights.

Somehow, we've found a woman has a right to an abortion because of her right to privacy and because the baby somehow places a horrible burden on her. I've read how our own judges have rationalized away the life of little humans, refusing to call them humans, but still admitting to "killing a fetus." And I've read cases that describe a doctor delivering a baby just leaving the head in the birth canal and then how that innocent life, that precious little life writhed in pain as the doctor killed him. This is abortion. This is murder.

What have we been reduced to? Nothing more than the absolute depravity of our human nature, the endless depths of the wickedness of the unredeemed heart. And it is now accepted to say that these these children place such a burden on the mother that it is justified to simply do away with them. Our Supreme Court justices have searched in the shadows and penumbras of the Constitution and suddenly discovered all these new fundamental rights. But it's really not all that shocking, and it actually makes sense.

It makes sense because when we are left to ourselves, our standards change at our whim and for our own greedy pleasures and justifications. I've talked about this before on my blog and millions of times here in law school. In the Erie case, we basically wrote God out of our laws. For those of you who haven't read my earlier posts... There was a case decided in 1938 that effectively decided that there was no higher standard of law that both federal and state law was subject to. We left God's law for man's ever-changing standard.  It should therefore be no surprise that this evolutionary approach to law, this ignoring of God's holy standard would lead to this thinking.

Then, this evening, I picked up my Criminal Law reading and a portion of text in People v. Anderson stuck out to me. The case discusses whether duress is a defense to murder and states, "Stemming from antiquity, the nearly 'unbroken tradition of Anglo-American common law is that duress never excuses murder, that the person threatened with his own demise 'ought rather to die himself, than escape by the murder of an innocent.'"

It is quite evident that this view stems from the Law of Nature and Nature's God as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. This quoted statement applies to the rationale behind even a woman's supposedly most justified reason for an abortion-- that her life is in danger. How this absolutely destroys the argument that a baby in inconvenient. This is certainly not duress of the magnitude to even come close to justifying the death of another life, yet it happens all the time.

What have we done? We, being the once faithful Church of Christ? It's this shame for the Gospel. Think about it, as one of my pastors said recently, regardless of laws, if more doctors were saved, there would be no abortions. We have forsaken the old, old story. It's what I keep coming back to. Because we can pick up a cause self-righteously like abortion and feel really good about ourselves for speaking out against abortion (and there's nothing wrong with that...), and we can vote pro life and wear pro life shirts and stickers, and put bumper stickers on our cars (again, nothing "wrong" with these things)... But what about their souls? What about men's souls? Foundationally, this is what it always comes down to-- the redemption of the lost, but the Church has lost its passion, and as a result, the example here of abortion is just a sampling of the wickedness on this earth. But somehow, the new gospel tell us that we can seek God, that there is some measure of goodness in us and that God somehow understands that we're trying our best. No. He is holy and just and righteous and He will judge. His thoughts are higher than our thoughts and His ways are so much higher than our ways...

Alas, I must end this rant and get back to reading... but stay tuned because I'm still in mid-thought...I just don't have the luxury of finishing it right now.

A Lost Cause

Imagine knowing everything, every single little thing, every little detail, of a deadly disease and how it infiltrates the body and ultimately destroys and kills a person. You understand each stage of the death of the person and you watch as each stage happens, but you are powerless to stop it and you watch that person die a tragic death. 

This is what it is like to study the case law, and consequently, the destruction of our United States Constitution. 

I watched as my professor outlined the evolution of the Commerce Clause and how it has opened what seems to me to be a door that we will never shut again. There it was painfully outlined for me in black dry erase marker, in tidy columns, the journey from enumerated powers of federal government to a nearly all encompassing general federal power. 

I walked down to the front of the classroom when our class was dismissed and asked what can we do about it? He told me what I already knew-- America is dependent and comfortable and even wants this type of government. He said that we've got to get the word out and educate them. 

What a fight we have before us. It almost seems to me that it's not worth it, but I know better than that. It is not like a lost cause, it is a lost cause, but as Mr. Smith famously said when he went to Washington, those are the only ones worth fighting for. There are still little glimmers of hope, chances that we can stop the disease before a complete death takes place. 

Speaking of, I cannot sit around and type all afternoon, but must return to the task at hand and read a little more ConLaw. 

Constitutional Law-- Class Synopsis

I'd like to try and explain a little about the issues that we've been delving into over the past week of Constitutional Law. First of all, I'd like to just say that my professor, Dean Tuomala, is brilliant and his approach is unique in that he challenges a lot of the common misconceptions of Constitutional Law. (In other words, almost everyone has been conditioned to accept an incorrect reading of the Constitution itself. We have done this because we have fundamentally escaped and forsaken the notion of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God as outlined in our Declaration of Independence. We have ignored the fact that there is a higher law and higher standard set forth by God, acknowledged by our founders, that we are to reflect in our legal system...)   Dean Tuomala teaches in a manner that requires us to push our minds and reach for understanding, and instead of spoon feeding us, he is teaching us to think in a way that challenges the status quo of modern constitutional law.

Also, for readers who "wondered" at my self-proclaimed ignorance today, I should say at this time, that when in this class, we don't simply take our text book and brief cases and move on... we question the very basis for everything that is taught and most of the time, come away finding that the textbook got it wrong, or ignored key issues. I am confident in my basic understanding of Constitutional Law and in the fact that this document must be closely studied, as should the original intent of our founding fathers so that we may maintain it.  I fear that we have not and therefore the posts on this blog will seem most likely out of place when compared to most standard Constitutional Law Classes.

It is important that we understand judicial powers and jurisdiction of the federal courts. Originally, there were three types of questions that courts would address: Federal Questions, General Principles of Law, and State Questions. After the Erie decision, the "General Principles" category disappeared, because the court ruled away the notion of a Higher Law, set forth by God. We were left at this time to man's own reasoning and intellect, and hence find ourselves relying heavily on case precedent, and evolutionary approaches to law, allowing us to drift far away from the rule of law and undermine very design and purpose of our United States Constitution. I have been disdainful of the Erie doctrine since studying it in Civil Procedure 1 last year. I agree with Dean Tuomala when he says that the Erie decision was the "blackest mark of U.S. judicial history." I could write volumes on the implications of Erie, but I'll have to save that for later.

Continuing on....

Where there is a federal question, federal courts have the judicial power of the United States. For a state court to try a federal question, they have a duty to apply federal law. The same holds true for state questions. In diversity cases (cases involving state questions, but citizens of different states pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332) federal courts have a duty to apply state law, not judicial power. The difference is that judicial power vest the power in the court the authority of interpretation. ("authoritative interpretation.")

With this as a basis for what I'm about to write about, consider the following proposition to congress:

"No court established by Act of Congress shall have jurisdiction to hear or determine any claim that the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag... violates the [First Amendment]."

Doesn't that sound like a well-meaning thing? What good conservative wouldn't jump for joy at this thought? I wouldn't. And here's why:

This is an unconstitutional proposition, divesting power in an unconstitutional manner because it does not distinguish between federal question cases and state question cases that fall under diversity jurisdiction. This bill was written using Article 3, §2, clause 2 which describes federal court's jurisdiction and says that Congress may make exceptions. For Congress to except cases that arise under federal question would be unconstitutionally divesting power from the Supreme Court. According to the Constitution, the judicial power vested as soon as it was created, as well as legislative, and executive branches, vests at their creation. The only appropriate method would be to amend the Constitution and the only things that can be excepted by Congress are issues of state law.

I think that's all I can say for now, because I have to get TONS of other things done. I did not intend to write this much... I've said that before. :)

Enjoy and let your mind grow.

Constitutional Law Blog...Isn't it about time?

It only makes sense that after years of calling myself "Constitution Girl" and having this blog called "Revolution for the Constitution," that I should write about my Constitutional Law class. So far I love it and greatly enjoy the insights of my professor. I'll use it as a way to educate my readers (all 2 of you!) and to help me as I try to gain an understanding of this vitally important document. It'll be a combination of my understanding of the class and consulting with my professor to make sure I'm not completely off in my understanding. I won't have time to write volumes and volumes, but simply to review and summarize the content of class. I'm very excited about this, so keep checking back for thought provoking posts and feel free to comment and question away!