Constitution or President?

[ROSSELLA]

So, as Christians, we're called to support our leaders, even if we don't agree with their decisions (exept in cases their laws mean disobeying God, but even then we're called to accept the consequences of disobedience to the leaders). For those of us who live in America, we're lucky enough to have a democracy and a system that makes it harder for a president to act corruptly. However, in cases where the president violates the Constitution, who are we expected to support, the President or the Constitution?

I am aware the Bible never specifically addresses this situation because most rulers of the days were monarchs and dictators. However, I'm interested to hear what people think. I'm not sure myself.

 

[88]

So, as Christians, we're called to support our leaders, even if we don't agree with their decisions (exept in cases their laws mean disobeying God, but even then we're called to accept the consequences of disobedience to the leaders). For those of us who live in America, we're lucky enough to have a democracy and a system that makes it harder for a president to act corruptly. However, in cases where the president violates the Constitution, who are we expected to support, the President or the Constitution?

I am aware the Bible never specifically addresses this situation because most rulers of the days were monarchs and dictators. However, I'm interested to hear what people think. I'm not sure myself.

****The Constitution is above the President----just like God Word is above Pastors----when I joined the Army in 1975---all soldiers were sworn in to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States----I believe it is the same today---even with politicians taking office...

 

[Roughsoul1991]

Well Daniel still respected the King of Babylonian even though he was terribly pagan. Of course except for things that could of corrupted Daniel with God.

But the constitution protects religious freedoms. Which go hand in hand with our God. If the constitution is under attack, I feel that's an attack to my religion and freedoms.

 

[T_Laurich]

Constitution is above the President... The order goes as follows.
1.Constitution
2.Highest Local Sheriff
3.President, Congress, Supreme Court

Many don't realize that your highest local sheriff or police chief has the authority under law to override the president at any time.
Also the president is no more powerful than the supreme court or congress...
The only time the president is the most powerful person is in time of war. In that case he is the commander in chief.

 

[T_Laurich]

But good question... If it came down to the president amending the const. that I did not like, unfortunately the const. is the highest power... So I would be forced to respect it.
If the president made a executive order that I did not like, I would side with the Const.
If congress made a law that I did not like, I would follow the const.
The supreme court has no authority to make laws, only to judge the rulings on if someone is guilty of the law, or if the law is just since there is no jury for the Supreme Court. This is one of my biggest pet peves with our govt. today... Giving the supreme court the ability to make laws, judge them, and say if they are just puts them above the const. There was a reason our founding fathers only gave them the right of judging and seeing if they were just... AND not to make laws...
So to recap any law the supreme court makes is illegal and nullified....

A little side tangent right there, but majority of modern Americans have no clue how our system is supposed to work so we let the powers at be run wild with power they are not authorized to have... As goes for this new judge that overthrew Trump... He has no authority to over throw the presidents order, he only has authority to judge whether or not someone is guilty of it...

 

[posthuman]

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
(Matthew 23:2-3)

​

the ruling authorities here sit as though they are in Moses' seat, and our constitution and written laws are as though they are the Law. we should obey the law, so far as it does not cause us to disobey God, because we are like ambassadors from another land while we sojourn here on earth, and as God is not lawless, we should also act like good citizens. we should also obey what the ruling powers, set in place by God, dictate to us - again as far as they do not constrain us from doing God's will, and they do not contradict the written law of the land.

when the ruling powers are in conflict with the written law, what then? isn't this like when Aaron made the calf? not everyone in the camp bowed to it - knowing that what he & the others had done, they disobeyed his command, and kept the righteous command of God. or when altars were set up at Bethel, and Ashereh poles set up all over Israel. the people did not rise up and try to overthrow the kings that did these things, and i don't know of any indication in the scripture that men refused to pay their taxes or obey the crown in other matters, but righteous people kept themselves pure as far as the commands from the palace that were contrary to God's own commands.

our nation and its political structure is indeed special, and within it is the ability of the people to nonviolently protest and to practice civil disobedience. these are some of the principles our government was founded on, that when a people are oppressed by unjust rulers and unjust laws, they have a right to stand up against them. there are wise ways to do this, and there are unwise ways to do this. did Rosa Parks sin? did Moses' parents sin, or the Hebrew nursemaids who refused to kill the male Hebrew children when Pharaoh ordered it? is what Mme. Parks did equivalent?

questions about civil disobedience are not easily answered in general terms, but in specific they often become clear. for example should a minister be forced to perform a same-sex marriage? i think no - he is entirely in his right to flatly refuse, whatever the consequence is. but should a tailor refuse to hem the tuxedos of the same couple? i don't think so ((and i know others disagree, with good arguments of their own)) - how does that cause anyone to sin? and neither should anyone refuse to pay taxes just because the government recognizes a marriage that the church will not. that makes you a felon, and doesn't cause sinners to stop sinning.

 

[Willie-T]

Rossella,
You want to speak a little more clearly? Is a president violating the constitution? If so, how and where?

 

[ROSSELLA]

Rossella,
You want to speak a little more clearly? Is a president violating the constitution? If so, how and where?

I'm posing a hypothetical question.

 

[Zmouth]

But good question... If it came down to the president amending the const. that I did not like, unfortunately the const. is the highest power... So I would be forced to respect it.

You do understand that the President does not have any power to amend the U.S. Constitution by Executive Order are any other method. The President cannot even legally initiate the Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. And while Congress itself can not amend the U.S. Constitution; it only is authorized to propose an Amendment, the Amendment has to be ratified by the Legislatures of the States.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

If the president made a executive order that I did not like, I would side with the Const.
If congress made a law that I did not like, I would follow the const.

Unfortunately Executive orders have the full force of law when they are used within the scope of the Departments of the Government that Congress has vested with the authority to create and enforce regulations (law).

Article I,
Sec. 1: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Sec 8 (1)The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Sec. 8 (9): To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
Sec. 8 (18) To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Since Article I, Section 8 lays out the authority of Congress, when Congress opens the door by vesting such Department that authority, the President as the Chief Executive Officer of all those Departments grants him the authority to execute control over those Departments.

The supreme court has no authority to make laws, only to judge the rulings on if someone is guilty of the law, or if the law is just since there is no jury for the Supreme Court. This is one of my biggest pet peves with our govt. today... Giving the supreme court the ability to make laws, judge them, and say if they are just puts them above the const. There was a reason our founding fathers only gave them the right of judging and seeing if they were just... AND not to make laws...
So to recap any law the supreme court makes is illegal and nullified..

Yes, Article III, Sec 1 states, 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. I take it by SCOTUS maaking laws which are illegal and nullified you mean same-sex marriages. SCOTUS did not create marriage laws? But wasn't it Christians who demanded that the States enact the marriage laws because of their religious beliefs?

However, in such you believe that marriages are Constitutional, only if they are between members of the opposite sex?
If you do then you are actually responsible for the same-sex marriages since SCOTUS only exercised their responsibility to the People who choose to establish the religious sacrament of marriage in their prospective States since Congress is prohibited from enacting any law respecting the establishment of Religion.

Article III, Sec. (1) states; The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;... --- between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Should have maybe taken the advice of Jesus before sticking marriage laws into Government since it is written instructed those who read his declaration in Luke 20; [34] And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: [35] But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: However, considering the passage in Matthew 23:34, I probably have already said enough on that subject.

A little side tangent right there, but majority of modern Americans have no clue how our system is supposed to work so we let the powers at be run wild with power they are not authorized to have... As goes for this new judge that overthrew Trump... He has no authority to over throw the presidents order, he only has authority to judge whether or not someone is guilty of it...

So do you believe the State of Florida v. Zimmerman was Constitutional or did the people of Florida merely conduct a mock trial?

 

[T_Laurich]

You do understand that the President does not have any power to amend the U.S. Constitution by Executive Order are any other method. The President cannot even legally initiate the Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. And while Congress itself can not amend the U.S. Constitution; it only is authorized to propose an Amendment, the Amendment has to be ratified by the Legislatures of the States.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.



Unfortunately Executive orders have the full force of law when they are used within the scope of the Departments of the Government that Congress has vested with the authority to create and enforce regulations (law).

[FONT=&]Article I,
[/FONT]Sec. 1: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Sec 8 (1)The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Sec. 8 (9): To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
Sec. 8 (18) To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Since Article I, Section 8 lays out the authority of Congress, when Congress opens the door by vesting such Department that authority, the President as the Chief Executive Officer of all those Departments grants him the authority to execute control over those Departments.



Yes, Article III, Sec 1 states, 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. I take it by SCOTUS maaking laws which are illegal and nullified you mean same-sex marriages. SCOTUS did not create marriage laws? But wasn't it Christians who demanded that the States enact the marriage laws because of their religious beliefs?

However, in such you believe that marriages are Constitutional, only if they are between members of the opposite sex?
If you do then you are actually responsible for the same-sex marriages since SCOTUS only exercised their responsibility to the People who choose to establish the religious sacrament of marriage in their prospective States since Congress is prohibited from enacting any law respecting the establishment of Religion.

Article III, Sec. (1) states; The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;... --- between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Should have maybe taken the advice of Jesus before sticking marriage laws into Government since it is written instructed those who read his declaration in Luke 20; [34] And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: [35] But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: However, considering the passage in Matthew 23:34, I probably have already said enough on that subject.



So do you believe the State of Florida v. Zimmerman was Constitutional or did the people of Florida merely conduct a mock trial?

I will work in reverse order of your questions.

State of FL. Vs Zimmerman was constitutional because they are judging on a law, not creating one, and the jury is deciding the justness of the law.


With the supreme court making laws, I was not referring to any existing law, but the act of doing so... Even if they made a law that said, all Christians have the right to X, and Satanism or any affiliates do not I would stay sill that it is an illegal law... Even without freedom of religion it would be illegal. But for the record I do believe that Govt. should have no hand in marriage, because to do so violates freedom of religion.


Yes an Exec order has the full force of the law, but if there is an exec order to ban the freedom of free speach, the Const. would over ride that Exec order.
An Exec order can only be made to reinforce laws already passed by Congress... The reason for Exec orders is to help America act more quickly in times of war...

And the reason I put the Pres amending the Const. through exec order was because I can see it happening in the future... I should have clarified that it was a hypothetical so I apologize.
I can see how a president would use and Exec Order to overthrow an amendment or the const in a time of "crisis".

 

[ROSSELLA]

Thank everyone for your replies!

 

[maxwel]

So, as Christians, we're called to support our leaders, even if we don't agree with their decisions (exept in cases their laws mean disobeying God, but even then we're called to accept the consequences of disobedience to the leaders). For those of us who live in America, we're lucky enough to have a democracy and a system that makes it harder for a president to act corruptly. However, in cases where the president violates the Constitution, who are we expected to support, the President or the Constitution?

I am aware the Bible never specifically addresses this situation because most rulers of the days were monarchs and dictators. However, I'm interested to hear what people think. I'm not sure myself.

As a starting place, I think we could seriously rethink the above statement.

1. What does the bible REALLY say about our relationship to govt leaders?
2. How does that apply to a democratic republic where it is actually our civic duty to hold our leaders accountable?


Much to think about.

 

[ROSSELLA]

As a starting place, I think we could seriously rethink the above statement.

1. What does the bible REALLY say about our relationship to govt leaders?
2. How does that apply to a democratic republic where it is actually our civic duty to hold our leaders accountable?


Much to think about.

1. Well, the Bible says in Romans 13: 1-2 " Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.[SUP] [/SUP]Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

I believe Paul was writing this under Nero which just goes to show how even the most difficult authorities need to be respected. However, we're still called to obey God first.

2. I'm not sure. The hard part is that we have many authorities in America and all of them have a different point of view of what certain parts of the Constitution mean. Does the Constitution outweigh the authorities? Legally, yes. According to God, I don't know. It would be easy to say disobeying the Constitution makes the leader invalid, but lots of leaders in the Bible seized power or used their power in violent and deceitful ways and yet only in some cases where God excuse disobedience by the people. He doesn't demand they believe in the ruler's mandates, but unless obeying the authorities means disobeying God, the law is the law. I would love to believe that this would never happen in America and that there won't come a day when this is anything more than a hypothetical question, but that's unrealistic.

Anyway, I don't know what a Christian should do. Just kind of thinking out loud (or at least in type). That's why I'm grateful for any thoughts.

 

[dcontroversal]

Pray for our leaders that we may lead a quiet peaceable life.....obey the word, follow the law unless it contradicts God and his word....and unless a president comes to your house and issues a direct order to you....probably do not have to worry about picking and choosing who to follow

 

[maxwel]

1. Well, the Bible says in Romans 13: 1-2 " Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

I believe Paul was writing this under Nero which just goes to show how even the most difficult authorities need to be respected. However, we're still called to obey God first.

2. I'm not sure. The hard part is that we have many authorities in America and all of them have a different point of view of what certain parts of the Constitution mean. Does the Constitution outweigh the authorities? Legally, yes. According to God, I don't know. It would be easy to say disobeying the Constitution makes the leader invalid, but lots of leaders in the Bible seized power or used their power in violent and deceitful ways and yet only in some cases where God excuse disobedience by the people. He doesn't demand they believe in the ruler's mandates, but unless obeying the authorities means disobeying God, the law is the law. I would love to believe that this would never happen in America and that there won't come a day when this is anything more than a hypothetical question, but that's unrealistic.

Anyway, I don't know what a Christian should do. Just kind of thinking out loud (or at least in type). That's why I'm grateful for any thoughts.

1. First take a look again at the key words.

We see things like "be subject to" and do not "rebel".

2. Ok, in a democratic republic, where we elect our officials, and it is our DUTY to speak out against them, and hold them accountable... then.... what does "be subject to" and "do not rebel" even look like?

Does this mean to NOT SPEAK OUT?

It CANNOT mean that.

- It's our civic duty to speak out... speaking out is actually PART OF THE GOVERNING PROCESS FROM WHICH THE LEADERS ARISE.
- Speaking out is actually part of the process which gets the leaders elected as leaders.
- Speaking out is part of the process which maintains the leaders as leaders.
- We live in a society where elected leaders can even be legally, and rightfully impeached... if our society feels they have failed us.

Clearly if God gave us the words in Romans, then "be subject to", and "do not rebel" are words that have importance.
But in a democratic republic, it is impossible for them to mean what many people assume they mean.

* In our society, FREE SPEECH, and DISSENTING OPINION do NOT constitute "rebelling".
* In our society these things are virtually sacred, and are EXPECTED as our CIVIC DUTY....
and they are actually part of the process by which our leaders become our leaders.

We need to give much thought to Paul's words in the context of a democratic republic, in which speaking out against our leaders is not only expected, but which is also our duty.

 

[Zmouth]

State of FL. Vs Zimmerman was constitutional because they are judging on a law, not creating one, and the jury is deciding the justness of the law.

Really? When was 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution amended?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

A Grand Jury never issued a presentment or indictment against George Zimmerman for the murder of Treyvon Martin.

So basically what you had was a 'mock trial', you know the mock Trial that the King of Great uses to protect them in his service by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States.

Since under Article VI of the United States Constitution the State of Florida had no authority to hold G. Zimmerman to answer for the murder of Treyvon Martin since no presentment or indictment was issued by a Grand Jury. Thus, even if the jury had found him guilty his conviction would have been overturned.

It turns out that the status of this part of the Fifth Amendment is still treated by the courts the way the whole Bill of Rights was intended to be by the American founders — as a curb on the federal government. It doesn’t apply to the states.
Zimmerman�s Bill of Rights - The New York Sun

So the Constitution doesn't apply to the States?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

[Dude653]

The key factor in the Zimmerman case was Florida's stand your ground law. Only two people know what really happened that night and one of them is dead. I believe the situation could have been avoided inf Zimmerman had just backed off it let the police handle it. But they did not have sufficient evidence to convict him for murder

 

[Sirk]

The key factor in the Zimmerman case was Florida's stand your ground law. Only two people know what really happened that night and one of them is dead. I believe the situation could have been avoided inf Zimmerman had just backed off it let the police handle it. But they did not have sufficient evidence to convict him for murder

I thought cops are racist murderers. Power mad racists with a gun. I think obama should have been a little more present in his sons life. This whole thing could have been avoided if that boys dad loved him better.

 

[T_Laurich]

Really? When was 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution amended?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

A Grand Jury never issued a presentment or indictment against George Zimmerman for the murder of Treyvon Martin.

So basically what you had was a 'mock trial', you know the mock Trial that the King of Great uses to protect them in his service by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States.

Since under Article VI of the United States Constitution the State of Florida had no authority to hold G. Zimmerman to answer for the murder of Treyvon Martin since no presentment or indictment was issued by a Grand Jury. Thus, even if the jury had found him guilty his conviction would have been overturned.

It turns out that the status of this part of the Fifth Amendment is still treated by the courts the way the whole Bill of Rights was intended to be by the American founders — as a curb on the federal government. It doesn’t apply to the states.
Zimmerman�s Bill of Rights - The New York Sun

So the Constitution doesn't apply to the States?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

If that is the case then I agree with you, it is completely non-constitutional and illegal.

 

[Zmouth]

The key factor in the Zimmerman case was Florida's stand your ground law. Only two people know what really happened that night and one of them is dead. I believe the situation could have been avoided inf Zimmerman had just backed off it let the police handle it. But they did not have sufficient evidence to convict him for murder

(Shaking head in wonder) Your comments on the stand you ground law of Florida being a key factor in the injustice which followed the murder of Treyvon Martin is just as ridiculous as your our position supporting the release of the Memphis 3,who were lawfully convicted of the murders of three young children, being released from prison following their submission of an Alford plea to the Court in which they acknowledged that the State had sufficient evidence to convict them of the murders.