Supreme Court tenure

With this past week's Supreme Court decision regarding Obamacare, we once again realize that the makeup of that Court is very important.  And because presidents appoint these justices, presidential elections are very important.  Part of the reason why these appointments are so important is that we never know when a new justice will need to be appointed.  Because they have life tenure, they stay on the Court until they decide because of health, death, or other reasons to leave.

I have an idea that might help make the ramifications of Court appointments a little less dramatic.  What if, mid-way through every presidential term, say in December or January, the most senior member of the Supreme Court (either oldest or longest on the bench) retired?

That way every president would be guaranteed to appoint at least one justice per term, leaving his (or her) mark on the Court.  This plan would also reduce the likelihood of any one president being able to "stack" the Court with his/her appointments.

A justice could still serve a long time - perhaps over thirty years, so this is not a guarantee that one or more of them would not leave before their time because of illness or even death.  But this solution might help reduce the partisan bickering over Court appointments and the increasing importance of the Court in presidential elections.

I know it would take a Constitutional amendment.  But I'm allowed ideas, aren't I?

What do you think?

Why not to vote for Obama #2

This post needs more research and support, but I'll start with one instance of the example I have in mind.  That is, Obama is more committed to his re-election and his political career than he is to the Constitution that he swore an oath to uphold.

Specifically, a little over a year ago he stated that he couldn't change the law about immigration, and that Congress would have to do it.  He didn't have the authority.  And he was correct.  But in the last week or so he has changed the rules so that young people here illegally could stay subject to certain conditions.

My complaint is not so much with the content of his order (See a previous post about immigration), but with the fact that he thinks that he has the authority to do it.  Congress may be grid-locked, but that doesn't mean he can act as a king or dictator.

Obama has said other things in the past that lead me to believe that he thinks that a dictatorship would be preferable to our system (See references below).  But he swore an oath to uphold OUR system.  I think that this is a very serious breach of his office.

If you also take into consideration the recent rules against Catholic institutions and their views on funding contraception, then I sense a serious trend away from the checks and balances of our Constitution and the rights spelled out in it and toward Obama wanting to be a dictator.

This claim gains further support if you consider that Obama backed the ousted president of the Honduras.  That president was forced out of the country precisely because he wanted to rewrite their constitution so he could serve another term.  Their congress and supreme court supported his removal and it was done legally. But Obama supported the ousted president, not those who supported the Honduran legal government.

Obama refused to stand up to the Iranian dictators and support the people of Iran.  But he bombed Libya without Congressional legislation supporting the military action.

Lastly, did you know that Obama has appointed over three dozen Czars?  These are people who are not vetted and approved by the Senate but who hold positions of power and authority within the government.  Most of the presidents over the last few decades have had them, so Obama is not the first.  But he is the most  - with over 36.  And the quality of these people.  Here are a few examples.

The science czar, John Holdren, authored a book advocating forced abortions and mass sterilization by the government.

The safe school czar, Kevin Jennings, is a pro-homosexual activist who wants "normalization of homosexuality, transgenderism, cross-dressing, etc., in America’s public schools."   No matter what your position on those issues, shouldn't they be decided by Congress and legislation, not by unelected and unaccountable people?


Van Jones was considered for the "Green Jobs Czar" but resigned after his Marxism, extremism and activism became known.  


So, in conclusion Obama is not the leader that America needs.  He might do better in some part of the world where they tend to like dictatorships more.

Check out this link for more reasons NOT to vote for Obama.

Reference

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/06/16/president-constitutional-authority/
http://stevenbirnspeaks.com/2011/03/11/obama-desires-dictatorial-powers-like-chinas-president/

Honduras:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574427403985118892.html
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/07/in-russia-president-obama-explains-his-support-for-ousted-president-of-honduras/

czars:
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2012/02/short-review-of-obamas-agenda.html
http://www.americanreform.org/index.php/blog/comments/why_gingrich_targets_obamas_czars
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29391/
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/15/wow-obama-issues-signing-statement-rejecting-budget-cuts-to-white-house-czars/
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2011/05/homosexual-agenda.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/09/06/van_jones_resigns.html

Why NOT to vote for Obama. #1

Here's what Obama said as reported today.

The intimate dinner banked about $2 million, with 50 people paying $40,000 each. …
Speaking in a dimly lighted, art-filled room, Obama told supporters they would play a critical role in an election that would determine a vision for the nation’s future.
“You’re the tie-breaker,” he said. “You’re the ultimate arbiter of which direction this country goes.”
Among the celebrities on hand to hear Obama’s remarks were Oscar winner Meryl Streep, fashion designer Michael Kors and Vogue editor Anna Wintour…
The president and Mrs. Obama also headlined a second glitzy fundraiser in Manhattan Thursday night that included a performance from singer Mariah Carey and remarks by singer Alicia Keys. The 250-person dinner yielded the Obama campaign at least $2.5 million. (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/15/obama-to-celebrities-youre-the-ultimate-arbiter-of-this-countrys-direction/)

Is this the kind of people (the ultra 1%) that we want deciding what is good and right in America? Do these people reflect the values of America? They spend their time pretending to be who they are not. They are only influential because they are celebrities. Most of them know little about real life or real issues. The issues that they care about are not the ones that most Americans care about. Let them stick to movie making and stay out of politics.

Let's not let Obama reject what the majority of Americans want in favor of what the ultra 1% want.  Don't forget who Obama's real friends are.

October Baby

A couple of days ago my wife and I went to see the movie October Baby. I'm not a huge fan of films. Too often the characters are underdeveloped, the plots thin, or the solutions a deus ex machina ending. I thought this movie was well done, well acted and a good story line. I encourage you to see it.

It's a prolife message without being preachy. We need more stories like this. Stories are what will move people to reject the evil of abortion and still meet the needs of young scared women who are in trouble.

The movie tells the story of a young woman dealing with the effects of abortion in her life. She survived one, and was not supposed to live. But here is her story. But think, there are over forty million - 40,000,000 stories that never were. Who will tell their stories? Who will speak for the silent voices?

God, The Bible, and Christianity

The Bible study group that I "lead" during the week has been studying a book by D. A. Carson, entitled The God Who is There. We're also watching the video. I can't recommend them highly enough. The audio and visual are available online as well.

I was privileged to take (I believe) three classes from Dr. Carson while I did my doctoral work at Trinity. We also were members at the same church for several years during that time and he helped me pursue a university teaching position (which didn't work out). He is a godly, gracious, and learned man. He also has a way of cutting through to the heart of the matter without losing sight of peripheral issues.

So what is the book about? Whether you have been in the church for a short time, a long time, or whether you are only interested in Christianity, you need to read the book or watch/listen to the audio-visual material. Do you want to see how theology leads to awe and worship and service?

I remember how when at seminary I came across the term "salvation-history." That is, the Bible is more than doctrine (although it certainly is that); it is the story of how God is working to redeem humanity, the world, and the entire universe through the person, sacrifice, and victory of Jesus Christ. Our understanding of the Bible and of the nature of Christianity, therefore, must flow from knowing the story first and our place in it. To use an analogy (and have it backwards, I know), "salvation-history" is the Christian equivalent of the history of Middle-Earth as told in the Silmarillion, The Hobbit, and the Lord of the Rings.

Here's the blurb from the site that has the a/v material I mentioned above:

In February 2009, Don Carson presented a 14-part seminar entitled “The God Who Is There” at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis. This series will serve the church well because it simultaneously evangelizes non-Christians and edifies Christians by explaining the Bible’s storyline in a non-reductionistic way. The series is geared toward “seekers” and articulates Christianity in a way that causes hearers either to reject or embrace the gospel. It’s one thing to know the Bible’s storyline, but it’s another to know one’s role in God’s ongoing story of redemption. “The God Who Is There” engages people at the worldview-level.

Are you interested in learning about Christianity or the Bible? Do you lead a Bible study or Christian small group? Are you looking for something to read that will challenge the way that you look at the world? Are you curious about God? Read the book or listen/watch the a/v material.

And may your life be forever changed as you meet and surrender to the ultimate reality, the God Who is There.

What kind of leader?

Here we are, in the middle of the next American electoral season. Up for grabs is the presidency and the direction that the country will go. What are some important guidelines that we can use as we examine the (currently) three major candidates that are running?

I just began reading How to Pick a President, one of Christianity Today's new line of ebooks. (Yes, I'm reading it on my new Kindle.) The first criterion that the author discusses is virtue. The virtues specifically mentioned are moral courage, temperance, commitment to justice, commitment to keeping one's word, and prudence.

The importance of picking leaders who exhibit these virtues is that we can trust them to make hard decisions in the reality of political life. If a candidate says that he (or she) will do x, y, and z relative to immigration, the reality is that by the time that Congress has had its say, and that various realities have been dealt with, x, y, and z may have changed into m, n, and o!

Instead, we should pick a leader who tells us what justice toward illegal immigrants who are already here looks like. And what it means to her to protect our borders. And how we will guard the rights of citizens as opposed to those who are here legally or illegally. And so on. Then we can decide whether or not we agree with those values. And then we decide whether these values are in fact just, and whether the candidate has had a record of keeping his word and exhibited the moral courage to stand up for what he believes to be right even if it costs him power, money, or prestige. And if that person is elected, then we trust her or him.

The book I mentioned above mentions that it is important that we look to a candidate's commitment to these values in their public and (hopefully) also in their private lives. This means that what a candidate said and did before and after they entered public life is very important. How else can we measure their fitness for leading us? Those who wish to lead us but who keep their private lives hidden perhaps shouldn't be trusted.

this life and the next

In March 2009 I had a few blog posts about why Christianity offers more hope and meaning to human existence in the light of life and death.

Two years ago my last grandparent died and a year later her sister died. A month ago her husband, my great uncle died. All three were strong believers in Jesus Christ and had been for most of their lives. They all lived into their 90s.