Doesn’t it seem a little funny that the innocent witness to a crime can be compelled into court, and have to testify against a person that does not have the same obligation under the 5th amendment? If that witness fails or refuses to do so, he or she can be held in contempt of court. The word compelled (in the Constitution) should have been eliminated or replaced with one that would convey the idea of requiring the suspect to answer for the crime of which he or she is accused. They should be required to answer “yes” or “no” to questions asked of them by the prosecution or be held in contempt of court.

As it now stands, the guilty can keep his or her mouth shut and possibly escape any sentence for the crime which they may have committed. The witness, guilty of contempt of court has to serve whatever time the judge decides while the person doing the crime may only serve the time which he or she is in court.

The founding fathers were not error free and some of these inconsistencies should be changed for the sake of justice and law and order.

I believe that one day in the future the U.N. will adopt parts of the Constitution that would pertain to the rest of the world. Why should we (Americans) be under “The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” and, endowed by the Creator, to rights, that the rest of the world is not? What stops them (the rest of the world) from seeking “a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,” just as the signers of our own Declaration of Independence did? As mentioned before, most of the world does not realize that freedom and blessings don’t come from the strong arm of man, but by the grace of God.

This brings me to several very important points. First of all, there is an inherent problem with “unalienable rights.” If there is no God, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are null and void. (2) If there is a God (of the Bible) then there is no such thing as “unalienable rights” to all those that live outside His will. If there is no God, then dog eat dog is the order of the day and any “right,” you think you have can be done away with by someone stronger than you. You and your property become theirs – plain and simple.

If sin makes no difference to God, then the principles of the Constitution would and could apply to everybody all around the world. If there is a God and He Is the God of the Bible that inspired the founding fathers to write the Constitution, then there is more than national citizenship required to secure those blessings and unalienable rights. Those rights have to be based on our walk with God instead of a piece of parchment blindly giving all people automatic rights. If, as the liberals preach, we are all children of God, He has to have some rules. If people break those rules there has to be a penalty. The Bible outlines those penalties. Many people don’t seem to like a God of judgment but He is a reality that the world will have to deal with – someday – in the final judgment; but moreover, as the Bible teaches, in the everyday pit-falls of life and the rise and fall of nations. Romans 13:1 says, Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. And Daniel 4:17, …that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.

This is God’s universe and He can do anything He wants with it and those in it.

I wonder who is going to support, protect and defend the Constitution from the Supreme Court.

The liberals, in the courts and in government, have and are in the process of dismantling what the founding fathers put together. You know the liberal’s interpretation of the Constitution is skewed when you consider Jefferson had slaves. The fact that Jefferson had slaves teaches us that he and others of his day consider them exempt from the protections and blessing of the Constitution. You and I today, think that blacks should be under Constitutional protections, but the fact that they weren’t, shows that the mindset of the founders were more along the lines of protecting the interests of the status quo, in general and protecting white citizens from the ravages of the king of England in particular. The founders did not consider the slaves to be citizens of this country; therefore, they were outside the protections. The founding fathers seemed to forget, they themselves, were not natural citizens of this country, but were fleeing tyranny and oppression that quite frankly paled to that of slavery. Knowing that they so narrow minded, were these men really qualified to write “a” Constitution in the first place? The many inconsistencies and built in loopholes makes me wonder. Prejudice, for whatever reason, dies slow. This is the 50th year of Jackie Robinson’s entry into white baseball. There were death threats and even open hostility by team members and whatever booing by the crowd. That was in 1947. It was obvious that a large part of the population felt about blacks the way Jefferson did.

What made Jefferson and other founding fathers think that the white men in general and Americans in particular should be deserving of this knowledge that the God of Nature, etc., endows (certain) men with unalienable rights. Where did they get this idea? It isn’t in the Bible. If you upset God, He can, will and has allowed an enemy (foreign or domestic) to enter in and cause much misery. You can sell anyone a bill of goods if you flatter them with half-truths. But the question still remains; why did they think that it was just them? Why exclude other nations and races? I think a certain element of pride has to enter into the equation. It could have also been necessary for this nation to been here to stop people like Hitler from stomping over more of the world than God had ordained or allowed.

The Constitution is quite full of inconsistencies. When sinful man sits down and attempts to write protections for mankind, he/she should consider the God of creation. A failure to do so will lead to a very “human” document. It will not only show personal prejudices, but will be full of loopholes that will frustrate future generations that are attempting to remain true to the intent of the document.

One of the main inconsistencies would be capital punishment. Cruel and unusual punishment is really open for debate. Hanging was an accepted form back then, but today most liberals (many of which are in government) believe that it is cruel. If it is, by action, it wasn’t meant to be cruel on purpose, by the authorities inflicting it on deserving criminals. The methods of punishment back then were entwined with the technology and moral thinking of that day. “Of that day,” may be the chief catch phrase, when dealing with the issues of the Constitution in this day and age.

What the Constitution really is, is an attempt to side step the judgment of God. Social security is the same thing. When we step outside of God’s will, He will send some sort of judgment upon the people so they will repent. Refusal to repent means that we must come up with a way of curbing that judgment, whatever it may be. It is usually a “social program” funded by taxing the citizens – over and over again, which is just another form of judgment.

What I’m saying here, is not, “Damn the United Stated States,” but get right with the God of the Bible. Because if you don’t, He will indeed, damn the United States and everybody in them. It happened in Russia and the whole Solviet Union in fact. They were cursed for seventy years of Communism which, as it turns out was anything but a blessing. If that wasn’t bad enough, they have now been dropped off, in a rather chaotic state on democracy, (small “d”).

Constitution: I have contempt, loathing and spit on your version of, “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, because it is based upon living life without God. It sounds like it was written by a Deist (pun). Bearing the philosophy: A God of love …A Deist has no business creating documents that use the name of God, or say what people deserve under God’s universe. They have no business writing a document that says what God grants in the way of freedoms when they don’t know if there is a God or not. How can they know the mind of God if they don’t believe He exists? People weak in faith and not knowledgeable about the God of the Bible can be sold a bill of goods and be taught to fight to the death for those ideals. God says that there is a time to fight and a time not to fight. When He sends judgment – it is not a time to fight. When the sons of men invade – it is a time to fight. There is or could be a fine line. “You deserve better is the calling card to rebellion.”