Revision as of 03:54, 23 November 2023

Forum (Articles)	Offer	Partners	Rules	Tips	SaveTheWorld:FAQ	Begin!	Donate

Statement of Facts #10 from:

Reversing_Landmark_Abomination_Cases

Saving Babies from judges & voters
Saving Souls from ‘Scrupulous Neutrality’ about Religion

by proving in courts of law and in the Court of Public Opinion that:

 The right to live of a baby and of a judge are equal
 The Bible & reality-challenged religions are NOT equal

A strategy of Life that relies on the Author of Life
for pro-life, pro-Bible Lawmakers, Leaders, Lawyers, and Laymen

by Dave Leach R-IA Bible Lover-musician-grandpa (talk) November 21, 2023 (UTC)

Try to imagine how a judge, reviewing a prolife law with these Findings of Facts, would be able to dodge this evidence - in fact, see if you can find ANYONE who can refute these facts - as opposed to not caring about facts - that is, not caring about reality:

Statement of Fact #10 of 12:

Finding #10: Tyranny over any class of humans by any other is prohibited by the Constitution, and by the Declaration which gives the purpose of the Constitution, and which rests its own authority on the revelation of God ^[1]

in the Bible. ^[2]

Yikes! How can we cite the “B” word in court without judges screaming “Establishment of Religion!” and terrorists demanding equal “free exercise” of their religious duty, which includes beheading everyone in the courtroom? Surely almost every Christian wants God to be uncensored in forums where Americans decide whether to pattern our laws after the principles of Heaven or of Hell, but believing it to be impossible, will scream at anyone suggesting it! So DON’T READ any more of this Statement unless you are sitting down under your strapped Class “a” seat belt, and you have throat lozenges handy for when you are done screaming. (Actually these principles which founded Freedom, no matter how legally irrefutable their presentation, can’t be imagined prevailing in modern courts before SCOTUS’ history of perverting the Constitution is exposed. That is the goal of Statement #11.)

Roe v Wade was not out of line to consult “those trained in... theology” who study souls, as well as doctors who study bodies, to clarify who to count as human with an unalienable right to life. ^[3] America’s Freedom springs from “all men are created equal” and “equal protection of the laws” for all humans even if their looks, language, wealth, strength, ancestry, power, or faith are different. ^[4] These rights have proven such a blessing to the world that their source, the Bible, deserves the fair hearing owed any witness whose reliability has been confirmed, when it promises still greater blessings if we will equally protect humans whose physical size is different. ^[5]

Its testimony is not “cumulative”, but “probative”. ^[6] It is not to be feared as dispositive or compulsory: American freedom balances human understanding of how best to apply Biblical principles to government against the willingness of voting majorities to follow those principles. Even that is a Biblical principle legitimized in 1 Samuel 8. ^[7]

The history of slavery, prohibition, and abortion illustrate the “willingness” factor. The probative value of the testimony of God is proved by the fact that without it, slavery would never have ended, and the prolife movement would never have begun. Which makes it probative to observe that not only the 14th Amendment, but also the revelation of God, requires this state, as it does every state, to outlaw all trampling of fundamental rights of any class of people, including abortion of babies. ^[8] Where the two authorities say the same thing, the Bible, for all its alleged ambiguity, is better understood and more trusted than the Constitution which has indeed proven “a thing of wax” in the nimble fingers of even the most scrupulous judges. ^[9]

Without God – without belief in a more objective standard of right and wrong than the “value” that voters place on “different” people through evolving community standards, it is impossible to understand fundamental rights.10 ^[10]

Courts have demonstrated this impossibility by so often confusing abominations for rights, decimating those whom Jesus said “forbid them not to come unto Me”, denying that He created them, murdering 17% of them, sodomizing 20% of the survivors, and censoring 100% of His teachings in schools.11 ^[11]

That destruction of the 14th Amendment (1868) began when “Substantive Due Process”, pioneered in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), was applied in United States v. Cruikshank 92 U. S. 542 (1876) to acquit a white Democrat mililtia of murdering “as many as 165” black Republicans and burning down the courthouse they were defending.12 ^[12]

Uncensoring God does not “establish religion”. It does not compel belief, action or endorsement. It simply allows judges and voters to make informed decisions. It is part of fact-finding. It is part of reasoning. Part of embracing reality. Part of examining “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. Judges must stop punishing people for telling the truth just because the truth favors God.13 ^[13]

Uncensoring the Bible does not require equal weight for claims of religions that deny equal rights for all.14 ^[14]

For example, some claim “souls” don’t enter babies until long after fertilization, or even long after birth.15 ^[15] Their claims do not “cancel” the mountain of consensus of court-recognized fact finders that souls are present from the beginning. Our Constitution and laws reject their unequal rights, and are appropriately wary of their rationales for their unequal rights. The credibility of every witness is not equal. Credibility is earned.

There can be “free exercise” of religions hostile to “equal protection of the laws” only to the extent their “exercise” does not threaten the rights of others or violate the laws enacted to protect them – laws ultimately decided by voting majorities, hopefully well informed through the uncensoring of reality.16 ^[16] 39/520 words

Mini-Lexicon of legal terms: Cumulative: testimony so redundant that it wastes the court’s time Dispositive: testimony so strong that it settles the issue with no more Probative: probative facts establish, or contribute to, proof. Probative value is the degree of relevance of evidence.

The footnotes below are enriched by amicus briefs filed in Dobbs v. Jackson by: Foundation for Moral Law and Lutherans for Life <> Jewish Prolife Foundation <> LONANG Institute <> U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Other Religious Organizations <> Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence

INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts
Statement_1_+_Footnotes Courtrecognized, court-tested Finders of Facts unanimously establish that unborn babies are fully human
Statement_2_+_Footnotes Courts Accept the Fact-Finding Authority of Legislatures, Juries, Experts for the same good reasons their findings persuade the public.
Statement_3_+_Footnotes The FACT that Babies are Fully Human was never denied or ruled irrelevant by SCOTUS.
Statement_4_+_Footnotes Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life.
Statement_5_+_Footnotes Legislatures should regulate abortion, as Dobbs held, just as legislatures regulate the prosecution of all other murders.
Statement_6_+_Footnotes The full humanity of a tiny physical body is hard for many to grasp. But what distinguishes us from animals isn’t physical, and has no known pre-conscious stage.
Statement_7_+_Footnotes Congress has Already Enacted a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”. The 14th Amendment already authorizes Congress to require all states to outlaw abortion.
Statement_8_+_Footnotes Roe, Dobbs, and the 14th Amendment agree: All Humans are “Persons”.
Statement_9_+_Footnotes When pregnancies develop into medical emergencies requiring separation of mother and child to save the mother, the child has an equal fundamental right to life and medical care.
Statement_10_+_Footnotes Tyranny over any class of humans by any other is prohibited by the Constitution, by the Declaration which gives the purpose of the Constitution, and which rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible.
Statement_11_+_Footnotes The 14th Amendment gives courts no authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the right to murder, and gives legislatures no authority to legalize violations of Constitutional Rights.
Statement_12_+_Footnotes Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.

==

FOOTNOTES

↑ More about “the Declaration lays out the purpose of the Constitution, and rests its own authority on the revelation of God”
The Revelation of God upon which the Declaration of Independence rests its authority: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
The purpose of government and its courts which our Constitution was designed to serve: “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. ...whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
↑ More about “the Declaration...rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible”
      “Nature’s God”, the phrase in the Declaration of Independence of 1776, was a clear, unambiguous reference to God as revealed by the Bible. The first clue is that “God” is singular, while every nonChristian major religion except Islam worships “gods”. And there were no Moslems among the Declaration’s signers.
      “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
      Bill Fortenberry, a Birmingham Christian “philosopher and historian” whose work “has been cited in several legal journals”, writes “Nearly all of the modern historians who have written about this phrase have accused Jefferson and the other signers of the Declaration of abandoning the God of the Bible and erecting a more deistic god of nature in His place.” The attempt to tie the definition of the phrase to Jefferson’s personal ambiguous faith statements is a study in irrelevance, since if the Declaration’s signers understood the phrase to differ from their own theology, they wouldn’t have signed it.
      Here Fortenberry explains how we can be sure Jefferson’s personal understanding of the phrase was, indeed, the Bible, the Word of God:

     Thomas Jefferson was a student of Lord Bolingbroke. He first began studying Bolingbroke’s writings at the age of fourteen, and he read them again at the age of twenty-three as he was preparing for a career as a lawyer. Jefferson’s Literary Commonplace Book contains more quotations from Bolingbroke than from any other author, and I do not know of a single historian who has not given Bolingbroke the credit for Jefferson’s famous phrase regarding “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” What these scholars keep hidden is the fact that Lord Bolingbroke provided a very specific definition for this phrase.
     In a renowned letter to Alexander Pope, Lord Bolingbroke wrote the following words which were to become the basis for Jefferson’s opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:
      “You will find that it is the modest, not the presumptuous enquirer, who makes a real, and safe progress in the discovery of divine truths. One follows nature, and nature’s God; that is, he follows God in his works, and in his word.”

      Here we find a definition from the very individual that all scholars recognize as the source of Jefferson’s phrase. According to Lord Bolingbroke, the law of nature’s God is the Law which is found in God’s Word. This was the definition which was intended by Jefferson, and this was the manner in which his words were understood by our forefathers. The law of nature’s God upon which our nation was founded is nothing less than the Bible itself. (http://www.increasinglearning.com/blog/law-of-natures-god)

      “Jefferson’s phrase ‘the laws of nature and of nature’s God,’ was clearly defined by Blackstone’s Commentaries as meaning the unwritten law of God in creation and the revealed law of God in the Bible” (according to Jerry Newcombe, http://doubtingthomasbook.com/the-laws-of-nature-and-of-natures-god/)
      “Louisiana State University professor Ellis Sandoz writes that Jefferson’s language ‘. . .harmonizes with the Christian religious and Whig political consensus that prevailed in the country at the time; . . . (and with) traditional Christian natural law and rights going back to Aquinas…’ Similar language was used by the Protestant John Calvin, John Locke and others. See Sandoz, A Government of Laws, pp. 190-191.” (Newcombe)
      Even the phrase “the laws of nature” was not understood then as now, as physical forces in our material universe, but “Jefferson defined the law of nature in 1793 as: ‘the moral Law to which man has been subjected by his creator,’ Opinion on the Treaties with France, 28 April 1793.” (Newcombe)
      Other Declaration signers were Christians, not activists of other faiths, who when writing “God” meant “as revealed in the Bible”: “Other references to God such as ‘endowed by their Creator’ and ‘the Supreme Judge’ and ‘the protection of divine providence’ were added during the collaborative process by others in Congress before the final document was adopted.” (Newcombe)
      History professor David Voelker says Jefferson didn’t believe the Bible is a revelation of God. Professor of Humanities and History, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, http://davidjvoelker.com/ he concludes, without offering supporting Jefferson quotes: “Although he supported the moral teachings of Jesus, Jefferson believed in a creator similar to the God of deism. In the tradition of deism, Jefferson based his God on reason and rejected revealed religion.” http://historytools.davidjvoelker.com/docs/Natures-God.html
      But Newcombe offers a Jefferson quote inconsistent with Deism’s idea that God doesn’t get involved in current events: “To Richard Henry Lee, Jefferson reported on the military front: ‘Our camps recruit slowly, amazing slowly. God knows in what it will end. The finger of providence has as yet saved us by retarding the arrival of Ld. Howe’s recruits.’ ”
      Concerning the “Deism” label, Voelker wrote: “Deism was not actually a formal religion, but rather was a label used loosely to describe certain religious views. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word deist was used negatively during Jefferson's lifetime. The label was often applied to freethinkers like Jefferson as a slander rather than as a precise description.”
      Newcombe is a joint author of a book of the latest compilation of Jefferson’s letters and other writings, which challenge the narrative that Jefferson didn’t take the Bible seriously. The book’s synopsis, at http://doubtingthomasbook.com/marks-blog: “Drawing from about 1100 religious letters and papers of Thomas Jefferson (of which over 100 in recent months have been printed for the first time ever – some in this volume itself), this book identifies over 200 religious leaders or groups that Thomas Jefferson either worshiped with, aided financially or corresponded with. While not denying the unorthodox writings of Jefferson late in life, the context of the vast majority of his religious correspondence and actions, and the unique religious culture of Central Virginia, show a much more nuanced picture that challenges both secular and religious scholars to reassess Jefferson’s modern image.” (Contact form: http://doubtingthomasbook.com/praise-for-doubting-thomas)
      “Jefferson’s Bible” is his condensation of the Four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) for distribution among Native Americans to inspire good behavior. It omits Jesus’ miracles, which is cited by many as evidence that Jefferson didn’t believe in miracles.
      But even if such a “hands off” God were Jefferson’s concept of “nature’s God”, and even if the other Declaration signers accepted such a notion, that would be irrelevant to the Signers’ reliance on the Bible as an inspired guide to good behavior, and to understanding the Unalienable Rights with which “all men” are “endowed” by our “Creator”. General Biblical inspiration of American Freedom.
     In 1954, Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren: “I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it: freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under law, and the reservation of powers to the people.” Earl Warren, quoted in Jim Nelson Black, When Nations Die: Ten Warning Signs of a Culture in Crisis (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994) p. 253. The Foundation for Moral Law and Lutherans for Life point out in their joint amicus in Dobbs v. Jackson:

      Much of our Western legal tradition has been shaped by the Bible. On October 4, 1982, Congress passed Public Law 97-280, declaring 1983 the “Year of the Bible,” and the President signed the bill into law. The opening clause of the bill is: “Whereas Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States; . . .”

      Joshua Berman, Senior Editor at Bar-Ilan University, in his 2008 book Created Equal: How the Bible Broke with Ancient Political Thought, contends that the Pentateuch [first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy] is the world’s first model of a society in which politics and economics embrace egalitarian [equal rights for all] ideals. Berman states flatly: If there was one truth the ancients [who rejected the religion of the Bible] held to be self-evident it was that all men were not created equal. If we maintain today that, in fact, they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, then it is because we have inherited as part of our cultural heritage notions of equality that were deeply entrenched in the ancient passages of the Pentateuch.

      (Footnote: Joshua Berman, Created Equal: How the Bible Broke with Ancient Political Thought (Oxford 2008) 175, See also John Marshall Gest, The Influence of Biblical Texts Upon English Law, an address delivered before the Phi Beta Kappa and Sigma xi Societies of the University of Pennsylvania June 14, 1910, https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu quoting Sir Francis Bacon: “The law of England is not taken out of Amadis de Gaul, nor the Book of Palmerin, but out of the Scripture, of the laws of the Romans and the Grecians.”
↑ More about “Roe v Wade...consult[ed] those ...who study souls....”

     We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 159 (1973)

     Roe v. Wade “opened the door” to a Bible study of abortion as part of our national debate, by claiming that the reason “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins” is because “the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer” since, after all, doctors and preachers can’t agree: “those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus”.
      It’s not just that Roe “opened the door”, which is the name for a technical legal principle that lawyers use in court to get around a judge’s “in limine” order to not say certain words or offer certain evidence. This is no “loophole” around the 1st Amendment prohibition of establishing a religion.
     Roe couldn’t legalize abortion without neutralizing somehow public concern that babies of humans might turn out to be humans. Justice Blackmun understood there are two sources of authority on that issue: medicine, which documents that unborn babies have physical human bodies, and theology, which documents that unborn babies have souls made in the Image of God. That is why Roe devoted many pages of selective evidence and tortured logic to justify its conclusion that doctors and preachers can't agree, so how can mere Supreme Court Justices know? (For their exact words, see Finding #1, Footnote #3.)
     The most modern Christian that they consulted was Thomas Aquinas who died in 1274 AD! Most important, they didn’t consult God! One citation to one Bible verse is in one footnote, neutralized by not an analysis but an insinuation. So to patch up SCOTUS’ confusion about whether God can agree with Himself, you can find my prolife Bible study in Appendix E of my book, http://www.saltshaker.us/ HowStatesCanOutlawAbortion.pdf (in a Way that Survives Courts). Another great Bible study by the Jewish Prolife Foundation, from their Amicus Brief submitted in Dobbs V. Jackson, closes this footnote.
     What was Blackmun thinking, to paint doctors and preachers as greater authorities than himself on the dispositive fact question in abortion policy, and then to torture historical facts to FANTACIZE serious disagreement? What Roe was correct about, and that many prolifers today are incorrect about, is that leaving out the Biblical evidence really does leave prolifers with an unnecessarily weak argument. Let’s admit it, it really is hard to grasp the full humanity of a single fertilized egg. I didn't come by the conviction automatically or naturally; I had to study and believe Scripture until my incredulity over protecting such a tiny little thing melted away. I AM FAR FROM ALONE.
     But the “personhood focus” of the Scripture is not on the physical, but on the soul. So why will Bible believers give the public every other reason for saving unborn lives than the one that was strong enough to persuade them?
     50 years, and mass murder of babies is still fully legal in almost every state! So much evil runs free, after God is censored and then forgotten! This really is about more than “just” infanticide. It’s about every other political issue about which God’s views are clear. And it’s not “just” about the future and survival of our nation. It’s about Heaven and Hell for eternity. Not just for others, either.
     See Footnote #4 of Statement #11 for a discussion of the constitutionality of quoting Bible verses in a bill of a state legislature.
↑ More about “America’s Freedom springs from “all men are created equal...”
      From footnote #4:

      From the amicus brief by LONANG Institute filed in Dobbs v. Jackson:

     No understanding of state power is complete without consideration of the Declaration. The Declaration grounded civil power itself on the “laws of nature and of nature’s God.” ...“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”.

      Even if this Court’s search for new fundamental un-enumerated substantive due process rights was constitutionally legitimate, it has neglected to look carefully at the “laws of nature and of nature’s God” as a source of those rights. Any legitimate search even for rights “deeply rooted” in American history and tradition would consider unalienable rights granted by the Creator as asserted in such a quintessential founding American document. In other words, the first place to look for any rights of the people would be to examine those rights granted by the Creator, not any purported rights invented by people. And if the Creator has not deemed it necessary or advisable to confer a particular right, then the logical conclusion would be that such a right does not exist. DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185037/20210727131024868_19-1392 tsac Lonang Institute.pdf

      We even get our definitions of basic words from the Bible. American culture and law loses its grasp of basic words by its exclusion of the Bible. The same Bible from which America got the idea that “all men are created equal” tells us who counts as “men”: everyone. All humans. Women, children, believers, pagans, rich, poor, bosses, employees. Everyone.
↑ More about “it promises still greater blessings if we will equally protect humans whose size is different.”
      First, a selection from Footnote #4 with a few Bible verses about the equality of all humans before God’s Laws, the principle embedded in our “all men are created equal” and “equal protection of the laws”.
      After that, a few verses that indicate this equality even extends to physical size.

      (From Footnote #4:) Finding #8, Footnote #3, gives the definition of “man” in Webster’s 1828 dictionary, where we learn that our ancestors learned the correct meanings of Freedom-supporting basic words from the Bible. Webster’s definition includes several Bible quotes.

      Here are a few more, documenting that “all men are created equal” is indeed firmly established in the Bible, which I challenge anyone to find in any major religion or philosophy not influenced by the Bible.
      Exodus 12:49 One law [equal rights] shall be to him that is homeborn, [a natural born citizen] and unto the stranger [immigrant] that sojourneth [lives] among you. [Even the least appreciated people – even immigrants – shall have the same freedom you do.]
      Leviticus 24:22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God. (See also Numbers 9:14, 15:15-16, 29)
      Galatians 3:28 (ERV) Now, in Christ, it doesn’t matter if you are a Jew or a Greek, a slave or free, male or female. You are all the same in Christ Jesus.
      Colossians 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. (See also Galatians 5:6; Romans 1:16, 2:9-10, 3:29-30, 4:11-12, 9:24, 10:12-15; 1 Corinthians 7:19; 12:12-13; Ephesians 2:13-22, 3:5-10, 4:4, 15-16; John 10:16, 11:52, 17:20-21)

      Even the word “Freedom” is confusing where the Bible is excluded from the discussion. Without the Bible for its foundation, logic says freedom means license – no need of discipline to achieve greater and nobler goals than instant gratification of desires – lack of restraint from doing harm to others. Unmoored logic defines “freedom of religion” as freedom from morality, from being “offended” by Truth. My freedom requires restraining you from saying whatever I don’t like, just as dictators enjoy “freedom” to tyrannize their subjects.

      Now, some verses about size:
      Luke 19 tells about Zacchaeus. Luke 19:2 And, behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus, which was the chief among the publicans, and he was rich. 3 And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the press, because he was little of stature. (Jesus honored this short guy who was also the head tax collector, the most hated profession available to Jewish citizens.)
      See what Jesus says about the value of little children, and consider the precedent our forefathers say in this for legal protection of the smallest of children:

      Matthew 18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? 2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. 6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea....10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. 11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. 12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? 13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

      Luke 9:46 Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest.47 And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him, 48 And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.
      Mark 10:13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. 14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. 16 And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.

      Matthew 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
↑ More about “Its testimony is not ‘cumulative’, but ‘probative.”

      “When Does the Number of Experts Used By One Side Become Cumulative?” by Christine Funk, May 25, 2020 (www.expertinstitute.com/ resources /insights/when-does-the-number-of-experts-used-by-one-side-become-cumulative/)

      Excerpts: [In Shallow v. Follwell,] (https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/ supreme-court/2018/sc96901.html ) Plaintiffs argued that the testimony of the four experts was cumulative, as the testimony of each expert overlapped that of some or all of the other testifying experts. ...
      Evidence is relevant “if it tends to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” However, courts must still engage in a balancing test to determine whether the relevant evidence poses the risk of unfair prejudice, cumulativeness, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or is an undue delay or waste of time. Where the cost of admitting otherwise relevant evidence “substantially outweighs” the benefits, the evidence should be excluded.
      ...[Evidence is “cumulative”] when evidence “relates to a matter so fully and properly proved by other testimony as to take it out of the area of serious dispute.” [But courts can’t] “to reject evidence as cumulative when it goes to the very root of the matter in controversy or relates to the main issue, the decision of which turns on the weight of the evidence.”
      ...An excessive number of expert witnesses can create the risk that the trier of fact will simply resolve inconsistencies in expert opinions by merely counting the number of witnesses each side calls, rather than providing due consideration to the credibility and quality of each expert’s opinion. While not the only measure, one measure of prejudicial testimony is where the testimony tends to “lead the jury to decide the case on some basis other than the established propositions of the case.”
     A federal rule states: "The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence."

     Because what is and what is not considered cumulative is, by and large, a [subjective] judgment call, attorneys and experts would be wise to delineate their differences for the court prior to the beginning of testimony.
↑ More about “That is a Biblical principle legitimized in 1 Samuel 8.”
      1 Samuel 8 shows us that although “the powers that be are ordained of God”, Romans 13:1, that doesn’t mean the powers He ordains are always His first choice. They are God’s first choice among options which population majorities will accept.
     It should be a stern warning to all of us, that when we demand less than God’s best for us, God doesn’t force it on us. If we want a certain degree of Hell mixed with God's blessings, God will step back and let reality become our teacher.
     When Jesus came the first time, the people tried to make Him their dictator, but Jesus declined. Now, for the first time in world history, Freedom is almost widely enough respected and desired that when Jesus returns the people of the world will be ready to accept Him, not as a dictator to pretend to “judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles”, as Israel explained to God when they begged to trade in their freedom for a dictator in 1 Samuel 8:20, but as an elected administrator who delegates responsibility to humans, as God did with Moses only after a series of unanimous votes of approval by the people.
      God equates a Republican form of government (in which voters elect representatives) with submission to God.

      1 Samuel 8:4 Then all the [elected, see Deuteronomy 1:13] elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, 5 And said...make us a king to judge us like all the nations. 6 But the thing displeased Samuel...[their reason: Samuel, their elected judge, was old, and his sons whom he had appointed to judge with him were corrupt, but what displeased Samuel was wanting a monarchy] And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. 7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them....9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.” (In other words, remind them of how much worse a dictator is than an occasional corrupt judge.)

      1 Samuel 8:7 says when the people wanted to replace their freedom with a dictatorship, God characterized that as the people rejecting God from ruling over them; in other words, God’s idea of a government submitted to Him is a government elected by the majority of voters. In other words, the choice of the majority is what God wants the majority to have - which is different than saying it is what would be best for the people. This interpretation is supported by God’s actions in 1 Samuel 8-10.
      The election of judges before Israel’s first king is documented by Deuteronomy 1:13 which says the system of judges suggested by Jethro were “chosen”. Josephus adds that the voting followed campaign speeches of the candidates; a footnote by the English translator in 1825 adds that it is the same system followed in selecting pastors in the New Testament.
↑ More about “The 14th Amendment requires this state...to...outlaw abortion.”
     (See also Statements #1, 3, 7, 8)
      The indecision of judges over whether babies of humans are humans does not neutralize the consensus of fact finders that babies are fully “human persons” – an abstention does not cancel an “aye”.
     That consensus makes abortion legally recognizable as killing innocent human beings, which is legally recognizable as murder, which was never constitutionally protected or legal, but is what even Roe correctly said “of course” requires abortion’s legality to end.
     No judge can squarely address this evidence and keep abortion legal because the 14th Amendment doesn’t let any state legalize the tyranny of any class of humans over any other. It made irrelevant whether their destroyers “rely” on destroying them. The only constitutional way to keep baby murder legal would be to repeal the 14th Amendment, returning to states the power of majorities to tyrannize minorities. Of course, that would make slavery legal again.
      These truths are too critical to be dismissed as opinions. They are statements of facts. Disprove them or admit you can’t. Voters need to hear the Whole Truth. Courts must stop punishing people for telling the whole truth just because the whole truth favors God.
      Judges need the Whole Truth even more than voters, since the inability of judges to know if babies of people are people is the reason for America’s slaughter of over 60 million people. Just one natural consequence in the service of God’s judgment: an aging Social Security-dependent population causing a federal debt threatening our national security.
      Stupidity has consequences. Judges need to uncensor large swaths of reality. Millions of lives depend on it.
     The 14th Amendment doesn’t let any state legalize the tyranny of any class of humans over any other.
      Dobbs went to a lot of trouble to show that the right to murder your own baby is not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” so therefore the Constitution doesn't protect it. Indeed it does not, but not for that reason.
     The 14th Amendment demonstrated the irrelevance of “deeply rooted in history” by its creation for the purpose of ending slavery, an institution more “deeply rooted in” the whole world’s “history” than almost any other. The reason conservatives like precedents from America’s first century is because they were closer to the Bible and often quoted the Bible for its authority. Indeed, that is a good reason – and the only reason slavery ended. But the Bible is a safer subject of our admiration than the history of Bible believers.
     Here’s how Professor Schluetter expressed the idea that what tells us whether to protect babies is not how much our ancestors protected babies but whether babies are real people:

      “Notice that the minor premise of the syllogism above [whether the word ‘persons’ in the 14th Amendment includes unborn babies] is only marginally contingent upon historical analysis. The primary issue is ontological, not historical....[the actual nature of babies, not how others used to treat them]
      “In other words, it doesn’t ultimately matter what past people thought about when human life begins, so long as they agreed-as they did-that at whatever point it begins, this is the point at which the protective powers of the state must be introduced. They did not have enough access to the scientific and biological facts of human reproduction and embryology to know for certain when life begins. But in a time of 4D ultrasound technology, when infants can be operated on while still in the womb, there is no room for dispute about the status of the fetus.”

      Actually it doesn’t matter, either, if our ancestors “agreed that at whatever point life begins, the protective powers of the state must be introduced.” Nor does it matter if the Amendment authors wanted to protect all humans. In fact, it doesn’t matter if there is a 14th Amendment. If law is not equal upon its operation on all humans, which is the very definition of the word “law” as explained by Samuel Rutherford’s “Lex Rex” and Blackstone, and adopted by America’s founders, to that extent there is, by definition, no “rule of law”, no restraint upon the “strong” to not tyrannize the “weak”.
      Had a time traveler from today told those senators who authored the 14th Amendment about Roe v Wade, and the need to clarify that unborn babies are “persons” or their descendants wouldn’t be able to figure that out, they would have answered, “you are telling us our great great great grandchildren will flock to pay baby killers to murder their very own babies if we don’t spell out that babies of people are people, which every idiot knows? But should our descendants actually become that bloodthirsty, you really think a word in the Constitution will stop them? Bosh!” [People in 1868 said “Bosh!” a lot.] Then they will throw the time traveler out of the room.
      It is mind boggling that Dobbs never once mentioned the right of a baby to live “in this Nation’s history”. The right of babies to live was certainly “deeply rooted in history”, as the same history in Dobbs makes clear by proving the converse.

      Roe...attempted...to locate an abortion right in history. The attempt was seriously flawed. ... acceptance of abortion is not in any sense deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions. The opposite is true: it is the prohibition of abortion that has deep roots in English and American history....An exhaustive study...concludes that ‘[t]he tradition of treating abortion as a crime was unbroken through nearly 800 years of English and American history until the ‘reform’ movement of the later twentieth century.’ Joseph W. Dellapenna, Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History....

      [Legalism caused] the tragedy that is the common denominator in these cases: the intentional destruction, on an unprecedented scale, of the most innocent and defenseless of the human family. In the truest sense, they are our family, our brothers and sisters. Like all members of the human family, they should be treasured and loved. Nothing in the Constitution requires states to stand idly by while their lives are deliberately taken. The Declaration of Independence places the right to life first in the list of inalienable rights. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments list the right to life first among those rights of which the government cannot deprive a person without due process of law.

     Thomas Jefferson’s March 31, 1809 letter to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland, stated: “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.” THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 165 (H.A. Washington, ed.) (1871). xii (2006) (From the amicus of U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Other Religious Organizations, submitted in Dobbs. http://www.supremecourt.gov/ DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185030/20210727130348783_13-1932.Dobbs.final.pdf

     The amicus of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence agrees:

     The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against deprivation “life, liberty, or property.” In the abortion rights cases, this Court has focused on “liberty.” [of moms.] The real issue, however, is life. [of babes.] Life is a natural right endowed by our Creator and is the first unalienable right recognized in the Declaration of Independence. ...The duty of government to protect life is at the center of the nation’s first legal document. [www.supreme court.gov/DocketPDF/ 19/19-1392/185038/20210727131748801_ 19-1392 tsac CCJ.pdf]

      But again, that’s not why the 14th Amendment protects it. The 14th Amendment protects the right of babies to live because the 14th Amendment doesn’t let any state legalize the tyranny of any class of humans over any other. The 14th Amendment put a “full stop” to the exceptionally strange and frankly stupid idea that a long history of tyranny constitutionally requires us to let tyranny continue till Jesus comes.

      “Amicus aids the Court in recognizing that unenumerated fundamental rights elevated to a constitutional status by the Court because they are “implicit,” “inherent” or “rooted in history” have no basis in the law of nature, and no textual basis in Article III, or in the power of judicial review.” That bold rejection of just about every tool of SCOTUS dominance over America was made by the Lonang Institute in its amicus in Dobbs. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ 19/19-1392/ 185037/20210727131024868_19-1392%20tsac%20Lonang%20Institute.pdf
↑ More about “the Constitution...has...proven ‘a thing of wax’.”
      “Our law is now so riddled with special exceptions for special rights that our decisions deliver neither predictability nor the promise of a judiciary bound by the rule of law.” - Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent in Hellerstedt (2016)
     In other words, a floating standard of how to interpret precedents makes precedent a thing of wax in the nimble fingers of a judge, making what is “legal” unpredictable for the rest of us. How much more disastrous a floating standard of how to interpret the Constitution!
     “A thing of wax”, a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson, became a book title: A thing of wax (1978) Judicial review, the constitution, and constitutional law. By John Burleigh
     Thomas Jefferson said if SCOTUS is taken as the absolute authority on the Constitution, nothing will restrain it but “the moral law”. Of course 204 years later we see that was one of the earliest restraints they threw off.
     The following Thomas Jefferson quotes are copied from https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/06/04/thomas-jefferson-on-judicial-tyranny/ But the comments about each one are my own.
      If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so [A crime committed against oneself, in particular an early twentieth-century euphemism for suicide]. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law … — Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819
      Today all America considers judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. As of 1820 that was a new enough threat that Jefferson said it “would”, not that it “did”, “place us under...despotism”.

      You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. [Dictatorship by a few tyrants.] Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. …. — Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820

      By 1823 the threat was growing; Judges were usurping powers Jefferson still saw as future threats, not present threats yet, though he was alarmed by what judges were starting to claim:

      This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversions on its being merely an obiter dissertation [a statement from the bench commenting on a point of law which is not necessary for the judgment at hand and therefore has no judicial weight] of the Chief Justice … . But the Chief Justice says, “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.” True, there must; but … . The ultimate arbiter is the people …. — Letter to Judge William Johnson, June 1823

      Though a future threat, Jefferson called for a preemptive strike:

      The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general and special government to a general supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet.
      … I will say, that “against this every man should raise his voice,” and, more, should uplift his arm … — Letter to Thomas Ritchie, Sept. 1820

      Jefferson said the assaults on the Constitution had begun:

     I fear, dear Sir, we are now in such another crisis [as when the Alien and Sedition Laws were enacted], with this difference only, that the judiciary branch is alone and single-handed in the present assaults on the Constitution. But its assaults are more sure and deadly, as from an agent seemingly passive and unassuming. — Letter to Mr. Nicholas, Dec. 1821

     Jefferson correctly saw the erosion of the Constitution by SCOTUS as deadly through their gradual, therefore “unalarming”, creeping forward, like the frog in the boiling water:

     … there is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless, and therefore unalarming, instrumentality of the Supreme Court. — Letter to William Johnson, Mar. 1823

     For judges to usurp the powers of the legislature is unconstitutional judicial tyranny.

    &nbsp… One single object … will entitle you to the endless gratitude of society; that of restraining judges from usurping legislation. — Letter to Edward Livingston, Mar. 1825
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑

[1] More about “the Declaration lays out the purpose of the Constitution, and rests its own authority on the revelation of God”
The Revelation of God upon which the Declaration of Independence rests its authority: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
The purpose of government and its courts which our Constitution was designed to serve: “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. ...whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

[2] More about “the Declaration...rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible”
“Nature’s God”, the phrase in the Declaration of Independence of 1776, was a clear, unambiguous reference to God as revealed by the Bible. The first clue is that “God” is singular, while every nonChristian major religion except Islam worships “gods”. And there were no Moslems among the Declaration’s signers.
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
Bill Fortenberry, a Birmingham Christian “philosopher and historian” whose work “has been cited in several legal journals”, writes “Nearly all of the modern historians who have written about this phrase have accused Jefferson and the other signers of the Declaration of abandoning the God of the Bible and erecting a more deistic god of nature in His place.” The attempt to tie the definition of the phrase to Jefferson’s personal ambiguous faith statements is a study in irrelevance, since if the Declaration’s signers understood the phrase to differ from their own theology, they wouldn’t have signed it.
Here Fortenberry explains how we can be sure Jefferson’s personal understanding of the phrase was, indeed, the Bible, the Word of God:

Thomas Jefferson was a student of Lord Bolingbroke. He first began studying Bolingbroke’s writings at the age of fourteen, and he read them again at the age of twenty-three as he was preparing for a career as a lawyer. Jefferson’s Literary Commonplace Book contains more quotations from Bolingbroke than from any other author, and I do not know of a single historian who has not given Bolingbroke the credit for Jefferson’s famous phrase regarding “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” What these scholars keep hidden is the fact that Lord Bolingbroke provided a very specific definition for this phrase.
In a renowned letter to Alexander Pope, Lord Bolingbroke wrote the following words which were to become the basis for Jefferson’s opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:
“You will find that it is the modest, not the presumptuous enquirer, who makes a real, and safe progress in the discovery of divine truths. One follows nature, and nature’s God; that is, he follows God in his works, and in his word.”

Here we find a definition from the very individual that all scholars recognize as the source of Jefferson’s phrase. According to Lord Bolingbroke, the law of nature’s God is the Law which is found in God’s Word. This was the definition which was intended by Jefferson, and this was the manner in which his words were understood by our forefathers. The law of nature’s God upon which our nation was founded is nothing less than the Bible itself. (http://www.increasinglearning.com/blog/law-of-natures-god)

“Jefferson’s phrase ‘the laws of nature and of nature’s God,’ was clearly defined by Blackstone’s Commentaries as meaning the unwritten law of God in creation and the revealed law of God in the Bible” (according to Jerry Newcombe, http://doubtingthomasbook.com/the-laws-of-nature-and-of-natures-god/)
“Louisiana State University professor Ellis Sandoz writes that Jefferson’s language ‘. . .harmonizes with the Christian religious and Whig political consensus that prevailed in the country at the time; . . . (and with) traditional Christian natural law and rights going back to Aquinas…’ Similar language was used by the Protestant John Calvin, John Locke and others. See Sandoz, A Government of Laws, pp. 190-191.” (Newcombe)
Even the phrase “the laws of nature” was not understood then as now, as physical forces in our material universe, but “Jefferson defined the law of nature in 1793 as: ‘the moral Law to which man has been subjected by his creator,’ Opinion on the Treaties with France, 28 April 1793.” (Newcombe)
Other Declaration signers were Christians, not activists of other faiths, who when writing “God” meant “as revealed in the Bible”: “Other references to God such as ‘endowed by their Creator’ and ‘the Supreme Judge’ and ‘the protection of divine providence’ were added during the collaborative process by others in Congress before the final document was adopted.” (Newcombe)
History professor David Voelker says Jefferson didn’t believe the Bible is a revelation of God. Professor of Humanities and History, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, http://davidjvoelker.com/ he concludes, without offering supporting Jefferson quotes: “Although he supported the moral teachings of Jesus, Jefferson believed in a creator similar to the God of deism. In the tradition of deism, Jefferson based his God on reason and rejected revealed religion.” http://historytools.davidjvoelker.com/docs/Natures-God.html
But Newcombe offers a Jefferson quote inconsistent with Deism’s idea that God doesn’t get involved in current events: “To Richard Henry Lee, Jefferson reported on the military front: ‘Our camps recruit slowly, amazing slowly. God knows in what it will end. The finger of providence has as yet saved us by retarding the arrival of Ld. Howe’s recruits.’ ”
Concerning the “Deism” label, Voelker wrote: “Deism was not actually a formal religion, but rather was a label used loosely to describe certain religious views. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word deist was used negatively during Jefferson's lifetime. The label was often applied to freethinkers like Jefferson as a slander rather than as a precise description.”
Newcombe is a joint author of a book of the latest compilation of Jefferson’s letters and other writings, which challenge the narrative that Jefferson didn’t take the Bible seriously. The book’s synopsis, at http://doubtingthomasbook.com/marks-blog: “Drawing from about 1100 religious letters and papers of Thomas Jefferson (of which over 100 in recent months have been printed for the first time ever – some in this volume itself), this book identifies over 200 religious leaders or groups that Thomas Jefferson either worshiped with, aided financially or corresponded with. While not denying the unorthodox writings of Jefferson late in life, the context of the vast majority of his religious correspondence and actions, and the unique religious culture of Central Virginia, show a much more nuanced picture that challenges both secular and religious scholars to reassess Jefferson’s modern image.” (Contact form: http://doubtingthomasbook.com/praise-for-doubting-thomas)
“Jefferson’s Bible” is his condensation of the Four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) for distribution among Native Americans to inspire good behavior. It omits Jesus’ miracles, which is cited by many as evidence that Jefferson didn’t believe in miracles.
But even if such a “hands off” God were Jefferson’s concept of “nature’s God”, and even if the other Declaration signers accepted such a notion, that would be irrelevant to the Signers’ reliance on the Bible as an inspired guide to good behavior, and to understanding the Unalienable Rights with which “all men” are “endowed” by our “Creator”. General Biblical inspiration of American Freedom.
In 1954, Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren: “I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it: freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under law, and the reservation of powers to the people.” Earl Warren, quoted in Jim Nelson Black, When Nations Die: Ten Warning Signs of a Culture in Crisis (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994) p. 253. The Foundation for Moral Law and Lutherans for Life point out in their joint amicus in Dobbs v. Jackson:

Much of our Western legal tradition has been shaped by the Bible. On October 4, 1982, Congress passed Public Law 97-280, declaring 1983 the “Year of the Bible,” and the President signed the bill into law. The opening clause of the bill is: “Whereas Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States; . . .”

Joshua Berman, Senior Editor at Bar-Ilan University, in his 2008 book Created Equal: How the Bible Broke with Ancient Political Thought, contends that the Pentateuch [first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy] is the world’s first model of a society in which politics and economics embrace egalitarian [equal rights for all] ideals. Berman states flatly: If there was one truth the ancients [who rejected the religion of the Bible] held to be self-evident it was that all men were not created equal. If we maintain today that, in fact, they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, then it is because we have inherited as part of our cultural heritage notions of equality that were deeply entrenched in the ancient passages of the Pentateuch.

(Footnote: Joshua Berman, Created Equal: How the Bible Broke with Ancient Political Thought (Oxford 2008) 175, See also John Marshall Gest, The Influence of Biblical Texts Upon English Law, an address delivered before the Phi Beta Kappa and Sigma xi Societies of the University of Pennsylvania June 14, 1910, https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu quoting Sir Francis Bacon: “The law of England is not taken out of Amadis de Gaul, nor the Book of Palmerin, but out of the Scripture, of the laws of the Romans and the Grecians.”

[3] More about “Roe v Wade...consult[ed] those ...who study souls....”

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 159 (1973)

Roe v. Wade “opened the door” to a Bible study of abortion as part of our national debate, by claiming that the reason “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins” is because “the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer” since, after all, doctors and preachers can’t agree: “those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus”.
It’s not just that Roe “opened the door”, which is the name for a technical legal principle that lawyers use in court to get around a judge’s “in limine” order to not say certain words or offer certain evidence. This is no “loophole” around the 1st Amendment prohibition of establishing a religion.
Roe couldn’t legalize abortion without neutralizing somehow public concern that babies of humans might turn out to be humans. Justice Blackmun understood there are two sources of authority on that issue: medicine, which documents that unborn babies have physical human bodies, and theology, which documents that unborn babies have souls made in the Image of God. That is why Roe devoted many pages of selective evidence and tortured logic to justify its conclusion that doctors and preachers can't agree, so how can mere Supreme Court Justices know? (For their exact words, see Finding #1, Footnote #3.)
The most modern Christian that they consulted was Thomas Aquinas who died in 1274 AD! Most important, they didn’t consult God! One citation to one Bible verse is in one footnote, neutralized by not an analysis but an insinuation. So to patch up SCOTUS’ confusion about whether God can agree with Himself, you can find my prolife Bible study in Appendix E of my book, http://www.saltshaker.us/ HowStatesCanOutlawAbortion.pdf (in a Way that Survives Courts). Another great Bible study by the Jewish Prolife Foundation, from their Amicus Brief submitted in Dobbs V. Jackson, closes this footnote.
What was Blackmun thinking, to paint doctors and preachers as greater authorities than himself on the dispositive fact question in abortion policy, and then to torture historical facts to FANTACIZE serious disagreement? What Roe was correct about, and that many prolifers today are incorrect about, is that leaving out the Biblical evidence really does leave prolifers with an unnecessarily weak argument. Let’s admit it, it really is hard to grasp the full humanity of a single fertilized egg. I didn't come by the conviction automatically or naturally; I had to study and believe Scripture until my incredulity over protecting such a tiny little thing melted away. I AM FAR FROM ALONE.
But the “personhood focus” of the Scripture is not on the physical, but on the soul. So why will Bible believers give the public every other reason for saving unborn lives than the one that was strong enough to persuade them?
50 years, and mass murder of babies is still fully legal in almost every state! So much evil runs free, after God is censored and then forgotten! This really is about more than “just” infanticide. It’s about every other political issue about which God’s views are clear. And it’s not “just” about the future and survival of our nation. It’s about Heaven and Hell for eternity. Not just for others, either.
See Footnote #4 of Statement #11 for a discussion of the constitutionality of quoting Bible verses in a bill of a state legislature.

[4] More about “America’s Freedom springs from “all men are created equal...”
From footnote #4:

From the amicus brief by LONANG Institute filed in Dobbs v. Jackson:

No understanding of state power is complete without consideration of the Declaration. The Declaration grounded civil power itself on the “laws of nature and of nature’s God.” ...“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”.

Even if this Court’s search for new fundamental un-enumerated substantive due process rights was constitutionally legitimate, it has neglected to look carefully at the “laws of nature and of nature’s God” as a source of those rights. Any legitimate search even for rights “deeply rooted” in American history and tradition would consider unalienable rights granted by the Creator as asserted in such a quintessential founding American document. In other words, the first place to look for any rights of the people would be to examine those rights granted by the Creator, not any purported rights invented by people. And if the Creator has not deemed it necessary or advisable to confer a particular right, then the logical conclusion would be that such a right does not exist. DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185037/20210727131024868_19-1392 tsac Lonang Institute.pdf

We even get our definitions of basic words from the Bible. American culture and law loses its grasp of basic words by its exclusion of the Bible. The same Bible from which America got the idea that “all men are created equal” tells us who counts as “men”: everyone. All humans. Women, children, believers, pagans, rich, poor, bosses, employees. Everyone.

[5] More about “it promises still greater blessings if we will equally protect humans whose size is different.”
First, a selection from Footnote #4 with a few Bible verses about the equality of all humans before God’s Laws, the principle embedded in our “all men are created equal” and “equal protection of the laws”.
After that, a few verses that indicate this equality even extends to physical size.

(From Footnote #4:) Finding #8, Footnote #3, gives the definition of “man” in Webster’s 1828 dictionary, where we learn that our ancestors learned the correct meanings of Freedom-supporting basic words from the Bible. Webster’s definition includes several Bible quotes.

Here are a few more, documenting that “all men are created equal” is indeed firmly established in the Bible, which I challenge anyone to find in any major religion or philosophy not influenced by the Bible.
Exodus 12:49 One law [equal rights] shall be to him that is homeborn, [a natural born citizen] and unto the stranger [immigrant] that sojourneth [lives] among you. [Even the least appreciated people – even immigrants – shall have the same freedom you do.]
Leviticus 24:22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God. (See also Numbers 9:14, 15:15-16, 29)
Galatians 3:28 (ERV) Now, in Christ, it doesn’t matter if you are a Jew or a Greek, a slave or free, male or female. You are all the same in Christ Jesus.
Colossians 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. (See also Galatians 5:6; Romans 1:16, 2:9-10, 3:29-30, 4:11-12, 9:24, 10:12-15; 1 Corinthians 7:19; 12:12-13; Ephesians 2:13-22, 3:5-10, 4:4, 15-16; John 10:16, 11:52, 17:20-21)

Even the word “Freedom” is confusing where the Bible is excluded from the discussion. Without the Bible for its foundation, logic says freedom means license – no need of discipline to achieve greater and nobler goals than instant gratification of desires – lack of restraint from doing harm to others. Unmoored logic defines “freedom of religion” as freedom from morality, from being “offended” by Truth. My freedom requires restraining you from saying whatever I don’t like, just as dictators enjoy “freedom” to tyrannize their subjects.

Now, some verses about size:
Luke 19 tells about Zacchaeus. Luke 19:2 And, behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus, which was the chief among the publicans, and he was rich. 3 And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the press, because he was little of stature. (Jesus honored this short guy who was also the head tax collector, the most hated profession available to Jewish citizens.)
See what Jesus says about the value of little children, and consider the precedent our forefathers say in this for legal protection of the smallest of children:

Matthew 18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? 2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. 6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea....10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. 11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. 12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? 13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

Luke 9:46 Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest.47 And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him, 48 And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.
Mark 10:13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. 14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. 16 And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.

Matthew 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

[6] More about “Its testimony is not ‘cumulative’, but ‘probative.”

“When Does the Number of Experts Used By One Side Become Cumulative?” by Christine Funk, May 25, 2020 (www.expertinstitute.com/ resources /insights/when-does-the-number-of-experts-used-by-one-side-become-cumulative/)

Excerpts: [In Shallow v. Follwell,] (https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/ supreme-court/2018/sc96901.html ) Plaintiffs argued that the testimony of the four experts was cumulative, as the testimony of each expert overlapped that of some or all of the other testifying experts. ...
Evidence is relevant “if it tends to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” However, courts must still engage in a balancing test to determine whether the relevant evidence poses the risk of unfair prejudice, cumulativeness, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or is an undue delay or waste of time. Where the cost of admitting otherwise relevant evidence “substantially outweighs” the benefits, the evidence should be excluded.
...[Evidence is “cumulative”] when evidence “relates to a matter so fully and properly proved by other testimony as to take it out of the area of serious dispute.” [But courts can’t] “to reject evidence as cumulative when it goes to the very root of the matter in controversy or relates to the main issue, the decision of which turns on the weight of the evidence.”
...An excessive number of expert witnesses can create the risk that the trier of fact will simply resolve inconsistencies in expert opinions by merely counting the number of witnesses each side calls, rather than providing due consideration to the credibility and quality of each expert’s opinion. While not the only measure, one measure of prejudicial testimony is where the testimony tends to “lead the jury to decide the case on some basis other than the established propositions of the case.”
A federal rule states: "The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence."

Because what is and what is not considered cumulative is, by and large, a [subjective] judgment call, attorneys and experts would be wise to delineate their differences for the court prior to the beginning of testimony.

[7] More about “That is a Biblical principle legitimized in 1 Samuel 8.”
1 Samuel 8 shows us that although “the powers that be are ordained of God”, Romans 13:1, that doesn’t mean the powers He ordains are always His first choice. They are God’s first choice among options which population majorities will accept.
It should be a stern warning to all of us, that when we demand less than God’s best for us, God doesn’t force it on us. If we want a certain degree of Hell mixed with God's blessings, God will step back and let reality become our teacher.
When Jesus came the first time, the people tried to make Him their dictator, but Jesus declined. Now, for the first time in world history, Freedom is almost widely enough respected and desired that when Jesus returns the people of the world will be ready to accept Him, not as a dictator to pretend to “judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles”, as Israel explained to God when they begged to trade in their freedom for a dictator in 1 Samuel 8:20, but as an elected administrator who delegates responsibility to humans, as God did with Moses only after a series of unanimous votes of approval by the people.
God equates a Republican form of government (in which voters elect representatives) with submission to God.

1 Samuel 8:4 Then all the [elected, see Deuteronomy 1:13] elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, 5 And said...make us a king to judge us like all the nations. 6 But the thing displeased Samuel...[their reason: Samuel, their elected judge, was old, and his sons whom he had appointed to judge with him were corrupt, but what displeased Samuel was wanting a monarchy] And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. 7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them....9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.” (In other words, remind them of how much worse a dictator is than an occasional corrupt judge.)

1 Samuel 8:7 says when the people wanted to replace their freedom with a dictatorship, God characterized that as the people rejecting God from ruling over them; in other words, God’s idea of a government submitted to Him is a government elected by the majority of voters. In other words, the choice of the majority is what God wants the majority to have - which is different than saying it is what would be best for the people. This interpretation is supported by God’s actions in 1 Samuel 8-10.
The election of judges before Israel’s first king is documented by Deuteronomy 1:13 which says the system of judges suggested by Jethro were “chosen”. Josephus adds that the voting followed campaign speeches of the candidates; a footnote by the English translator in 1825 adds that it is the same system followed in selecting pastors in the New Testament.

[8] More about “The 14th Amendment requires this state...to...outlaw abortion.”
(See also Statements #1, 3, 7, 8)
The indecision of judges over whether babies of humans are humans does not neutralize the consensus of fact finders that babies are fully “human persons” – an abstention does not cancel an “aye”.
That consensus makes abortion legally recognizable as killing innocent human beings, which is legally recognizable as murder, which was never constitutionally protected or legal, but is what even Roe correctly said “of course” requires abortion’s legality to end.
No judge can squarely address this evidence and keep abortion legal because the 14th Amendment doesn’t let any state legalize the tyranny of any class of humans over any other. It made irrelevant whether their destroyers “rely” on destroying them. The only constitutional way to keep baby murder legal would be to repeal the 14th Amendment, returning to states the power of majorities to tyrannize minorities. Of course, that would make slavery legal again.
These truths are too critical to be dismissed as opinions. They are statements of facts. Disprove them or admit you can’t. Voters need to hear the Whole Truth. Courts must stop punishing people for telling the whole truth just because the whole truth favors God.
Judges need the Whole Truth even more than voters, since the inability of judges to know if babies of people are people is the reason for America’s slaughter of over 60 million people. Just one natural consequence in the service of God’s judgment: an aging Social Security-dependent population causing a federal debt threatening our national security.
Stupidity has consequences. Judges need to uncensor large swaths of reality. Millions of lives depend on it.
The 14th Amendment doesn’t let any state legalize the tyranny of any class of humans over any other.
Dobbs went to a lot of trouble to show that the right to murder your own baby is not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” so therefore the Constitution doesn't protect it. Indeed it does not, but not for that reason.
The 14th Amendment demonstrated the irrelevance of “deeply rooted in history” by its creation for the purpose of ending slavery, an institution more “deeply rooted in” the whole world’s “history” than almost any other. The reason conservatives like precedents from America’s first century is because they were closer to the Bible and often quoted the Bible for its authority. Indeed, that is a good reason – and the only reason slavery ended. But the Bible is a safer subject of our admiration than the history of Bible believers.
Here’s how Professor Schluetter expressed the idea that what tells us whether to protect babies is not how much our ancestors protected babies but whether babies are real people:

“Notice that the minor premise of the syllogism above [whether the word ‘persons’ in the 14th Amendment includes unborn babies] is only marginally contingent upon historical analysis. The primary issue is ontological, not historical....[the actual nature of babies, not how others used to treat them]
“In other words, it doesn’t ultimately matter what past people thought about when human life begins, so long as they agreed-as they did-that at whatever point it begins, this is the point at which the protective powers of the state must be introduced. They did not have enough access to the scientific and biological facts of human reproduction and embryology to know for certain when life begins. But in a time of 4D ultrasound technology, when infants can be operated on while still in the womb, there is no room for dispute about the status of the fetus.”

Actually it doesn’t matter, either, if our ancestors “agreed that at whatever point life begins, the protective powers of the state must be introduced.” Nor does it matter if the Amendment authors wanted to protect all humans. In fact, it doesn’t matter if there is a 14th Amendment. If law is not equal upon its operation on all humans, which is the very definition of the word “law” as explained by Samuel Rutherford’s “Lex Rex” and Blackstone, and adopted by America’s founders, to that extent there is, by definition, no “rule of law”, no restraint upon the “strong” to not tyrannize the “weak”.
Had a time traveler from today told those senators who authored the 14th Amendment about Roe v Wade, and the need to clarify that unborn babies are “persons” or their descendants wouldn’t be able to figure that out, they would have answered, “you are telling us our great great great grandchildren will flock to pay baby killers to murder their very own babies if we don’t spell out that babies of people are people, which every idiot knows? But should our descendants actually become that bloodthirsty, you really think a word in the Constitution will stop them? Bosh!” [People in 1868 said “Bosh!” a lot.] Then they will throw the time traveler out of the room.
It is mind boggling that Dobbs never once mentioned the right of a baby to live “in this Nation’s history”. The right of babies to live was certainly “deeply rooted in history”, as the same history in Dobbs makes clear by proving the converse.

Roe...attempted...to locate an abortion right in history. The attempt was seriously flawed. ... acceptance of abortion is not in any sense deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions. The opposite is true: it is the prohibition of abortion that has deep roots in English and American history....An exhaustive study...concludes that ‘[t]he tradition of treating abortion as a crime was unbroken through nearly 800 years of English and American history until the ‘reform’ movement of the later twentieth century.’ Joseph W. Dellapenna, Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History....

[Legalism caused] the tragedy that is the common denominator in these cases: the intentional destruction, on an unprecedented scale, of the most innocent and defenseless of the human family. In the truest sense, they are our family, our brothers and sisters. Like all members of the human family, they should be treasured and loved. Nothing in the Constitution requires states to stand idly by while their lives are deliberately taken. The Declaration of Independence places the right to life first in the list of inalienable rights. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments list the right to life first among those rights of which the government cannot deprive a person without due process of law.

Thomas Jefferson’s March 31, 1809 letter to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland, stated: “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.” THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 165 (H.A. Washington, ed.) (1871). xii (2006) (From the amicus of U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Other Religious Organizations, submitted in Dobbs. http://www.supremecourt.gov/ DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185030/20210727130348783_13-1932.Dobbs.final.pdf

The amicus of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence agrees:

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against deprivation “life, liberty, or property.” In the abortion rights cases, this Court has focused on “liberty.” [of moms.] The real issue, however, is life. [of babes.] Life is a natural right endowed by our Creator and is the first unalienable right recognized in the Declaration of Independence. ...The duty of government to protect life is at the center of the nation’s first legal document. [www.supreme court.gov/DocketPDF/ 19/19-1392/185038/20210727131748801_ 19-1392 tsac CCJ.pdf]

But again, that’s not why the 14th Amendment protects it. The 14th Amendment protects the right of babies to live because the 14th Amendment doesn’t let any state legalize the tyranny of any class of humans over any other. The 14th Amendment put a “full stop” to the exceptionally strange and frankly stupid idea that a long history of tyranny constitutionally requires us to let tyranny continue till Jesus comes.

“Amicus aids the Court in recognizing that unenumerated fundamental rights elevated to a constitutional status by the Court because they are “implicit,” “inherent” or “rooted in history” have no basis in the law of nature, and no textual basis in Article III, or in the power of judicial review.” That bold rejection of just about every tool of SCOTUS dominance over America was made by the Lonang Institute in its amicus in Dobbs. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ 19/19-1392/ 185037/20210727131024868_19-1392%20tsac%20Lonang%20Institute.pdf

[9] More about “the Constitution...has...proven ‘a thing of wax’.”
“Our law is now so riddled with special exceptions for special rights that our decisions deliver neither predictability nor the promise of a judiciary bound by the rule of law.” - Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent in Hellerstedt (2016)
In other words, a floating standard of how to interpret precedents makes precedent a thing of wax in the nimble fingers of a judge, making what is “legal” unpredictable for the rest of us. How much more disastrous a floating standard of how to interpret the Constitution!
“A thing of wax”, a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson, became a book title: A thing of wax (1978) Judicial review, the constitution, and constitutional law. By John Burleigh
Thomas Jefferson said if SCOTUS is taken as the absolute authority on the Constitution, nothing will restrain it but “the moral law”. Of course 204 years later we see that was one of the earliest restraints they threw off.
The following Thomas Jefferson quotes are copied from https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/06/04/thomas-jefferson-on-judicial-tyranny/ But the comments about each one are my own.
If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so [A crime committed against oneself, in particular an early twentieth-century euphemism for suicide]. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law … — Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819
Today all America considers judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. As of 1820 that was a new enough threat that Jefferson said it “would”, not that it “did”, “place us under...despotism”.

You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. [Dictatorship by a few tyrants.] Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. …. — Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820

By 1823 the threat was growing; Judges were usurping powers Jefferson still saw as future threats, not present threats yet, though he was alarmed by what judges were starting to claim:

This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversions on its being merely an obiter dissertation [a statement from the bench commenting on a point of law which is not necessary for the judgment at hand and therefore has no judicial weight] of the Chief Justice … . But the Chief Justice says, “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.” True, there must; but … . The ultimate arbiter is the people …. — Letter to Judge William Johnson, June 1823

Though a future threat, Jefferson called for a preemptive strike:

The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general and special government to a general supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet.
… I will say, that “against this every man should raise his voice,” and, more, should uplift his arm … — Letter to Thomas Ritchie, Sept. 1820

Jefferson said the assaults on the Constitution had begun:

I fear, dear Sir, we are now in such another crisis [as when the Alien and Sedition Laws were enacted], with this difference only, that the judiciary branch is alone and single-handed in the present assaults on the Constitution. But its assaults are more sure and deadly, as from an agent seemingly passive and unassuming. — Letter to Mr. Nicholas, Dec. 1821

Jefferson correctly saw the erosion of the Constitution by SCOTUS as deadly through their gradual, therefore “unalarming”, creeping forward, like the frog in the boiling water:

… there is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless, and therefore unalarming, instrumentality of the Supreme Court. — Letter to William Johnson, Mar. 1823

For judges to usurp the powers of the legislature is unconstitutional judicial tyranny.

&nbsp… One single object … will entitle you to the endless gratitude of society; that of restraining judges from usurping legislation. — Letter to Edward Livingston, Mar. 1825

[10] ↑

[11] ↑

[12] ↑

[13] ↑

[14] ↑

[15] ↑

[16] ↑

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

@@ Line 105: / Line 105: @@
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Luke 9:46  Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest.47 And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him, 48 And said unto them, '''Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.'''
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Mark 10:13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. 14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, '''Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.''' 16 And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Matthew 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, '''Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.''' 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.</ref>
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Matthew 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, '''Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.''' 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.</blockquote></ref>
 <span style="color:blue"> Its testimony is not “cumulative”, but “probative”.
@@ Line 126: / Line 126: @@
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The election of judges before Israel’s first king is documented by Deuteronomy 1:13 which says the system of judges suggested by Jethro were “chosen”. Josephus adds that the voting followed campaign speeches of the candidates; a footnote by the English translator in 1825 adds that it is the same system followed in selecting pastors in the New Testament. </ref>
-<span style="color:blue"> The history of slavery, prohibition, and abortion illustrate the “willingness” factor. The probative value of the testimony of God is proved by the fact that without it, slavery would never have ended, and the prolife movement would never have begun. Which makes it probative to observe that not only the 14th Amendment, but also the revelation of God, requires this state, as it does every state, to outlaw all trampling of fundamental rights of any class of people, including abortion of babies.8
+<span style="color:blue"> The history of slavery, prohibition, and abortion illustrate the “willingness” factor. The probative value of the testimony of God is proved by the fact that without it, slavery would never have ended, and the prolife movement would never have begun. Which makes it probative to observe that not only the 14th Amendment, but also the revelation of God, requires this state, as it does every state, to outlaw all trampling of fundamental rights of any class of people, including abortion of babies.
 <ref>'''More about “The 14th Amendment requires this state...to...outlaw abortion.”'''
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(See also Statements #1, 3, 7, 8)

Difference between revisions of "Statement 10 + Footnotes"

Revision as of 03:54, 23 November 2023

Reversing_Landmark_Abomination_Cases

Statement of Fact #10 of 12:

==

Navigation menu

Find

Browse

This page

Tools