Available for a suggested donation of $7.00.
|
|
|
|
|
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.
The Fourteenth Amendment, the second of three postbellum reconstruction amendments, was adopted on July 9, 1868.
The first thing usually heard from the patriot community regarding the Fourteenth Amendment is that it was never constitutionally ratified. While this appears to be true, the patriot community needs to come to grip with the fact that all of their clamoring regarding the veracity of the Fourteenth Amendment has made no difference whatsoever and never will. The Constitution (and those who promote it) is incapable of correcting the Fourteenth Amendment’s unconstitutionality.
Because all of the States have now accepted the Fourteenth Amendment, it is, for all practical purposes, constitutional:
…by 2003, the amendment had been ratified by all of the 37 states that were in the Union in 1868.1
We are saddled with the Fourteenth Amendment (and the entire Constitution ) until we get rid of it on biblical terms. If you claim to be a Christian,2 your concern should not be that this Amendment was constitutionally ratified but that it is biblical. If it is not biblical, does it matter whether it is Constitutional?
Citizenship
Section 1, cited in more judicial decisions than any other Constitutional section, provides the Constitution’s definition for citizenship and was specifically intended to provide citizenship to the African slaves freed by Amendment 13:
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law or a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote.3
In addition to providing citizenship to blacks, the Fourteenth Amendment made citizenship contingent upon birth or naturalization instead of a Christian profession. Gary North equates this with the “two wings of the Enlightenment” and humanism:
The two wings of the Enlightenment, Scottish empiricism and French a priori rationalism, both proclaimed a new concept of citizenship: citizenship without a required profession of faith in the God of the Bible. It was this new concept of citizenship which was ratified into law in the United States in 1788.4
Humanists have written civil covenants (constitutions) that make citizenship the product of physical birth or of a State adoption (“naturalized citizenship”) rather than citizenship by ritual subordination to the God of the Bible.5
This contrasts with what we find in 17th-century America. In the Massachusetts Bay Colony, for example, an adult male became a citizen of the Colony by covenant with the church, that is, by profession of faith in Yeshua (Jesus’ given Hebrew name6), His blood-atoning sacrifice, and resurrection from the grave. In other words, the Puritans’ earthly citizenship was indistinguishable from their heavenly citizenship:
In 1637 the General Court passed an order prohibiting anyone from settling within the [Massachusetts Bay] colony without first having his orthodoxy approved by the magistrates…. John Winthrop was bold and clear in defense of the order. Here was a community formed by free consent of its members. Why should they not exclude dangerous men, or men with dangerous thoughts.7
…Massachusetts Bay had made several drastic modifications of English law (for example, in the criteria of church-membership and hence of citizenship)….8
…no one could be a “freeman” of the colony unless he had been admitted to the church. And only “freemen” could vote or hold office.9
North clarifies that “Without formal church membership, he was merely a town resident, not a citizen.”10
In the History of the United States, John Clark Ridpath attested to the same criteria for citizenship in New Haven, Connecticut:
In June of 1639 the leading men of New Haven held a convention in a barn, and formally adopted the Bible as the constitution of the State. Everything was strictly conformed to the religious standard. The government was called the House of Wisdom… None but church members were admitted to the rights of citizenship.11
This was also known as citizenship by covenant, as elaborated by R.J. Rushdoony:
In Biblical law, neither equalitarianism nor an oligarchy have any standing. God as the source of law established the covenant as the principle of citizenship. Only those within the covenant are citizens. The covenant is restrictive in terms of God’s law…. The throne being the ark in the tabernacle, and the tabernacle being also the central place of atonement, membership in the nation-civil and in the nation-ecclesiastical were one and the same. Citizenship rested on faith. Apostasy was treason. The believing alien had some kind of access to the sanctuary (II Chron. 6:32-33), at least for prayer, but this act did not give him citizenship... Now in all of this one thing is certainly absolutely clear: there is no equalitarianism here. There is an obvious discrimination and distinction made which no straining can eliminate….
…a restrictive membership or citizenship was a part of the practice of Israel by law.
…Equalitarianism is modern politico-religious concept: it did not exist in the Biblical world, and it cannot with any honesty be forced onto Biblical law. Equalitarianism is a product of humanism, of the worship of a new idol, man, and a new image carved out of man’s imagination. As a standard in religion, politics, and economics it is a product of the modern era; to read it into the Biblical faith is to do violence to Scripture and to be guilty of dishonesty.12
The Apostle Paul validates this covenantal, tribal citizenship:
…my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises. (Romans 9:3-4)13
Rushdoony continued:
The term “congregation of the LORD” [in Deuteronomy 23:1-3] applies both to Israel as a nation and Israel as a church. The requirement of membership in both covenant nation and “church” were the same: faith, and obedience to the covenant law….
This fact of covenant citizenship is one of the most far-reaching facts of history, in that it involved a radical break with all other ideas of citizenship. The city-state and the nation-state of antiquity had a religious character, in that the political order was the basic religious unit.14
Of course, all political orders have a religious character, if not Christian then non-Christian. (See Chapter 3, “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YHWH” for a more thorough discussion proving that all governments are in fact theocracies.)
Under biblical law, in some instances, criminals lose their citizenship, become covenantal strangers, and are sometimes banished from the land (Numbers 15:29-30, etc.):
Under the Biblical influence, most countries have ruled that criminals lose their citizenship, and condemned men have no legal existence.15
Citizenship by birth is but more evidence that the United States Constitutional Republic is a different form of government from the one established in the Bible and in 17th-century America. Biblical and 17th-century American citizenship was based upon one’s second birth (John 3:3-5, 2 Corinthians 5:17 with Romans 6:3-4).16
Not only is the second birth the means to full-fledged New Covenant Kingdom citizenship, it is also foundational to leadership in Yahweh’s17 government. (See Chapter 5, “Article 2: Executive Usurpation,” for a list of biblical leadership qualifications.)
Dual Citizenship
Although the Apostle Paul (in the spirit of Matthew 10:16, being “wise as serpents”) took advantage of his Roman citizenship in some ticklish situations, dual citizenship inevitably leads to a choice of one kingdom over the other kingdom, which is equivalent to a choice of one king over another king:
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other…. (Matthew 6:24)
And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he [Pilate] saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priest answered, We have no king but Caesar. (John 19:14-15)
The consequence of today’s Christian Constitutionalists’ ambivalence is prefigured in the Judahites’ choice of Caesar over Yeshua.
The following passages reveal that Yahweh expects our loyalty to Him and to His kingdom and, therefore, only to governments that represent His kingdom and His laws here on earth (a description of neither our government today nor the Constitutional Republic of the 18th century):
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. (Romans 12:1-2)
In Matthew 7:21-23, the will of God is contrasted with anomia (lawlessness, “iniquity” in the KJV). For any man or group of men to fulfill Romans 12:1-2, they must individually and corporately pursue Yahweh’s kingdom laws.
For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things. For our citizenship is in heaven…. (Philippians 3:18-20, NASB)
Although our citizenship resides in the heavenly kingdom from where our King reigns over heaven and earth, our heavenly citizenship, at this time, requires we pursue and advance His kingdom here on earth.
Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier. (2 Timothy 2:3-4)
Any government that is not an extension of Yahweh’s government and does not promote His laws as the supreme law of the land is a competing and hostile kingdom that does not deserve our allegiance.
Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. (James 4:4)
The previous passages are often wrongly interpreted as authorizing, even encouraging Christians to opt out of government and other earthy affairs. By such misguided and dangerous teachings Christians have lost dominion of the kingdom. These biblical instructions promote our King’s kingdom instead of man’s kingdoms. Citizenship in heaven, as depicted by Paul in Philippians 3:20, is not meant to remove Christians from the political arena. Instead, Paul was describing citizenship in the Kingdom of heaven applied here on earth (Matthew 6:10, 33, etc.). While here on earth, Christians are supposed to be Yahweh’s ambassadors (2 Corinthians 5:20), representing, promoting, and advancing His kingdom (2 Corinthians 10:4-6).
Jurisdiction
Citizenship is ultimately determined by the laws a person keeps (Matthew 7:21-23), and therefore it is determined by the jurisdiction to which he submits himself:
Citizenship, of course, does not exist by nature; it is created by law, and the identification of citizens has always been considered an essential aspect of sovereignty…. Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution, with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. …there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. …during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the new language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the U.S. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits; but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, rose to support his colleague, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard interjected, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or American courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.
Consider as well that in 1868, the year the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, Congress passed the Expatriation Act. This act permitted American citizens to renounce their allegiance and alienate their citizenship. This piece of legislation was supported by Senator Howard and other leading architects of the Fourteenth Amendment, and characterized the right of expatriation as “a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”18
Exclusive allegiance applies as much, in fact more, to citizenship in Yahweh’s kingdom as it does to citizenship in the United States. While tenaciously defending one’s loyalty to Yahweh, selective allegiance can and should be applied to any government in power wherever it is in compliance with Yahweh’s laws.
Due Process of Law
Amendment 14 prohibits the United States government from depriving its citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process of “law.” But, at the same time, this clause allows government to deprive its citizens of life, liberty, and property by due process of “law.” Yahweh’s law allows biblical government to deprive a person of his life and liberty – but not his property.
All the earth belongs to Yahweh. He has given it to man to steward, but never to be permanently sold or confiscated:
…all the earth is mine. (Exodus 19:5)
The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine…. (Leviticus 25:23)
Under Yahweh’s law, every fifty years all leased land was to be returned to its rightful owners:
In the year of this jubilee ye shall return every man unto his possession. (Leviticus 25:13)
Because taxation demonstrates ownership, Yahweh’s law does not provide for government to tax and thereby confiscate land. Conversely, Amendment 14 empowers the United States Constitutional Republic to confiscate private land when, among other reasons, property taxes are not paid. In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment essentially made legal what King Ahab did to Naboth when he stole his vineyard (1 Kings 21:1-16). The only difference is the United States Constitutional Republic has done so on a comprehensive scale. (I will address property tax and other unbiblical taxes in Chapter 25, when addressing Amendment 16.)19
Under America’s current ungodly tax system, land “owners” are temporary tenants who may be removed whenever the “laws of the land” are brought into effect. This is made abundantly clear in Senate Document 43 of the Congressional Record of the 73rd Congress:
The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and that use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State. (Senate Document 43, Page 9, April 1933)
Senate Document 43 sounds all too similar to another government’s immoral land laws:
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. (Communist Manifesto, Plank Number 1, 1848)
The land, its mineral wealth, waters, forests … are state property…. (Article 6, Constitution of the USSR, 1936)
State-Mandated Polytheism
In several cases, the Supreme Court has employed the Due Process Clause and applied most of the “privileges or immunities” enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the states, including the First Amendment’s prohibition against any favored religion. David Barton, founder of Wallbuilders, explains:
In Everson [v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)], the Court took the Fourteenth Amendment (which dealt with specific State powers) and attached to it the First Amendment’s federal provision that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The result of merging these two Amendments was twofold: first, the court reversed the bedrock constitutional demand that the First Amendment pertain only to the federal government; second, the court declared that federal courts were now empowered to restrict not only the religious activities of the federal government but also those of States and individuals as well.20
In other words, thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment, all fifty States are now as polytheistic as the federal government. Many states were officially polytheistic long before the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified:
The constitution of South Carolina adopted in 1778 declared that the “Christian Protestant religion” was the “established religion” of that state; but that was modified in 1790, so as to secure freedom and prevent discrimination or preference in worship or religion. …the constitution of Delaware of the same year made every official subscribe to a confession of faith; but that was abrogated sixteen years afterwards, and equal protection was extended to all sects. …the several states of New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Virginia, from the first, and later, Maine and Rhode Island of the New England States and every, or nearly every, state admitted into the Union after the organization of the federal government, expressly secured, in effect in their respective state constitutions, the equal freedom of every religious sect, organization, and society, with a guaranty against preference or discrimination.
State v. District School Board of Edgerton (1890)21
Because none of the states have ever upheld the First Commandment (“Thou shalt have no other gods besides me.”) nor prosecuted its offenders, they were all polytheistic in practice long before 1868. (See Chapter 11, “Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” for more regarding the Constitution’s promotion of polytheism.)
Gregg Singer expounded upon the woeful effects of merging the Fourteenth and First Amendments:
…[as] the result of a series of decisions which re-interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment in such a way as to give it precedence over the first eight amendments and virtually negate the Tenth Amendment, which reserved to the states, or the people thereof, all powers not specifically named in the body of the Constitution to the federal government. These decisions have virtually merged the Bill of Rights with the Fourteenth Amendment, and also particularly the First and Fifth Amendments as they apply to religion, life, liberty, and property.
It was this process of enlarging the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment and reducing the power of the Tenth Amendment which laid the foundation for the alleged power of the courts to re-interpret the rights of the states in the areas of religion in the schools, capital punishment, abortion, and related matters.22
Barton’s and Singer’s concerns are well-founded. However, their concerns do not change the fact that Everson and other similar Supreme Court decisions are now, in effect, Constitutional law, made so by Constitutional judiciaries – that is, until overturned by a future Supreme Court decision. This is unlikely to occur because in Abington School District v. Schempp, we find that the Supreme “court … decisively settled that the First Amendment’s mandate that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ has been made wholly applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Later it said, “The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the States as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws.”23 Consequently, our only option to defeat the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court’s abuse thereof is to eventually rid ourselves of the entire fault-filled, unscriptural Constitution and replace it with Yahweh’s perfect laws.
Infanticide
In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Due Process Clause was employed to ensure the right of married couples to use birth-control devices. It was also cited by Justice Harry Blackmun in Roe v. Wade (1973), legalizing infanticide:
…right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.24
In his concurring statement, Justice Potter Stewart also referred to the Fourteen Amendment:
Clearly, therefore, the Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is evident that the Texas abortion statute infringes that right directly. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more complete abridgment of a constitutional freedom than that worked by the inflexible criminal statute now in force in Texas.25
Consequently, infanticide has been made legal by Constitutional law in a Constitutional court. This could not have occurred if we were living by Yahweh’s laws.26 Constitutionalists do not have the liberty to pick and choose what Constitutional laws they support. If you promote the Constitution, its three branches of government, and its amendment process, you have to take all of it, including the Fourteenth Amendment and its extant judicial decisions, including Roe v. Wade. Consequently, to promote the Constitution is to promote infanticide.
Equal Protection Under the Law
Amendment 14’s Equal Protection Clause became the means by which the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) dismantled racial segregation in the United States:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 [by means of the Fourteenth Amendment] made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity in “public accommodations,” such as restaurants, hotels, and theaters, even though these businesses might be owned privately. Prior to 1964, prevailing law held that the owner of a business had the right to serve whom he chose….27
In other words, collective racial rights now trump personal privacy rights. Although Fox News analyst John Stossel appears to condemn all segregation as racist and bigoted, he recognizes that government went too far as it concerns private rights:
I said this: “Private businesses ought to get to discriminate….” The controversy started when Rand Paul, who had just won a senatorial primary, told TV talker Rachel Maddow that the part of the Civil Rights Act that bans discrimination by private business is improper interference with property owners’ rights….
Individuals should be surrounded by a sphere of privacy where government does not intrude. Part of the Civil Rights Act violates freedom of association. That’s why I told Fox’s Megyn Kelly, “It’s time now to repeal that part of the law.”
America’s fundamental political philosophy has deteriorated quite a bit if we can’t distinguish between government and private conduct….
I just don’t trust government to decide what discrimination is acceptable…. Today, because of government antidiscrimination policy, all-women gyms are sued and forced to admit men, a gay softball team is told it may not reject bisexuals and a Christian wedding photographer is fined thousands of dollars for refusing to take photos of a homosexual wedding.28
Segregation vs. Integration
Amendment 14 overturned Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that people of African descent were not entitled to United States citizenship or Constitutional rights:
The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights and privileges, and immunities, guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen?...
They [Africans] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word “citizens” in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which the instrument provides and secures to citizens of the United States….29
This agreed with what, at the time, was the Constitutional position, as provided in “An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” by the First Federal Congress of the United States of America on March 26, 1790:
BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, that any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them….30
Although, as we will see, both Dred Scott and this act of Congress comport with Yahweh’s law, they did not acknowledge Yahweh’s law as their source and authority, and thus were merely men’s opinions. Consequently, they were easily overturned by later man-made judicial decisions (Brown vs. Board of Education) and Amendment 14, as per Article 5’s amendment process.
The Militia Act of 1792 also pointed to white male citizenship:
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, that each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years … shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia….31
Had America held to the stipulations of this militia act, the November 5, 2009, Fort Hood massacre (in which 13 people were killed and 30 others wounded) at the hands of Muslim Major Nidal Malik Hasan would have never occurred. In other words, Amendment 1 (which provided for non-Christian citizenship) and Amendment 14 (which provided for non-white citizenship) are both at fault for what occurred that fateful day.
Since Brown v. Board of Education, most people have been convinced that all integration is a good thing, but this only further proves our departure from Yahweh’s laws. Being politically correct has become more important than being biblically correct – even to many people claiming to be Christians – even to some who claim to be pronomian Christians. The following passages all demonstrate that Yahweh generally intends His people to live separately:
For wherein shall it be known here that I [Moses] and thy people [Israel] have found grace in thy sight? Is it not in that thou goest with us? So shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth. (Exodus 33:16)
But I have said unto you [Israel], … I am YHWH32 your God, which have separated you from other people. (Leviticus 20:24)
… lo, the people [of Israel] shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations. (Numbers 23:9)
When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. (Deuteronomy 32:8)
Israel then shall dwell in safety alone…. (Deuteronomy 33:28)
For they [the Israelites] be thy people, and thine inheritance…. For thou didst separate them from among all the people of the earth, to be thine inheritance…. (1 Kings 8:51-53)
Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations…. For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands. (Ezra 9:1-2)
And the seed of Israel separated themselves from all strangers…. (Nehemiah 9:2)
And [Yahweh] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation. (Acts 17:26)
Resident aliens (foreign slaves, etc.) and temporary foreign sojourners (immigrant laborers, etc.) are two exceptions to this important First and Seventh Commandments’ statute. (See Chapter 22, “Amendment 13: Constitutional Slavery” for more regarding biblical slavery versus constitutional slavery.) Open borders are not only oxymoronic but also unbiblical. Even most of America’s current legal immigration laws are biblically unlawful.
The Prophets Isaiah and Hosea describe one of the consequences of integration:
…your land, strangers devour it in your presence…. (Isaiah 1:7)
Ephraim, he hath mixed himself among the people; Ephraim is a cake not turned. Strangers have devoured his strength, and he knoweth it not…. (Hosea 7:8-9)
This was, in part, a consequence of Yahweh’s divorcing the house of Israel and dispersing/integrating her with other nations, by which she lost her identity (Hosea 2:6, 4:6 etc.). Egalitarians (non-Christians and Christians alike) would have us believe that integration (which always results in pluralistic multiculturalism) is a good thing. However, the integration of Israel with other nations was a judgment not a reward:
If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, YHWH thy God…. And it shall come to pass, that as YHWH rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so YHWH will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it. And YHWH shall scatter [integrate] thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone. And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but YHWH shall give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind: And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life. (Deuteronomy 28:58-66)
Therefore thou [Yahweh] hast forsaken thy people the house of Jacob, because … they please themselves in the children of strangers. (Isaiah 2:6)
If one didn’t know better, he would think Hosea 7:8-9 had been written about America, at least since 1965 when “immigration quotas that favored Europeans were altered.”33 (See Chapter 22, “Amendment 13: Constitutional Slavery” for more regarding this quote and its implications concerning unfettered immigration.) The consequences of breaking Yahweh’s laws do not change. R.J. Rushdoony pointed out one of those consequences:
Segregation or separation is thus a basic principle of Biblical law with respect to religion and morality. Every attempt to destroy this principle is an effort to reduce society to its lowest common denominator.34
Rushdoony’s comments regarding civil rights groups are also apropos:
The law has often been used as an ostensible weapon to gain equality, but such attempts represent either self-deception or an attempt to deceive by the group in power. The “civil rights” revolutionary groups are a case in point. Their goal is not equality but power. The background of Negro culture is African and magic, and the purposes of magic are control and power over God, man, nature, and society. Voodoo, or magic, was the religion and life of America Negroes [unless converted to Christianity].Voodoo songs underlie jazz, and old voodoo, with its power goal, has been merely replaced with revolutionary voodoo, a modernized power drive.35
This power drive is also evident in the Hispanic anti-American La Raza (The Race) movement. The same is true of Islam. Europe has been all but taken over by Muslims.
At the time the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution, segregation was commonly practiced. “The gallery of the U.S. Senate was itself segregated by race during the debate of the Equal Protection Clause.”36 Twenty-eight years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and fifty-eight years before Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court, in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), ruled that state-mandated segregation did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and that the states could enforce segregation, provided similar facilities were afforded people of different races. This is what was known as the “separate but equal” doctrine and was more biblically compatible than was Brown v. Board of Education.
Today’s politically correct, “racially sensitive” society would be aghast if such legislation were proposed today. It would be condemned as racist and hateful. It would be well for anyone so inclined to consider the following from the Plessy court:
We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff’s argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.
…Legislation is powerless to eradicate racial instincts or to abolish distinctions based upon physical differences, and the attempt to do so can only result in accentuating the difficulties of the present situation.37
Although Section 1’s provision for equal citizenship (and thus unqualified racial integration at all levels of society) is not biblical, its stipulation for equal protection under the law is biblical:
…the predominant fact in Israel was one-law for all, irrespective of faith or national origin, that is, the absolute requirement of justice for all without respect of persons…. Equalitarianism is a modern politico-religious concept: it did not exist in the Biblical world and it cannot with any honesty be forced onto Biblical law. Equalitarianism is a product of humanism….38
God’s law has established the foundational principle of all civil rights: one civil law code for all residents. Not just one law for all citizens; one law for all residents. This is what distinguished ancient Israel from all other pagan societies. Pagan societies did not give non-citizens full legal access to their civil courts. Strangers therefore had no civil rights….
In Israel, everyone had equal access to the civil courts, for everyone was under the same civil law…. But the concomitant to this extraordinary civil liberty was political discrimination: the resident alien could not … serve as a civil judge [or own land permanently inside the nation39].40
Yahweh demands legislative and judicial equity for Israelites and non-Israelites alike:
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. (Exodus 12:49)
But the seventh day is the sabbath of YHWH thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gate. (Exodus 20:10)
And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you: For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before YHWH. (Leviticus 16:29-30)
Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you. (Leviticus 18:26)
…thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. (Leviticus 20:2)
And he that blasphemeth the name of YHWH, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of YHWH, shall be put to death. And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast. And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death. Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am YHWH your God. (Leviticus 24:16-22)
One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your generations: as ye are, so shall the stranger be before YHWH. One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you. (Numbers 15:15-16)
Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them. But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth YHWH; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. (Numbers 15:29-30)
These six cities shall be a refuge, both for the children of Israel, and for the stranger, and for the sojourner among them: that every one that killeth any person unawares may flee thither. (Numbers 35:15)
And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment…. (Deuteronomy 1:16-17)
Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger, fatherless, and widow. And all the people shall say, Amen. (Deuteronomy 27:19)
These magnanimous laws were an exception to how other nations treated strangers:
The principle of equal justice was not universally practiced in the ancient Near East. In the code of Hammurabi and other Mesopotamian legal traditions, for example, people are classified as priests, citizens, two lower-class groups (mushkenum and khupshu), and slaves. Penalties for the same crime differed depending on one’s social or class status. Furthermore, aliens are not even mentioned as a legally protected group of individuals in the law codes.41
Equal justice under Yahweh’s law requires non-Israelites residing or sojourning in Israel’s land to be taught Yahweh’s law:
When all Israel is come to appear before YHWH thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing. Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear YHWH your God, and observe to do all the words of this law. And that their children, which have not known any thing, may hear, and learn to fear YHWH your God…. (Deuteronomy 31:11-13)
Then Joshua built an altar unto YHWH God of Israel in mount Ebal…. And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel. And all Israel, and their elders, and officers, and their judges, stood on this side the ark and on that side before the priests the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of YHWH, as well the stranger, as he that was born among them … as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded before, that they should bless the people of Israel. And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings and cursings, according to all that is written in the book of the law. There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that were conversant [walking] among them. (Joshua 8:30-35)
Conveying Yahweh’s laws to strangers is important because it makes them cognitively accountable to the law while abiding in Israel’s land. Entry conditions could require incoming strangers to acknowledge and agree to pertinent laws before being granted permission to even enter the country.
Although Yahweh’s law provides for equal justice under His law, there are exceptions to equal application of some of them: Deuteronomy 15:3 excludes non-resident foreigners from the sabbatical year release. Deuteronomy 17:15 prohibits non-Israelites from ruling over Israelites. Deuteronomy 23:20 permits usury loans to non-Israelites, and Leviticus 25:44-46 provisionally allows for non-Israelites to be taken as permanent slaves. (See Chapter 22, “Amendment 13: Constitutional Slavery” for more regarding biblical slavery versus constitutional slavery.)
Biblical Discrimination
Equal justice and equal status are not the same thing. That Yahweh chose one people above others is made clear throughout the Bible. Among other endearing terms, the Israelites are identified as Yahweh’s inheritance and the apple of His eye:
For YHWH’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance. He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling wilderness; he led him about, he instructed him, he kept him as the apple of his eye. (Deuteronomy 32:9-10)
Yahweh’s special relationship with Israel is made especially clear in the following passages that identify the Israelites as His special treasure and possession:
Now therefore, if ye will obey my [Yahweh’s] voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure [own possession, NASB] unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. (Exodus 19:5-6)
For thou art an holy people unto YHWH thy God: YHWH thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. (Deuteronomy 7:6)
…thou art an holy people unto YHWH thy God, and YHWH hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself [a people for His own possession, NASB], above all the nations that are upon the earth. (Deuteronomy 14:2)
And YHWH hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people [treasured possession, NASB], as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments; and to make thee high above all nations which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto YHWH thy God, as he hath spoken. (Deuteronomy 26:18-19)
And what one nation in the earth is like thy people, even like Israel, whom God went to redeem for a people to himself, and to make him a name, and to do for you great things and terrible, for thy land, before thy people, which thou redeemedst to thee from Egypt, from the nations and their gods? For thou hast confirmed to thyself thy people Israel to be a people unto thee for ever: and thou, YHWH, art become their God. (2 Samuel 7:23-24)
For YHWH hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure. (Psalm 135:4)
These passages are descriptive of Yahweh’s marital relationship with the Israelites:
And YHWH said … Israel … I am married unto you…. (Jeremiah 3:11-14)
Exodus 19:5-6 is Yahweh’s marriage proposal to the nation of Israel. (See Chapter 2, “The Kingdom: Yesterday, Today, and Forever,” for a more thorough discussion regarding Yahweh’s marriage to Israel.)
Rushdoony explains this partiality in the following fashion:
The principle of “one law” for all is basic to Biblical law. On the other hand, there is a definite partiality to the Biblical law. In instances too numerous to cite, God “intervenes” in history to overthrow the enemies of His covenant people; the weather is used; plague is used, and a variety of means, from the plagues against Egypt on. Moreover, the law as given to Israel is partial in that it protects an order, God’s law-order, and the people of that order.42
Rushdoony’s point that “there is a definite partiality to the Biblical law” is established throughout the Bible, particularly in the following passages:
Moses commanded us a law, even the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob. (Deuteronomy 33:4)
He [Yahweh] sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye YH. (Psalm 147:19-20)
…my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law…. (Romans 9:3-4)
This is just as true for physical Israelites (at least a redeemed remnant) under the New Covenant as it was for those under the Old Covenant:
Behold, the days come, saith YHWH, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith YHWH. But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith YHWH, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Jeremiah 31:31-33)
Although, the New Covenant was made with one nation of people, from the houses of Israel and Judah, it is nonetheless a covenant of grace. The New Covenant was Yahweh’s means of fulfilling His prophecies (Hosea 1 and 2, etc.), in which He promised to remarry a remnant of physical Israel (Isaiah 10:20-22, 11:11, 16; Romans 9:25-27, 11:5, etc.). The recipients of these prophecies have not changed under the New Covenant. Instead, the New Testament reveals these prophecies were realized in Israel, just as prophesied.
Yahweh’s election of one people for this special relationship does not nullify it as an act of grace and mercy. The claim that Hebrews 8:8-10 is racist is baseless. Yahweh’s New Covenant with Israel is a covenant of grace:
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:5-9)
In Ephesians 2:11, the ethne (Greek for “nations” or “peoples”; poorly translated “Gentiles”) are often misidentified as non-Israelites. Most people are unaware that Ephesians 2, like Romans 11, is fulfillment of several Old Testament prophecies regarding the reunion of the house of Israel with the house of Judah via Yeshua’s blood-atoning sacrifice and resurrection from the grave.43
Equal justice under Yahweh’s law is not the same as equal status under the law, particularly as it pertains to citizenship and ecclesiastical and civil leadership. (Civil leadership will be addressed more thoroughly in Chapter 24 “Amendment 15: Color-Blind Voting”.)
Identifying Israel
Few people today recognize that like the Old Covenant, the New Covenant was made exclusively with Israelites. It could not be stated more clearly:
…Behold the days come [reckoned from Jeremiah’s day, Jeremiah 31:31-33], saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant [in effect since the death of Yeshua, Hebrews 9:14-17] with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (Hebrews 8:8-9)
This prophecy is not about an alleged “spiritual Israel” out of all nations but a spiritual remnant out of the nation of Israel.44 Verse 9 depicts the New Covenant beneficiaries as the physical descendants of those whom Moses led out of Egypt, from both houses of Israel. Try as some might, Israelites in this passage cannot be spiritualized into someone other than the descendants of the original twelve tribes.
There is no Bible passage that declares the New Covenant was made with anyone but Israel, albeit non-Israelites may become proselytes. This is because the New Covenant was a marital covenant with redeemed Israelites (1 Peter 1:1-3, 2:9-10) in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies (Isaiah 10:20-22, 11:11, 16; Hosea 1 & 2, etc.).45
Because this is true and because, like the Old Covenant, the New Covenant discriminates on behalf of Israel, it is imperative to correctly identify today’s Israelites. Go back and read Hebrew 8:8. The historical record does not lie. Consider which people have been most responsive to New Covenant salvation for the past 2,100 years and it should become evident who today’s Israelites are – unless, of course, Yahweh has not been true to His promise in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8.
Either the Celtic, Germanic, Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon, and related peoples (hereafter Celto-Saxons) comprise Israel, or Yahweh has not been true to His Word. Because Yahweh is always true to His Word (Numbers 23:19; Isaiah 14:24, 27; 46:11; 55:11; Ezekiel 24:14; Hebrews 6:18), He has made the New Covenant with Israelites. On a map, draw circles around the land masses in which true Christianity has flourished for the past two millennia, and your circles will encompass those nations primarily composed of Celto-Saxons.
In a book entitled Contending for the Constitution, following the heading “Christian Influence Spreads West,” authors Mark A. Beliles and Douglas S. Anderson wonder why Yahweh sent the gospel to the West and not to the East:
For whatever reason, God clearly intended that His message be directed toward the West. In the book of Acts, chapter 16, verses 6-10, the apostle kept seeking to take the message of Christ to the East into Asia, but he was forbidden to do so by the Holy Spirit. Instead, Paul received a vision in which he was led to understand that God’s purpose was for Paul to go west into Europe…. From this point forward, the Gospel would make an external impact on societies that lay toward the West. Paul made plans to go to Italy and then on to Spain in obedience to this westward calling of God. As a result, the flame of liberty would spread west to many locations in Europe, before it would be carried across the Atlantic to America.46
Why did the gospel go west? It was not by mistake or even chance - nothing Yahweh does is by mistake or chance. It was by providence, by prophecy (Jeremiah 31:31), and by covenant that the gospel went west. It went west because Yahweh’s word never fails and because the peoples of the West, namely the Celto-Saxons are Israelites.
Over the last two thousand years, it has been predominately Celto-Saxons who have embraced New Covenant Christianity and who have been most responsive to Yeshua’s call to salvation. Other nations, in fact, would be oblivious to Christianity had it not been for the Celto-Saxons’ proliferation of the gospel message. Only the Celto-Saxons fulfill the dozens of other biblical markers for Israel. Additionally, some fourteen hundred Assyrian cuneiform tablets, recently deciphered, provide some of the names the house of Israel was given or that they assumed during their Assyrian captivity.47 These names have been linked to the Celto-Saxon peoples.48
Here’s a paradox, a paradox, a most ingenious paradox: an anthropological fact, many Christians … have much more Hebrew-Israelite blood in their veins than most of their Jewish neighbors.
Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal, Jr.49
Conversely, today’s Jews do not fit any of the biblical markers and, in fact, they admit in their almanacs, encyclopedias, and historical writings that they are not physical Israelites:
Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a “Jew” or to call a contemporary Jew an “Israelite” or a “Hebrew.”
Jewish Almanac (1980)50
Special Non-Israelite Privileges
That Yahweh chose Israel to be His covenantal wife under both covenants is scripturally incontestable. This does not mean He hates other nations, anymore than a man who loves his wife hates other women. Husbands are to love their wives above other women, and so it should come as no surprise that Yahweh discriminates and loves Israel above other nations.
Although Israel has been given a special relationship with Yahweh, this does not mean Yahweh condones unjustified discrimination. In fact, although non-Israelites do not share the same covenantal rank and citizenship as does Israel, Yahweh holds non-Israelite resident strangers in the same regard as He does the widows, orphans, and poor, for whom He demands special protection:
Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; and my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless. (Exodus 22:21-24)
And the sabbath of the land shall be meat for you; for thee, and for thy servant, and for thy maid, and for thy hired servant, and for thy stranger that sojourneth with thee…. (Leviticus 25:6)
For YHWH your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment. Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. (Deuteronomy 10:17-19)
At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates: And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that YHWH thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest. (Deuteronomy 14:28-29)
Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take a widow’s raiment to pledge…. When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that YHWH thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands. When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow. When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow. (Deuteronomy 24:17-21)
YHWH preserveth the strangers; he relieveth the fatherless and widow…. (Psalm 146:9)
In his book The Immigration Crisis: Immigrants, Aliens, and the Bible, James Hoffmeier sums up these stranger benefits:
… Israel received the moral mandate to love aliens [Leviticus 19:34, Deuteronomy 10:19] who lived in Israel and not to oppress them. This principle is extended in the legal sphere where there was to be equal treatment under the Law. No legal bias toward the [resident] alien was acceptable….
Biblical law made provisions for the alien to receive the same social benefits, such as gleaning rights, that were offered to other needy people in Israel….
…aliens were encouraged to be fully incorporated into the religious life of Israel. They could also participate in offerings and sacrifices, celebrating Passover and observing the Day of Atonement and Sabbath, but the religious restrictions imposed on the Israelites also applied to the alien as well.51
The alien, though not fully a citizen, was included in many of the blessings as well as the obligations of the covenant community … the alien received all the legal protections, social benefits, and religious inclusion offered by the law.52
Rushdoony sheds additional light on the import of these passages:
The law is repeated in Exodus 23:9, with some variation: “Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” Israel was reminded of the discrimination and persecution it experienced in Egypt and asked therefore to beware of placing other men under similar sufferings. …such people are not to be vexed, oppressed, or wronged. The word has reference to specific aggressive and discriminatory acts…. The discrimination forbidden is one of our own making.
Israel was reminded of its own experience in Egypt. The evil in that experience was not their segregation into Goshen: that was a favor and an advantage. The evil was in the oppression and enslavement, in the legal [unlawful] discriminations against them.53
North provides what appears to be Yahweh’s reason for these special provisions for widows, orphans, and strangers:
Why does God single out the widow, the orphan, and the resident alien? They must be representative of a general class of people. If we search for the distinguishing characteristic of all three – their representative feature – we find there is only one: their lack of covenantal representation…. The widow has no husband, the orphan has no parents; the resident alien has no tribe and legal status in the assembly. The first two have no family head above them; the third has no ecclesiastical or judicial place in the hierarchy. No earthly agent speaks for the resident alien in the assembly. No one listens to the widow and orphan. No one has a major cultural incentive to protect them.54
Yahweh permits, even demands, lawful discrimination as it pertains to citizenship and ecclesiastical and civil leadership, but He forbids unlawful discrimination of our own doing.
Sodomite Protection
By promoting the Constitution, Constitutionalists not only invariably promote infanticide but also sodomy. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause was employed by the Supreme Court in Romer vs. Evans (1996) to protect sodomites from what the court felt was unjust discrimination by Amendment 2 of the Colorado State Constitution, which prohibited Colorado courts from recognizing sodomites as a protected class of citizens:
While homosexual groups have fallen short of the goals they seek, such as [national] validation of same-sex marriage, the courts and many state legislatures have consistently held that there can be no legal discrimination aimed at gays and lesbians as a group, and slowly they too are beginning to be more accepted into the social mainstream.55
I suspect the Supreme Court would also consider Leviticus 20:13 (“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death….”) improper discrimination.
Attorneys, litigants, and judges who are for making sodomite marriages legal employ the Constitution as a part of their arguments and decisions:
A federal district court judge in Boston today [July 8, 2010] struck down the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman. Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage law violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the law and upends the federal government’s long history of allowing states to set their own marriage laws.
“This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth [of Massachusetts] to recognize same-sex couples among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of the marital status,” Tauro wrote. “The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act], plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state.”
…Tauro noted that laws barring interracial marriage were once at least as contentious as the current battle over gay marriage….
Attorney General Martha Coakley … argued that the federal law, known as DOMA, violates the Constitution by interfering with the state’s authority to define and regulate the marital status of its residents….
“Today’s landmark decision is an important step toward achieving equality for all married couples in Massachusetts and assuring that all of our citizens enjoy the same rights and protections under our Constitution,” Coakley said in a statement. “It is unconstitutional for the federal government to discriminate…. It is also unconstitutional for the federal government to decide who is married and to create a system of first-and second-class marriages.”56
Although the Supreme Court has yet to rule in favor of sodomite marriages, such a ruling is certainly coming. This, of course, would be impossible if America were living by Yahweh’s laws;
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)57
Section 2
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.58 But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state being of twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 2’s primary purpose was to change the method for apportioning Representatives in Congress. Instead of counting only three-fifths of each state’s slave population (as was previously the case according to Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3), the Fourteenth Amendment provided for every negro citizen to be counted as one whole person. Had Amendment 14 been scriptural, it would have annulled the three-fifths citizenship apportionment rather than adding two-fifths.
This section sets the age of citizenship and, thus, the age of manhood, at twenty-one years. Because the United States was drafting boys of the age of eighteen to fight in Vietnam, the age of citizenship was changed to eighteen by Amendment 26, adopted in 1971. This is but more evidence that both the framers and later congressman either ignored Yahweh’s law altogether or thought they knew better than Yahweh. Yahweh set the age of military service (and thus manhood) at twenty years:
Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls; from twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel…. (Numbers 1:2-3)
Even with two shots at something as simple as the age of manhood, the Constitution could not get it right.
Section 3
No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of president and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid and comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 3 is principally concerned with insurrection and rebellion of public officials against the United States Constitution. Nothing, however, is stated about insurrection and rebellion against Yahweh. Christians should be concerned – in fact, outraged – at the insurrection and rebellion committed against Yahweh and His perfect laws by the framers in the late 1700s and presidents, congressman, and judges ever since the inception of the United States Constitutional Republic.
Which outrages you most: insurrection and rebellion against WE THE PEOPLE and its constitution or insurrection and rebellion against Yahweh and His constitution? If it is the latter, then hopefully you will join the battle in exposing the United States Constitution and its insurrection and rebellion against Yahweh:
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. (Matthew 6:24)
Section 4 & 5
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss of emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be held illegal and void.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Apart from its promotion and protection of the Constitution, nothing in Sections 4 and 5 is biblically pertinent enough to comment upon.
Click Here to Read Chapter 24
Click to order the Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution CDs:
- The e-book (on CD) A Christian Perspective on the U.S. Constitution
- The audio CD The Bible vs. The U.S. Constitution (Pts. 1 & 2)
End Notes
1. “Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>.
2. Not everyone claiming to be a Christian has been properly instructed in the biblical plan of salvation. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-13; and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Yeshua (Jesus’ given Hebrew name) and forgiven of your sins. For a more thorough explanation concerning baptism and its relationship to salvation, the book Baptism: All You Wanted to Know and More may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for free.
3. “Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>.
4. Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989) p. 676.
5. Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990/1997) p. 846.
6. Yeshua is the English transliteration of our Savior’s given Hebrew name. Jesus is the English transliteration of the Greek Iesous, which is the Greek transliteration of the Savior’s Hebrew name Yeshua. For a more thorough explanation concerning the use of the sacred names of God (without resorting to unjustified and unscriptural extremes), “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*
7. Daniel J. Boorstin, The Americans: The Colonial Experience (Norwalk, CT: The Easton Press, 1958/1987) p. 7.
8. Ibid., p. 22.
9. Ibid., p. 25.
10. North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus, p. 393.
11. John Clark Ridpath, History of the United States, 4 vols. (New York, NY: The American Book Company, 1874) vol. 1, p. 181.
12. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) pp. 99-100.
13. All Scripture is quoted from the King James Version, unless otherwise noted. Portions of Scripture have been omitted for brevity. If you have questions regarding any passage, please open your Bible and study the text to ensure it has been properly used.
14. Rousas John Rushdoony, Law and Society (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1982) p. 274.
15. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 90.
16. Not everyone claiming to be “born again” in 1776 had been properly instructed in what is biblically required to be born from above. The same is true today. Colossians 2:11-13 with Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied to understand what is required to be born from above and thereby covered by the blood of Yeshua and forgiven of your sins. For a more thorough explanation concerning baptism and its relationship to salvation, the book Baptism: All You Wanted to Know and More may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for free.
17. YHWH (most often pronounced Yahweh) is the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible. For a more thorough explanation concerning the sacred names of God (without resorting to unjustified and unscriptural extremes), “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*
18. Edward J. Erler, professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, “Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship: Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny,” Imprimis (Hillsdale, MI: Hillsdale College Press, July 2008) pp. 2-3.
19. For a more thorough explanation regarding unbiblical property taxes, “The Eighth Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not steal may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $6 donation.*
20. David Barton, Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion (Aledo, TX: WallBuilders, 1996/2005) p. 17.
21. State v. District School Board of Edgerton (1890), 76 Wis. 117, 44 NW 967, 20 ASR 41, 57.
22. C. Greg Singer, A Theological Interpretation of American History (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964/1981) p 317.
23. Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 215-16 (1963).
24. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
25. Ibid.
26. For a more thorough explanation regarding the biblical injunctions against infanticide, “The Sixth Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not kill may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*
27. International Information Programs, USINFO.STATE.GOV, “Equal Protection Under the Law,” Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights, <http://usinfo.org/zhtw/DOCS/RightsPeople/equal.html>.
28. John Stossel, “Fight Bigotry Without Government,” Townhall.com, 2 June 2010, <http://www.mediaite.com/online/john-stossel-revives-civil-rights-act-debate-to-defend-himself-against-racism-allegations/>.
29. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).
30. The Naturalization Act of 1795, An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…, Archiving Early America, <http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/naturalization/naturalization_text.html>.
31. Militia Act of 1792, Second Congress, Session 1, Chapter XXVIII, 2 May 1792, <http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm>.
32. Where the Tetragrammaton YHWH – the four Hebrew characters that represent the personal name of God – has been unlawfully rendered the LORD or GOD in English translations, I have taken the liberty of correcting this error by inserting YHWH where appropriate. For a more thorough explanation concerning the sacred names of God (without resorting to unjustified and unscriptural extremes), “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*
33. Martin E. Marty, quoted in Tom Heinen, “Scholar sees strength in abundance of faiths,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 26 April 1999.
34. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 294.
35. Ibid., pp. 60-61.
36. “Fourteenth Amendment,” The Free Dictionary, <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fourteenth+amendment>.
37. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, May 1896.
38. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 100.
39. North, Tools of Dominion, p. 676.
40. North, Political Polytheism, p. 72.
41. James K. Hoffmeier, The Immigration Crisis: Immigrants, Aliens, and the Bible (Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books, 2009) p. 77.
42. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 89.
43. For a more thorough explanation regarding the Old Testament prophecies concerning the reunion of the house of Israel with the house of Judah as fulfilled in Romans 11 and Ephesians 2, the book The Mystery of the Gentiles: Who Are They and Where Are They Now? may be read online, or it may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $10 donation.*
44. For a more thorough explanation regarding the false teaching concerning a spiritual Israel out of all nations, the book Spiritual Israel: Out of All Nations or Out of the Nation of Israel? may be read online, or it may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*
45. For a more thorough explanation regarding the Old Testament prophecies concerning Yahweh’s remarriage to a remnant of believing Israelites under the New Covenant, the book The Mystery of the Gentiles: Who Are They and Where Are They Now? may be read online, or it may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 639363, for a suggested $10 donation.*
46. Mark A. Beliles, Douglas S. Anderson, Contending for the Constitution: Recalling the Christian Influence on the Writing of the Constitution and the Biblical Basis of American Law and Liberty (Charlottesville, VA: Providence Foundation, 2005) pp. 81-82.
47. For a more thorough explanation regarding the deciphering of the Assyrian Cuneiform tablets, Missing Links Discovered in Assyrian Tablets by Archeologist Raymond Capt may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $10 donation.*
48. For a more thorough explanation of the ancient Israelites’ genetic affinity with today’s Celto-Saxons, the book The Mystery of the Gentiles: Who Are They and Where Are They Now? may be read online, or it may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 639363, for a suggested $10 donation.*
49. Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal, Jr., What Price Israel (Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery Company, 1953) p. 223.
50. Richard Siegel, Carl Rheins, comp., ed., “Identity Crisis,” The Jewish Almanac (New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1980) p. 3. For more Jewish admissions that they are not Israelites, the book God’s Covenant People: Yesterday, Today and Forever (which provides over 700 documented quotations, many of them from Jewish sources) may be read online, or it may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363 for a suggested $14 donation.*
51. Hoffmeier, p. 96.
52. Ibid., p. 101.
53. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, pp. 530-31.
54. North, Tools of Dominion, pp. 669-70.
55. International Information Programs, USINFO.STATE.GOV, “Equal Protection Under the Law,” Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights, <http://usinfo.org/zhtw/DOCS/RightsPeople/equal.html>.
56. Michael Levenson, “Judge declares US gay marriage ban is unconstitutional,” 8 July 2010, The Boston Globe, <http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/judge_declares_3.html>.
57. For a more thorough explanation regarding the biblical injunctions against sodomy, “The Seventh Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not commit adultery may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $6 donation.*
58. All Indians are now subject to federal taxation.
*We are admonished in Matthew 10:8 “freely ye have received, freely give.” Although we have a suggested a price for our books, we do not sell them. In keeping with 2 Corinthians 9:7, this ministry is supported by freewill offerings. If you cannot afford the suggested price, inform us of your situation, and we will be pleased to provide you with whatever you need for whatever you can send.
Click Here to Read Chapter 24
|
Most Recent Article
Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant
Most Recent Message
The Uncircumcised
Important Books
Visit us on:
|
Printable version.