The Declaration Speaks for Itself

Paragraph #2, Sentences 6-7

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Grievances #13 & 19

He [Britain’s King George III] has combined with others [members of England’s Parliament] to subject us to ... their Acts of pretended Legislation: ... For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.

The Administration of Justice Act was one of five laws enacted by Britain’s Parliament on May 20, 1774, in response to the Boston Tea Party. It made it possible for American colonials (in particular Massachusetts Bay citizens) to be transported to Great Britain for trial for capital offences.

Bogus Indictments Based On Bogus Legislation

Judicial litigation on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean would be a horrific inconvenience and disruption of life. However, the real issue in this grievance is not so much where court convenes, but rather the moral standard employed. Thomas Jefferson summed it up as “pretended offences” based upon “pretended legislation.”

Any judicial indictment drummed up by any government not based upon the Bible’s triune moral law of liberty—that is, upon Yahweh’s unchanging justice as reflected in His Ten Commandments, statutes, and judgments246—is an instance of a pretended (counterfeit) offence based upon pretended (counterfeit) legislation. Case in point: the bulk of indictments originating from the Constitutional Republic’s Criminal Justice System,247 sired by the Declaration of Independence, and born of the biblically seditious Constitution.

Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed. (Isaiah 10:1)

Regardless whether the government is Great Britain’s, the United States of America’s, or any other nation’s, when the Bible’s moral law is rejected as supreme and thus the standard for all of society, it’s inevitable that evil will be identified as righteousness and righteousness as evil:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter ... because they have cast away the law of Yahweh of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel. (Isaiah 5:20, 24)

In turn, justice will invariably be replaced with injustice:

[Yahweh’s] law is ignored and justice is never upheld. For the wicked surround the righteous; therefore, justice comes out perverted.... (Habakkuk 1:4, NASB)

This is especially true for the Constitutional Republic as a consequence of the framers banning biblical qualifications for its civil leaders, per Article 6’s Christian test ban.248 Would anyone dare dispute that Americans have consequently been surrounded by the wicked, legislating and adjudicating what originates with themselves?

Their justice and authority originate with themselves. (Habakkuk 1:7, NASB)

As King Solomon declared, there’s nothing new under the sun:

United States Constitution, Preamble, Sentence 1: “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to ... establish justice...249

Counterfeit Justice

There’s not a hint in the Constitution that the alleged justice of the Constitutional Republic’s judicial system was to be based upon Yahweh’s morality as codified in the Bible’s perfect law of liberty.

The constitutional framers were not referring to the justice that originates with the God of the Bible, but rather with alleged justice originating with themselves. Otherwise, they would have followed the example of their early 1600s American predecessors249 and, at the very least, cited God’s law upon which justice is predicated.

Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness, who seek Yahweh.... Pay attention to Me, O My people; and give ear to Me ... for a law will go forth from Me, and I will set My justice for a light of the peoples. (Isaiah 51:1, 4, NASB)

As with Britain’s humanistic government, the framers merely established their own form of counterfeit justice adjudicated by tribunals of injustice,250 by which “pretended offences” have been, time and again, leveled against its citizens and non-citizens alike. Except for being shipped across the Atlantic Ocean, this is no different—in fact, it’s become much worse—than what the American colonials endured under King George.

Rather than replacing Britain’s government with a government of, by, and for God, the Declaration’s signatories and Constitution’s framers replaced King George’s government of, by, and, for the people with a different version of the same humanism, resulting in similar counterfeit offences based upon similar counterfeit legislation.

If justice [as can only be determined by God] be taken away, what are governments but great bands of robbers. (Augustine of Hippo, De Civ. Dei, IX:4)

When the constitutional framers disregarded our God’s justice they opened the door for justice to be defined however judges choose to define it based upon their own finite interpretations of the biblically seditious Constitution251 via their own moral (immoral) proclivities. In other words, the Constitution essentially allows “justice” to originate with the judges themselves. In turn, devoid of the Bible’s immutable/unchanging moral standard, with each new round of judges, there’s a strong probability that previous judicial determinations will be overturned.

Constitutionalists believe the superiority of the United States juridical system is demonstrated in that even Supreme Court decisions can be overturned and made right by either future Supreme Court justices or by constitutional amendment. But history has proven the opposite is more likely. Furthermore, the injustices that often occur in the interim between a bad decision and an alleged better decision would seldom, if ever, occur in a biblical court.

Nothing demonstrates this fundamental defect better than Roe v Wade, which constitutionally provided for an endless number of infants to be murdered. While Christian constitutionalists stood by waiting for the Constitutional Republic’s system to correct itself, millions more infants were being murdered.

Even when wrong decisions are overturned, they can be overturned again by a later court. Judicial records expose this capricious tendency of the United States juridical system:

[L]aw not founded upon absolutes is very dangerous to society. Consider that without absolutes, the Supreme Court has reversed itself over 100 separate times!252

The actual number is more than double this figure:

The Court had reversed itself in 219 cases by 2000. Of this total, all but seven instances came after the Civil War. All but 28 came after 1913. Over 60 percent came after 1941. This process is accelerating.253

Judicial “standards now change as rapidly as the Justices. This causes an uncertainty for society; and, in fact, often establishes a dubious standard which, in effect, is no standard at all.”254 Unlike the Bible, the Constitution is not an infallible standard. Returning to a more “pure” constitutionalism is not the answer. The answer is found in returning to Yahweh as America’s Sovereign and His perfect law and altogether righteous judgments as society’s foundational law.

Today’s constitutional courts are, with very few exceptions, tribunals of injustice,255 no different from King George’s courts.

Source Notes

246. For how the Bible’s immutable/unchanging moral law applies today and should be implemented as the law of the land, see Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant at bibleversusconstitution.org/law-kingdomFrame.html.

Also A Biblical Constitution: A Scriptural Replacement for Secular Government at bibleversusconstitution.org/biblicalConstitution.html.

247. Chapter 6 “Article 3: Judicial Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective,
bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt6.html

248. Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective,
bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt9.html

249. Chapter 3 “The Preamble: We the People vs. Yahweh” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective,
bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.html

250. Chapter 6 “Article 3: Judicial Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective,
bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt6.html

251. Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective, in which every Article and Amendment is examined by the Bible,
bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html

See also audio series “Bible Law vs. Constitutionalism,” beginning at bibleversusconstitution.org/tapelist.html#T742.

252. 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) p. 146

253. Gary North, Conspiracy in Philadelphia: The Broken Covenant of the U.S. Constitution (Draper, VA: Nicene Council.com, 2004) p. 278

254. David Barton, Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilder Press, 2005) p. 233

255. Chapter 6 “Article 3: Judicial Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective,
bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt6.html

Click for Chapter 19