christians should file a class action suit
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/florida-officials-react-supreme-courts-same-sex-marriage-decision?utm_source=Constant%20Contact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=News%20Alert
Supreme Court violates the U.S. Constitution we must have them impeached
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=980936795291323&id=100001250365576&refid=7&ref=bookmarks&_ft_=qid.6165609593737364467%3Amf_story_key.3083111148259919287%3AeligibleForSeeFirstBumping.&__tn__=%2As
Www.cfabamerica.com
Subject: Amendment 14 – Rights Guaranteed: Amendment 1 – Freedom of expression and religion
Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD
Is a Candidate For U. S. Senate Florida 2018
cfabamerica@gmail.com
Www.calltoduty.org
561-398-9025
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/
The Supreme Court does not have the authority to hear the issue of civil union
http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/06/hidden-camera-gays-admit-theyre-not-born-that-way/
http://borngay.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001359
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2003361
http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/bible-verses-about-love-25-awesome-scripture-quotes/
http://www.openbible.info/topics/judging_others
https://carm.org/christianity-and-homosexuality
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543
http://www.supremecourt.gov/contact/contact_pio.aspx
Clarification; Same-sex Marriage versus Civil Union, Amendment 1 – Freedom of expression and religion – Amendment 14 – Rights Guaranteed:
Amendment 1 – Freedom of expression and religion
On on January 12, 2015 Dr. Tolbert spoke on American statesman talk radio, to listen to issues concerning marriage common core and other vital political policies please download the below blog. In addition the discussion concerning the new political party citizens for a better America.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/americanstatesman/2015/01/13/clarification-same-sex-marriage-vs-civil-union-article-1-amendement
Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD
For United States Senate Florida 2018
(Amendment 14 – Rights Guaranteed:
This article is being written to explain the rights of citizens in United States of America as written in the U.S. Constitution and the enforcement of (Amendment 1) and (Amendment 14). It is important that the reader completely understands both articles prior to reading the reasons Ministers and Religion object to the term (SAME SEX MARRIAGES). There are several scriptures which also should be read in order for the reader to conclude when amendment one has precedence over amendment 14.
The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws”.
A primary motivation for this clause was to validate and perpetuate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all people would have rights equal to those of white citizens. As a whole, the Fourteenth Amendment marked a large shift in American constitutionalism, by applying substantially more constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the Civil War.
(Amendment 14 – Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection)
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 laws
The meaning of the Equal Protection Clause has been the subject of much debate, and inspired the well-known phrase “Equal Justice Under Law”. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision that helped to dismantle racial segregation, and also the basis for many other decisions rejecting discrimination against people belonging to various groups.
The Equal Protection Clause itself applies only to state governments. However, the Supreme Court held in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) that equal protection requirements apply to the federal government through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government
Congress shall (Amendment 1 – Freedom of expression and religion) make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[James Madison speaking]: Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.
Fifthly. That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2 be inserted this clause to wit: No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases. (Annals of Congress, 1:434-435)
Jefferson’s Wall of Separation Letter
Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them, asking why he would not proclaim national days of fasting and thanksgiving, as had been done by Washington and Adams before him. The letter contains the phrase “wall of separation between church and state,” which lead to the short-hand for the term we use today: “Separation of church and state.” Which has no constitutional base.
The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more& more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorized only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed)
Th Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
The Establishment Clause was written by Congressman Fisher Ames in 1789, which derived it from discussions in the First Congress of various drafts that would become the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights. This clause is immediately followed by the Free Exercise Clause, which states:
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
These two clauses make up what are called the “Religion Clauses” of the First Amendment.
The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation respecting an establishment of religion. The second prohibition inherent from this specified prohibition is no preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another; an aim desired by the Founding Fathers necessary to accommodate all of the many denominations in the United States. The Establishment Clause prohibits Congress from preferring or elevating one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government’s entry into religious domain to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.
The above information is provide in order to establish the right of Religion (amendment 1) and its relationship to the Equal Protection Clause (amendment 14)
The reader should note that under (Amendment 1 – Freedom of expression and religion) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. There is no mention of separation of church and state and that Thomas Jefferson coined the phase in 1802 in a letter he wrote. As is in many court cases to include the one allowing same sex marriages under 14 no thought was given to the wording or use of the word marriage verse civil union. (Amendment 14 – Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection. In fact under the courts wrote:
Florida judge allowing same sex marriage rather than upholding U.S. Constitution and also against Florida Constitution, abridging the civil rights of the first amendment, where-as the term marriage goes against religions and he should have use the term civil union.
When (The ruling by Circuit Judge Luis M. Garcia only applied to Monroe County, which primarily consists of the Keys. It was appealed within an hour. The lawsuit contended that the same-sex marriage ban approved overwhelmingly by voters in 2008 violated the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. The judge said licenses could not be issued until Tuesday but the appeal halted that, putting an automatic stay on the ruling.) Now that Florida has become the 36th sate to allow same-sex couples to marry, more than 70 percent of Americans live in jurisdictions that permit such unions. What’s made this possible is a string of supportive federal court rulings following the Supreme Court’s pivotal 2013 decision striking down provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act — the 1996 federal law that denied federal benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples.
Judge Robert Hinkle of Federal District Court in Tallahassee cleared the way for the Florida breakthrough with a New Year’s clarification of an earlier ruling in August in which he declared the state’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional. The clarification said that clerks in all 67 Florida counties were required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The first Florida County to allow same-sex weddings was Miami-Dade, where a state judge, Sarah Zabel, lifted her own temporary injunction, and, fittingly enough proceeded to officially marry two of the six couples who had sued the county over the marriage ban. The rest of the state began legalizing same-sex marriages just after midnight on Tuesday January 05, 2015. All clerk offices agreed to comply with Judge Hinkle’s order, although, disappointingly, some said they would stop performing marriages altogether so that staff members who objected to same-sex unions would not have to officiate them — an infuriating but probably not unconstitutional act of defiance.
In previous paragraphs I wrote marriage, same sex marriage and civil union there are several places in the Bible which defines marriage and because of the religious definition the use of the term same sex marriage verse civil union violates (Amendment 1 – Freedom of expression and religion)
There are over 31 places in the Bible defining marriages, these three are the bases for religions to file suits against the State of Florida and the United States Congress.
In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court in Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp (486 U.S. 847, 869-870) quoted Justice Frankfurter, explaining that the “‘guiding consideration is that the administration of justice should reasonably appear to be disinterested as well as be so in fact.’” Here, appearance and fact are consonant: Justices Ginsburg and Kagan are vested in their same-sex marriage positions. This partiality also raises real concerns of whether the litigants in Obergefell v. Hodges can receive due process from those who have demonstrated bias.
So what can be done about Justices who ignore the ethical standards in violation of the judicial Code of Conduct and who violate a federal statute barring their participation in a “proceeding in which [their] impartiality might reasonably be questioned”? Obviously, there is no court above the U.S. Supreme Court from which discipline may be applied. Nor is there a mechanism by which other justices can vote a biased colleague off a case. Internal policing doesn’t appear to be working in Obergefell v. Hodges, even though a number of justices have previously disqualified themselves from cases in which they have vested interests or have made public comments.
The only answer for justices who blatantly violate their Code of Conduct, federal law, and their oaths of office is impeachment and removal. Regrettably, a Republican-controlled Congress, more concerned about rescuing Obamacare than resisting yet another activist attack on the Constitution, offers little hope. Unless and until Members of Congress demonstrate real fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, no Ruling Class politicos in either party can be trusted, and none should be supported, by those who seek to restore liberty to our nation.
__________________________
Read more: http://joemiller.us/2015/06/former-federal-judge-says-u-s-supreme-court-justices-who-performed-same-sex-marriages-should-recuse-or-be-impeached/#ixzz3dJwxj5Xi
Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him” (Mark 12:17).
Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God with Adam and Eve. Genesis 2:24states: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.”
In Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus reaffirms this: “He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?”
Acts 8:30-31
30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
James 2:10
10-For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God with Adam and Eve. Genesis 2:24states: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.”
In Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus reaffirms this: “He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?”
Citizens for a Better America Inc; CFABANP
CEO
Charles Frederick Tolbert Div.M., Ed.M., Ed.D.
Pastor, Retired MSGT
http://joemiller.us/2015/06/same-sex-marriage-efforts-to-have-justices-ginsburg-and-kagan-recuse-take-a-troubling-turn/?utm_source=JoeMiller.US+List&utm_campaign=f7530755b1-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_065b6c381c-f7530755b1-231311053
In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court in Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp (486 U.S. 847, 869-870) quoted Justice Frankfurter, explaining that the “‘guiding consideration is that the administration of justice should reasonably appear to be disinterested as well as be so in fact.’” Here, appearance and fact are consonant: Justices Ginsburg and Kagan are vested in their same-sex marriage positions. This partiality also raises real concerns of whether the litigants in Obergefell v. Hodges can receive due process from those who have demonstrated bias.
So what can be done about Justices who ignore the ethical standards in violation of the judicial Code of Conduct and who violate a federal statute barring their participation in a “proceeding in which [their] impartiality might reasonably be questioned”? Obviously, there is no court above the U.S. Supreme Court from which discipline may be applied. Nor is there a mechanism by which other justices can vote a biased colleague off a case. Internal policing doesn’t appear to be working in Obergefell v. Hodges, even though a number of justices have previously disqualified themselves from cases in which they have vested interests or have made public comments.
The only answer for justices who blatantly violate their Code of Conduct, federal law, and their oaths of office is impeachment and removal. Regrettably, a Republican-controlled Congress, more concerned about rescuing Obamacare than resisting yet another activist attack on the Constitution, offers little hope. Unless and until Members of Congress demonstrate real fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, no Ruling Class politicos in either party can be trusted, and none should be supported, by those who seek to restore liberty to our nation.
__________________________
Read more: http://joemiller.us/2015/06/former-federal-judge-says-u-s-supreme-court-justices-who-performed-same-sex-marriages-should-recuse-or-be-impeached/#ixzz3dJwxj5Xi
Pastor Charles Frederick Tolbert DivM, EdM, EdD
Retired MSGT
Candidate for U.S. senator Florida 2018
Totally Outrageous……Christians are being banned in America! Will Christians in America ever stand-up?? When will Americans in America stand-up and reject this anti-American culture?? Enough is enough already!!
OIA provides prayer rooms for Muslims – using tax dollars while they refuse to provide a USO Center for American Veterans. Everything for the Muslims….nothing for Christians or American Veterans!
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2014/09/12/chick-fil-a-banned-from-donating-food-to-school-event/
Subject: Amendment 14 – Rights Guaranteed: Amendment 1 – Freedom of expression and religion
Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD
561-398-9025
Powers of the Supreme Court
Article III of the Constitution provides for the establishment of a Judicial branch of the federal government and Section 2 of that article enumerates the powers of the Supreme Court. Here is Section 2, in part:
Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;
to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;
to Controversies between two or more States;
between a State and Citizens of another State;
between Citizens of different States;
between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Feel free to examine the entire text of Article III to assure yourself that no power of Judicial Review is granted by the Constitution.
“Well,” you might say, “someone has to review laws for constitutionality. Why not the Supreme Court?” Some possible answers:
First and foremost, it is not a power granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. When the Supreme Court exercises Judicial Review, it is acting unconstitutionally.
It is a huge conflict of interest. The Federal Government is judging the constitutionality of its own laws. It is a classic case of “the fox guarding the hen house.”
The Constitution’s “checks and balances” were designed to prevent any one branch of government (legislative, executive or judicial) from becoming too powerful and running roughshod over the other branches. There is no such system of checks and balances to protect the states and the people when multiple branches of government, acting in concert, erode and destroy the rights and powers of the states and the people.
Even if the Supreme Court could be counted on to keep the Executive and Legislative branches from violating the Constitution, who is watching the Supreme Court and will prevent the Judicial branch from acting unconstitutionally? Unless you believe that the Supreme Court is infallible (and, demonstrably, it is not), then allowing the Supreme Court to be the sole arbiter of Constitutionality issues is obviously flawed.
Justices are appointed, not elected and may only be removed for bad behavior (which has happened in the distant past but these days, appointment to the Supreme Court is like a lifetime appointment). If the court upholds unconstitutional laws, there is no recourse available. We the People
Www.cfabamerica.com
Www.cfabamerica.com
