They’ve used “separation of church and state” (which doesn’t exist) to prevent Christians from involving Christian mindsets and responses in government. It’s how America has gone from 90-95% Christian to 75-70% (or less) now.

Nothing in the constitution says that Christianity cannot be involved in government. Technically, I think nothing says it can’t be barred from government, either. The only restriction is that no law can be made by the federal congress regarding an establishment of religion - I.e. it’s a one-way separation that applies specifically to the federal congress, and not state or city governments, and not that religion can’t be involved in government at all, which isn’t functionally possible as there is no way to prevent moral frameworks from being involved in what a society sees fit to allow or disallow.

As with Obamacare, Roe v. Wade, and many other items they couldn’t get sufficient numbers to put into law, they end-arounded the need to make a law by having the courts make a ruling and then promoted that ruling as if it were a law, when it’s absolutely not, because the courts can’t create laws - in either statutory or common law context. Worse than Roe, they tricked us into applying a ruling in a lesser court nationwide as if any of the rest of us needed to care what some douche court in Pittsburgh thought in the 1980’s.

Past that, in common law context there have to be damages and an injured party making a claim.

They leveraged a court case that 1. Did not observe equal protection under the law 2. Didn’t have an injured party 3. Was made on a subject that didn’t violate the constitution while claiming it did 4. Violated the constitution in order to make the ruling itself.

Daily Ephesians 6:12 citation.

I’m not 100% on this, but from here, if we could get this re-tried in court in a jury trial, I think it’s possible for juries to nullify both rulings and even legislation. Judges are supposed to convene and manage courts and advise on precedent and reasoning, not be the final say on rulings and what our laws should be. That power lies with the jury, which is where the people get their power from in our form of government.

They’ve used “separation of church and state” (which doesn’t exist) to prevent Christians from involving Christian mindsets and responses in government.

Nothing in the constitution says that Christianity cannot be involved in government. Technically, I think nothing says it can’t be barred from government, either. The only restriction is that no law can be made by the federal congress regarding an establishment of religion - I.e. it’s a one-way separation that applies specifically to the federal congress, and not state or city governments, and not that religion can’t be involved in government at all, which isn’t functionally possible as there is no way to prevent moral frameworks from being involved in what a society sees fit to allow or disallow.

As with Obamacare, Roe v. Wade, and many other items they couldn’t get sufficient numbers to put into law, they end-arounded the need to make a law by having the courts make a ruling and then promoted that ruling as if it were a law, when it’s absolutely not, because the courts can’t create laws - in either statutory or common law context. Worse than Roe, they tricked us into applying a ruling in a lesser court nationwide as if any of the rest of us needed to care what some douche court in Pittsburgh thought in the 1980’s.

Past that, in common law context there have to be damages and an injured party making a claim.

They leveraged a court case that 1. Did not observe equal protection under the law 2. Didn’t have an injured party 3. Was made on a subject that didn’t violate the constitution while claiming it did 4. Violated the constitution in order to make the ruling itself.

Daily Ephesians 6:12 citation.

I’m not 100% on this, but from here, if we could get this re-tried in court in a jury trial, I think it’s possible for juries to nullify both rulings and even legislation. Judges are supposed to convene and manage courts and advise on precedent and reasoning, not be the final say on rulings and what our laws should be. That power lies with the jury, which is where the people get their power from in our form of government.

They’ve used “separation of church and state” to prevent Christians from involving Christianity in government.

Nothing in the constitution says that Christianity cannot be involved in government. Technically, I think nothing says it can’t be barred from government, either. The only restriction is that no law can be made by the federal congress regarding an establishment of religion - I.e. it’s a one-way separation that applies specifically to the federal congress, and not state or city governments, and not that religion can’t be involved in government at all, which isn’t functionally possible as there is no way to prevent moral frameworks from being involved in what a society sees fit to allow or disallow.

As with Obamacare, Roe v. Wade, and many other items they couldn’t get sufficient numbers to put into law, they end-arounded the need to make a law by having the courts make a ruling and then promoted that ruling as if it were a law, when it’s absolutely not, because the courts can’t create laws - in either statutory or common law context. Worse than Roe, they tricked us into applying a ruling in a lesser court nationwide as if any of the rest of us needed to care what some douche court in Pittsburgh thought in the 1980’s.

Past that, in common law context there have to be damages and an injured party making a claim.

They leveraged a court case that 1. Did not observe equal protection under the law 2. Didn’t have an injured party 3. Was made on a subject that didn’t violate the constitution while claiming it did 4. Violated the constitution in order to make the ruling itself.

Daily Ephesians 6:12 citation.

I’m not 100% on this, but from here, if we could get this re-tried in court in a jury trial, I think it’s possible for juries to nullify both rulings and even legislation. Judges are supposed to convene and manage courts and advise on precedent and reasoning, not be the final say on rulings and what our laws should be. That power lies with the jury, which is where the people get their power from in our form of government.

They’ve used “separation of church and state” to prevent Christians from involving Christianity in government.

Nothing in the constitution says that Christianity cannot be involved in government. Technically, I think nothing says it can’t be barred from government, either. The only restriction is that no law can be made by the federal congress regarding an establishment of religion - I.e. it’s a one-way separation that applies specifically to the federal congress, and not state or city governments, and not that religion can’t be involved in government at all, which I any possible. There is no way to prevent moral frameworks from being involved in what a society sees fit to allow or disallow.

As with Obamacare, Roe v. Wade, and many other items they couldn’t get sufficient numbers to put into law, they end-arounded the need to make a law by having the courts make a ruling and then promoted that ruling as if it were a law, when it’s absolutely not, because the courts can’t create laws - in either statutory or common law context. Worse than Roe, they tricked us into applying a ruling in a lesser court nationwide as if any of the rest of us needed to care what some douche court in Pittsburgh thought in the 1980’s.

Past that, in common law context there have to be damages and an injured party making a claim.

They leveraged a court case that 1. Did not observe equal protection under the law 2. Didn’t have an injured party 3. Was made on a subject that didn’t violate the constitution while claiming it did 4. Violated the constitution in order to make the ruling itself.

Daily Ephesians 6:12 citation.

I’m not 100% on this, but from here, if we could get this re-tried in court in a jury trial, I think it’s possible for juries to nullify both rulings and even legislation. Judges are supposed to convene and manage courts and advise on precedent and reasoning, not be the final say on rulings and what our laws should be. That power lies with the jury, which is where the people get their power from in our form of government.

They’ve used “separation of church and state” to prevent Christians from involving Christianity in government.

Nothing in the constitution says that Christianity cannot be involved in government. Technically, I think nothing says it can’t be barred from government, either. The only restriction is that no law can be made by the federal congress regarding an establishment of religion - I.e. it’s a one-way separation that applies specifically to the federal congress, and not state or city governments, and not that religion can’t be involved in government at all, which I any possible. There is no way to prevent moral frameworks from being involved in what a society sees fit to allow or disallow.

As with Obamacare, Roe v. Wade, and many other items they couldn’t get sufficient numbers to put into law, they end-arounded the need to make a law by having the courts make a ruling and then promoted that ruling as if it were a law, when it’s absolutely not, because the courts can’t create laws - in either statutory or common law context. Worse than Roe, they tricked us into applying a ruling in a lesser court nationwide as if any of the rest of us needed to care what some douche court in Pittsburgh thought.

Past that, in common law context there have to be damages and an injured party making a claim.

They leveraged a court case that 1. Did not observe equal protection under the law 2. Didn’t have an injured party 3. Was made on a subject that didn’t violate the constitution while claiming it did 4. Violated the constitution in order to make the ruling itself.

Daily Ephesians 6:12 citation.

I’m not 100% on this, but from here, if we could get this re-tried in court in a jury trial, I think it’s possible for juries to nullify both rulings and even legislation. Judges are supposed to convene and manage courts and advise on precedent and reasoning, not be the final say on rulings and what our laws should be. That power lies with the jury, which is where the people get their power from in our form of government.

They’ve used “separation of church and state” to prevent Christians from involving Christianity in government.

Nothing in the constitution says that Christianity cannot be involved in government. (Technically, I think nothing says it can’t be barred from government, either. The only restriction is that no law can be made by the federal congress regarding an establishment of religion - it’s a one-way separation that applies specifically to the federal congress)

As with Obamacare, Roe v. Wade, and many other items they couldn’t get sufficient numbers to put into law, they end-arounded the need to make a law by having the courts make a ruling and then promoted that ruling as if it were a law, when it’s absolutely not, because the courts can’t create laws - in either statutory or common law context. Worse than Roe, they tricked us into applying a ruling in a lesser court nationwide as if any of the rest of us needed to care what some douche court in Pittsburgh thought.

Past that, in common law context there have to be damages and an injured party making a claim.

They leveraged a court case that 1. Did not observe equal protection under the law 2. Didn’t have an injured party 3. Was made on a subject that didn’t violate the constitution while claiming it did 4. Violated the constitution in order to make the ruling itself.

Daily Ephesians 6:12 citation.

I’m not 100% on this, but from here, if we could get this re-tried in court in a jury trial, I think it’s possible for juries to nullify both rulings and even legislation. Judges are supposed to convene and manage courts and advise on precedent and reasoning, not be the final say on rulings and what our laws should be. That power lies with the jury, which is where the people get their power from in our form of government.

They’ve used “separation of church and state” to prevent Christians from involving Christianity in government.

Nothing in the constitution says that Christianity cannot be involved in government. (Technically, I think nothing says it can’t be barred from government, either. The only restriction is that no law can be made by the federal congress regarding an establishment of religion)

As with Obamacare, Roe v. Wade, and many other items they couldn’t get sufficient numbers to put into law, they end-arounded the need to make a law by having the courts make a ruling and then promoted that ruling as if it were a law, when it’s absolutely not, because the courts can’t create laws - in either statutory or common law context. Worse than Roe, they tricked us into applying a ruling in a lesser court nationwide as if any of the rest of us needed to care what some douche court in Pittsburgh thought.

Past that, in common law context there have to be damages and an injured party making a claim.

They leveraged a court case that 1. Did not observe equal protection under the law 2. Didn’t have an injured party 3. Was made on a subject that didn’t violate the constitution while claiming it did 4. Violated the constitution in order to make the ruling itself.

Daily Ephesians 6:12 citation.

I’m not 100% on this, but from here, if we could get this re-tried in court in a jury trial, I think it’s possible for juries to nullify both rulings and even legislation. Judges are supposed to convene and manage courts and advise on precedent and reasoning, not be the final say on rulings and what our laws should be. That power lies with the jury, which is where the people get their power from in our form of government.

They’ve used “separation of church and state” to prevent Christians from involving Christianity in government.

Nothing in the constitution says that Christianity cannot be involved in government. (Technically, I think nothing says it can’t be barred from government, either. The only restriction is that no law can be made by the federal congress regarding an establishment of religion)

As with Obamacare, Roe v. Wade, and many other items they couldn’t get sufficient numbers to put into law, they end-arounded the need to make a law by having the courts make a ruling and then promoted that ruling as if it were a law, when it’s absolutely not, because the courts can’t create laws - in either statutory or common law context. Worse than Roe, they tricked us into applying a ruling in a lesser court nationwide as if any of the rest of us needed to care what some douche court in Pittsburgh thought.

Past that, in common law context there have to be damages and an injured party making a claim.

They leveraged a court case that 1. Did not observe equal protection under the law 2. Didn’t have an injured party 3. Was made on a subject that didn’t violate the constitution while claiming it did 4. Violated the constitution in order to make the ruling itself.

Daily Ephesians 6:12 citation.

I’m not 100% on this, but from here, if we could get this re-tried in court in a jury trial, I think it’s possible for juries to nullify both rulings and even legislation. Judges are supposed to convene and manage courts and advise on precedent and reasoning, not be the final say on rulings and what our laws should be. That power lies with the jury.

They’ve used “separation of church and state” to prevent Christians from involving Christianity in government.

Nothing in the constitution says that Christianity cannot be involved in government. (Technically, I think nothing says it can’t be barred from government, either. The only restriction is that no law can be made by the federal congress regarding an establishment of religion)

As with Obamacare, Roe v. Wade, and many other items they couldn’t get sufficient numbers to put into law, they end-arounded the need to make a law by having the courts make a ruling and then promoted that ruling as if it were a law, when it’s absolutely not, because the courts can’t create laws - in either statutory or common law context. Worse than Roe, they tricked us into applying a ruling in a lesser court nationwide as if any of the rest of us needed to care what some douche court in Pittsburgh thought.

Past that, in common law context there have to be damages and an injured party making a claim.

They leveraged a court case that 1. Did not observe equal protection under the law 2. Didn’t have an injured party 3. Was made on a subject that didn’t violate the constitution while claiming it did 4. Violated the constitution in order to make the ruling itself.

Daily Ephesians 6:12 citation.

I’m not 100% on this, but from here, if we could get this re-tried in court in a jury trial, I think it’s possible for juries to nullify both rulings and even legislation. Judges are supposed to convene and manage courts, not be the final say on rulings and what our laws should be. That power lies with the jury.

They’ve used “separation of church and state” to prevent Christians from involving Christianity in government.

Nothing in the constitution says that Christianity cannot be involved in government. (Technically, I think nothing says it can’t be barred from government, either. The only restriction is that no law can be made by the federal congress regarding an establishment of religion)

As with Obamacare, Roe v. Wade, and many other items they couldn’t get sufficient numbers to put into law, they end-arounded the need to make a law by having the courts make a ruling and then promoted that ruling as if it were a law, when it’s absolutely not, because the courts can’t create laws - in either statutory or common law context. Worse than Roe, they tricked us into applying a ruling in a lesser court nationwide as if any of the rest of us needed to care what some douche court in Pittsburgh thought.

Past that, in common law context there have to be damages and an injured party making a claim.

They leveraged a court case that 1. Did not observe equal protection under the law 2. Didn’t have an injured party 3. Was made on a subject that didn’t violate the constitution while claiming it did 4. Violated the constitution in order to make the ruling itself.

Daily Ephesians 6:12 citation.