Mixing Politics and Religion | Part 4 | Injustice For All
Alright, well we’re there in Deuteronomy 16. We are continuing the series on “Mixing Politics and Religion”. The sermon today is titled “Injustice For All”. And I’m preaching on the subject about the court systems in America and primarily the Supreme Court. But not only the Supreme Court but also other federal and state courts. And this sermon is probably going to be the most education as far as historical or governmental structures. I’m going to teach you what the Bible says but also what the public school system failed to do and teach you about government properly. I encourage you to fact check everything I preach today. This will come straight from the Bible and what I say about the government is going to be accurate.
I’m preaching on the subject of the Supreme Court. I planned this sermon out way in advance and I didn’t realize it but God knew and the timing is perfectly. This week there has been a nomination for the Supreme Court all over the news. Judge Amy Barrett. She has been going through the nomination for the Supreme Court. I just thought it was interesting how God worked that out. He wanted me to preach on the Supreme Court when it’s all over the news. I didn’t orchestrate that but God must have orchestrated that.
I want to start by way of introduction by explaining that the system of judges is actually a scriptural concept. The concept of having a judge is found in scripture. Turn to Deuteronomy 16. And Deuteronomy is of course part of the law to Israel and the law of the land for that Nation. Deuteronomy 16:18 “18 Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment.”. So notice that God told them that he wanted them to set up judges to judge the people with just judgment. “19 Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.”. Obviously he’s giving some rules here saying “Look, I want you to set up judges but you can’t give gifts to your judges.”. So he’s saying that they can’t try to manipulate them and try to get them to rule in their favor. He says that they have to give just judgment.
Notice verse 20. “20 That which is altogether just shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.”. So notice that judges were actually put in place by God in the Nation of Israel. Another proof of the fact that God instituted judges is that there’s an entire book in the Bible called the book of Judges. And you’ve got the judges who are ruling the Nation of Israel and they are fulfilling this role that God talks about here in Deuteronomy 16. And of course you had different types of judges throughout the Bible as well. With that said, judges are scriptural and the concept of judges are scriptural. What we need to understand is that unjust judges have always existed. Unjust judges have always been. And it’s interesting to me because Jesus actually brings this up in Luke chapter 18.
Now Luke chapter 18 is a parable and the primary application of the parable or purpose of the parable is to teach on prayer. And I want you to understand that. Luke chapter 18 is a parable on prayer. In the parable he uses the example of a judge and he uses the example of an unjust judge. Luke 18:1 “And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;”. So the parable is about praying. Verse 2. “2 Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God,”. So he showed no fear, no reverence or respect for God. “2 Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man:”. The word “regard” means to consider or to care about. He says there was this judge who didn’t fear God and he did not regard man. And you know, Jesus in his parables would often use examples that the people were familiar with and could relate too. He gave examples of a farmer, someone on a journey, someone working in a field.
Here he gives an example of an unjust judge. I think the truth of the matter is that we are all familiar with unjust judges. It wasn’t just in Bible times. Today there are unjust judges all the way from the Supreme Court down through the federal court system and the state court system. Our country is filled with judges which fear not God neither regard men. They are just doing whatever they want and I want to expose the Supreme Court specifically today. But again, we’re going to talk about different court systems. And I want to explain to you what’s wrong with the Supreme Court system today. Because the way that the Supreme Court is being run today is not how it was originally intended to be run. The way that the Supreme Court is being run today and the rules that are coming and the laws that are coming and the judgments that are coming out of the Supreme Court are not the way that it was meant to be done by the Constitution and our founding fathers. And again, I’m not big on the Constitution and founding fathers. I’m big on Christianity. But for those of you that love the Constitution, let me help you with something. The Supreme Court is not following the Constitution and I’m going to give you some reasons for that and explain that to you this morning.
Let me give you some points. They are a bit wordy so I’ll repeat them several times. What’s wrong with the Supreme Court and how is it not following the Constitution? Number one. The Supreme Court gave itself the power to strike down duly past laws. The Supreme Court gave itself the power to strike down duly passed laws. This was actually a power that was not intended to be given to the Supreme Court. And this system or this power that it holds today is called judicial review. And I’d like to go to the book of Proverbs if you would. You say what’s the problem with the Supreme Court today and with the court system in the United States of America? One problem is that it gave itself the power to strike down duly passed laws. You say, isn’t that something that it is allowed to do based off the Constitution? And the answer is no. I’m going to read to you from several articles and different things.
Let me read this to you. This is from the uscourts.gov website which is a federal website. Here’s what they say regarding the judicial review power of the court. They say “The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).”. In 1776, this country was fought for and founded and in 1803 this court case happened. I’m not going to go into the details of the court case. You can look it up for yourself if you’re interested in those things. This court case comes before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court just gives itself the power to strike down and to remove laws that are unconstitutional.
Proverbs 28:4 “4 They that forsake the law praise the wicked:”. See, this is what the Supreme Court does today. I understand the context is the law of God but what the Supreme Courts does it look at laws that are duly passed and legally passed and enacted by our government and they look at those laws and they say no and they strike them down and remove them. This is not a power that was actually given to them. This is a power that they took upon themselves at the Marbury versus Madison case in 1803. The Bible says “4 They that forsake the law praise the wicked:”. And let me tell you something, this is something that the Supreme Court is doing today. They choose to forsake the law in order to praise the wicked. They choose to forsake the law in order to help wicked people.
Now let me just kind of explain some of these things to you. And like I said, this is going to be a little more of a thinking concept not just biblically but also governmentally. And by the way, let me just say this. I want to thank Brother Graham because Brother Graham is a lawyer and he’s helped me with some of these things as far as the wording and understanding and making sure that I’m clear. Let me read this to you just so you kind of understand how the Supreme Court was supposed to be ran.
Original Jurisdiction (meaning used for a court when it is within their right to try a case). In the Supreme Court, there are some cases in which they have original jurisdiction. For example, dealing with diplomats and things like that. Other than original jurisdiction, the main power of the US Supreme Court was to review a lower court’s decision and to answer the question if the lower court followed the rules. Constitutionality was not a concept before in the US Supreme Court. It is hard for us to grasp the idea that Constitutionality was beyond the scope of the Supreme Court because that is all they do now. Before they were simply another appeals court looking to see if the lower courts had failed or overlooked something or made an error. As the highest appeals court in the land, their job was to determine if the law was applied correctly but not to determine if the law should be applied at all.
So the Supreme Court’s job is to be an appeals court. Because of course, you go to lower-level courts and it gets appealed to an appeals level court and then eventually it could be appealed to the Supreme Court. Their job is to look at a case and say “Okay, here’s the law.”. And by the way, here’s the job of a judge to say If the law been applied correctly. Their job is not to ask the question “Is this a law that should even be applied?”. It is not the job of the judge to sit there and decide if we should follow the law or not. The judge is supposed to determine if the law has been passed correctly. For those that follow politics, this is hard to grasp. Because we are used to the Supreme Court telling us if we will pass a law and then they tell us if it is Constitutional or not. But that’s not how the system was meant to be. You say well how was it meant to be ran?
Let me read this for you. “If Congress was invented to make laws, it is understood that the Constitution places limits on what laws are allowed. Then it would make sense that it should be Congress that decides if a bill is Constitutionally acceptable before it becomes a law.”. Do you understand that? See, the point of Congress is that we elect these officials to pass laws and they’re supposed to make sure to look at the Constitution and decide if they can pass that law or not. However, Congress is supposed to see if the people disagree with that law. If people don’t agree with it then they have three options. Number one is to vote the lawmakers out of office and replace them. That’s called accountability. Here is a problem with these judges. They’re given a life position and they cannot be removed. Here’s what that means. No accountability. We as the people are supposed to be able to vote lawmakers out of office and replace the law if we don’t like it. Number 2, we get the Executive Branch. We elect the sheriff. If they pass a law that we think is wrong or unconstitutional, the power of the President is to say “That’s fine. You can go ahead and pass that law but I’m not going to sign it into law. Or if it was already passed by a previous President then I’m not going to enforce it.”.
Number three, juries have the power to convict and to give an answer of not guilty or to acquit. Most of us constantly avoid jury duty but juries were put in place so that we the people would actually be the final check that people were allowed that people were supposed to be tried by their own peers within their community. And if for whatever reason Congress passed a law that was just wicked or if the President and the law enforcement enforce the law that was wicked, then we as the people could not only decide if a person was guilty based on that law but if the law is valid. If the law is a wicked law and a wrong law then we can choose to acquit. That was the balance given in the Constitution. That’s how it was supposed to be but the Supreme Court has given itself the power to strike down duly passed laws called judicial review.
You say “I don’t think that’s that big of a deal. What’s the problem with that? I think that’s fine.”. Okay. Let me give you some examples that maybe you would care about. And this is an example from the state of California dealing with the California Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court. In 2000, the state of California had a proposition on its ballot called proposition 22. Though it was a law enacted by California voters and by the way it was passed by California voters stating that marriage was between one man and one woman. And again, I’m not preaching on that subject this morning but this was a law. And let me just say this, the way that our system is set up in the state of California is that laws can be passed by majority vote. You can put a proposition on the ballot. People vote and if it gets a majority vote then it’s passed into law legally. That’s how we create laws in the state of California. And in 2000, proposition 22 was put on the ballot and received a majority vote. It went into law and we the people of the state of California, the most liberal state in the union, decided in 2000 that marriage was between one man and one woman. Of course it went to court. It went to appeals and it was already understood and people saw the handwriting on the wall that the Supreme Court of the state of California was probably going to use its judicial review power which is not a power that it should even have in the first place to strike down the law on the basis of saying it’s unconstitutional. They said it went against the Constitution of the state of California. This is where the people wanted marriage to be between 1 man and 1 woman and the court said “Nah, we’ll just say that’s unconstitutional”.
Proponents of proposition 22 actually put proposition 8 commonly referred to as prop 8 on the ballot in 2008. Proposition 8 known informally as prop 8 was a California ballot proposition like proposition 22. And a state Constitutional amendment was passed in November 2008. But just think about this. We passed a law saying we’re against sodomites getting married but the Supreme Court of the state of California says that’s unconstitutional. So they struck down that law using a power that we don’t even have called judicial review. So in advance to that or in anticipation of that, the people said “If you’re going to strike down prop 22 under the guise of being unconstitutional then we’re going to pass prop 8 and amend the Constitution.”. Because if the people put it in the Constitution of California saying we’re against gay marriage then you can’t say it’s unconstitutional if it’s in the Constitution. Prop 8 was put on the ballot. Prop 8 passed in the state of California which is the most liberal state in the union. It passed. We amended the Constitution. And what does the Supreme Court do? It strikes it down as unconstitutional.
Now hold on a second. You strike down laws as unconstitutional then we amend the Constitution to make it Constitutional and you strike down the amendment as unconstitutional. That’s illegal. That’s wicked. That’s wrong. The whole point of an amendment process for the Constitution is so that we can add things and we can remove things and we can decide if something is or isn’t a good idea. So no one can say that’s unconstitutional if it’s in the Constitution. And they say “No, we’re not going to let you amend the Constitution because it’s unconstitutional.”. Even though we have the right, the judges gave themselves the power to strike down duly passed laws or duly passed amendments to the Constitution. This power of judicial review is an unconstitutional power to strike down Constitutional laws and amendments. This is a wicked system because this puts the power in the judge. We can’t ever say we want this law or it’s in our Constitution or let’s amend the Constitution. Even if we legally try to amend the Constitution which we have the right to do, they will just say that they don’t care and strike it down. Why is the Supreme Court wicked? Because it’s given itself the power to strike down duly passed laws using a power that was never assigned to it called judicial review.
Let me give you a second reason. Not only did the Supreme Court give itself the power to strike down duly passed laws known as judicial review but the Supreme Court also gave itself power to create laws through non-originalist interpretations of the Constitution. The Supreme Court gave itself power to create laws through non-originalist interpretations of the Constitution. And this is commonly known as judicial activism. Now let me just kind of explain this to you. Let me explain to you kind of the two camps here. Because if youremember, it is Congress’s job to pass laws. We have a system and I’ll talk more about it later in the sermon. We have a system that’s supposed to have separation of powers. Congress passes laws. President enforces law. Judges apply law or determine if the laws have been applied. The judges gave themselves the power to strike down laws and create laws. You say “Well, how do they do that?”. They do that by using non-originalist interpretations of the Constitution.
Let me kind of explain to you the two camps. There are two camps. There is the originalist interpretation of the Constitution and there’s the non-originalist interpretation of the Constitution. The original interpretation of the Constitution is basically people who look at the Constitution and they say “Here’s what it says. Now what was the original intent written in the Constitution?”. And people say, “Well what if there’s something wrong in the Constitution.”. Well here’s a beautiful thing about the Constitution. It gives you a process to amend it. So if there’s something wrong in it or something that the founding fathers didn’t foresee 200 years ago, then we the people have the power to amend the Constitution and write in it or remove out of it what is necessary. We can fix it if there’s a problem with it. Some judges believe in the originalist view of the Constitution. In fact this Amy Barrett lady, I think she’s one of them.
But what is also done is taking a “Living Constitution” concept. The claim is made that the Constitution holds a dynamic meaning, evolving and adapting to new circumstances without being formally amended. So here’s what they mean by that. They mean that they can look at the Constitution and decide “Well this word and this phrase, I think we could make it mean this and it could mean that. The original founders didn’t write anything in there about how they’re applying it.”. But they’re like, we can make this word say this and manipulate this word to give us the power. So instead of amending the Constitution, they just decide to look at the Constitution as a living document. And that’s what they call it “Living document vs. Originalist View”.
Deuteronomy 16:19 “19 Thou shalt not wrest judgment;”. The word “wrest” is an older word meaning to distort or manipulate. It comes from the same root word that we get the word “wrestle”. Have you ever watched two guys wrestle? What are they doing? They’re grabbing each other. They’re folding themselves over and they’re kind of just trying to get the other person and manipulating them and moving them to do whatever they want. That’s what wrestling is. The Bible says “19 Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.”. See, what the Supreme Court does today is they look at the Constitution and they say “No, let’s not amend it like the Constitution actually says. Let’s just wrest or wrestle it. Let’s just take the words and manipulate them and move them around and make them say what we want them to.”.
Now, I’m going to come back to this idea of the living document. But let me just say this as a side note. I take offense to the living Constitution concept as a blasphemous concept. Go to the book of 1st Peter in the New Testament. While you turn there, let me read something written in Ron Paul’s Book “The Revolution”. He said this. “I sometimes hear the objection that certain phrases in the Constitution give the federal government more power than what is listed in article 1 section 8. Now isn’t our Constitution a living document that evolves in accordance with experience and changing times as we are so often told? No. A thousand times no. If we feel the need to change our Constitution, we are free to amend it…but that is not what the advocates of a so-called living Constitution have in mind. They favor a system in which the federal government and in particular the federal courts are at liberty even in the absence of any amendment to interpret the Constitution altogether differently from how it was understood by those who drafted it and those who voted to ratify it.”.
Now here’s what’s interesting. Today you have many judges and a whole school of thought that says the Constitution is a living document. I think that’s blasphemous because the Bible actually talks about a book that’s living and it’s not the Constitution. 1 Peter 1:23 “23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.”. The Bible actually says that God’s word is alive. “for the word of God is quick”. The Bible says the word quick or alive. “12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”. The Bible says there’s only one document in this world that is alive. It’s not the Constitution. It’s the word of God. What’s interesting is that the word of God claims to be alive and the word of God claims to never change. But they say no, the Constitution’s alive and constantly evolving. And what they do is they wrest judgment. They take phrases and manipulate them and change them to make them say things that the original writers of those laws did not intend.
You say, “Well what’s the big deal with them giving themselves the power to create laws based off of the living Constitution concept or a non-originalist concept? What’s the big deal well?”. Here’s the big deal. They are allowed to make laws and make decisions. They strike down laws and make decisions that basically create laws that were never passed. The laws were never passed. The Constitution was never amended. You say, “Give me an example.”. I’ll give you an example that you should care about. “Roe vs. Wade”. That case basically made abortion legal in this country without a law ever being passed, without the Constitution ever being amended, without the electorate or the representatives of those electors ever making a move. How? Just by the judges deciding. They aren’t accountable to anyone.
Let me just say this. We’re obviously anti-abortion. Abortion is murder. Jeremiah 1:5 “5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”. Abortion is wicked. It’s murder. It’s illegal. It’s wrong. You say, “Well how did Roe versus Wade happen?”. “Back in 1973, a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion.”. So the US Supreme Court. These people are supposed to be the highest, most intellectual people of the land. I mean lawyers and that became judges that are just so smart and intellectual. They understand law. “The US Supreme Court in 1973 made a landmark decision.”. I would say so. It was landmark. Millions of people have been killed as a result of it. “a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion.”.
I realize that the average American has never read the Constitution. I’m not going to put you on the spot and ask you if you’re under the Constitution. But let me just explain something to you. I’ve read the Constitution. Many of you have read the Constitution. It doesn’t speak about abortion at all. There’s no mention in the Constitution about “the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly and freedom to kill your baby.”. But the Supreme Court says the Constitution in the United States protects the pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion.
So we of course ask the question, how do they figure that? Here’s what they said. “without excessive government restriction, it struck down many US state and federal abortion laws. It struck down laws that were duly passed.”. That’s judicial review. “In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7-10 decision ruling that the due process clause of the 14th amendment of the US Constitution provided a right to privacy that protects a pregnant woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.”. So they say “Hey, the Constitution protects a woman’s right to have an abortion.”. So we all ask the question, how do they figure that? They said “Well in the 14th amendment there’s this due process clause that gives the right to privacy.”. You say what is that talking about?
Let me read to you an explanation of the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Here’s what it says. “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 any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”. Did you see a part about killing a baby? I didn’t see anything in the 14th amendment. It was an amendment that was passed after the Civil War. It was an amendment that was passed that protected prior slaves after the Civil War when they were given their liberty stating that no government could create laws that basically kept them down. That’s why it reads “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge or diminish the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”. They’re saying look, you can’t make a law diminishing the privileges or immunities or deprive any person of liberty.”.
You say how do they justify this? 2 things first of all. They say that the Constitution gives you a right to privacy. Now I’m going to offend some of you libertarians but I hate to break it to you, the Constitution actually doesn’t give you a right to privacy. There’s actually nothing written in the Constitution that says freedom of assembly, right to bear arms, and then right to privacy. It’s actually not there. There are things in the Constitution that kind of make it seem like the founding fathers wanted to give you a right to privacy. Now look, I’m all for right to privacy. I’m not against right to privacy. But I’m also for being honest and I’m not going to sit here and lie to you and say “It’s right there.”. There are certain things that the Constitution says like no searching without a warrant, the right to remain silent, kings not allowed to put his British soldiers and quarter them in your house. They look at those things and say that it seems like the Constitution has given you a right to privacy. There’s certain things that the government can’t do or interfere in your life. And look, I agree with that. I don’t have a problem with that.
Now, because you have the right to privacy and because the 14th amendment says that the government cannot create a law which diminishes or deprives any person’s life liberty or property, does that mean that you should be able to kill your baby? So how do they come to that conclusion. Well, if a baby is going to cost you money and a baby is going to limit your ability to prosper and to be happy then the government can’t force you to have that baby. And because the Constitution gives your right to privacy, the government can’t make laws that interfere within the private matters of you and your medical doctor. If you and your medical doctor want to kill your baby then the governments not allowed to interfere in that because you have a right to privacy and you have a right to be happy. Now let me just explain how hypocritical that is.
Here’s what the 14th amendment says “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property.”. They actually took the law that says that you can’t deprive somebody of life and then they wrested it and manipulated it. They changed it to say “Well you have the right to take somebody’s life if it means you’re going to be inconvenienced.”. Hey, how about not sleeping around. If you’re not ready to have a baby, why punish the baby. Let the baby live. They decided that a woman has the right to life but at the expense of the baby’s life. You have a right to not be inconvenienced and you have a right to privacy. Ok, so does that mean I can kill someone in privacy because it’s my personal privacy and liberty that you can’t deprive? Do you see how ridiculous that is? The founding fathers wrote nothing in the Constitution about abortion. But you know what, the Supreme Court wrests judgment. They say “Well this word kind of means this and this concept is kind of found and we kind of think that. Yeah, we’re going to say roe versus wade. The state of Texas can’t pass a law against abortions. And because they struck down that law using a power that was never intended for them called judicial review, they created a law which basically said across the board that abortions are legal.”.
Now let me read to you another thing in regards to the Constitution. It does not list a right to privacy. The court has held however that the bill of rights protects protection of freedom of speech, assembly and religious exercise. The 3rd amendment prevents unreasonable searches and seizures. The 5th amendments creates zones of privacy. And look, I’m all for the zones of privacy. But I’m not for those if you mean that you have the privacy to kill a baby. Roe claimed that the law robbed her of her right to privacy as protected by the combination of the bill of rights, amendments and of her liberty as protected by the due process clause of the 14th amendment. The court agreed with Roe and held that the right to privacy includes the abortion decision. It’s wicked. It’s wrong. And not only is it wicked as hell, it’s actually unconstitutional. It’s actually not something that is supposed to happen because the law doesn’t even say that. But this is what the Supreme Court does.
Let me give you another example. The affordable care act, Obamacare, that Obama passed. And I’ll give President Trump credit. He removed the mandate which is good. He hasn’t removed Obamacare which he did promise to do but he removed the mandate. I’m fair and balanced so I’ll give the man credit where it’s due. But Obama passed this law that basically forced all of us to receive health care. We have to pay for government health care. We have to show that we have health care. And if we don’t want health care then you have to pay for government health care. If you don’t want to pay for government health care then you get fined. And they passed this law and of course people took this up to the courts and said that it wasn’t right and unconstitutional.
Here’s what the Supreme Court said. Because of article 1, section 8, clause 1 which is where the rights or the powers of the government are given. They said this, “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes duties imposed and excises to pay debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. But all duties imposed and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”. The Congress was given power to lay and collect taxes. And because they have the power to collect taxes, that gives them the right to force you to get health care. Now let me just ask you this. Do you really think the founding fathers were envisioning Obamacare when they said the government has the right to lay taxes? And I do think the government has the right to lay taxes. Jesus paid taxes. I’m not against paying taxes. But is this what they meant? They just take whatever phrase they want and wrest it.
How about this one? They charge taxes to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. They’re just being descriptive but they decided that they would give the government power to charge the people taxes. You say “Why do they need to charge taxes?”. Well you know to pay down debt to provide for the defense and for the common welfare of the people. Just to make sure that things that they have the money to do, what they want to do. They say “common welfare”. They decided that they got to start a welfare system, food stamps, etc…They decided that they would pay for our babysitter, give us food, etc…
Brother Graham brought this to my attention and I thought it was interesting. The welfare system was totally unheard of when the Constitution was passed. In fact, the first time that a welfare system came into the public view was during the new deal of Franklin Roosevelt. Why did it take so long if the founding fathers said general welfare means food stamps? They said section 8 means public school system and they also meant health care for everybody. Why did it take so long for people to decide that we’re supposed to have a welfare system? Look, that’s not what they meant and you know it and they know it also. But they want pass a law and say they are going to give a bunch of money to these bums but instead take X amount of money of your dollars and give it to them. You say, “Don’t you care about people?”. Look, poor people were cared for throughout this country for hundreds of years before the new deal and before Franklin Roosevelt. You say how was it done? It was done the way that God said it should be done. It was done through local churches. Local churches are the ones that are supposed to care for the widows and the fatherless, the orphans. You say, “I think the government has a better system.”. You’re foolish.
Look, the church has a better system. As a church, it’s our job to help those in need. We call it benevolence. We help people in need but we don’t give money to drug addicts and we don’t give money to well abled men who have the ability to work and refuse to. We actually help people who actually need help because it’s called accountability. See, when the government is put in charge of something, nobody’s in charge of it. They just hand out tax and money and anybody gets it. I’m not saying that orphans shouldn’t get help or fathers shouldn’t get help or widows shouldn’t get help. I’m not saying that. But I am saying that the government is not supposed to do it. The Bible actually says that the church is supposed to do it. People call our church every day asking for money. And you know what, I used to tell people to come on Sunday evening and we would have groceries waiting for them. Hundreds of dollars’ worth of groceries. You know in 10 years we’ve had maybe two people show up. Why is that? They want money but they don’t want accountability. We’ll help people if they are part of this congregation and we’ll help to take care of them. If you have a baby, we’ll bring you meals. If you’re in the hospital, we’ll help you out. We’ll do whatever we can to help you out. We believe it’s the call of the church. But with that call comes accountability.
The Bible says, if you don’t work then neither should you eat. We’ll try to help people get off drugs and get a job but not give free handouts to help them destroy their lives. That’s how God designed it. And by the way, not only that’s how God designed it but that’s how our government was created to work. Isaiah 10:1 “Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed;”. This is like the life verse of the Supreme Court. And just so you can see that it’s in the context of the judges, look at verse 2. “2 To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless!”. I’m just going to say it’s a sermon for another day but you know the welfare system of this country is actually hurting people. What you subsidize you get more of and when the government subsidizes to have another baby without a father, that’s what happens. I’m not against single moms. We love single moms and help them but we also try to teach single moms to change their lifestyle. We teach them God’s design and that they will be happier doing it God’s way.
The Supreme Court has turned into a wicked institution because of the fact that it gave itself the power to strike down duly passed laws using judicial review, because of the fact that it gave itself the power to create laws using non-originalist interpretations of the Constitution. Let me give you a third one. The Supreme Court positioned itself above the two other branches of government while being accountable to no one. This is judicial totalitarianism. That’s what I call it. The technical term Critocracy rule by judges. That’s actually the country you and I live in today. There is nothing wrong with that because the Book of Judges has this system but it works differently. The judges in the book of Judges were not able to strike down laws or create laws at whim. The laws of God were given to them and they were unchanging. The judges were simply supposed to look at the laws of God and say “Yep, you killed someone. I guess we’re going to have to stone you.”. That’s what the law says. There’s nothing wrong with that. What’s wrong with the Supreme Court is they are ruling like a Monarchy. They get the power to create laws, strike down laws so they’re not bound to the law. They change the law at will and they’ve created what is basically a totalitarian government where we’re ruled by these judges.
Psalm 94:20 “20 Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?”. You see that the Bible says to be careful about putting these people in power who are going to frame mischief by a law. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. Just because abortion is legal doesn’t make it right. They frame mischief by a law. The Supreme Court has put itself above the other two branches of government while being accountable to no one. You say what is the big problem with this? The problem is that our government was not created in that sense. And look, I need to be clear about these things. And I think sometimes I try to be too clear and I confuse some of you and I apologize for that. But you know that’s not how our government was instituted. Me saying that is not an endorsement on our government because I actually don’t even believe in what I’m about to explain to you. But I’m explaining to you that this is how our government was set up.
Our government was set up with a concept called separation of powers. Separation of powers is the idea that they didn’t want a king or 1 guy ruling us. So they separated the powers so that no 1 person or branch of government could just control everything. They set up a Congress to pass laws, a President and also judges and a judicial system in order to apply law and cause checks and balances. The Congress was supposed to pass laws that were Constitutional. We’re paying them to do that. But just in case they didn’t then the President had the power to say “Well, I don’t care if you pass the law and if a prior President signed it into law. I’m not going to enforce it.”. That’s his power in order to check and balance. Then the court system had the right just in case the Congress passed an unconstitutional law, just in case the President enforces an unconstitutional law, a jury of your peers has the right to reject a law if they don’t agree with it. They could say that they’re not going to uphold it and there were judges there to help with making sure that the laws were being applied properly and so forth. That’s called separation of power.
Now let me just say something. I don’t even believe in that. I’m just explaining to you. That’s how our government was set up. I’ll just say this though. That is not a concept found in the Bible. The Bible does not teach that. And just to give you an illustration of that, remember last week we learned that God set up three institutions of the family, the church and the government. All 3 of those have an authority structure setup in a similar way. Imagine how stupid it would be in a family if mom makes all the rules but dad is the only one allowed to spank. I understand that’s how some families operate but it doesn’t make logical sense. Imagine if mom said “No dessert before dinner.”. But dad doesn’t like that because he wants to eat his dessert for dinner so he’s just not going to spank you for it. But even if he wants to spank you for it, he has to get permission from the two grandparents. The two grandparents have to hear the case and they have to decide whether you’re allowed to spank the kid. That’s separation of powers. That’s stupid. That that doesn’t even make sense.
But with that said, let me just say this. That is the concept that was created in our country. The judges have bypassed the Congress by striking down laws and creating laws. They bypassed the President. Today, the way that our culture is set up, everybody just gives their allegiance to the Supreme Court. Everybody just decides that whatever the court wants to do, that’s what we’re going to do. So the President doesn’t ever go against the Supreme Court. They just all submit to the authority of the court. So if the court says that you can kill babies then the President goes along with it. Why doesn’t he just arrest all of these people and shut down Planned Parenthood and arrest all these abortion doctors. That’s actually legal. They could actually do that. The President doesn’t need the judges in the Supreme Court to stop allowing murder to happen in our country. But everybody has submitted to the Supreme Court. Instead of 1 king, we have 9 judges in the Supreme Court. They’re elected for life. They’re not up for election. Nobody can remove them from office. Nobody can even lower their pay. They do what they want. It doesn’t matter if we pass laws or make amendments to the Constitution, it’s a judicial totalitarianism.
Go to Isaiah 33:22. I just want to help you guys out with some of these things and I hope this is okay for me to explain this. This doesn’t have a lot to do with the Bible but I just want you to understand this because I’ve been preaching these sermons on politics. And look, please understand something. I don’t even care about politics. Vote for whoever you want. I don’t care about politics and it doesn’t make a difference to me. As a Bible preacher, this is something that’s on people’s minds so I’m going to preach it. But you know, I’ve been preaching these sermons on politics and then I’ve been having a lot of people talk to me about it through email and phone calls. Some say they agree and some say that they disagree. But what I’ve realized as I’ve talked to people is that most people don’t even understand the government in which they live. Let me give you an example. Most people think we live under a democracy. That is not true. You do not live under a democracy. Let me prove it. “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands.”. The government that was instituted is not a democracy but a republic. And we’re not just a republic but we are a Constitutional republic. Even further than that, we’re not just a Constitutional republic, we are a representative Constitutional republic. Now I don’t care about that. But if you care about it, at least take the time to know that if you’re going to argue with me and tell me I’m wrong about something then at least at least realize this is not a democracy.
You say what is the difference? A democracy is majority rule. A republic is ruled by representatives. In fact, the founding fathers were against democracy. Here’s what Thomas Jefferson said about a Democracy. “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule where 51 of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.”. Look, that’s what Thomas Jefferson said. See, a Republic is ruled by representatives. So please realize this, where we vote and just majority rules and the popular vote wins, that’s not the system that was supposed to be follow. I’m not saying that I agree with everything that the founding fathers said but I’m just explaining to you that the system in which you live was set up by the founding fathers because they did not want a king ruling over us. So they created a government system that had separation of powers. But the founding fathers also did not want the masses ruling us either. So that’s why they denied a democracy and they created a Constitutional representative republic ruled by representatives. Here’s what’s interesting. The Congress was divided into two chambers. You have the Senate and the House of Representatives. Every state gets two senators and every state gets a certain amount of representatives based on the size of the state. The Congress is supposed to be the representatives of the people. Bigger states get more representatives. Smaller states get smaller representatives the way that the Constitution was set up. The way that it was set up was that the people voted representatives into Congress to represent the people. The governors selected the two senators that represented the state. You say why? Because what’s best for the state is sometimes not what the mob wants.
We’ve changed that since then. Now we run both houses the same way. We elect senators which is stupid. We should get rid of one of them but that’s how it was set up. The governor chose senators who represented the rights of the state or represented the well-being of the state. The people chose Congressmen that represented the rights of the people or the benefit of the people. This was a majority rule by the way. Let me just say this, we don’t elect Presidents. We live in a system called the Electoral College. You do not elect Presidents. We choose people who choose the President. We elect people who elect the President. So when people say that every vote counts, no it doesn’t. I’m not saying that like a conspiracy theorist like the election is rigged. Historically, every vote doesn’t matter. Look, if you’re a conservative in the state of California, I hate to break it to you, your vote literally does not matter. The only time your vote really matters is if you’re in a swing state. You say “Pastor, you have to quit preaching against Trump or he’ll lose California.”. Look, he’s going to lose California anyway. It’s the electoral college. We don’t vote for President. You vote for representatives who elect the President.
You say, “I don’t like you preaching against Trump and our country. Can’t we move on to something else?”. Look, as a church, I’m not a politician up for election. You ought to thank God that you have a Pastor who’s going to preach what he believes is right whether you like it or not. You say, “Don’t you care what people think?”. I don’t care what people think. I care what the Bible says. Someone was yelling recently at my in a text as they sent me a message in all Caps. And here’s what they were saying. “Quit preaching against Trump. Don’t elect people based off character. Elect people based on policy.”. Okay. If that’s what you believe then fine. I’m just explaining to you that’s not the system that was set up for our government. You were supposed to elect representatives who represented you in Washington based off their character. The founding fathers had this idea that you were busy farming, raising a family, worshiping God. They don’t want you to be involved in every little thing of government. So what you and I were supposed to do is we were supposed to choose peers or people we knew that we said “Hey, this guy’s a solid guy. This guy’s a smart guy. He’s got some character. We’re going to choose him and we’re going to let him decide what should be done.”. That’s how the system was created. Some of you need to just read a book and turn off YouTube, turn off Alex Jones, turn off Fox News and pick up a book and read it. We are a Constitutional Republic. We choose representatives based off their character. And by the way, that part is actually biblical. That’s what the Bible says.
Remember that we saw in Exodus 18 that they chose judges, they chose politicians, princes based off the fact that they feared the Lord and were honest and hated covetousness. You elect them based off of their character. I know this is foreign to people. But just bring this concept to the church. If I died and you guys had to choose a new Pastor, how does the Bible say you choose the Pastor? Well, there’s Pastoral qualification that show the character of the man. He’s not a drunk. He rules well his house. He’s not divorced. You don’t choose a Pastor by saying “Well Pastor Jimenez used to have a Harvest Party. Are you going to continue to have a Harvest Party?” But that’s how we choose Presidents. If you were going to choose a Pastor then you would do it based off of character. Wives choose husbands based on if they can provide and are honest and work hard.
You should choose leaders based on character. You say “Why are you against Trump?”. Because he’s greedy. Because he’s a liar. Because he’s an adulterer. Because he’s disqualified himself from leadership. And people hear me say that and they think “Oh you’re for Joe Biden.”. Look, Joe Biden is a pedophile. I’m not for any of them. And just to tell you what I think, I’d rather a whoremonger like Trump gets elected than a pedophile like Biden but I’m not going to stand up here and act like he’s the man of God or some godly person. That’s what Baptist preachers are preaching today that Trump was sent by God. Oh really? God sent an adulterer? He sent someone who’s not qualified to lead based off scripture? You say, “I don’t like that.”. Well you can do what you want with it. I’m not up for election. I’m going to preach what the Bible says.
And by the way, that’s how our system was set up. A Representative Constitutional Republic. You choose men to represent you in office based off their character and they pass laws and there’s checks and balances and limits to that system. That’s the government you and I live under. And maybe you need to shut off Alex Jones and Fox News and definitely shut off that Chuck Baldwin and actually read the Bible and actually read a book. Democracy is ruled by majority. Republics are ruled by representatives.
You say, “What do you think the 3 branches of government should be?”. Ok, let me show you in Isaiah 33:22. “22 For the Lord is our judge,”. That’s the judicial branch. “the Lord is our lawgiver,”. That’s the legislative branch. “the Lord is our king;”. That’s our executive branch. “he will save us.”. People say, “The Constitution was founded on the Bible.”. Really? Because they believed in the separation of the legislative branch and the judicial branch and the executive branch. But here you find them all in one person, the Lord. Look, I’m not mad at you. I’m not upset with you. All I’m saying is that I’m not going to get up here and pretend like the things being said in this country are found in the Bible. They’re not.
You say, “What do you think about Amy Barrett? She’s a conservative.”. She’s a woman. The Bible says that women shouldn’t rule over you. I’m sorry to confuse you with the Bible. Now look, if Amy Barrett becomes a judge and they overturn Roe versus Wade then I’m going to be happy about that. But I’m not going to sit up here and pretend like the Bible says something it doesn’t say or the Constitution says something it doesn’t say like our government system was set up in a way that it wasn’t. And some of you need to have your minds renewed. Go ahead and fact check me on Google. We’re not a Democracy. We choose representatives. Just realize that this world is not my home, I’m just a passing through. I’m not an American first and a Christian second. I’m a Christian period. Let everything else go away.
Let’s pray.