Archive for July, 2010

Theonomic statutes and ordinances.

July 24, 2010

Theonomic statutes and ordinances.

1. Before continuing in this article or any article in this blog, I recommend that you read the article entitled, Lakewoodites for McCartney: (which was originally written when I was running for a seat on the city’s council,) otherwise the paragraphs that are numbered 2 – 5, and 77 – 78, and 81 of that article. But persons ought to know that they (and you) are responsible, (although some act recklessly,) and ought to act responsibly. If you choose to only read those seven (7) paragraphs, for your convenience you may read the page called, Preface.

2. If a bus driver that is driving a bus full of tourists swerves to miss a squirrel, and drives the bus over a cliff, killing all aboard, we would say that his priorities were incorrect.

3. Too many of to day’s legislators would effectively do something similar to that. To please some sinners, too many secular or ungodly legislators would disregard the commandments of God, and thereby jeopardise the rest of us, when considering Genesis 19.

4. Why would they do that? To be cynical, I suppose that they do it for the votes of the pleased sinners. If politicians are using the public offices that they hold to do that, I think that is unethical.

5. For that and other reasons, we need some legislation to provide for divine direction for legislators when they legislate, and to place boundaries so that they do not cross the line when Leviticus 26 of the King James Version is considered.

6. I have a suggestion that I am not sure is feasible. Although I think that neither the constitution of the United States nor the state of Ohio need to be amended if enough of the judges were judging in a godly manner, because too many judges are judging in such a manner that they apparently think that the laws of men are superior to the law of God I think that we might have to amend both constitutions.

7. Although I think that theonomically amending a constitution is feasible for giving legislators a proper direction, I am not presently sure if statutes and ordinances to do that are feasible.

8. If such statutes or ordinances, rather than a constitutional amendment, may direct legislators when they legislate, the following four (4) suggestions may be considered, although I have not presently proposed any of them; for most or all of the legislators that I have contacted about a similar matter either don’t have enough sense to recognise the rightness of such a proposal, or they might not know about checking the judiciary, unless there are other reasons. (The other two branches of a government may be checked when they are wrong.) The similar suggestions are for the federal, state, county, and municipal governments. The rough drafts might need to be worked on more. The suggestions are subject to being changed.

9. The following is a rough draft for a theonomic federal statute. The file name is 2010.07.24.2b.

xxxx.xx  Scriptural supremacy.

      (a)   For the purpose of the improvement of the United States of America, this statute is such that it does not promote sectarian favouritism, [it does not respect (prefer) an establishment (denomination or sect or society) of religion (Christianity) more than any other Christian sect] and it is consistent with the free exercise of religion, (unlimited or unrestricted practise of Christianity) to the intent that the will of God be done in this fœderal union of republics.

      (b)   (1)   God is the Creator. He is the judge, lawgiver, and king. He is the person that brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt when the Israelites were in bondage. God is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

            (2)   God’s will is expressed in the holy scriptures.

            (3)   The holy scriptures (the scriptures) are the Christian Bible of the old and new testaments of the King James Version.

            (4)   The law of God is the law that God gave to Israel through Moses that is in the four (4) biblical books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The preisraelite divine law that is in the book of Genesis also may be considered.

                  (A)   During this time of the new testament, the old testament sacrifice of creatures for sin has been abrogated (nullified).

      (c)   No statute, resolution, or proclamation, shall be contrary to the law of God or the rest of the scriptures. If there is a conflict, the scriptures shall prevail or control.

            (1)   If any thing in the old testament is contrary to the new testament, the new testament shall control or govern.

      (d)   To shew some of the divine authority for this statute, some of the scriptures to support this section are Acts 5:29, Matthew 4:4, and 6:9-10, Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 40:28, and 33:22, Hebrews 1:1-8, Exodus 20:1-3, Mark 1:1, Luke 2:33, I John 5:7, Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28, Joshua 21:43-45, II Kings 17, Proverbs 13:13, John 1:29, Hebrews 7:12 and 10:1-18, II Samuel 23:3, Psalm 119, Daniel 2:44 and 3:28 – 4:3 and 5:17-21 and 6:25-26 and 7:27, Matthew 6:33, and 7:24-27, Romans 13, II Timothy 3:16-17, Isaiah 8:20, Matthew 7:28-29, I Corinthians 11:3, and Psalm 2.

      (e)   No court shall have jurisdiction to review this section. [Although courts may judge according to this section, no court may judge against this section. (The judiciary is not allowed to abrogate this section by claiming it to be unconstitutional.)]

10. The following is a rough draft for a theonomic state statute. The file name is 2010.07.24.4b.

xxxx.xx  Scriptural supremacy.

      (A)   For the purpose of the improvement of the state, this statute is such that it does not promote sectarian favouritism, [it does not respect (prefer) an establishment (denomination or sect or society) of religion (Christianity) more than any other Christian sect] and it is consistent with the free exercise of religion, (unlimited or unrestricted practise of Christianity) to the intent that the will of God be done in this state.

      (B)   (1)   God is the Creator. He is the judge, lawgiver, and king. He is the person that brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt when the Israelites were in bondage. God is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

            (2)   God’s will is expressed in the holy scriptures.

            (3)   The holy scriptures (the scriptures) are the Christian Bible of the old and new testaments of the King James Version.

            (4)   The law of God is the law that God gave to Israel through Moses that is in the four (4) biblical books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The preisraelite divine law that is in the book of Genesis also may be considered.

                  (a)   During this time of the new testament, the old testament sacrifice of creatures for sin has been abrogated (nullified).

      (C)   No statute, resolution, or proclamation, shall be contrary to the law of God or the rest of the scriptures. If there is a conflict, the scriptures shall prevail or control.

            (1)   If any thing in the old testament is contrary to the new testament, the new testament shall control or govern.

      (D)   To shew some of the divine authority for this statute, some of the scriptures to support this section are Acts 5:29, Matthew 4:4, and 6:9-10, Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 40:28, and 33:22, Hebrews 1:1-8, Exodus 20:1-3, Mark 1:1, Luke 2:33, I John 5:7, Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28, Joshua 21:43-45, II Kings 17, Proverbs 13:13, John 1:29, Hebrews 7:12 and 10:1-18, II Samuel 23:3, Psalm 119, Daniel 2:44 and 3:28 – 4:3 and 5:17-21 and 6:25-26 and 7:27, Matthew 6:33, and 7:24-27, Romans 13, II Timothy 3:16-17, Isaiah 8:20, Matthew 7:28-29, I Corinthians 11:3, and Psalm 2.

      (E)   No court shall have jurisdiction to review this section. [Although courts may judge according to this section, no court may judge against this section. (The judiciary is not allowed to abrogate this section by claiming it to be unconstitutional.)]

11. The following is a rough draft for a theonomic county ordinance. The file name is 2010.07.24.6b.

xxxx.xx  Scriptural supremacy.

      (a)   For the purpose of the improvement of the county, this ordinance is such that it does not promote sectarian favouritism, [it does not respect (prefer) an establishment (denomination or sect or society) of religion (Christianity) more than any other Christian sect] and it is consistent with the free exercise of religion, (unlimited or unrestricted practise of Christianity) to the intent that the will of God be done in this county.

      (b)   (1)   God is the Creator. He is the judge, lawgiver, and king. He is the person that brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt when the Israelites were in bondage. God is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

            (2)   God’s will is expressed in the holy scriptures.

            (3)   The holy scriptures (the scriptures) are the Christian Bible of the old and new testaments of the King James Version.

            (4)   The law of God is the law that God gave to Israel through Moses that is in the four (4) biblical books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The preisraelite divine law that is in the book of Genesis also may be considered.

                  (A)   During this time of the new testament, the old testament sacrifice of creatures for sin has been abrogated (nullified).

      (c)   No ordinance, resolution, or proclamation, shall be contrary to the law of God or the rest of the scriptures. If there is a conflict, the scriptures shall prevail or control.

            (1)   If any thing in the old testament is contrary to the new testament, the new testament shall control or govern.

      (d)   To shew some of the divine authority for this ordinance, some of the scriptures to support this section are Acts 5:29, Matthew 4:4, and 6:9-10, Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 40:28, and 33:22, Hebrews 1:1-8, Exodus 20:1-3, Mark 1:1, Luke 2:33, I John 5:7, Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28, Joshua 21:43-45, II Kings 17, Proverbs 13:13, John 1:29, Hebrews 7:12 and 10:1-18, II Samuel 23:3, Psalm 119, Daniel 2:44 and 3:28 – 4:3 and 5:17-21 and 6:25-26 and 7:27, Matthew 6:33, and 7:24-27, Romans 13, II Timothy 3:16-17, Isaiah 8:20, Matthew 7:28-29, I Corinthians 11:3, and Psalm 2.

      (e)   No court shall have jurisdiction to review this section. [Although courts may judge according to this section, no court may judge against this section. (The judiciary is not allowed to abrogate this section by claiming it to be unconstitutional.)]

12. The following is a rough draft for a theonomic municipal ordinance. The file name is 2010.07.24.8b.

xxxx.xx  Scriptural supremacy.

      (a)   For the purpose of the improvement of the city, this ordinance is such that it does not promote sectarian favouritism, [it does not respect (prefer) an establishment (denomination or sect or society) of religion (Christianity) more than any other Christian sect] and it is consistent with the free exercise of religion, (unlimited or unrestricted practise of Christianity) to the intent that the will of God be done in this city.

      (b)   (1)   God is the Creator. He is the judge, lawgiver, and king. He is the person that brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt when the Israelites were in bondage. God is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

            (2)   God’s will is expressed in the holy scriptures.

            (3)   The holy scriptures (the scriptures) are the Christian Bible of the old and new testaments of the King James Version.

            (4)   The law of God is the law that God gave to Israel through Moses that is in the four (4) biblical books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The preisraelite divine law that is in the book of Genesis also may be considered.

                  (A)   During this time of the new testament, the old testament sacrifice of creatures for sin has been abrogated (nullified).

      (c)   No ordinance, resolution, or proclamation, shall be contrary to the law of God or the rest of the scriptures. If there is a conflict, the scriptures shall prevail or control.

            (1)   If any thing in the old testament is contrary to the new testament, the new testament shall control or govern.

      (d)   To shew some of the divine authority for this ordinance, some of the scriptures to support this section are Acts 5:29, Matthew 4:4, and 6:9-10, Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 40:28, and 33:22, Hebrews 1:1-8, Exodus 20:1-3, Mark 1:1, Luke 2:33, I John 5:7, Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28, Joshua 21:43-45, II Kings 17, Proverbs 13:13, John 1:29, Hebrews 7:12 and 10:1-18, II Samuel 23:3, Psalm 119, Daniel 2:44 and 3:28 – 4:3 and 5:17-21 and 6:25-26 and 7:27, Matthew 6:33, and 7:24-27, Romans 13, II Timothy 3:16-17, Isaiah 8:20, Matthew 7:28-29, I Corinthians 11:3, and Psalm 2.

      (e)   No court shall have jurisdiction to review this section. [Although courts may judge according to this section, no court may judge against this section. (The judiciary is not allowed to abrogate this section by claiming it to be unconstitutional.)]

13. Pertaining to subsection or division (a) or (A), that provides a purpose, intent, and clarification of the religious portion [the two (2) clauses of religion] of the first (1st) amendment to the American constitution for federal legislation, and for legislation of inferior governments if that amendment is to be applied to the states. Although a purpose and intent can be placed in the preamble of a bill or enacting ordinance, placing them in the statute or the functional ordinance can be convenient for the people.

14. Although secularists and nonchristians might not agree with my opinion of the way that I would clarify the two (2) religious clauses of the American constitution, if my opinion is correct clarifying those clauses can decrease the law suits. If my opinion is correct, subsection (a) shows that the section does not conflict with the constitution. Money can be gotten by attorneys on both sides of a case. Although I would like to think that some Christian organisations are for Christian liberty, I wonder whether some others are milking the Christians for money. (See I Timothy 6:10.) When a solution to a problem is presented, (such as a theonomic constitutional amendment,) and some won’t support that, that could cause me to wonder.

15. Pertaining to subsection (b), that defines words and phrases. When a document says, God, one could rightly wonder who that is. We don’t need to wonder who an executive is, such as a president, governor, or mayor. When the God of Israel expressed his wrath against Egypt, one reason why he did that was to establish the identity of the Creator, (the supreme person that is to be believed and obeyed,) and to defeat the gods or idols of an heathen people. See Exodus 12:12 and Psalm 96:5.

16. Subsection (c) is the functional or directing part.

17. Subsection (d) shows the superior authority for the statute or ordinance. Some legislatures of men seem to like the power of politics, and writing laws that they would like us to obey. I think that they would like to be the authority. That is well if they realise that they are under God meaningfully. But when they become drunken with power and forget God, (See Psalm 9:17.) there can be unpleasant consequences. I heard that some early American laws shewed (showed) the godly authority for them by citing the scriptures. An example can be found in a seventeenth (17th) century antisodomy law of the colony of New Haven that referred to Leviticus 20:13 and Romans 1:26. For that you may see the following link.

http://www.outhistory.org/wiki/Sodomy_law:_New_Haven,_March_1,_1656

18. Subsection (e) precludes judicial review of the section. The intent is to place it out of the reach of the courts so that they don’t negate it by calling it unconstitutional. I’m learning about precluding judicial review. I presently don’t know if governments that are inferior to the federal government (such as state and local) may prohibit the judiciary to judge against legislation. An example of the congress legislatively keeping the courts away is 22 U. S. C. § 6450 (section 6450 of title 22 of the United States Code). Although I don’t like the principle of negating a branch of a government, if a branch errs there ought to be a way to check it: otherwise a bad situation can be developed such as we have now in America.

19. It ought to be obvious that the law of God is superior to the laws of men; for that which came from the Creator is higher than that which was issued by creatures. But too often the Supreme Court of the United States has not viewed the supremacy clause of article VI of the American constitution in the light of common sense.

20. If my opinion is correct about the meaning of the two (2) clauses of religion of the first (1st) amendment of the American constitution, most of the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States have been wrong about that for decades. How can a court rightly judge a case if it does not rightly understand a criterion?

21. Although it can be shown that these suggestions for theonomic statutes and ordinances are not contrary to either the federal constitution, or the constitution of the state of Ohio, if the judiciary needs to be plainly directed (See Habakkuk 2:2.) by a constitutional statement of that which ought to be obvious to the courts, perhaps we need to state the obvious, (that God’s law is higher than man’s,) and put that into our constitutions.

22. I have seen a state constitutional provision that negated another part of that constitution. That is one concern that I have about doing something positive and godly. But I hope that the people will think that negating a good law should be taking us down a slippery slope. We have already gone a considerable way down a slippery slope. Fornication has been legal by men’s laws for some time. Now the unnatural sin of sodomy is anthroponomically legal, which is theonomically illegal.

23. If a citizen or legislator likes my idea, that was based on the scriptures, of having theonomic statutes or ordinances, you may use it, or alter it, to improve your area or state, or our country, or your country.

24. My thanks to you for taking the time to consider this suggestion to properly improve our society. If we cannot do that, perhaps we ought to consider splitting our society up into a secular or ungodly society for persons that prefer to disobey God, (See Revelation 22:11.) and a religious or Christian society for those of us that know better. See Deuteronomy 28, and Romans 14:12.

Edward M. McCartney

Lakewood, Ohio

Posted on July 24 anno Domini 2010.

This second (2nd) edition was revised on October 7 A. D. 2010.

2010.07.24.9b.

Advertisements