Help preserve and save our liberties, freedoms, culture, founding values, and Constitutional Republic.

POC Separation of Church and State Newsletter # 12


Prior to introducing the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004, H. R. 3799 and S. 2082, please allow me to present two important U.S. Supreme Court cases I just discovered this week.

These rulings are inline with the founder’s original intent as revealed in some of the Federalist Papers referenced in our earlier newsletters and below.

U.S. Supreme Court Case: OSBORN v. BANK OF U.S., 22 U.S. 738 (1824), is a good case on Judicial Authority.

Courts are the mere instruments of the law, and can will nothing. When they are said to exercise a discretion, it is a mere legal discretion, a discretion to be exercised in discerning the course prescribed by law; and, when that is discerned, it is the duty of the Court to follow it. Judicial power is never exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Judge; always for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Legislature; or, in other words, to the will of the law.”

Link to full case


This ruling is inline with Hamilton in Federalist 78*

“The judiciary, however, has no influence over either the sword or the purse. It directs neither the strength nor wealth of society. It can take no active resolution whatever.

The judiciary may be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, merely judgment. It even depends on the aid of the executive arm for the efficacy of its judgments.” (emphasis added)


U.S. Supreme Court Case: VALLELY v. NORTHERN FIRE & MARINE INS CO., 254 U.S. 348 (1920), is a good case showing the limits of judicial authority.

“Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot [go] beyond the power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are [254 U.S. 348, 354]  not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal.”

Link to full case:

This ruling is inline with Hamilton in Federalist 78*

“Every act of a delegated authority hat is contrary to the meaning of its commission is void. This concept couldn't be based on clearer principles.”

A Federal Judge who makes rulings based upon anything but our U.S. Constitution, and those laws and treaties that flow from U.S. Constitutional authority, is violating his oath of office

If anyone reading this newsletter can cite an exception, please contact us through the link at the bottom of this newsletter.

Article. I, Section 1, (the 1st sentence of the Constitution) says:

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, …” (emphasis added)

If a Judge changes the original intent of a law, or the U.S. Constitution he is legislating, setting public policy, or imposing his own will.

Remember what Justice Story said in POC #11:

“The offences to which the power of impeachment has been and is
ordinarily applied as a remedy are … political offences, growing out of … usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interestsunconstitutional opinionsattempts to subvert the fundamental laws and introduce arbitrary power

In the next newsletter we will begin to talk about what we can do about judicial tyranny and abuse.

*Federalist Papers in Modern Language, pg.313-314

Useful Sites:

Webster's 1828 Dictionary


Project Vote Smart

Mike Riddle - Creation Science

Answers In Genesis

Institute for Creation Research

US Constitution

Amendments to the Constitution

Declaration of Independence

Thomas - Legislative info 


Find Law for U.S. Supreme Court cases

Find Law for US Federal and State Laws

Official US Time

Post a Blogg


Preserve Our Constitution,Inc - Dedicated to re-establishing and saving our Judeo-Christian Values and Limited Government