Does the Word “Damnable” Describe the U.S. Supreme Court Today?

Jan 20, 2022 by David Fowler

Does the Word “Damnable” Describe the U.S. Supreme Court Today?
I do not use the word in my title pejoratively; rather, I believe it is descriptive of the Court’s understanding of law, and it has given rise to legislation that poses the most fundamental worldview question Tennessee’s legislators will face this session. It will serve as a clue to what Tennesseans really believe and the degree of tyranny that lies before us.

What lies behind Civil Law.

As I explained in my December commentary, the practical implication of the Incarnation (God and human beings are distinct kinds of beings) celebrated at Christmas is that civil (human) law, to be just, must be derived from the transcendent (i.e., not derived from us) and, therefore, antecedent law (existing prior to us) established by the creator God for His creation. That is because the Incarnation teaches us that God and humanity are not co-mingled, meaning created human beings never turn into God and God never turns into a created human being.
The Christian doctrine of creation also means there is a given law pertaining every aspect of the universe, including the nature of human beings and human relationships in the context of civil society, and civil law is simply our application of the law of God pertaining to.[i]
If there is no absolute that transcends us and governs us, then all we can do with civil law is force our preferences on others by means of money, votes, or guns.

Application of Foregoing in Civil Law.

In our legal tradition, this transcendent, antecedent law governing the nature of all created things provided the fundamental principle (i.e., fundamental law) from which we worked out what we call common law. 
Common law was a form of law derived from the study of history, tradition, and experience, but clarified and confirmed by the revealed law, i.e., Scripture. Judges sought to discern these fundamental principles and apply them to particular disputes between parties.  Legislators did the same thing, but that is for another day.

The United State Supreme Court Repudiates Transcendent Law.

In 1938, in Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, the United States Supreme Court repudiated “the assumption that there is "a transcendental body of law outside of any particular State but obligatory within it unless and until changed by statute’" (emphasis added).  If the Incarnation is true, then to deny the existence of a transcendent body of law is damnable.

But what does the banishment of God and transcendent law mean for common law that is based on it. Did it just go away?
No, the Court knew there still had to be some overarching authority somewhere for common law to exist. Not surprisingly, then, it said, “law in the sense in which courts speak of it today does not exist without some definite authority behind it.” 

That is obviously true, but it begs the question, “What or who is the ‘definite authority” behind the common law?”
This is the Court’s answer: “The common law so far as it is enforced in a State, . . . exist[s] by the authority of that State . . . .” The damnable conclusion? "[T]he authority and only authority is the State.” God is totally irrelevant, and that is damnable.

The God of the Bible is totally irrelevant to the United States Supreme Court, and, according to the Bible, that is damnable in His sight.

That fundamental belief leads to the worldview question that lies ahead for our state’s politicians and the people of Tennessee.

How the Worldview Question Will Be Posed.

The worldview question is posed by the Marital Contract Recording Act.   It is consistent with God’s assertion that marriage belongs to Him and is a gift from Him to a man and woman in the context of creation. It is consistent with the Bible’s assertion that all things are God’s and marriage does not belong to the U.S. Supreme Court (or the legislature) to do with as it pleases. 
The Act provides a means by which a man and woman who marry can make the fact of their marriage a matter of public record. It is a case of a man and a woman telling the government what they have done that God gave them the right to do, not the government telling them what they can do. 
The Act is consistent with the Christian’s belief in the transcendent authority of God over all that He created—the meaning of male and female and their relation to marriage—and over civil government.
If legislators choose to reject the Act and the people of Tennessee let them, then we will know that we are on superhighway headed straight to civil government tyranny—the Court’s transfer of transcendent authority to the government is okay with us.
Find out more about the Act here and let the governor (615-741-2001) and your legislators know what you think about the U.S. Supreme Court and tyranny.
[i] That such a law exists for human beings should not be surprising, because it is no different from what farmers do when planting various crops. Consider Isaiah 28:23-26: “Listen and hear my voice, pay attention and hear my words. Does the farmer plow continually to plant seed/ Does he continually turn and break up his ground? Does he not level its surface and sow dill and scatter cumin and plant wheat in rows, barley in its place and rye within its area? For his God instructs and teaches him properly.” In other words, in agriculture, seeds are sown, scattered, and planted in rows depending on the law of their nature and we know not to sow barley and rye in the same field. Such knowledge is treated as having come from God and the unity of agriculture with its distinctive of plants pictures the glory of the Incarnation—the unity of the Godhead with the distinctives of the three Persons.

David Fowler served in the Tennessee state Senate for 12 years before joining FACT as President in 2006. 

Subscribe to Email Updates


Donate to FACT

Make a Donation