|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
 Posted - 02/14/2004 : 22:27:43
|
|
America, our beloved country, is in a real fix. Activist judges are ruling over our affairs like little dictators, seemingly untouchable and protected from contradiction by anyone except another judge higher up in the food chain. In the past few decades we've seen judges rule against written law, striking down the very laws they are sworn to uphold; laws made by the true lawmakers of our land, the Legislators. What can be done to bring this rebellious segment of judges into check to restore "government of the people, by the people, and for the people"? Or do you think that this newly emerged ruling class should continue to rule as they do? Judicial activism or judicial restraint? What are your thoughts?
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
Edited by - Doomar on 03/09/2004 23:29:29
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 02/14/2004 : 23:32:41 [Permalink]
|
I think the judicial branch of the government was created in order to put a check on the legislative and executive branches. The idea that they are "rebellious" is ludicrous: they are doing their job, as intended, which is to decide which laws are commensurate with the Constitution, and which aren't. The President swears to uphold the laws as enacted. Judges only swear to uphold the Constitution, a tiny subset of the totality of the laws.
So, if you can find a case in which a Supreme Court Justice, for example, struck down a part of the Constitution of the United States, you might have a point. Or a state Justice striking down part of their State Constitution. Or, a Justice making a new law. Until you find any such thing, it is a Justice's job to eliminate laws which conflict with the Constitution they have sworn to uphold.
Don't forget that these judges cannot simply write laws off the books. Someone has to sue the government before the Justices can act. In other words, it isn't just the judges which are responsible for striking down laws, it is citizens who see a law as unjust who begin the process.
If anyone could make a case for a Justice abusing his/her power, that justice would lose their seat. Instead, citizen and legislative activists are now talking about changing the Constitution in order to force the Justices to do as those activists want. This is the balancing act upon which our government works.
Schoolhouse Rock did a nice piece on this - very catchy. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2004 : 00:07:13 [Permalink]
|
Dave said:
So, if you can find a case in which a Supreme Court Justice, for example, struck down a part of the Constitution of the United States, you might have a point. Or a state Justice striking down part of their State Constitution. Or, a Justice making a new law. Until you find any such thing, it is a Justice's job to eliminate laws which conflict with the Constitution they have sworn to uphold.
Dave, the examples are numerous, but I will list a few: The school prayer issue of 1963 which struck down the state law of New York which included a simple prayer at the beginning of the school day. The constitution's 1st amendment emphasized that "Congress" should not make a law lifting one organization or sect of religion over another, or prohibit the free exercise of any religion. The state of New York was NOT Congress. Neither were they lifting a particular sect up, only prayer to God. The boy in question was not forced to pray or even attend, yet they ruled that such exercises of religion were unconstitutional and by this ruling "prohibited free exercise".
Another example would be Roe vs. Wade in '73. Forty-six state governments had laws on the books forbidding abortion, except for saving the life of the mother. In this one decision, these "supreme judges" ruled for death over life and as a result, struck down the majority rule of the United States and made possible the slaughter of 50,000,000+ babies and counting.
In the school bussing decision a judge made law by forcing children to be bussed accross town, contrary to the will of the majority of the people, both black and white.
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court struck down the Texas state law forbidding sodomy (anal sex). In so doing they struck down that same law across the land in many states; a legitimate law that had been on the books for many, many years made by elected law makers.
There are many more such examples, too numerous to state. THe fact that you are unaware of these decisions or how they indeed are examples of what I have purported, as are many other cases, only illuminates an ignorance gap that can be filled by a bit of study. So study on, friend. Web search "judicial activism" or "judicial restraint". |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2004 : 01:39:47 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote:
Dave, the examples are numerous, but I will list a few: The school prayer issue of 1963 which struck down the state law of New York which included a simple prayer at the beginning of the school day. The constitution's 1st amendment emphasized that "Congress" should not make a law lifting one organization or sect of religion over another, or prohibit the free exercise of any religion. The state of New York was NOT Congress. Neither were they lifting a particular sect up, only prayer to God. The boy in question was not forced to pray or even attend, yet they ruled that such exercises of religion were unconstitutional and by this ruling "prohibited free exercise".
If the court did not create a new law which stated that it was illegal to pray in school ever, then they have prohibited nobody's free exercise of religion. I had schoolmates who prayed in class, well after 1963. The difference is, their prayers were not mandated by the state. They freely exercised their religion when they wanted to.
Also, since many religions do not pray to "God," the NY law would have lifted an entire group of sects up above those which have multple deities. The idea that this is not giving preferential treatment to some religions over others is ludicrous.
Thirdly, the US Constitution generally trumps all state and local law. If it did not, the case would have never made it out of New York State, as SCOTUS would not have had jurisdiction.quote:
Another example would be Roe vs. Wade in '73. Forty-six state governments had laws on the books forbidding abortion, except for saving the life of the mother. In this one decision, these "supreme judges" ruled for death over life and as a result, struck down the majority rule of the United States and made possible the slaughter of 50,000,000+ babies and counting.
You'll have to show me where in the Constitution is says that laws are made through mob rule and deemed just and Constitutional by popular vote. Also, your portrait of what the ruling means is prejudicial and skewed, as "life" or "death" matters have nothing to do with whether or not the Justices overstepped their bounds.quote:
In the school bussing decision a judge made law by forcing children to be bussed accross town, contrary to the will of the majority of the people, both black and white.
Did a judge make law, or simply decide not to strike down a law which had already been passed? I'll admit to a fair amount of ignorance on this one, but am willing to read the decision itself. Please find me a link.quote:
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court struck down the Texas state law forbidding sodomy (anal sex). In so doing they struck down that same law across the land in many states; a legitimate law that had been on the books for many, many years made by elected law makers.
So what? They ruled it was an unconstitutional law, and as such it shouldn't have been passed in the first place. The age of a law does not make it good law.
There are crazy laws on the books all over the USA. There is a law somewhere which states that women drivers must be preceeded by people holding warning lamps on sticks, if I remember correctly. The only reason that such a law is still on the books is that nobody enforces it, which means nobody has cause to appeal an unjust lower-court decision.
In the Texas case, somebody did try to enforce the sodomy laws, which gave the defendants an opportunity to argue that the law itself is wrong. They did so, successfully. That this ruling affects other states is just, for now all the people in the US need not fear these unfair laws.quote:
There are many more such examples, too numerous to state. THe fact that you are unaware of these decisions or how they indeed are examples of what I have purported, as are many other cases, only illuminates an ignorance gap that can be filled by a bit of study. So study on, friend. Web search "judicial activism" or "judicial restraint".
Based upon these poor examples, I've got no motivation to search for more. You can continue to present more examples if you'd like, but I would assume the above to be the best of the best. Three out of four of them fail to meet the criteria I established above for abuse of judicial powers, a standard with which you did not disagree. The fourth is waiting upon further exposition from you.
In those three examples, what you are really demonstrating is your own ignorance of how the different branches of our government are supposed to work, how laws are made and removed, and what trial decisions really mean. This ignorance will take more than "a bit of study" to eliminate, as most public school systems require more than six years of study of these subjects for graduation, and even then, only the most basic ideas are presented.
When it comes to Supreme Court decisions, we are no longer dealing with "basics" in law, but instead real legal scholarship. You won't find any fresh law-school graduates on the SCOTUS, nor will you find many fresh graduates successfully arguing a case before the SCOTUS. These are very advanced subjects, and you'll need much more than ad populum arguments to convince me (or them) that the Justices abused their powers in striking down these laws.
Complaints that judges have overruled the majority, or have "ruled for death over life," are little more than appeals to emotion. You will find many people who will agree that these are "injustices," but if millions of people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing (to paraphrase someone whose name I can never remember). The popularity of an idea does not make it a correct idea.
That is, itself, an idea which the Framers of the Constitution understood. If you can understand it, you'll begin to be able to see why the Judicial branches of the Federal and State governments exist at all, and why their members are largely appointed instead of elected. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2004 : 07:03:57 [Permalink]
|
Doomar, it almost seems as though you are arguing that if a state or locality enacts a law, that's the End of the Story--a modified "states rights" argument.
If a law is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court can indeed overturn it. The state of Texas, for example, is still part of the United States (much as many of its residents like to believe they are an entity unto themselves  ). And as such, Texas is required to abide by the laws of the United States, too.
I think you're also speaking to the political nature of the judicial appointees on the Supreme Court? That's unfortunate in some ways, because it does mean that as the political winds shift, so too do our laws. Yet, you might argue that that's the GOOD thing about our laws: we still have some imput into how we are governed, albeit indirect input.
I don't know how other areas do it, but we elect our local judges here in Seattle. In a sense, we have only ourselves to blame for those.
|
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2004 : 14:46:40 [Permalink]
|
Renae said:
I think you're also speaking to the political nature of the judicial appointees on the Supreme Court? That's unfortunate in some ways, because it does mean that as the political winds shift, so too do our laws. Yet, you might argue that that's the GOOD thing about our laws: we still have some imput into how we are governed, albeit indirect input.
I don't know how other areas do it, but we elect our local judges here in Seattle. In a sense, we have only ourselves to blame for those.
Renae, you are right about the political nature of judges. I am trying to point out a flaw in our constitution. At the beginnin of our nation, the Legislators could not conceive of judges twisting their words and original intent. They wanted judges to be unbiased by political pressure, but that was an unrealistic expectation. Point is that the government as it is set up cannot overrule a court decision except by constitutional amendment. This leaves judges in a place of unchecked power. They are checking Congress and the president, but who is checking them?
Something needs to be changed, as we seeing the affects of judicial decisions that change written laws and rewrite original intent. George Mason wrote a draft of a law that I think is worthy of note: taken from a draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights 1776 "7. That all power of suspending Laws, or the Execution of Laws, by any Authority, without Consent of the Representatives of the People, is injurious to their Rights, and ought not to be exercised." Meaning that when a judge suspends laws or causes the executiion of laws not okayed by the legislature that is hurts the people and their rights. I fully agree with Mason's contention. Democracy is lost and tyranny begins when laws are thrown out or executed by judges without the consent of the people's representatives. Judges are only validated as they use laws written by the Legislature to judge the people.
Here is an idea from a pastor I know that would help bring the courts back into line with the intent of our laws. 1) change the rules of appointment and have Supreme Court justices elected by region of the country that they would represent.(Amendment just like your state) 2) increase the number of judges (Congressional edict) 3) Allow for the president, Congress, or a majority of state legislatures to veto court rulings and put them back to rediscussing the decision, along with power of a majority decision of all the branches mentioned to overturn a bad ruling. Also a statement in the amendment setting forth the rule of "original intent"(Amendment).
These or some such checks are long overdue. The example of Texas that I mentioned, was only one of many states that had the same law. I trust a majority of the people's representatives a whole lot more than some rogue judge. I also trust the American people to vote in a better lot than we have now. [/quote] |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2004 : 14:49:18 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by Dave W.
If the court did not create a new law which stated that it was illegal to pray in school ever, then they have prohibited nobody's free exercise of religion. I had schoolmates who prayed in class, well after 1963. The difference is, their prayers were not mandated by the state. They freely exercised their religion when they wanted to.
Dave, you'll remember a recent SC decision that said Texas students who wanted to pray before football games was illegal. How's that for an example of "free exercise of religion" being overruled? Need more time to read rest of your post...later.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2004 : 14:50:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
[quote]Originally posted by Dave W.
If the court did not create a new law which stated that it was illegal to pray in school ever, then they have prohibited nobody's free exercise of religion. I had schoolmates who prayed in class, well after 1963. The difference is, their prayers were not mandated by the state. They freely exercised their religion when they wanted to.
Dave, you'll remember a recent SC decision that said Texas students who wanted to pray before football games was illegal. How's that for an example of "free exercise of religion" being overruled? Need more time to read rest of your post...later.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2004 : 16:02:16 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote:
Dave, you'll remember a recent SC decision that said Texas students who wanted to pray before football games was illegal. How's that for an example of "free exercise of religion" being overruled?
No, you've twisted the ruling again. A bunch of Texas students wanted to lead a prayer over the stadium PA system to any/all visitors. Had they simply wanted to get together in a group in the parking lot or wherever, and pray amongst themselves, there would not have been a court case at all. The First Amendment gives people the right to exercise any religion they want to, but not in any manner they want to. Otherwise, it would be a simple matter to claim that ritual human sacrifice of unwilling virgins is Constitutionally protected, and so nobody who does so should go to jail. Would you like that to be legal?
Really, all of the Amendments, and the Constitution itself, have limits. If I were to delete your posts, it would not be an infringement of your First Amendment rights, since neither I nor the Skeptic Friends Network are governmental bodies. The rights laid out in those documents are not absolute and unlimited.
Aside from all that, since no law was overturned in that Texas verdict, this "example" completely fails to even address the standards of judicial abuse I set out in my first post here.
In a prior post, you wrote:quote:
Something needs to be changed, as we seeing the affects of judicial decisions that change written laws and rewrite original intent. George Mason wrote a draft of a law that I think is worthy of note: taken from a draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights 1776 "7. That all power of suspending Laws, or the Execution of Laws, by any Authority, without Consent of the Representatives of the People, is injurious to their Rights, and ought not to be exercised." Meaning that when a judge suspends laws or causes the executiion of laws not okayed by the legislature that is hurts the people and their rights. I fully agree with Mason's contention. Democracy is lost and tyranny begins when laws are thrown out or executed by judges without the consent of the people's representatives. Judges are only validated as they use laws written by the Legislature to judge the people.
Basic misunderstanding of the government: judges are representatives of the people. Claiming that they are not is ludicrous, since it would mean, necessarily, that judges are not themselves citizens of the country.quote:
3) Allow for the president, Congress, or a majority of state legislatures to veto court rulings and put them back to rediscussing the decision, along with power of a majority decision of all the branches mentioned to overturn a bad ruling. Also a statement in the amendment setting forth the rule of "original intent"(Amendment).
Once again, this demonstrates your basic failure to understand how our government works. The people already have the power to "veto" court rulings, by making the laws they want a part of the Constitution itself. Once they become Amendments, the judges you think are so "radical" will actually have to uphold them. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2004 : 16:12:17 [Permalink]
|
This talk of judges being "activist" is ludicrous. They are only activist when they rule is such a way that goes against your personal values I am guessing. I hope you are honest enough to then complain any time a court decides anything. Hell, why even have a court then? Why bother have anyone try and interpret laws? Yeah, that does sound insane doesn't it?
There are plenty of checks on the courts for those of you that haven't taken or have failed your civics class. If the courts rule in such a way that they have clearly gone beyond their bounds then either a higher court can reverse that decision and/or legislators can draft ammendments to the national or state constitutions. Constitutions are the law of the land. They are deliberately hard to change so that knee-jerk politicians can't create absurd laws to further their short-sighted political aims. But if the people really dislike a ruling they can persuade their representatives to pass such a constitutional ammendment.
But these ammendments are notoriously hard to pass. See, laws are not not for special interest groups pacification at election time. They are the laws that everyone must adhere to. It is the courts job to interpret these laws to insure that they are not contradicted by the constitution.
All branches of the government check each other surprisingly well. Sometimes the result will not be one you like. But don't betray your ignorance by calling a court activist and claiming they have no checks because some talk radio loudmouth insists on it. Go look it up.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2004 : 21:47:27 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by @tomic
[There are plenty of checks on the courts for those of you that haven't taken or have failed your civics class. If the courts rule in such a way that they have clearly gone beyond their bounds then either a higher court can reverse that decision and/or legislators can draft ammendments to the national or state constitutions. Constitutions are the law of the land. They are deliberately hard to change so that knee-jerk politicians can't create absurd laws to further their short-sighted political aims. But if the people really dislike a ruling they can persuade their representatives to pass such a constitutional ammendment.
But these ammendments are notoriously hard to pass
You are making my point, Atomic. A single ruling by a court is exceedingly hard to undue, even when a majority of representatives find the ruling appauling. To think that it is a reasonable "check" when 2/3's of both house of Congress plus 3/4ths of all the 50 states are needed to overturn a bad ruling is ludicrous. There is no real check on the Supreme Court. It was never thought that they would make rulings upon their own "expanded" version of what the Constitution meant. The idea that the Constitution is some living, growing document is simply crazy. With such an attitude, anything goes! Original intent is key when deciding law. I can prove that the decision of Murry vs. the State of New York was based on a wrong interpretation of the 1st Amendment, when original intent is studied. But it seems that most liberals agree with "expanded interpretation", as it seems to suit their minority wishes and is an easy way to change the rules outside the rule of law...it's called cheating. I call it abuse of power with malice and aforethought. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
tw101356
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2004 : 22:07:44 [Permalink]
|
The Supreme Court rulings against organized prayer in schools also protects Christian children from being required to pray to Allah, or Vishnu, or Ahura Mazda, or Xenu. The operative word is 'required'. Children are free to exercise their religious beliefs by praying in public school. The school is not free to dictate how children should pray.
- TW |
- TW
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2004 : 22:11:17 [Permalink]
|
No, I make my point. The changing of the constitution is supposed to be difficult because it is the law of the land. If it was easy to change I would probably have move to Saudi Arabia years ago so that I could have more freedom. You can argue what justices should have ruled till you are blue in the face but I am guessing you are not a lawyer. There is an old Rolling Stones tune that springs to mind: You Can't Always Get What You Want
Perhaps it's not the justices that are wrong. Try looking in a mirror.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2004 : 23:49:41 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote:
To think that it is a reasonable "check" when 2/3's of both house of Congress plus 3/4ths of all the 50 states are needed to overturn a bad ruling is ludicrous.
To think that a standard which requires somewhat more than "majority rule" is unreasonable when a contentious law is in question is what is ludicrous. If a simple majority is all that were needed, the Constitution would ban flag-burning, in clear contradiction to the original intent of the First Amendment.quote:
I can prove that the decision of Murry vs. the State of New York was based on a wrong interpretation of the 1st Amendment, when original intent is studied.
Please, don't just talk, go ahead and supply your alleged proof. What was the original intent of the First Amendment?quote:
But it seems that most liberals agree with "expanded interpretation", as it seems to suit their minority wishes and is an easy way to change the rules outside the rule of law...it's called cheating. I call it abuse of power with malice and aforethought.
The rule of the Constitution is what counts with SCOTUS decisions, not the rule of law. You claim it is cheating, but you have yet to make your case based upon anything but your own opinions. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 00:20:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I can prove that the decision of Murry vs. the State of New York was based on a wrong interpretation of the 1st Amendment, when original intent is studied.
Please, don't just talk, go ahead and supply your alleged proof. What was the original intent of the First Amendment?[quote]
I will refer to a site where you can read an abridged outline of the various proposed 1st amendments during the decision process. http://www.nff.org/True%20intent.htm After reading this, it is easy to understand what the intent of the framers was as compared to what the SC ruled. Consider that the modern interpretation which the Supreme Court made and used was that the 1st clause meant, "Congress shall make no law establishing religion" Upon reading this page, you'll see just what the founders had in mind, and it was to keep laws being made that would favor one sect over another. It was not to prevent religion from being promoted, as the second clause clearly states, "or prohibit the free exercise thereof". The modern SC would totally secularize our nation if it has its way. Such an interpretation of the first Amendment would horrify the founders. We could argue this point, but the purpose of bringing this up was simply to show how "intent" is vital to correct ruling. One can also study school history and find that the Bible was commonly used in reading exercies and for devotions within schools. Prayers were common place, yet no SC of the day ever thought of limiting this freedom. You may have whatever opinion you want about religion, but to deny its place and importance within our constitution is to emasculate the basic inalienable rights of citizens and even your own freedom. The very toleration that you experience toward your personal non-religious belief was built into the constitution by the framers so that you would not be publicly abased by the government, but respected as a human being. (The concept is Christian tolerance and love.) Past governments, such as England was, in the 1700's were extremely intolerant of views such as yours. You might of been flogged or imprisoned. In Islamic states, you would be an outcast as an atheist were you to expose your beliefs publicly. The very liberty you enjoy will be erroded if rulings like that in '63 are not overturned some day. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 00:30:48 [Permalink]
|
Dave said,
No, you've twisted the ruling again. A bunch of Texas students wanted to lead a prayer over the stadium PA system to any/all visitors. Had they simply wanted to get together in a group in the parking lot or wherever, and pray amongst themselves, there would not have been a court case at all.
So first, it's the state can't dictate a prayer and now it's students can't dictate their own prayer in public. I thought you were worried about the state writing the prayer. Now you're worried about students writing a prayer....why not just say, no public prayer anywhere and be done with it, huh, Dave? So, I guess we should eliminate prayer in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Then we should ban all chaplins in the military, because they pray publicly. Then we should really get rid of any type of public prayer, as a non-believer may be listening and be offended. Wow, you really don't get it do you? I guess if you don't care about prayer it's really not an issue to you, Dave. Maybe I should wait till your in some foxhole or burning building or being held up by some criminal when you might want to start praying again. Perhaps it should be a requirement in this thread to be a praying person before you can discuss such matters of religion and state, as you might have an untoward bias against freedom of religion and thus should recuse yourself in the matter. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
