​Go Vote!
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Voting is the most important right afforded to us by ourselves.  No, it is not a God-given right exactly, because the right to vote and the agreement to honor it as the solemn arbiter of decisions amongst men  arises out of an agreement between men.  It is a strictly a Greco-Judeo-Christian agreement, a right that emanates from man's divinity and an acknowledgment that because of it, we are not only of equal standing before God, but also we are of equal standing amongst each other.  And today, you have the power to exercise that most solemn right.  
 
Honestly, there should be no greater motivation to vote than the knowledge of its role in shaping our nation's future and the direction in which we will proceed.  But today's election; the 2020 election; holds even greater significance.  There is no room for the moderate in this particular election.  There is no compromise.  There is no middle of the road. Indeed, we are left with only two irreconcilable alternatives: we either go the way of natural law, of freedom, of life; or we trade our freedoms for a false sense of security and end up having neither.  
 
As I watch President Trump sign off from his last rally of the 2020 campaign in Grand Rapids, Michigan, at one in the morning, I realize there is nothing left to say.  Nothing left to explore.  Nothing more to debate.  Rather, there is only one thing to do.  Vote!
 
God bless you, and I'll see you at the polls.
 
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida.  He served in the Florida House of Representatives.  He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons.  He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.
 
 
 

​WHAT AMY CONEY BARRETT CANNOT BRING TO THE SUPREME COURT.
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
The successful appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett is unquestionably the source of celebration.  Justice Barrett will bring stability to the law and restraint to a Court that has a history of being all too intrusive in policy discussions and excessively legislative in its actions.  She will be a restraining voice in the Court.  Indeed, all indications are that she will serve as a stalwart for religious liberty, a champion of strict interpretation of the law, and a force against the usurpation of powers.  But regardless of the positive force she will bring to the nation's highest bench, there will be one very important contribution she will not be able to make to the Court, because the issue goes beyond its confines.  Justice Barrett will not be able to restore the proper check and balance between the judiciary and the two other branches of government.  
 
How did we lose this balance?  

Article III of the U.S. Constitution gives the courts “Judicial Power” over all cases and controversies arising out of the laws of the United States and the Constitution.  It does not, however, give the court plenary authority over the question of a law's constitutionality.  In fact, during the Constitution's drafting process, multiple ideas were expressed about how to handle an unconstitutional law.  Some delegates argued that the question resided with the states since the national government, and indeed the Constitution, was a creature of the states and subservient to them.  Others thought the question fell upon Congress.  And still others averred that it was the individual to whom the question fell.  In fact, the thought was that the moment an unconstitutional law was passed, it was void by virtue of its unconstitutionality.  Thus, no one was obligated to obey it.  
 
Ultimately, the issue of who determined the constitutionality of a law was not settled in Philadelphia, but allowed to remain dormant.  The issue would be addressed by John Marshall in his seminal Marbury v. Madison opinion of 1803.  In it, Chief Justice Marshall declared, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Consequently, any law the court determines is repugnant to the Constitution will be void.
 
Audacious as the singlehanded power-grab was, the Congress of the day did not react to it, although by 1820 the consequences of the resulting change in the relationship between the three branches of government had caught the attention of Thomas Jefferson.  In that year, Jarvis Williams sent a book he had written on the Constitution to Jefferson for his review.  In response, the former president wrote:
 
You seem, in pages 84 and 148, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.  Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so.  They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.  Their maxim is "boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem," and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.
 
 
So much for the modern argument that the Supreme Court is somehow apolitical! Indeed, it was the Civil War and its associated amendments that set the stage for the fulfillment of Jefferson’s prognostications.  The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution included Due Process and Equal Protection clauses that federal judges would subsequently employ to force their will and power upon the states.  With the appointment of progressive judges during the twentieth century, the Supreme Court engaged in the laborious work of redefining the various passages of the Constitution in manners neither foreseen nor intended by the Framers.
 
Thus, today we find ourselves in the odd situation of having all our attention focused on what Alexander Hamilton called the weakest branch of government, one whose powers were "next to nothing."  That the judiciary has become the most powerful branch stands without repute.  Not only is its overwhelming influence visible through the effects of rulings like Roe v Wade, Plessy v. Ferguson, Sebelius v. NFIB, Stone v. Graham, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, and Wickard v. Filburn, amongst countless others, we can also witness it through the actions of those that have grown dependent on its influence.  
 
Many contend that a major factor in the election of President Donald Trump in 2016 was the weight the future of the Supreme Court had on conservative voters.  Presently, one of the central issues of the campaign has been the late induction of Justice Barrett.  Not only have the Democrats used it as a rallying cry in an effort to unseat President Trump and take back the Senate, but they have often claimed that they would use their victory to "pack the Court" with liberal judges, hardly the attention merited by a branch having "no influence over either the sword or the purse."
 
Thus, we find ourselves at the crossroads of the same discussion I spurned with the publication of The Federalist Pages.  If we are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the interactions between three co-equal branches of government, then where's the check on a Supreme Court opinion?  And then there's this more disturbing question. If the Constitution belongs to we the people, then how come there is no conduit by which we the people may counter a Supreme Court opinion with which the overwhelming majority of us disagree? 
 
The fact is that we are still at the mercy of a historical fluke resulting from a number of events unforeseen by the Framers.  Until such time that we correct this historical error, we will remain under the thumb of a judicial oligarchy and the politicians that manipulate it for the purposes of forwarding their agenda.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida.  He served in the Florida House of Representatives.  He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons.  He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.
​

​FATHER MEEKS'S MOST IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS THIS ELECTION CYCLE.
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
The image of a priest standing behind the altar in full celebratory garb preparing to give a speech that could only be classified as political frightens me. The picture resembles a recent one of a New York priest who had his parishioners submit to a creed summarizing the false, systemic injustice narrative promoted by the anti-religious Black Lives Matter organization.  
 
But there were a number of things I didn't know.  First, I did not who the priest in this latest image was.  As it turns out, it was Father Ed Meeks of Christ the King Catholic Church in Towson, Maryland.  Father Meeks is very unconventional.  He is one of those rare priests who entered the holy order after living his early life as a protestant.  In his secular life, he was a human resource officer in Baltimore.  He first became a priest for the Charismatic Episcopal Church and then served as a priest in the Anglican Church.  He has four grown children and seventeen grandchildren and was not ordained a Roman Catholic priest until June 23, 2012.  
 
Father Meeks is a unique brand of priest, one with which I have come to have greater contact over the past two years.  These priests are part of a growing segment of Catholics.  They are people who have studied scripture and reflections, particularly those of the church fathers, and have come to recognize the purity and legitimacy of Catholic dogma.  They recognize that the principles and sacraments housed in the Catholic Church are the authentic form through which Christianity came about.  They are purists.  And they are less fearful of loudly proclaiming their faith, even, and perhaps especially, when that faith molds society, guides the interpretation of history, and informs politics. 
 
And so, the demonstration set for me was not coming from some confused modernist lacking the intellectual capacity to recognize he cannot defend the heresies he espouses, but rather from a priest who was willing to speak boldly, bravely, and truthfully from the altar in a manner I had not previously witnessed.   I invite you to witness this message directly from Father Meeks by clicking here.  
 
There are, however, a few observations I would like to make regarding Father Meeks's comments.  First, notice that his dissertation is based solely on reflections on church dogma. More specifically, he does not stray into discussions about the necessity of social programs, a strong national defense, immigration, state rights, labor rights, or any other such worldly considerations.  He bases his analysis only on three wholly Christian concerns, and only three: the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, and the preservation of religious liberty.  These three considerations, Father Meeks correctly states, supersede all others.  
 
Second, he reminds us that we must observe this hierarchy of importance over other issues of the day because, as he correctly points out, we are first children of God.  We are then Americans.  And then, "somewhere down the line, we are Republicans or Democrats, or anything else."
 
Third, he does not tell you for whom to vote but most impressively calls out where the Catholic Joe Biden "stands in clear and obstinate opposition" to those three overriding, non-negotiable positions. And he does this by sharing with you the five things all Catholics must know about Joe Biden.  And in case you don't have the opportunity to watch Father Meeks's homily, I will lay them out for you.  
 
1. "Joe Biden is unabashedly pro-abortion."  From its position tolerating abortions to the time of birth and maybe beyond, to its approval of the Hyde Amendment’s repeal, and its willingness to fund Planned Parenthood, "[t]he Democratic Party has become the party of death, and Catholic Joe Biden is its standard-bearer."  
 
2. Joe Biden opposes the Church's teaching on the sanctity of marriage.  "Catholic Joe Biden actually presided over the wedding of two men and tweeted, along with a picture of such a ceremony, 'Proud to marry Brian and Joe at my house. Couldn't be happier.'"  
 
3. "A Biden presidency will be a danger to our already threatened religious liberties."  Joe Biden has openly called for the repeal of the Religious Freedom Reformation Act, which would allow for the oppression of Catholics and others with sincerely held religious beliefs that go against policies enacted by politicians and policymakers.  Palpably, RFRA's repeal would mean, among other things, that faith-based adoption agencies would be forced to place children in families made up of same-sex couples despite their organization's objections to the practice.  It means that bakers and artists would be forced to provide custom services for events against which they hold religious objections.  Businesses would be forced to take down sincerely held religious messages when viewed as offensive by a customer or client.  And it means that physicians could be forced to perform acts of euthanasia and abortions despite their sincerely held religious objections to the practice.  
 
4.  A Biden presidency "would open the door for America to very quickly become a socialist country." "[A]nd socialism has consistently viewed religious faith as its enemy worthy only of being destroyed." 
 
5.  The election of Joe Biden would elevate a man whose views are wholly inconsistent with church dogma to serve in a very high-profile position that would "undermine the faith of and subvert the faith of nominal and poorly catechized Catholics."  In short, although Father Meeks does not come out and expressly state it, Joe Biden is no Catholic.  At least, as Cardinal Raymond Burke, Special Delegate to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta put it, he is not a Catholic in good standing.  Father Meeks then goes on to correctly point out the damage that such a misguided, high profile personality such as Joe Biden would have on  others' Faiths as they observe his actions and positions.  
 
Father Meeks is correct.  From the perspective of Catholics, Evangelicals, Jews, and any pious individual, a Biden presidency would be catastrophic.  It is simply refreshing to see a Catholic priest with the guts to say it.  
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida.  He served in the Florida House of Representatives.  He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons.  He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.
 
 
 

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS BECOME THE PARTY OF DEATH.
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

There is only one truth, and it is that God is the light of the world. Anything that takes us to Him, helps us better serve Him, and allows us to do His will here on earth takes us closer to that radiant, most blessed light, one filling us with life, goodness, charity, and love. Anything that leads us away from it takes us to darkness, evil, selfishness, injustice, and ultimately, death.  

Sadly, today, the Democratic Party has become the Party of Death. Perhaps it began with its insistence in removing the words, "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, words added by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican, to emphasize not only the nation's resolve to act consistently with the will of God, but also in acknowledgment of the faith of its citizens.

Perhaps it is the result of its ardent defense of the non-existent right to senselessly kill another through abortion. The right to undergo an abortion does not exist, as doing so is such a direct and unabashed opposition to the will of God that whomever undergoes it, just as the one performing it, acts outside of the natural rights afforded by Him.

And when The Little Sisters begged to be absolved of the federally imposed mandate to fund insurance policies that provide contraceptive services due to their sincerely held beliefs, the Democratic Party, embodied by then-President Barack Obama, coldly and darkly turned its back on them, forcing a long, expensive, unnecessary, and unjust path to the Supreme Court of the United States, only to have their very obviously righteous position validated.

Perhaps it is the Democratic Party's willingness to enact social policy that openly infringes on one's abilities to worship God. Here, I am not just thinking of the numerous restrictions that Democratic governors have imposed on Christian worshippers, but also the many disgusting acts Democrat-run authorities have undertaken against countless Jews in New York.

Or maybe, it is the Democrats’ subservience to darkness that occurred when it zealously pursued the removal of prayer from schools, a successful attack from which the nation continues to pay dearly today.

In its firm allegiance to socialism, the Democratic Party recurrently implements policies designed to substitute God with government.

And lest we forget the Democratic Party's proclivity to offer the nation grossly unqualified, intellectually defunct and corrupt candidates to lead it. People like Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Elizabeth Warren, Adam Schiff, Kamala Harris, and most especially, Joe Biden, to name a few.

I have always believed in the importance of a two-party system. After all, the fate of my parents and their generation at the hands of a communist dictator who declared himself the hero of the working class in a small Caribbean island is still too close to my consciousness to deny the importance of having a state with at least two parties.

But when one party denies those principles and virtues on which its nation was founded and ignores the proper role of God and His laws in its existence and in our interactions with one another, that party disqualifies itself from contention as a valid arbiter of truth and leadership. Thus, at this moment, in light of the Democratic Party's persistent amorality in governance and its unfettered willingness to choose death, darkness, and immorality over life, light, and the natural laws of God, it disqualifies itself from consideration of leading the one nation that more than any other must act as the beacon for the world to follow.


Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He served in the Florida House of Representatives. He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons. He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.