The Constitution Is Not A Mere List Of General Principles

I was in the car at 11 A.M. today and listened to the first part of President Obama's futile nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia. It is a futile and empty gesture because the Senate has declared that they will not hold hearings until a new President is elected, sworn in and makes their own selection. The type of nominee to be selected to replace a towering legal intellect like Antonin Scalia will rightly be a major focus of the upcoming election. Of course President Obama nominated someone anyway. What was troubling about his statement occurred early in his speech at around the 00:41 mark. When I heard this in the car I caught this right away. I am sure others caught it as well but it really rang a warning bell for me. Here is the part that is at issue.

"The men and women who sit on the Supreme Court are the final arbiters of American law. They safeguard our rights. They ensure that our system is one of laws and not men. They're are charged with the essential task of applying principles put to paper more than two centuries ago to some of the most challenging questions of our times"

So what is wrong with that? At a glance it is just some political speech mumbo-jumbo, meaningless prattle especially from a man who has decreed that because he has a pen and a phone, he is within his imaginary Constitutional rights to make laws apart from Congress. What struck me though was the deeper meaning behind the carefully selected words in his announcement. This was no off-the-cuff speech.

There are two problems. First, President Obama said: " They (the justices of the Supreme Court) safeguard our rights".  Incorrect. The Supreme Court does not safeguard our rights. The Constitution safeguards our rights. The rights enshrined in the Constitution lay out rights, responsibilities and restrictions, the rights of the people and by proxy the states; the responsibilities of the three branches of the Federal government; and the myriad restrictions placed on that Federal e government. There are a lot more restrictions placed on the Federal government than there are areas of authority by the way. The Constitution is a document that places the people above the state and that has a bias toward the individual states over  the Federal government. I do not trust the Supreme Court, no matter who nominates the nine Justices, to safeguard my rights and our rights as a people. This is not without reason. Time and time again the Justcies have circumvented the very Constitution that they are sworn to uphold to either take away rights guaranteed by the Constitution or to create from their own imaginations new "rights" that have no mention or implication in the same Constitution (ex. the "right" to an abortion, the "right" of homosexuals to marry, etc.). The whimsy and prejudices of man are precisely why we have a very specific and limited Constitution, leaving little up to chance, at least when properly applied. So right away President Obama is showing either a naïveté about the nature of man or he is shrewdly exhibiting his own bias toward a super-Constitution activist Supreme Court that overrules the unwashed masses when they are not sufficienly enlightened.

The other problem is similar. President Obama said: "They're are charged with the essential task of applying principles put to paper more than two centuries ago ". This is also incorrect. The Constitution of the United States is not and never intended as a series of general and malleable principles that we apply selectively as we see fit based on the current whims of popular culture or the vagaries of the masses. Being a good neighbor is a principle. Always being honest is a principle. Principles have to do with beliefs and moral assumptions. The various articles and amendments that make up the Constitution are rather the governing laws of these United States, the highest law of the land. The President clearly sees the Supreme Court as a sort of super legislative branch, nine  unelected and essentially unimpeachable men and women who feel free and even encouraged to make law from the bench to override the laws made by the people and the states. When the Constitution is relegated to a mere set of guiding principles, it loses it's most powerful safeguards against encroaching tyranny, a very real threat when the Constitution was written and I would argue a very real threat today. President Obama has, I believe, a very different and a very dangerous notion of what the Constitution is and what it was intended to do compared to the men who actually wrote the document.

This sort of subtle deception by the President is precisely why I agree that the next President should be the one to appoint the next Supreme Court justice. If the people choose the next President foolishly, then we will have to live with that decision which quite possible could be the next and perhaps decisive step toward an end to the dream that is America and our Republic. If they choose wisely then we ought to see a principled nominee who will apply the Constitution under the restrictions placed on the Court and the entire Federal government by that same document. For once in my lifetime, let the people have a voice in how the Supreme Court will be constituted for the next several decades to come.

A quick note about the entire charade and the faux outrage by the Democrats. The authority to nominate a Supreme Court Justice does indeed reside in the office of the President. Please note that word: nominate. Under what conditions does a nominee become an appointee? The language of Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution is quite clear: "...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...Judges of the supreme Court..." (Emphasis mine) That is pretty clear. A nominee only becomes an appointee with both the advice and the consent of the Senate. No consent means no appointment and the nomination is null and void. I am sure that President Obama is aware of this but in the kabuki theater that is our government he still needs to play his part in this farce. I always point back to the hatchet job done to besmirch the character of one of the most qualified men to ever be nominated to the Supreme Court, Judge Robert Bork. With that atrocity perpetuated on a legal giant without peer in our generation the nominating process became completely politicized. To the Democrats I say: You made your bed, now you get to lie in it.

I will be writing my Senators to encourage them to deny a hearing and vote to Judge Merrick Garland. He seems like a decent man who has the unfortunate distinction of being a sacrificial lamb sent forth by the President. However he should not be the next Justice of the Supreme Court unless he is nominated in 2017 by our new President.

When Guns Are Outlawed Only Outlaws Will Have Guns

The talking heads at the New York Times penned an editorial in response to the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and it was about what one would expect from that august body: End The Gun Epidemic In America. It is an eminently forgettable screed that only serves as a self-righteous echo chamber for leftists. However some of what they wrote demands a response because it exposes not just a hatred for private gun ownership but a distressing naivete and an all too common disdain for common sense and the Constitution. Exhibit A where we treat every crime where a gun is involved as a "gun crime" even if the actual crime being committed is terrorism or gang violence.

But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.

So according to the sages at the New York Time, the purpose of our government is to "keep us safe". That sounds great! But is it true? The framers of the document that created our Federal government explained why they were making the Constitution in the preamble. Is there a mention of safety being the "job" of our elected officials?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Notice please that something is missing. There is no mention of our elected officials keeping us "safe". The Federal government was given very limited powers to adjudicate disputes between the states, provide for a common military for the defense of the nation and generally to do collectively only what the states could not easily do separately. In fact the Founders were highly suspicious of an armed government, having fought a war against the British and their standing army. They didn't write the Constitution creating the Federal government to keep us safe from criminals, they wrote the Constitution and intentionally limited the Federal government to keep Americans safe from that same government. This is Civics 101. The New York Times (All the news liberal opinion that's fit to print!) editors apparently skipped the day in class when the formation of the Constitiution was discussed. The Times continues with an unusual display of honesty:

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

I wonder if they hold the same opinion of the right to an unfettered press? What if Donald J. Trump becomes President and decides that some news stories and opinion pieces like this one are dangerous and need to be controlled via "reasonable regulation"? One can imagine the outcry of "Freedom of the press!" from the New York Times. If you can count on anything besides death and taxes, it is that the news media have a schizophrenic relationship with the Constitution, defending with their dying breath certain parts of the First Amendment but ignoring or discounting entirely the very next Amendment. To the media the only truly important part of the Bill of Rights is the freedom for them to print drivel without regulation. The rest doesn't matter much. The Times goes on:

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

Riiiiigggghhhhtttt. If you have half a brain and even the most rudimentary powers of reasoning you will see the problem right away. Expecting to eliminate gun violence by, at first, outlawing certain types of guns and then relying on the goodness of law abiding citizens to turn them in means that the only people who are giving up "assault weapons" or other firearms decreed "bad" by the Times are people who obey the law. As it turns out, those sorts of people are not the criminals who use these weapons in the commission of a crime by definition. In the Fascist fantasyland where the Times editorial board lives, would-be terrorists and criminals will glumly line up to turn in their weapons. "Shucks, I wuz gunna shoot up an office party but I have to turn in my assault weapon." In real life that is not going to happen. One of the truths about the New York Times that makes it useless for national discourse is that it thinks that only people in New York, and to a much lesser extent Boston, Chicago and L.A., have opinions that matter. If the editors of the New York Times ever lowered themselves to listen to people in "fly over" country they would realize that calls to turn in guns is a joke. I am not turning in my firearms and no one else I know would either. In fact the response would be kind of like this (the Persians in this case being the Federal government)

What is truly insidious about this is that the Times and other liberal anti-2nd Amendment types is that they are not in favor of eliminating guns, just eliminating guns in the hands of private citizens. Federal agents in possession of firearms are great because they need those guns to make citizens obey every whim of the government, no matter how asinine or counter-productive. Don't want to buy health insurance? Armed agents are on their way. Want to buy actual milk in a transaction between two consenting, informed adults? Good chance your door is getting kicked in by agents with guns drawn. Not joking, that has happened. Memes are poor excuses for discourse but now and again they serve a purpose:

Yep. Gun control is really people control. 

I know I am something of a seeming contradiction. a non-resistant Christian in the tradition of the Anabaptists who is also a frothing at the mouth supporter of the Second Amendment but if life has taught me anything it is that liberty is more valuable than "security" and that people in the government and writing for the editorial board of the NY Times are not interested in your safety, liberty or prosperity, they are mostly interested in controlling you to benefit themselves. That is an inconvenient truth but a truth nonetheless. 

Happy Birthday James Madison!

Today is the birthday of James Madison (March 16, 1751), the fourth President of the United States. (Little known fact, we named our second daughter after James Madison). Madison is kind of a forgotten guy in American history even though his impact on much of our nation’s identity was enormous. Madison had such an influence over the drafting of the U.S. Constitution that he is nicknamed “The Father of the Constitution” and his influence is not merely over the actual drafting of the Constitution but also in the underlying theory and philosophy of our system of government. His work “The Federalist Papers”, co-authored along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, is one of the most important formative documents of our nation and is chock full of wisdom. One of my favorite lines is from the Federalist #51 “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”. Much as I dislike and distrust government, I also recognize that we are sinful men being governed by sinful men and as such some restrictions and laws are necessary. We can and should debate the scope and nature of the power of the government to rule the people and vice versa, but what is apparent from human nature is that radical libertarianism taken to its logical extreme is untenable in a society that dwells in a post-Genesis 3 world. The Constitution is designed to pit “ambition against ambition”, using mankind’s natural sinful self-interest to prevent the government from concentrating excessive power in any branch of the government. This “separation of powers” and system of “checks and balances” has worked well for most of our history, but as courts become more and more boldly activist, wantonly enacting de facto legislation from the bench, the efficacy of our system is teetering on the brink.

One area that perhaps more than others is a hallmark of Madison’s influence on our government is in the area of religious liberty (See: Why I'm Celebrating Madison's Birthday). Religious liberty is at its core a simple concept, i.e. people should be able to worship or not as they see fit without governmental restriction or approbation. Unfortunately the emotionally charged nature of religious expression has made it fodder for all manner of foolishness.

The idea of the separation of church and state, although not specifically appearing anywhere in the Constitution, has been taken to an ugly and unintended extreme by some to mean that any religious expression in the public square is of necessity a violation of the Constitution. The idea of freedom of religion has been perverted to mean a freedom from religion. The idea that we should not permit prayer before Inaugurations, or that the Ten Commandments should be removed from public soil when they are inarguably one of the foundational documents upon which our system of laws and governance is founded are ludicrous on their face and a demonstration of political ideology run amok at the expense of history and truth.

In an equally erroneous overreaction, some have called for an integration of religion into the public square that is also unwarranted and unwise. While I understand President Bush’s call for an Office of Faith Based Initiatives and think it was well-meaning, it ultimately was a bad idea. Even worse is the call for a return to school prayer. I really don’t think we need to link in our kids minds the school, government and prayer. I don’t believe that a child who wished to pray silently to themselves is going to be prevented from doing so, and I really don’t think parents want a Christian/Mormon/Buddhist/Muslim/atheist teacher leading kids in prayer. If you want your kids to pray during the day, keep them home, teach them yourself and lead them in prayer yourself.

It is in the middle of this issue that we discover where the intent was aimed and where the greatest good is found. I have no interest in state sponsored religion, or even a church and state partnership. That is one of the reasons I am concerned with the favorable tax treatments granted to churches and employees of religious organizations. While it seems innocent enough now, I can see it being a wedge issue and a stick to be used later on. Can the days when those tax exemptions are held hostage for concessions from religious organizations be far off? Look at the way the society is headed with an ever increasing dependence on government and tell me I am wrong. I also have no tolerance for those who would expunge religious expression in the public square. The Constitution guarantees the freedom of religious expression, free from compulsion on the one hand and repression from the government on the other. As Americans who enjoy the freedom to worship as we choose or not to worship at all, we owe a debt of gratitude to President Madison for his foresight on this issue.

Happy Birthday!

Proposition 8 and the will of the people

When the California Supreme Court created a “right” for homosexual couples to marry, the people of California did what they are supposed to be able to do: they changed the California constitution by popular vote with Proposition 8 to renew the definition of marriage that has been a foundation, a cornerstone of civilization for millennia. The initial firestorm over Proposition 8 has calmed down, we no longer have protestors interrupting church services and vandalizing mormon church property in California.

That should have ended the issue. But we live in a day of Roe v. Wade, where the courts see fit to not only sit in judgment on the constitutionality of laws but to create new laws and rights where none exist. This has led to a shattering of the “checks and balances” kids used to learn about in school which prevents one branch of government from becoming too powerful. It worked great for a long time, until we reached a case that stretched the bounds of logic and legal scholarship to the breaking point: Roe v. Wade, where the Supreme Court of the United States created a “right” for women to have an abortion by the most tortured of logic. Since then, the courts in America have felt free and indeed emboldened to make laws from the bench. No longer seeing themselves as judges, they now see themselves as benevolent rulers who gently correct the misdeeds of the ignorant masses in this country. So this week we will see a spectacle that would be hilarious if it were not so ominous, the potential of the California Supreme Court invalidating a Constitutional amendment.

Even the justification for this challenge is specious. Former Governor Moonbeam, now Attorney General Jerry Brown is refusing to carry out his duties as an elected official and defend the state before the Supreme Court and is instead urging the court to overturn the decision of the people. The big argument is that the Constitutional amendment process of California should not be used to revoke an existing right, in this case being the right of homosexuals to solemnize their relationship under state marriage laws. Of course the elephant in the room is that the “right” for homosexuals to marry was created entirely by the California Supreme Court in the first place, and fairly recently at that.

It was never intended that the judiciary be in a position to create rights and laws where they do not exist. That is precisely what happened in Roe v. Wade several decades ago and in California more recently. If we want judges to rule over us, we should dismantle our system of republican democracy. Until we decide to do that, we need to reaffirm the system of Constitutional government at the state and Federal level, and the first shot in this war will be fired today in the chambers of the California Supreme Court. The ramifications of the Supreme Court decision in California will have immense impact on not just California, but the entire nation. Not just because homosexuals will get “married” in California and then expect to have those marriages recognized in other states, but because the precedent could be set that the Courts have the right to invalidate amendments to Constitutions that they dislike.

Pay attention people.

A tale of two court decisions

Two fairly disparate cases and some pretty disparate reasoning from the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional the sentence of the death penalty in cases where someone is found to be guilty of raping a child. Whether or not that is the right way to deal with child rapists is not the issue here, the proper role of the Supreme Court specifically and the judiciary in general is. On what basis should decisions be made by the courts? Should it not be the underlying constitution of the nation or the state? Apparently not.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Supreme Court narrowly ruled Wednesday that a man convicted of raping a child cannot be sentenced to death, saying capital punishment must be reserved for murder cases.

By a one-vote majority of 5-4 the justices said the US constitution which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment" bars the imposition of the death penalty "for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim's death."

In its written ruling, the court specified that even if a rape was particularly atrocious, it was impossible to set down a list of circumstances under which the death penalty would be justified, without opening the door to arbitrary decisions.

But in its ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court cited a "national consensus" across most US states that do not have laws allowing capital punishment for the crime of child rape.

Given previous court rulings and its interpretation of the US constitution, the justices held that "the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the crime of child rape."

So is the rape of a child now more acceptable in our society and no longer worthy of the death penalty, or is it that we have become so squeamish about using the ultimate penalty that even those convicted of this heinous crime against children under 12 years of age don't deserve it, that you actually have to intentionally kill another person to be sentenced to death. Apparently the "national consensus" trumps the Constitution. You see, the Court is supposed to be above the political fray, interpreting the law based on what the Constitution of our country says. If the "national consensus" changes, then the nation can amend the Constitution. We have a process in place for overriding the Constitution, and it is not judicial fiat.

What is unfortunately true in this country is that it is far easier for a group with an agenda to get top notch lawyers and convince five justices to change the law than it is to convince the majority of people in a state to make sweeping changes. See Roe v. Wade, see the California Supreme Court imposing homosexual "marriage" on that state and the rest of the country.

Most people have no idea what cases are before the court, what they are arguing and yet the rulings that come down have far reaching implications for our every day life. I don't pay as close attention as I should, because what is being decided on my behalf directly impacts me and in many cases skirts the legal process.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court at long last actually made a decision today from the bench that was the correct one. Not just because I agree with it, but because it deals with something the Constitution actually addresses (guns) and they did so in a way consistent with the clear original intent of the Founders that gun ownership was considered a fundamental, and an individual, right.

Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun control in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most federal firearms restrictions intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Predictable, the Left has come out predicting dire events...

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.

Sure Senator Feinstein, because the gun ban made law abiding citizens in D.C. so very safe, right!

What this means for the people of D.C. is that finally people who are not criminals will not be treated as if they are, and will have the means to legally defend themselves, their families, homes and property. It also means that other punitive gun laws across the country will be challenged very soon and likely struck down. We may see an end to many of the inane laws that assume that if you make something illegal, it will discourage criminals.

Guns don't kill people, criminals kill people!

More on public education's intrusion in religious life


In an ironic story in the Toledo Blade, the ACLU is threatening the school district in Findlay, Ohio because it is promoting religious indoctrination by Christian radicals! Well, not really. What they are really all riled up about is the school permitting students to leave school grounds for a few minutes, go onto a public sidewalk and get a Bible from the Gideons. Note that the Gideons are not on school grounds and kids are not required to leave to get them. No instruction in the Bible takes place:


FINDLAY - Findlay City Schools got a friendly but stern warning yesterday from the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio: It's not legal to let children out of school to get free New Testaments.

In March, fifth graders at the district's five elementary schools were permitted to walk off school grounds during the school day to receive a New Testament from Gideons International.

The ACLU said that while the Gideons have a right to distribute their materials on public property, the public schools cannot sacrifice class time to help them in their religious mission.

"By agreeing to the Gideons' request, pulling them out of class, and walking them over to receive these Bibles, the school crossed the line," said Carrie Davis, staff attorney with ACLU of Ohio.

She sent a letter to Superintendent Dean Wittwer asking that he "immediately stop school employees from escorting students to visit missionaries during school hours."


I love the "stern warning" part. The ACLU, and in cooperation much of the media, has appointed itself as watchdogs of our society and is treated almost like a law enforcement agency, one not ruled by any sort of democratic process and unaccountable to anyone. I must have missed that rule in the Constitution, or that piece of legislation deputizing the ACLU as the arbiter of what does or does not pass Constitutional muster. I thought that was the role of the Supreme Court. Silly me! They even have a briefing paper with the banner "Guardians of Freedom". There is perhaps no group of liberals, a generally self-important group if ever there was one, that is more self-important than the ACLU.


What probably has the ACLU all riled up is this comment by Chris Brooks, one of the principals:


Chris Brooks, principal of Bigelow Hill Elementary School in Findlay, said for years the Gideons have distributed to students what they call a "pocket testament," a palm-sized booklet that contains the New Testament, Proverbs, and Psalms. He said he doesn't have a problem with it.

"To me, you've got to look at the context of the community," Mr. Brooks said. "This is a Christian community. I'm not saying everybody is, but that's where Findlay is."


That might raise their ire just a bit. The ACLU then passes muster on the Constitution again, and throws a quick threat out there


The ACLU said that's not the point.

Ms. Davis said courts across the country have consistently held that it's unconstitutional for schools to have activities like this during the school day.

"For decades, courts have said the schools cannot be doing this," she said. "They say it's the parents' right to control their children's religious upbringing, not the schools."
....
While the letter from the ACLU said the organization was "prepared to explore other options, including legal action" if the district didn't address the issue, Ms. Davis said nothing is planned at this point.

"Right now, the ball is in their court," she said. "We're waiting to hear from the school district in terms of their response to this and whether they intend to consider policy changes" or whether to allow this in the future.


In other words: Do what we say or we bring an expensive lawsuit and bankrupt the school (all in the name of freedom of course) ! That really takes the cake. Parents are allowed to control their children's religious upbringing, but the law in Ohio requires kids to attend public schools unless you jump through a bunch of hoops (Ohio has some pretty restrictive laws regarding homeschool), and in that public school a decidedly anti-religious viewpoint is taught. So you can teach your kids however you want, once the school is done teaching them what it wants. This is just a further example of mandatory, compulsory public education forcing a religious viewpoint by actively promoting an anti-religious message and pushing the religion of secular humanism in it's place. The ACLU and the acolytes of secular humanism, in their quest to quash religious dissent and freedom, go so far as to threaten a small Ohio school because the school (which is supposed to be a place of learning, I thought) is allowing students a couple of minutes of school time (in a school bought and paid for by their parents) to leave school grounds to get a Bible. The truth is that it is the radical secular Left that are the religiously intolerant and closed minded among us.