Home // Archive by category "Legally Speaking"

As Long as We Can Keep It

It was the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in September, 1787, and expectations were running high. Having worked long and hard at crafting the document, and emerging from the room, Benjamin Franklin was asked by an anxious citizen, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”

Came the response from the wise old legislator, “A republic…if you can keep it.”

Implicit in the words of this esteemed Founding Father was this truth: freedom must be cherished, nurtured, and defended, sometimes even to the death. America took a big step toward losing freedom today with the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling that Obamacare passes constitutional muster. Never before has our government been allowed to mandate that Americans spend their money on penalty of taxation, and it doesn’t take any imagination to envision our arrogant powers-that-be determining many other things that we must be forced to do–or else! (By the way, don’t buy into the idea that purchasing car insurance or getting a driver’s license is a parallel; these each are examples of paying reasonable fees for the privilege of driving, not merely for being a breathing American human.) The buffoon who runs New York City, for instance, has proposed that fast food restaurants be limited with regard to the serving sizes of their drinks, on the basis that New Yorkers are more obese than he thinks they should be. Government, in his mind, is the all-knowing nanny, who knows better than you what’s good for you. What happens when this patrician thinking begins to carry the day in Washington? What can government mandate then? What can’t government mandate?

Who is to blame? It’s hard to know where to start. Let’s start with the Republicans. This health care problem didn’t begin with the Obama administration; it’s been building for a long time now. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, along with his do-nothing Republican cohorts on the Hill, did exactly nothing in eight years to address this issue. Nothing. If we think we should lay all of this on the shoulders of Democrats, or if we think we can now trust Republicans to fix the health care crisis when they did zilch for years upon years, we’re massively foolish.

We can certainly lay a lot of blame on Chief Justice Roberts, a Bush appointee, of course. What a convoluted line of reasoning; what an inexplicable thing that he would invent this nonsensical basis for upholding Obamacare. We knew the four liberal members would vote as they did, but we thought that a man professing to be an upholder of the Constitution would vote otherwise. Even the perenially wishy-washy Anthony Kennedy got it right. How and why the Chief Justice voted as he did is truly troubling, and bodes poorly not only for his legacy, of course, but for the future of freedom in our country (or what’s left of it).

Then of course there is Barack Obama himself. Give the man credit: he promised to fundamentally remake America when he was running for President, and doggone if he hasn’t! From his utter disregard for the rule of law, to his animus toward the First Amendment, to his determination to shove massive government down our throats, to Obamacare’s detrimental affect on our freedom as Americans, he can certainly claim credit for remaking our country. He promised hope and change; he sure got the last half right. Of course, if Barack Obama had a shred of integrity, he’d stand by his word–but then, why break new ground? He’s been lying pretty much from Day One, so why change? But if he were a man of his word, who promised us that his healthcare law, its mandate, did not entail a new tax, upon hearing that Chief Justice Roberts had based his ruling, not on the Commerce Clause but on Congress’ ability to tax (thus declaring this to be a new tax), he would reject the finding, and demand that this not be seen as a new tax. But why be consistent? Ah, to be a liberal and never be bothered by having to be consistent…

Now, we are supposed to do all that we can to elect Mitt Romney. Great. Here’s a mediocrity if ever there was one, a thoroughly uninspiring candidate whose chief virtue lies in the fact that mediocrity is preferable to disaster. Romney’s credibility isn’t exactly high on this healthcare point, given his Massachusetts misadventures. In that respect, it’s hard not to put at least a little of the blame for this monstrosity on Mr. Romney himself. Sure, I’ll vote for him; the Libertarian choice is Gary Johnson, who is unacceptable, and there’s at least a chance that Romney can win, and that if he wins, he’ll govern at least better than Obama (how could he govern worse?). It’s hard to imagine the damage that Obama could do if unfettered by thoughts of running for re-election, and for that reason, and for what must be admitted now to be a long shot, the overturning of Obamacare, we have to work for Romney’s election–and then work at least as hard, if not harder, to hold him accountable to some semblance of small government conservatism.

After today’s ruling, let’s be honest enough to admit that it’s a fair question to ask, “how much longer can we keep this republic?”

The Next Good Argument I Hear for “Gay Marriage”…

Will be the first.

Seriously, liberal argumentation generally consists of sloganeering, half-truths, utopian fantasies, and ad hominem attacks. Pretty much every argument that I’ve ever heard advanced to buttress “gay marriage” falls neatly into one or more of these categories.

Today, USA Today came out with an editorial piece favoring the decision by the ultra-leftist Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn California’s Prop 8. By the way, Stephen Reinhardt, who wrote this opinion, and the concurring judge (it was a 2-1 decision of a subcommittee of the court, not the entire court’s decision, by the way) were appointed by Democrats Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. One needs no further reason never to vote Democrat than the mockery of the Constitution that generally tends to take place at the hands of the activist jurists that are almost always the choice of liberal Democrats. But I digress…

I will be sending an editorial response to USA Today in a few moments—who knows if they’ll actually print it—but I reproduce it here in its entirety, for your consideration:

Questions for supporters of gay marriage:

If the issue is equal rights, can you provide the given name of one person that a heterosexual could marry that a homosexual could not? If not, is the issue really equal rights, or is the issue the very definition of marriage itself?

Are legal rights, such as medical privileges, adoption rights, tax benefits, a key aspect of marriage? Are these factors generally a big concern to people who marry?

If not approving gay marriage constitutes a denial of equal rights to homosexuals, does not approving group marriage constitute a denial of equal rights to bisexuals? For that matter, is there not more historical precedent, and logical support, for polygamy than for gay marriage?

Do we establish that “gay marriage harms no one else” by fiat, or could there be a real sense in which it does harm the marriages of others?

Finally, should gay marriage become the law of the land, will you support the rights of my wife and me, married 30 years, to ask the state to no longer recognize our marriage, given our heartfelt religious conviction that gay marriage does indeed cheapen marriage?

I would really, really relish a respectful conversation with any supporter of “gay marriage” who is willing to honestly tackle these questions.

Here’s betting it’ll never happen…

Justice Roberts Gets it Right

Scene at State of the Union Very Troubling

Barack Obama is the second Democrat president in a row to fail to understand the appropriate dignity and decorum required of the office of the Presidency.  There are things you just don’t do and say, out-of-bounds and inappropriate, and it was altogether wrong for the President to call out the Supreme Court merely because he didn’t like one of their rulings.  Chief Justice Roberts is to be applauded for saying what he did (a couple months after the fact, by the way, and only in response to a question).  I’d be tempted, were I in his shoes, to skip that dog-and-pony show when next January rolls around.

Constitution Schmonstitution

So the U.S. House passed the monstrous Affordable Health Care Act of 2009 (if that’s not an Orwellian name, there has never been one). Of course it’s an awful bill; of course it places in the hands of our utterly inept federal government and its bureaucratic wonks a level of oversight that is far, far beyond their capacity to administer; of course it will push us further down the path toward economic catastrophe. But beyond this, it further illustrates the fact that the Constitution of the United States matters not at all to liberals, except of course in one instance: let someone perceived as a “conservative”, or a Republican, play fast-and-loose with it (in a way that said liberals can’t stomach), and the self-righteous liberals will scream bloody Jeffersonian murder. And the frank fact of the matter, of course, is that a whole lot of Republicans don’t themselves really give a rip about the Constitution either.

Bob Barr illustrates all of this well in today’s column in the AJC. For Nancy Pelosi and Jay Rockefeller, to name two mentioned in Barr’s column, the Constitution is a joke.

Can anarchy–or totalitarianism–be too far distant, when we’ve divorced ourselves increasingly from any notion that the law matters?

Uganda’s Terrible, Deadly War against Homosexuals

Evangelical Christians have a difficult time, sometimes, knowing where to come down on the subject of homosexuality. When I was back in my old stomping ground of Grove City recently, my successor at Fellowship Community Church, Pastor David Harstine, delivered an exceptional message dealing with the subject, noting correctly that professing Christians typically fall off the beam on either the side of accepting/justifying homosexual behavior–which the Bible clearly labels sinful–on the one hand, and on the other, hating the sinner as well as hating the sin. Neither approach, it ought to go without saying, is Biblically-faithful.

One way we as evangelicals might demonstrate true love to people–yes, to homosexuals–is to rally for legitimate rights and protections. Now, readers of this blog know that I do not believe that the radical redefinition of marriage (making “gay marriage” legal) falls under this category, and I’ve given my reasons in detail; I don’t care to turn this into a long discussion of such. But I supported (and still do, by the way) Bill Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” policy back when most conservatives and evangelicals were denouncing it. I believe that homosexuals ought to have the right to bequeath their property to whom they please and to have at their bedsides whomever they choose as well; this seems fundamentally right and fair.

Now, we have an opportunity as Christians to speak out against injustice toward homosexuals in the nation of Uganda. A terrible bill has been proposed in the Ugandan parliament, a bill that would in some cases even mean execution for homosexuals–and the sad thing is that the bill is drawing the support of professing evangelical Christians. This is clearly wrong, clearly unChristlike, and ought to be clearly and strongly opposed by believers everywhere.

Let me thus invite you to join a Facebook group that is seeking to combat this awful piece of legislation. It is entitled Speak out Against Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009–and if you are a Facebook member, it deserves your support. Let’s do the right thing, Christ-followers!