Let the Negative Campaigning Begin! Constitutional Roll-backs?

There are two rather interesting issues that have emerged lately in the political debate, issues that to my mind strike at the very core of the American ethos.  Both seem to me to be rather blatant challenges to American freedoms and opportunities -- and no that issue here isn't the right to bear arms.  The issues though are related.  One has to do with immigration and the other with religious freedom.

It saddens me to watch as two Republican Senators, both of whom have stood at the head of the line in support of comprehensive immigration reform, back pedal and embrace the repeal of the 14th Amendment, which interestingly enough was engineered in the 1860s by leaders of the Republican party.  The 14th Amendment has several parts to it, but the section relating to the current conversation reads:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Sen. Lindsey Graham has suggested that this provision be rolled back, because it provides opportunity for "anchor babies," a rather ugly term that suggests that women come to the US to "drop babies," another popular term -- so that they can have residency in the US.  It has been rare in American history to roll back constitutional protections.  The only amendment that has been passed and then repealed was Prohibition.  Supporting Graham is John McCain -- also in trouble politically in his home state -- which has led him to take up causes he once opposed.   Do we really want to undermine constitutional protections that make it possible for the children of immigrants to become citizens?  Oh, it might be politically popular, but do we really want to go there?   And let me remind readers that this Amendment was Republican sponsored and largely opposed by the Democrats of the day.  

The other issue is the proposed mosque in Manhattan (and other mosques around the country).  The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Constitution reads pretty clearly here -- Americans have a freedom to exercise their faiths.  This includes popular and unpopular ones.  Unless they are clearly breaking laws or impinging on zoning restrictions, people have the freedom to gather wherever they like.  Thus, the sponsors of the Manhattan mosque and community center have the right to build two blocks from "Ground Zero."   It may not be politically popular -- and apparently the Republican Party is ready to make this a "campaign issue" for the fall -- but its a Constitutional protection.  I continually hear Tea Party folks and others talking about the Constitution -- usually their right to bear arms -- but when the Constitution doesn't go their way, well then -- "the Constitution be damned!"   My hope is that the American people have a broader and more open vision of the world than to decide who should govern them on the basis of the President's remarks about the mosque in New York. 

So, here's my question -- not so much as a Christian (my faith calls for justice for all people and therefore my view is colored by that theology, but I think this time the question emerges from my being a citizen of this nation) as an America citizen:  Do we really want to undermine constitutional protections of religion and citizenship?

What is it about the 14th Amendment that scares them so?

Remember, when you were in school and you had to pass the U.S. Constitution test to graduate 8th grade? You had to memorize the Amendments to the Constitution...and there were groups, the two most distinct being: 1st 10 - Bill of Rights, and then the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments, which you could shorten to SLAVERY (13), CITIZENSHIP(14), RIGHT TO VOTE(15).

So, I watch from the sidelines, as the folks on the right keep on bringing up REPEALING the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

AND the silence from our so-called ' leaders'.

WHY does the right care about this Amendment?

THEY SAY, it's because the children of illegal aliens, born in this country, and are U.S. Citizens, is a perversion of the Amendment.

So, what exactly does the 14th Amendment say:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 1 is what deserves the focus.



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

This means that the children of illegals born in this country ARE United States Citizens. They're talking about this because the majority of the children that qualify -ARE NOT WHITE.

I simply don't believe that they would care if the majority were from, say, Canada, Ireland, Scandinavia, and nothing will convince me otherwise.

So, while folks like Ms. Lindsey peddle this racism, as well as Senators Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Jeff Sessions and Jon Kyl join in, it's past time to take this attack seriously.

But, rikyrah, I'm not Latino, and I was born in the United States, so what do I care if they want to repeal the 14th Amendment?

Well, all is not as it seems, folks.

Look a bit deeper. The 14th Amendment isn't just about the basic qualifications of citizenship, it's about what, at the core, this citizenship means.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

DUE PROCESS.....

EQUAL PROTECTION....


Remember these two phrases, because they are at the core of the right-wing's hatred of the 14th Amendment.

DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION have been the cornerstones upon which expansions of protection of the individual against the state.

As a limitation on Congress, the Due Process Clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court not only as a remedial requirement when other constitutional rights have been violated, but furthermore as having additional "procedural" and "substantive" components, meaning that the Clause purportedly imposes unenumerated restrictions on legal procedures—the ways in which laws may operate—and also on legal substance—what laws may attempt to do or prohibit.

the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE?

Was THE foundation upon which BROWN V. BOARD was decided in 1954.

Let's repeat that.

The Equal Protection Clause is the FOUNDATION for Brown v. Board.

Isn't it clear to you NOW, why the right is all hot and bothered about the 14th Amendment?

It has been their mission in life to destroy Brown pretty much from the moment was decided and ruined 'their way of life'.

I've been Black in America longer than 3 days..

THEY ARE WHO WE THOUGHT THEY WERE...plain and simple.

The shyt ain't subtle, and they ain't slick.

Now, the question is, why have our so-called ' Leaders', been silent as this assault on the 14th Amendment is taking place on the right? Why is it that they've been pretty much MUTE on this issue? Are they that clueless that they think this entire Amendment repeal is about Latinos, so it doesn't involve Black folk?

I'll ask again:

WHAT PART OF ' IF YOU AIN'T WHITE', don't you understand?

I've said it before - I'm to the right of most bloggers here on the issue of immigration. But, I realize that whatever tactic they think they're going to use against Latinos, if successful, it will only be a nanosecond later that they'll attempt to ' tweak' it to apply to Black folks.

So, it's best that we cut this mess off right away at the pass. You don't have to like Latinos, believe in the 'Black/Brown coalition' or immigration, in order to do what's IN YOUR OWN BEST INTEREST.

See the forest for the trees. What they use against others one day; won't take long to be turned ON YOU.

Do We Need a National Day of Prayer -- Day After Thoughts

Last night I participated in the Troy Interfaith Group's annual National Day of Prayer service.  It was a grand affair -- filling the sanctuary and foyer of Troy's First Presbyterian Church.  We had Muslims, Hindus, Catholics, Protestants, Baha'is, and maybe more.  We shared songs, readings and prayers.  I read the Golden Rule as it is depicted in a variety of religious traditions, as young people light candles to lift up each of these statements.   Afterward, we broke bread together.  It was a thoroughly enjoyable event.  Interestingly enough this observance came into being because one of the founding members of the group, a Hindu woman, was prevented from participating in an observance held on the grounds of City Hall.  The City Council at the time supported the claims of those who declared this to be a Judeo-Christian event (to which, as I understand it, the local Rabbi said -- leave the Jews out of this).  And so a movement was born, one that seeks to better represent the diversity that is present in our community.

I share this story as a segue into answering the title question.  Do we need a National Day of Prayer?  My initial answer is no.  As a person of faith I don't need the President or Congress to tell me that I need to pray.  My faith tells me to do just that.  On the other hand, it might be appropriate for the government to set aside a day in which prayer might be of value to the nation.  I think that's the sentiment of James Madison (author of the Constitution, by the way).  Brad Hart provided this quote from a letter written by Madison to Edward Livingtone in 1822 in a post at American Creation.

 

There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the Executive Proclamations of fasts & festivals, so far, at least, as they have spoken the language of injunction, or have lost sight of the equality of all religious sects in the eye of the Constitution. Whilst I was honored with the Executive Trust I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere designations of a day, on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith & forms. In this sense, I presume you reserve to the Govt. a right to appoint particular days for religious worship throughout the State, without any penal sanction enforcing the worship.  (James Madison)

Note that Madison suggests that such a proclamation is appropriate if it is not an injunction and doesn't "lose sight of the equality of all religious sects in the eye of the Constitution."  Now, you might say, did he intend to include Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus?  I don't know what he had in mind.  But my sense is that he would, if alive today, insist that all religious traditions be included in its purview.  My sense is that President Obama's proclamation is in the spirit of Madison's recommendations. 

Do we need a National Day of Prayer?  I'm not sure I can answer that question.  In fact, it's probably not a relevant question.  Constitutionally, precedent and practice suggest that it's not illegal.  But, if we take Madison as our guide, it would seem that the state shouldn't organize such affairs and that they shouldn't penalize for not participating.  I'd take this a step further, in light of the statement about affirming the equality of all sects, it would seem appropriate that any service held on public grounds or with any hint of public sponsorship, should be interfaith and open to all who would come.  If some would like to have a Christian's only event -- fine -- but don't seek government sponsorship.  Have it in your churches.  In reflecting on this event, my greatest concern is not that secularists will push the religious folk out of the public square, but that one group will seek to use its claims to either majority status as a reason for dominating the public square.

As for our TIG service, I think we've come to the point where we wouldn't want to go on to public property for the event.  We've found our niche and it's working!  

Britt Hume's Advice to Tiger Woods

Everyone pretty much knows the story of Tiger Woods' recent fall from grace. It became public that the mega-star athlete and corporation head was a serial adulterer. The married Woods is the father of two kids in diapers and cashed in greatly not only on his golfing acumen, but also on a squeaky-clean family man image.

Since the numerous affairs began to become public at Thanksgiving following a late night domestic incident and auto accident at his home, Woods' sponsorship deals have disappeared and his golf career put on hold as his family disintegrated in public.

Into this mess last Sunday waded Fox News political analyst and veteran newsman Britt Hume. On the program 'Fox News Sunday', the network's key Sunday news offering on major events, the panel participants were commenting on the big stories in the coming year. In the category of sports, Hume decided to tackle the immediate future of Tiger Woods, opining that Woods would indeed recover his golfing career this year.

However, Hume did not stop there. He went on to add that though Woods, who is believed to be a follower of Buddhism in his religious leanings, would indeed regain his golfing status, he might have a more difficult time in battling and overcoming his personal moral demons. Here is the full, exact quote by Hume at it's relevant point:

"My message would be to Tiger..turn to the Christian faith, and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

Uh oh, take cover, Britt Hume! Head for the hills! Here come the leftists and atheists with their pitch forks! A Christian daring to go on national television and expound that the best course of action for a fallen human being to take would be to turn to Jesus Christ for forgiveness and redemption? An outrageous scandal in the making!

The responses from the liberals was fast and furious this past week. A perfect example was Huffington Post blogger Eve Tahmincioglu, who termed Hume's commentary "bigotry" and further stated she could only "loosely" call him a journalist. Hume has worked for UPI, has been ABC's chief White House correspondent, and has been in the industry for 40 years, having twice been named 'Best in the Business' by the American Journalism Review.

But that is what liberals do best when their ideals, or lack of them, are challenged. Rather than express their own positive messages that extol their own ideas, liberals attack and smear, taking a page from their Saul Alinsky bible. As Britt Hume showed last Sunday, mainstream America is no longer afraid of these fringe radical attacks on American traditionalism and religious freedoms.

The fact is that the U.S. Constitution does not include any references whatsoever to any 'separation of church and state', and in fact makes numerous references to God, as do numerous other documents including the Declaration of Independence. Rather than stifling or eliminating references to religion, the Constitution simply protects the right of Americans to freely express their religious beliefs without being forced to embrace a state-sponsored particular religion.

For decades now, Christians have been under attack by left-wing radicals who embrace atheist concepts as a part of their socialist or communist agendas. It has been particularly Christians who are attacked because Christianity is far and away the leading religious belief system in America, and because our nation was founded largely by Christians acting on the principles that were espoused by their belief system.

All that Britt Hume did last Sunday was give public utterance to the exact teachings of Jesus Christ Himself. Christ taught "Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whomever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father." It just doesn't get any clearer than that.

What Tiger Woods did was to sin, plain and simple. Sin has been called "the greatest evil, being the root and source of all evil." Tiger needs to acknowledge his sin for what it is, he needs to seek forgiveness from his God for that sin, and he needs to seek redemption in the only way possible by believing in and accepting Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior.

Now many believers in other religious systems would take umbrage to that statement. They might believe that there is some other path that Tiger Woods can take to ask for forgiveness and to receive his redemption. Whatever you believe, that isn't the point. The simple point is that Britt Hume, and the nearly 80% of Americans who are also Christian, legitimately believe what he said is plain and simple truth, and that they have a Constitutionally protected right to express that belief.

Expect further attacks from the liberal media including newscasters from other networks, comedians, politicians, and members of other faith systems. At the same time, it is long past time for the more than 200 million Christian Americans to stand up for ourselves and for Christ in a public manner. If they want a fight, it's time to make it a two-sided brawl, for there is nothing more important to humanity or to individual men than the salvation of our immortal souls.

It is not only truth that Jesus Christ is the only way to true redemption for your sins, for Tiger Woods sins, but it is also truth that you will undeniably and absolutely find the peace of mind and the wholeness of self that all human beings seek if you simply do what Britt Hume advised Tiger Woods to do: "turn to the Christian faith", to Jesus Christ and his Word.

NOTE: This is a continuation of the regular 'Sunday Sermon' series, all entries of which you can view by clicking on that label below this aritcle at www.mattveasey.com

Freedom of Speech

Does the U.S. Constitution protect your right to say anything you want, whenever you want, anywhere you want? Some people think that it indeed does, or that if it doesn't allow that, it should. But most understand that while we are free to speak our minds most times, there are limits. You can't just yell "fire" in a crowded movie house, to use an old example.

There is actually no universally accepted definition of 'Freedom of Speech' that is applied within the United States of America. The idea is not clearly defined even within the Constitution itself. Issues relating to free speech have been debated and the courts have ruled on these issues almost since the Bill of Rights was added.

That 'Bill of Rights', for those who may require a brief civics lesson, are the first ten 'amendments' to the originally approved U.S. Constitution. The very first amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

As explained in "The Heritage Guide to the Constitution": "The Founding generation undoubtedly believed deeply in the freedom of speech and of the press, but then, as now, these general terms were understood quite differently by different people. Many people did not think about their precise meanings until a concrete controversy arose, and when a controversy did arise, the analysis was often influenced by people's political interests as much as by their honest constitutional understanding."

Heritage also goes on to explain fully that there are certain established 'rules' and 'exceptions' where free speech is concerned which have developed largely over the past century.

Free speech guarantees restrict only government actions against such, not those of private employers, churches, universities, private home or property holders, and others. You can't put a sign up in your office cafeteria calling the boss an idiot, get fired over it, and claim some alleged free speech protection of your job.

In placing restrictions on government actions limiting free speech, that protection extends not only against federal government, but also to state and local governments, and all branches of the same. These protections are extended not only to traditional speakers and writers, to formal newspaper columnists for instance, but also to regular individuals as they communicate messages through such mediums as the Internet.

The issue has come to light recently with an incident generally involving members of my own Philadelphia Police Department. A police sergeant created a website on his own time, which he operated on his own time, popularly known as "Domelights" by it's users. The site was set up to provide vital information to officers as well as to allow communication and expression for those officers. To that expressive/communicative end, the site provided message boards covering a variety of topics.

One of the most popular of these message boards was named 'Philly Blue', intended to be populated by police officers commenting on issues involving law enforcement in general and the PPD in particular. I posted on Domelights as a regular for years, though ultimately much less frequently, using 'The Big Irish' as my screen name identity. Despite this anonymous name, everyone knew who I was. I never hid it, frequently advertised it, and made my identity available on the site's biographical information records for any member to view.

Problems always existed on Domelights due to the anonymous status of the vast majority of posters, many of whom took 'pot shots' at the department in general, it's policies and programs, and at times even at specific individual officers, supervisors, and managers.

The site has currently been shut down, temporarily restricted from accessibility due to a court proceeding. The site and it's owner found itself in court proceedings when a law suit was filed by the Guardian Civic League, an organization representing black police officers, alleging racism and other activities that it deemed libelous and possibly illegal coming from the message board posters.

I personally believe that this charge is frivolous. There were undoubtedly some posters at Domelights who were racists, just as they exist in society. And there was definitely a major flaw in the Domelights system with the anonymous status of the posters encouraging some folks to say anything inflammatory or irresponsible. But again, these are my personal opinions.

The problems at Domelights led to my own decreased visits and participation, but I would vehemently disagree that the site, it's owner, or it's board participants are institutionally racist or encourage illegal actions. It is what it is, a loosly monitored anonymous message board directed towards a specific target audience that make up the vast majority of its viewers and posters. Those suing Domelights simply don't like what is being said there at times. I believe they will ultimately lose the court fight, and we will see the return of the site in it's entirety, or with slight modifications.

Many have a hard time accepting that free speech guarantees extend to conduct that is "conventionally understood as expressive", according to Heritage. This includes things like wearing an armband, carrying a flag, and even burning of a flag extending into expressions of good and evil, with no exceptions even for things like radical Islam, Nazism, or so-called 'hate speech' expression. To quote the Heritage writers, "Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea."

There are, however, universally accepted and court decision-backed exceptions to free speech. You may not speak to incitement, meaning your speech cannot be likely to cause people to engage in imminent unlawful conduct. You cannot give a street corner speech rabidly inciting folks to turn over cars, shoot police officers, and burn down buildings.

You cannot make false statements of fact that are 'knowing lies', though some such instances have been protected while some even 'innocent mistakes' have been punished by the courts. You cannot make statements that are reasonably perceived as threats of violence, and you cannot use 'fighting words' addressing individuals in face-to-face situations. "I'm gonna blow your head off" or "I'm gonna kick your ass" or "Your wife is a dirty ho" are examples that could be punishable by law.

You cannot participate in expression through obscenity or child pornography. The obscenity standard has been particularly strongly debated. Hard-core pornography is indeed punishable under certain guidelines, but those guidelines remain hotly debated and seem to constantly shift in practice. As for child pornography, courts only restrict the actual use of a child, not the presentation of a person as a child. So using a younger looking 18-year old girl in a movie that presents her as a 12-year old, one in which she has sexual relations, does not violate child pornography laws.

There are restrictions relating to the use of owned property, so-called 'intellectual property' laws for things like copyrighted information in music lyrics and formally published books and periodicals. However, these restrictions do not extend generally to things like facts and ideas. No one can legally monopolize an idea as their own.

There are restrictions on 'commercial advertising' which address things such as businesses having to make 'disclaimers' ("this pill may result in seizures and even death in some cases - check with your doctor before using"), but this does not extend to political advertising, meaning basically that politicians can exaggerate or mislead, but business cannot. It is directed towards speech that "proposes a commercial transaction", protecting the consumer. Shame that we don't rate voters as highly as product consumers where advertising protection is concerned.

We need to mind that all free speech protections extend to us as citizens from the government "acting as sovereign" but do not extend necessarily to that same government acting as an employer, educator, property owner, or regulator of the television and radio airwaves. The rules for these types of situations are so numerous that Heritage equates them to trying to understand the tax code.

The bottom line is that when speaking, be it in a public forum or in private conversation; whether on a street corner, a stage, or in an Internet chat room or message board; whether addressing a political or social or personal issue; in any event under any circumstances to any audience, it is always recommended to know your audience and know what you are talking about, and use a measure of common sense, respect, and even discretion in what you communicate.

Our Founding Fathers did indeed incorporate the idea of freedom of speech into the First Amendment of the Constitution, and not just they but all following generations of Americans have understood this idea as a basic right. What has been and likely always will be less 'basic' is the interpretation of restrictions and exceptions to speaking your mind freely.

Religion and Politics Don't Mix?

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time." --Thomas Jefferson

For all of our nation's history, there have been tactical battles between opposing political ideologies -- liberals (leftists) who want to liberate us from constitutional rule of law, and conservatives who strive to conserve rule of law. Great political capital has been, and continues to be, expended by the Left in order to offend our Constitution, and by the Right in order to defend it.

Amid the din and rhetoric of the current lineup of tactical contests, I ask that you venture up to the strategic level and consider a primal issue that transcends all the political noise.

How many times have you heard the rejoinder, "Religion and politics don't mix"?

Most Americans have, for generations now, been inculcated (read: "dumbed down") by the spurious "wall of separation" metaphor and believe that it is a legitimate barrier between government and religion. So effective has been this false indoctrination that even some otherwise erudite conservatives fail to recall that religion and politics not only mix, but are inseparable.

Recall that our Founders affirmed in the Declaration of Independence "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

In other words, our Creator bestowed the rights enumerated in our Declaration and, by extension, as codified in its subordinate guidance, our Constitution. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are natural rights; they are not gifts from government.

To that end, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."

But the Left has, for many decades, made its primary objective the eradication of God from every public quarter, and routinely relied on judicial activism to undermine constitutional rule of law and, thus, the natural rights of man.

The intended consequence of this artificial barrier between church and state is to remove knowledge of our Creator from all public forums and, thus, over time, to disabuse belief in a sovereign God and the natural rights He has endowed.

This erosion of knowledge about the origin of our rights has dire implications for the future of liberty.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever."

As the author of our Declaration of Independence makes clear, we should all tremble that man has adulterated the gifts of God.

Ironically, it was Jefferson who penned the words "wall of separation between church and state" in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

Jefferson was responding to a letter the Association wrote to him objecting to Connecticut's establishment of Congregationalism as its state church. Jefferson responded that the First Amendment prohibited the national (federal) government from establishing a "national church."

After all, the controlling language (Amendment I) reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Jefferson concluded rightly that the Constitution's 10th Amendment federalism provision prohibited the national government from interfering with matters of state governments -- a "wall of separation," if you will, between the federal government and state governments.

Among all our Founders, Jefferson was most adamant in his objection to the construct of the Judicial Branch of government in the proposed Constitution, writing, "The Constitution [would become] a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

Jefferson warned: "The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. ... It has long been my opinion ... that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped."

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 81, "[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution."

But Jefferson was correct in his apprehension about our Constitution being treated as "a mere thing of wax" by what he called the "despotic branch," who would do the bidding of their special-interest constituencies rather than interpret the plain language of the Constitution.

In 1947, Justice Hugo Black perverted Jefferson's words when Black speciously opined in the majority opinion of Everson v. Board of Education that the First Amendment created a "wall of separation" between religion and government, thus opening the floodgates for subsequent opinions abolishing religious education and expression in all public forums.

John Adams wrote, "If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave."

It may not be in the power of man to alienate the gift of liberty, but it will certainly take the power of men, guided by our Creator, to defend it. To that end, religion and politics are inseparable.

WRITTEN by Mark Alexander and presented in his Federalist Society emailing dated May 14th, 2009

Decay at the Very Root

Most of our nation's great problems, including our economic problems, have as their root decaying moral values. Whether we have the stomach to own up to it or not, we have become an immoral people left with little more than the pretense of morality. You say, "That's a pretty heavy charge, Mr. Williams. You had better be prepared to back it up with evidence!" I'll try with a few questions for you to answer.

Do you believe it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe some kind of force should be used against him? Neither question is complex and can be answered with either a yes or no. For me the answer is no to both questions, but I bet that your average college professor, politician or minister would not give a simple yes or no response. They would be evasive and probably say that it all depends.

In thinking about questions of morality, my initial premise is that I am my private property and you are your private property. That's simple. What's complex is what percentage of me belongs to someone else. If we accept the idea of self-ownership, then certain acts are readily revealed as moral or immoral. Acts such as rape and murder are immoral because they violate one's private property rights. Theft of the physical things that we own, such as cars, jewelry and money, also violates our ownership rights.

The reason your college professor, politician or minister cannot give a simple yes or no answer as to whether one person should be used to serve the purposes of another is that they are sly enough to know either answer would be troublesome for their agenda. A "yes" answer would put them firmly in the position of supporting some of mankind's most horrible injustices, such as slavery. After all, what is slavery but the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another? A "no" answer would put them on the spot as well because that would mean they would have to come out against taking the earnings of one American to give to another in the forms of farm and business handouts, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and thousands of similar programs that account for more than two-thirds of the federal budget.

There is neither moral justification nor constitutional authority for what amounts to legalized theft. This is not an argument against paying taxes. We all have a moral obligation to pay our share of the federal government's constitutionally mandated and enumerated functions.

Unfortunately, there is no way out of our immoral quagmire. Now that the U.S. Congress has established the principle that one American has a right to live at the expense of another American, it no longer pays to be moral. People who choose to be moral and refuse congressional handouts will find themselves losers. They'll pay higher and higher taxes to support increasing numbers of those paying lower and lower taxes.

As of now, nearly 50 percent of income earners have no federal income tax liability - so what do they care about rising income taxes? In other words, once legalized theft begins, it becomes too costly to remain moral and self-sufficient. You might as well join in the looting, including the current looting in the name of stimulating the economy.

I am all too afraid that a historian, 100 years from now, will footnote America as a historical curiosity where people once enjoyed private property rights and limited government but that it all returned to mankind's normal state of affairs - arbitrary abuse and control by the powerful elite.

WRITTEN by Walter Williams in The Washington Times on April 4th, 2009

SCOTUS Cannot Be Reshaped Overnight

There is a reason why Lady Justice wears a blindfold. There are things that courts are not supposed to see or recognize when making their decisions — the race you belong to, whether you are rich or poor, and other personal things that could bias decisions by judges and juries.

It is an ideal that a society strives for, even if particular judges or juries fall short of that ideal. Now, however, Pres. Barack Obama has repudiated the ideal itself by saying that he wants to appoint judges with “empathy” for particular groups.

This was not an isolated slip of the tongue. Barack Obama said the same thing during last year’s election campaign. Moreover, it is completely consistent with his behavior and associations over a period of years — and inconsistent with fundamental principles of American government and society.

Nor is this President Obama’s only attempt to remake American society. Barack Obama’s vision of America is one in which a president of the United States can fire the head of General Motors, tell bankers how to bank, control the medical system, and take charge of all sorts of other activities for which neither he nor most other politicians have any expertise or experience.

The Constitution of the United States gives no president, nor the entire federal government, the authority to do such things. But spending trillions of dollars to bail out all sorts of companies buys the power to tell them how to operate.

Appointing to the federal courts — including the Supreme Court — judges who believe in expanding the powers of the federal government to make arbitrary decisions, choosing who will be winners and losers in the economy and in the society, is perfectly consistent with a vision of the world where self-confident and self-righteous elites rule according to their own notions, instead of merely governing under the restraints of the Constitution.

If all this can be washed down with pious talk about “empathy,” so much the better for those who want to remake America. Now that the Obama administration has a congressional majority that is virtually unstoppable, and media that are wholly uncritical, the chances of preventing the president from putting someone on the Supreme Court who shares his desire to turn America into a different country are slim or none.

The only thing on the side of those who understand this, and who oppose it, is time. Reshaping the Supreme Court cannot be done overnight, the way Congress passed a vast spending bill in two days.

Replacing Supreme Court justices is something that can be done only one at a time and at unpredictable intervals. What this means is that senators who do not have enough votes to stop an Obama nominee to the High Court from being confirmed nevertheless have an opportunity — and a duty — to alert the public to the dangers of what is being done.

This does not mean turning confirmation hearings into a circus or a kangaroo court with mud-slinging at judicial nominees, the way Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas were smeared. But it also does not mean taking the path of least resistance by quietly voting for people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, who treat the Constitution as a grant of arbitrary power to themselves, rather than a restriction of power on the government as a whole.

It is all too easy to say “A president has the right to appoint the kind of people he wants to the Supreme Court.” He does. But that does not mean that those who don’t have the votes to stop dangerous nominees from being confirmed are obliged to vote for them or to stand mute.

Since Justice David Souter is likely to be replaced by another liberal, it is all too easy to say that it is no big deal. But with all the indications we have already as to how the Obama administration is trying to remake America on many fronts, the time to begin alerting the public to the dangers is now.

Given the age and health of some other Supreme Court justices, more replacements are likely during Obama’s time in the White House. Time gives an opportunity to mobilize public opinion and perhaps change the composition of the Senate that will confirm the next judicial nominees.

But time by itself does nothing. It is what we do with time that matters.

WRITTEN by Thomas Sowell for the National Review as 'Time Is On Our Side' and published on May 7th, 2009

Rendell is Wrong on Guns

The governor of Pennsylvania wants to take away your Constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. He believes that there are guns flying or walking around his Commonwealth and this nation on their own, blasting away at the citizens under his charge. He believes that if he just takes away your guns, then the bad people who want to sell drugs and rob folks will never again have firearms in their hands. This must be the case. He must believe that, like some crazed cartoon, a gun walks up to people on its own and demands their cash. Or that a gun shoots itself at people on a drug corner. Or that guns leave their homes, drive down the block in their cars, and kill police officers. Never mind all of the evidence that seems to point to something completely different. That there actually do seem to be human beings who are carrying those guns, robbing people with them, and pulling the trigger to shoot people. And there is a funny thing about the vast majority of the people who it seems are always carrying those guns. They have a criminal record, have been arrested by law enforcement already, been convicted by juries and judges already, and been sent to prison already. Unfortunately for their subsequent robbery and assault and murder victims, many of them have been released early from their sentences. People sentenced to 15-20 year sentences get out routinely in a half dozen years. People sentenced to 25 years behind bars are out in a decade. And what do the heavy majority then do? They return to a life of crime, often using guns to accomplish this task. But perhaps Governor Ed Rendell understands this, and maybe he just thinks that if we do away with guns then it will be more difficult for these individuals to obtain them. What do you think? Do you think that if a bad guy wants to get a gun, no matter what kind of laws and restrictions the Governor has instituted, that he will not be able to get one? I mean, there are literally tens of thousands of guns already in the hands of private citizens across the country, and no amount of legislation enacted is going to ever do away with that fact. No, the fact is that bad guys will always be able to get their hands on guns, and the further fact is that Governor Ed Rendell knows it. He is not a stupid man, he is just a politician, and what politicians have learned over the years to do best is to make people feel good, to make them feel as if the politicians are doing something, anything, to help alleviate problems. Just like any other politician who has ever said them, Governor Rendell knows that when he and other pols speak lines such as "We're going after the guns! This is outrageous, all these shootings! Something has to be done, and we're going to do it!" he sounds tough, and some people believe it means he is looking out for them. The fact is that politicians know that they can never do away with all the guns out there, and that they cannot keep them out of the hands of bad guys. They simply do not have the political courage to stand up and tell you the truth, that the vast majority of gun crimes, like any other crimes, are committed by the same small percentage of the population over and over again, and that if you just keep these folks off the streets, crime will drop precipitously. If someone gets 25 years in jail, keep them in jail for 25 years. That's a quarter of a century that some violent criminal will not be able to victimize society. If they commit another such crime on being released, double their penalty. That pretty much takes them out of the game for the rest of their lives and ours. Spray paint doesn't cause graffiti, ignorant and delinquent people do. Matches don't light forest fires, careless and reckless people do. Guns don't rob, injure, and kill, dangerous people do. If the Governor and others like him are ever successful in restricting or limiting the purchase of guns, then the only people who will have a hard time getting their hands on them will be law abiding citizens such as you and I. There is a popular argument that these generally liberal politicians like to make, that individuals should be able to own a handgun, but not high-powered, military-style, automatic or semi-automatic weapons. They like to say that no one needs weapons such as those. Why is that? Who are they to decide that they know better than the framers of our American Constitution, who envisioned ownership of private firearms as a means of ensuring that the government could not oppress the people at the barrels of its own guns one day? Americans have the right, guaranteed by our Constitution, to protect ourselves with private firearm ownership. That was the intent of our Founding Fathers, that has been the position of numerous court decisions down through our history, and that is the reality of the situation. Liberal politicians such as Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell would be far more sincere, and far more effective, if they spent less time worrying about taking away our guns and more time worrying about taking away freedom from criminals and keeping them behind bars where they belong.

Obama-Dem Mistake #1

There are going to be many of them in the coming days, weeks, months and years (hopefully not too many years.) Major mistakes made by President Barack Obama, the Obama administration, and the Democratic Party power in the congress. Each one of them is going to need to be pointed out and explained. Any number of sources will take on that responsibility, and I am going to ensure that this blog covers the worst of these mistakes. The 'Obama-Dem Mistake #1' began this week with the order to close the prisoner holding facility at Guantanamo Bay, known as 'Gitmo'. For those who are unaware, Guantanamo Bay is located on the southeast edge of Cuba. In 1898, the U.S. established a naval base there, and the 1903 'Cuba-America Treaty' gave the U.S. a perpetual lease on this area. In 2002, three camps were established on the naval base for the detainment and interrogation of prisoners captured on the battlefields in the war on terrorism in the Middle East. There were no appropriate facilities that were acceptable from a security standpoint within the Middle East countries where these combatants were captured for their continued detainment. There was also no way that such individuals were going to be allowed on to U.S. mainland soil, subject to American laws, and allowed to have the American judicial system available to them as if they had the same rights as the average American citizen. These were people who were actively involved in a war against the United States and the entirety of western civilization. They have already been filtered out and it has been determined that there is a high probability that these detainees have particular intelligence or information of a sensitive nature going directly to the security of the United States and/or our troops. Many of them have also been trained to resist normal levels of questioning and usual interrogation methods. Gitmo was selected as a location where these individuals could be kept safe from everyday Americans, and where they could be controlled and interrogated outside the reach of the American legal system. Gitmo has been inappropriately characterized as a 'torture facility' by all of the usual liberal sources such as the ACLU. It is also seen as a linchpin in the overall war on terror, which the liberal community wants shut down. President Obama was elected by these folks, and one of his promises to them was that he would shut down Gitmo and put a halt to any alleged American torture practices. In one of his first acts, he has ordered that Gitmo shutdown to happen within a year, and has ordered that most interrogation be conducted pursuant to the Army field munual. In many cases our intelligence and military officials will now be more restricted when interrogating threats to our national security than are our nations police officers in interrogating common criminals. And as Gitmo is closed down, where will the detainees, all of whom are genuine threats to Americans, be sent? The first recourse will be to attempt returning them to their homelands. But as this has been tried in the past, these nations do not want and will not accept the individuals. Will these individuals simply be released on to the streets of the United States? The ones who do get accepted for return to their homelands, will they return to fighting America? These dangerous individuals are about to become some of the first pawns in the liberal Democrat game. Closing Gitmo and restricting our intel resources is the first mistake of the new Obama-Dem administration. We can only hope that the ultimate price paid is relatively small, and not something even more cataclysmic than the 9/11 attacks.

Marching For Life

January 22nd, 1973 was one of the worst dates in the history of the United States of America. On that date 36 years ago today, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) delivered its opinion in the case of 'Roe vs. Wade'. According to the SCOTUS decision, most laws restricting abortion in America violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The ruling basically overturned all state and federal laws restricting abortions. It centrally held that a mother could abort her pregnancy for any reason up until the point at which the baby, referred to in the ruling by its scientific developmental stage name 'fetus', became 'viable'. It defined viability as the baby having the potential to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid, and placed this term at between 24-28 weeks. The court also held that abortion after viability must also be available in order to protect a woman's health, and this 'health' was defined broadly in a companion case called 'Doe vs. Bolton'. The court based its ruling on its desire to protect personal freedoms and privacy. A woman should be able to make medical decisions involving her health along with her doctor, and the government should in no way be interfering in this process. Of course never anywhere in their ruling did the court recognize the very apparent fact that there is not just one life, not just one person's health, being affected by a decision to abort. There is a baby alive inside of the mother. Unfortunately for that baby, it can not yet speak for itself. It cannot stand up for its own rights. It cannot vote for politicians who will support its cause. And there is, of course, only one 'cause' for which these babies are fighting at this early stage of their development - their very lives. A year after the 'Roe v. Wade' ruling was handed down a group of grassroots Americans who recognized the fundamental importance of standing up for these lives got together and organized a relatively small memorial. On January 22nd, 1974 the very first 'March for Life' took place with 20,000 participants marching on the U.S. Capitol in protest of the SCOTUS decision. By the following year of 1975, that number more than doubled to 50,000 and has grown now to the point where approximately 200,000 people regularly flood the Capitol steps and the surrounding areas each year. The 'March for Life' movement supports a set of 'Life Principles' that simply sound like common sense. They support the self-evident truth that all human beings are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which is the right to life. They support the preservation of every human life by every other human life, from the moment that the father's sperm fertilizes the mother's ovum. This factually and truthfully results in the creation of life, which will result in the birth of a human being, which will result in that human being growing into a child, and finally into an adult. The actual march begins on 4th Street in Washington, D.C. near the U.S. District Court. It then proceeds along Constitution Avenue past the U.S. Capitol and on to 7th Street, between the Capitol and the Supreme Court building. This evening the annual 'Rose Dinner' (the rose being the symbol of the movement) will be held at the Hyatt Regency. There will be speeches by a few key players in the movement, awards for a half dozen student activists, learning opportunities on the issues, some fine dining, and a toast to success for life issues during the coming year. You know, it just seems to me to be incredible that we need a 'movement' dedicated to life itself. I mean, where would all of the pro-abortion folks be if their parents had made what they determine to be the 'choice' not to give birth to them? Dead, that's where they would be today. Just like the hundreds of millions of babies who have been killed since that infamously egregious 'Roe v. Wade' decision decades ago. Approximately 47 years ago, a young single mother gave birth to a child whose father had abandoned them both. Three months later, my own mother gave birth to me. The son of that single mother, who raised him sometimes in poverty, often in difficulty, was sworn in this week as the 44th President of the United States of America. Many of his supporters decry the more than 4,000 American lives lost by people who by their own choice fought and died for our country. But most of those same supporters hold their tongues for the 7.5 million babies killed by abortion in America since the war began in Iraq. Or worse, they support these deaths. The same streets on which Barack Obama was inaugurated and on which parades honored him just two short days ago were filled today with people marching for human life. Thanks to the hundreds of thousands who flooded the streets of Washington, D.C. today we may one day live to see Americans overturn that immoral and murderous court ruling.

God and Country

Of course it's purely a hypothetical question if you live in America or most any free nation, but if you simply had to make a choice, which would you choose: God, or country? If you're someone who is among the tiny minority of Americans who doesn't believe in God to begin with, it's an easy question. And if you're one of those who loves God completely but has little faith or confidence in any government, then it's probably an easy choice for you as well. But the vast majority of Americans would find this a difficult question with which to wrestle. Your first inclination would be to say something like "There's no way that would ever happen here in the U.S., so I don't even have to worry about it." Perhaps true. When the United States of America publicly issued its Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776, the document began: "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..." The Declaration goes on to famously state: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The document, written by Thomas Jefferson, was signed with affirment by him, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and leaders from all 13 original colonies. So the United States at its founding was a nation of believers. Then in what is commonly known as the 'Bill of Rights', the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1791 guaranteed "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." What the authors were striving for was tolerance, not abolition of religion from society. So you would seem to have a pretty solid backing to believe that you shouldn't ever have to worry about being forced to make such a choice. But the fact is, those words were written and spoken in the past, and we are talking about a hypothetical future. Think it can't happen in actuality? Then you simply haven't been paying attention to the history of the world. One thing that you can most certainly count on in the future is change, and for anyone to say they know where that change is going to take us in the next few centuries, even just in the next few decades, would be extremely presumptuous and naive. So just play along. Something happens, and you are forced to make that choice: God or country. The likely way such a choice would come is from the country end of things. Some entity coming to power and telling you that you may worship no God, or must worship some particular version of God, or else you have to leave the country (or worse.) In the Bible, the last years of mankind on earth are filled with this type of individual, personal decision in the Book of Revelation. You will be forced to choose between God and the ruling power manifest by Satan, and the immediate price of choosing incorrectly will be your life. In his own life, Jesus Christ spoke of the relevance of government in the Gospel of Luke: "Give to the emperor the thing's that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's". This famous 'render unto Caesar' statement shows that the Lord understood and supported that there was a need for government of men by men. I would say that if you are ever forced into such a choice, then you only have one decision to make - choose God. That means even if you have to die for your choice. Because no government worth living in would force such a choice on you, and none is worth the price of your immortal and eternal soul. Now for some, the choice might come from God Himself. For reasons only he may fully appreciate, you may be called to some action or to take some position that runs counter to that of your official American government position. And when I say 'called', I mean 'called by God' in a manner that leaves you no doubt as to the origin of the call to action. In that case, you most certainly need to choose to do or say whatever it is that God is calling you to. There is every probability that His reasons go to a message that He wants delivered through you to the rest of mankind. The bottom line is that you should always choose God over country, and the simple reason is that your country, the United States of America, was formed with the blessings of God and inspired by His Word. God came first, His will and power are greater. You will be subject to the laws, rules, customs, and opinions of your countrymen for a few decades. You will answer to God for eternity. So while there is no choice to make, while America remains a God-fearing, God-loving nation in most hearts, continue to fight with everything that is in you and pray with everything you have that this status continues. But if one day the situation changes, and it all falls apart, be sure that you are ready to make the right decision. The correct choice will always be the choice for God.