Posted on 05/14/2008 8:08:42 AM PDT by wrhssaxensemble
A Nation of Men and Not Laws: The Leftist Perversion of American Thought
By: Rob Shepherd (Mr. Shepherd is a first-year law student at Quinnipiac School of Law and the former three-term Treasurer of the Club; he doesn’t like hippies)
As National Review's Richard Brookheiser noted in his most recent work, answering what the Founding Fathers would think of our modern nation is largely left up to interpretation. Thus, while some may claim that issues such as the abortion or drug legalization run contrary to the goals of our nation's founders, this assertion is left up to debate. What is hardly debated by historians, however, is that our great nation was founded on the central principle that a general law is superior to individualized or specialized justice. Indeed, the entire purpose of the Revolution which shaped our nation was to rebel against an imperialist nation which placed royalty and patronage above uniform legal treatment of all its subjects. As the writer of this Commonwealth's constitution put it, the core essence of our system is that we are "a government of laws, and not of men". Yet everywhere one turns, whether it be at UMASS, or in state and national politics, leftists continue to undermine this central notion and show their disdain for both this great nation's history and the freedoms it represents.
Turning first to UMASS, one finds a long history of supposedly tolerant leftists wielding their own views of "social justice" rather than equitably enforcing the law. The First Amendment to the US Constitution, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment promises that states may pass no laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble". Yet, UMASS, a branch of the state government, has a contrary speech code which directly infringes upon this right by stating not only specific times and places where rallies can be held but also bars the use of any "rude or disrespectful", or "unwarranted" language. Most importantly, however, these restrictions seem to have been applied only to Conservatives on campus. Rather than apply these restrictions across the board, they have, until recently, largely been only applied to oppress right-minded students. As the former Treasurer of the Republican Club, I have seen numerous events where radical leftists violated these codes yet were left un-reprimanded. The Left has been allowed to do every act from throwing insults to throwing condoms at Conservative speakers. Yet, if the roles were reversed, the Conservative attacker would be given no leeway. When the clearly culpable KKK9 were caught drawing a tasteless satire involving a Klansman, the Left on campus went so crazy that they held rallies chanting the sophomoric mantra of "F**K the First Amendment". Yet, if Conservatives on campus did the same to extremely graphic drawings of sodomy put up by the Radical Student Union, or some other Marx-worshiping organization, the Left would turn it into an issue on homosexuality. Essentially, the Left believes free speech protections on campus apply only to them and not their dissidents. Perhaps the campus Left's chant should instead be "F**K Conservatives who exercise their First Amendment rights" rather than just "F**K the First amendment." Hopefully, in light of recent circumstances, the administration will work further to limit this mindset. But such a result is dubious.
In terms of national politics, the Leftist proclivity toward individualized and specialized justice becomes even more pronounced. Whenever the leftists get the opportunity to do so, they choose to only follow the law when it favors their political views. When Eliot Spitzer was caught in the middle of a prostitution ring, many on the left viewed it not as an opportunity to equitably apply criminal laws against prostitution and show that governmental officials are not immune to prosecution. Granted he ultimately stepped down, but many on the left argued that he should keep his position and viewed the events as nothing more than a referendum on the soundness of sex-for-hire laws. In essence, the left showed their view that men like Spitzer are above the law. When Former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevy was caught violating the law by giving his gay partner a patronage job or when Massachusetts' own Gary Studs statutorily raped a young page, or when Barney Frank was caught running a prostitution ring out of his house, the Left still refused to equitably enforce the law. Instead, the Left viewed those cases as opportunities to further the gay agenda. Further, when Bill Clinton lied under oath to a grand jury and obstructed justice, the left decided not to act on such serious allegations but instead blow them off as "partisan" despite their clear factual basis. In other words, they left chose to show that Bill Clinton was above the law and could freely perjure and obstruct justice. In all, the Left favors their politicians over equitable enforcement of the laws they violated.
Compare this approach to that of the Right on such scandals. Conservatives outright demanded the resignations of perverts such as David Vitter, Mark Foley, and Larry Craig. Rather than ignore the law and put the particular individual above it, Conservatives chose to equitably enforce the relevant laws. Although those politicians, like their liberal counterparts are scumbags, they found no solace from Conservatives who instead chose to follow Adams' constitutional mantra. Worst of all, the Left completely ignores the law when it comes to illegal immigration. Perhaps worse than any other issue, the Left believes that the law is less important than their political goals. Rather than equitably enforcing immigration laws and barring illegals from crossing our borders, as real Conservatives are apt to do, the Left essentially argues that the potential political support they can gain from the incoming Hispanic populations is more important than a just legal system. If largely Conservative populations were crossing the border rather than largely Left-leaning, welfare loving ones, it is doubtful whether the Leftists would be as lenient about enforcing immigration laws. The extreme recklessness exercised by Leftists in this country in regards to border enforcement is nothing more than a Leftist subversion of the law in favor of a "favorable group."
In all, these different issues show one thing: Leftists hate the law unless it favors their political goals. Unlike the founders and most modern Conservatives who view the law as something to be revered and something to apply equally to all regardless of race, gender, class or social power, the Left views the law as nothing more than a political tool that can be used to favor the more "favorable". To the Left, law means nothing more than a tool to use against one's enemies and to favor one's allies regardless of the consequences. In a way, I am glad Adams, Madison and Lincoln are no longer alive for I fear they would sob over the way the Left has torn our most revered document of liberty, permanently removed the notion of equal justice, and pasted it back together into nothing more than a political mess in which the interests of the "nice" Leftist are far more important than equitable enforcement of just laws.
Someone who has made it to college and still believes that the world is a “fair” place. Cute. Conservatives and republicans must understand that the ultimate leftist, Satan, was left in charge of this world, and he isn’t interested in “fairness” - he just wants more and more power and more souls in hell. He’ll get his smackdown some day, but in the meantime we shouldn’t expect fair treatment.
bmflr
Well the point I took from it is that although the world is far from fair, the legal system is at least supposed to be
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.