Laws Be Damned

NewsMax ^ | 17 February 2004 | Al Rantel

[45Auto]

There is a new political development in America that should frighten every law abiding citizen in this country. That is the growing disregard for people who follow the law and play by the rules, and the rewarding of those who do not.

Where I live in California we have two concurrent stories going on that demonstrate clearly what is at issue. The first one involves the Mayor of San Francisco who, though sworn to uphold the laws and the Constitution of California in his just taken oath of office, now allows and instructs city government to break those laws.

Under California’s penal code, he might very well be committing a felony. Mayor Newsome has decided that he doesn’t like California’s law that says marriage is only between one man and one woman and so he orders marriage licenses to be issued to hundreds of gay couples waiting in line at city hall.

The public and the law be damned, the Mayor will do what he wants. Meantime, Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger has a “no comment” for the media when asked about it, and the State’s Attorney General musters a statement that no one has asked him to issue a legal opinion. Are they serious?

Imagine for a moment if some local public official starting giving out gun licenses en masse because he did not like California’s oppressive anti-gun laws? The entire weight of the media elite and the state would be down upon his head. The irony is there is in fact a right to bear arms as stated in the now ignored second amendment to the Unites States Constitution. There is no right to get married.

The second example is the newest move in California only weeks after a similar law was repealed due to huge public opposition to allow those people in this country illegally to obtain California drivers licenses. The Governor now says he is close to a deal with the state’s liberal Democrats that run the legislature to bring back the idea with a few new safeguards like background checks.

Yes, background checks for people who are already living outside the law and who as illegals are notorious for having more false documents than Saddam Hussein’s weapons manufacturers. Those who have chosen to ignore and outright violate the nation’s laws on how one enters into this country would be rewarded with the most important piece of state documentation, the drivers license. As we all know, this photo identification in a country that does not have a national ID card is used even to enter the country when you come from places like Mexico or Canada, but is also used as ID to board commercial aircraft.

So here we are living in a country that stands for the rule of law and not the rule of a single individual or group of individuals, and those who choose to break the law are not only allowed to keep on doing so but in the case of the drivers license controversy, they are given a reward for thumbing their noses at the rest of us.

What will happen to our society when people begin to ask what law they can break that they don’t like? What will happen to our society when it finally becomes clear to law abiding citizens that those who do not obey the laws are not only not worse off than they, but in some ways are better off?

Just think, in the nation’s most populous state today, you can get an illegal marriage license and soon be illegal and get a drivers license. Not only will public officials not stop you, but they will even help you to break the rules. Even the tough guy Governor will not be able to muster a comment when he used to talk for living.

America has never been on such a morally ambiguous path, but no intelligent person can really believe all of this can make our country better, safer, or stronger as a nation. And we embark on this road at our own peril.

[Mr. Mojo]

Imagine for a moment if some local public official starting giving out gun licenses en masse because he did not like California’s oppressive anti-gun laws?

Good analogy. And Rantel is obviously right, the state and liberal media would descend on this "lawbreaker" like a guillotine.

[OXENinFLA]

I caught him on O'reilly last night.

When they 1st started talking about this analogy I thought great he's going to say what if the gov't came out and said "you can't own guns" NOT "everyone line up for a conceal carry permit"

As a resident of FL I think that it is WRONG for CA to tell it's people they can't carry!

[raybbr]

This all started years ago. People have been breaking traffic laws with total disregard for the law. The police ignored the very minor traffic violations and now look at the roads today. Almost everybody does as they please on the roads. You may laugh and scoff at me but the gradual erosion of respect for laws has been going on for some time. People are no longer afraid to break "minor" laws and it has escalated into what we have today.

[You Dirty Rats]

There would be a court ruling stopping the distribution of these gun licenses in about 5 minutes.

I have a simpler solution. Ah-Nold should just call a press conference (indoors) and light up a cigar.

The brazen violation of State Law by the dishonorable Mayor of San Francisco is no small matter. It's more important than the whole gay marriage question -- it is a threat to the nation on a very basic level. If elected officials find it perfectly OK to openly ignore laws, then the survivalist nuts in the Rockies might have the right idea after all.

[Thisiswhoweare]

Excellent post, thanks. For those of us that see this happening, it seems we must just stand by helplessly and watch it continue. We are getting fewer avenues to object with any results. The same people whom we elect now turn their backs on us and view us as the "trouble makers". It's a sad time indeed. How can you obey the rules when they change every time you turn around?

[GulliverSwift]

This scenario has already played out with Roy Moore. In both cases, government officials flouted the law and spit on the rule of law. I didn't like Moore's action and and Newsom's is certainly criminal.

[You Dirty Rats]

Good point. The only real difference between the two cases is the political positions of the two gentlemen. Scary.

[GulliverSwift]

Good post. It's also worth pointing out that Newsome was being touted repeatedly by Laura Ingraham. I don't listen to her show any more but I hope she's been honest enough to apologize for lending her support to a lawbreaker.

[thoughtomator]

Big difference: Moore has the law of the land - the Constitution - on his side. Congress shall make no law infringing freedom of religion or freedom of speech, according to the law of our land. There's no similar injunction against what Congress, or any other legislature, may do with regards to marriage licenses.

It is very sloppy thinking, and entirely too PC and morally-equivocating, to say Newsom and Moore are similar cases.

[John Jorsett]

Or, how about a Police Chief announcing that they're not going to enforce the laws against blocking abortion clinics. Think THAT act of "civil disobedience" would be applauded by the mayor of San Fran?

[OXENinFLA]

I need to revise that. SOME people can't carry guns.

[azhenfud]

"There is no right to get married."

Yes there is - to those who QUALIFY. Phaggots don't qualify for marriage any more than a jackass does for a college degree.

[You Dirty Rats]

Nice try.

Amendment I - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... "

The Judge acted in his official governmental capacity to place monuments relating to a specific religious belief. It has been determined in the courts that this is a violation of the establishment clause above. By refusing to respect the lawful rulings in this matter, Judge Moore placed himself outside the law and deservedly lost his job.

The fact that the First Amendment can be argued to support Judge Moore's position doesn't matter. He lost the argument. Either follow the case law or stop being a judge.

The same with Newsom. He may believe the California law is unconstitutional, but that is not for him to decide a Mayor. His job is to enforce the law, which means telling same-sex couples they cannot marry.

If we have every government official in the country deciding they can interpret any law as they personally see fit, it won't be long before they also feel the same way about making and enforcing laws. Total anarchy.

Moore and Newsom are both wrong.

Dubya and the Republicans need to stand up and demand respect for the law in this country. I have no desire to see this country end up like Brazil.

[SevenDaysInMay]

Demonstrated worldwide during the 20th Century, criminally corrupt socialism is fascism. The SF mayor's orders to violate state laws are the same as Clinton's executive orders made to bypass proper and legal legislation, such as the Mexican's peso bailout when Congress would go not along, to name but one. The stroke of a pen...

Fascism is erupting across this once Constitutional Republic, by E.O., court orders, and petty mayors. All eagerly violate our federal and state Ratified Constitutions, rendering the Rule of Law pathetic myth.

Rule over us is the biggest business there is. Party politics is The Mother of special interest. It now costs hundreds of millions to capture effective control over our $2+ trillion and $45 trillion on and off budget national debt.

Wether by civil war, as in Russia and China, or by normal elective processes in Italy and Germany, fascism is the form of politics which richly financially rewards those in power as if heads of great corporations while the people are but sheep to be shorn to fund their masters. The UN is now but a gangland forum.

Tens of millions of American citizens are sworn before God to protect and defend our Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. How many fascists and wannabees embrace that honor while feeding at the public trough and living under the rulers of law?

American fascism is on display.

[Scenic Sounds]

What will happen to our society when people begin to ask what law they can break that they don’t like?

Relax, Al. As always, our society can depend on the lawyers to have all this nonsense straightened in no time. Soon, things will be just as good as new, Al. LOL.

Thank God for lawyers!

[o_zarkman44]

Judge Roy Moore lost his job because of his resistance to misinterpretation, but on Constitutional grounds, he has a right to resist. There is no law that clearly defines a line between seperation of religious belief from government ideology because they are truely entwined, but the judge defied a court order pending further court action. The SF mayor has a law on the books clearly defining marriage, yet it is ignored. The Mayor should also lose the job because there should be a court order stopping the so called marriages, and an arrest warrant issued. Lawlessness is becoming the standard of those in power because they think they are above the law.

[inquest]

Imagine for a moment if some local public official starting giving out gun licenses en masse because he did not like California’s oppressive anti-gun laws?

That's a great idea. And then the recipients should go to Massachusetts and demand that that state respect their licenses under the "full faith and credit" clause.

[thoughtomator]

It's more than just a "nice try", it's the law. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... "

In order to argue that Moore violated the law, one must assert that he is establishing religion (I'm assuming no one is going to argue that Moore's actions prohibited anyone's free exercise of religion).

But the plain fact of the matter is that there is no establishment of religion created or implied by Moore's actions. The Supreme Court has, engraved into the building, the same Ten Commandments that Moore put into his courtroom. It is not consistent to say that it is okay for the US Supreme Court to display them but not for the Alabama Supreme Court to do so.

The federal injunction against Moore is the only Constitutional violation here - it is a prohibition on the free exercise of religion.

The First Amendment does not mandate abhorrence of religion, to drive religion from the public sphere. This is a false interpretation, and a study of the Founders' comments on the subject makes it clear that it was never intended to be used as a tool to drive religion from public life.

[45Auto]

...the State’s Attorney General musters a statement that no one has asked him to issue a legal opinion

Oh, sure! That's rich! the state AG, one Bill (I Hate Your Guns) Lockyear has taken it upon himself to set up a DOJ goon squad that now culls records of gun sales to see if maybe, someone, somewhere might have bought a gun even thought they once were subject to a domestic violence restraining order - looking for a needle in a haystack. Well, no one "asked him to render a legal opinion" on that issue, he just thought it up and did it. The man is a liar, a miscreant, a criminal, and a commie. He should be jailed along with that jerk-off Mayor of Sodom By The Bay. Instead, they will probably find a commie judge and have the whole phaggot marriage issue made legal against the wishes of the majority of Californians. Wait and see.