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The second example is the newest move in California only weeks after a similar law was repealed due to huge public opposition to allow those people in this country illegally to obtain California drivers licenses.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.

[philetus]

The problem with amendment I is, when Congress crosses the line, everyone says"hey, thays illegal, you congress can't do that, someone do something, nobodys doing anything, damn."

[Sloth]

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?

He undermines his own point by pointing out one of the many instances in which it would be right to break the so-called "law."

[Rummyfan]

Dr Savage is that you?

I agree with your post though.

[Modernman]

Big difference: Moore has the law of the land - the Constitution - on his side.

Not according to the branch of government that has the power to interpret the Constitution. You don't get to make independent decisions as to what court orders need to be followed.

[thoughtomator]

Right back at you:

Moore specifically prohibited some other religious group who wanted to put up an equivalent statue to his.

Moore had administrative discretion as to what was placed in the courtroom. He is not compelled by any law to place something there. This does not qualify as a prohibition on the free exercise of religion; there is no religion which requires their symbols in a court of law in order to be freely exercised. Free speech does not compel anyone else to provide a platform; nor does the free exercise of religion.

No, the Supreme Court has a frieze of Moses holding a tablet with the numbers I thru X on it. No Ten Commandments per se.

If you are asserting that there is a substantive difference between the two, then you implictly admit that it is the religious content that distinguishes them. Where in the Constitution do you find the authority for any branch of the Federal government to prohibit or censor religious content?

[thoughtomator]

Two words: Dred Scott

History is not on the side of your argument. The notion that the Supreme Court's dictates are infallible and unarguable is historically very recent. The Court is only one of three branches of our government and was specifically designed to be the weakest of the three, for the express purpose of avoiding the conception of the judicial branch in the terms you expressed here.

[You Dirty Rats]

I'm not interested in debating the substantive points raised by Moore and Newsom. My objection is to government officials in responsible positions overriding their oaths to uphold the law and acting like cowboys.

[Esther Ruth]

Our elected officials are by their pacifist cowardly ways responsible for this strange tyranny and disregard for the rule of law going on - we elect them and expect them to do as people have asked them, and they are not doing it. Like parents who are God ordained to discipline and manage their children, but don't, they ignore their children's bad behavior, make excuses for it, pretend not to see it,argue among themselves over who gets the hard job of playing the "bad guy", instead of one of them, anyone of them, just saying stop and controling it. The mob rules is beginning to have new meaning!! I wish I could say I am hopeful but who has been able to change Roe vs Wade after all these years. The only question is what should we do. Can anyone come up with an answer - no politician is going to do anything! This is so big - and I really can't imagine anyone putting their foot down. The ball IS in our court, and we cannot seem to agree whether it is even within our right to stop these behaviors. Do we put it to a vote? and if we did who knows what the outcome would be. Lets put every darn thing up for a vote and we could possibly see a vote to burn all conservative at the stake by the end of the year. Maybe a democracy is not an option anymore - we will have to have a theocracy to keep from all being eliminated. But first we will spend a little more time arguing w dems about Ws hours in the guard. Well, don't send me mail telling me to go to some kook site and post instead. I'm just into bottom lines! What is it! What to do!

[thoughtomator]

My objection is precisely the same. Only in the Moore case, I view the Federal judges who are overriding their oaths in the illegal suppression of religious expression. According to the law itself, Moore was obeying both the letter and the spirit of the law in his actions. (If you don't like the law, move to have it amended - but the fact of the law as it stands supports Moore.)

[Protagoras]

People are no longer afraid to break "minor" laws and it has escalated into what we have today.

That was the biggest tragedy of the first prohibition. A nation of scoff laws were spawned. Now the second prohibition. Now the traffic violations, and on and on,,,,,,

[Modernman]

Two words: Dred Scott

What kind of rule do you propose when it comes to picking and choosing which court orders to follow? Under what circumstances can a government official or private citizen decide to ignore a court order?

I would say that there is no way that you could come up with a system where court orders could be ignored without the entire system dissolving into anarchy.

[thoughtomator]

Once the courts choose themselves to ignore the law, the system has already become anarchy. Blaming those who would keep their fundamental rights as human beings for the situation is misplaced. A court order must be ignored if it itself violates the law.

[inquest]

I would say that there is no way that you could come up with a system where court orders could be ignored without the entire system dissolving into anarchy.

You have it backwards. Failure to ignore plainly illegal court orders is what has caused the system to dissolve into the anarchy we have now.

[ezo4]

America has never been on such a morally ambiguous path

this is what happens when there are liberals in charge and running the government. But I'm sure everyone here knows this

[OPS4]

Citizens arrest with about 200 freepers arm and arm marching this idiot to the Jail. Then get the America Center for Law and Justice to file a suit.

Ops4 God BLess America!

[Modernman]

A court order must be ignored if it itself violates the law.

So, every American has the right to determine exactly which court orders do and do not violate the law? Why even bother with a judiciary then, if we're all free to ignore court orders as we see fit?

[Modernman]

Failure to ignore plainly illegal court orders is what has caused the system to dissolve into the anarchy we have now

How do you determine whether a court order is "plainly illegal?"

[thoughtomator]

Every human being has fundamental rights that cannot be justly infringed. This is the founding philosophy of our republic.

Why even bother with a judiciary then, if we're all free to ignore court orders as we see fit?

The question to ask is, why even bother with a judiciary if it will not itself follow the law?

The onus needs to be on the judges to follow the law, not on citizens to surrender their inalienable rights to perpetuate the illegal usurpation of legislative power by the judiciary.

[Modernman]

Every human being has fundamental rights that cannot be justly infringed. This is the founding philosophy of our republic.

I have to ask the question again: How do you propose that we go about determining when fundamental rights have been unlawfully infringed upon? (and remember, no right, not even fundamental rights, are absolute) There needs to be a mechanism that is better than "everyone gets to decide for themselves." If you can think of any system other than an independent judiciary (which, granted, makes mistakes sometimes)which balances all of the competing factors.....