Replies

I assume that since ALL of the colonies had sodomy laws, decent social policy was something that they considered important. As such, I would have to assume that they'd be right behind President Bush in wanting to amend the Constitution if they were here today.

In reading of their various speeches and letters, I get the sense that, while they had definite social mores and strictures they considered important, they did not consider the enforcement of them an appropriate role for the national government.

In reading of their various speeches and letters, I get the sense that, while they had definite social mores and strictures they considered important, they did not consider the enforcement of them an appropriate role for the national government.

Right, they considered the enforcement of them an appropriate role for the states (sodomy punishable by death for example). The states, as I know you're aware, have had their hands tied by the 'effin courts.

So what are we to do? It seems unlikely that we'll revert back to the original idea that states had the power over such things. The only other choices are to let it go to hell, or do it on a national level.

I always find it gratifying that, because of its intrinsic truth and value, the label 'conservative' is an honorable one; one which many aspire to carry whether they deserve it or not, especially when running for office.

Meanwhile, politicians run from being tagged as 'liberal' like scalded cats.

In reading of their various speeches and letters, I get the sense that, while they had definite social mores and strictures they considered important, they did not consider the enforcement of them an appropriate role for the national government.

The Federal Government was set up with very important functional roles, relating to Commerce, avoidance of problems between the States, and protecting all of them from foreign dangers, etc.. The day to day interaction of Government with respect to questions of health, safety and morals--the Police Power--was left to the States; or better put, not delegated to the Federal Government. In short, moral rule setting was never intended to be a Federal function.

The Fourteenth Amendment has been the avenue by which the Federal Courts have interfered with the exercise of State Police powers, where someone claimed, on one of various rationales, that they were unfair. The problem is that the Fourteenth Amendment has been the vehicle to apply restrictions originally put on the Federal Government, which was not supposed to act in certain fields, to the States, which from time immemorial have had the role to act in those very fields.

In this application, the enemies of our traditions have achieved a certain societal anarchy. While some, around here, have mistakenly confused this with Libertarianism, it actually flies in the face of the rights of a free people to protect themselves from societal anarchy (the very opposite of the Libertarianism of the Fathers). What the ACLU and other groups have succeeded in doing, via the Fourteenth Amendment, is to do away with the right of self-Government, with respect to promoting religion, protecting babies, dealing with certain forms of criminal activity, and protecting the family, educating children, etc..

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

In reading of their various speeches and letters, I get the sense that, while they had definite social mores and strictures they considered important, they did not consider the enforcement of them an appropriate role for the national government.

Exactly so. The founders were very explicit in their views that regulation of social and moral issues were best left to the governments closest to the people: the states.