In what respect do you believe the Ohio Bill of Rights fails to protect Ohioans from the Legislature, to the same extent that the Federal Bill of Rights protects us from the actions of Congress?
What the 14th Amendment, however, has wrought in Ohio has been a veritable disaster for our rights to self-Government. These are only some of the "benefits":
1. It was interpreted to take away the Ohio Constitutional provision that every County have at least one Representative in the State Legislature. As a result, some of our rural Counties are only represented by representatives from outside the County--and their votes may be so diluted, that as a practical matter, their county may never have a realistic voice in Columbus.
2. School busing and school district lines contrived for social experiments, have been ordered by Federal Courts.
3. Abortion on demand has been instituted, after the invalidation of our anti-abortion laws.
4. The Criminal Justice system has been made vastly more expensive, as local Police procedures, Court convictions, etc., have all come under added layers of Federal scrutiny, appeals, etc.. If you want to protect the rights of the accused--as do I, who represent people accused of violating the law, as a regular part of my practice--the logical remedy is in our own Legislature, in the selection of our own Judges, etc.. We do not need the present confusion of remedial jurisdiction, nor the demeaning Federal involvement.
5. The fact that residence for voting has been reduced to almost no duration is another reflection of the impact of the 14th Amendment. Don't you think it might be reasonable for a State--and the communities within a State--to require some time to become familiar with the issues and personalities in a community, before having a say in their future?
6. It is also the 14th Amendment, which the ACLU has used to get prayer banned from schools; to have the Ten Commandments taken down from public places, etc.. (Incidentally, while most people realize that the Commandments had a religious origin, the last six deal with secular, not theological issues, and are the underpinning for centuries of development in our civil and criminal laws.) Don't you think that an Ohio town ought to have the right to determine for themselves whether to display or not to display such cultural materials? But note, whether you think they should or not, isn't the issue one which Ohio ought to be able to determine, without Federal intervention?
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
The Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted to mean that the "Congress shall make no law.." provisions of the Bill of Rights cannot be violated by state legislatures either. For that reason alone it deserves re-affirmation, and if Ohio never ratified it, we should. If nothing else it may end some of the whining.That's not really the point. The Ohio BOR is fine as it stands, but it can be changed by a simple referendum. Also, there are other states to consider. For example, if the First Amendment did not apply then a state like Alabama could conceivably establish Christianity and fine those who do not attend church on Sunday. Non-residents of the state might have these laws imposed. The BOR establishes a general minumum level of liberty throughout the nation.In what respect do you believe the Ohio Bill of Rights fails to protect Ohioans from the Legislature, to the same extent that the Federal Bill of Rights protects us from the actions of Congress?
What the 14th Amendment, however, has wrought in Ohio has been a veritable disaster for our rights to self-Government. These are only some of the "benefits":Certainly the State Senate could be revised to represent by county, if the state chose to do so. After all, that's how the US Senate is constructed.1. It was interpreted to take away the Ohio Constitutional provision that every County have at least one representative in the State Legislature. As a result, some of our rural Counties are only represented by representatives from outside the County--and their votes may be so diluted, that as a practical matter, their county may never have a realistic voice in Columbus.
In any case, I don't think I like that idea. Morgan County has a population of 14,191. Vinton County has 13,150. Wyandot County has 22,773. Adams County has 27,566. With 99 Ohio House seats, that comes to nearly 115,000 people per seat. Why should these counties, with less population than my medium sized Cleveland suburb, have extra representation? The fact is that 14 "urban" counties alone contain 58% of the population of Ohio.
2. School busing and school district lines contrived for social experiments, have been ordered by Federal Courts.Busing in Cleveland was the result of a rogue federal judge. Where were district lines tampered with?
3. Abortion on demand has been instituted, after the invalidation of our anti-abortion laws.Abortion should indeed be a legislative matter.
4. The Criminal Justice system has been made vastly more expensive, as local Police procedures, Court convictions, etc., have all come under added layers of Federal scrutiny, appeals, etc.. If you want to protect the rights of the accused--as do I, who represent people accused of violating the law, as a regular part of my practice--the logical remedy is in our own Legislature, in the selection of our own Judges, etc.. We do not need the present confusion of remedial jurisdiction, nor the demeaning Federal involvement.Limitations on government are a good thing. Certainly that extra possibility of enforcement of the Bill of Rights is an extra incentive for good behavior on the part of LEOs and local judges. If you've ever had to represent an unpopular client or cause, the presence of appointed federal judges is at least a check on the demagogic instincts of judges who must stand for election, and even prosecutors of similar bent. They've had problems with such in Medina County. In a worst case scenario, one can go federal, where principle is more likely to trump politics.
Yes, federal judges overstep their bounds too. Here, the solution is not to remove limitations on government, it is to elect officials who will not appoint activist judges.
5. The fact that residence for voting has been reduced to almost no duration is another reflection of the impact of the 14th Amendment. Don't you think it might be reasonable for a State--and the communities within a State--to require some time to become familiar with the issues and personalities in a community, before having a say in their future?People who have lived in a state for years aren't always familiar, so this is largely a non issue. But look at it this way: who has more stake in a state, someone who just moved there or someone who has lived there ten years but is about to move.
6. It is also the 14th Amendment, which the ACLU has used to get prayer banned from schools; to have the Ten Commandments taken down from public places, etc.. (Incidentally, while most people realize that the Commandments had a religious origin, the last six deal with secular, not theological issues, and are the underpinning for centuries of development in our civil and criminal laws.) Don't you think that an Ohio town ought to have the right to determine for themselves whether to display or not to display such cultural materials? But note, whether you think they should or not, isn't the issue one which Ohio ought to be able to determine, without Federal intervention?The principles involved in those last six predate the Commandments and certainly can be taught in a secular manner. I'm of the opinion that those who wish government to promote all ten are mainly interested in promoting the first four.
As for prayer in the schools, it's better to go to Texas for an example of how federal limitations on government can be beneficial. The plaintiffs in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, aka the "football game prayer case", were objecting to the school's practice of having an election regarding which faith would get a place on the agenda of this government sponsored and run event. This clearly violated the Texas Constitution's ban on religious preference by government, a ban more explicit than that found in the US Constitution. However, the odds are good that a state judge that ruled so would be quickly de-elected.
The federal judiciary has repeatedly ruled that such preference violates the Establishment Clause. Since federal judges are more immune from the whims of the electorate, the plaintiffs went federal. Not only did they win their case, but a disturbing attempt by the school district to ferret out their identities was quashed by outraged federal judges who threatened dire penalties.
The Bill of Rights was meant to protect the rights of individuals first, and states second. Sometimes it is the whims or prejudices of the majority which threaten individual rights, and must be stopped by the forces of liberty.
-Eric