The Death Of Law

I woke up this morning and realized the Constitution was dead. The cadaver isn´t really stinking yet, so not everyone knows, but I´m pretty sure it´s as dead as the proverbial doornail. Don´t get me wrong; we´re still the best, most free nation on Earth, but it´s only a matter of time until we fall apart like a rotting corpse.

For most of our nation´s history the Constitution has acted as the policeman who guards the people of America from illegal laws. You can´t walk up to someone and force them to give you their money. You can´t walk up to someone and force them to submit to assault and battery. You can´t walk up to someone and force them to submit to rape. You can´t walk up to someone and force them to give you their life. Why can´t you do these things? Because these actions are against THE LAW. Someone who does these things is subject to punishment for breaking the law that says these things will not be tolerated by our society.

For the most part, the majority of people are restrained by the knowledge that the cops are out there and will take them away if they break the law. But how much voluntary obedience of the law would there be if suddenly there were no police to enforce the law?

The concept of a “living document” when used in relation to the U.S. Constitution is an egregious misnomer. Because to make the Constitution a wet noodle we can bend whichever way seems right at the time makes it a very ineffective document; in effect, it is a dead document.

This “living document” garbage is pure nonsense. If the Constitution is subject to change and reinterpretation based on the evolution of society (or devolution, as the case really is), then perhaps EVERYTHING is subject to change. Maybe if the Supreme Court can make unconstitutional rulings based on an imagined “compelling interest,” then the rest of us need to “reinterpret” the Constitution with regard to the authority of the Supreme Court. Maybe, if they´re going to subvert law and justice, we have a “compelling interest” in ignoring them; I wonder how they´d like THAT interpretation?

For that matter, maybe we could continue in the example set by the Supreme Court and start making our own interpretation of all laws; after all, if some parts of the Constitution are out of date, maybe the part which says they´re the supreme legal authority is out of date, too. Maybe if I like your car, I can determine that I have a “compelling interest” in stealing it from you. Maybe if I don´t like the way you part your hair, I can rule that I have a “compelling interest” in knocking your block off. Perhaps if I want to force myself sexually on your wife, your mother, your sister, your daughter, I can determine that I have a “compelling interest” in taking what I want from them.

Now these examples seem extreme on the surface, but when you get into this touchy-feely, living-document, moral relativism, situational ethics, no-absolute-right-or-wrong business, then it´s really all up for grabs. You have to follow things to their logical conclusion; after all, the lawless ones will. Would our Founders actually have considered the First Amendment they penned would someday be used to protect someone´s “right” to immerse a crucifix in urine and call it art, or to protect someone´s “right” to peddle smut to children over the internet in the library?

No, the Founders shouldn´t have had to follow things to such insane conclusions. But sadly, since we as a society have lost the ability to use reason, to use common sense, to love our neighbor as ourselves, to boldly make judgments about right and wrong…then we must unfortunately consider what the most depraved in our country will seek to justify.

So what you end up with is lawlessness. The natural destination of such a philosophy is a state of anarchy where everyone is making their own laws to fit their own needs, and no one can agree on what´s right and what´s wrong. In the Bible, in Judges 21:25, we see that there was a day in Israel where “everyone did as he saw fit” or as some translations put it, “every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” And those were dark and desperate times for Israel. The only alternative to ultimate lawlessness for us is to return to absolutes, to embrace the law for others and ourselves. We must return to the idea that no one and no thing is greater than the law.

So, if our Constitution, the highest law in our land, says you cannot discriminate (extending favor to one person over another without justification is a form of discrimination) against someone, then to make a law or ruling which says you CAN discriminate (thus contradicting the Constitution) is an illegal act. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution says, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Supreme Court Judge Sandra Day O´Connor said there was a “compelling interest” in promoting diversity through affirmative action policies such as those of the University of Michigan which extend unmerited favor to people of one race over another race. If the Constitution is the highest law of the land, then how can ANYTHING trump it?

We have come to a point in America where both the legislative branch and the judicial branch are legislating, and legislating according to emotion rather than law. The job of the legislative branch of our government is to legislate, or to make laws; those laws must agree with and fall within the parameters of the Constitution, or they are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. (I realize I´m saying things that a 7-year old can understand, but they appear to be beyond the grasp of our legislative and judicial branch).

The job of the judicial branch, specifically the Supreme Court, is to interpret the Constitution as it applies to the laws of our land. Their job is NOT to make up new laws, determine new priorities, or determine “compelling interests.” Their job is to compare the laws and practices conducted in our nation to the Constitution; if the law or practice conforms to the Constitution, then theirs is the final word to say that the law is acceptable because it does not contradict the Constitution; if the law or practice is found to perform actions or bring about results that are in contradiction to those authorized by the Constitution, then theirs is the final word to say the law or practice does not pass Constitutional muster and must be abandoned. I realize there are times when laws or practices may be vague and subject to some disagreement, but what part of “all people are equal” is so mind-bending for these people?!

What about the Tenth Amendment, which says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” If this amendment was enforced, you could sweep 1/3 to ½ or more of the laws and programs in our federal government into the abyss, because they are most definitely NOT delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. You could get rid of the socialist Social Security which forces you to turn over your money to a government program that gives you no say in how your money is spent or invested, and is often given to people with behaviors you would not condone, such as alcoholics and drug addicts. You could get rid of the involuntary Medicare program that is essentially the same animal as Social Security, only intended for medical care. The Medicaid program could go, and people could start taking care of their own responsibilities or seeking help from their family or private charities if they were unable—like it used to be before socialism took over our country.

In fact, all forms of welfare (AFDC, WIC, food stamps, and a whole horde of such programs) would have to go flying right out the door at the speed of light. Because while the Constitution says in the preamble that our government is to “provide for the common defense,” it says PROMOTE the general welfare, not PROVIDE general welfare. If you own a store and are promoting a certain product, you don´t give it away to all your customers; you PROMOTE it to them to try to make them feel positive about it so that THEY will buy it and provide it to themselves.

And if you and your buddy want to get together and bugger one another, the Supreme Court has now ruled that your state can´t have laws against it. The 6-3 ruling (you can guess who voted which way) basically says practitioners of unnatural sexual relations are entitled to protection that white college applicants are not. According to the Fox News story, Judge Scalia said in his dissent, “This reasoning leaves on shaky, pretty shaky grounds, state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.”

I would suspect polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, and a host of other perversions might be viewed in a new legal light, as well. Judge Anthony Kennedy, in the majority opinion, said the Texas anti-sodomy law “demeans the lives of homosexual persons.” I would submit that the behavior of homosexual persons is what demeans them. This decision reversed the 1986 Supreme Court decision on Bowers v. Hardwick which ruled that people do not have a constitutional right to practice homosexuality. Funny how right and wrong changed over the course of 17 years. I thought sodomy was always sodomy. How rednecked of me!

How about the Incumbent Protection Act (a.k.a. Campaign Finance Reform) where our legislators consider demonizing wealthy people and businesses more important than the First Amendment. And the Supreme Court, in a mixed ruling on that new law, has proven itself partially complicit in congress´ sabotage of the Constitution.

Maybe it´s time to start impeaching judges (including those on the Supreme Court) who can´t be trusted to fulfill the responsibilities of their office, who can´t seem to keep the oath they swore to protect the Constitution. I think it´s time we punished senators, congressmen, legislators, and presidents who make laws or executive orders that are not in accordance with the Constitution. If they vote for a law which isn´t in accord with the Constitution (and it´s not that hard to figure out what is and what isn´t), then they have committed an affront to the highest law of the land.

They have essentially solicited the criminal activity of others by trying to get them to break the highest law of the land, by telling them it´s okay to break that highest law. In voting for unconstitutional laws, they are attempting to subvert the highest law, and have perjured their oath of office. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines perjury as “the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath.” I know of no better example for this definition than willful support for laws that are in contradiction to the Constitution.

When I was in the military, all of our regulations, even the law enforcement Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) we used, had to have an environmental impact statement on them. Now, if there is enough reason for an SOP on handcuffing suspects to have an environmental review, certainly there´s enough justification for laws passed by congress to be examined for Constitutional compliance.

Corporations retain lawyers to determine the legality of their policies. Congress should retain lawyers to review their bills, if they can´t figure it out for themselves. Indeed, many members of congress are lawyers themselves, so many of them are without excuse already. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report for Congress, 401 representatives and 97 senators have bachelor´s degrees, 123 representatives and 19 senators have master´s degrees, 18 representatives have doctoral degrees, and 177 representatives and 59 senators have law degrees. If members of congress, either with or without the assistance of legal counsel, can´t figure out if a bill is in harmony with the Constitution, then they don´t deserve to be there.

If we made a law (and you could trust it to be obeyed and not “interpreted” away) that any government official who cast a vote for an unconstitutional piece of legislation would face criminal proceedings, you´d see socialism and social engineering in America come to a screeching halt. You could even give them the benefit of the doubt if there was some “wiggle room” in the constitutionality of the law—censure them the first time, then prosecute them if they did it again. Of course, no matter what we come up with, it would ultimately be up to the people to hold the prosecutors of such a law accountable for holding the legislators accountable.

So, you see, the problem eventually comes back to us all. We really do end up with the government we deserve. The injustice of it is that the innocent, the ones who love America and her Constitution, must suffer right along with the majority who are too ignorant or lazy to do THEIR duty as responsible citizens.

We as a people, both legislator and citizens alike, MUST immediately make a decision: do we want to be a people of law and order, or do we want to make it up as we go, and suffer the consequences?

To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Bob at webmaster@bhcsa.org.

People write countless articles screeching that the Supreme Court has abandoned its "constitutional" role of interpreting the Constitution. But the Constitution does not say that the Supreme Court is the supreme authority in the U.S. The Supreme Court is supreme over all other courts. It is not supreme over the executive, or the legislature, or the country. It has usurped most of the "power" it now wields. What's sad is that the vast majority of "conservative" commentators accept this usurpation, and complain only when a decision goes the wrong way.

SCOTUS interprets and applies the Constitution to the questions of law asked of it. The Constitution is supreme over the legislature in that a law passed by Congress may be declared unConstitutional. I recall a Civil War era case concerning the Executive and the powers that it has in directing appointees to implement the law. SCOTUS overturned a directive, I believe, on the basis that the authority delegated actually flowed through Congress, not the Executive. SCOTUS does have some power.

"I would suspect polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, and a host of other perversions might be viewed in a new legal light, as well."

Bingo.

I believe the gays are only the shock troops in a war for what I call a 'licentious society' where literally everything is permissible. Eventually the necrophiles will demand equal rights, followed by the beastialists and eventually the pedophiles.

I told this to a colleague and he argued loudly against my position.

Then I showed him an article about the 'Statement of Tolerance' at Amherst, which said that there would be no discrimination based on 'sexual preference.'

Someone innocently asked if pedophilia was a "sexual preference", and was answered pedantically as if he were himself a child. "Of course it is. Can't you read?" or something similar.

The news got out to the community which converged on the campus with pitchforks and torches (figuratively, alas) and the "Statement of Tolerance" was quickly withdrawn and modified.

"OK, I see what you mean," said my friend.

--Boris

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.