End of the Constitution? (Cal Thomas)

Jewish World Review ^ | 7/1/03 | Cal Thomas

[dogbyte12]

Christians used to be executed, tortured, stoned, crucified, tossed to lions and they survived quite well.

A supreme court decision is supposed to signal the end of christianity? How about those who look at this as a moment of potential rebirth?

Christianity has gotten soft, rote, familiar, and unreal. Being in a safe little town, with safe little morals, made it easy to profess faith, without being called to any great tests to defend it.

I genuinely can't understand some of the gnashing of teeth. Early christians might think of some of these complaints as quite petty in comparison. Christians were a persecuted minority longer than this republic has even existed. There was alot of sodomy, adultery, lewdness going on in Rome as well. The christians prevailed. Without a Supreme Court, elected representatives, or a friendly Emperor for 300 years. Yet, some think this is the end of the world? Some perspective people.

[JoeSchem]

What gays do in the privacy of their public toilet stall has never been at issue here. What's at issue, and everyone knows it, is the health insurance and pension money that will have to be paid to 'gay spouses' if gay marriage is recognized as legally indistinguishable from heterosexual marriage.

Just as a guestimate, this will cause everyone's health insurance payments to go up $50-$100 a year. Not that you'll notice it, because the accounting will bury it and you'll never see it in your paycheck. But someday, you might wonder how come economists proclaim that the economy is so much better off than it was in the 1960s, yet families were able to live on one breadwinner's income back then, and now we're just barely keeping above water with both parents working . . . it's because you're being nickel and dimed by the Perversfare State. And this has been another nickel out of your paycheck.

[garbanzo]

It scares me when conservatives disparage the right to privacy ... as if they'd enjoy the government poking around in their business.

If the Constitution is dead, it's only because it's repeatedly violated by both sides of political spectrum. As long as they're in the majority, they favor federalism, if not they need the power of the federal government to bail them out.

Compare and contrast: Prayer in schools - let the states decide. Let someone get fired for praying in school for violating school policy and a lawsuit is filed.

[lilylangtree]

Wish that I knew. However, if the cry "Impeach the Supreme Court" grows loud enough, someone smarter than us will have the answer.

[ggekko]

The ammendment process may be too long-winded to be of any practical use it nevertheless remains incumbent upon limited-government conservatives to recognize what the Lawrence and Michigan decisions represent: politics by other means. The Left has become very adept at manipulating the courts to achieve political objectives that thay could never achieve legislatively.

An effective counter-strategy would involve using whatever means are available to force the court back into its Constitutionally appointed role. The ammendment process is one such strategy another is to remove from the courts enitre ares of the law which Congress has the authority to do.

For the last 30 years conservatives have spent endless amounts of time attemtping to get "strict contructionists" appointed to the Court. These efforts have failed as either stealth liberals get appointed (Souter) or erstwhile conservatives turn liberal (Kennedy) in order to achieve the approbation of the Gerogetown cocktail party set.

It is time to come terms with the fact the Supreme Court has been acting as an unlected political body for quite some time. Political actions demand a politcal response, not a legal one.

[Past Democrat]

Operation American Freedom!!!

The Liberation Of The American Constitution From A Corrupt Government.

[Iris7]

I thought your reply essay was very well written, and I agree with the truth of it everywhere except:

"This may surpise you but most be people would be astonished and appalled to learn that the Constition has been summarily abolished in favor of the ethical relativism, anti-nomianism and totalitarian diversity doctrines as embodied in the Lawrence decision."

I have been pointing out that "the Constitution has been summarily abolished" to anyone who will listen for decades. I generally get bovine looks. Often I get looks as if I might be dangerous. Very rarely indeed I get agreement. Sometimes I get a positivist response, usually citations of Oliver Wendell Holmes. Certainly no one is willing to rock the boat over how things have turned out. Remember that the most often used human coping mechanism is denial.

I applaud your efforts but believe your energy is more usefully turned elsewhere. Alexander Hamilton believed that the people would not defend the Constitution, and events have proved him correct.

[Iris7]

Libertarianism is a modern word for a long established tendency in Whiggery. The Europeans call it "liberalism" or sometimes "girondism". It usually appeals more to the young than the old as the young are lacking in wisdom. If entertained in adulthood it often moves in the Lew Rockwell, "philosophical anarchism", Proudhonist direction. Been there, done that. There is nothing "there" there.

[Mike4Freedom]

Excuse me but libertarianism is nothing more than the Founders ideas on personal freedom. Somehow main line conservatives have taken a set of puritan ethics and turned it into something proper for the government to enforce at gunpoint. They then are surprized that the left expects the same thing, their ideas, however foolish or counter productive, also enforced at the point of a government gun.

Libertarians say to you all to keep your puritan ethics, or in the other case, keep your foolish socialist economic ideas to yourself and LEAVE US ALONE. You may run your own life in accordance with your ethics, you may teach your children in accordance with your ethics, but you must stop short of the government gun.

This is a free country, so everyone has the right to do as they please up to the point that they actually interfere with someone else's right to do likewise. Otherwise, we have lost our freedom. No matter how ethical you believe your ideas are, they are not the proper subject for laws.

Under that principle, no state government, no Federal government, no municipal government has any right to legislate on private, consenual bedroom behavior, or many other things that are now law.

[Radix]

I'll be glad to be no witness to it.

You presume much when you state that you will not be witness to it. It is very possible that you will witness such things. Our society is that far gone

You have an interesting FR name. Are you aware of it's significance?

[Radix]

If Justices already disregard the Constitution, and we go through the ordeal of passing "Amendments" which merely repeat what the Constitution already says, the Justices will simply repeat themselves and disregard the "Amendments," as well.

You are correct, and it is the sad reality that we must contend with.

[Radix]

Christians used to be executed, tortured, stoned, crucified, tossed to lions and they survived quite well.

Despite the incoherence of your post, and particularly that comment, I think that I understand your point.

Consider the Jews, Kicked out of every "decent" Nation on the face of the Earth, save one (or is it two?). Now we can learn a thing or more about persecution from the experience of the Jews. Even this very day Jews are being persecuted with the consent of the masses.

Silence speaks volumes.

[Radix]

What's at issue, and everyone knows it, is the health insurance and pension money that will have to be paid to 'gay spouses' if gay marriage is recognized as legally indistinguishable from heterosexual marriage.

Is that truly what you see as the "issue" here?

[Iris7]

Touchy, aren't we?

Explosions of rage are such a convincing argument, aren't they?

[Mike4Freedom]

Explosions of rage are such a convincing argument, aren't they?

People who are enraged cannot manage multi-paragraph answers. Long answers such as mine are well thought out. It is inappropriate to blow them off with a silly comment.

Maybe you should read it through and consider a real answer.

[Iris7]

Actually the Founders did not intend anything like Libertariansm nor does the written Constitution have any language supporting your interpretation.

The Ratification era was dominated by Whig politics, and had been since the Tories were expelled during the War. American Whiggism is a large subject, worthy of study, but was essentially opposed to strong central government, in particular the British one. Compared to the British, American Whiggism seems more Calvinist, mercantile, and had a more local sense of place. There were many political tensions, but perhaps the most important can be seen in the conflict between Jefferson and Hamilton, and Jackson and Adams. Another way to put it is the democratical vs. aristocratical split. (The democratical faction won.)

The Articles of Confederation did not suit the aristocratical party in particular, since the central government could never pay it's bills nor act as other than a bunch of buffoons. The Constitution was written under Washington's direction to remedy these percieved ills. (Needless to say, the Constitution was adapted illegally since the Articles of Confederation were the law, and the law had strict rules for changes that were not followed.)

The Constitution was written to give the strongest central government that could be achieved through the ratification process contained within it. It is filled with ambiguous language intended to mean one thing to one person, and something else to another. For instance, "Constitutionality" dispute resolution is never covered, and a strict reading including the Ninth and Tenth Amendments makes clear that "Constitutionality" was to be decided by the States. This did not last long, beginning with Marbury. The ratifying States saw the Constitution as a list of numbered powers of the new Federal Government, restricting the Federal Government only, and in no way infringing on the sovereignty of the States. For instance, if the States ratifying had realized that the Constitution could be read to prohibit seccession or interposition or nullification, the Constitution would never have been ratified. The Philadelphia Convention was mainly of the aristocratical party and was aiming for a "mixed" government in the Montesquieu sense mixed with the "republican" form inherited from antiquity. This is why there are separation of powers (most particularly between States and central Government), indirect elections, etc.

As the ratifying generation saw it, the Constitution was a list of powers enabling the Federal Government, and no other powers were granted to it by those entities forming this contract, the States. The Federal Government could regulate interstate trade and raise taxes sufficient for it's operation through tariffs on imports, negotiate with Indians and other foreigners, and little else. The Federal government could not intervene in State affairs in any way without the State's permission. If a State wanted to execute sodomites, and many did, that was the State's business. If a State wanted an established Religion, that was the State's business. If a State had legal chattel slavery, that was the State's business. And none of the Federal Government's. As nearly as it can be determined this is the Original Intent of the Constitution.

So you can see that the Framers made no provision for "libertarian" ideals in making the Federal Government. Those discontented with this state of affairs could live with it or move to the frontier. Or South America, or somewhere else. Many did.

What the Constitution "really means", what the "original intent" of the "Framers" really was, the nature of "penumbras" and "emanations", the legitimacy of "judicial review", etc., etc., etc., or even a description of changing views of the "Constitution" over time, and the changes over time in "Constitutional history" writing, etc. fill many books indeed and fill more books every year. I am not remotely an expert.

I was a libertarian myself, a little, but never really thought it was practical. It is just the "don't tread on me" principle writ large. "Leave Me Alone" as you put it.

[Cachelot]

however I don't think we have to worry too much about this one

Really???

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33409

Friday, July 4, 2003

---

---

LAW OF THE LAND
Polygamists see open door for acceptance
Multiple-wives crowd hopes to capitalize on sodomy decision

---

Posted: July 4, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Ron Strom

---

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

"Polygamy is the next civil-rights battle."

That's the new battle cry of proponents of "Christian polygamy" who say their lifestyle is one step closer to being accepted after the Supreme Court's controversial decision last week invalidating state sodomy laws.

A website set up for media to get information about the pro-polygamy movement enthusiastically hails the Lawrence v. Texas decision, quoting from the majority opinion that Americans now have "... the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention."

As WorldNetDaily reported, critics of the decision believe the court has usurped the role of lawmakers, establishing a far-reaching precedent that threatens any law based on moral choices, including incest and polygamy.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia includes examples of non-traditional marriages in his dissenting opinion, saying laws against the practice are now open to review.

Scalia talks of "state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity," saying "every single one of these laws is called into question by [the Lawrence] decision."

Said the polygamy website: "Obviously, this [decision] means enormous ramifications for the civil rights of adult, freely-consenting, marriage-committed polygamists."

The site links to a much more extensive site called TruthBearer.org, a page dedicated to promoting "Christian polygamy."

Its introductory page states, "As preached here at this ministry, Christian polygamy is only about life-long-committed (hence, NONpromiscuous), consensual, NONabusive, loving Christian marriage. The only educational matter here is that this is about men ever-growing in other-centered, ministerial, giving, selfless love in marriage to more than one woman (as Christ so selflessly and givingly loves the Churches)."

The organizers say their aim is not to legalize polygamy, but merely to decriminalize it. They don't believe government has any role whatsoever in regulating marriage.

A link to biblicalpolygamy.com presents what its creators claim are reasons that "polygamy really is biblical."

Another site on "Christian polygamy" (which appears to have been created by those who established TruthBearer.org) states:

"Only a few short years ago, the mere suggestion of putting the words 'Christian' and 'polygamy' beside each other as one term would have been laughed at. It would have been called a 'contradiction in terms' and an 'oxymoron.'

"But no one is laughing anymore.

"After much patient prayer, love, and work by committed Christ-centered, Spirit-led, Scripture-believing evangelical conservative Christians, from all kinds of different denominational backgrounds, the Truth is being believed and spread to others! Christian polygamy has become a reality and is now being taken very seriously in a number of spheres of influence."

The Rev. Jerry Falwell, WorldNetDaily columnist and nationally known Christian minister, spoke strongly against the practice of having multiple wives, telling WND: "Christian polygamy is an oxymoron." Falwell condemned the Lawrence ruling, saying it opened the door to "bestiality, pedophilia, even drug use" in the privacy of one's home.

TruthBearer.org, based in Old Orchard Beach, Maine, was founded by Mark Henkel in 1994.

"You are speaking to a diehard constitutional conservative," Henkel told WorldNetDaily, saying his support for the Lawrence v. Texas decision and polygamy is in line with the framers of the Constitution.

"My fellow conservatives are making a terrible mistake" by condemning the ruling, he said. "They are reacting like knee-jerk liberals."

Henkel compared marriage to Social Security, citing some conservatives' desire to privatize the government retirement program.

"Why not privatize marriage?" he asked rhetorically. "Why is big government a part of marriage?"

Henkel says marriage in the Bible is never linked to government and that today, the feds should not be able to dictate to Americans: "You're only allowed one wife."

Christians who believe the state should regulate marriage, he says, "are trusting in the false god of socialist government."

Referring to the sodomy case, Henkel told WND: "Lawrence v. Texas has kicked open a whole new door for us."

He says the ruling effectively voided every anti-polygamy law on the books, assuring that "whatever consenting adults choose to do" is permissible.

TruthBearer.org's strategy, says Henkel, is to persuade "conservative, Bible-believing Christians" of the appropriateness and superiority of polygamy. When they are won over, Henkel says the liberal "tolerance-oriented" people will then come into line.

While Henkel uses the polygamy of biblical patriarchs as part of his defense of the practice, Falwell says those Old Testament men were sinning by taking multiple wives.

"The Bible very clearly condemns Christian polygamy," he said. "[The Old Testament patriarchs] all did it in defiance of the Word of God. … God's plan was Adam and Eve – not Adam and Steve, and not Adam and several Eves."

Henkel's movement is clear to point out that its philosophy is not based on historic Mormon polygamy: "Christian polygamy is not Mormon polygamy. The two have two distinctly separate foundational reasons and two distinctly separate histories. They draw no basis from each other."

Editor's note: WND's acclaimed Whistleblower magazine features its July issue entitled, "THE CONSTITUTION: America's ultimate battleground." This special issue explores whether the Constitution is still America's "supreme law of the land."

Subscribe to Whistleblower, starting with "THE CONSTITUTION: America's ultimate battleground."

---

Ron Strom is a news editor for WorldNetDaily.com.

[dark_lord]

By "not worry too much" I wasn't speaking to whether or not it will become legal. I have posted elsewhere that I think it probably will become legal someday. It is just that very few women are interested in the concept, therefore the overall impact on society will be very small and the social costs trivial.

[Cachelot]

It is just that very few women are interested in the concept

And you know this how? Conducted a poll? Did a study? Tried to start a polygamic family? Just "feel it in your bones"?

Actually, this article shows that you're very wrong. There is an organized movement for this, it seems to be growing, and it seems to have its roots in "christian" circles. If you think the movement doesn't include females, you know very little about human behaviour.

therefore the overall impact on society will be very small and the social costs trivial.

Ah. Let's play Heinlein for a bit, shall we?

First of all, these groups will be able to divert public resources to their interest. "Moving-to-the-mainstream" outlier groups like this always have. So if you count on limits built into the social security system and tax code to help, you're out of luck - they will be changed.

Second, they will be able to circumvent such limits fairly easily. You don't have to look further than the next Jerry Springer show to get to see specialists on that, probably.

Third, the polygamy angle will give society a number af strange new family structures, all claiming legitimacy, and all sucking the state/federal teat. You will (and that's a certainty) for example see "families" of, say, a group of gays plus a group of lesbians - rather like an old-fashioned collective but enjoying all the public support of a traditional family. They will have social benefits like a family, they will have tax deductions like a family. If they adopt enough kids (which they will be allowed to), you may even get to pay them taxes.

Bottom line: this whole thing will be costly, very costly. You haven't even begun to see the ramifications and you'll sure as h*ll not see them by staring myopically at two lines in the tax code or something ;).