Lawlessness and civil disobedience: Hugh Hewitt says precedent set by officials leads to anarchy

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, March 3, 2004 | Hugh Hewitt

[JohnHuang2]

Lawlessness and civil disobedience

---

Posted: March 3, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

The radical nature of the ongoing confrontation over homosexual marriage is obscured by the subject matter. Gay couples are common in large, urban areas, so their public affection hardly causes a ripple in many parts of America, but other parts of the country are scandalized.

The debate over homosexuality in general, and gay marriage in particular, is also difficult to separate from the debate over religion in public life. There is such intense anger on both sides of the issue that debates flare suddenly into shouting matches.

The issue is an albatross for John Kerry because large majorities of likely voters endorse the idea of reserving marriage to its role throughout recorded history: an institution between man and woman.

But put aside the politics, and put aside the particulars of the debate. The real issue here is the rule of law and the precedent that the mayor of San Francisco and other small-time, small-minded publicity addicts are setting.

No matter what your particular cause, you have to be taking notes right now. Whether it is Second Amendment absolutism, or a certain view that the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause allows for prayer in school, a passion for a particular issue burns in many hearts across America.

Previous to February 2004, however, enthusiasts of minority views and radical views knew that the law would not allow them to indulge their own concepts of how the world ought to be. The mayor of Small Town, Anywhere, couldn't start issuing permits for machine guns even if he believed that such permits were constitutionally protected, and the prayer warrior who happened to be the county administrator in Middle Sized Burg, America, couldn't take his view of the Constitution into a classroom and begin leading worship with the Lord's Prayer followed by a few of the great old hymns.

A city council in California couldn't decide that the Endangered Species Act was an encroachment on 10th Amendment rights and start bulldozing spotted owl habitat for a new park.

A mayor in Texas couldn't decide to widen the local river by 10 feet without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers in order to hasten the arrival of a new river-walk feature to generate downtown business.

The mayor of Las Vegas can't exempt the new casino's ownership from the collective bargaining laws of America, and the mayor of Indianapolis can't simply say gambling is a good thing and license a casino operator to open for business.

A mayor in Oregon cannot issue driving licenses to illegal aliens in that state because she thinks they are hard pressed to find work without them.

A mayor in Des Moines cannot order the sheriff to open the jail and free all the prisoners because his reading of the Eighth Amendment has led him to conclude that conditions in the local lockdown constitute "cruel and unusual" punishment.

The mayor of Atlanta cannot pardon those on death row in Georgia, and the mayor of Washington, D.C., cannot declare the airspace over the White House open for small aircraft traffic.

You get the picture.

Civil society depends upon the actions of local elected officials and state elected officials and federal officials obeying the law as it is widely understood and not abandoning the law when their personal view of how it ought to be is not how it is.

The mayor of San Francisco has done a terrible thing by popularizing the idea that conscience should trump law. There is a tradition of brave souls who went to jail for their beliefs in order to draw attention to their cause. But San Francisco has no part in that tradition, and there is no courage or honor in a simple exercise of will.

The paralysis which has greeted the one-man rule in San Francisco is astonishing, and long after the issue of gay marriage is settled by application of the Defense Of Marriage Act, an amendment to the Constitution, or by the successful imposition of the new cultural norm by judicial diktat, the failure to oppose simple prerogative will carry a heavy cost.

Societies cannot endure without agreed upon rules of law and their uniform application. No serious person believes that the charade in San Francisco is legal, but neither has it been stopped by those charged with upholding the laws of the state.

The folks at the extreme of every issue have noticed: The best offense is aggressive, unilateral action – even if it involves lawbreaking. The best defense will be the videotape from San Francisco.

---

[JohnHuang2]

Wednesday, March 3, 2004

Quote of the Day by visualops

[goldstategop]

Yes, it can backfire on liberals for two can play the game.

[JohnHuang2]

bump!

[JohnHuang2]

Hugh Hewitt MEGA PING!!

[woofie]

I do not understand the timing of all this ...why did it not happen in the 8 years of Clinton?

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

Interesting argument and useful examples of theoretical lawbreaking by elected officials.

However, I disagree with this statement:

"The mayor of San Francisco has done a terrible thing by popularizing the idea that conscience should trump law."

Conscience does trump law - in Germany at one time it was legal to slaughter Jews in concentration camps. It is currently legal to slaughter babies in the womb. It has been legal to do many evil, immoral things, and I don't consider it wrong to protest immoral, evil but legal actions.

It wasn't conscience that motivated Thug/Clown Noisome to enact his "gay" marriage circus. It was his mental illness, cupidity, greed, lust for power, and who knows what else. It certainly wasn't conscience, although he may claim it was.

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this (very busy) ping list.

[Cowboy Bob]

For the last few weeks, the arguement I've heard from the Liberals is that "gay marriage" should be a State issue, not a Federal one. Yet, so far, it is Cities, not States who have issues "gay marriage certificates."

I've yet to hear whether California, New York, or Oregon will recognize the "marriage certificates" issued by these rogue mayors.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

I wonder if this "in your face" could split the homosexual community. Civil unions have been brushed aside to accommodate the wishes of extremists.

[Robert_Paulson2]

I do not understand the timing of all this ...why did it not happen in the 8 years of Clinton?

---

its an election year setup.

[JohnHuang2]

G'evening, Cincy :-)

Bump!

[Robert_Paulson2]

this is because states have allowed CITIES and COUNTIES autonomy in how they administer and interpret state laws.

the homos wouldn't have tried this coordinated effort UNLESS they had a plan to carry it out.

in the final analysis, it will become a state's rights issue, just like legal prostitution in Nevada. It's legal in some counties, not others, and a license to run a brothel in Nevada is NOT recognized in TEXAS.

The Blue states are (defacto) seceeding from the Red states over this and a host of other issues. The left and east coasts are (as you no doubt remember) the "blue" states.

the us senate has already indicated it will NOT support a constitutional amendment to fight this. So it of necessity MUST become a state to state, very costly battle of wills.

Liberals will litigate us to exhaustion over this, then their other pet peeve issues. Welcome to the new millenia.

[Fledermaus]

Maybe it's time we conservatives get lawless and ugly and demand anarchy!

Okay, okay...I'm always in the minority on that idea. Too many "Death Wish" movies I guess! ;-)

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Hi JohnHuang2!

[buccaneer]

hey bat,if the feds only did what the constitution allowed them to do,we wouldn't have this problem!

[butthead]

I found myself explaining my motives to the principle in igh school when he was given the speech that I had written about the essay on civil disobedience by thoreau.it seems I was being accused of inciting a riot. but If he had actually read the article he would know that I was esposing a noviolent resolution to an internal frustration.

nothing wrong with civil disobedience in itself. afterall thats the foundation of the creation of this great country.

there will come a time in this country when civil disobedience may be necessary to return the country to the governance of the people. by the people and for the people.

the present state of affairs is just part of the slow progress that is necessary to fine tune the rules of government that this world is to live by. If things swing to far one way it may become necessary to impliment extreme measures to right the wrongs. if those wrongs can indeed be righted.

my world is not black and white but has many shades of gray.

[tessalu]

This will lead to anarchy with no one obeying the law.
Elected officials should be jailed when they have sworn to uphold they law, and yet do not do so. They are liars right off of the bat.

[searchandrecovery]

I am currently not obeying any laws, and see no need to do so in the future (unless I might get caught). I kinda like this new Lawless America thing, I really do. Get away with as much as you can - everyone else is.

[battlegearboat]

You're not too sharp in the punctuation department, Chum.

Now go ahead and jump all over me for bringing it up.

[EdReform]

'Activist Judges' Phrase Offends Homosexual Advocacy Group

[EdReform]

Bump

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

The Stamp of Normality