Posted on 05/17/2006 9:11:44 AM PDT by bigLusr
BLACK JACK, Missouri (AP) -- The City Council has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together, and the mayor said those who fall into that category could soon face eviction.
Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a home in this St. Louis suburb because they have three children and are not married.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Justice Harlan's eloquence regarding due process nothwithstanding, I am not arguing against "our Constitutions understanding of the due process of law". As I explain in the post above, I'm arguing against your interpretation of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Justices in the very case upon which you rely. It is incontrovertible that they reaffirmed Belle Terre, and the power of municipalities to define "family" in their zoning ordinances within the parameters of Belle Terre.
Cordially,
Yes, I'm in complete agreement. As the saying goes:
... Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
not morality
Yes, but you had better hope that it is built on and constrained by a true moral foundation:
...that the foundations of our national policy, will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; and the pre-eminence of free Government, be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its Citizens, and command the respect of the world. I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my Country can inspire: since there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the œconomy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between duty and advantage, between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity: Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.
George Washington
God doesn't need our pathetic violence to reign over the universe.
Yes this is true, but at the same time God has ordained government (and its use of force) for certain functions, constrained within its proper boundaries, as necessary. Both the proper purpose of civil magistrates and their limitations were understood from the beginning of this country, an example of which is:
God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, has ordained civil magistrates, to be, under him, over the people, for his own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, has armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evildoers. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute or other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience' sake. Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXIII, 1, 3, 4
Cordially,
According to who?
Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXIII, 1, 3, 4
As a Presbyterian, I understand that the confession is interpretations by humans about what THEY think God commands.
--- my point; that any law and its implied use of force is based on someone's notion of morality, and the sticking point is determining exactly where government defined morality differs from morality itself.
Our Constitution and laws, on the other hand, are themselves the result of an understanding of human nature that has been tempered by Judeo-Christian principles.
Yet here you are, arguing against our Constitutions understanding of the due process of law.
"-- Understanding those reasons requires careful attention to this Court's function under the Due Process Clause. Mr. Justice Harlan described it eloquently:
". . . [T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . --"
Cordially,
Justice Harlan's eloquence regarding due process nothwithstanding, I am not arguing against "our Constitutions understanding of the due process of law".
You are arguing against Harlans admittedly "eloquent" description.
As I explain in the post above, I'm arguing against your interpretation of the Constitution,
I agree with Harlan, as do the Justices who quoted him. -- You do not.
as interpreted by the Justices in the very case upon which you rely. It is incontrovertible that they reaffirmed Belle Terre, and the power of municipalities to define "family" in their zoning ordinances within the parameters of Belle Terre. Cordially,
They agreed with Harlan, that: "-- arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints --" have no place in the writing of zoning ordinances.
The ordinance in question is an arbitrary, purposeless restraint on the couples liberty to live in a 'single family' area.
a true moral foundation:According to who?
Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXIII, 1, 3, 4>
As a Presbyterian, I understand that the confession is interpretations by humans about what THEY think God commands.
Well then, let me quote a higher authority:
Romans 13
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
This is a description of what constitutes proper governmental authority and function. There's definitly some "rights" and "wrongs", i.e., "morality" in there, it seems to me.
Cordially,
But the debate isn't about the interpretation, it's whether we should welcome laws based upon the different interpretations of different morals by different people.
I'll ask again, do you think the ten commandments should be enforced by government?
This is a description of what constitutes proper governmental authority and function. There's definitly some "rights" and "wrongs", i.e., "morality" in there, it seems to me.
God help us all if a majority sees that as "a description of what constitutes proper governmental authority and function"; -- and acts to 'incorporate' it into our Constitution.
Cordially,
Yes, and thus by affirming and relying upon Belle Terre, they thereby indicated that those restrictions were NOT "arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints".
The ordinance in question is an arbitrary, purposeless restraint on the couples liberty to live in a 'single family' area.
Not under the law as it presently stands, as far as I can tell. The Supreme Court in the case that you cite did not overturn any municipality's power to to ordain single-family residential occupancy requirements, including the power to define a "family" as "related by "blood, adoption, or marriage", and the power to restrict occupancy thereupon.
That is my understanding of the decision of this Court. I believe my understanding is correct.
Cordially,
LOL!
The major reason we have the republican form of government we do is that the overwhelming majority of people in early American believed just that.
Cordially,
I didn't realize you had asked me that the first time. Keeping in mind that the 10 Commandments were addressed to Israel, I personally believe that they are instructive in that the priciples of the 2nd Table of the law can be thought of as applicable to the civil magistrate. The first Table deals with one's relationship to God, and so is not under the purview of civil Government. That's my two cents, for what it's worth.
Cordially,
Not under the law as it presently stands, as far as I can tell.
Yep, thats the dispute - you, and the towns officials, -- can't "tell" us why they think they have a power to arbitrarily decide that a couple and their children can't live in a five bedroom house.
The Supreme Court in the case that you cite did not overturn any municipality's power to to ordain single-family residential occupancy requirements, including the power to define a "family" as "related by "blood, adoption, or marriage", and the power to restrict occupancy thereupon.
You seem convinced of your 'cause', I'll say that. - What is your cause? What does the town gain by restricting occupancy in this ~particular~ case? -- Would a jury agree to this restriction? - I doubt it, but we will never know. -- Unless a higher court decides to hear the couples plea.
That is my understanding of the decision of this Court. I believe my understanding is correct. Cordially,
The question remains, why is it 'correct' to arbitrarily zone liberty?
So I guess there are important things of a moral nature that should not be enforced by government.
It seems that in this, the most important of all moral issues, speeding is a moral that government need be involved in, but not the first five commandments.
An interesting position.
"--- Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.
The authorities that exist have been established by God. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. ----"
This is a description of what constitutes proper governmental authority and function. There's definitly some "rights" and "wrongs", i.e., "morality" in there, it seems to me.
God help us all if a majority sees that as "a description of what constitutes proper governmental authority and function"; -- and acts to 'incorporate' it into our Constitution.
The major reason we have the republican form of government we do is that the overwhelming majority of people in early American believed just that.
Bull. -- The overwhelming majority in the revolution fought against the 'bold' ideas you posted.
You have a very peculiar view of what our republican form of government constitutes as "proper authority".
Unmarried parents living with their children: somewhat objectionableAs opposed to same children living with only one parent?
-Eric
No, I'm saying if this local town tries to enforce this law, you better believe they can be sued under federal statute, by the folks they are harrassing and the township will lose, and pay out a HUGE settlement, and possibly be fined by the fed as well.. and these folks can enjoy explaining to the townsfolk why they bankrupted the city over this.
A little history is in order. The passage of Romans 13 was not interpreted by the Colonists the way you are probably taking it; namely, that since government is ordained by God we are required to reflexively and blindly obey it. The Revolution was fueled largely by sermons from pulpits. These sermons are readily accesible on the internet. The Colonists were overwhelmingly Protestants of one stripe or another, mainly Presbyterians. A member of the British Parliment called the Revolution the "Presbyterian Rebellion".
...It is estimated that of the 3,000,000 Americans at the time of the American Revolution, 900,000 were of Scotch or Scotch-Irish origin, 600,000 were Puritan English, and 400,000 were German or Dutch Reformed. In addition to this the Episcopalians had a Calvinistic confession in their Thirty-nine Articles; and many French Huguenots also had come to this western world. Thus we see that about two-thirds of the colonial population had been trained in the school of Calvin. Never in the world's history had a nation been founded by such people as these. Furthermore these people came to America not primarily for commercial gain or advantage, but because of deep religious convictions. It seems that the religious persecutions in various European countries had been providentially used to select out the most progressive and enlightened people for the colonization of America. At any rate it is quite generally admitted that the English, Scotch, Germans, and Dutch have been the most masterful people of Europe. Let it be especially remembered that the Puritans, who formed the great bulk of the settlers in New England, brought with them a Calvinistic Protestantism, that they were truly devoted to the doctrines of the great Reformers, that they had an aversion for formalism and oppression whether in the Church or in the State, and that in New England Calvinism remained the ruling theology throughout the entire Colonial period. ...The opening of the Revolutionary struggle found the Presbyterian ministers and churches lined up solidly on the side of the colonists, and Bancroft accredits them with having made the first bold move toward independence.9 The synod which assembled in Philadelphia in 1775 was the first religious body to declare openly and publicly for a separation from England. It urged the people under its jurisdiction to leave nothing undone that would promote the end in view, and called upon them to pray for the Congress which was then in session. ...
J. R. Sizoo tells us: "When Cornwallis was driven back to ultimate retreat and surrender at Yorktown, all of the colonels of the Colonial Army but one were Presbyterian elders. More than one-half of all the soldiers and officers of the American Army during the Revolution were Presbyterians."3
Calvinism in America
There is a mountain of historical documentary evidence of these facts, but the following is a good overview of the meaning of the passage in Romans 13 as it was generally understood at the time:
The other interpretation of Romans 13 was set out forcefully in a theological work first printed in 1579 by Frenchman Philippe du Plessis Mornay. Written originally in Latin, it was titled Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, but was later reprinted in English as “A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants” under the pen name “Junius Brutus.” This treatise took the position that government being ordained of God was referring to the general institution of government rather than to each and every distinct government.
That is, the institution of government was ordained by God, but that did not mean that God approved of every specific government. God ordained government in lieu of anarchy — He opposes anarchy, He opposes rebelliousness and lawlessness, and He opposes wickedness. Yet, there are clearly have been governments in recent years that promote anarchy, rebellion, and wickedness (e.g. Ghadaffi in Libya, Hussein in Iraq, Bin Laden in Afghanistan, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, Idi Amin in Uganda, etc.). Has God endorsed those specific governments that promote that which He hates? If so, He has contradicted His nature and is commanding submission and support to the very things that He hates — such is not possible.
The Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, Congregationalists, and most other Christian denominations during the American Revolution all believed that Romans 13 meant they were not to overthrow government as an institution and live in anarchy, but that this passage did not mean they had to submit to every civil law (note that in Hebrews 11, a number of those who made the cut in the “Faith Hall of Fame” as heroes of the faith were guilty of civil disobedience — including Daniel, the three Hebrew Children, the Hebrew Midwives, Moses, etc.). Furthermore, the Apostles in Acts 4-5 also declared their willingness to be civilly disobedient —they would obey God rather than their civil authorities.
The real key to understanding civil disobedience and Romans 13 under this latter view, then, is to determine if the purpose of opposition is simply to resist the institution of government in general (which would be anarchy and would promote a rebellious spirit), or if it is to specifically resist bad laws, bad acts, or bad governments. The American Founding Fathers understood and embraced the second interpretation of Romans 13, and therefore strongly opposed the “Divine Right of Kings” theology which was an outworking of the first interpretation of Romans 13.
For example, Founding Father James Otis (a leader of the Sons of Liberty and the mentor of Samuel Adams) in a 1766 work argued that the only king who had any Divine right was God Himself; beyond that, God had ordained power to rest with the people:
Has it [government] any solid foundation? any chief cornerstone. . . ? I think it has an everlasting foundation in the unchangeable will of God, the Author of Nature whose laws never vary. . . . Government. . . . is by no means an arbitrary thing depending merely on compact or human will for its existence. . . . The power of God Almighty is the only power that can properly and strictly be called supreme and absolute. In the order of nature immediately under Him comes the power of a simple democracy, or the power of the whole over the whole. . . . [God is] the only monarch in the universe who has a clear and indisputable right to absolute power because He is the only one who is omniscient as well as omnipotent. . . . The sum of my argument is that civil government is of God, that the administrators of it were originally the whole people. [1]
Even John Dickinson (not only a signer of the Constitution and the Governor of Pennsylvania, but also a devout Quaker and thus a member of a denomination favorably disposed toward the King) recognized the spiritual basis for the position taken by the Americans:
Kings or parliaments could not give the rights essential to happiness. . . . We claim them from a higher source — from the King of kings, and Lord of all the earth. They are not annexed to us by parchments and seals. They are created in us by the decrees of Providence, which establish the laws of our nature. They are born with us; exist with us; and cannot be taken from us by any human power without taking our lives. In short, they are founded on the immutable maxims of reason and justice. It would be an insult on the Divine Majesty to say that he has given or allowed any man or body of men a right to make me miserable. [2]
Despite their rejection of the theory that the King spoke for God, a generally submissive attitude prevailed among the Americans. Stephen Hopkins, a signer of the Declaration and the Governor of Rhode Island, confirmed this in his work, The Rights of the Colonies Examined. Hopkins explained:
We finally beg leave to assert that the first planters of these colonies were pious Christians; were faithful subjects; who, with a fortitude and perseverance little known and less considered, settled these wild countries by God’s goodness and their own amazing labors [and] thereby added a most valuable dependence to the crown of Great-Britain; were ever dutifully subservient to her interests; so taught their children that not one has been disaffected to this day; but all have honestly obeyed every royal command and cheerfully submitted to every constitutional law; . . . have carefully avoided every offensive measure . . . have never been troublesome or expensive to the mother country; have kept due order and supported a regular government; have maintained peace and practiced Christianity; and in all conditions and in every relation have demeaned themselves as loyal, as dutiful, and as faithful subjects ought; and that no kingdom or state hath, or ever had, colonies more quiet, more obedient, or more profitable, than these have ever been. [3]
The Founders pursued peaceful reconciliation and entreaty; it was Great Britain who terminated the discussions. After the separation had occurred — following years of peaceful entreaties — some British leaders specifically accused the Americans of anarchy and rebellion. To this charge, John Quincy Adams forcefully responded:
[T]here was no anarchy. . . . [T]he people of the North American union, and of its constituent States, were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians in a state of nature, but not of anarchy. They were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct. [4]
As a confirmation of this fact, Samuel Adams, in 1772 in one of the most famous of his writings, urged Americans to study the Scriptures to understand the basis of the struggle to preserve their God-given rights. He declared:
The Rights of the Colonists as Christians. These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.[5]
The spiritual nature of the American resistance became so clear that even in the debates of the British Parliament:
Sir Richard Sutton read a copy of a letter relative to the government of America from a [Crown-appointed] governor in America to the Board of Trade showing that. . . . If you ask an American, “Who is his master?” He will tell you he has none, nor any governor but Jesus Christ. [6]
Therefore, under the Framers’ understanding of Romans 13, the American Revolution was not an act of anarchy or rebellion; rather it was an act of resistance to a government which violated the Biblical purposes for which God had ordained civil government. In fact, so cognizant were the Founders that they would account to God for what they had done and be justified in His eyes, that the flag of the Massachusetts Army proclaimed “An Appeal to God,” and the flag of the Massachusetts Navy likewise declared “An Appeal to Heaven.” [7]
Additionally, the Framers were so opposed to anarchy in general, that immediately upon their separation from Great Britain, great care was taken to reinstitute government immediately so anarchy would not prevail. And the original State constitutions were overtly Christ-centered in their wordings and appeals. Quite simply, the Framers and most American Christians of that day — except the Quakers — believed they had conducted themselves in a manner in which they were not in rebellion to God or the Scriptures.
The second factor which the Framers believed gave them Biblical justification for their actions was the fact they did not initiate the conflict. The Framers had been fully committed to peaceful reconciliation and had pursued that course for 11 consecutive years before the separation from Great Britain. There was no desire to raise arms against England, their mother country and the land of their birth. Nevertheless, in the last two years of their peaceful reconciliation attempts (e.g., as in May 1776 with their Olive Branch Petition), their entreaties and appeals were met solely by military force. In fact, King George III dispatched 25,000 British troops to invade his own Colonies, enter into the homes of his own citizens, take their private possessions and goods, and imprison them without trials — all in violation of his own British common law, English Bill of Rights, and Magna Carta.
When their peaceful entreaties were met with armed attackers, the Framers cited full Biblical justification to defend their own homes, families, properties, and possessions — an important point to them. In their understanding of the Scriptures, God could bless a defensive war but not an offensive war. This was their great point of spiritual appeal: they had not attacked Great Britain; they had never fired the first shot — not in the British Massacre of 1770, nor in the Lexington and Concord engagements of 1775, nor in the bombing of Boston in 1774. Yet, now fired upon, they could defend themselves. In fact, so reticent were they to separate from Great Britain that it was a full three years after King George III had drawn the sword and sent armed troops against his own citizens in America before they announced their separation. As signer of the Declaration John Witherspoon confirmed:
On the part of America, there was not the most distant thought of subverting the government or of hurting the interest of the people of Great Britain; but of defending their own privileges from unjust encroachment; there was not the least desire of withdrawing their allegiance from the common sovereign [King George III] till it became absolutely necessary — and indeed, it was his own choice. [8]
When the decision for a separation was finally made, however, the Founders continued to maintain their strong entreaty to God for the justness of their actions. For example, in a letter to British officials, Samuel Adams, the “Father of the American Revolution,” declared:
There is One above us who will take exemplary vengeance for every insult upon His majesty. You know that the cause of America is just. You know that she contends for that freedom to which all men are entitled — that she contends against oppression, rapine, and more than savage barbarity. The blood of the innocent is upon your hands, and all the waters of the ocean will not wash it away. We again make our solemn appeal to the God of heaven to decide between you and us. And we pray that, in the doubtful scale of battle, we may be successful as we have justice on our side, and that the merciful Savior of the world may forgive our oppressors. [9]
Adams also authored a manifesto for the Continental Congress which reflected a similar tone of submission to God:
We, therefore, the Congress of the United States of America, do solemnly declare and proclaim that. . . . [w]e appeal to the God who searcheth the hearts of men for the rectitude of our intentions; and in His holy presence declare that, as we are not moved by any light or hasty suggestions of anger or revenge, so through every possible change of fortune we will adhere to this our determination. [10]
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=40
Cordially,
Where am I wrong when I say that a mother or father by marriage, by definition, is related by marriage, that the same would be true for a child from a previous marriage, and that the city only prohibits more than three unrelated people from living together? The article says
The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption." The defeated measure would have changed the definition of a family to include unmarried couples with two or more children.
Cordially,
"--- The American Founding Fathers ---- strongly opposed the "Divine Right of Kings" theology ---"
We agree.
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.