In this gospel, liberals find both an intellectually plausible explanation for their unhappiness and psychological relief from knowing that they are now on the side of the angels.
How can liberalism — an egregiously false and destructive worldview – be so wildly popular? Granted, some oddballs are attracted to an idea because it's false and destructive, but most liberals are basically normal people. How can tens of millions of regular Joes and Janes be so enthusiastic about legitimizing homosexuality, killing unborn babies and flooding America with unassimilable and hostile foreigners?
A partial answer is that Americans are surrounded from cradle to grave by liberal indoctrination. Granted, isolated pockets of sane thinking — commonly called "conservatism" — do exist. But America, like every society, must have a philosophical system which enables the leaders and the people to understand reality and make decisions. In America, when the leaders articulate their basic beliefs, they usually speak liberalism, albeit sometimes with a conservative accent. And since America's leaders can usually be voted out of power, the conclusion is inescapable: Most Americans support (if only passively) liberalism.
But an atmosphere of liberal indoctrination, although necessary, is not a sufficient explanation of liberalism's iron grip on America. After all, the Soviet Union was even more saturated with propaganda for the ruling ideology (and with threats against those who opposed it) than America is, and yet it was probably never the case that the majority of Russians believed in communism.
No, something else is at work here. To get a hint of the missing and indispensable element, the sine qua non of liberalism's rule, consider an incident I overheard recently on Christian talk radio. A prominent Christian thinker summarized New Atheist Christopher Hitchens as being dead wrong, but "a nice guy."
Christopher Hitchens a nice guy? Given his intense hatred of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and his crusade to rid the world of Christianity (and all other religions), how could any sane Christian describe Hitchens as "nice?" Even Hitchens' fans wouldn't call him "nice;" that makes him sound like a wimp.
What the Christian thinker was hinting at, when expressed more correctly, is that many people find Hitchens appealing on account of his sincere righteous indignation. For Hitchens, opposing religion is not an academic game; it's a matter of life and death. This human vitality is a welcome change from the cynical nihilism that characterizes so much of contemporary public discourse, and many find it appealing.
The basic message of Hitchens, and the rest of the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, et al), is that religion is evil and the source of most of man's woes over the millennia. This message, in turn, is just a specific case of the more comprehensive message of liberalism, that traditional life – the traditional forms of religion, morality, sex roles, love of one's kin, tribe, race and nation, and so on — is evil. And liberalism's common name for this comprehensive evil is "conservatism."
This, then, is the real source of liberalism's power: It promises liberation from the evil of conservatism, a liberation that comes only through embracing nondiscrimination. Call it the False Gospel of Liberalism.
"Nondiscrimination," of course, has many names: nonjudgmentalism, open-mindedness and multiculturalism being the most common. But the single best description of liberalism's all-purpose cure for what ails us is: Thou Shalt Not Discriminate.
Like the perversion of Christianity that it is, liberalism identifies both man's fundamental problem and the basic solution of that problem. Instead of correctly saying that man's basic problem is sin, liberalism sees conservatism as the root cause of evil in both individuals and societies. And instead of offering repentance and faith in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sins, liberalism tells us to stop discriminating.
And since most Americans breathe the intellectual atmosphere of liberalism, they are generally ready to accept liberalism's gospel. In this gospel they find both an intellectually plausible explanation for their unhappiness and psychological relief from knowing that they are now on the side of the angels. And those who repent of their conservatism and come to faith in the liberal gospel are also eager to embrace the new life it offers by dedicating themselves to participating — to a greater or lesser extent — in the great liberal jihad against conservatism.
(Please note that by using that word "jihad," I'm switching religious metaphors. Let's remember that jihad is a strictly Islamic concept. Contrary to what you hear from many anti-Christian propagandists, there is nothing in Christianity even remotely similar to jihad.)
Since man is an inherently religious animal, the famous words of Chesterton are apposite: "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing — they believe in anything." The vacuum left by the retreat of Christianity must be filled, and right now, liberalism is the most popular replacement religion. Everybody knows something's deeply wrong with individuals and society, and liberalism supplies understanding, a cure, and satisfying action.
What lessons can conservatives take to heart here? For one, we need to match the liberals' righteous indignation. It's often said that, during debate, he who loses his temper loses the argument. True enough, but he who lacks righteous indignation also loses. The dispute between liberalism and conservatism isn't an academic debate. It's a street fight, carried out with ideas and emotions instead of knives and guns. Although our appeal must be true and our arguments must be valid, if we fight according to the Marquis of Queensbury Rules, we lose. We must impress upon our listeners and readers the danger, the foolishness and the dishonor of liberalism, and the truth, goodness and beauty of conservatism. Given what's at stake — the survival of our nation — nothing less will do.
The other obvious lesson is, don't accept — either tacitly or openly — the liberal false gospel of nondiscrimination. To the average person, "don't discriminate" simply means "be nice." But that's not what it means to liberals, and their understanding rules the day. So what does liberal nondiscrimination really mean?
It means unlimited nondiscrimination. Liberalism contains no principle limiting the imperative to nondiscrimination. Common sense and the fact that every enterprise runs up against reality will limit the demands of liberalism for now. But it has become clear that liberalism is never satisfied. Equal opportunity is not enough, there must be equal results. And all groups and enterprises must have equality throughout: men and women, old and young, the various races, ethnicities and religions, all conceivable groups must be equal, or else our society is unjust.
I recently heard of a lawsuit by the mother of a wheelchair-bound high school student to force the varsity boy's basketball team to allow him to compete. The suit was thrown out, but what will happen the next time such a suit comes up? What principle of liberalism would forever forbid wheelchair-bound persons from competing with the fully-abled? Answer: There is no such principle.
And note that the forced integration of the wheelchair-bound with the fully-abled would be the destruction of basketball, and its replacement with something radically different.
Liberals are committed to nondiscrimination, and they mean business. Normal people assume that nobody would be so foolish as to carry it to extremes, and most contemporary liberals are careful not to push their program too fast — lest the frog realize he's being boiled — but I defy the reader to identify a liberal leader articulating any principled (as opposed to ad hoc) limit on nondiscrimination. Liberalism really is Nondiscrimination Uber Alles.
And please note: Unlimited nondiscrimination is unlimited destruction. Under the banner of nondiscrimination, liberals are literally destroying America. Not in the sense of turning her into a howling wilderness devoid of human beings, but instead changing her so radically that continuity with the America of the past is on the verge of being decisively ruptured. Liberals are radically changing America's morality, her religion, her laws, customs and pastimes, even her ethnic makeup. And if everything significant has changed, has not the old come to an end?
One can easily find examples of unjust discrimination. But liberalism does not say that unjust discrimination must be abolished. It says all discrimination must end. Liberalism demands indiscriminate nondiscrimination.
No, conservatives, let us decisively reject the basic principle of the Left. Some discrimination is necessary.
For "discrimination" does not mean "being cruel." It means "understanding, acknowledging and acting on differences that matter." We must discriminate between male and female, between child and adult, between criminal and law-abiding, between citizen and foreigner, between productive and lazy, between knowledge and ignorance, between the noble and the base, between the beautiful and the ugly, between the true and the false, because in every one of these dichotomies, the two things differ in important ways. Failing to discriminate is failing to understand reality and to do what is right.
And let us speak with a persuasive and righteous indignation that will impress the undecided. The survival of our nation is at stake.
Phil,
Maybe I can help. There are natural rights – i.e., unalienable rights endowed by our Creator. They are self-evident. Government is charged with "securing" them (i.e., making them safe).
Then there are legal rights, established by law. If you qualify under the criteria specified in the law, you are entitled to enjoy the benefit of the legal right you were given. Government legally discriminates every time it does this.
Since laws can be repealed, modified, and/or enhanced, legal rights exist at the whim of legislators (and frequently, the courts). As such, legal rights are little more than privileges. In the case of gay marriage, the legal definition of marriage is being changed to confer privileges to certain people who did not qualify before.
Government creates legal rights in order to achieve certain social results it considers desirable. In other words, government is trying to modify outcomes. When the winds of change blows, some legal rights disappear or are changed.
Legal rights are often a function of coercive, meddling government as it attempts to change the social fabric of the nation, usually at the behest of agenda-driven interest groups. The fact that government has the power to grant legal rights in this way means that it exceeds its constutional limits.
Yes, Sedonaman, you do have a right to be morally offended. No one has proposed making your revulsion at the thought of Dr Corvino getting married against the law, and putting you in prison for your thoughts. You can't, and shouldn't ever be prevented from reading articles about nice, middle aged men who just want to not have their property unfairly taken from them by the government (un-equal tax status, loss of death benefit rights and taxes), and who is literally pleading with you to see the immorality of allowing the government to do this to him – and get all upset thinking about all the butts*x he's having.
In fact, after this entire discussion, it should be clear that the onus is actually on you to prove that you have a constitutional right not to be be morally offended.
And since I've laid out the structure at least 3 times in this thread alone, the course of action should be clear: You do have a right to be morally offended, the question is, do you have a right to not be morally offended.
So all we have to do is wait for some gays to get married in your state, and then you can file a lawsuit claiming it violates your right to not be offended. Keep me up to date on how that goes, k?
Further, there is no such thing as constitutional rights. Otherwise, how can amendment [Amendment IX] ave any meaning?
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The intent of the constitution is to define and limit government, it does not create rights.
MM: The Constitution does establish "Rights", such as those found in the Bill of Rights. These are not the same kinds of "rights" granted by state and local governments acting under the Constitution. Nor are they the same kind of Natural or God Given Rights you referred to earlier. And, for Chasm’s benefit, they are not the same kind of “rights” as is the “right” to turn right on red, or the right to make a complete fool out of yourself by thinking that the IPCC is an unbiased scientific organization.
The common confusion is one you pointed to, that the government (particularly the Courts) somehow “create rights”. The US Constitution provides the legal framework for operating a government based on the God Given Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, which justified our rebellion from England. These ultimate “Rights” justify the creation of specific legal rights, some of which are embodied in the Constitution as first principles and can only be changed or modified by an amendment process (or by a rogue Court that has enough consenting members to find things in the Constitution that aren’t there and Shazzam, enunciate a heretofore unknown Constitutional Right). And finally there are other “rights” (the so-called “right” to practice medicine, drive a car, etc.) which are actually national, state or local laws that can be changed by legislative whim.
However, even if the Constitution was amended to remove the Bill of Rights, we would still have our God Given Rights which cannot be taken away by man, since they were not given to us by man.
This is why a discussion of “rights” involves more than what someone personally feels is a “right”. There are certain things that enjoy protected status, and other things that do not. And overarching all of this is the DOE which pointed to certain God Given Rights which are not to be violated by the enactment of the Constitution and the functioning of the government under the Constitution.
Marriage enjoys certain Constitutional protections based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause. This designation cannot arbitrarily be changed by the action of a state or local bureaucrat. The definition-of-marriage debate can indeed become a legal battle involving the courts and legislature, and may even be resolved ultimately by a national Constitutional Amendment resolving the issue. Until then marriage remains a legally granted privilege by the government in addition to a religious vow between a man and woman of a particular faith — each faith having its own rules and regulations about who they will marry, and how they will marry them.
My religion does not require the state to recognize my marriage. It’s recognized because of a common law compact between the state and religious authorities. In this compact the state also performs a non-religious legally binding ceremony between a man and a woman to grant marriage status equal to the religious ceremony. This reciprocity has limitations, because the state also grants legally binding partnerships between people that are not marriage (business partnerships for example). It’s under the business partnership model that civil unions fall, not the marriage compact.
To reduce this entire issue as Chasm has to an assertion that gays have a “right” to be married is simplistic, as well as wrong.
I’m off to a business function tonight, so this will be my last word on the subject for a while. I’d be interested in your (or Sedona’s) take on what I’ve said. As for Chasm’s continued contribution, I’m going to maintain my previously-asserted “right” to limit myself to intelligent conversation.
MM's post completely encapsulates a rather true difference between liberals and conservatives – one that is never mentioned in your twice monthly screeds about the true heart of the liberal agenda. I'm not disparaging your post, MM, I think it is the one of the starkest examples of the difference in how we see the world and it's an important distinction to know and keep in mind:
Liberals interpret the Constitution as saying the flow of power in American society is (from most powerful/rights to least powerful/rights):
People>State>Federal with the exceptions carved out in Article 1, section 8.
The structure laid out was a means to ensure "justice" by ensuring the people always had access to to a court to defend against unfairly abridged rights.
Under this structure, People hold all rights, every right in the world, until a law is made taking away that very specific right (hopefully and usually with consent).
Conservatives, on the other hand, and as MM so succinctly makes clear, interpret the power structure as:
God>Capitalism>Fed>State>People
or something. Fortunately, most law and judges agree with me, but you can add this difference of viewpoint to your list.
Sure there are examples of Amendments and laws 'enumerating' rights – because at some point in time someone notice that the whole slavery and women not voting thing was not really cool. But being a white, land-owning heterosexual male – none of those apply to me anyway. Name me a law that doesn't take away a right if mine. Most laws tell me what I cannot do, not what I can. I actually can't think of a law that allows me to do something I couldn't do absent all regulations. Licenses and such are regulating structures that are designed specifically to limit my right to create profit any way I want, even deceiving you.
Phil zero's in on this distinction: What exactly is the difference between a 'God Given' right, and the un-enumerated rights of the 9th Amendment?
You see, MM, Phillip lies to you when he instructs you in the ways of the wingnut. He always fails to mention the rights you have under the 9th Amendment. The bill of rights as a whole not only enumerates certain rights, it goes to great lengths to ensure that un-enumerated ones are not encumbered. He forgets to mention that in every lawsuit ever in the US has been able to find your rights in one of the amendments to the Constitution. Never has anyone had to reach all the way back to the preamble of the DOI to find you a right.
But it get's to the heart of the distinction.
Opps, MM, I just re-read your post, It seems we have a disagreement on what the 9th Amendment means.
I take it to mean that, just because the Constitution uses the exact phrases like, "right to a speedy and public trial" and "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" (which sort of negates your assertion that it's doesn't "create rights"), doesn't mean that those are the only rights we the people have. I interpret this, together with the Tenth and the 14th, to mean 'all rights not specifically proscribed by these documents are reserved to the people.'
And you interpret as? The Government has to give you a right? God has to give you a right? How does that work? How do I sue God for a violation of my rights?
"MM's post completely encapsulates a rather true difference between liberals and conservatives." No, your quarrel is with the founders. Youn leftists have taken government down a different road than what was conceived by the founders.
"Conservatives, on the other hand, and as MM so succinctly makes clear, interpret the power structure as:
God>Capitalism>Fed>State>People. Um, no. The founders declared that all rights flow from the creator to the people. The people delegate some of their power to government ("consent of the governed"). Leftists vest all power in government, and the people are viewed as helpless sheep that need to be told how ot live their lives.
No one has mentioned caplitalism. Capitalism is simply the willing, legal exchange of value. Capitalism is an expression of voluntary association, a facet of liberty.
"Name me a law that doesn't take away a right if mine. Most laws tell me what I cannot do, not what I can." You are again confused. Liberty is not the ability to do anything you want. Liberty and rights are different concepts. Laws without liberty is tyranny. Liberty without laws is license.
"Never has anyone had to reach all the way back to the preamble of the DOI to find you a right." That is a truly ignorant statement. Every founding father appealed to the concepts of the Declaration as the foundation of their right to revolt against the tyranny of of the Crown. It was foundational to their whole cause. It is intrinsic to the entire premise of America.
I'm really tired of your condescension and boorish pomposity. You are not the smartest man in the room, as your posts continually demonstrate. You are so unaware of the founding history of this nation that every statement you make only serves to reinforce your ignorance.
You leftists want to remake this country into something it is not, solely because you hate the beautiful foundations upon which it was built.
You are a hater. You hate people who disagree with you. You think that anyone that disagrees with you is stupid. You condescend and mock without understanding. That makes you a fool.
"No, your quarrel is with the founders. Youn leftists have taken government down a different road than what was conceived by the founders."
I disagree. I have no quarrel whatsoever with the founders. With the glaring exception of the Senate, I think the 'system' as they set it up works pretty well. For instance, the gay marriage issue has worked exactly has I predicted here in my state of California. At a certain point the glaring discrimination became apparent for everyone to see, and eventually a registrar said 'yes' (see my point with Phill, above) This prompted an examination of the issue by our Supreme Court, who found that the state constitution as written didn't allow for this level of discrimination – you can yell "liberal judges" all you want, but our state civil rights clauses are much more specific than the federal constitution, and any fair reading of our state constitution would conclude the Judges were correct. Soooo…. Conservative Religious activists immediately mobilized and spent tons of money to specifically amend the Constitution by ballot proposition to deny inherent (as found by the Court) rights of gay people to marry. Again, this is pretty much what I expected, it's all been fair-ball (although I do resent the intrusion of out of state money, that was lame), and it is what it is.
"Um, no. The founders declared that all rights flow from the creator to the people."
Excellent! Then we agree except for the God part? Good news.
God>People>State>Fed
agreed?
"You are again confused. Liberty is not the ability to do anything you want. Liberty and rights are different concepts. Laws without liberty is tyranny. Liberty without laws is license."
Well, I'm even more confused now. Those are all non sequiturs.
"Liberty is not the ability to do anything you want"
You're right, liberty is the power to do anything you want.
lib·er·ty
1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice
Only having the 'ability' means someone can prevent you from doing it. Having the 'power' means they cant stop you. I think you also mean definition 'd,' meaning an acceptance of the social contract, and I'd agree with that also.
"Liberty and rights are different concepts"
Yes, I suppose they are, in that rights seem to be much more of a ground-level definition of what constitutes dignity in a civilized society. I suppose 'all of our collective rights constitute the limits of our liberty' would be a good summation.
"Laws without liberty is tyranny"
That's catchy. But I really can't parse it. I suppose I catch the spirit, like too many laws trample liberty, or something. Needs elaboration.
"Liberty without laws is license"
That's very catchy. And true. Ok, so, yea, that was clever.
"Every founding father appealed to the concepts of the Declaration as the foundation of their right to revolt against the tyranny of of the Crown. It was foundational to their whole cause. It is intrinsic to the entire premise of America."
Maybe so, but the question wasn't "where do our un-enumerated rights come from" but "what is the largest possible set of un-enumerated rights" or "what is the difference between 'God given' and '19th blanket protections." That's why I'm willing to agree with you and put 'God' at the head of the line – I know He's not going pass any laws I don't already know about, He's not going to tax me, and my debt to Him, if any, is deferred until I die.
"You are so unaware of the founding history of this nation"
Not true at all. Up until this moment we had been having a discussion about rights specifically as they relate to Constitution. No one had ever mentioned either the founding or the DOI, as rightly, they don't come up much in the legal record.
"You leftists want to remake this country into something it is not, solely because you hate the beautiful foundations upon which it was built."
You see? I don't think I've overly disparaged Conservatives as a group in this post – and the only reason I gave Sedonaman a hard time is because he let his emotions get the best of him and because he expected me to read about a guy pleading for decency, and conclude I should feel sorry SM. I may have focused on motives a few times, but mostly it's been a flat-out dissertation on how liberals interpret law and how it differs from the way conservatives see it. How can I 'hate the foundations,' I just explained my view of how they work!
"You are a hater. You hate people who disagree with you. You think that anyone that disagrees with you is stupid. You condescend and mock without understanding. That makes you a fool."
Where is this coming from, MM? I have treated this debate with exactly as much respect as I've been given. I push back when people impugn my motives, which around here is a constant barrage, but at least I don't whine about it.
Ohh,ohh, I did a little work on your ditty:
Liberty is the power to do anything you want.
Liberty without laws is license.
Laws without liberty is tyranny.
Rights are our Liberties under law.
What do you think?
Phil:
I would agree with this for at least two reasons. First, if I have a right to be married, how is the government going to guarantee that right if no one will marry me? Second, someone [Chasm?] in this thread alluded to the founding fathers’ intent to recognize marriage as a right, and since sodomy is now legal, homosexual “marriage” would be included. But where in their writings is the claim substantiated that marriage is a right? Then considering what their attitude was toward sodomy, there was no intention of recognizing it:
An argument can be made that this is only one data point and that Washington’s view was atypical of that time. Well, where is there a single data point that supports the homosexual apologist claim that the founders thought that marriage is a right and that homosexual unions should be constitutional? As we have seen in this thread, one would have to resort to some pretty creative word-smithing.
I recall back when they started coming out of the closet, as they call it, that, “All that gays want is to be left alone.” So how did we get from “wanting to be left alone” to forcing the rest to honor and bless it with acceptance?
The next thing you heard was that sodomy should be legalized. This went all the way up to the Supreme Court, where Scalia argued that the next demand will be homosexual “marriage”, a statement that was vehemently denied by homosexual activists and their apologists. Sure enough, as the night follows the day, that’s exactly what they did. Seeing this goal within reach, they have already started work on their next: our souls http://townhall.com/columnists/AustinNimocks/2008/10/20/finally,_straight_talk_from_the_homosexual_agenda .
P.S. Due to a funeral, I will be off-line until next week.
Dr. Jackson – you write, This is because the marriage reciprocity is limited. Religions do not grant business partnerships, personal unions, etc. The state does this.
Of course, the state, as you've noted, already grants marriages that churches don't recognize. The Roman Catholic Church doesn't recognize marriages granted to divorced Catholics. Presumably the Creativity Movement wouldn't recognize the kind of marriages routinely granted since Loving v. Virginia. And then there are the marriages that some churches recognize (like some Mormon offshoots) that the state doesn't recognize…
So, the 'marriages' granted by the state and marriages granted by churches are already distinct sets (albeit with a lot of overlap).
I'm still not seeing why there's any necessary reason that the state couldn't expand its definition of marriage. I don't see why the state must grant homosexuals only civil unions (if, in fact, it ever does so).
Note: as a practical matter, I actually think that's the best way to go. Like I said before, get the state out of the marriage business entirely, and only grant civil unions. From a political and social perspective, that's certainly the easiest practical route to follow if the goal is granting homosexual couples the privileges married couples enjoy today.
What I'm hoping you can clear up for me is why that would be legally necessary (if that is in fact what you're claiming).
This is because marriages began as a religious ceremony, not as a state function. Through history and tradition, the state and religious authorities have agreed to a system that allows one body to recognize the acts of another. Because we are a nation without an established religion, the Constitution (through the laws it engenders) allows the state to perform non-religious marriage ceremonies that mimic a religious ceremony — but without the religious aspects.
The common theme is the uniting of a single man and single woman in a legal relationship of marriage. [In some states no actual official function is needed, just a certain number of years to allow for common law marriage status].
It’s not the uniting of more than two people, or two people of the same sex, or people of different sexes for business relationships only, etc. that define this action. This is because the marriage reciprocity is limited. Religions do not grant business partnerships, personal unions, etc. The state does this. If the state wants to allow two people to unite legally outside marriage, it has the power to do this. But it doesn’t do it through marriage. It does it through a civil union, and the two should not be confused.
Rights, on the other hand, cannot be revoked. Commit a specific crime, and certain rights can be limited (such as the right of free speech while incarcerated). But even in jail prisoners do not have all their first amendment rights “revoked”.
Those who want to change the common law and legal codes defining marriage have the burden to show why this should be done. It is not our burden to justify the continuation of the present situation, particularly when we are focusing exclusively on state actions. States can create civil unions without arbitrarily defining them as just another form of marriage.
Those who insist that the state exclusively define “marriage” independent of history, tradition, and the state-religion compromise concerning the performance and recognizing of marriage have other agendas at work.
Dr. Jackson, If you are thinking of the passage that I think you are, I was specifically referring the the California Constitution, which is much more specific in the granting of rights and equality under law than the US Cosnt. Under a fair reading of our state Const, the Judges who ruled in favor of allowing marriage had no other choice, really. Under the US Const… that's a different matter. That's why supporters of PropH8 had to amend the State Const, they had no other recourse.
But you bring up an interesting point that highlights the flaw in you "God's Law" or "Natural Law" theory you have:
Sodomy, I confidently predict you believe, is a violation of God's Laws. That is, I think it's a fair statement that Conservatives would contend that you do not have a natural right under God's Laws to commit sodomy. There is no right to commit this act. Correct?
Now, under your theory that the Constitution only protects our "God Given" rights, and that you believe that laws "give" us our rights (as opposed to my theory that they take them away), it would seem to be a natural assumption that all our 18th century forefathers had to do, if they arrested two men having sex in their home, is throw them in jail!
No need to charge them, no need for a Judge or trial by jury. "But they are given those rights specifically in the Constitution," you might object (though I doubt very loudly). True, but only for violating rights guaranteed them, sodomy isn't covered. Ok, even granting we give these men the privilege of a trial – you still have to charge them with something. You can't just bring them in front of a judge and say "We caught these two men in bed together *wink* *wink* that's against the Bible."
No. Fist you have to make a law against sodomy. You have to write it down, and pass it through the legislature, and the Gov has to sign it. This is not a 'natural' result of anything – sodomy laws didn't appear by miracle in the civil codes in every state all at once. They appeared because men made a conscious decision to make a law against a act that people do in their homes.
That they deemed this a 'natural' thing to do, or that it all happened without much objection is both beyond a doubt and completely irrelevant to the discussion. This is a discussion of process. That the founding fathers and men who wrote our early laws held the same views as present company does not change the fact that they nonetheless had no 'recourse' to God punish men for sodomy, so they had to write laws, ie, spell out that sodomy was one of those things, not covered by the constitution, that the States could therefor do, and so they did it: they defined sodomy as a right to be taken away by writing a law making it illegal.
This is why the 'theory' that there are some 'inherent' God-given rights that are above all laws is BS: All rights can be taken away by the government – the president can apparently order the torture or assignation of an American Citizen, thanks to Chaney/Bush, fifty gazillion laws a direct violation of the Constitution notwithstanding.
Any 'theory' that can be debunked by even one example, is invalid. Science teaches us this. The idea that their is a 'natural law' that somehow can be appealed to, is just simply not true. What some guys who wrote laws way back when 'thought' about a social issue doesn't mean that you can make a behavior a crime – at least not without writing law to prosecute it.
Flash forward. You all know the history, finally culminating in Lawrence v Texas. There was nothing 'natural' or 'Godly' about any of it at all. It was men fighting men for their right to be left alone.
I invoke my "right" to not engage in further conversation with an idiot who doesn't even understand what's in the Declaration of Independence, let alone the Constitution.
That's largely because you have no answer to questions of actual process, as opposed to wingnut theory, as evidenced:
Exhibit A. Conservative Gospel. The pillar of all Conservative 'Constitutional Theory.'
But of course, there are a few (as Ms Maddow would say, teeny tiny teeny tiny tiny little exceptions to this idea.
Like, oh, that the Constitution itself considered an entire race chattel, as a 'natural' assumption? In the very fourth paragraph! That's some rather direct revoking, right there.
Your very most hated piece of legislation eva' specifically takes the right to life away from an unborn fetus. Takes it away.
Then of course, there's the expansion of presidential power over the last 10 years. Consider that Congress' Right to declare war has been violated several times. Or that Obama has admitted to retaining a Bush policy of reserving the right to order the assassination of an American Citizen, in what would seem to be in contradiction of said citizen's 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendment Rights. Even if said citizen were guilty of Treason, he'd still have Article 3 protections requiring Witnesses and Testimony or Confession.
And all of the examples I list are of supposedly "enumerated" rights.
If there are "Rights" that *can't* be revoked, I'd like to know what they are. Tyrannical and Authoritarian governments' revoke rights all the time. I'm surprised that you of all people don't think it can happen here.
I continue to invoke my "right" to not engage in further conversation with an idiot who doesn't even understand what's in the Declaration of Independence, let alone the Constitution, not to mention the difference between the Rights mentioned in the DOI and religious beliefs about God, nor the difference between the vernacular use of words like "revoke" and "revoke" in a Constitutional setting.
This is why the study and understanding of an issue involves more than consulting a dictionary.
If not a conversation, then how about an answer to one, simple, question:
Is 'free will' one of 'God's Laws?'
MM? Sedonaman? Venture an opinion?
MM wrote, "There are natural rights – i.e., unalienable rights endowed by our Creator. They are self-evident."
and Phill contends that, "Rights… cannot be revoked."
"Free Will" is the only thing that satisfies both of these theories: It is endowed as a right to us by our creator, in fact, it is the first right given to us by Him, and it is one right that truly can't be revoked.
So, is "Free Will" a fundamental right endowed to us by our creator?
I continue to exert my "rights" to decline a conversation with a fool who makes emphatic statements about “Rights” with no apparent understanding of the term in a legal-Constitutional setting, as well as an admitted ignorance about the Rights embodied in the Declaration of Independence, but I will admit it’s rather amusing to see a new legal-political construct regarding “rights” based on the dictionary definition of words, and the underlying assumption that if you can physically do something, you have an automatic “right” to do it.
Dr. Jackson, I'm aware that "marriages began as a religious ceremony, not as a state function." (Emphasis added). My point – which you have already in effect conceded with your own example of the Catholic Church and annulment – is that state marriage is now distinct from religious marriage. The state and religion have parted ways in this area, though there remains a lot of historical overlap.
(As a rough analogy, chemistry grew from alchemy but they aren't the same thing now. Same with astronomy and astrology.)
In other words, precisely because "the the marriage reciprocity is limited", the state's under no obligation to stick with what any (or all) churches say about marriage.
Of course state actions are distinct from religious ceremonies. This is why churches do not create business partnerships. And it’s why a divorced Catholic can still remarry legally in the eyes of the state, but not in a Catholic Church unless and until his/her first marriage is annulled.
None of this, however, addresses the central question of marriage defined by the union of one man and one woman, not three men and five women, or two people of the same sex, or a man and a goat, or any other endless possibilities of human and/or plant and animal combinations.
Religions created marriage, not the state. In the United States — whose Constitution forbids the establishment of religion — the government adopted the marriage concept and made a non-religious equivalent status so as to allow people a choice of becoming “married” without having to do this exclusively through the auspices of a religious institution. Atheists, agnostics, lapsed Catholics, secular Jews, etc. benefit from this.
Religious leaders did not object to the use of the term “marriage” because they recognize that we live in a country whose Constitution forbids the establishment of religion, and as part of an historical, traditional compromise I noted earlier, made no objection to the state performing non-religious marriages. This is again because the common theme in “marriage” is the uniting of a single man and single woman. It’s not the uniting of more than two people, or two people of the same sex, or people of different sexes for business relationships only, etc. that define this action. Those types of legal unions are purely state functions.
Since religions gave rise to marriage, they control the use of this term. It’s not the prerogative of the state to simply re-define it to include three men and two women, two people of the same sex, a man and a goat, or three people going into a business partnership who want to be called “married partners” instead of “members of an LLC”.
In a civil society, if the state wants to grant an equivalent status to married people to three men and two women, two people of the same sex, a man and a goat, etc., they may indeed have a right to do so depending upon how the Constitution of that country is written and its laws are made. But all we — who value the concept of marriage (and by this, recognize its origins) — ask is that they call it something else — like a civil union.
Same legal rights, different name. It’s how things should function in a secular world.
This, of course, is entirely different from a discussion of whether or not the state has the power to force a decision on the people to call gay unions “marriage”. Rogue activist judges, petty bureaucrats who arbitrarily issue marriage licenses, etc., can do things to muck up the issue, just as enacting a national Constitutional Amendment to define marriage can limit this “muck”. But these are issues involving political maneuverings, not elements in a decision as to why X should or should not remain the same or be changed.
As of today, both history and the preponderance of law is on the side of defining marriage as it has traditionally been defined. Those who insist that the state can exclusively define “marriage” independent of history, tradition, and the state-religion compromise have the burden to show why this should be done. It is not our burden to justify the continuation of the present situation, since states can easily create civil unions without arbitrarily defining them as just another form of marriage.
As for the state getting out of the marriage business and limiting itself to civil unions, I’m all for that. But as soon as it did that, atheists and secular progressives would claim discrimination because a man and woman who want to legally unite would be denied the right to call this a “marriage”. Since the common theme is a man and a woman (not three men and five women, or two people of the same sex, etc.), there’s no “basis” for prohibiting the state to call this action a “marriage” – particularly in light of 200+ years of US history and tradition, coupled with a few millennia of world history where such pairings have been called “marriage”.
But if you want to start the petition that atheists can only be united civilly, and are prohibited from legally defining a male-female union as “marriage”, I’ll be glad to sign that document. I am nothing if not accommodating.
Dr. Jackson, you write, Since religions gave rise to marriage, they control the use of this term.
I'm still confused. This wouldn't seem to be a patent or copyright issue. I suppose that the term "marriage" could be trademarked… but where is that trademark registered? I haven't seen use of the term "marriage™" anywhere. If the churches didn't object to purely secular, state-sponsored unions being termed 'marriages' for this long, I'd think they'd have a difficult time establishing such a trademark in court…
I kid, of course. My point is that those "who value [a particular] concept of marriage" are certainly free to ask that the state "call [secular unions] something else". On practical grounds, I think the state would probably be wise to accede to such a request. But I don't see why the state has any legal obligation to do so.
Um, why wouldn't they be allowed to call what they had a marriage if they liked? If the state only recognized civil unions, then the term 'marriage' wouldn't have any legal force, and I think I've already established above that there wouldn't be any trademark concerns.
Divorced and remarried Catholics can legally call themselves 'married' regardless of what the Catholic Church thinks of their union. Why would the case of a secular civil union be any different?
I’m not surprised. Confusion is something that seems to accompany most of your thought process.
Having allowed the state to use a term/concept it created for the uniting of a man and woman in “marriage” — this time in a secular ceremony in keeping with the Constitutional prohibition against the establishment of religion — you now suggest that the state has no “legal obligation” to preserve the original integrity of this concept, and can if it wants choose to re-define it to include unions other than a single man and single woman.
In other words, if one is foolish enough to open a door for the state as a courtesy where no legal requirement to do so existed, the state now has the legal authority to enter that house and not only re-arrange the furniture, but replace it all together. This is the thinking of someone who sees political power deriving from the state, not the people. Those of us who believe that the state is our creation, not our master, find no such inherent legal justification for the state to simply re-define marriage (or any other core issue or core value) because it wants to.
As I said before, the equivalent rights and protections of marriage can be provided by state action through a civil union — allowing the same goal to be achieved entirely within its own sphere of authority. And to stave off another potential objection, there is no “separate but equal” distinction here, because both marriage and civil unions can have the same identical rights.
You can “call” the union between a goat and a pig a “marriage” if you want. I thought the issue here was the legal designation of the term. If all this is is a game of semantics, then you’ve already conceded my point. There’s absolutely no reason to change anything legally.
If the only way you, personally, can see protecting the sanctity of marriage is to end the courtesy and remove the state’s ability to marry, I’m okay with that. Only people who both believe in God and go to the appropriate religious institution to sanctify their union can be “married”. This means atheists must surrender the legal use of this term.
Gays, atheists, aficionados of bestiality, etc. can be legally united through a civil union, if the state allows it, and I and others who both believe in God and wish to have a religious affirmation of my union with a member of the opposite sex can do this through a marriage. For legal purposes, I’d even be willing to pay a licensing fee to the state to have my marriage further recognized for tax, medical, and estate purposes, just to go that extra mile and render unto the state that which is the states.
And since we live in a free society, if I want I can call my marriage a “farknagle”, and you can call your civil union a “marriage”, which will allow for all sorts of games with semantics to be played. None of this superficial name-calling matters. It doesn’t make any difference how I (or you) choose to “call” (label) this act. What matters is how it recognized — and respected — legally.
Dr. Jackson – Let's suppose that "religions" had been less courteous, and decided not to "allow" "the state to use a term/concept it created for the uniting of a man and woman". How would "religions" have gone about blocking that?
For that matter, when and how did the state ask for (the apparently necessary) permission, and who did the state ask? Was there a contract signed somewhere? When? Who were the signatories?
Raymond: Let's assume that you actually have the ability to offer a cogent thought on the subject, instead of an endless series of dodges and hypotheticals.
Hey Raymond, maybe you can explain how even though religions preceded the formation of any governments anywhere in the world, and religions were the ones to create the concept of marriage in the first place — that somehow the state is inherently entitled to take the thing that preceded its existence (and that it didn’t create) and re-define it to mean anything it wants?
Where exactly is the contract allowing this, and who were its signatories, since this apparently is the only level upon which you can grasp this concept?
To Phillip, Chasm, Raymod, Mountain Man, Sedonaman, etc,
Go away for three days and look what happens! I began plowing through email alerts @ 12:30 PM this afternoon. It is now well after 3. I did actually read each one, in what became a hopeless attempt to try to establish the thread. Just because after all the time I invested in the reading, I’m going to insert my ‘two cents’ here.
Phillip – I agree with your observation; “As long as we're going to arbitrarily re-define privileges as "rights…" I offered a definition three or four days ago that a right is a privilege irrevocably connected to responsibility. Anything else is mere privilege.
Chasm – In your Montana scenario; if political group ‘took’ over and began eschewing medical treatments and favoring prayer sessions instead, why not move? Wasn’t that the ‘original’ intent of the founders? Some states would conduct different ‘experiments’ in law. People would be free to leave if the state went over their bounds of behavior.
Isn’t this what is basically happening in the People’s Republic of California right now? Population is really not changing regarding ‘size’ but is seismically shifting demographically. Producers are moving out, moochers are moving in. Now California (Liberalisms’ Laboratory) is in receivership.
Raymond Engles – “Knowing the mind of God.” I’m probably not the best one to speak to this. While I do boast a primary and secondary Catholic education, I got in more than my share of religious tussles with the Brothers who taught religion at my high school. My argument was that no one can know the mind of God. The Creator is a being so far removed from mere humans; that to even ascribe ‘human’ characteristics such as vengeance, love, punishment, or forgiveness was to limit the Being. How do you describe a Perfect Being in human terms? The short answer is ‘You can’t.’ The Brothers at my school called my idea ‘The Generator theory’. Since I was never punished or disparaged for my belief; I’m assuming they found no contention. I’ve always held that a Supreme Being cannot be fathomed by the limited mind of man.
Chasm – several in a row. “Are you guys really willing to cede to the State the right to end your marriage?” And “The challenge of individual rights (for everyone).”
First; the state does indeed have the authority to terminate your marriage. It’s been done. The state also is in the business of severely restricting, or in some cases, completely terminating citizens’ rights. The easiest method of demonstrating this is to ask the question; “If I have a Constitutional Right to ‘keep and bear arms’ why must I apply for a license to carry a weapon? Why is even that license restricted to only certain conditions/places? Why do some areas of the country make it illegal to even own a weapon? I believe their reasoning is that my ‘right’ to do as I wish stops at the end of my nose. I also believe their reasoning is that group rights trump individual rights.
This has always been a problem with liberals who believe that ‘equal protection/outcome’ trumps individual responsibility. It has also been a problem with the Progressive ideal of the perfectibility of man through government. That problem, in a nutshell is; you cannot legislate behavior! Create a ‘gun free’ zone and all you do is create a ‘target rich’ environment for the one crazy willing to violate your edict. Tell everyone you have to show ID to get on plane, and someone builds a bomb into his shoe. Tell everyone you have to remove your shoes and someone places a bomb in his underwear. Next you tell everyone they have to fly naked, and someone will place the bomb in his rectum. Mandatory cavity searches will yield someone willing to have it surgically implanted. You cannot legislate behavior.
You are correct. A law is an abridgment of a right. Every time.
Mountain Man- “Phil: Maybe I can help. There are natural rights – i.e., unalienable rights endowed by our Creator. They are self-evident. Government is charged with "securing" them (i.e., making them safe).” I agree. I also agree with the observation; “Then there are legal rights, established by law. If you qualify under the criteria specified in the law, you are entitled to enjoy the benefit of the legal right you were given. Government legally discriminates every time it does this.”
Chasm – You ask; “Is free will one of God’s Laws?” The short answer is no. Islam’s God, Allah, is big on pre-determination. It is only through Jihad that one may alter the end of the path Allah has chosen.
Phillip. I agree; “Since religions gave rise to marriage, they control the use of this term.”
There; that about catches me up. I know this makes little sense; but I just couldn’t help myself. OK take your shots. Once I get a little shuteye I’ll be back to my old irascible self.
Glad to be back.
Welcome back Bill!
I need to point out that you actually disagree with Phillip with his statement, “As long as we're going to arbitrarily re-define privileges as "rights…" He was mocking me for defining rights as the privileges that our laws allow. I accept your addition of responsibility, but that is not strictly a legal aspect, and it is one our corporate brothers do not seem to follow. Dr. Jackson emphatically disagrees with the statement "A law is an abridgment of a right. Every time." But here is someone who would agree, as you do, with that assessment:
http://www.vlrc.org/articles/154.html
This is the text of a very interesting talk that Dr. Viera (A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School). (gave regarding the the history of monetary law. I think every one here will find this talk extremely interesting, as he traces the meaning of "dollar" from the Constitutional era version of “the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current,to wit, three hundred and seventy-one and one-quarter grains of silver” to today's Federal Reserve.
Unfortunately, Dr. Viera does not proscribe a road back from this situation, but presumably that is what his book does.
But something he said was fantastically illustrative of the concept I was trying to get across, Dr. Viera so succinctly said:
Everything the government does is by definition Constitutional. But Dr Viera also points out something that I had completely missed. Even those rights that I talked about earlier as being "enumerated," that is, as being "give" to us by the Constitution, well it turns out, not so much "given" as… I'll let Dr Viera explain:
That is, the Constitution does not "give" you the right to free speech, It does not "give" you the right to "freedom of religion." It takes away from Congress the right to pass laws infringing on those rights.
This is entirely consistent with how I understand the Constitution.
The Constitution and our system of laws is like a computer code – and most of what we live under are actually called codes: Title Code, Tax Code, Civil Code – and this computer code is run by the people who work in government. Every time you add lines to the code (make law), you are making government bigger – and every time you take lines of away (repeal, or Judicially overrule law) you make government smaller. Literally and figuratively. Every line of code takes a right away from a Person. Not just citizen, person.
So any "small government" conservative who works to add lines of code, is lying.
When you write a sodomy law, you are adding code, and taking away rights. When you pass a Constitutional Amendment banning any sort of civil marriage, you are adding code, and taking away rights, so I think we all agree that states should change their definition of 'marriage' to 'civil partnership.' But then, you'd have to tell my parents that they aren't married because they never went to a Church.
A graphic illustration of the effects of a few lines of code occurred this very morning when that guy flew a plane into the IRS. I read his note very carefully, and if you do you will notice that a very tiny, four line addition to the Tax Code changed his entire business model from one where a company hired him to be an engineer, to one where he became a private contractor that has to rely on a intermediary, like a temp agency for computer engineers. And it was done in such a way that not only did it disadvantage his tax liability, but he had to pay the middle man too! Now, I'm not excusing a person clearly beyond his mental limits, but as much as business loves laws like this – they are "free" to just hire from the "temp" agency and thus skirt Union laws, and put all the tax onus on the individual – but the fact is, by writing such a law, they completely force the individual to engage in a very specific and limited business model, one that does not favor him, the person. With four lines of code.
Now, this is not to say that there aren't Lawyers and Scholars that agree with Dr Jackson's interpretation, the nice folks over at the JCCC (though, not that many of them are lawyers, but religious leaders) Liberty University and the Thomas More Law Center for instance. They would no doubt agree with his interpretation, but the Judges they meet seem to agree more with mine.
BILL: "In your Montana scenario; if political group ‘took’ over and began eschewing medical treatments and favoring prayer sessions instead, why not move?"
Good question. I suppose if I lost my case in court, I would. But I don't think I'd lose my case.
"Isn’t this what is basically happening in the People’s Republic of California right now? Population is really not changing regarding ‘size’ but is seismically shifting demographically."
No, what's happening now is the State is bankrupt because it's almost Constitutionally impossible to raise taxes.
And it's demographically shifting in another way which I'll get to in a moment:
“If I have a Constitutional Right to ‘keep and bear arms’ why must I apply for a license to carry a weapon? Why is even that license restricted to only certain conditions/places? Why do some areas of the country make it illegal to even own a weapon?"
I wish I knew! Oddly enough, if you believe you have a Constitutional RTBA's than, all those laws are indeed un-constitutional, I agree. I haven't looked into the actual reason, but at this point we're screwed because our rights have been shut down by many many lines of code.
And my last point: I may not be posting here as much as my days are about to get employed agin. I come and go, you all know that.
I have taken a job in New York (Brooklyn) and will be among the demographically shifting out of California. And, I have to leave my guns at my brother-in-laws in Rhode Island, at least until I get my rights restored.
Chasm,
In regards to your saying; “I need to point out that you actually disagree with Phillip with his statement, “As long as we're going to arbitrarily re-define privileges as "rights…" He was ‘mocking’ me for defining rights as the privileges that our laws allow.” Phillip and I are usually on the same page when it comes to these things. Granted he can, at times, be much more acerbic than I. He’s also quick to correct me on any point of disagreement. If you were trying to redefine rights as privilege that law condones; I can see why he felt as if he had to respond.
"The powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction." James Madison.
The powers of the federal government are few and enumerated; as opposed to those left to the states or the people. Our founders designed this to keep federal government from forcing ‘one-size-fits-all’ solutions. A review of the Constitutional powers granted to the federal government may be found here.
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/historical-documents/united-states-constitution/thirty-enumerated-powers
However, it doesn’t mean ‘if it’s not written down, then I can do it’. The founders meant for those ‘unremunerated’ rights to be legislated by the individual states. I believe that one of the things they understood was the idea of all politics being local; and that such issues were best left to the legislators closest to that particular issue.
I’ll take a local example from Arkansas to try and illustrate the point. We have ‘wet’ and ‘dry’ counties in Arkansas. Yeah, yeah, I know; how absolutely archaic. But actually it’s more forward thinking than you might imagine. There are pockets of strictly practicing religious denominations in this state, and some of these represent an overwhelming majority of voters in that county. Almost the entire state was dry in the early 70’s. Now it’s still over half the counties in the state that are dry. To complicate the issue further, municipalities can affect their status via local ballot referendum. So there are dry cities located in some wet counties. The City of Jacksonville is a dry city located in the wet county of Pulaski. Should the Arkansas State Legislature ‘drag these mouth breathing, knuckle dragging troglodytes into the 21st century' just because I think I have the right to drink a beer wherever and whenever I want?
The point we’re driving is that while there may be significant reason that you believe you possess a ‘right’ to do something; all other peoples’ personal rights must be considered too. This is exactly why so many things may not be claimed as ‘rights’ just ‘cause you want them.
Marriage; for instance. This is why I’m a proponent of government getting out of the marriage business and into the civil union business. Government can define what does and does not constitute a civil union. I think we’ve fairly well established that marriage was a ‘religious concept long before it was a government concept.
I’ll use my marriage as an example. I’m a cradle Catholic, my wife is non-denominational. If we’d simply gone to the courthouse there would have been a question regarding did we get blood tests? Upon production of the test certificate and our driver’s licenses showing we were both above the age of majority we would have produced the proper fee and the next thing we’d have heard was; “By the power vested in me by the state; I now pronounce you man and wife. Next!”
As it was; when we got engaged and I went to my pastor to schedule what we thought would be a July wedding, I found that if I wanted a Catholic Ceremony, we would have to first undergo a series of interviews with the priest. Only after he was convinced that we not only understood the depth of commitment to each other, but was assured that my wife understood the depth of both my and her commitment in the eyes of both the Church and God could the ceremony be conducted. To make a long story short; a wedding planned for July occurred in late January of the following year.
The points he brought up during these ‘conferences’ not only had us exploring the entire experience from the Church perspective, but also caused us to have a series of detailed, frank conversations with each other. We both found, and still agree, that this process was something we’d have not gone through otherwise. We also agree that this process revealed the true nature of the responsibilities of the promises we were about to make. A process, I might add, that helped us to get through some rough spots over the last twenty plus years.
I cannot speak for other faiths, but there certainly isn’t any type of counseling program available for government marriage,
As for your comment; “But then, you'd have to tell my parents that they aren't married because they never went to a Church.” If they’ve been married any length of time a government decree that government would only conduct civil union from now on wouldn’t affect them. Marriage is the journey, not the ceremony. That’s what our conferences revealed to us.
Let’s address your comment; “No, what's happening now is the State is bankrupt because it's almost constitutionally impossible to raise taxes.” I disagree. The problems in California are twofold. First taxes are already too high! I posted to IC earlier (probably not this specific article) that most small businesses are what they call “S” corporations. This means that the business owner files income taxes on his/her personal income tax form. Let’s look at these taxes
If a business owner makes $250 k; his federal bite is already 33% and going up once the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011. http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
On top of that, California collects another 9.3%.
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/edit/state/profiles/state_tax_Cal.asp So far, we’re up to 42.3 cents on every dollar of AGI. This is not to mention that California has some of the highest other taxes and fees in the country. Knowing already how much more Californians pay for goods and services; how well would you do if two levels of government were demanding 42.3% ‘off-the-top’?
I was in California when Laguna Beach burned to the ground in ’93. The majority of the people living on that hillside could not afford to rebuild. It didn’t have anything to do with insured value; but it had everything to do with the new property tax assessment that property would undergo after rebuilding. It was so bad that even though hundreds of homes burned, only five permits to build back had been issued 12 months later.
As aside here; I personally remember going to the Arkansas Revenue Department to register my car when we moved. A 1989 Taurus that had cost me over $160 to register in California cost me exactly $23.50 here. I thought someone had made a grave error. Over ten years later it still only costs $23.50 to register a vehicle here.
Last year I bought a $35,000 truck. Registering that truck in Arkansas, $23.50, in California $492!
The second challenge is that California is being held hostage by the Public Service Employees Union. I don’t know of ANY other state where a person can retire at better than 80% pay and benefits at the age of 55 when life expectancy is pushing above 80. How can anyone claim anything near fiscal responsibility when a state employee can draw retirement for as long or longer than he/she actually worked?
Add to this a significant ‘undocumented’ worker population that is straining literally every aspect of social services; and you have a recipe for monetary disaster. I personally took a 65% pay cut when I relocated to Arkansas from California. But after adjusting for the reduces tax rates, the reduced costs of other fees for service, and the reduced costs for goods and services it actually came out to a 4.5% improvement in my standard of living as calculated from AGI. Go figure that one out!
Chasm: Best of luck in Brooklyn, New York. I sincerely hope this opportunity works out well for you.
Bill: Good discussion of the difference between privileges exercised under Rights, responsibilities associated with the exercise of Rights, the difference between small-r “rights” (the “right” to turn red on right), Big-R rights (Rights associated with the US Constitution), God-Given Rights acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence as the basis from which Constitutional Rights flow, legal codes and legal limitations surrounding Constitutional Rights (free speech does not give one the “right” to yell fire in a crowded theater; registration of guns is not a denial of second Amendment Rights, etc.), the distinction between the physical ability to do something and the right/Right to do something under Constitutional or Natural law, and a host of other issues that go into analyzing this subject instead of an endless series of inanities like “Everything the government does is by definition Constitutional” . Since “the Government” consists of state, local and federal authorities, and the Federal Government consists of 3 branches (one of whom occasionally rules the actions of the other two branches “unconstitutional”), statements like these are superficial and, well, quite silly. It once again goes to my main point that more is needed to understand the Constitution, and “rights/”Rights”, than the latest version of Webster’s dictionary.
Dr. Jackson – The legal profession has a long history of appropriating words and phrases and giving them their own special meaning with little or no relation to their original context. (Google "term of art".)
I've been asking rhetorical questions to point out the problem with your reasoning here, but as you note, irony is lost on the ironic.
So let's be very direct: On what legal basis does your claim of exclusive religious control of the term 'marriage' rest?
Raymond, let' me be equally direct. Please explain how even though religions preceded the formation of any governments anywhere in the world, and religions were the ones to create the concept of marriage in the first place — that somehow the state is inherently entitled to take the thing that preceded its existence (and that it didn’t create) and re-define it to mean anything it wants?
Where exactly is the contract allowing this, and who were its signatories, since this apparently is the only level upon which you can grasp this concept?
I've just skimmed this discussion, but it seems to me that it would be instructive for Chasm and perhaps some other commentors to read the definition of Classical Liberalism and its conception of rights at the following link:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/what-is-classical-liberalism
Defining terms is extremely important when each side of the argument uses the same words in a dramatically different way (positive/negative; liberties rights/privileges; legal rights/natural rights). Modern social liberalism is about 180 degrees from the classical liberalism espoused by the founders and in which the constitution they wrote is ensconced, and consequently its definitions and understandings of terminology is quite dramatically different ("liberty", "rights" and "equality" being arguably the most contentious terms).
On a side note, it always amuses me how large government social liberals turn into staunch and strict libertarians at the convenience of the conversation at hand. In this way, even though they believe that government should collect more taxes, provide more services, possess and exercise more authority over private exchanges and affairs, those hypocritical conservatives are no better because they believe that the government should write a separate definition of legal union for religious and secular marriages. After all, adding 2 sentences of "code" to local or state law in order to define a vague concept over which the federal government has no authority or interest for legal and practical purposes, has the exact same evil effect of "expanding government" as, say, requiring 2 licenses, a background check, a 3 month waiting period and a $200 per year use tax in order to own a semi automatic rifle, despite the federal constitution explicitly delineating a right to keep and bear arms. It's similar to their unwavering confidence in the all-knowing and perfectly-reasoning Supreme Court that conjured them up a constitutional right to an abortion contrasted with their suspicion of our entire system of justice itself when the very same court suspended the 3rd Dade County recount in the presidential election of 2000, or recognized an individual right to bear arms, or the right of legal entities such as corporations and unions to spend their own money in a manner of their choosing. Seems their "libertarianism" extends only as far as the ideology that opposes their own.
Dr. Jackson – You simply assume that 'religions' "control the use of [the] term" 'marriage'. You in no way justify this. Why does the state need to be 'entitled' to pick whatever language it likes? The state already does so, as we've established, recognizing marriages that various churches do not.
Don't worry, I understand that you wouldn't like it if the legal definition of 'marriage' were expanded to include same-sex relationships or whatever. But that doesn't amount to a legal or Constitutional obligation to respect your wishes in the matter.
Our state apparatus already has a legal mechanism to control the use of a term – it's called a "trademark". A person or business needs to file for a trademark, and defend it. In the case of the term "marriage", this simply has not been done.
There's a historical precedent for special exemptions – The U.S. Olympic Committee has a perpetual and exclusive trademark on the term "Olympic" in all areas of commerce, for example. (Which leads to occasional complications.)
If you think the word "marriage" should have such a special exemption, you're free to lobby for it. Absent that, however, all you can do is say something amounting to, 'You shouldn't take the name "marriage" in what I consider vain, because… because… because that would hurt my feelings!'
Raymond,
You can't trademark generic terms (including some terms that were once trademarked but have become so common that the term becomes legally considered "generic"), and you can't trademark something that is not a good or service (I suppose there's an argument that the institution of marriage is a good, since you do, after all, have to pay and qualify to obtain it, but it would be extremely unlikely to be granted or upheld). With all due respect, comparing the naming rights of the commercial organization of the Olympic Games to the religious/social/public institution of marriage is really a boneheaded argument.
Mr. Mulligan – I'm aware that the comparison is silly – because the contention that the state is somehow obligated to defer to religion when defining what it'll recognize as a marriage is silly. It doesn't now.
In what religion or group of religions does the 'controlling ownership' rest, anyway? What are we to make of the religious sects that do recognize same-sex marriage?
Dr. Jackson's argument boils down to, "It's been this way for a long time, and so you can't change it!" But while that's fine as an expression of (doubtless strong) disapproval, it's not a legal or Constitutional argument.
Patrick: Save your breath. Raymond isn't interested in a real discussion of this topic.
You'll notice how he feels no obligation to justify his positions. All he does is pose hypotheticals that, when addressed, result in additional hypotheticals that, when addressed, result in additional hypotheticals, etc.
Using his own ‘analysis’, I’ve repeatedly asked him to explain how even though religions preceded the formation of any governments anywhere in the world, and religions were the ones to create the concept of marriage in the first place — why is the state is inherently entitled to take the thing that preceded its existence (and that it didn’t create) and re-define it to mean anything it wants? Where exactly is the contract allowing this, and who were its signatories, since this apparently is the only level upon which he can grasp this concept?
Once again, those who insist that the state has the inherent right to re-define “marriage” independent of history, tradition, etc. have other agendas at work.
Raymond,
It would take a lot of research, and I'll bet you'd probably have to go back to almost Mesopotamia, but eventually we would discover a 'religious' connotation to marriage prior to any real political set of reasons. This is one of the reasons for my development of the belief that 'civil' unions should be the only 'government' offering.
Here are selected portions of my morning post. “I’ll use my marriage as an example. I’m a cradle Catholic, my wife is non-denominational. If we’d simply gone to the courthouse there would have been a question regarding did we get blood tests? Upon production of the test certificate and our driver’s licenses showing we were both above the age of majority we would have produced the proper fee and the next thing we’d have heard was; “By the power vested in me by the state; I now pronounce you man and wife. Next!”
As it was; when we got engaged and I went to my pastor to schedule what we thought would be a July wedding, I found that if I wanted a Catholic Ceremony, we would have to first undergo a series of interviews with the priest. Only after he was convinced that we not only understood the depth of commitment to each other, but was assured that my wife understood the depth of both my and her commitment in the eyes of both the Church and God could the ceremony be conducted. To make a long story short; a wedding planned for July occurred in late January of the following year.
The points he brought up during these ‘conferences’ not only had us exploring the entire experience from the Church perspective, but also caused us to have a series of detailed, frank conversations with each other. We both found, and still agree, that this process was something we’d have not gone through otherwise. We also agree that this process revealed the true nature of the responsibilities of the promises we were about to make. A process, I might add, that helped us to get through some rough spots over the last twenty plus years.
I cannot speak for other faiths, but there certainly isn’t any type of counseling program available for government marriage…”
Religion haw always had much more invested in the concept of ‘marriage’ than the state. That the state ‘borrowed’ the term cannot be in dispute here. While the state can control its definition of ‘civil’ union, it cannot, at whim, adjust the definition of what constitutes a marriage.
However; maybe we can all agree to wind up this discussion with something for everyone. Let’s all contemplate this discussion of both Rights (those directly attributable to the Constitution) and rights (those derived from self-interest) with a reread of Patrick Mulligan’s’ final posting to you; “…comparing the naming rights of the commercial organization of the Olympic Games to the religious/social/public institution of marriage is really a boneheaded argument.”
There sir, claim your prize. The right to be a bonehead. It would actually go quite a ways in not only explaining your extensive postings here, but in several other forums as well.
One of the ongoing criticisms of Raymond has always been his dishonesty in debate, whether it’s re-writing what someone actually by substituting different words and then criticizing that new word choice, or in this case, taking an argument that says (a) religions created marriage, and (b) religions pre-dated government, so what is the basis for contending that governments have an inherent right to re-define marriage?, and expressing it as simply “It's been this way for a long time, and so you can't change it!"
Something can be a certain way “for a long time” without involving the issue of who created it, and when the second of the two parties came into existence. This reductionism of focusing only on “a long time” instead of the core issues I actually cited is why there’s no point in continuing this discussion with Raymond. Instead, I’ll invoke my Chasm-inspired “rights” to only react to legitimate, intelligent debate.
All in all, though, this has been a pretty good discussion, if for no other reason than to illustrate the lack of any real substance behind the positions of those who want to change the definition of marriage.
Bill: Not necessary. Raymond already conceded the point:
Having acknowledged that marriage is not a state-created function, Raymond ignores what he himself conceded to press the case for “a legal or Constitutional argument” to prevent the state from re-defining that which “began as a religious ceremony, not as a state function.”
I’ve repeatedly asked Raymond to explain, how even though religions preceded the formation of any governments anywhere in the world, and religions were the ones to create the concept of marriage in the first place — why is the state inherently entitled to take the thing that preceded its existence (and that it didn’t create) and re-define it to mean anything it wants?
Raymond’s response is to not answer the question (or maintain that it doesn’t really say what he actually said), and instead introduce endless, extraneous hypotheticals into the discussion that we are supposed to address instead. It’s all smoke and mirrors with Raymond.
Once again, those who want to change the common law and legal codes defining marriage have the burden to show why this should be done. It is not our burden to justify the continuation of the present situation, particularly when the government can create fully-equivalent secular civil unions without having to define them as “marriage.”
Those who insist that the state has the inherent right to exclusively define “marriage” independent of history, tradition, etc. have other agendas at work.
If one doesn't believe in God, it's simple enough to relegate the institution of marriage to whatever the government says it is.
After all, the government is the final authority on everything these days, isn't it?
It's worth noting that the neither the ceremony, the pomp and circumstance, nor the spectacle constitute "holy matrimony." According to the Bible, the consummation is the moment of marriage.
The law followed this precept, as well as other parts of the religous marriage relationship, for a lot of years before it began diverging from the Church's teaching.
The legal basis of marriage is approaching the point of being nothing but a pop culture phenomena, akin to deciding what to wear in the morning.
The law appropriated the institution of marriage, and now wants to force the church to follow it rather than vice versa.
Can I get a Lawyer here, please?
First of all, explain the substantive differences between my quote, “Everything the government does is by definition Constitutional,” and the quote of Dr. Viera, "Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy."
If you can find a difference in the meaning of those two statements, fine, go with Dr. Viera's. I agree with his interpretation.
Then, Phillip:"the difference between privileges exercised under Rights, responsibilities associated with the exercise of Rights, the difference between small-r “rights” (the “right” to turn red on right), Big-R rights (Rights associated with the US Constitution), God-Given Rights acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence as the basis from which Constitutional Rights flow, legal codes and legal limitations surrounding Constitutional Rights"
Small 'r' rights, big 'R' Right, privileges, Go-Given rights, Declaration… it gives me a headache just thinking about it.
Here's the deal: In order to continue this discussion, I need some case law or title code, or any other code that discusses what you mean. Not an article by Phyllis Schlafly, but an actual pdf of a Judges ruling or a code citation, so we can examine the language used and you can try and make your points.
Here's a link to FindLaw:
http://lp.findlaw.com/
Here's the US Title Code:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/
Here's a link to all the Codes of Texas:
http://www.bakers-legal-pages.com/
Now, just the books containing all the laws in those code links fill an entire law library (those books on the wall on those Lawyer TV shows that all look alike). THAT is the government, in it's entirety: Title, Penal, Admin, Vehicle, Tax codes plus the whole of case law. That is government. Those codes and the offices and people they program.
So, just find me a case or a code that deals with this "DOI big Rights small rights" issue and we can talk. Off the top of my head, I'd say those "God" in-the-Pledge lawsuits filed by that idiot atheist are going to be a start.
I say 'idiot' because useless lawsuits, frivolous if your like, like his do nothing but formulate more case law that defines boundaries (restricts rights), and this is bigger government.
I will get the ball rolling by pointing out two cases, one frivolous and dismissed by the judge, and one valid case that was upheld. Both cases were filed by the Thomas More Center, the conservative Christian answer to the ACLU. In other words, if there are any people on the planet who agree with Dr Jacksons' interpretation of law, it's the lawyers who filed these cases.
The first is Johnson v Poway School District:
http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/PowayRuling.pdf
In this case, a math teacher who, for over 15 years, had displayed banners in his classroom that read "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God." One day, the principal told him to take them down. He sued.
The Judge, quite rightly in my opinion, ruled (and this is a response to a motion to dismiss, so, not the final judgment of the case), that Johnson had every right to keep the posters up because it was longstanding practice that teachers could put up their little displays, and that other teachers put Buddhist quotes or nature photos up, so therefore, Johnson was Constitutionally allowed, motion to dismiss, denied.
This case is interesting to our discussion for two reasons. First, except for the actual quotes of Mr. Johnson's signs, the words "God" or "Declaration of Independence" do not appear anywhere in the Judges ruling.
Second, and Bill – I need you to pay attention to this because it pertains to something I'm going to talk about in a sec – this is an instance of the exact moment when the Government (or any other ruling entity, such as a Church) asserts it's right to take a right away from a citizen.
This is the exact same moment as when a Department of Motor Vehicles was created and our rights to just buy and build our own cars, with little thought to safety, and drive as fast as we could go, were taken away (adoption of Ca Vehicle Code), the exact same moment as when the first anti-contraception law was written and violated our right to privacy in our own home (resolved in Griswold and Lawrence), the exact same moment as when a state clerk said 'no' to a couple wanting to get civilly married and took away their right under law (wasn't that Mass?), and the exact same moment as when the Catholic Church created it's interpretation of marriage under God (3rd Century AD-ish?)- the moment the Principal told a math teacher he couldn't be proud of his God and his Country in his own classroom.
Now, I *get* it. I get that you prefer to substitute the word 'privilege' for every instance of 'right' in that passage except for the instance of the Church creating marriages and perhaps the idea that sodomy laws should be honored as "God Given" simply because the founders used the "Creator" – not God, not Jesus Christ – "Creator" in the DOI. I understand what you 'think,' I need to see some case law that demonstrates this so we can talk specifics.
I was going to discuss another case, Catholic League vs City of San Francisco, but this one turned out to highlight all my points, so no need to humiliate the Thomas More center by discussing a failure. The most noteworthy thing about that case, and you can read it on their website, is that the Judges used another earlier, almost identical case also brought by Thomas More against them in their ruling! (this may cause some confusion on their side, because they are actually both called Catholic League v SF).
This goes to my point that each frivolous lawsuit, like idiot atheist guy, plugs up another hole in our freedoms, while each successful one (like Johnson v Poway) unplugs one (asshole principal).
Bill, to wrap up quickly, regarding Madison. If you're arguing that he would be appalled at the size and scope of the Federal Title Code, I totally agree! But it has only violated its jurisdiction from our perspective as the people – by creating the law the government thinks it is right. It thinks it's being Constitutional, there fore it is Constitutional.
Think about it: how do we, as citizens, get unfair laws overturned? We have to get a judge to declare that law (section of the code) declared "UN-Constitutional," which directly implies that up until that moment, what the law said was a-ok.
Now, what you say about wet and dry counties is interesting, but you have to agree that a law prohibiting alcohol abridges a right to buy alcohol, right? I have no problem if the citizens want to live under a restriction of their rights, but I bet it's not against the law to drink alcohol, as opposed to purchase, in many of those counties. The government certainly seems able to restrict commerce wherever it wants.
As how this relates to my "prayer medical" example, I suppose, is that I would have a different opinion if the state had, from it's entry in the union, not had any hospitals. And throughout its' history it had never built any hospitals, and it had never developed any medical standards or licensed any doctors, and therefor had no code to deal with medicine at all, than I would be ok with just avoiding that state altogether with so much as a headcold. But taking a modern apparatus and throwing it back into the 13th century is something I would argue against because it really screws a lot of people already there.
As for you Ca analysis, you know much more than I, I have never owned a business. I am but a union worker bee in the TV machine.
Chasm,
Until you bother to read and understand the link I gave above, you will not be able to discuss the issue of "rights" from a conservative/libertarian/classical liberal perspective, so further addressing points that you have already raised and that have already been addressed would be rather pointless. That courts rely on legal precedent and do not reference external texts like the Declaration of Independence or the Federalist Papers, or the Bible or the Koran in interpreting the law (except in the case of the Supreme Court, several of whose members wish to apply international and regional case law in interpreting United States constitutional issues) is a function of their design and has little or nothing to do with the philosophical concept of rights and their derivation.
Yeah. Real intellectual discussion is hard. A stream of consciousness about your feelings about what constitutes a “right”, or “privilege,” or “justice” any other similar sounding word you can look up in a dictionary is of no interest to anyone in a discussion of actual Rights as manifested in our political system.
Here's the deal: In order to continue this discussion, I need some case law or title code, or any other code that discusses what you mean. Not an article by Phyllis Schlafly, but an actual pdf of a Judges ruling or a code citation, so we can examine the language used and you can try and make your points.
Or, you could do what the others participating in this conversation have done, actually educate yourself on the issue before making emphatic pronouncements that have nothing to do with the actual subject of “rights/”Rights”, which involves actually understanding not only how these concepts are applied to our system of government, but also understanding the difference between a discussion of Rights under God as defined by the Declaration of Independence and articulated through the US Constitution, a discussion of particular religious beliefs about God vs. the notion of God-Given rights in the DOI, and the difference between “rights”/”Rights” and “case law” — just for starters.
Chasm,
In your latest post you state; “Everything the government does is by definition Constitutional,” and the quote of Dr. Viera, "Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy." I’ll attempt to do the heavy lifting for you this time as you are probably busy packing for your upcoming relocation
“…just find me a case or a code that deals with this "DOI big Rights small rights" issue and we can talk.”
Let’s review Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed his chickens. The U.S. government had imposed limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.
The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause (which permits the United States Congress to "regulate Commerce . . . among the several States") decided that, because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government.
This would not only seem to settle the question of; “Everything the government does is by definition Constitutional…”; but also "DOI big Rights small rights".
Essentially; the US Government enjoined Roscoe Filburn from growing a small patch of wheat on his farm for his own complete (none for sale or barter) use, (wheat seed for feeding chickens with the leftovers being baked into bread by his wife and the roughage being fed to his cows) because allowing him to do so would also allow him to avoid paying the government’s artificially inflated prices for feed that they’d already forced everyone else to pay; all for the greater good of course. In my opinion, for what its worth, this is a real stretch to call this interstate commerce. There are so many hypothetical’s buried in here SCOTUS should be ashamed of themselves.
Is this; “Everything the government does is by definition Constitutional…” I would contend that this is a blatant curtailment of Roscoe Filburn’s right to do as he wished with his property.
Is it an example of Dr. Viera, "Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy." I would say most certainly. There is not a shred of ‘interstate commerce’ here. It is a judicial reach that rivals Roe in its ignorance.
Is it an example of "DOI big Rights small rights". From the standpoint that SCOTUS said that ‘government’ interpretative rights trump enumerated people’s rights; once again a case for that can be made.
Just because the government says this is what everyone will do doesn’t mean it is constitutional.
Another example; can the federal government ‘force’ every American citizen to buy health care? Nancy Pelosi thinks so; and intends to use the commerce clause to enact it. Apparently over 30 states disagree. It seems the states are already gearing up to defend themselves against the possibility of a federal takeover of the nations’ health care system. An article entitled ‘Federal health care foes plot for state opt-outs’ posted at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/19/federal-health-care-foes-plot-for-state-opt-outs on January 19th, 2010 says; “Lawmakers in 30 states are pressing for constitutional amendments to exempt individuals from the requirement to purchase health care, a pivotal piece of the legislation under debate in both Houses of Congress.”
Congress oversteps every day. And the progressives will encourage this ‘overstepping’ every time.
However; Phillip Jackson is correct. Usually the people posting here at IC offer their own references, and don't ask others to find stuff for them.
Bill:
Let me be as charitable as I can about Chasm.
People who participate in this site generally fall into two categories: those who have some actual education or practical experience in a subject, and those who don’t – but are interested in educating themselves on a matter. People who fall into the first category tend to make and defend analytical positions. People who fall into the second category tend to press for additional explanations, but avoid making categorical pronouncements of their own.
However, occasionally we get a third type of participant like Chasm: someone who has no real understanding of the fundamentals of a subject, but plunges ahead anyway with emphatic, definitive statements and conclusions of his own. He relies on dictionary definitions of legal-political terms, or makes connections in his own mind based on how he thinks the world should operate. But when asked to actually look beyond the surface language and address the substance of an issue, we get statements like “Small 'r' rights, big 'R' Right, privileges, God-Given rights, Declaration… it gives me a headache just thinking about it.”
Now, not everyone participating intelligently is required to be an expert on an issue. But you have to have some basic familiarity with an issue beyond what you’ve strung together in your own mind. This way, if you’re going to discuss the notion of “Rights” in the American political system, you can’t say, as Chasm did on 2/16 at 5:25pm: “Never has anyone had to reach all the way back to the preamble of the DOI to find you a right.”
There is so much Chasm doesn’t grasp about the fundamentals of this conversation that it’s useless to engage him in any real discussion. He isn’t asking questions to sharpen someone’s analysis; he’s not even aware of what the actual subject is! He hears only the words “rights” and “privileges”, thinks to himself no one has the “right” to tell me what to do and from this launches into a discussion of American politics as if that’s the foundation for examining this topic.
Chasm would be better served to take a few months off and actually educate himself about the subject as Patrick Mulligan suggested. Instead, engaging him in a conversation now is like following Alice down the rabbit hole. You’re simply conducting a parallel conversation where he employs words in the vernacular sense, and you’re responding to the actual concepts embodied in the notion of rights, privileges, etc. in the American political system.
First, I must address this 5 paragraph attack on me – me personally – by Dr Jackson. My hands are shaking at the anger I feel right now.
I guess Phill is just too shallow to participate in an actual argument in good faith, as Bill Wavering and most of the rest of you are willing to do.
Go and read his last five posts – or any that mention me in this entire thread – Dr. Jackson literally has nothing to offer but dismissals of my position, misrepresentations of my motives and opinions, and outright slams on my intellect – all without once offering a coherent argument or offering to explain his position.
I have tried to ask honest questions, ones which might help bore down into his idea of "God Given Rights" and rights/Rights, but I am met with mocking and sneer. I go to the law literature to see if I can find any instances of a lawyer or judge declaring something "Un-Declaration of Independence-nul," and there is nothing. I do find cases where "God" is involved – indeed, I point you all to an entire Law Center dedicated to litigating these cases, complete with a page of briefs and I offer to discuss these for examples of Dr Jackson's philosophy.
Response: Two entire posts dedicated to nothing but belittling me intellectually.
At this point, Phill, I am reduced to either skipping your posts entirely or reading them solely to watch you call me "idiot." Over and over and over again.
I'm done with offering to debate you in good faith, sir.
On to Bill.
Yes, let us review Wickard v Fillburn. You conclude,
I agree with you that this is your opinion, but in the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, you are wrong, and the government does have the power to decide that Farmer Filburn can't grow all the wheat he wanted. If you look at the bottom of the right-hand column of the Wiki page on that case it says this:
What this means is, the Court said, "Ok, Mr Filburn, we have given you your First Amendment Right to 'petition the Government for a redress of grievances,' and we are right here now giving you the chance for your due process of law before taking your property, but we, the Court, rule that when Congress enacted the 'Agricultural Ajustment Act of 1938,' they were acting Constitutionally in doing so. Federal Government's request to meddle in Farmer Filburn's business – Granted."
Now, I understand you, Bill, are upset about this, and that some people would saw off their left arm to get enough Judges on the Court who agreed this was an inappropriate "take" of personal property and reverse this ruling, but until that moment, this ruling makes such taking "Constitutional."
I've given over the course of this post a few examples where I agree with you that Congress or the Judiciary has taken too much power from the people, something you call "overstepping," many times this does invoke the dreaded Commerce Clause. Another one is Federally charging someone for growing pot in their homes – presumably on the grounds (winking at Filburn) that doing so hurts the economic success of pot growers in other states (I'm kidding).
But the fact that you or I agree that a law is wrong or "overstepping" doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. You may contend all you like that the ruling was a "blatant curtailment of Roscoe Filburn’s right to do as he wished with his property," and I may even agree, but our rage doesn't change Ag law or Ag policy. That law and that policy still exists, and it is at this very moment, Constitutional. Title 7 US Code 1281 looks like this:
There is no magical, "perfect" alignment of the 'switches' of government and laws such that they suddenly align with with your idea, or the founders idea, of what is right and suddenly all Constitutional tension is relieved and America is Perfect. Someday perhaps, though I very much doubt it, a Court may decide that all Ag law is an infringement on individual rights, and declare such law unconstitutional. But believing so in our minds does not make it so.
Here's another statement you all will claim is wrong wrong idiotically, completely uninformed wrong: All law is Constitutional law.
Every time a Congress, at either State or Federal level create a law (or indeed, any time some government agency issues rules under powers granted them), they do so with the express belief that they have the power under the Constitution to do so. That's why all law is constitutional.
If we go back to pre-1803, it wasn't even clear if a Court had the power to even declare an act of Congress unconstitutional. Under that theory, every single thing that Congress enacted was not only Constitutional, but unchallengeable by the Supreme Court! That was the meaning of Marbury v Madision, it established Judicial Review, and gave us, the people, a clear path to gain relief on an appeal to justice.
Now, think about that phrase for one moment, "Appeal to Justice." That, really, is the heart of our system and our only hope to maintain or re-gain our freedoms after a governmental take of power. Right? The only way to restore our right to do something that Congress has just made illegal, is to appeal to Justice, that is, file a court case. And that court must have the power to do just that if it agrees with us.
In Marbury, the Court "took" the power to decide that a law was wrong, to make a Constitutional one, unconstitutional.
Go back and re-read Dr Viera's speech:
"The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights"
"The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights"
"Never"
"Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy."
"An unconstitutional act is not a law"
I would never argue that Dr Viera isn't appalled by the state of things. I think he believes there are probably a great many areas where laws have encroached on our freedoms, laws he'd strike down, decisions he's overturn. He will say that many many things violate the 'spirit' of the 'limited government' outlined in the Constitution. But he will not say that the laws that are currently on the books violate our Constitutional Rights.
"The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights"
He goes on to quote William Blackstone:
“Whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself; there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to.”
So raise your voice! Clamor for our laws to be changed! That's all fair game. But in the end, you're going to have to litigate, and find a court that will agree with you, and declare a law to be "henceforth" unconstitutional.
A central concept in all this necessity of having an appeal-able entity. I know that there is an entire sub-culture dedicated to somehow arguing that the Declaration of Independence, by it's inclusion of the word 'Creator,' somehow makes God's word, and the morals of Christians that wrote the DOI, the power behind our Government. But I ask you then, how do I appeal to God to change a law? Where do I file? What power is there above government that make them step down?
Name me one "God Given" Right that cannot be taken away by a government.
Aside from the fact that the DOI isn't a legal document (it's a fundamentally illegal one), it barely counts as 'founding' anything, except establishing our name, as it specifically states that it's purpose is to "dissolve political bonds," far from establishing a government, it seeks to destroy one. It pre-dates our Constitution, and thus isn't covered by it, and therefore isn't even a 'Constitutional' document! It's a declaration of Civil War and list of grievances against our (then) King and Country. The very first paragraph – even before the 'created equal' part, contains a notion that, as the Civil War proved, is Unconstitutional on it's face: that we can spit our government apart. Had we lost the Revolutionary War, the DOI would just be another piece of paper, a curious relic, in the British Museum.
If you want to argue that the 'appeal' to our 'Creator' won that war, it is as they say a free country, but I choose to believe it was the blood and sacrifice of the soldier-men of 1776 to 1783 that accomplished that.
As to your question of weather Congress has the right to force us to buy health insurance, I guess we're going to find out during the coming years if a State actually does decide to challenge the Constitutionality in Court. I'll be looking forward to arguing the merits of Texas v Pelosi with you in future, and we shall see.
Chasm:
So sorry your delicate sensibilities have been assaulted. But when the day is done, after your hand has stopped shaking and the tears have dried, you’re still just a clown who admits he doesn’t understand that there are “Rights” in the Declaration of Independence, who thinks that because you have the physical ability to do something you possess a “right”, who confuses discussions of God-Given rights with the beliefs of a particular religion, and who believes that you can simply reason out a discussion about Constitutional matters by consulting the dictionary definition of a word.
Now, there are plenty of people in this world who have no basic understanding of these issues. What separates you from them is that they don’t make idiotic, definitive statements about the subject as if they actually understood the matter.
You have absolutely no understanding of this subject — by your own admission — and have absolutely no interest in educating yourself about this subject — by your own ‘aching head” admission – but you still somehow insist that I and others must treat you seriously anyway as you muse about “case law” and other marginal or wholly irrelevant topics to the discussion at hand.
And now — after offering an endless series of inanities on the subject — you want us to educate you instead of taking the time to educate yourself. And when I and others tell you to grow up and devote some effort on your own to this task before entering a conversation you apparently know nothing about (how you ‘feel’ personally about the subject isn’t of any interest to anyone but yourself), you react by saying that I’m being mean to you.
I’m not being mean. I’m doing you a favor. I’m trying to get you to stop embarrassing yourself with mindless drivel and actually learn something real about a subject before you pop your mouth off.
Your so-called “honest questions” about the difference between "God Given Rights" enunciated in DOI, and the rights and responsibilities of law and citizenship that flow from the Constitution and its offshoot laws, is the subject of any decent introduction to American politics course. Take one on line, or at your local community college, if you have no clue about this matter. Asking an endless series of inane questions that are not grounded in anything other than a familiarity with Webster’s dictionary are pointless to respond to. Even with the proper answer to such questions (which has been given repeatedly throughout this comment section) you still have absolutely no comprehension of what the answer means, since you lack even the most basic grasp of detail on the subject.
Had you begun your inquiry with an honest, open mind, you would have been treated differently. Instead, you jumped into the discussion with the same rank stupidity you display in other posts where you have only a passing familiarity with a subject at best, and a self-induced fantasy that you actually understand something at worst. There’s no genuine “good faith” on your part in these discussions, because if there was you’d actually stop your prattle and — having already acknowledged you don’t really understand the substance of the issue — take some time off to read some actual books on the subject!
If you don’t want to read basic American politics 101, at least read T.H. White’s “Once and Future King” who’ll take you through the logic of “rights” (from Might Makes Right, to Right Makes Might). It won’t tell you a damn thing about God Given Rights, but at least it will start you down a path of recognizing that the word “right” has different meanings in different contexts.
Andt stop whining at being called stupid for saying stupid things. It’s not a “personal” insult. It’s an accurate comment on your thought process.
If you want to be thought of as having something intelligent to offer, then do the work you still need to do to educate yourself before telling us how you feel about the issue of “rights” (with a big R, or small r). No one cares about your feelings, least of all me.
Chasm — one last thing.
Since it's pretty clear to all of us you aren't going to take the time to truly educate yourself on a subject before sounding off, all is not lost.
There are plenty of other websites you can go to where you not only won't be criticized for making statements you know nothing about, but actually encourage this kind of participation.
The Huffington Post and Daily Kos are two that come to mind. They want drivel disguised as "honest conversation", particularly the kind that relies on how you feel about something as a substitute for what you actually know about a subject. So if the hand shaking becomes too severe here, you can always find a home where ‘intellectual debate’ requires absolutely no standards at all.