SILENT SOVEREIGN

Posted on January 2, 2012 by

Louis the XIV is claimed to have said: “L’Etat, c’est moi” (“I am the state”).[i]  The loyalty of his subjects was owed to him personally.  King Henry the VIII’s unfortunate fifth wife, Catherine Howard, was beheaded—not for adultery, which she was guilty of, but for treason.[ii]  These kings, and so many caesars, czars, emperors and potentates were “sovereigns”— “possessing supreme or ultimate power.”  This is still reflected today in the oath that British military officers take: “I, (name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law.  So help me God.”[iii]  Reportedly Chinese officers take an oath of allegiance to the Communist Party, not to the country.  Given that army’s practice of massacring Chinese citizens who express opposition to the party, it is an appropriate oath.[iv]

The United States of America is different.  Our military officers “do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; . . . so help me God.”[v]  In the United States the Constitution is sovereign.  It is the only and ultimate source of federal authority.  It is the ultimate object of national loyalty.  Laws found to be in opposition to the Constitution are struck down as null and void.  The Constitution overrules Congress.  Even blatantly guilty criminals are freed if the methods involved in their arrest or trial are deemed to be unconstitutional.  The Constitution overrules the Executive.  Such awesome power, equal to that claimed by the supreme rulers of past empires and kingdoms, is dangerous.

The Constitution, however, is not a person with weaknesses and irrational whims.  It is a piece of paper containing a list of powers granted and denied to the government.  The piece of paper, however, cannot speak or interpret what is written on it.  That must be left to others.  The United States Supreme Court arrogated that power to itself in Marbury v. Madison.[vi]  The Supreme Court, acting as spokesman and interpreter of the Constitution, thus endowed itself with many of the elements of sovereignty.

It is much like having an all-powerful, but reclusive, sovereign living in his royal palace.  Trusting only a tiny group of nine men and women to be admitted into his presence and to relay his instructions to waiting ministers and generals, that tiny group would soon be substituted, in all practical ways, for the sovereign.  What they reported the sovereign said would be the will of the sovereign and would govern all affairs of the kingdom, overruling any opposition.  The devotion and loyalty the people had for the king would, perhaps unwittingly, be transferred to the pronouncements of the tiny group.  We have seen the same effect in our history.  When the immensely popular President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought to undercut the authority of the Supreme Court by appointing additional justices, he was forced by public opinion to back down.  His attack on the make-up of the Court was viewed as an attack on the Constitution.[vii]

Because the Constitution is only a document, there must be someone to interpret it.  Having the Supreme Court do so has been accepted and approved by generations of Americans.  One reason may be that, given the immense power involved in that task, it is best to leave it to a small, politically isolated, group of nine.  They are not elected.  They are appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate.  Their salaries cannot be diminished.  They can only be removed by impeachment which requires a majority vote in the House of Representatives to impeach (indict) and a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate to actually remove.  In the entire history of the country, only one justice has been impeached and he was not removed because many Republican senators crossed party lines to vote with their Federalist colleagues against his removal.[viii]

What is the role of Supreme Court Justices?  They are, in effect, spokesman for the sovereign.  There is no review of, no appeal from, their decisions.  Their only restraint is self-restraint.  Their primary role is to determine whether or not federal legislative, executive or judicial actions fall within the strict boundaries granted under the Constitution.  They have no more right to create new constitutional rights—that is the role of the amendment process—than spokesmen for the sovereign would have to make up imaginary orders from the king.  By what criteria should we judge the Supreme Court?  By how well it keeps government within the bounds set by the sovereign Constitution.

[i]    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIV_of_France

[ii]   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Howard

[iii]   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office#Oath_of_Allegiance_and_Official_Oath

[iv]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989

[v]   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office

[vi]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

[vii]   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

[viii]   http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/chasesam.htm

Posted in Defending Freedom | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

DELIBERATELY OFFENSIVE

Posted on December 26, 2011 by

As a devout believer in Christ, on this day following Christmas, my thoughts turn to the cherished Biblical story of the humble Roman Centurion.  Fearful for the life of his sick servant, he asked that the local religious leaders beseech Christ to heal him.  As Jesus proceeded to the Centurion’s home in response, the Centurion had his friends meet Christ and say to him: “Lord trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof: Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed.”  This, the Centurion’s amazing reverence—for one who claimed himself to be the Son of God, the Messiah, and heir to David’s throne—was almost unique.  Most of those around Christ disbelieved, some mocked, and some plotted his death.  The Centurion’s deep humility and reverence were rewarded: “And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant whole that had been sick.”[i]

Christians, like Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus and other believers have great reverence and respect for the founders of their religions.  They believe blessings here and a better life hereafter are made available by these holy persons.  Because believers so devoutly reverence these central figures of their religions, it is obvious that they will be offended when those figures are subjected to vulgar abuse and ridiculed.  In America, where free speech is so prized, people have a broad right to express offensive views.  While courts have recognized that some insults are so blatant and offensive that they are “fighting words” and thus fall outside the Constitutional protection for free speech, it is a very narrow exception.[ii]  The fact that we have a right to be offensive doesn’t make it right, however, any more than the ability to commit adultery makes adultery acceptable or the right to have an abortion makes abortion normal.  Our right to disagree should not be expressed in terms that are deliberately offensive.  Disrespect for others, while possibly entertaining, ultimately lessens respect for the speaker.  It is difficult to respect those who deliberately insult the religious views of others.

Christians believe the God who created them came to earth to suffer immeasurable pain on their behalf in order to save them from their sins.  He chose to be born in the humblest of circumstances and never sought nor obtained any earthly honors.  There is the story of the young man who came to Christ, fell at his feet in worship, and asked what he must do to obtain eternal life.  Christ, “loving him”, gave the young man an answer that was very direct but difficult to achieve.  One thing that is so significant about the story is that the young man “went away grieved” because he could not bring himself to do what was asked.[iii]  There is no hint that Christ intended to force this young man, or anyone, to do anything.  Admittedly and sadly, some of the worst deeds done in human history have been motivated by religious beliefs, but Christ himself taught only that “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”[iv]  No one can justify the persecution of others based on what Christ taught.

May we who are Christians be more like the Centurion—genuinely feeing and expressing a deep reverence for Christ.  May we all be respectful in our expressions regarding the founders of the other great religions of our day.  And may our hopes and faith for a better world here and hereafter be realized.

[i]   King James Bible, Luke 7:2-10

[ii]   See http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13718

[iii] King James Bible, Mark 10:17-22

[iv] King James Bible, Matthew 25:40

Posted in Freedom of Religion, Political Culture | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

PROHIBITING FREE EXERCISE

Posted on December 19, 2011 by

Technically speaking, black is the absence of all light or color.  A black body “appears black, since it does not reflect or emit any visible light.”[i]  Deep space is black because there is no light there.  Although it is the absence of light, or color, we also consider black to be a color.  If you asked, “What color is the president’s limousine?”  You would not expect to be told “No color.”  Rather the answer would be: “Black.”  Certainly we expect to find a black crayon in even the humblest crayon box.  And all of those printers connected to our computers have a large ink cartridge labeled “black.”  Black—although it is the absence of color—is a color.

Technically speaking atheism is an absence of a belief in God.[ii]  Although, like the color black, it is technically the lack of something, we find atheism being treated as a favored religion in America today.  Because the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from enacting any law respecting an establishment of religion, it is so often argued that government—especially government owned schools—are only allowed to draw with the black crayon.  Classroom teaching, or even discussions, of religious principles is somehow considered to be unconstitutional.  Only principles based upon the absence of religion are permitted.  Government institutions can only uphold atheism.  Like the color black, however, atheism is a religion that actively competes with every other religion.  It certainly should have no favored status under the Constitution.

For example, Intelligent Design teaches that the universe could not exist in its present state unless a Creator consciously made it that way.  To bar that theory from being taught in public schools, because the Creator must be a deity, is to establish atheism as the only government supported religion—particularly when there is no credible alternate explanation of our universe.  Another example: to not discuss in civics classes that the Declaration of Independence is premised on the existence of a Creator—the ultimate source of the inalienable rights that serve as the foundation of our constitutional government—is to ignore both our history and the true basis of our political system.

There is a very complex, and often contentious, relationship between government and religion.  Americans have almost a paranoid fear of government enforced religion.  It is one of the greatest threats to freedom.  It was one of the primary factors causing many of the early Colonists to come to this continent.  On the other hand, we do not accept any possible behavior simply because some might claim it is based on their religion—for example we would not tolerate human sacrifice.  Actually that may be an overstatement.  The ancient Canaanites sacrificed their infant children to Moloch—a horrific practice.[iii]  Apparently the Canaanites didn’t have the technology to permit infant lives to be terminated before birth, a practice that is all too common in our day.  Is abortion a form of atheistic worship, because anyone who really believed in a judgmental god would never participate?

To claim that religion must be barred from public life and political discussion is to be in flat out opposition to the First Amendment because it ignores the second phrase of the First Amendment dealing with religion:  “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  This second prohibition seems to have been forgotten or ignored.  To be true to the Constitution, one test for any law, or court decision, is that it must do nothing to prohibit the free exercise of religion.  We can only adopt laws and regulations or make court decisions that interfere in the least possible way with religion.  Attempts to deny the free exercise of religion should be rejected with the same vigor as those prohibiting free speech, which follows it in the list of powers denied the government.  If the Supreme Court can uphold burning the flag as an expression of our right to free speech,[iv] then how much more should the Court uphold the right to practice religion?  It is difficult to imagine any law (but one, incredibly, that is in force) more antithetical to both of these Constitutional principles than one denying tax exemptions to religious organizations but only if they participate in political debate.  The Constitution grants no right to public education, medical care, welfare, employment, or for government to perform any number of roles it has assumed.  The Constitution does demand, however, that government not interfere with our right to freely exercise religious beliefs.  This means that in any court case where practicing religion conflicts with competing governmental interests, the free exercise clause of the First Amendment should prevail.

Our freedom of religion is not a grant from a tolerant government.  It was not bestowed upon us by an all-powerful ruler defining the relationship between church and state as was done by Napoleon in his Organic Articles.[v]  Rather, when our government was established, the power to interfere with the free exercise of religion was withheld by “We the people.”   We are the sole source of authority for that government.  Our debates should not just be over how much will this federal project hurt the environment? Or how much will it cost? But also, Will this limit the free exercise of religion?  Make no laws prohibiting it!

[i]   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

[ii]  Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11 ed., “atheism”

[iii]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch

[iv]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration#United_States

[v]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Articles

Posted in Defending Freedom, Freedom of Religion | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

THE PREMIER FREEDOM

Posted on December 12, 2011 by

In order to make explicit the rights to be reserved absolutely to the people—to state it so clearly there could be no mistake—the Founding Fathers added a Bill of Rights to the Constitution listing essential freedoms.  The very first phrase of the First Amendment is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  Freedom of Religion was the premier right to the Founding Fathers.  When Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense urging the Colonists to throw off British rule, the great question was what kind of government would they substitute for the English monarchy?  Thomas Paine proposed that the Continental Congress create a “Charter of the United Colonies” establishing a Congress and setting standards to secure “freedom and property to all men, and above all things the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience.”[i]

Why is Freedom of Religion such a premier freedom?  Why is such a valued freedom so rare?  Even in Colonial America it was uncommon.  The Puritans, who fled England because of religious persecution, executed Mary Dyer in Boston for demanding religious freedom.[ii]

The answer is that there is a conflict between government and religion.  Both seek, sometimes demand, the utmost loyalty.  Governments expect their citizens and subjects to sacrifice even their lives to preserve national interests.  They reserve the power to themselves, and only to themselves, to punish by death those who violate their laws.  Religions—at least those that have survived and prospered against tyrannical oppression—expect the same level of devotion.  History is filled with martyrs who died rather than subject their religious beliefs to the will of some emperor or king.  Because religions promise paradise to those who follow their straight and narrow path, they are always a threat to government because even the threat of death cannot deter those whose only goal is heaven.  Suicide bombers are a reminder of a religious zealot’s immunity to earthly power.

One solution to this conflict, the one most commonly adopted by tyrants and some more respectable monarchs, has been to demand a government monopoly over religion.  Subjects were expected to adopt the religion of the ruler and opposing religious beliefs were punished not only as heresy but as treason.  Sir Thomas More, King Henry VIII’s right hand man, Chancellor of England, was instrumental in having Protestant rebels against the king’s Catholic rule burned at the stake.  But when King Henry VIII abandoned Catholicism and set himself up as the supreme head of the English Church—making anyone who rejected this claim a traitor—Thomas More was himself martyred for maintaining his loyalty to the Pope.[iii]  The Founding Fathers chose another solution.  By staying completely out of religion, the government could demand complete secular loyalty because it would never impinge upon citizens’ religious loyalties.  The fact is, Freedom of Religion protects government as much as it protects religion.

Freedom of Religion in America is not a privilege granted by the government or its courts.  It is a right wholly withheld from the government.  The freedom is not within the government’s power to grant or deny.  The government does have a role to insure that one person’s claimed religious rights do not impinge on the religious or secular rights of others.  But, and as long as the Constitution remains in force, our right to freely worship what or how we choose is beyond governmental authority.

The ancient history of Israel, as recorded in the Bible, contains excellent examples of the excesses that occur when government and religious loyalties conflict.  King Saul was threatened when the priest Ahimelech gave succor to David, his political enemy.  When Saul ordered his household troops to kill the priest and his family they refused because their loyalty to Saul did not outweigh their respect for the priests and the God they represented.  Saul had an Edomite non-believer with him, however, who was unhindered by religious fears who killed 85 of the priests at Saul’s command, (1 Samuel 22:18).  The opposite result occurred when the prophet Elisha sent one of his disciples to secretly anoint Jehu to be king over Israel, at a time when Ahab’s son Joram ruled.  The anointing was accompanied by instructions that Jehu should destroy Joram and all of Ahab’s family.  Encouraged by this sign of divine favor, Jehu announced his anointing to the captains of the army, who promptly accepted him as king, and did not rest until the heads of all 70 of Ahab’s children were lying at the city gates,  (II Kings 9).  Unfortunately for Joram, his legitimacy ended when the prophet turned against him.

The First Amendment completely avoids such threats to both priests and kings by creating an environment where there can be no conflicting loyalties.  It is an embodiment of the Christian teaching: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”  (Mark 12:17).  It is one of the greatest political achievements of the human race.

[i]  ThomasPaine, Common Sense,  (New York, New York: Viking Penguin Inc., 1988), 81.

[iii]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas More and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Supremacy

Posted in Defending Freedom, Freedom of Religion | Tagged , , , , ,

MIRACLES

Posted on December 5, 2011 by

Are there miracles?  It is an important political question.  The “Religious Right” claims there is a Divine Being who plays a determinative role in human affairs; that religious teachings about right and wrong are objectively true and, therefore, should inform political decisions.  Their opponents, often with the most derisive voices, claim such beliefs are foolish and that religion is a compilation of ancient, unbelievable myths.  At their most strident, these disbelievers are horrified by the concept of “sin”—that conduct, both individual and as a nation, is to be judged against a divinely imposed standard of right and wrong.  These positions could not be more diametrical.

Opponents of religion constantly claim that their skepticism is founded on science.  With a devotion equal to the most pious saints in former ages, they claim an almost omniscient power for the scientific method: that all truth is embodied in science and no truth can exist not provable by science.  While the marvelous results from the advancement of science are obvious, to claim that science is the only test of truth—and that belief in God must fail because scientists have not yet created a “God-meter” to measure His presence—is to exalt science far beyond its real role.

Astronomers currently estimate that 73% of the total mass-energy in the universe is “dark energy.”[i]  “Dark matter” constitutes another 23%, leaving the everyday matter and energy we studied in physics and chemistry as providing only 4.6% of the mass-energy in the observable universe.[ii]  These “dark” constituents of the universe were discovered only recently and are, as yet, inexplicable to science.  To trust that science is the only way to comprehend reality, when science currently admits a total inability to explain 96% of even material reality, is an act of faith equal to any religious zealot’s.

It is statistically impossible that our universe could exist as it is without an Intelligent Designer doing the designing.  This creates a tremendous problem for atheists.  Their response—that there is such an infinite number of universes that there must be one where these conditions randomly occur.

“The concept of other universes has been proposed to explain why our universe seems to be fine-tuned for conscious life as we experience it.  If there were a large number (possibly infinite) of different physical laws (or fundamental constants) in as many universes, some of these would have laws that were suitable for stars, planets and life to exist. . . .  Thus, while the probability might be extremely small that there is life in most of the universes, this scarcity of life-supporting universes does not imply intelligent design as the only explanation of our existence.”[iii]

In other words, to avoid accepting Intelligent Design by a Creator we are asked to accept an infinite number of universes.  One doesn’t’ need Occam’s razor to reject such a far-fetched alternative explanation, his butter knife would be more than adequate.  Unfortunately for the multiverse crowd, the multiverse theory is utterly unscientific.  It cannot be proved nor disproved—so much for the scientific method—because whatever evidence might exist to prove its truth lies outside our universe and forever beyond our reach.

If there is a God, where are the miracles?  If there are miracles, then there is a Creator and the Declaration of Independence’s claim for His role and expectations for our form of government could be true.  If there is no Creator, the Declaration of Independence is another, unbelievable, myth.  Actually believers know there is a God.  Innumerable small children (and adults) have their prayers answered regularly.  The question really shouldn’t be one directed to believers, “Can you prove there is a God?” but rather one for disbelievers, “Why do you think God isn’t answering your prayers?”

There are miracles.  The very existence of the United States of America is a miracle.  Our national seal, emblazoned on every one dollar bill, states: “Annuit Coeptis.”  As explained by its designer, Charles Thomson, the seal contained “a pyramid unfinished.  In the Zenith an Eye in a triangle surrounded with a glory proper. Over the Eye these words ‘Annuit Cœptis’.”  Annuit means to smile upon or favor.  Coeptis means undertakings, endeavors, beginnings.  Thomson intended that it “allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favour of the American cause.”[iv]  Did the people who were there when our nation was created believe in Providence’s miraculous intervention on their behalf?  Look at a dollar bill.

This recognition of the miraculous role of Providence was explicitly stated by George Washington in his first inaugural address in 1789:

“. . . it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect . . . No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States.  Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; . . . [requiring] some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage.  These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed.”[v]

Rather than reject the miraculous role of our Creator in establishing this nation, may we join with Thomas Jefferson in the closing words of his first inaugural address: “And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for [our] peace and prosperity.”[vi]

[i]   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

[ii]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

[iii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

[iv]   http://www.greatseal.com/mottoes/coeptis.html

[v]  http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25800#axzz1f7vqgz1V

[vi]  http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25803#axzz1f7vqgz1V

Posted in Political Culture | Tagged , , , , , ,

INVASION

Posted on November 28, 2011 by

When Napoleon invaded Russia, his Grand Army consisted of about 500,000 men—the largest invading army Europe had ever seen.  No one doubts that was an “invasion.”  Happily for Russia, the Czar’s army (and the winter) drove them out in a few months.  The United States has endured a much greater invasion—with over 11 million “undocumented immigrants” now living in the U.S.[i]  Obviously the Czar was far better at defending his nation’s borders than U.S. Presidents have been. 

To put 11 million in context—the population of Scotland is 5.2 million[ii] and of Norway around 4.8 million.[iii]  So, if the entire populations of Scotland and Norway were to move to the U.S. (and enter illegally?), it would be less in total than the number of illegal immigrants we have already admitted.  It is undeniable that the federal government is a miserable failure at protecting our borders.

How many illegal immigrants should we admit?  Many illegals are here to escape crime, corruption and an utter lack of economic opportunity in their native countries.  They have come here to work hard, contribute, and to provide for their families.  Many take jobs that might not get done if employers had to pay the higher wages required to hire citizens.  We admire many of the same traits in illegal immigrants that we honor in our own ancestors who immigrated here legally.  Unfortunately, we also must acknowledge that some are here to prey upon U.S. citizens and to further the growth of crime and the horrendous illegal drug industry.  They are dangerous enemies by any definition.

If our charitable attitudes towards illegal immigrants continue to dominate, then the influx of illegals will be overwhelming.  The per capita share of Gross Domestic Product in Nicaragua is $3,000.  It is not surprising they want to get to the U.S., where the same per capita number is $47,200.  If our goal is to help the truly needy by letting them enter the U.S. without controls and without undergoing the vetting and trouble of becoming citizens, then we should be admitting the 10 million people of Somalia, where the per capita GDP number is $600 and where they have suffered with no functioning government for decades.  Or what about the 187 million people in Pakistan, where the per capita share of GDP is $2,500.[iv]  Most of the populations of Nicaragua, Somalia and Pakistan would move to the U.S. if they could.

If all of the citizens of other countries could fulfill their great desire to move to the U.S., the U.S. would cease to be the country it is.  As noted in an earlier post, when people from New England came to this continent, they created a New England.  They carried with them the desire for religious freedom, the respect for law, the tradition of functioning representative government, an independent judiciary and many other traits that have made America what it is.  Many of these traits and institutions have never existed in the countries where illegal immigrants are coming from.  The legal process of becoming a citizen is intended to prepare immigrants to be part of this nation, both culturally and politically.  Admitting millions who have not gone through that process, and in some cases have no desire to do so, dilutes the America we hope to preserve.  Uncontrolled immigration will destroy it.

Our nation, defined by the U.S. Constitution, has a specific purpose:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This language means that we—that is, “ourselves and our posterity”—are the intended recipients of the blessings of living here, not anyone else.  If we do not control immigration then that most basic goal of our Constitution will become impossible to fulfill.  How can a president and Congress, sworn to uphold the Constitution, pretend they are doing so when we have virtually open borders?

Transporting illegals into the U.S. is a major business.  One recent article reported that migrant sympathizers, many linked to the Roman Catholic or other churches, ease the way [for Central American’s travelling to the Rio Grande] with a string of shelters along the length of Mexico, usually close to the rails or the border itself.  “We are an oasis for the migrants,” said Guevara, the priest who helps administer the shelter in Tultitlan. “The problem is there are so many of them.”[v]

There will continue to be “so many of them” —endlessly—if we don’t close the border.  Once it is closed, we can be as charitable as we choose to be in providing a path to citizenship to those willing and able to become true American citizens.  But closing the border and controlling who enters is the essential pre-requisite.

[i]  http://roygermano.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/how-many-illegal-immigrants-live-in-the-united-states-and-where-do-they-come-from/

[ii]   http://www.scotland.org/facts/population/

[iii]  http://www.norway.org/aboutnorway/society/people/population/

[iv]   https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

[v]   http://www.limitstogrowth.org/articles/2011/08/21/central-american-illegal-aliens-create-havoc-as-they-transit-mexico/

Posted in Defending Freedom, Illegal Immigration, Political Culture | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

TYRANNY BY EXCEPTION

Posted on November 21, 2011 by

To ensure an end to slavery and to protect all citizens, the Fourteenth Amendment provides that: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  It was understood that “equal protection of the laws” is an essential defense against slavery and tyranny.  Tyrants always demand special privileges for themselves and the aristocracies and military force which uphold them.  They are leeches on society basing their claim to rule on some special status.  If all laws are applied equally, then tyranny is much more difficult to impose because, out of self-interest, rulers will be forced to enact laws they themselves can abide by.

Rulers and the “Elite,” demanding to be exempt from laws applicable to all others, has been a common evil.  Jesus Christ condemned those of his day: “Woe unto you also, ye lawyers!  for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.  (King James New Testament—Luke 11:46).  Demanding exemption from the laws applicable to all citizens is the opposite of our founding principle that all men are created equal by their Creator and endowed with the same rights.  No leaders of free men and women can claim exemption from the law for themselves or their favored constituents.

This does not mean that laws cannot make rational distinctions.  It is appropriate to have legal standards set for who is allowed to practice medicine—we want all who claim to be doctors to have received and proven a certain degree of medical training.  It is appropriate to single out drunk drivers as a class that will be prevented from further endangering others by limiting their freedom to drive.  These distinctions under the law are not, however, exemptions from the law.  In each of these examples, everyone meeting the pre-determined criteria falls into a defined class.  Anyone reading the laws and associated regulations will know beforehand exactly what criteria will be used in determining who can administer prescription medicine and who will have their driver’s license revoked.

Exemptions are the opposite.   Favored groups are exempted from onerous and expensive regulations while all others suffer under them.    Exemptions make it impossible to know beforehand to whom the law will be applied.  By definition, exemptions from the law undercut the “rule of law” and substitute instead the “rule of men” that is so abhorrent to a free people.  Unelected bureaucrats buried in the depths of bureaucracies make decisions about whom to exempt with practically no oversight from Congress and thus completely isolated from voters and the democratic process.  It is exactly the unequal treatment under the law prohibited to states in the XIV Amendment.  The scandal of exemptions from Obamacare is well documented.  Unfortunately, exemptions, or special treatment under the law for favored groups, is a basic tactic of Congress.

We need to recognize that any law authorizing bureaucrats to grant exemptions to that law—in contrast to statutory distinctions that apply to anyone meeting spelled-out criteria—is essentially contradictory to basic Constitutional principles.  You learn quickly in business that the most dangerous word in a contract is “notwithstanding.”  It means that no matter what else has been negotiated and agreed upon—the balanced give and take of any business deal—is thrown out the window and that whatever is in the “notwithstanding” clause will overrule everything else.  That is what exemptions are—the “notwithstanding” clauses in our laws.  THERE SHOULDN’T BE ANY!

Posted in Defending Freedom | Tagged , , , ,