If the Tenth Amendment were still taken seriously, most of the federal government’s present activities would not exist. That’s why no one in Washington ever mentions it.— – Thomas E. Woods, Jr. (via onemoretimewithfeeling)
Great discussion going on in my corner of the interwebs. Squashed and hilker both have meaningful contributions.
My two cents (originally posted as a comment here, but I thought it merited its own post):
Obama’s (former) church belongs to the United Church of Christ denomination, which is considered mainline. Generally, mainline denominations are more liberal in theology than conservative evangelical Christianity. While many mainline churches pay lip service to the orthodox creeds, in practice they tend to flout traditional/historical interpretation. Hence, out of the mainlines you get liberation theology, dismissal of clear-cut teachings against homosexuality, and historically revisionist afrocentric theology (ahem, Reverend Wright).
The theological spectrum is insufficiently described solely by left/right terminology. Orthodox and unorthodox can be more helpful. Overall, Dobson is well within the range of historical, orthodox Christianity. The mainline denominations are drifting away from that, and some are way off the deep end.
I think what bugged me the most was Obama’s line of questioning about interpreting Leviticus and other parts of the Bible. Nobody with any credibility is advocating that we base our legal system on enforcing obscure, esoteric Jewish statutes, or even the Sermon on the Mount. It seems he’s either ignorant , disingenuous, or simply speaking from within his liberal Christian tradition. I doubt the first two because he is well-educated and the tone of the speech is conciliatory. I’m going with the third option, because his theological stream often leans toward being critical of our ability to interpret Scripture, dismissing Biblical authority or relevance in regard of specific moral commands, and reducing Christianity to platitudes like “Jesus was a great moral teacher.”
I could argue that, since the Constitution proclaims a basic right to life, it directly follows that the state should protect the unborn from being killed. Or I could argue that abortion clearly violates Biblical principles, therefore the state should outlaw the practice. I am free to make either of these arguments; people are free to judge them on the merits. Non-Christians and/or secularists may reject certain premises and assumptions that I bring to the table, which will likely result in their opposition to my policy views. They are free to do so. I also object to their basic assumptions.
Obama states, “Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality… At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise.” I agree. By nature, religions make truth claims that are mutually exclusive from those of other religions. But Christians do not want the state to enforce a religion or its precepts. We argue and debate and try to enact policies that comport with our basic beliefs and assumptions. Everybody does this. PETA believes there’s no fundamental difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom; thus they support legislation that gives animals equivalent rights and protections under the law. This would severly limit myriad of freedoms Americans enjoy. Yet they make their arguments, plan their rallies, and for the most part are ignored by the vast majority of the population. PETA acts according to what they think is true.
As a Christian, an American, and an admittedly somewhat meager student of Western political philosophy, I try and find a balance between basic rights and freedoms that are essential to our society, and legislating for/against certain moral behaviors. Do I think blaspheming the name of God is a sin? Yes; the Bible says so. Do I think the state should regulate that behavior? Absolutely not. Do I think Satan-worship should be outlawed? No, but I would support investigating, monitoring, and prosecuting Satan-worshipping groups whose practices include eating young children after having sex with them. Anti-Christian groups should have the right to express themselves through protests, but not through smashing windows. With some exception, every freedom eventually encroaches on the rights of another person. The discussion isn’t about whether to have a secular state enforce religious doctrine, although many try to cast it as such. It’s often simply a debate about where to draw the line between conflicting freedoms/rights (free speech vs my unbroken window pane; right to not have a child vs. right to be alive). We all come with different assumptions and basic beliefs.
[After a review of the] history of the death penalty for this and other nonhomicide crimes, current state statutes and new enactments, and the number of executions since 1964, we conclude there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape.—
Justice Kennedy, as quoted by Child rapists can’t be executed, Supreme Court rules - CNN.com.
Unbelievable. I fully concede that I don’t have a firm grasp on the merits of both sides of this case, but who the hell is the Supreme Court to make a Constitutional decision based on a “national consensus” that they alone are responsible for perceiving and evaluating?
A major theme of the Court’s opinion is that permitting the death penalty in child-rape cases is not in the best interests of the victims of these crimes and society at large. In this vein, the Court suggests that it is more painful for child-rape victims to testify when the prosecution is seeking the death penalty. Ante, at 32. The Court also argues that “a State that punishes child rape by death may remove a strong incentive for the rapist not to kill the victim,” ante, at 35, and may discourage the reporting of child rape, ante, at 34–35. These policy arguments, whatever their merits, are simply not pertinent to the question whether the death penalty is “cruel and unusual” punishment. The Eighth Amendment protects the right of an accused. It does not authorize this Court to strike down federal or state criminal laws on the ground that they are not in the best interests of crime victims or the broader society. The Court’s policy arguments concern matters that legislators should—and presumably do—take into account in deciding whether to enact a capital child-rape statute, but these arguments are irrelevant to the question that is before us in this case. Our cases have cautioned against using “ ‘the aegis of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause’ to cut off the normal democratic processes,” Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304, 323 2002 Rehnquist, C. J., dissenting , in turn quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 176 1976 , joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and STEVENS, JJ. , but the Court forgets that warning here.— Justice Alito, dissenting on the Child Rapist Death Penalty case. Orin Kerr, writing at the legal blog Volohk Conspiracy, observes: “Of course, there’s a deeper question lurking in the opinions: Is the Eighth Amendment a general tool for invalidating criminal laws that the Justices think are too punitive and therefore unwise? Or is it only a specific tool for invalidating punishments that are way out of the mainstream? I think that’s the real 5-4 split on the current Court, and that it explains the vote break-down in this case.”
An law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police. Part one & part two.
Fascinating.
(via squashed)
We have always had habeas corpus (minus Abe Lincoln’s fun with it); now non-citizen enemy combatants who were captured in a time of war and who do not follow the Geneva Conventions of warfare have access to it. This will only make fighting terrorists even more difficult.
tawm:
Scott wanted me to re-blog this, so I will. I will give him credit for doing a little bit a research on the subject, instead of blindly following the norm. However, he gives a woefully slanted view of Dr. Paul. Most of what he says here is worded in such a way to make you believe Dr. Paul is just another Republican. This is pretty far from the truth. In due time, I will have a response to this, it may not be written as well, because honestly, I’m not as good of a writer as Scott. But I will do my best to give you the other side of the issue.
The 2008 Presidential Election has been a damned interesting one. You got a white guy, a black guy, and a woman. It’s like the setup to one of hundreds racist, misogynistic jokes. What is also interesting is the amount of attention and financial support Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) has gained. Unlike most Libertarians, he’s rallied a lot of support. But like most Libertarians, he’s full of ideological bullshit.
The genesis of this post is due to a friend I have who supports this man. Okay, it’s fucking Tom. He asks me what it is about the man that I disagree with, one of the worst arguments you can make. Why should I carefully memorize a candidate’s platform when I have long since decided I wholly disagree with it? It’s like trying to have an intellectual discussion with a 5 year-old about how Santa Claus works: it’s an empty, nonexistent discussion. I say this for two reasons: most ideological promises made during a presidential campaign just don’t happen (historically speaking), and the guy just doesn’t have the support substantial enough to be taken seriously as a contender (though he could shave votes off either side as he seems to attract Republicans and Democrats).
Much of Paul’s support stems from his opposition of the War in Iraq, along with people fed up with a two-party system, which I don’t get. Can having two parties hurt the progression of our country? Sure. Are there politicians on both sides who make choices because they owe a favor instead of using that choice to aid the majority of the population. But why vote for Paul as a result of that? It’s like renting Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Dangerous at the video store because you’ve seen everything else.
I just don’t see how his supporters that are so fed up with the Bush administration think the answer is to vote for another Republican. And don’t give me any of that Libertarian nonsense either. He’s a Republican and he shares many views with Bush himself.
So why don’t I support him? Well I did some research, which reminded me why I dismissed him nearly a year ago and why I’m happy I have ADD when a Ron Paul supporter tells me why I should vote for him.
- He’s against federal welfare. Look, people abuse the fuck out of welfare. Those who are capable of employment still receive their government checks. But to abolish welfare entirely (especially in this “needs of the few outweigh the goods of the many” country we’re beginning to live in. More on that later.) is absurd, anti-democratic, and utterly unconstitutional. The Constitution states that the we must “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.”
I’m not even a Ron Paul supporter, and don’t really have an interest in defending him, but a friend directed me to the above rant against the candidate. While most of his points are within the realm of debate and disagreement, his argument for the Constitutional mandate of Welfare was so idiotic I was laughing at my screen. He bases it on the phrase “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.”
Huh? Using “promote the general welfare” from the Constitution as a legal argument for the federal assistance program known today as Welfare is pathetic and laughable in its exegesis. The two have nothing to do with one another. It’s the equivalent of arguing that the federal courts can’t take up a case against a dry cleaning company because the 11th Ammendment states that judicial power “shall not be construed to extend to any suit…” Pretty dumb, right?
There’s a lot of ruckus going on right now about the California supreme court decision finding a “natural right” to gay marriage in the state constitution.
As a Christian, I believe scripture teaches against homosexual behavior. I do not oppose people who have such inclinations, but rather their actions in fulfilling them. I was born with a propensity to steal, but that doesn’t make it right. That a man is born with (or develops) a sexual attraction toward other men does make it right to follow through on said attraction.
(Note: I realize this will not convince non-Christian acceptors of homosexuality; it’s simply an illustration of my perspective.)
I believe the growing social acceptance of homosexuality is a destructive force in our culture; I believe the same thing about the high heterosexual divorce rate and number of “broken” families. I believe there are plenty of sociological and economic arguments to be made for why our society should bless heterosexual but not homosexual marriage with various benefits, while leaving the explicitly Biblical arguments out of the public square.
All that said, as much as I support protecting “traditional” marriage, I am categorically opposed to a Constitutional amendment as a solution. Our founding document is not the place for specific policies. We tried with Prohibition, and it was a total disaster. It serves only to cheapen and weaken our founding document. The Constitution should reflect over-arching principles and basic rights; peripheral issues (or issues unrelated to what is actually addressed in the document) should be determined by the legislature.
If that results in some states legalizing and endorsing a lifestyle I am opposed to (morally, socially, and economically), so be it. I will work to convince others of my view and to make changes legislatively.
Many states are pre-emptively passing amendments to their state constitutions that protect “traditional” marriage. I am less concerned with that than I am with amending the federal Constitution. Perhaps that is inconsistent; I’m not entirely sure yet.
The modern vision of the presidency couldn’t be further from the Framers’ view of the chief executive’s role. In an age long before distrust of power was condemned as cynicism, the Founding Fathers designed a presidency of modest authority and limited responsibilities. The Constitution’s architects never conceived of the president as the man in charge of national destiny. They worked amid the living memory of monarchy, and for them the very notion of “national leadership” raised the possibility of authoritarian rule by a demagogue ready to create an atmosphere of crisis in order to enhance his power.—
The Cult of the Presidency (via azspot) - how far will we go until we come back again? (via hilker)
FDR was the first “modern president,” and every single executive since then has increased the power of the institution of the presidency in one form or another. Richard Neustadt has been the seminal scholar on this issue for almost 50 years (thanks Dr. Niles, my poli-sci prof).
To me, judicial philosophy is one of the most important issues at stake in this election.
