In our lives we have seen well intention people who have express the concerns that the constitution was in Jeopardy. They fine all sorts of reasons to disobey the Laws of the land. Even when this occurs we often time wonder if it really applies?
The current situation with the FLDS church makes one wonder if not supporting the constitution in this is necessary when some indicate that in doing so that I don’t understand the concept of not supporting a organization and yet supporting immoral behavior and using the constitution as something to hide behind!
When worst comes to worst, we see people not only willing to sacifice the children by FLDS parents, but stand in front of the so called sacred constitution. So would in effect so often support the Destruction of human rights of the child in support of the so-call constitution. Willing to go along with a mad man in order to protect these rights? Willing to excuse abuse for the protection of a piece of paper?
But of course, that would far from the point. I understand many people need to defend what you consider sacraed. I remember going through a civics course at the BYU and the discussion of the constitution came up.
In the Professor lecture he would explain it to us in this way. Unlike the current crop of constitution scholars, he did not believe it to be a living document.
One that changes over the years as society changes. We have turned this document into a living, breathing instrument for the people. Which it is not. In that lecture I even copy what he said in the class:
“Our Constitution is historical artifact—a genuinely dead letter—if its original sense became irrelevant, to be replaced by the views of successive waves of judges and justices intent on “updating” it, or replacing what some judges view as the “dead hand of the past” with contemporary moral theory.”
As much as we dislike this occurring it happen all the time and even in the case everyone is talking about. Our constitution is modifed all the time by states where the federal government does not address. Governments, may and oftern do, carry unwise public policies without and this happen all the time, without running against the constitution.
A State Supreme Judge once said that:
“I often uphold policies that have been enacted in the state legislature, or by cities and counties and townships, that I believe are unwise. But lack of wisdom is not the test for what is or is not constitutional, and lack of wisdom is not what allows me—a judge, not the adult supervisor of society—to exercise the enormous power of judicial review and strike down laws that have been enacted by “we the people” through their elected representatives. Redress for unwise public policies must generally come as the product of democratic debate and at the ballot box, not through judicial correction.”
In the case we are all debate here it seems that the only place this going to be settle is in the Federal court system. But you mention in your posting the following:
”Which brings us to the reason we are opposed to the legal event: If the State of Texas can trample on the rights of one minority, like the FLDS, it can trample on anyone's rights.
If the state of Texas can, so can the state of Utah, the state of Colorado, the state of Idaho, the state of California, the state of Ohio, or Nebraska. This is personal, it affects me, it affects you, it affects everyone who will read this message, and hundreds of thousands or millions of others.”
Here is the rub. I read this recently:
“A nominee was asked before a senate Judiciary commitee , “If a decision in a particular case was required by law or statute and yet that offended your conscience, what would you do?” The nominee answered, “Senator, I have to be honest with you. If I was faced with a situation like that and it ran against my conscience, I would follow my conscience.” He went on to explain: “I was born and raised in this country, and I believe that I am steeped in its traditions, its mores, its beliefs and its philosophies, and if I felt strongly in a situation like that, I feel that it would be the product of my very being and upbringing. I would follow my conscience.”
In this situation where the moralaity of the crime and grant you in you particular belief there is no crime or one yet to be proven.
But Judge Barbara Walther has taken the same step as decribe above. I would hope someone would. If the investigation of what when on in the compound was found false then the parents will received their children back.
Some claim this at this time effects everyone evolved. But I am sure if they believe it does then the higher courts will say so. If it does I would be proven wrong and I will admit to that.
But if we abuse allegations are proven right and it seems that some are, then yes the State should be given thanks for doing what was best for the children. Most of the parents this point it seems that not willing to go into the labs and submitting their DNA and it may ultinmatly prove the State’s point. Now that is true love!
We can probably be assured that while all this media attention is going on, we can be sure that all this will persist in keeping the controversies alive for our continued viewing and listening pleasure.
No comments:
Post a Comment