"The Law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes."
-- Psalm 19:7-8 (ESV) --
I was reading the Orange County Register a yesterday about a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. Apparantly, the Court said that it was not unconstitutional for the police to use a drug sniffing dog to search for drugs during a routine traffic stop. The Register lamnted that this was contrary to the Fourth Ammendment, which prohibits search and seizures without a warrant or withour probable cause.
On the one hand, this Register does appear to be correct. There was nothing in the actions of the driver that would give the impression that he had drugs in the car. Furthermore, the officer could also freeze the scene and request a telephonic warrant if he had a suspicion. However, the suspicion came only after the police dog had already sniffed the car and alerted the officer to the possible presence of drugs. However, there appeared to be no reason for the dog to sniff the car (and remember, legally, a police dog is a sworn officer), and hence, this would appear to be an illegal search.
However, regardless of the Supreme Court's ruling, the Register's lament makes no sense. The libertarian philosophy of the editorial staff has always advocated an extremely limited form of government, much smaller than the Biblical model, and slightly more than anarchy. Of course, some libertarians are anarchists, but this is not a position that the Register has held. Hence, on the one hand they are correct. This is a violation of the Fourth Ammendmet. On the other hand, they are fundamentally mistaken. They are relying on a rule that the government made up to justify their position.
As I said many times, the Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, was never meant to be applied to the States unless it was explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. Again, even granting the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, there is nothing in that Ammendment that says that the Bill of Rights must apply to the States. As I have said time and time again, this does not make any sense since the State constitutions have the same protections, and some States go beyond the federal constitution in protections. The only reason that the Fourteenth Ammendment applies to the States is because the Federal Government (i.e. the Supreme Court) says so. Hence, if the Supreme Court can arbitrarily grant things without Constitutional authority, then it can just as easily take things away.
When the SUpreme Court applies the Bill of Rights to the States without constitutional authority, then the Court ignores the words of the very document it tries to uphold (i.e. the Tenth Ammendment). Hence, it can ignore the words of the Fourth Ammendment when it plainly dictates one correct decision (of course, assuming the Fourth were legally applied to the States). WHat one hand gives, the other can take away.
The warning tha THomas Jefferson gave still holds true today. In the Kentucky Resolutions, he said, "the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress." Isn't that exactly what has happened here? It is the Court's discretion (and remember, the Supreme Court is not independent of the federal government, it is part of the federal government) that dictated this case 1. in clear violation of the Fourth Ammendment if it were legally applied, and 2. in arbitrarily stating a warantless search without probable cause is legal in one case, but not in others.
When the ultimate authority of a document becomes an institution that the document creates (such as the Bible and the Roman Catholic CHurch?...hmmm), then there are no objective standards. It comes down to the discretion of the men and women who have their own aspirations. Hence, why Justice Thurgood Marshall could lament in Payne v. Tennessee that an earlier case was overruled (Maryland v. Booth) not because of a change in constitutional jurisprudence, or even because of a change in the facts of the two cases. It was overruled solely because of composition of the Court has changed. By the way, he was not innocent in thi, either, but his point is clear. After all, is not this what Christians are hoping for if and when President Bush gets to fill a SUpreme Court position? The want Roe v. Wade overruled, and as bad as tha decision was both ethically and legally and it deserved to be nullified, the principles that political conservatives hold seem to be just as hollow as the liberals.
And of course, I'm talking about the Americans. For the last few days, I've been hearing about how pathetic the response had been to the calamaties that struck Indonesia and the surrounding areas from the United States in terms of aid. Yeah, it's like we have never sent any aid to any country that wasn't struck by some disaster, even those that hate us. Bunch of hypocrites.
Although there are some questions about the governemnt sending aid, the fact that other American agencies and even the American government sends aid is a testimony to the CHristian character that still exists in this country even though there is a massive campaign to eliminate that through revisionist history and outright hysteria. It's not because of evolutionary secular humanism. After all, the earthquake and resulting tidal waves are simply a result of nature...the earth sorting out its weak from its strong. Why should we feel any remorse towards bags of water and flesh that just happen to get sucked into the depths of the Indian Ocean. Of course, the real reason is that they are the image of God, just as we are. Hopefully, some will be able to spread the Gospel to that area which sorely needs it in this time of tragedy.
One radio show host I listen too asked where God was during this tragedy. My answer: right where he has always been. But of course, he should not be worrying about where God was. THis host should be more worried that he is right with God and to repent, lest this tragedy also happen to him...or to us in the United States, or lest we forget that this was the biggest quake since the Prince William Sound earthquake that nearly totally destroyed Anchorage, Alaska.
Although I do disagree with him on some issues, on this point, Dr. James White is right on in his refutation of a bizzare opinion that some strange Australian judge wrote regarding Islam and condeming two Christians who dared to speak the truth about Islam. I've said the same thing over and over again about the Constitution and this country, and now it's nice to know that these priests will now be defining what religions are peaceful and which are full of hatred. Of course, Dr. White and I will fall into the latter category (allegedly, of course), and I am starting to see why Jews are so villified by secularists. They dare to believe in right or wrong; hence, they must be destroyed.
Fortunately, the truth is out there. If anyone believe that islam is a eaceful religion, they should just read Dr. Khan's introduction to the Hadith. However, as much as this country's original Christian foundations and confederated government are indisputable and irrefutable, the attention span of the American people, and apparantly the Australian judges too, is so short that all they want to hear are talking points as opposed to investigating what is really the truth.
I was reading in the Los Angeles Times yesterday, and I came across an article about RObert Byrd. Apparantly, he wants to put into a federal education package a requirement that the schools teach the Constitution. He apparantly carries a small copy around in his breast pocket, and once in awhile, he will bring it out while on the Senate floor. He called the Constitution the soul of our nation.
Yeah, uh-huh.
Perhaps the Honerable Gentleman from West Virginia would like to show me in the Constitution where it says that the federal government mandates spending on education. I've read the Constitution, and although I'm not a huge fan of public education, I have read the 10th Ammendment which states that any powers not delegated to the federal government belong to the States. Hence, whatever is taught in schools would seem to be under the jurisdiction of the States. And of course, I'd like to know the Constitutional justification for all that pork that he has managed to give West Virginia during his tenure in the Senate. Of course, there is none.
I'm just stating the obvious, but Sen, Byrd is just a typical hypocrite when it comes to the Constitution, just like more politicians and special interest groups are, and of course, the majority of Americans. Rev. Steve Wilkens said it well about the Constitution in the debate he had on the Civil War. The Constitution is a forgotten relic, only occasionly being brought out every so often when it suits our purposes, and then ignoring and contravening those parts that we find uncomfortable. If we truly followed the intent and meaning of the Constitution, the modern American mind would shiver. No longer would Congress be able to pass a law on its own whim, and then apply it to the States, and then bring out the SUpremacy Clause and say, "See, you must listen to us!" Of course, this Congress ignored those parts of the Constitution that puts some limits on the this unfettered meaning of the Supremacy Clause, but hey, why be consistent in a pastmodern world?
Yes, the Constitution is the soul of our country. Unfortunately, that soul died in 1865. The United States of America died at the McLean House at Appomattox. I remember driving out to the Courthouse because I wanted to see the deathbed. I can't remmeber if it was entering the city or county of Appomattox, but there was a sign on US 460 that said this was where the country was reunited. Maybe in paper, but not in truth. What was born there was the United State of America, where the federal government is supreme, and all must submit to it in everything. You think I'm crazy? Tell me about that toilet flushing in your house that is federally regulated. WHere is the Constitutional authority for that?
No, people like Sen. Byrd and modern Americans are intellectual idiots when it comes to the Constitution. It's sad to see what this country has become, but hopefully someday, the tide will change. Well, I am a postmillennialist, so I know that the tide will change. The only question is whether it will be in my lifetime or in a future generation. Maybe God will be gracious to us and return us to the concepts that made us United States, not a united state, or maybe this country will end. Who knows?
At Appomattox, there is a monument I saw that almost made me cry. It said, "Here on Sunday, April 9, 1865, after four years of heroic struggle in defense of principles believed fundamental to the existence of our government, Lee surrendered 9000 men the remnant of an army still unconquered in spirit." And of course, we know that those findamentals were racial superiority. Yeah, uh-huh. After the re-election of Bush, and the talk about the "red and blue States," maybe people are starting to wonder because there has talk about secession. It's of course probably just talk, but one never knows. The South as a whole has thoroughly repudiated some of the postmodern elements in our society in various election results, but this doesn't mean that they are perfect. Far from it. However, if they were to ever regain their identity as a people, a Christian people who stood in the face of the Enlightenment against the odds, then maybe they will remember they were a people who fought for the principles of the Founders of this country. Some will mockingly say that this would include slavery, but most of us know the real issue. Just as people of the South said that the cause of Boston was also their cause prior to the War for Independence, so someday, as Alexander Staphens said, a new cry will emerge: "The cause of the South is the cause of us all."
Yes, Sen, Byrd, the Constitution is the soul of the country; but as you have shown, and most of your colleagues have shown, that soul died a long time ago.
I can see why some people cuss. I mean, for a split second, it does seem to make you feel good, and the more upset you are, or the more frustrated, the more you want to violate the social norms and mores. Without reflection on what one has done, the cussing usually gets worse and worse. Sometimes, you even curse God and Jesus and it doesn't phase you. The hatred you possess at that point in time is unbridled and reflects the deceitfulness that your heart still possesses. That's what is scary, and how sin going unchecked just desroys a man, and of course a woman. Sin unchecked just leads to worse and worse acts, but why is this such a surprise. I mean, from the beginning this has been the case. After all, the hatred that Cain had manifested itself when he killed his brother. It was the truth back then, and it is the truth now.
I don't know, but there is some satisfaction though in cussing someone out, even if it is false satisfaction. It's especially satisfying when you cuss at someone because you feel for that brief moment that you are superior to that guy and you're letting him know it, and if he replies back, you up the the ante to prove it. But it's a false vision. You are nothing but a self-inflated idiot. God does not look kindly on you because when you unleash all that hatred on someone, when you let it fly and say that there are no holds barred, you, of course, are doing that to God Himself. After all, that person is someone who is in the image of God. When you cuss out your boss, you're cussing out God because he put that person above you even if your boss deserves it (or so you think). It's all an attack on God, even cussing at the creation because he created it.
I don't know, but I hope and pray that God will forgive me for this. Unmastered sin just leads to worse problems, and lately, I've been figuring that out. It's difficult, because prior to becoming a Christian (in the non-Federal sense of the word), it was so easy to do, and so easy to get away with. Atheism made it easy to deal with since, after all, if God doesn't exist, then why should I care about the offensive things I said, especially around those stupid Christians? There was a time of around 11 years where it as so easy to do, and with 11 years of habituation, well, I guess that's what makes it really easy. EVvery now and then that habituation comes back, and the problem then becomes when you remember that satisfaction (again, ultimately false satisfaction) that you had when you did it in the past. Unchecked, even with those who claim to profess Christ, sin will continue to grow, and their covenental faithfulness will suffer.
Well, I'm blogging again :) Yeah, yeah, I know, you'll believe it when you see it.
Well, I have to say that the philosophy of law class that I am taking at school is very interesting. Interpretation of law is obviously a hot philosophiucal topic, and we've been reading different ways of interpretation. I still think te best was is some form of textualism, but that one must also include legislative intent, history, and traditions that surrund that law. As I mentioned awhile ago, if the country loses its Christian foundation, then there is no real reason to ban gay marriages. The concept is similar to an old case in the 1800s, where a grandson who stood to gain a huge inheritance from his grandfather. Well. the grandson murdered him, and after he was convicted, he wanted to collect on the inheritance. Well, probate law for this state said nothing about the inheritee murdering the inheritor to get the inheritance. So, on strict legal scrutiny, the grandson should be given his due.
Well, the Christian traditions of the time would clearly prohibit this, and the judges in the appellate case (indirectly) relied on this tradition to reverse the case. Well, some things can be said for this. Laws need transcendent boundaries or else the whims of man become the arbitrary measure of law. I think I'll blog more about this later.
Till next time, and there will be a next time... =)
I've been thinking about words, and how they change meaning over time, for better or worse. Yet, some words do retain their original meaning, and people who choose to use the words in that original context should make that clear and precise. One instance is the word "Christian" and the discussion that it has been generating.
Today, the word Christian means someone who is regenerate followers of Christ who have had their sins forgiven. The key term is regenerate, and not false, followers. The problem, of course, is that the Bible also has a definition of the word "Christian," and it cannot in any context mean the modern definition. The first instance was in Antioch, and it is highly unlikely that these nonbelievers could have knowledge of one's regenerative status. The second instance was Herrod telling Paul he almost became a Christian. The thirsd instance is Peter, who says that it should be counted as good if you're imprisoned for being a Christian (as opposed to a murderer). I guess the difficult part of this whole discussion is that some of us are going back to the original Biblical definition of words and concepts.
When that happens, you have to rethink and reform words and thoughts that you had originally associated with those things. For instance, I oppose gun control, but I can't say that the 2nd Ammendment is the reason why. It definitely applies against the federal government, but it does not apply to the States. Now a lot of States have right-to-bear arms clauses in their constitutions, but some don't. Hence, if they decide to regulate guns, there is no constitutional prohibition.
Well, let me adjust that a little bit. The Ammendment would seem to prohibit the States from an all out prohibition on the ownership of gun ownership. The reson why is that the militia is necessary for a free state. Hence, the right to bear arms will not be prohibited. Congress has control over the militia, as does the President. Hence, if all the States were to ban ownership of guns, there would be no Militia to call up, but the Constitution certainly does imply that a militia exists.
Same thing with the 1st. It prohibits the Federal Government from abridging speech, press, and everything else, but not the States. Yet, every state has clauses guaranteeing these rights. However, if this is the correct view, and I believe it is, then a huge bulk of constitutional jurisprudence would be overturned, and the shape of the federal courts would be dramatically altered. Of course, this would be a very good thing.
Change of worldviews, even in religous matters, will sometimes mean an overhall on how one views things. Some of this will be foreign to others, but if it is the correct view, if it is the view that (for example) the Bible or the Constitution had put forth in the past, it might not be that bad. On the other hand, we should always be wary that we may also be totally wrong in our evauation, too.
