No. 44: Kent! Thank you for the link! Do not bother about the length of the quote. Any time one can quote Steven Calabresi, I say take all the space you need!

Kent, I hate to ask, and I hope you don’t think I am being forward, but are you the one of whom the White Horse Prophecy spoke?

With respect to originalism, the burden on the originalist is not to show it is a perfect way to interpret a constitution, only that it is better that all other methods. No one living at the time the 14th Amendment was adopted would have recognized a right to contraception, to abortion, to sodomy, etc… So what changed? Certainly it wasn’t the text. It was the interpretation of the text. Without some anchor to ground the judge, any part of the Constitution becomes an empty vessel to be filled and refilled with whatever the Court wants (maybe the court will yield to popular opinion, maybe it won’t). When that happens the Constitution, its protections on liberty, and even important enumerated rights become dross. The Founders put pen to parchment for a good reason, so that their ideas could be fixed and not easily changed. What is the point of a written Constitution if it is so easily manipulated?

“…This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a “tax cut” to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth? Perhaps the candidate ought to be asked to answer these questions before the election rather than after.

“Every new federal judge has been required by federal law to take an oath of office in which he swears that he will “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” Mr. Obama’s emphasis on empathy in essence requires the appointment of judges committed in advance to violating this oath. To the traditional view of justice as a blindfolded person weighing legal claims fairly on a scale, he wants to tear the blindfold off, so the judge can rule for the party he empathizes with most.

“…If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food.

Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election. We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation’s courtrooms.”

Sorry about its length (I quoted only some of the article). However, I thought it was a very good article and a very important subject right now. The entire article can be read here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html

Now, in section 98 of the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord says this:

“And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.” (verses 5-7)

I believe a loose and biased interpretation of the Constitution (and especially when such interpretation is motivated by favoritism of a certain person or party over another) would easily extend “more” to the Constitution than is really there, make “less” of the Constitution in areas that are otherwise explicit. The subject matter here is very important for the Latter-Day Saints. The only other times in scripture where the language of “more or less than this, cometh of evil” is used is pertaining to Christ’s Gospel, and of revelation. The stamp of approval the Lord puts upon the Constitution, this sacred “law of man”, comes with pretty tight conditions: “whatsoever is more or less than [the constitutional law of the land], cometh of evil. An Obama appointed judge sounds like someone whose judgment might “cometh of evil” as they would certainly create more and make less of many aspects of the Constitution.

A few comments were made above pertaining to the principle of redistribution of wealth. (This issue was addressed somewhat in the opinion article cited above). I would just like to quote again from the Doctrine and Covenants on this principle: “Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.” (verses 79-80) It seems like a requirement upon one man to labor for another man’s bread puts both men in bondage – the working man of course is in bondage to the other, and the other man is in bondage to his parasitic condition. The Lord “established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom [He] raised up unto this very purpose”: to eliminated a condition where “any man should be in bondage one to another”.

During this election perhaps, we should be pray, as Joseph Smith prayed, while dedicating the Kirkland Temple:

“Have mercy, O Lord…have mercy upon the rulers of our land; may those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever.”

It seems clear to me that any political course or any presidential candidate or judge or lawmaker that seeks to disestablish or remove the Constitution that the Prophet of this dispensation prayed to “be established forever” is evil. There is no question in my mind that our country and government has taken the dangerous course. It seems our country has complied with Joseph Smith’s prophecy: “Even this Nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground and when the constitution is upon the brink of ruin this people will be the Staff up[on] which the Nation shall lean and they shall bear the constitution away from the very verge of destruction.” (The Historians Corner, BYU Studies, Vol. 19, No. 3, p. 391-392) I hope the Latter-Day Saints are ready to bear up this nation should our Constitutional footings continue to erode as they have.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/09/eavesdropping/

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/06/2310206&from=rss

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2004-02-20-jetblue-privacy_x.htm

I could go on for days……..

http://harpers.org/archive/2008/03/hbc-90002589

No. 33: First I do not know what you mean when you say “right to privacy”. I gave you a workable definition of privacy, what’s yours. Do you have the right to smoke crack in your home under this right to privacy? What are its boundaries, if any? The text of the Constitution does not explicitly give you a right to buy or use contraception; it does not even use such words. Again, this is not about whether such a law is a good policy; it is about such a laws constitutionality. I think the CT statute was an uncommonly silly law. I would not support anyone running for office with that policy as part of his or her platform. With respect to the privacy of your finance, health, and communications records, yes, all those are statutory rights. You, of all people, should know this. These statutes do not exist because of some amorphous right to privacy. Please, have a little more faith in the people you elect to your legislature and Congress. Well, maybe not Congress.

You may, if you choose to go through all the time and expense of forming the needed grass roots organization, attempt to enshrine your right to privacy into the Constitution through the amendment process. I can think of 2 reasons you are not likely to take this route. First, I imagine that most of what you think the right to privacy encompasses, is already written into statute. Second, why go through all that time and process of amending the text when we have the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals?

No. 34: Where is the constitutional language for the nebulous privacy right of which you speak?

No. 35: It is just history. The southern states ratified the amendment under the duress of military occupation. The choice was to keep the south subject to military rule or ignore it for a while.

You either listened only to a sound bite of that interview or you didn’t understand what Obama was saying. Obama may well favor redistributivist policies but he doesn’t think the court is the right vehicle to enact them. In any case, Reagan’s record is one of redistribution as well–just look at the 1986 revisions to the tax code. Redistribution is as American as apple pie.