So, on the topic of the president’s added gun control measures … I have only one issue that comes to mind and to me, as a Constitutional Conservative, it is a dangerous path we are heading down. This action has less to do with protecting Americans and more about imposing preferences. Bottom line: He wants to tighten restrictions on gun sales. (OK, fine, I get that.)
But, when you decide to supplement (or add to, further define, etc.) the language of an Amendment to the Constitution by executive action, does that mean that other Amendments can be augmented as well? For example:
How about we prevent people from attending a church of their choice by firming up the language in the First Amendment so it defines exactly which church they can go to?
Or, let’s say that the Fourth Amendment is a little too weak and we should allow for searches and seizures without a warrant … just because someone may be a little unstable and even more so if they have been accused of a crime in the past?
Or, perhaps, we should make giving testimony against oneself compulsory, and disregard the Fifth Amendment? This would certainly make trials a whole lot speedier.
Or my favorite, let’s automatically set everyone’s bail (for any crime) to $12 million just to ensure that no “alleged bad people” are free, and thus this will help strengthen the Eighth Amendment?
We are on a dangerous and slippery trend friends … and this particular slope invites tyranny to become the norm. And for those who just don’t think it can happen here, I ask, “Why not?” America (you and I) just allowed it to happen to the Second Amendment. So, what’s next?
For the sake of clarity let’s put the biblical issue aside for one moment and discuss the legality of the Supreme Court’s quandary. I’ve really been pondering this a lot over the last 24 hours and although I have no idea how the 9 appointed justices will feel about this argument, I honestly think that it isn’t even an issue that should be before them. Why? Well, let me tell you very succinctly from the view of my recliner. Ready?
The fundamental fact here is that marriage is NOT a right. No document in our nation, of authority, which includes The US Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or even the Bill of Rights states that marriage is a “right” at all; therefore, the Supreme Court has nothing to rule on. It is a state issue (see the 10th Amendment) and if a state disapproves (by voting of the citizens) then so be it. Marriage is a privilege and if your state disagrees with your definition of marriage, call U-Haul to move to a state where it is OK or try to change your state’s law(s). It really is that simple.
However, for those who want to tout “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” let me clarify that one as well: Life and liberty are pretty self-explanatory; the right to NOT be killed and to be free from tyranny (government control … lots could be said about that in today’s status … however I am digressing). The phrase “pursuit of happiness” was originally (per Thomas Jefferson) meant to signify owning estate or property but he reworded it to be more general and encompass a broader scope. The word “marriage” is not guaranteed as a right nor is it protected either. This is basic Constitutional Law. This same phrase also appears in the 5th and 14th Amendment, which again refers to life, liberty, and property. Let us also remember that the word “pursuit” is used … that does not mean things are automatically granted, given, endowed, nor anything else. You are free to pursue all you want … you are after-all free … but it doesn’t mean that everyone gets whatever they want either.
Disclaimer: I am merely a preacher and not a law professor, but this one …… this issue ….. it was covered roughly in our 10th grade American history class and is something that every American should (already) know.