The Western, semi-Christian world has a serious problem. It doesn't know what law is. The "rule of law" has been understood historically as something fixed, something every man knows he should obey, and something that leads to liberty under God, not man. The rule of law liberates us from rule by man. But if the "law" is identified with the opinion of certain men, then we have done away with the benefit of the "rule of law." By changing the definition of law, we've done away with it and placed ourselves under the rule of men.
Law is God's law and man's law legitimately derived from that law. For example, the law against murder is God's law. The law against speeding in a car is man's law, but it is derived from the law of murder because reckless driving, which one should know will or could probably lead to an accident using a fast-moving multi-ton vehicle, is threatening to the lives of other humans. The traffic laws are intended to protect us from the reckless who might kill us, which is reckless homicide.
Today, I read about a judge who ruled a state law unconstitutional. Why? Because the circumstances had changed, making "a facially neutral regulation into one that actually prevents women from exercising a fundamental right to obtain an abortion." Montgomery Advertiser, "Judge: Rule 'harms' women," August 15, 2015. What circumstances changed to suddenly make the regulation unconstitutional? The West Alabama Women's Center couldn't find an OB/GYN who can get admitting privileges at a hospital. This is not what law is - something that can change based on the circumstances. The judge doesn't understand the law or doesn't care that he's contradicted the most fundamental meaning of law in the writing of his opinion.
Also, court decisions that undo the law of God and man's law derived therefrom are growing in our midst. The most prominent examples are the court decision forbidding the criminalization of the murder of a certain helpless segment of our population (Roe v. Wade, 1973), the forbidding of the criminalization of consensual sodomy (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003), and the requirement that states recognize and license the so-called marriage of same-sex couples. Changes so drastic cannot be called law. They are based solely on the personal opinions of the Justices writing and agreeing with the opinions. They rely on their black robes alone to promulgate obedience among the authorities of the states and the people.
These robed purveyors of perversions of the law can rely on people obeying them because of the successful propaganda efforts of the legal community during the last few decades. Instead of promoting the true and historical definition of the "rule of law" on Law Day each year or when other educational opportunities arise, like important court opinions, the legal community says, "Federal courts must be obeyed." It matters not what the federal court says; the importance is that everyone fall in line and salute like good soldiers. But where are these soldiers marching? And doesn't even the lowliest in rank soldier have the duty to disobey an unlawful order?
Peace and conformity at all costs is what matters. And this message is from the people - the lawyers - who helped lead the colonies to liberty from an overweening authority which went beyond the law and ordered taxation and other measures and which the colonies knew to be unlawful. When will the legal community really begin the debate in the public realm where the regular folk can hear it, instead of leaving it to the law review articles? When will the legal community quit fearing the people and start respecting them by acknowledging that the courts are not only undemocratic, which they should be, but that they have gone outside their judicial bounds and become our masters?
What will change next? What will we be told to obey next that is new and inordinate and offensive to God and the godly? How does a society preserve law as intended? See next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment