Law on Blog 
  corner   



HOME

ARCHIVES


[ Links ]
Covenant Media Foundation
SCCCS-BTS

[ Blogs That I Read ]
Rabbi Saul
Puritas
The Blog According to John
Presbytermark
Aaron's Baseball Blog
Whilin' Away the Hours
Dr. G's Blog
Le Sabot Post-Moderne Societas Christiana
Just Mark
Contra Tyrannus
CORRIGENDA
View from Peniel
Doug's Blog
40 Bicycles
The Whirlwind Musings of a Reformed Catholic

"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) --
 

Sunday, March 28, 2004

 
"THE ROAD TO HELL"

OK, one confession. I used to follow the federal courts a while back becquse I had mistakingly thought that the federal system was legally superior to the States. Boy, you know how much of a shock it is when you actually study the historical documents of the United States? Seriously, folks, if those who laid the foundwork for the United States over 240 some years ago could see the state of the country now, they'd think this is a joke.

Consider this article from New Orleans. Apparantly, the federal courts have ruled that police can briefly search your home and business without a warrant for "officer safety." Well, let's get the obvious fact out of the way. Why is a federal court making a ruling on a state issue. Again, the only reason we are in this mess is because of Supreme fiat that interpreted "liberty" in the 14th Ammendment to include the Bill of Rights.

Of course, if this interpretation were correct, then it is a scary decision indeed. Since I work for a police department, and I do interact with peace officers, and have gone to funerals when they were murdered in the line of duty, I know that their job is dangerous. Whereas our instincts tell us to run from the guy shooting a gun in a crowd, a police officer has to go there and apprehend the subject. Sometimes, they are mowed down because the bad guys do not want to get caught. The Burbank Police Department is still trying to heal from the vicious murder of Officer Pavelka.

That being said, there are still problems. As much as we hope cops are good people who just want to do their jobs, some don't. Some see a badge as a license to do anything, and contrary to the official word of the New Orleans Police Department, it will be abused. It might not be abused in many cases, but how many times does abuse have to happen before it becomes a problem? Once? Twice? A hundred?

But of course, since the 4th Ammendment only applies to the federal government, does that mean that there is no protection? Would my view mean that police can search anyone,anytime, and for any reason? No, of course not. The problem for those who view the Constitution as applying to the individual states is the Louisiana Constitution. See, if all our rights were truly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, then why is there a State Constitution? Article 1,Section 5 of the Louisiana Constitution explicitly states, "Every person shall be secure in his person, property, communications, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches, seizures, or invasions of privacy. No warrant shall issue without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, the persons or things to be seized, and the lawful purpose or reason for the search. Any person adversely affected by a search or seizure conducted in violation of this Section shall have standing to raise its illegality in the appropriate court." Now again, if the United States government were annulled today (could we hope for a small miracle?) what would happen? Would warrantless searches become the norm? The answer should be obvious. (Of course, this assumes they'll folow their own Constitution, too.)

So, can the New Orleans Police Department do warrantless searches? Not without probable (hence, reasonable) cause. Does officer safety fall into that? Of course it does, hence why the police pat down subjects so that they may not pull out a gun and kill them. It has happened before. Does this, though, mean that they could now search houses and businesses? Let the state court decide, but hey, I guess that would mean we would would actually have to follow the Constitution in the first place.





Friday, March 26, 2004

 
THIS STRANGE COUNTRY

This is an interesting story that I think magnifies the Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde attitude that plagues the country. On the one hand, during the 60s and 70s, the country was taught that sex is liberating and free, but on the other hand, 30 years later, in an era with increased immorality, the more sexually explicit movies do not do well at the box office. I've noticed that some really raunchy movies, with some exceptions, dont do as well.

I dunno.

There is some remnant of morality that seems to remain in this country, but on the other hand, these people who make this up are either scared to death of being called intolerant, or just don't think that morality is a public thing. If these people would finally stand up and take a stand, by electing godly leaders, something would change. Of course, though, to elect godly leaders, our attitudes have to change first. In can happen. Jesus Christ is King over all the universe, and he will not be mocked, and although prayer is always something that we should be doing,we do not have the right to ask God for a miracle. He gave the church the command to go out and disciple the nations. This does not mean stay at home and do nothing.




Wednesday, March 17, 2004

 
AN OLD CLASSIC

Well, as I was working on a final paper for philosophy, I decided to watch an old classic...The Blues Brothers. Gotta admit, heh, definitely a classic. One thing I never noticed until now...The Triple Rock Church is a Baptist Church. Well, definitely not a strict baptist church is it's pastored by James Brown.

In case you ever wondered what the lyrics were to the song, cause it sounds a whole lot like "wha-whaa-waaaaaa."

THE OLD LANDMARK

Let us all (All go back)
To the Old (Old landmark)
Let us all to the Old (All go back Old Landmark)
Let us stay in the service of the Lord
Jesus, ohh! (He's my Lord, oh, my Lord)
Let us preach of the Old
At the... (Hey! Hey!)
Landmark
Praise the Lord, well!
Let us preach, at the Old
Preach the Word, all the way
Yeah, preach
Preach the Word, all the way
Do it, know it, fell it (All people)
People, people, well (Preach the Word)
Let us preach, at the Old (Preach the Word, Old Landmark)
Preach the Word, at the Old (Preach the Word, Old Landmark)
Preach the Word, at the Old (Preach the Word, Old Landmark)
Preach the Word, at the Old (Preach the Word, Old Landmark)
Preach the Word, at the Old (Preach the Word, Old Landmark)

People, now
Brothers, sisters
Yeah, Lord, Yeah, Lord, Yeah, Lord, Yeah, Lord
Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh
Oh, Lord
Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh
Oh, child
Let us all, to the Old (All go back, Old Landmark)
Let us all, to the Old (All go back, Old Landmark)
Turnin', yearnin', learnin', burnin'
Gonna go back, Ahh (Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh)
Gonna go back, Ahh (Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh)
Gonna go back, Ahh (Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh)
Gonna go back, Ahh (Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh)
Let us stay in the service of the Lord

(words by A.M. Brunner)




Tuesday, March 16, 2004

 
GOTTA WONDER

O.K, this is getting stupid, but I guess we live in an age of stupidity. They were Jewish, ok? The first church was Jewish, ok? After all, the whole point of Galatians and Romans is not "Wow, what do we do about the Jewish people?" It's "Man, what do we do about the Gentiles?"

Of course, if the Chuch had remembered it's Jewish roots rather than becomeing Gentilized, maybe we would not have hadthis problem.






Monday, March 15, 2004

 
ALMOST DONE

This quarter is almost done. It's been a busy hectic few weeks; hence, why I have not done much blogging lately. Hopefully, I'll be back on track soon.




Wednesday, March 03, 2004

 
SO WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE GAYS MARRYING?

OK, a slightly provocative title, but I haven't really spoken about the events that began with the cesspool of a city that lies about 470 miles up U.S. 101 from me. Still, consider the events that have happened, and what has happened to the United States: the Christian foundation that this country was foudned on, with the blessing of an impotent American church, has been ripped away. So, let's look at the Constitution in that light, even with the abominable 14th Amendment, and the Supreme Court's God-complex.

Some elements of the 14th Amendment can obviously coexist within a Christian foundation. Certainly, no State should ever treat its citizens unequally in law. We do hear about "gay rights," snd they do have rights: the right to a fair trial, a right to enter into contracts and have them enforced judicially if they are welched out...but of course, those are not the rights that are at issue. In a Christian society, "equal protection of the law" is not an absolute sense. It is tempered by Biblical standards. At some point in our history, even after the War in 1861, the Supreme Court could write this from a Court decision (by the way, February 29th was the the 111th year anniversary), and which is still on the books, "Suppose, in the congress that passed this act, some member had offered a bill which in terms declared that, if any Roman Catholic church in this country should contract with Cardinal Manning to come to this country, and enter into its service as pastor and priest, or any Episcopal church should enter into a like contract with Canon Farrar, or any Baptist church should make similar arrangements with Rev. Mr. Spurgeon, or any Jewish synagogue with some eminent rabbi, such contract should be adjudged unlawful and void, and the church making it be subject to prosecution and punishment. Can it be believed that it would have received a minute of approving thought or a single vote? Yet it is contended that such was, in effect, the meaning of this statute. The construction invoked cannot be accepted as correct. It is a case where there was presented a definite evil, in view of which the legislature used general terms with the purpose of reaching all phases of that evil; and thereafter, unexpectedly, it is developed that the general language thus employed is broad enough to reach cases and acts which the whole history and life of the country affirm could not have been intentionally legislated against. It is the duty of the courts, under those circumstances, to say that, however {517} broad the language of the statute may be, the act, although within the letter, is not with the intention of the legislature, and therefore cannot be within the statute."

The implication is clear. COngress passed a law that had the unintended effect of prohibiting churches from calling pastors from other countries, which was the issue presented to the Court in this case. Absolutized apart from a Christian framework, yes, the statute would entail churches, and there would be no recourse. But the Court reasoned that because this was a Christian nation (unfortunately, didn't say union), there was no way that this statute would ever apply to churches (and Jewish synagogues...perhaps the Justice noted the common ancestry between Jews and Christians?) and hence, the Church of the Holy Trinity could not be charged with any federal offense.

Now let's see what's happening in San Francisco. The mayor claims that the California marriage law violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. In a way, he is right, and his view will consinue to win. Without the Christian restraint, then marriage becomes a creation of the State. That's the issue here. Is marriage something that is created and ordained by the State? The answer, in our postmodern society, must be that it is, since if it's ordained by God, well, he might have a few rules that people may not like. Therefore, if marriage is something created and ordained by the State, then it must be unconstitutional to discriminate against the gays. There is no refutation for this position. John Zeigler, from KFI, has tried to argue that this is not a 14th Amendment violation by saying that gays have the same rights as others in that they can marry someone of the opposite sex just as much as someone who isn't gay. This position is simply a wordplay; "equal protection of the law" would seem to imply that any law that has a discriminatory effect, whether it be intentional or unintentional, is void, and limiting marriage to an opposite sex would seem to discriminate against those who prefer same sex partners. It is irrefutable.

So what can we say about this? Yeah, what really is wrong with gay marriages? This is a post-CHristian society, and guess what? The country is reaping what it sows. Gay marriages will be the norm in this land: it is unavoidable. What do you expect, though? THis country lost it's Christian foundation a long time ago in the name of convenience, personal autonomy, and pragmatism. Norms are thrown out, and allegedly replaced with relativistic ethics, but we know that even the relativists have normative standards of ethics (usually, anything Christian is evil). It's truly sad. Maybe the country will return to its Christian roots, at the very least its constitutonal roots. But then again, what really is so special about the United States? God didn't spare Israel, and if we don't repent, what makes anyone think that God will spare the U.S?






This page is powered by Blogger.