Tomorrow is Constitution Day in the United States marking the 223rd anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787. The unique thought behind the Constitution was the Founding Fathers understanding of human nature and its impact on government. Humanity falls short but mankind still understands the character and quality of perfection because the soul has the character of understanding spiritual things; yet we all fall short of perfection and the glory of God. The genuis of the Constitution is the understanding of this fallen nature in the unique balance in the Constitution's framework: power sharing, delegated powers, separated powers and divided departments, limited government, recognition of economic freedom and private prpoerty rights, guarantees and recognition of God-given rights that arise from nature, and on and on.
When reflecting on the proper checks and balances that created a limited government, it was James Madison who said in Federalist Paper No. 51, that,
"The interest of man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external or internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
Compare this wisdom with that of modern Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court that have brought us modern jurisprudence of the last 70 years: no prayer in schools, no prayers at commencement, murder of innocent people, and on and on.
Yesterday, Justice Stephen Breyer, who current holds a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court noted or suggested that a foolish pastor in a small church community in Florida may not have the right to burn the Quran under the First Amendment. This could open the doors to hate-speech laws pushed by international Islamic organizations to prevent what they call "religious hatred." That type of hatred can become like beauty, whatever is in the eyes of the beholder. [I am not yielding to the point made elsewhere that beauty is objective and not subjective!!]. In other words, hatred becomes defined by the ruler; a subjective standard for oppression. What about burning the Holy Bible? What about the U.S. flag?
With this type of legal analysis on the Supreme Court bench, who needs a Supreme Court? It just proves that the men and women on the bench are not all that bright at times. You can check out his statement here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/09/justice-breyer-quran-burning-might-not-be-protected-by-first-amendment.html.
St. Paul urged us to pray for those in authority so that we may have, and live in, peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment