---Interview with a Conservative, Part II---
You seem to be a constitutionalist... but there are several things that the framers of the constitution could not foresee, such as automatic weapons, medical advances that allow a woman to terminate pregnancy, the automobile, the internet, the unintended environmental consequences of industrialization and nuclear energy. How do you tie these unforeseen changes back to the constitution? Do you have a basic philosophy that guides you in situations that the founding fathers did not foresee?
The founders had the foresight to provide a way to amend the constitution. We should follow that instead of make laws from the bench. I do not believe in the concept of man-made global warming. There is little scientific evidence at this stage. It appears sun spots have a lot more to do with climate than man does. That said, I believe in being a good steward of the environment. I am an avid outdoorsman, and value the environment greatly.
Does this mean that you believe congress should pass fewer laws and that we increase the rate of proposed constitutional amendments? Also, how does your answer to the previous question address the idea that congress’ reason for being is the creation of legislation?
Yes to fewer laws…I’m not advocating for a bunch of new amendments though. I am saying that the founders did restrict government, but also left a path to raise some of those restrictions through amendments. Rightfully so, they made it hard to amend the constitution though.
How is it okay for legislators to propose and pass unpopular laws, but it’s somehow inappropriate for judges to strike down or uphold laws in a manner that’s unpopular? (This is in reference to your “make laws from the bench” comment.)
Judges should not be restricted from striking down laws in a manner that is unpopular. They should be restricted from creating laws and “rights” from the bench. They are to uphold the laws, not make them.
With this response in mind, I am going to refer the Iowa Supreme Court’s recent ruling that allowed homosexuals to marry in Iowa… The Declaration of Independence said, point blank, that all men are created equal, and that one of our inalienable rights is the pursuit of happiness. Whether or not you agree with the premise of homosexual marriage, can a reasonable person conclude that outlawing homosexual marriage creates an inequality among otherwise similar men? Is it reasonable to believe that the prohibition of same-sex marriages infringes on the inalienable right to pursue happiness?
Under your scenario…anything could be classified as an act of pursuing happiness. Like I said, I see marriage as an institution that is about procreation which is necessary for the continuation of society. Like it or not, it takes male and female DNA to procreate.
Based on your counter-point, yes, anything could theoretically be classified as an act of pursuing happiness. With this as a frame of reference, it would be up to the courts to decide whether not the case at hand genuinely falls under the right to pursue happiness. As individuals in American society, we may or may not agree with the outcome of the court case, but some governing body needs to accept this responsibility and rule accordingly.
I guess I agree with what you are saying here…but, I think they need to take a minimalist approach.
On a related vein, (separate question) the Miranda Rights came to being as a result of the Supreme Court. In effect, the Supreme Court “created a right from the bench.” The Supreme Court also ruled that segregation was inherently unequal in Brown vs. Board of Education. Does this mean that you disagree with implementation of Miranda and the end of segregation? If you do not disagree with both of these rulings, then is it not reasonable to conclude that “creating rights from the bench” is a legitimate function of the court system?
So, are you saying if I do agree with these cases, I should agree with any ruling the court makes? That said, I don’t believe it was creating new rights, it was simply guaranteeing rights as the constitution provided for.
No. I am not saying that we should agree with any (and all) rulings that the court makes. I am merely stating that if you agree with the aforementioned cases, that you must concede, to some extent, that “creating rights from the bench” is a legitimate function of the court system.
I knew you weren’t saying that per se, but my point is perhaps the same as above….courts should take a minimalist approach.
18-year-olds are required by law to register for the selective service. They can enlist in the military, putting their lives on the line for our nation. If an 18 year-old commits any crime they are tried as an adult. They can get credit cards, yet they cannot legally consume alcohol until they are 21. Are there any instances where you would support reducing the drinking age to 18? (My personal bias: Any active-duty member of the armed services should be allowed to legally consume alcohol... after all, they're responsible enough to put their life on the line for our country... why should they be prohibited from drinking??)
I would likely support the drinking age be reduced to 18. This is a liberty issue, not that I hope more young people drink. I haven’t had a drink in 20 years.
Do you support gays serving openly in the military?
My gut reaction to this is no…but, I’m not sure it matters a great deal. My deference on this would be to the commanders in the field, not to politicians or even those who have spent most of their recent military duty in the Pentagon.
Do you support gay marriage, civil unions, or any variation thereof?
I don’t. However, I do believe there probably needs to be some sort of contract that people can undertake should they choose to live in a committed relationship. Frankly, I’d rather the state not be involved in marriage at all. I think that should be between a man, a woman and his or her church or other entity that would “sanction” their marriage. Keep in mind, society’s long-term benefit from marriage is pro-creation and raising children. It does take a man and a woman to procreate.
If you believe that the states not be involved in marriage at all, then is this a federal issue, or a private issue where the GOVERNMENT has no say? What is your take on a church that sanctions homosexual marriage?
My choice would be a private issue. I would not attend that church because I don’t believe it is a biblically based church.
So you believe that the government, at all levels, should be completely removed from the institution of marriage? Considering this a separate issue from our tax system, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you could get this done, but not tax reform… how would you handle such a situation?
Not sure what you are asking. If you are asking have I developed a plan for how we decouple government from marriage…no. I have plenty of opinions…that doesn’t mean I have personally developed a plan to implement them.
Your acknowledgement that you don’t have a detailed plan is a thoroughly sufficient response. It is perfectly acceptable and reasonable to state that you don’t have all the answers.
What are your thoughts regarding limits in campaign contributions and/or restrictions on political advertising?
I don’t believe in any limitations of speech short of truly dangerous (yelling fire in a theater) utterances.
Doesn’t your position imply that the rich, by virtue of their ability to donate more money to their cause/candidate, have more” freedom of speech” than the poor?
Depends on how you define freedom. Anyone has the freedom to speak, not everyone has the forum to speak…that is the reality of life. I suspect someone with a pretty smile has more freedom of speech than I do because people want to be around the pretty girl. That is life.
Does this freedom of speech apply only to individuals, or does it apply to business as well?
Businesses are made up of individuals, so yes. Perhaps if this is detrimental to our country, this would be an area where an amendment to the 1st amendment would be appropriate. (I am not advocating that of course.) To have judges decide that this speech can be restricted, which they did prior to the recent case, was an affront to the first amendment.
Would this not, in effect, give higher-ups in a large corporation “two voices?” It seems to me that say, the CEO of GM, would be able to state his opinion as an individual, AND as the CEO of GM. Furthermore, a corporation is comprised of individuals, but a corporation is NOT a person. With this in mind, I’d like a bit more clarification.
I’ll stick with my answer above. Some have more capability, but that is different than freedom.
No comments:
Post a Comment