Tuesday, March 30, 2004
The genesis of federal power: Mr. Rowe again asserts that a federal court may one day find a federal "right" to gay marriage, if only enough (an "overwhelming majority" according to Rowe) states eventually allow for gay marriage under state law. Mr. Rowe prefers this "federalist" approach to the issue, thinking that it will bring the "gradual" change needed to assure that all gays in America can indeed call their relationships "marriage" at some point in the future.
I continue to assert that this is an unworkable and ultimately, unconstitutional approach to federal jurisprudence. Why? Because a federal "right" is in reality an absence of specific power for the federal government to act in a certain area. We have a federal "right" to free speech because the Constitution does not give power to Congress to regulate speech. We have a federal "right" to own firearms because the Constitution does not allow Congress to regulate firearms. We have these rights because the people have withheld the power to regulate speech and firearms (as well as other areas) from Congress; NOT because a certain number of states take a certain approach to the regulation of speech and firearms.
Because the constitution is silent on marriage, the issue is thus one that is reserved to the states and the people in the 9th and 10th amendments, and always has been in our 200+ year history as a people (and, I would note, this has not been changed by the 14th amendment except when it comes to the issue of race, a la Loving v. Virginia). In a sense, the people do have a federal "right" to marriage in that they are free from federal control over the issue. The extent to which the states and the people sovereignly exercise that power--defining or redefining marriage as they see fit--should have no bearing on the federal justiciability of the marriage issue. It's a power reserved to the states and the people--period. If 49 states allow for "gay marriage", it does not give warrant for the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and override the judgment of the 50th state that still holds to the "traditional view" of marriage. To suggest that this is so reeks of the very same majoritarianism that we hear libertarians (often rightly) criticize Bork, et al.
The really unfortunate outcome of Mr. Rowe's "federalist" views are the contempt they show for our state and local governments. In Mr. Rowe's "federalist" approach to the marriage issue, state and local governments are treated as pawns in a larger game that seeks to nationalize the homosexual view of "gay marriage." It really is unfortunate that Mr. Rowe can call this "federalist" at all, since he is not at all concerned with the proper allocation of federal, state or local power, but his preferred end of recognizing gay marriage in every state. Instead of protecting the constitutional role of state and local government in the United States, Mr. Rowe's approach would only further aggrandize power in the federal departments.
(0) comments
I continue to assert that this is an unworkable and ultimately, unconstitutional approach to federal jurisprudence. Why? Because a federal "right" is in reality an absence of specific power for the federal government to act in a certain area. We have a federal "right" to free speech because the Constitution does not give power to Congress to regulate speech. We have a federal "right" to own firearms because the Constitution does not allow Congress to regulate firearms. We have these rights because the people have withheld the power to regulate speech and firearms (as well as other areas) from Congress; NOT because a certain number of states take a certain approach to the regulation of speech and firearms.
Because the constitution is silent on marriage, the issue is thus one that is reserved to the states and the people in the 9th and 10th amendments, and always has been in our 200+ year history as a people (and, I would note, this has not been changed by the 14th amendment except when it comes to the issue of race, a la Loving v. Virginia). In a sense, the people do have a federal "right" to marriage in that they are free from federal control over the issue. The extent to which the states and the people sovereignly exercise that power--defining or redefining marriage as they see fit--should have no bearing on the federal justiciability of the marriage issue. It's a power reserved to the states and the people--period. If 49 states allow for "gay marriage", it does not give warrant for the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and override the judgment of the 50th state that still holds to the "traditional view" of marriage. To suggest that this is so reeks of the very same majoritarianism that we hear libertarians (often rightly) criticize Bork, et al.
The really unfortunate outcome of Mr. Rowe's "federalist" views are the contempt they show for our state and local governments. In Mr. Rowe's "federalist" approach to the marriage issue, state and local governments are treated as pawns in a larger game that seeks to nationalize the homosexual view of "gay marriage." It really is unfortunate that Mr. Rowe can call this "federalist" at all, since he is not at all concerned with the proper allocation of federal, state or local power, but his preferred end of recognizing gay marriage in every state. Instead of protecting the constitutional role of state and local government in the United States, Mr. Rowe's approach would only further aggrandize power in the federal departments.
Bible verse(s) for today: I happened to be reading Judges 13 this morning, which recounts the story of Samson. I have always loved this story, and the Lord this morning brought something else to mind that I had not seen before:
1 Again the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and the LORD delivered them into the hand of the Philistines for forty years.
2Now there was a certain man from Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah; and his wife was barren and had no children. 3And the Angel of the LORD appeared to the woman and said to her, "Indeed now, you are barren and have borne no children, but you shall conceive and bear a son. 4Now therefore, please be careful not to drink wine or similar drink, and not to eat anything unclean. 5For behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. And no razor shall come upon his head, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb; and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines."
6So the woman came and told her husband, saying, "A Man of God came to me, and His countenance was like the countenance of the Angel of God, very awesome; but I did not ask Him where He was from, and He did not tell me His name. 7And He said to me, "Behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. Now drink no wine or similar drink, nor eat anything unclean, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death."'
8Then Manoah prayed to the LORD, and said, "O my Lord, please let the Man of God whom You sent come to us again and teach us what we shall do for the child who will be born."
9And God listened to the voice of Manoah, and the Angel of God came to the woman again as she was sitting in the field; but Manoah her husband was not with her. 10Then the woman ran in haste and told her husband, and said to him, "Look, the Man who came to me the other day has just now appeared to me!"
11So Manoah arose and followed his wife. When he came to the Man, he said to Him, "Are You the Man who spoke to this woman?"
And He said, "I am."
12Manoah said, "Now let Your words come to pass! What will be the boy's rule of life, and his work?"
13So the Angel of the LORD said to Manoah, "Of all that I said to the woman let her be careful. 14She may not eat anything that comes from the vine, nor may she drink wine or similar drink, nor eat anything unclean. All that I commanded her let her observe."
Verse 8 (which I italicized) teaches us something very important about prayer. Notice the focus on Manoah's prayer. It's not on his families own needs or wants, it's focused on God's will and a dependence on Him. Manoah asks God to be clear in how He would have them teach and train Samson. He is asking that God's will be done; this echoes the prayer instructions of Jesus Christ in Matthew 6. Oh that our prayers would be as focused on God' will as Manoah's!
(0) comments
1 Again the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and the LORD delivered them into the hand of the Philistines for forty years.
2Now there was a certain man from Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah; and his wife was barren and had no children. 3And the Angel of the LORD appeared to the woman and said to her, "Indeed now, you are barren and have borne no children, but you shall conceive and bear a son. 4Now therefore, please be careful not to drink wine or similar drink, and not to eat anything unclean. 5For behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. And no razor shall come upon his head, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb; and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines."
6So the woman came and told her husband, saying, "A Man of God came to me, and His countenance was like the countenance of the Angel of God, very awesome; but I did not ask Him where He was from, and He did not tell me His name. 7And He said to me, "Behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. Now drink no wine or similar drink, nor eat anything unclean, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death."'
8Then Manoah prayed to the LORD, and said, "O my Lord, please let the Man of God whom You sent come to us again and teach us what we shall do for the child who will be born."
9And God listened to the voice of Manoah, and the Angel of God came to the woman again as she was sitting in the field; but Manoah her husband was not with her. 10Then the woman ran in haste and told her husband, and said to him, "Look, the Man who came to me the other day has just now appeared to me!"
11So Manoah arose and followed his wife. When he came to the Man, he said to Him, "Are You the Man who spoke to this woman?"
And He said, "I am."
12Manoah said, "Now let Your words come to pass! What will be the boy's rule of life, and his work?"
13So the Angel of the LORD said to Manoah, "Of all that I said to the woman let her be careful. 14She may not eat anything that comes from the vine, nor may she drink wine or similar drink, nor eat anything unclean. All that I commanded her let her observe."
Verse 8 (which I italicized) teaches us something very important about prayer. Notice the focus on Manoah's prayer. It's not on his families own needs or wants, it's focused on God's will and a dependence on Him. Manoah asks God to be clear in how He would have them teach and train Samson. He is asking that God's will be done; this echoes the prayer instructions of Jesus Christ in Matthew 6. Oh that our prayers would be as focused on God' will as Manoah's!
Good blog: I've added a link to This Classical Life, an enjoyable blog I found recently.
(0) comments
Atheism, the Pledge of Allegiance, and John Locke: a good discussion on religion, philosophy and the founding of America over at the Claremont blog.
(0) comments
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
John Kerry: The French Choice for President: This article scares me.
(0) comments
Friday, March 19, 2004
Daily Log: 3/18/2004: Woke up at 6:30 am. Showered and got dressed; got Savannah out of bed and to Shallen. Left the house by 7:30.
Read Joshua 9-10 on the way to work. Had a good day at work, including a productive meeting on the hill late in the day. Read more of The Origin of Species on the way home. It's a tedious read. I don't know if I am going to be able to make it all the way through.
Got home about 5:45 pm. Shallen warmed up some leftovers for dinner and we had dinner as a family. Savannah was very entertaining...she was making lots of noises (often quite loud) so of course I encouraged her by making faces and sounds of my own. Shallen and I talked about our days when we could hear ourselves.
Shallen fed and put Savannah to bed at 7:00 pm, then she left for choir and praise team practice. I stayed behind and worked on paying bills and updating our checking account. Then I read one Captain America comic, then I started reading Five Views on Law and Gospel. I made it almost all the way through Willem VanGemeren's non-theonomic Reformed view of the law and gospel, and read most of Bahnsen's response to him.
I think VanGemeren's best point is that the moral aspects of the law have continuing validity, even in the gospel dispensation, because they are present at creation as part of God's plan for order in the universe. The best verse he cites to support this principle is Romans 2:14-16 ("For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves, which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel"). This helps understand (and justify) the Reformed distinction between moral, judicial, and ceremonial law, and the teaching of the Westminster Standards that the former binds all believers in all dispensations (because it is "natural" and is written on the hearts of all men), while the latter two binded only the nation of Israel in the Old Testament period (because they were gracefully given to Israel by God to point them to Christ, and they go away when Christ is revealed), except that the judicial law can be used to the extent required by "equity" (more on this concept of "equity" in the Westminster Confession of Faith later; it is the source of a great deal of debate between theonomic and non-theonomic Reformed Christians).
Shallen got home while I was reading this piece, and I continued to read it (couldn't put it down) while she did some more music work at the computer. We ended up going to bed around 11:00.
Another great day!
(0) comments
Read Joshua 9-10 on the way to work. Had a good day at work, including a productive meeting on the hill late in the day. Read more of The Origin of Species on the way home. It's a tedious read. I don't know if I am going to be able to make it all the way through.
Got home about 5:45 pm. Shallen warmed up some leftovers for dinner and we had dinner as a family. Savannah was very entertaining...she was making lots of noises (often quite loud) so of course I encouraged her by making faces and sounds of my own. Shallen and I talked about our days when we could hear ourselves.
Shallen fed and put Savannah to bed at 7:00 pm, then she left for choir and praise team practice. I stayed behind and worked on paying bills and updating our checking account. Then I read one Captain America comic, then I started reading Five Views on Law and Gospel. I made it almost all the way through Willem VanGemeren's non-theonomic Reformed view of the law and gospel, and read most of Bahnsen's response to him.
I think VanGemeren's best point is that the moral aspects of the law have continuing validity, even in the gospel dispensation, because they are present at creation as part of God's plan for order in the universe. The best verse he cites to support this principle is Romans 2:14-16 ("For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves, which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel"). This helps understand (and justify) the Reformed distinction between moral, judicial, and ceremonial law, and the teaching of the Westminster Standards that the former binds all believers in all dispensations (because it is "natural" and is written on the hearts of all men), while the latter two binded only the nation of Israel in the Old Testament period (because they were gracefully given to Israel by God to point them to Christ, and they go away when Christ is revealed), except that the judicial law can be used to the extent required by "equity" (more on this concept of "equity" in the Westminster Confession of Faith later; it is the source of a great deal of debate between theonomic and non-theonomic Reformed Christians).
Shallen got home while I was reading this piece, and I continued to read it (couldn't put it down) while she did some more music work at the computer. We ended up going to bed around 11:00.
Another great day!
Thursday, March 18, 2004
Interesting discussion: A number of people are participating in an interesting discussion in the feedback section over at Cattalarchy. Click here to read it.
(0) comments
The meaning of words: Steve Baarendse, who attended CGS in Bloomington at the same time as Shallen and I, has a wonderful post over on Kept the Faith. I highly recommend that you read it. My favorite part:
"Lloyd-Jones saw that the danger was not in the brash heretic who would rally the faithful to arms, but rather 'the really dangerous man is the man who introduces some very slight and subtle change.'"
It takes more grace, more wisdom and discernment, to tell when someone is slightly wrong than when they are greatly wrong. But like a ship that makes a tiny navigational error and ends up in Miami instead of New York, so can the church make a tiny error in doctrine and end up going entirely the wrong way.
(0) comments
"Lloyd-Jones saw that the danger was not in the brash heretic who would rally the faithful to arms, but rather 'the really dangerous man is the man who introduces some very slight and subtle change.'"
It takes more grace, more wisdom and discernment, to tell when someone is slightly wrong than when they are greatly wrong. But like a ship that makes a tiny navigational error and ends up in Miami instead of New York, so can the church make a tiny error in doctrine and end up going entirely the wrong way.
Vice-President Cheney with some strong words for Senator Kerry: From today's Opinion-Journal: "But it is our business when a candidate for president claims the political endorsement of foreign leaders. At the very least, we have a right to know what he is saying to foreign leaders that makes them so supportive of his candidacy. American voters are the ones charged with determining the outcome of this election--not unnamed foreign leaders."
What a great point made by the Vice-President. While Senator Kerry claims to be a "man of the people", he ridiculed the voter who asked him who the foreign leaders were, and he acts as if he can just make statements like "foreign leaders want me to win" without backing them up. It's an irresponsible disregard for the truth, and we should be very careful before we vote for a man who would presume to use unnamed foreign leaders to influence our vote.
(0) comments
What a great point made by the Vice-President. While Senator Kerry claims to be a "man of the people", he ridiculed the voter who asked him who the foreign leaders were, and he acts as if he can just make statements like "foreign leaders want me to win" without backing them up. It's an irresponsible disregard for the truth, and we should be very careful before we vote for a man who would presume to use unnamed foreign leaders to influence our vote.
Daily Log: 3/17/2004: Yesterday morning I stopped by the new Wal-Mart that opened about a mile from our house. It's very nice and will be more convenient for us.
Last night we went to care group (our church's weekly Bible study). After a few songs and prayer, we discussed the first 8 chapters of Romans and how they applied to the uniqueness of the Christian faith.
Savannah did quite well despite being up past her bed time. The young ladies in the care group love to watch her and play with her and we enjoy their willingness to help us in that regard.
After care group we ate some Girl Scout cookies and I discussed the theory of evolution with a couple of the other men. Then we went home and went to bed!
A very enjoyable day!
(0) comments
Last night we went to care group (our church's weekly Bible study). After a few songs and prayer, we discussed the first 8 chapters of Romans and how they applied to the uniqueness of the Christian faith.
Savannah did quite well despite being up past her bed time. The young ladies in the care group love to watch her and play with her and we enjoy their willingness to help us in that regard.
After care group we ate some Girl Scout cookies and I discussed the theory of evolution with a couple of the other men. Then we went home and went to bed!
A very enjoyable day!
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Mr. Rowe responds: Mr. Rowe has responded to my questions below concerning the Supreme Court, natural rights, and state law.
(0) comments
Daily Log: 3/16/2004: Not much different from Monday. Read Joshua 4-6 on the way to work. Had a good day at work. Read more of Master and Commander on the way home.
Emily, a young woman in college and career group, was visiting with Shallen when I got home. Savannah was a "wild woman" when I got home, jumping up and down in her walker, and laughing and yelling. Emily stayed and we all had dinner around 6:15 pm (sloppy joes and macaroni and cheese....yummmm).
At 7:00 pm a medical technician showed up with tests, etc., for our life insurance. We checked out fine. My blood pressure and pulse were normal. It was weird to have my blood drawn again.
At 7:30 pm I did some work for church, then joined Shallen in the family room. She watched "American Idol" while I finished Master and Commander. Shallen worked on music for church then we went to bed around 11:00 pm.
It was a great day!
(0) comments
Emily, a young woman in college and career group, was visiting with Shallen when I got home. Savannah was a "wild woman" when I got home, jumping up and down in her walker, and laughing and yelling. Emily stayed and we all had dinner around 6:15 pm (sloppy joes and macaroni and cheese....yummmm).
At 7:00 pm a medical technician showed up with tests, etc., for our life insurance. We checked out fine. My blood pressure and pulse were normal. It was weird to have my blood drawn again.
At 7:30 pm I did some work for church, then joined Shallen in the family room. She watched "American Idol" while I finished Master and Commander. Shallen worked on music for church then we went to bed around 11:00 pm.
It was a great day!
Mini Book Review: Master and Commander, by Patrick O'Brian, is a delightful read. It's the first book in the Aubrey/Maturin series, which focuses on the exploits of Captain Jack Aubrey, a British sea captain around the turn of the 19th century, and Stephen Maturin, an Irish doctor who meets up with Aubrey in Port Mahon (in the Mediterranean).
The two quickly discover that they share a love of music, and Maturn is in need of employ, so he agrees to serve as doctor aboard the Sophie, a 14 gun sloop that is the first command assignment for Aubrey. They have all sorts of adventures: escorting merchantmen across the Med; cruising to capture French or Spanish merchantmen, etc.
The most enjoyable aspect of the book is the interplay between Aubrey and Maturin as they encounter different circumstances. Maturin is quick to notice that "prize-taking" is the chief end of the sailors aboard the Sophie, because each member of the crew takes a share in the value of the seized ship's hold. Maturin, being a humanist, naturalist and a bit of a romantic, sees how greed drives the crew more than patriotism. Aubrey, on the other hand, is the consumate naval officer, seeking prizes and glory and battle, and ultimately advancement to the rank of "post-captain." Maturin hates wars, and Aubrey loves war. It's an interesting relationship.
O'Brian is a skillful writer. The opening chapter is one of the finest I have ever read. Near the end, he holds the readers attention, despite the fact that the main characters are only witnesses to the climactic battle between the British and the French/Spanish. The only thing that makes the book slightly inaccessible are the nautical terms. O'Brian assumes nautical knowledge in his reader. I'm not sure if I know more about sailing now than I did before I read the book, but I do know that a ship "sets its royals" when it wants to go somewhere really fast.
9/10
(0) comments
The two quickly discover that they share a love of music, and Maturn is in need of employ, so he agrees to serve as doctor aboard the Sophie, a 14 gun sloop that is the first command assignment for Aubrey. They have all sorts of adventures: escorting merchantmen across the Med; cruising to capture French or Spanish merchantmen, etc.
The most enjoyable aspect of the book is the interplay between Aubrey and Maturin as they encounter different circumstances. Maturin is quick to notice that "prize-taking" is the chief end of the sailors aboard the Sophie, because each member of the crew takes a share in the value of the seized ship's hold. Maturin, being a humanist, naturalist and a bit of a romantic, sees how greed drives the crew more than patriotism. Aubrey, on the other hand, is the consumate naval officer, seeking prizes and glory and battle, and ultimately advancement to the rank of "post-captain." Maturin hates wars, and Aubrey loves war. It's an interesting relationship.
O'Brian is a skillful writer. The opening chapter is one of the finest I have ever read. Near the end, he holds the readers attention, despite the fact that the main characters are only witnesses to the climactic battle between the British and the French/Spanish. The only thing that makes the book slightly inaccessible are the nautical terms. O'Brian assumes nautical knowledge in his reader. I'm not sure if I know more about sailing now than I did before I read the book, but I do know that a ship "sets its royals" when it wants to go somewhere really fast.
9/10
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
Daily Log: 3/15/2004: I want to start a daily log, largely so our families in Indiana, West Virginia, Illinois, etc., can better know what we are doing. So we will try to do this as often as we can.
Yesterday I got up around 6:30 am. I wish I could be more disciplined. I need to get up at 5:30 am. I have too much to do and too much to read. I usually read my Bible in the slug car in the mornings but I would rather do that in my den where it's much more quiet. Please pray for my discipline in getting up when you get a chance.
I shaved and was in the shower by 6:40. Out of the shower and dressed by 7:00. Savannah wakes up and I get her out of the crib and to Mommy. Then downstairs and breakfast, feed the dog, make my lunch, take out the dog, feed the cat (if I'm not mad at her), then leave by 7:30.
Arrive at commuter lot at 7:45. Into slug car by 7:50. Read Joshua chapter 1-3. There's something about the people of Israel crossing the Jordan that gets me every time I read it. As if God wasn't awesome enough to part the Red Sea, He then collects the waters of the Jordan in a great heap also. Good stuff!
Arrive Rosslyn Metro station at 8:15. Into Metro train and arrive at office at 8:30.
Work work work.
Leave work about 4:30 pm. Read about ten pages in Master and Commander on the way home. Get home about 5:35 pm. Take Savannah upstairs (she was on the kitchen floor playing with a pot and a wooden spoon while Shallen made dinner) and change while she sits on the bed and plays. She smiles at me every time I turn around and look at her. She still has a death grip on the wooden spoon.
Downstairs and play with Savannah while Shallen makes dinner. We have dinner about 6:15 pm. It's a delicious "bbq chicken ring". Savannah sits in the new chair we got from our relatives back in Indiana. Shallen is a wonderful cook.
I head downstairs to do some church business after dinner, while Shallen feeds Savannah and puts her to bed. Jeff stops by, a young Marine in our church's college and career group. He wants us to store his muzzleloader because they won't allow it on base at Quantico (odd, I know). Jeff and I have a nice chat in my den about a number of issues. Jeff heads off to college and career group around 7:30 pm and I follow shortly after.
At college and career I lead a discussion on the book Twentysomeone, which will be the basis of our group for the next 3-4 months. I ask the young people to think about the next ten years of their life: what do you see happening? Marriage, college, job, etc., are the popular responses. Then we talk about what the Bible has to say about these things, which is quite a bit, but we also talk about the need for prayer and discernment to fill in the details.
Home by 9:30 pm. Shallen is in den doing some music work for church. I sit in one of the leather chairs and read a comic book while she finishes up. Around 10:00 pm I take the dog out, head upstairs with Shallen, read another comic book while she finishes getting ready, and it's lights out by 10:30 pm.
What a wonderful day!
(0) comments
Yesterday I got up around 6:30 am. I wish I could be more disciplined. I need to get up at 5:30 am. I have too much to do and too much to read. I usually read my Bible in the slug car in the mornings but I would rather do that in my den where it's much more quiet. Please pray for my discipline in getting up when you get a chance.
I shaved and was in the shower by 6:40. Out of the shower and dressed by 7:00. Savannah wakes up and I get her out of the crib and to Mommy. Then downstairs and breakfast, feed the dog, make my lunch, take out the dog, feed the cat (if I'm not mad at her), then leave by 7:30.
Arrive at commuter lot at 7:45. Into slug car by 7:50. Read Joshua chapter 1-3. There's something about the people of Israel crossing the Jordan that gets me every time I read it. As if God wasn't awesome enough to part the Red Sea, He then collects the waters of the Jordan in a great heap also. Good stuff!
Arrive Rosslyn Metro station at 8:15. Into Metro train and arrive at office at 8:30.
Work work work.
Leave work about 4:30 pm. Read about ten pages in Master and Commander on the way home. Get home about 5:35 pm. Take Savannah upstairs (she was on the kitchen floor playing with a pot and a wooden spoon while Shallen made dinner) and change while she sits on the bed and plays. She smiles at me every time I turn around and look at her. She still has a death grip on the wooden spoon.
Downstairs and play with Savannah while Shallen makes dinner. We have dinner about 6:15 pm. It's a delicious "bbq chicken ring". Savannah sits in the new chair we got from our relatives back in Indiana. Shallen is a wonderful cook.
I head downstairs to do some church business after dinner, while Shallen feeds Savannah and puts her to bed. Jeff stops by, a young Marine in our church's college and career group. He wants us to store his muzzleloader because they won't allow it on base at Quantico (odd, I know). Jeff and I have a nice chat in my den about a number of issues. Jeff heads off to college and career group around 7:30 pm and I follow shortly after.
At college and career I lead a discussion on the book Twentysomeone, which will be the basis of our group for the next 3-4 months. I ask the young people to think about the next ten years of their life: what do you see happening? Marriage, college, job, etc., are the popular responses. Then we talk about what the Bible has to say about these things, which is quite a bit, but we also talk about the need for prayer and discernment to fill in the details.
Home by 9:30 pm. Shallen is in den doing some music work for church. I sit in one of the leather chairs and read a comic book while she finishes up. Around 10:00 pm I take the dog out, head upstairs with Shallen, read another comic book while she finishes getting ready, and it's lights out by 10:30 pm.
What a wonderful day!
A good article on marriage: Science-fiction novelist Orson Scott Card writes about marriage in a thought-provoking piece. I don't agree with everything he says--I think he places too much faith in democratic action and too much faith in "tradition"--but I agree with much of what he says. He certainly raises some rational reasons for our current marriage law. He also, being an author, knows about the value of words and applying consistent meaning to them.
(0) comments
Some good news for President Bush: A New York Times/CBS poll shows President Bush with a slight lead, with 46 percent to Senator Kerry's 43 percent. If Nader is included, however, the President leads by 46 percent to 38 percent.
(0) comments
Monday, March 15, 2004
"None of our business," says Kerry: John Kerry says it's "none of (our) business" which foreign leaders were pulling for him to beat the President in the general election.
(0) comments
Drudge with scoop on Mel Gibson, President Bush: Drudge says Mel Gibson is having second-thoughts about President Bush, concerning the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Of course, lots of conservatives and libertarians are having the same doubts about WMDs, but also doubts about farm subsidies, new prescription drug benefits, campaign finance reform, etc.
(0) comments
Sunday, March 14, 2004
The RIGHT Place: Still waiting on those "words of wisdom" from Andy Boenau at The RIGHT Place.
(0) comments
New Blog: Mr. Tim Bayly, the teaching elder (pastor) at Church of the Good Shepherd (CGS) in Bloomington, IN, started a new blog here. Shallen and I sat under Tim's teaching from shortly after our marriage--in 1998--until the summer of 2001. Tim's sermons are compelling, convicting, and glorifying to God. You can listen to most of his recent sermons on sermonaudio.com.
To give you a little insight into how much Tim loves those God has placed under his care: the last words he ever spoke in person to me, after the last Sunday service we attended at CGS in June, 2001, were: "Don't commit adultery." Tim is a man who loves God and loves others. You will benefit from reading his thoughts and opinions.
(0) comments
To give you a little insight into how much Tim loves those God has placed under his care: the last words he ever spoke in person to me, after the last Sunday service we attended at CGS in June, 2001, were: "Don't commit adultery." Tim is a man who loves God and loves others. You will benefit from reading his thoughts and opinions.
How do you define "tear this country apart?": Jonathan over at Freespace has an interesting, if unsatisfying, response to an e-mailer who advocates a state-based resolution of issues like marriage and religion. The e-mailer said:
“Freedom of religion should be left to the states, not the federal government, for the same reasons that abortion should be left to the states. Rather than having a majority rule the entire country on [divisive] issues, such as school prayer, you should have the states experimenting with finding a correct balance. The market forces will eventually demonstrate which state policy is correct, and allow for dual successful models where appropriate. It is entirely rational to see Western states adopting very Newdow-like policies and the Bible-belt sticking to school prayer.”
Jonathan responded by saying:
"Although I think there is tremendous merit to states' rights solutions, the problem here is that the religion clauses are essentially derived from the natural right of liberty of conscience. States ultimately don't have proper final authority over our natural rights. But that doesn’t mean that states shouldn’t have the first crack at righting wrongs. The states’ rights model is often useful in helping to secure natural rights because sometimes its just not feasible to secure these rights at the national level, better to let the states do their best to secure them, and then have the national government step in when the time is right. Slavery is a good example—it certainly wasn't feasible to secure those natural rights at the time of the founding (the slave states wouldn’t have ratified the Constitution if this were demanded) and it ultimately took a civil war to do it. I think Lawrence v. Texas was properly decided—but at the time it was, only 13 states had sodomy laws. Ditto with Loving v. Virginia—only 16 states had laws against interracial marriage at the time that case came down. There may very well be a natural right to gay marriage (or not). But the US Supreme Court ought not to impose gay marriage any time in the near future—it would tear this country apart. Leave it up to the states, and maybe when say 35 of them voluntarily recognize gay marriage, then have the Feds step in and secure the right in all states."
I would love to see him elaborate on this. Is he suggesting that the Supreme Court can override state decisions on "natural rights" if there are enough states that take a certain view? Was the deciding factor in Lawrence, for example, the fact that only 13 states had anti-sodomy laws? Is the Supreme Court to rule by situational ethics...with the number of state laws (or international laws) on a certain view being the determining factor of the ethic du jour?
And I would ask Jonathan: if this country is not being torn apart right now over a number of social issues (abortion and homosexuality, chiefly), just exactly how do you define "tear this country apart"?
(0) comments
“Freedom of religion should be left to the states, not the federal government, for the same reasons that abortion should be left to the states. Rather than having a majority rule the entire country on [divisive] issues, such as school prayer, you should have the states experimenting with finding a correct balance. The market forces will eventually demonstrate which state policy is correct, and allow for dual successful models where appropriate. It is entirely rational to see Western states adopting very Newdow-like policies and the Bible-belt sticking to school prayer.”
Jonathan responded by saying:
"Although I think there is tremendous merit to states' rights solutions, the problem here is that the religion clauses are essentially derived from the natural right of liberty of conscience. States ultimately don't have proper final authority over our natural rights. But that doesn’t mean that states shouldn’t have the first crack at righting wrongs. The states’ rights model is often useful in helping to secure natural rights because sometimes its just not feasible to secure these rights at the national level, better to let the states do their best to secure them, and then have the national government step in when the time is right. Slavery is a good example—it certainly wasn't feasible to secure those natural rights at the time of the founding (the slave states wouldn’t have ratified the Constitution if this were demanded) and it ultimately took a civil war to do it. I think Lawrence v. Texas was properly decided—but at the time it was, only 13 states had sodomy laws. Ditto with Loving v. Virginia—only 16 states had laws against interracial marriage at the time that case came down. There may very well be a natural right to gay marriage (or not). But the US Supreme Court ought not to impose gay marriage any time in the near future—it would tear this country apart. Leave it up to the states, and maybe when say 35 of them voluntarily recognize gay marriage, then have the Feds step in and secure the right in all states."
I would love to see him elaborate on this. Is he suggesting that the Supreme Court can override state decisions on "natural rights" if there are enough states that take a certain view? Was the deciding factor in Lawrence, for example, the fact that only 13 states had anti-sodomy laws? Is the Supreme Court to rule by situational ethics...with the number of state laws (or international laws) on a certain view being the determining factor of the ethic du jour?
And I would ask Jonathan: if this country is not being torn apart right now over a number of social issues (abortion and homosexuality, chiefly), just exactly how do you define "tear this country apart"?
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Revisiting Lochner: I hadn't read the Lochner decision since law school, but I had a chance to read it again on the plane this morning. It's relatively short, and a wonderful illustration of the two major theories of constitutional interpretation that have competed for prominence since 1789.
For those unfamiliar with the facts of the case, at issue was whether a New York state law that restricted bakers to working no more than 60 hours a week was a violation of the rights of the baker, and his employer, to buy and sell labor without interference by the state.
It's interesting to note that the majority and dissent don't disagree that an individual has a right to contract, and that the states are bound to respect this right. There is also no disagreement over the general nature of the police powers of the state, as both the majority and the dissent agree that the states have a large sphere of power to regulate the health, safety and morals of the community.
What is a major source of disagreement is how much deference the judiciary should accord to the state legislature. The majority opinion argues, at great length, that the New York legislature could not plausibly argue that the law in question was enacted to protect the health, safety or morals of the community, that the number of hours worked by an individual were left to the individual and his employer, and that any restriction on this right that was not reasonably connected to the state's police powers will necessarily be unconstitutional under the 14th amendments protections of life, liberty and property.
The dissent(s) argued that it was not the place of the federal judiciary to second-guess the state legislatures and that the federal courst should afford a wide deference to legislative enactments in furtherance of the state police powers. Justice Harlan maintained that a federal court should give a presumption of constitutionality to state legislation, and that the burden of proof was on those who argue that a law is unconstitutional. Harlan also argued that the courts needed to take cognizance of the changing nature of society (i.e. becoming more industrial) and that the rise of industrialism would create the need for more, not less, state regulation.
Justice Holmes went even further, arguing that the Constitution was agnostic on the subject of economics, that it seemingly was designed to compromise between competing economic ends, and that it was ridiculous to envision that the Founders had economic relationships in mind when they wrote the Constitution.
I hope the reader can see how dangerous the views of Justice Harlan and Holmes are for our liberties. I would submit that we cannot call ourselves free if the acts of our legislatures are treated as presumptively constitutional. The burden of proof should rest on those who make the law, not on the governed. It is preposterous to suppose that the drafters of the Constitution would create a system of government where a legislature would have as much power, or be treated with the same deference, as the King of England.
And to insist, as Justice Holmes does, that the Constitution is silent with regard to economic relationships, is just as dangerous to the spirit of liberty. If a man does not have a property in his person and his right to earn an honest living, than he is not free in any meaningful sense. And the Constitution went to great lengths to protect this, and other, freedoms as well.
Unfortunately, the Lochner decision was short-lived. It was overruled in 1937. The view of Harlan and Holmes has largely dominated the judiciary ever sense, especially when it comes to economic regulation. Federal courts are far more willing to reverse a state decision on moral regulation than in economic regulation.
(0) comments
For those unfamiliar with the facts of the case, at issue was whether a New York state law that restricted bakers to working no more than 60 hours a week was a violation of the rights of the baker, and his employer, to buy and sell labor without interference by the state.
It's interesting to note that the majority and dissent don't disagree that an individual has a right to contract, and that the states are bound to respect this right. There is also no disagreement over the general nature of the police powers of the state, as both the majority and the dissent agree that the states have a large sphere of power to regulate the health, safety and morals of the community.
What is a major source of disagreement is how much deference the judiciary should accord to the state legislature. The majority opinion argues, at great length, that the New York legislature could not plausibly argue that the law in question was enacted to protect the health, safety or morals of the community, that the number of hours worked by an individual were left to the individual and his employer, and that any restriction on this right that was not reasonably connected to the state's police powers will necessarily be unconstitutional under the 14th amendments protections of life, liberty and property.
The dissent(s) argued that it was not the place of the federal judiciary to second-guess the state legislatures and that the federal courst should afford a wide deference to legislative enactments in furtherance of the state police powers. Justice Harlan maintained that a federal court should give a presumption of constitutionality to state legislation, and that the burden of proof was on those who argue that a law is unconstitutional. Harlan also argued that the courts needed to take cognizance of the changing nature of society (i.e. becoming more industrial) and that the rise of industrialism would create the need for more, not less, state regulation.
Justice Holmes went even further, arguing that the Constitution was agnostic on the subject of economics, that it seemingly was designed to compromise between competing economic ends, and that it was ridiculous to envision that the Founders had economic relationships in mind when they wrote the Constitution.
I hope the reader can see how dangerous the views of Justice Harlan and Holmes are for our liberties. I would submit that we cannot call ourselves free if the acts of our legislatures are treated as presumptively constitutional. The burden of proof should rest on those who make the law, not on the governed. It is preposterous to suppose that the drafters of the Constitution would create a system of government where a legislature would have as much power, or be treated with the same deference, as the King of England.
And to insist, as Justice Holmes does, that the Constitution is silent with regard to economic relationships, is just as dangerous to the spirit of liberty. If a man does not have a property in his person and his right to earn an honest living, than he is not free in any meaningful sense. And the Constitution went to great lengths to protect this, and other, freedoms as well.
Unfortunately, the Lochner decision was short-lived. It was overruled in 1937. The view of Harlan and Holmes has largely dominated the judiciary ever sense, especially when it comes to economic regulation. Federal courts are far more willing to reverse a state decision on moral regulation than in economic regulation.
Monday, March 08, 2004
Is Gay Marriage a Right?: The folks over at Real Clear Politics explore how homosexual activists are going for the "whole enchilada" in the gay marriage debate. I don't agree with everything they say, because I think the gay marriage issue is much more than "tradition v. tolerance." But they do have a good point about the inconsistency in Andrew Sullivan's thoughts on the issue. Click here.
(0) comments
Worshipping the State: My good friend Tim Sandefur, over at Freespace, charges that those who think marriage should be exclusively between heterosexuals "think of the state as a way to make society conform to their moral vision, they tend to see the legalization of new forms of living as a personal threat to their own private moral purity." There are certainly some people who have such faith in the state that they need it to conform to their own moral vision. But of course the homosexual activists who want marriage to include those of the same-sex are doing the exact same thing. They want the state to conform to their moral vision, which allows for those of the same sex to marry. In both cases, individuals are divinizing the state by clamoring for its blessing and approval. Just another reason that the best resolution to this issue may be for states to get out of the marriage business altogether.
Bob Barr, former Georgia Congressman, has some wise words about the controversy here. Barr takes a very federalist approach to the issue, basically saying that someone who lives in Virginia shouldn't be any more concerned about gay marriage in Massachusetts than they should about gay marriage in Holland. Of course, I am concerned about gay marriage everywhere, but I don't presume to legislate for the people of Massachusetts or Holland.
(0) comments
Bob Barr, former Georgia Congressman, has some wise words about the controversy here. Barr takes a very federalist approach to the issue, basically saying that someone who lives in Virginia shouldn't be any more concerned about gay marriage in Massachusetts than they should about gay marriage in Holland. Of course, I am concerned about gay marriage everywhere, but I don't presume to legislate for the people of Massachusetts or Holland.
9/11 is a serious campaign issue: Charles Krauthammer with a thought-provoking piece on the importance of 9/11 in the presidential campaign, and why 9/11 is important to all of us, and not just the families of the individuals who were, sadly, killed in the terrorist attack.
(0) comments
THE PASSION Box-Office Numbers: Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST continues to do incredible business at the box office. It tallied over $50 million this past weekend, and stands at a total of over $212 million in less than two weeks.
This helps to confirm a suspicion I have had for a while: Hollywood vastly misunderstands the people who do or will go to the movies. Since money talks in Hollywood, I would guess that we are going to see a resurgence of movies about religion, and Christianity in particular.
(0) comments
This helps to confirm a suspicion I have had for a while: Hollywood vastly misunderstands the people who do or will go to the movies. Since money talks in Hollywood, I would guess that we are going to see a resurgence of movies about religion, and Christianity in particular.
Friday, March 05, 2004
Welcome to our new "blog." Now you can keep up to date with our family, and also hear Chris drone on and on about theology, law and politics!
(0) comments
