Thursday, March 3, 2011


A great man said

"In securing our liberties, the most difficult thing is learning to tolerate the liberties of others."

~Parker Renfrew~

(Yea I know thats me. Hey what can I say I am GREAT!!)

Two issues I would like to discuss are the Supreme Court Ruling on Funeral protests and the Defense of Marriage Act

No individual wants their liberties to be denied. Some liberties we don't fully exercise and are unconcern if they are threaten. But at times liberteis we exercise but will want other denied those liberties to others who will exercise the same liberties but in a different manner.

Freedom of Speech is one such liberty. Where one exercises it or what they say while exercising it will become reason to deny others freedom of speech. People will get offended by what others say, how they say it or where they say it. "I'll will deny you freedom if you offend me." But such an attitude will lead to all losing freedom. Even if we find it obscene.
It was pointed out one time that prosecuting someone for Obsenity is very chilling to speech. One does not know they have done something wrong until after the speech is made and at one place it would be accepted and protected but another place (local standards) it would be prosecuted. And think how because of one place finds it obscene would prevent it from being heard or seen in a place where it would be protected. Just in order to prevent those who would be offended by it from prosecuting others for it.

Defense of Marriage Act

I would like to do a bit more research on this one but I do want to get my initial thoughts down.

President Obama comes out and says his administration will not prosecute the act because its unconstitutional. And then he is criticized for it.

My first thought on this is to wonder about a previous law passed by congress during the Clinton administration, and later overturned by the Supreme Court. This was the stomping video case. At the time of the bill sighing Clinton order the justice department to narrow the scope of enforcement. Since the legislation was so broad, it could encompass other videos, such as ones dealing with hunting. President Bush and Obama administration both decided to narrow the enforcement of the law. I am glad they did so. To what extent is it different. An administration believing a law to be unconstitutional either in part or in its entirety, should not enforce that law.

Lets look at the Presidential Oath,

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. "

It does not say the to protect and defend the laws passed by congress and signed by a President. The oath talks about the constitution. If any administration, finds a law or a part of a law unconstitutional. Its the President's duty to not enforce it in order to protect the constitution.

I am will to change my thought on this but will need to do some more research.

No comments: