In the judge Roy Moore, Alabama Ten Commandment case several years back, another judge, a Federal judge, decided that Alabama couldn’t have a Ten Commandment monument in their state courthouse. The monument was removed and so was Roy Moore. The Alabama Court of the Judiciary later removed judge Moore from office for putting the monument in the courthouse in the first place.
Although I think it foolish to pull Moore from his seat, I also think it acceptable, for one central and Constitutional reason. It was the Alabama Court of the Judiciary that removed him. Key word, here, ALABAMA!
People somehow have the fatuous and erroneous idea that if a state does something, makes some decision, then we all run like little children in a schoolyard and tell the adult Federal judge playground guard what the state did and the Federal judge will take care of it. Can you see it? The Federal judge staring down at the state, stern knitted brow, eyes boring into the shameful face of the state, then says to the misbehaving state, “Don’t make me come over there!” And, according to these same uh . . . well, ignorant people, the state should bow its head, acquiesce, and go sit in the corner.
How’d that work in the Dred Scott case?
No Federal officer, judge or other, has a right to tell a state what religious symbols, images, or icons it can or cannot have in its state offices. In fact, if my state of Oklahoma wants to have Christianity, or any other faith, as its state religion, it has every Constitutional right to do so under the tenth amendment, which says,
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
To prove that a state can be prohibited from having a state religion by the Federal Government, one need only show me where in the Constitution it is that POWERS ARE DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to tell a state it cannot have a state religion. Very simple, ACLU.
But, that’s not the problem.
A recent decision by U.S. District judge, Edmond Chang, on the city of Chicago’s attempt to ban all sales and transfers of firearms was struck down on Monday. He said,
“The stark reality facing the City each year is thousands of shooting victims and hundreds of murders committed with a gun. But on the other side of this case is another feature of government: certain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside government’s reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment.”
Now, to me, it stretches believability to the breaking point that a federal judge can be so ignorant. And I don’t’ believe he is. I don’t believe a Federal judge can be that ignorant of the law. Nor do I believe Edmond Chang to be so. I think he knows full well that his quote above is inaccurate and misleading. I don’t know the man, but given his words, I would guess him to be among those who see judges as micro-rulers, mini-monarchs, seated in their lofty position of sage and hoary headed ______.
“Let us go to the wise one, my son. He, in his all-knowing wisdom, will tell us what is right.”
Uh . . . no. It doesn’t work that way. At least, that’s not the way it’s supposed to work. That’s not how our Founding Documents and the real wise men that wrote them intended it to work.
Here’s Chang’s quote:
“But on the other side of this case is another feature of government: certain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside government’s reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment.”
Really Mr. Federal judge? Really, that’s what the Constitution says? Hmmm . . . you know, I’ve read that document in general and the 2nd amendment in specific, many times and I don’t recall it saying . . . wait, hold on . . . if memory serves, yes, yes I don’t believe the Second Amendment says “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense.” No, I don’t think it reads that way.
And I don’t believe judge Chang does either.
One would think that someone as learned and erudite as Edmond E. Change, lawyer, one time associate at the Chicago headquarters office of the global law firm Sidley Austin, someone with a degree in aerospace engineering, someone with a law degree from Northwestern University School of Law, would know that both the Second Amendment and The Constitution do not have the words, “for self-defense” in them anywhere!
If he is indeed that ignorant of our nation’s highest and most supreme cannon, then how in bloody hell did he get to be a U.S. District judge?
And if he is not, in fact, such an ignoramus as to be ignorant of what the Constitution says when he is making a decision on it, why, again, in bloody hell, would he misquote it?
There’s only one answer to that question but a request from my superiors for decency and respect restrict me from giving it.
But, bad as he might seem, Mr. Chang, and others like him, are not the problem this great Nation faces. It is, rather, the people who have allowed such a one as he, and others like him, to achieve the positions they hold.
As long as We the People allow men and women who think of the Constitution as a mere ‘springboard of suggestion’ from which they may jump, adding their own high-minded ideals and political philosophies, then we will always be in danger of them forcing those inimical philosophies on the citizens of the United States of America.
Who knows, with totalitarians like that, one day we might even have a group of judges decide that it’s perfectly legal to murder millions of babies every year.
Oh . . . wait . . .