Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.
Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem.
As Socrates says, thinking I coined a new term, I defined the word “homosexist” only to find it listed already in 2008 on “Queers United” as “Word of the Gay: Homosexism.” “Homosexism” is the belief that gay or lesbian identities are superior to bisexual and/or straight orientations. The “homosexist” viewpoint sometimes leads to discrimination against those who are not homosexual. Labels: breeder, discrimination, gay power, homosexism, homosexist, superior gay, word of the gay.”
The term, now approved by the indigenous population, also appears on a few other handily cryptic websites, www.marriagereality.org.
Webster defines “homosexual” as “of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex.” Many homosexuals, aware of their early physical and/or emotional wounding, are now “ex-gays,” while others quietly endure.
However, the suffixes -ist, -ism, -ize connote someone who holds certain principles, doctrines, schools of thought, as in “sexist” or “racist.” Synonyms include “chauvinist, doctrinaire, dogmatist, fanatic, fiend, maniac, monomaniac, opinionated, partisan, persecutor, zealot” – as opposed to “humanitarian, liberal, tolerator.”
“Homosexualists” are zealots, partisans, chauvinists and persecutors, dogmatists in their fanaticism (see “Partner Solicitation Language as a Reflection of Male Sexual Orientation”).
Even the left-leaning Wikipedia admits “homosexists” label normal married couples “breeders,” “a term of disparagement used primarily by homosexuals to describe heterosexuals who have produced or will produce offspring.”
The Urban Dictionary explains the slur “breeder” – “A female breeder is commonly called a moo, and a male breeder a duh. 2: slang term used by people of homosexual persuasion to refer to heterosexual couples,” offering as a typical usage:
Can you believe the nerve of those breeders? Their … children make a huge mess and do not even tip the waitstaff. Disgusting …
In our study, “Partner Solicitation Language as a Reflection of Male Sexual Orientation” (1995), Dr. Charles Johnson and I analyzed the premier “gay” magazine, The Advocate.
Was The Advocate humanitarian, or homosexist? To answer that question, our research rank-ordered the numbers of most-to-least “In Search of” advertisements. The Advocate published ads and essays on sex with boys and on how to seduce “straight” men and boys. I have sanitized the language for this column.
As of this writing, online books and video guides on “seducing straight men” are being sold, including such copy as:
“GAY SEDUCTION”
“LEARN THE ART OF SEDUCING STRAIGHT MEN”
“How To Seduce Straight Guys: After Reading this Guide, YOU will have the confidence to SEDUCE ANY Straight Guy.”
Our research included an analysis of Bruce Rodgers’ renowned “Queens’ Vernacular: a Gay Lexicon” (1972).
“Encyclopedia of Homosexuality,” editor Wayne Dynes, says “QV” is the foremost gay lexicon, “reissued without change as ‘Gay Talk.'” “The Joys of Gay Sex” authors Silverstein and White agree, as does homosexualist icon Dennis Altman.
However, two brave lesbians protested that the book recollects “misogynistic … concepts and values.” (www.sex-lexis.com)
Misogynistic homosexists?
Since objective researchers rarely study the homosexist press, few would consider “gay” zealots to be sexist misogynists. However, the “Queens’ Vernacular” and “Gay Talk” include only hostile, bigoted, fanatic, maniac, partisan, obscene words to define normal love, marriage, women, men, military men, childbirth, and children.
In 1828, Noah Webster’s “An American Dictionary of the English Language” included 12,000 new words distinguishing Americans from Britons. Webster said, “A national language is a band of national union”; its words shape national thoughts and actions.
Like Webster, homosexualist lexicographer Bruce Rodgers published “A Gay Lexicon” of 12,000 unique words to identify “gay” thoughts and actions. Rodgers’ dictionary offers a “religious” worldview, a “gay” national language for a “gay” nation completely unlike the heterosexual, straight nation. Our research question was: What is the “national language” of the 12,000 words of “A Gay Lexicon”?
Ranked by “QV” words, homosexist life most focused on: 1) sex with boys, 2) prostitution, 3) no time, anonymous sodomy, 3) phallic size, and 5) sadism. Marriage as fidelity or permanence was statistically non-existent.
Webster has one phrase and six words to define boy: “Young unmarried man, fellow, guy, lad, stripling, youth, youngster.” The “QV” has 254 words for “boy,” largely predatory, typical of a doctrinaire homosexism. For example:
Chicken, a young recruit; any boy under the age of consent, heterosexual, fair of face and unfamiliar with homosexuality; Pluck some feathers: rip off a drumstick; skin some chicken. babette; baby; baby buggy; baby butch; baggage-boy; bait; bait the hook, etc.
Prison had 223 words, 182 words described men as girls, masturbation 147, women 134, military sex 82, and straights 63. Words for women were bigoted and mean, including 67 words for “whore” and 26 for “b—h.” Even sex with military men includes “seacow” as a girl with a sailor boyfriend. As to “straights,” a man who loves a woman is “pig suck.” A “pimp” is “a heterosexual woman’s legally married spouse … what gay men really desire is not another gay man, it’s a straight man.”
If a “homosexual man who has turned to women” is “pig suck,” if boys are “chickens” to be “barbecued,” and if “mother” is one who “introduced another to homosexual activity,” then it is fair to say that a tyrannical, doctrinaire zealotry lurks within “Spirit Day,” a hostile spirit of “homosexism.”
The 12,000 words in the “QV” and “Gay Talk” objectively identify “gay” activists as homosexists, as intolerant aggressors against women and normal sexuality. As “Queers United” says, “Homosexism” is the belief that gay or lesbian identities are superior to bisexual and/or straight orientations.”
Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.
The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on WorldNetDaily on March 11, 2011. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.
So, our primary aim in working together ought to be to preserve and enhance the arena of open, honest public discussion of the great issues of life, not to shut it down with coercion, mind-control, or delusionary “relative” truth and pseudo-pluralism. Only the powers of darkness profit from our fear of discussing “religion” and “politics” among ourselves. It is time we grew up. Objective truth is the only possible level playing field on which any two persons can communicate. Any other ground means the subversion of truth and therefore of communication and communion.
Jews and Christians believe (or should believe) that God Himself has created this level playing field and is inviting His creatures onto it, as in “Come, let us reason together…” (Isaiah 1:18)
The contest is vigorous. Secular materialism, or naturalism, wants the world to believe that it has both a moral and ontological foundation, an order discoverable by unaided reason. But, I think it can be shown, secular materialism has no capacity to explain the original beginnings of all things, and thus no capacity to explain why inductive reasoning, the very foundation of empirical science, works—a fatal flaw.
The secular world, in short, cannot deal with singularities and contingencies (which is what the empirical world is all about) to make them orderly. When it is not busy denying, it must assume, because it cannot explain, all the metaphysical realities of life in order to get on with its chosen business of discovering the truth about the empirical world.
By singularities, I mean things which just seem to be there on their own, not logically necessary and not necessarily deducible from other things or conditions.
And contingencies are, similarly, those things which have no ontological stability of their own, and thus require ontological explanation. They could have been other than they are because their very being (the Greek ontos) comes from something outside of themselves.
A world full of singularities and contingencies which have no ontological basis is an irrational world, a world in which no predictions can be made, a world in which no explanations can be made about why things are the way they are. And thus, as Stark so starkly points out, no science.
Dr. Earle Fox is IAI’s Senior Fellow in Philosophy of Science and the Worldview of Ethical Monotheism.
This article is an extract from the Preface (section A-3-c) of Dr. Fox’s book A Personalist Cosmology in Imago Dei: Personality, Empiricism & God, Vol. I. See also Dr. Fox’s new Book Abortion, the Bible and America.
The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.
The beginning of true wisdom is understanding your limitations so you can discern the good from the bad and develop the common sense to choose the good.
One government bureaucrat, who had been very clever as a child, started to think that government workers knew more then those citizens for whom he worked. He admitted that elected officials were prone to corruption, but bureaucrats were special.
Did they know how to run a company? Probably not, but they could tell people running companies how to run them.
Did they know how to cure my wife’s disease – cicatricial pemphigoid? Of course not, but they could tell her doctors how to treat her.
Could they make a great Hollywood movie? Maybe, but doubtful.
In fact, they all were singularly incompetent, but they thought they could run other people’s lives.
So, the cure is simple:
Before they go into government, make each potential bureaucrat do something else –anything productive – for at least seven years. Then, make sure they don’t stay in government more than five years, and test them frequently for bureaucratic arrogance.
Furthermore, they should all have to watch THE LIVES OF OTHERS, read about Austrian Economics, raise a family, run a business, work on a farm, and ask forgiveness constantly for having their cohorts at the IRS steal our money to pay for their service to the taxpayers they are supposed to serve.
Finally, they must not receive a pension, no way, no how!
Of course, another solution is not to give so much power to government and government bureaucrats, including judges and the judicial/legal system, in the first place!
After all, as God makes perfectly clear in 1 Samuel 8:1-20, big government and high taxes are signs of slavery.
So, maybe the Christian church should take back all of the power that modern governments have stolen in the last 150 years or so. To that end, we perhaps should look to what Moses had to say to the assembly or church of God’s chosen people about the power of the church and its leaders in Deuteronomy 16:18-20:
“Appoint judges and officials for each of your tribes in every town the Lord your God is giving you, and they shall judge the people fairly. Do not pervert justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous. Follow justice and justice alone, so that you may live and possess the land the Lord your God is giving you.”
Amen! So be it!
Editor’s Note: Dr. Tom Snyder, editor of MOVIEGUIDE® contributed to this column.
Dr. Ted Baehr is the founder and publisher of MOVIEGUIDE, chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission, and a well-known movie critic, educator, lecturer and media pundit. He also is the author of several books, including “The Culture-Wise Family” with legendary entertainer Pat Boone, and a Distinguished Senior Fellow for Study of Culture, Media, and Mass Entertainment at the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought. For more information, please call 800-899-6684 or go to the MOVIEGUIDE website.
The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.
But since at least the late 1700’s, all three have been spiced with an increasingly secular flavor so that the Biblical worldview has been all but chased from the public arena in the West, and secular interests have laid claim to these three crown jewels of Western Civ., science, politics, and economics. Christians participate in all three, but only rarely as Christians. And when they do, they are thought to be very much out of place — and by some, dangerous.
Nevertheless, that which ordered our freedom and gave rise to Western civil law was precisely the moral law of God, as stated in the American Declaration of Independence, and symbolized, for example, by the Decalogue posted in the American Supreme Court, and by celebration of the Biblical themes in American history all through the capitol building in Washington, D. C.
And, more to the point for our present purposes, that which ordered the cosmos, making the rise of empirical science almost inevitable, was the natural law of God — which alone gave rational order to the world. No cosmology other than the Biblical offers such a foundation, so that what we call science today could have arisen only in a culture such as that of the Biblical Middle Ages, that supposedly benighted era from which “enlightened” secularism claims to have saved us. No cosmology other than the Biblical asserts that the cosmos is orderly, morally good, and designed to be human-friendly — three essentials for the rise of science.
The secular worldview wants to claim the crown jewels of Western Civilization as its own production, but that worldview could not have produced those jewels. It got them from the Biblical view, now in such bad repair and repute (when one can find it at all).
The Middle Ages was hardly perfect, and was only beginning to explore some of the wider possibilities of Biblical culture. It failed to provide the intellectual, moral, and spiritual leadership which could have averted the schisms of the Reformation, the resulting religious wars, and the devastating secular response to the mess that Christians (not Christ) had made. But those failures do not change at all the fact that without the Biblical base, empirical science as we know it could never have arisen. Rodney Stark writes in his conclusion to The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Let to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success:
Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand-copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were, say, in 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth — a world truly living in “dark ages”.
The modern world arose only in Christian societies. Not in Islam. Not in Asia. Not in a “secular” society — there having been none. And all the modernization that has since occurred outside Christendom was imported from the West, often brought by colonizers and missionaries[2].
If that seems absurd and pluralistically challenged, consider the following:
One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world. We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West is so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.
And who would write such outrageous prose? Stark introduces that paragraph as a recent statement by one of Communist China’s leading scholars”. Perhaps the same Chinese communist leader who said that if he had his choice of a national religion, it would be Christianity — because it was the Christians, he said, who were taking care of the social problems, reaching out to the poor and needy[3].
Making Christianity a “national religion” (if that means enforced) would, of course, effectively destroy its power of redemption. Judeo-Christianity is built on freedom, not coercion.
The secular and the pagan worlds are deficient in both ontological and moral substance[4]. That is a bold counter-cultural claim, for which this present volume and those to follow are part of my attempt to help establish the point. As Stark peers into the sociological and cultural reasons for the (to most contemporary Westerners) astonishing Biblical foundations of science, economics, and a freedom-promoting government, likewise we are here peering into the metaphysical reasons for it being so.
As Stark and others document, to almost all of the early scientists it was not astonishing, it was just ordinary fact, the way things were. They were discovering God’s laws after Him. And, despite the blunders and crimes of an all too-often power-oriented Church, it was also standard teaching among both catholic and protestant Christians up through the colonial period. The sovereignty of God over all things was part of English common law, as recorded by William Blackstone, the preeminent English jurist at the time of the American Revolution, and as understood by our founding fathers[5]. God was understood to be sovereign precisely because He was creator. The ontological and moral foundations are logically wedded[6].
Among others aiming to get Christians back into the fray are some in the Intelligent Design movement, about which these volumes will have much to say[7]. The 21st century promises to be quite different from the previous two, as Christians, with painful slowness, regain their intellectual, moral, and spiritual credibility.
[1] Democracy was universally despised by the American founding fathers, who saw it (rightly) as mob rule, the tyranny of the majority. In practice, it turns into a tyranny of the elite who learn how to manipulate the levers of government over that now hapless and atomized majority, to their own advantage. What the Constitution gave us, as Ben Franklin noted, was a republic. America is a democratic republic under God. There is, of course, a democratic element (the people chose their own rulers, and are thus the primary officers of the state). America is a republic in that the laws are made not by the people directly, but by their elected representatives. And, it is all under the law of God, as stated by the Declaration of Independence. Only under the law of God can either rights or obligations be objective, let alone inalienable. See Bibliography for Defining ‘Oughtness’ and “Love” on the case for the law of God being the only foundation for objective ethics. Freemarket capitalism set the common man free from the plundering of the rich and powerful (and hence fostered the rise of a middle class), but it could happen only under the growing political freedom provided by the emerging Biblical political structure which rested on the notion that all men are created in the image of God. The powerful became less and less able to plunder the poor. Rodney Stark makes this case in The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success. Capitalism, the boogie man of socialism and communism, becomes dangerous only when it colludes with government, whether communist or fascist. It tries to enlist the coercive power of government to secure its profits against competition. Government then becomes a player in the commercial game and can no longer be an honest referee.
[2] The Victory of Reason, p. 233.
[3] Ibid., p. 235.
[4] These claims against secularism and paganism will be given some substance here in Personality, Empiricism, & God, but will receive further explanation in Yahweh or the Great Mother?
[5] See William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol. 1, Section the Second, “Of the Nature of Laws in General” ISBN 0-226-05538-8.
[6] See Bibliography for my article, Defining ‘Oughtness’ & ‘Love’.
[7] See Chapter XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX
Dr. Earle Fox is IAI’s Senior Fellow in Philosophy of Science and the Worldview of Ethical Monotheism.
This article is an extract from the Preface (section A-3-b) of Dr. Fox’s book A Personalist Cosmology in Imago Dei: Personality, Empiricism & God, Vol. I. See also Dr. Fox’s new Book Abortion, the Bible and America.
The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.
(ii) The Establishment of the late 1800s deceived the Plains Indians politically through numerous “treaties” that the Great Father in Washington imposed on the Tribes but never honored. Similarly, through its phony “two”-party system, the present-day Establishment has stripped Americans of electoral power to regain control of their country’s economic system and thus their own lives in their own land. This disability is not primarily a matter of rigged elections. Even where elections are scrupulously honest, the results do not matter. The names and party labels of the politicians who are voted in or out may change, but the policies they eventually enact into law do not. As their forebears did with the Indians, contemporary politicians make innumerable “treaties” with common Americans—platforms of political parties, pledges by candidates, promises of officeholders—the vast majority of which none of them has the least intention of honoring.
Even more revealing than this deceitful conduct in general is that modern politicians say nothing at all about reforming—or even investigating the shaky performance of—the monetary and banking systems in particular. Neither the “two” parties, nor their nominees for high office, nor politicians once elected make any promises about money and banking (except, perhaps, that they will urge the Federal Reserve System to expand “credit,” thereby exacerbating the problem). None of them questions the legality or expediency of the Federal Reserve System and its special privilege to create “credit” and “currency” out of debt. And none of them proposes to return the country to constitutional “Money” of silver and gold (as Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 requires), to rein in “fractional-reserve banking,” or otherwise to establish a system of sound money and honest banking on free-market principles. This calculated reticence exposes whose interests the “two” parties really serve.
(iii) The Establishment of the late 1800s generally reviled the Plains Indians’ religion, on the ground that it offended the mainstream Christianity of that era. In dealing with white men, the Indians’ only recourse was to petition the Great Father in Washington, not the Master of Life (often interpreted by white men as “the Great Spirit”) to whom even Christians believed the Great Father was subject. Foresighted Christians (as well as all other monotheists) should have taken no comfort from this, because in less than a century the Establishment came openly to revile Christianity, too—and aggressively to deprive common Americans of any appeal to religion in public affairs, perforce of radical “separation of church and state.” Many individuals assume that this dogma is intended only to stop theological bickering among different religious sects from spilling over into practical politics. Its real purpose, however, is far less benign.
For the modern Establishment, the only “law” is “positive law”—that is, “law” enacted in some statute, or declared in some judicial opinion. No “higher law” of any kind exists by which to judge the legitimacy—and especially the illegitimacy—of “positive law.” This belief plainly negates the principles set out in the Declaration of Independence, that Americans are entitled to “assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them”; that “all men * * * are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”; that “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”; that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government”; and that “when a long train of abuses and usurpations * * * evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
To the contemporary Establishment, however, that contradiction is of scant moment. Indeed, where the Establishment is concerned, outright denial of the Declaration’s tenets is the order of the day. To set up its New World Order, the Establishment must deny America’s national independence. To that end, it must deny that Americans are entitled “to assume among the powers of the earth” a “separate and equal station”—and assert instead that their incumbent government can tell them so. To that end, the Establishment must deny both that “unalienable Rights” set limits to governmental power, and that, to be legitimate, governmental authority must encompass “just powers” only. To that end, it must deny Americans the right to choose their own form of government—and, in particular, the right to change the form of their government when public officeholders threaten their liberties and prosperity. Above all, the Establishment must deny the very existence of any “higher law”—”the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”—to which the people can appeal from all these other denials.
This complex of negations has long been the rule where money and banking are concerned. As a medium of exchange intended for free and honest men, true “money” self-evidently rests on a “higher law” that binds individuals, private banks, and governments: Thou shalt not steal. Doubtlessly, that inherent connection between function and precept led the Framers of the Constitution to set out Congress’s power “[t]o coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin” in the selfsame provision that contains its power to “fix the Standard of Weights and Measures” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 5). This juxtaposition teaches, as a matter of constitutional principle, that “Money” cannot be suffered to be dishonest, any more than “Weights and Measures” can.
Yet the recent history of money and banking in America—which must be described as political history, because it can claim next to no basis in constitutional law—is rife with dishonesty. For example, where “Money” is concerned:
Similarly, where banking is concerned, Congress licenses “forced savings.” Apparently, this is predicated on the assumption that, by redistributing real wealth from average Americans to the bankers and their clients through the emission of new “credit” and “currency,” this country will experience greater “economic growth”—and, derivatively, the tax bureaucracies can rake in larger revenues—than if that wealth were left in the possession of the people who actually earned it. (On an analogous theory, in the Kelo case the Supreme Court erased constitutional protections for private property against direct seizure by eminent domain.) Of course, such reasoning would rationalize every variety of dishonest weights and measures, too—because imposing “forced savings” on Americans by short-changing them on goods would also leave more real tangible wealth in the hands of special interests purportedly better able to use it.
(iv) The Establishment of the late 1800s assaulted the Plains Indians with the systematic immigration of aggressive, acquisitive white settlers, and incursions by avaricious miners and buffalo hunters, into Tribal lands—all too many of these invasions being illegal, at the least because they violated outstanding treaties. The tactic of conquest through immigration was intended, not simply to despoil the Indians of their lands, but also to destroy them as independent peoples, by denying them the very territory and resources that alone could support their traditional way of life—leaving them with no alternative except to give up their political, economic, and cultural institutions, and be absorbed into an alien society. Unless they forcibly resisted the settlers and other trespassers—in which case the Tribes were subjected to punitive campaigns by the Army aimed at their extermination.
Contemporary Americans are victims of the same tactic. Today’s massive illegal immigration is no accident, but an agenda; not something about which public officeholders can do nothing, but as to which they are intentionally facilitating everything. If the present-day Establishment cannot deprive the generality of common Americans of their land and their way of life in the straightforward way the Indians were dispossessed, it can and has set about demolishing their traditional culture—economic, social, and political—through an all-out attack of “multiculturalism” in which illegal immigrants serve as shock troops. The goal is to destroy America’s national independence—her “separate and equal station” “among the powers of the earth”—first by merger of all the countries in the Northern Hemisphere; followed by merger of all the countries in the Western Hemisphere; and completed by globalization.
The means are floods of aliens who, by failing or refusing to assimilate, will deprive America of a cohesive national identity and integrity. Economically, massive illegal immigration provides a cheap and submissive work force, in order to lower the general American standard of living (even more than exportation of jobs is already doing), and thereby grease the economic skids for a regional merger with Mexico. Socially, massive illegal immigration sows division, dissension, and conflict, and sets up opportunities for the Establishment to employ “divide-and-conquer” tactics, so that Americans will not stand shoulder-to-shoulder in defense of national sovereignty. And politically, massive illegal immigration infests this country with people who know and care nothing about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in particular, or constitutionalism in general, and thus dilute the influence of those who still do. All this will lay the groundwork for a Caesaristic police state, because that is the only form of “government” most illegal immigrants have ever known; that is what they will assume prevails here, too; that is what they will expect of “government;” and at length that is what they will help to make of it.
The monetary lesson this situation teaches is clear. Most illegal immigrants come from countries with no constitutional tradition of sound money, and certainly no recent experience with it. For such people, in comparison to the media of exchange they knew in their native lands Federal Reserve Notes are “hard currency!” And the “solution” they have almost always seen their leaders apply to economic and political problems at home has been rampant inflation of “currency” and “credit.” Vanishingly small, then, will be the likelihood that here they will align themselves with Americans who press for a return to constitutional money and banking. Rather, they will demand more of that to which they have been accustomed. And,
(v) The Establishment of the late 1800s would have totally disarmed the Plains Indians had the situation warranted it. For native Tribesmen with a tradition of waging war who had recently proven their mettle in numerous engagements could not be systematically dispossessed and oppressed if left with adequate means to fight back. And such a policy could easily have been rationalized on the ground that, as euphemistic “wards” of the United States—or, more realistically, as conquered, subjugated, and dependent peoples stripped of their sovereignty—the Indians had no right to arms. Pervasive “gun control” never proved necessary in that era, however, because so few warriors remained to claim their ancestral prerogatives by wager of battle. Contemporary Americans pose a far more difficult problem for the present-day Establishment.
Far from being mere dependent “wards” of the United States, legally subject to politicians’ whims, Americans—in the Constitution’s first and most important words, “We the People”—are this country’s earthly sovereigns, who have reserved to themselves “the right * * * to keep and bear Arms” on the ground that “[a] well regulated Militia[ is] necessary to the security of a free State” (Amendment II). Moreover, although most common Americans share no particular tradition as warriors of recent memory, tens of millions of them now possess and know how to use firearms well enough to be potentially dangerous to aspiring usurpers and tyrants. Therefore, inasmuch as the Establishment intends to eliminate America’s national sovereignty, which resides in We the People—and inasmuch as arms have always been throughout Western history the primary indicia of, and means for retaining, sovereignty—the Establishment must at some stage in the not-too-distant future attempt to employ pervasive “gun control” to strip common Americans of the arms that symbolize, and in a crisis could be used to claim and confirm, their sovereignty. Doubtlessly, the Establishment plans to achieve this goal through the paramilitarized National police state it is setting up under the guise of “homeland security.”
The relation of this situation to money and banking is plain enough. The two great powers of government are the Power of the Sword and the Power of the Purse—in that order. In his Discourses on Livy, Macchiavelli exploded the shibboleth that “gold forms the sinews of war,” with his commonsensical observation that “gold cannot always find good soldiers, but good soldiers can always find gold.” This insight Mao Tse-tung confirmed in the dictum he drew from experience, that “[p]olitical power grows out of the barrel of a gun”: For the Power of the Purse is a political power; and if (as with all other political power) it “grows out of the barrel of a gun,” then the Power of the Sword must be its antecedent and superior. Moreover, the Second Amendment codifies this relationship as a principle of American constitutional law: For if “[a] well regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State,” and the Power of the Purse is a power of such a State, then “[a] well regulated Militia[ is] necessary” for “the security,” and ultimately the exercise, of the Power of the Purse—making the Power of the Purse dependent upon the Power of the Sword.
So, should the Establishment ever succeed in disarming common Americans, their hopes for sound money and honest banking would be dashed on the rocks of despair. Based on economic theory, it is a near certainty that, absent extensive reforms, the present regime of fictitious “currency” and “credit” will collapse. Based on America’s own political experience, a very strong possibility exists that, absent Militia “organiz[ed], arm[ed], and disciplin[ed]” and “call[ed] forth to execute the Laws” as the Constitution mandates (Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16), a financial dictatorship will take over in response to the ensuing chaos. (Indeed, on a small scale this is exactly what happened from 1932 to 1934, with the implosion of the Federal Reserve System and the installation of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, the central policy of which was to “go off the gold standard”—that is, to empower bankers and politicians to expand the supplies of unsound “currency” and “credit” more than ever before). And, based on the adage that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” the likelihood that such a dictatorship, on its own initiative, will ever relinquish power to We the People and return this country to constitutional standards asymptotically approaches zero for as long as the dictatorship persists.
Dr. Edwin Vieira is IAI’s Distinguished Senior Fellow in Jurisprudence and Constitutional and Monetary Law.
This article was originally published originally published on April 9, 2012, on NewsWithViews.
The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.
The problems in Ukraine are immense. Ukraine has the highest HIV/AIDS rate in Europe, a large white slavery prostitution trade, high alcoholism, and low wages. Its beautiful women are renowned around the world, but mainly as sex slaves and mail-order-brides in other countries.
In the midst of the conference on family issues, some of the government officials were proud that they had introduced American initiated sex education.
MOVIEGUIDE® has carried many articles exposing the fallacy of sex education. As Dr. Judith Reisman and other scientists have shown, sex education not only shows kids how to do it but also gets them excited about doing it. Thus, MOVIEGUIDE® supports abstinence, which has been proven to work, if taught properly.
But, it occurred to me, hearing about the abuses in the porn industry and the orphanages in Ukraine, that what we should propose is Love Education, which we all need. Love Education helps children learn that real satisfaction comes not from lust, which is self-centered, avaricious and often thoughtless, but from Love, which cares for the other person, supports the other person, builds memories that last, and gives long-lasting joy.
Where do we find Love Education? In the flesh, we find it in Jesus Christ, and, for more detailed information, we have the New Testament, which is the Word of God.
At its Ukraine conference, the International Congress of the Family discussed everything from sexually transmitted diseases to family planning, to the dignity of life, to the basics of sustaining a good marriage, to the importance of Christian faith.
One of their biggest concerns, however, was the influence of the western media. I was able to address those concerns and teach them the first steps toward media wisdom. Many people asked for permission to translate my MEDIA-WISE FAMILY book and its into Lithuanian, Ukrainian, Polish, etc.
In the battle for the culture, we often focus on the conflict between the various secular worldviews such as materialism and socialism. In its visit to Ukraine, however, the Congress showed that the most important worldview in winning the culture wars and redeeming the values of the media is the Christian faith and its foundation on strong biblical principles. This faith and these principles can teach everyone how to live a better life, not only in Ukraine but throughout the whole world.
What a difference it would make if sex education courses were replaced by Christian Love Education courses! And, what a difference it would make if the mass media promoted Christian Love Education rather than lustful sex education!
Divorce rates would go down, AIDS rates would go down, and abandoned children would find loving homes. Best of all, the joy of giving would melt the Scrooge-like hearts of the opulent societies of the West, including the lust-minded executives in the mass media of entertainment.
Of course, with God, all things are possible.
Dr. Ted Baehr is the founder and publisher of MOVIEGUIDE, chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission, and a well-known movie critic, educator, lecturer and media pundit. He also is the author of several books, including “The Culture-Wise Family” with legendary entertainer Pat Boone, and a Distinguished Senior Fellow for Study of Culture, Media, and Mass Entertainment at the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought. For more information, please call 800-899-6684 or go to the MOVIEGUIDE website.
This article was originally published on MovieGuide on July 20, 2012. The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.
Monday, January 22, 1996, marked the 23rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The annual March for Life took place in Washington. Other pro-life demonstrations occurred throughout the country. My wife, Marilyn, and I were in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, the state capital and home of Louisiana State University. On Monday morning a pro-life student group set up a mock “cemetery. . . on the LSU Parade Ground. . . featur[ing] 4,400 crosses. . . and a tiny white casket draped by an American flag with a single red rose on top.” The Advocate B1-B2 (Jan. 23,1996).
At noon a number of pro-choice demonstrators invaded the parade ground and placed coat hangers on the crosses. The hangers, the protesters claimed, symbolized the “crude tools women formerly used to obtain unsafe, illegal abortions.” The crosses, the p ro-lifers maintained, “were memorials to unborn children whose mothers legally aborted their pregnancies.” Id. at B1.
Buried in the local newspaper coverage of this event was a brief account of another event, held later on Monday evening and on the same campus. It was a debate on the question: “Did the U. S. Supreme Court Legalize Abortion in Roe v. Wade?” The reporter informed his reader that there were two sides to this issue. But that did not deter him from stating as fact that “the Supreme Court decision. . . legalized most abortions.” Id. at B2. Nor did the debate topic stop
local television news reports from making similar “factual” statements that the Court make abortion “legal” when it decided Roe v. Wade.
The Baton Rouge media treatment of the Court’s opinion was no different from that of other media throughout the country. In The New York Times, for example, the reporter covering the March in Washington opened his story with reference to Roe v. Wade as “the landmark Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion. . . .” The New York Times A12 (Jan. 23, 1996).
This opening statement also captioned the picture placed above the story headline. And the reporter found opportunity to repeat it twice in the body of the article, making it unmistakable that the Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade had made abortion legal. By repeating again and again that abortion is legal, the national media has placed itself squarely on the side of the pro-abortionists. After all, if abortion is now “legal,” then the only question is whether it is immoral. Most pro-life activists and politicians have accepted these terms as the premise of the ongoing debate. While they are quick to assert that the Court was wrong and should be overruled, they accept that Roe v. Wade is, at least for the time being, the ” law of the land.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. Roe v. Wade is not the law of the land because, in the nature of things, a court opinion cannot be law. Second, it is not law because, by definition, a court order cannot be law. Finally, Roe v. Wade is not th e law of the land because it is not the law of the Constitution. For these three reasons, the United States Supreme Court did not – indeed could not – legalize abortion in Roe v. Wade.
JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
Article VI, Section 2 of the United States Constitution lists three things as “the supreme law of the land”: (1) This constitution; (2) The laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance of it; and (3) All treaties made, or which shall be m a de, under the authority of the United States. Conspicuously absent from this roll is a court decision.
This omission was not an oversight. The Constitution’s framers left court opinions off the list because no one believed that they were law. Instead, they believed, as did their contemporaries, that a court opinion, even if rendered pursuant to the Constitution or to a statute or to a treaty, is only “evidence of law.” See I Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 69, 71 (1765).
This is true because of the limited nature of judicial authority. Judges, Blackstone wrote in 1765, have no authority to make law. They may only discover it, state it, and apply it. Even the common law, although unwritten, preexisted and stood independent of a court opinion expounding upon it. Id. at 67-69.
Thus, while a court opinion, having been written by experts in the common law, is “most authoritative evidence. . . of the existence of” such law (Id. at 69), Blackstone asserted: The law, and the opinion of the judge, are not always convertible terms, or one and the same thing; since it sometimes may happen that the judge may mistake the law. Id. at 71.
If a judge was mistaken about that law, then, according to Blackstone, his opinion was not “bad law, but that it was not law” at all. Id. at 70. If this is true about judicial authority at common law, where law is determined by unwritten custom, it must be true of judicial authority under a system of positive law, where law is determined by the authority of some body other than the courts. A written constitution is law, Chief Justice John Marshall claimed in the famous case of Marbury’s v. Madison, 5 U. S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), not because the judges say so, but because the people have made it so: The people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness. Id. at 176. By definition, judges have absolutely no authority to substitute their principles for those adopted by the people. To ensure that the judges, and other government officials do not overstep their authority, the American people put their principles in writing lest they “be mistaken, or forgotten.” Once put in writing, according to Marshall, that writing “form[s] the fundamental and paramount law of the nation” and any act “repugnant to the constitution, is void.” Id. 176-77.
After determining that the Constitution was law because the people made it so and because it was written, Chief Justice Marshall turned his attention to the authority of the Supreme Court to decide constitutional questions. To answer this question, he stated the common law premise upon which all judicial authority rests:
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Id. at 177. By this statement he did not mean that the courts have the authority to make constitutional law. He had already affirmed that only the people had that authority. What he meant is what Blackstone had written just a generation earlier, namely, that the judge was to discover the law and to state it.
Marshall had already done that. He had read a statute enacted by Congress and discovered that it commanded the Court to take jurisdiction of the case before it. He had also read the Constitution and had discovered that it prohibited Congress from conferring such jurisdiction. The “very essence of judicial duty,” Marshall wrote, was to “determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case.” Id. at 178. In deciding that the constitutional prohibition governed, rather than the statute, Marshall did not claim that the Court was making law; rather, he wrote that the Court was merely deciding that the law of the constitution was “superior to any ordinary a c t of legislature.” Id.
In making his decision, Marshall did not pretend that the Court’s ruling was equivalent to the law of the Constitution. To the contrary, Marshall concluded that the Constitution governed the Court, just as it governed the Congress. He supported this conclusion with particular reference to language in the Constitution.
First, he noted that a number of provisions in the Constitution directly limited the power of the courts: From these, and other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of the courts, as well as of the legislature. Id. at 179-80. Second, he observed that judges, like members of Congress, were bound “by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution:” How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support. . . Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if th a t constitution forms no rule for his government? Id. at 180.
Finally, he turned to Article VI, Section 2 with the comment “that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.” Id. at 180.
From this clause, and the previous ones mentioned, Marshall concluded that the Constitution as it is written is superior to the courts, as well as to Congress and the President: . . .The particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. Id.
For Marshall to have claimed otherwise would have been to elevate the Court above the people, and a court opinion above the constitution. That would have contradicted the very foundation upon which Marshall had concluded that the constitution was law.
JUDICIAL POWER
Presidents from Thomas Jefferson to Abraham Lincoln understood this point quite well and acted accordingly. For example, Congress enacted the Sedition Act of 1798, making seditious libel a federal crime. Led by Jefferson and James Madison, the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures passed Resolutions charging that the sedition Act was unconstitutional. In the Virginia Resolution, Madison included a provision rejecting the contention “that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution, in the resort”: . . .Dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by other departments, but. . . the judicial department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; . . . consequently, . . .
the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations. . . by the judiciary, as well as by the executive, or the legislative. The Virginia Report. 196 (J. Randolph, ed. 1850).
According to this view, then, the “parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments hold their delegated trusts” must be the final expositor of the constitution: On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with others in usurped powers, might subvert for ever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the Constitution which all were instituted to preserve. Id.
Jefferson, Madison, and their fellow Republicans, therefore, rejected any notion that the courts, by upholding the constitutionality of the Sedition Act, had thereby “legalized” federal prosecutions for seditious libel. See Levy, Freedom of the Press from Zenger to Jefferson (1966)
After he became President, Jefferson pardoned everyone convicted under that Act because, in his opinion, the law was unconstitutional. In a letter written to Abigail Adams in 1804, Jefferson explained his action: You seem to think that it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the sedition law. But nothing in the Constitution has given them a right to decide for the Executive, any more than for the Executive to decide for them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment, because that power was placed in their hands by the Constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it; because that power has been confided to him by the Constitution. 8 The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 310 (Ford ed. 1897).
Jefferson was right. Article II, Section 3 states that the President “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” It does not say that he take care that “court orders” be faithfully executed. A court order is not the law of the land; only the Constitution and laws conforming to it are. Nothing that Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Marbury v. Madison undermines Jefferson’s claim. If a legislative act “repugnant to the constitution, is void,” as Marshall penned in Marbury, then a court order repugnant to that constitution is void.
For, as Marshall stated, “the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature. Marbury v. Madison, supra, 5 U. S. at 179-80.
In 1832, President Andrew Jackson followed in Jefferson’s footsteps. He vetoed on constitutional grounds an act to recharter the bank of the United States, even though the Court had upheld a previous measure as constitutional. In his veto message, Jackson wrote:
It is maintained by the advocates of the bank that its constitutionality in all its features ought to be settled by precedent and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I can not assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional power except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered well settled. 2 Messages and Papers of the Presidents 576-589 (Richardson ed. 1897).
Later in his message, Jackson put the Court into its proper place in relation to Congress and the President: It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may b e brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their Legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve. Id.
Finally, Abraham Lincoln refused to accept the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U. S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) as the law of the land. In the campaign for United States Senate in 1858, Lincoln denounced Dred Scott, suggesting that it w a s part of a conspiracy to nationalize slavery.
Lincoln’s opponent, Stephen Douglas, responded: The right and province of expounding the Constitution, and construing the law, is vested in the judiciary established by the Constitution. — As a lawyer, I feel at liberty to appear before the Court and controvert any principle of law while the question is pending before the tribunal; but when the decision is made, my private opinion, your opinion, all other opinion must yield to the majesty of that authoritative adjudication. Quoted in Brest and Levinson, Processes of Constitutional Decision Making 2 11 (3d Ed. 1992).
A week later, Lincoln refuted Douglas: . . . [I]n respect for judicial authority . . . Judge Douglas . . . would have the citizen conform his vote to that decision; the member of Congress, his; the President, his use of the veto power. He would make it a rule of political action for the people and all departments of government. I would not. Id. at 212. All that Lincoln would concede to Douglas was that Dred Scott was binding on the parties to the case. By limiting the scope of the court’s order to the parties, Lincoln correctly confined the reach of judicial power. Judges, by the nature of the office , have no right to issue rules of general applicability, but only to apply preexisting rules to the facts and parties to the case. Marbury v. Madison, supra, 5 U. S. at 178. Having no authority to promulgate rules, no court opinion or order can possibly be law, because law by definition is a rule binding on people generally, not just upon individuals who happen to be parties to a case. I Blackstone, Commentaries at 38-39, 4 4.
To conclude otherwise would, as Jefferson argued, install unelected federal judges as “despots:” Our judges see as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. . . Their power is the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible . . . to elective control. The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
To guard against judicial despotism, the people chose a written Constitution, the text of which is binding on courts as well as on the legislature and the executive. What is striking about the Supreme Court’s opinion in Roe v. Wade is that the Court ma d e no attempt whatsoever to ground its opinion in the constitutional text. Justice Blackman candidly admitted that the “Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to privacy.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 152 (1973). Notwithstanding the absence of a specific text, he approvingly observed, “the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy . . . does exist under the Constitution.” Id. (Emphasis added).
By choosing the word, “under,” instead of the word, “in,” to describe the source of the right of privacy, Justice Blackman justified the Court’s decision to ignore the specific texts of a number of constitutional provisions, and to probe below the surface to the “roots” of the First Amendment, to the “punumbras of the Bill of Rights,” and to “the concept of liberty . . . of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id., 410 U. S. at 152-53.
By digging beyond the constitutional text, the Court declared its independence from it, substituting words and phrases in court precedents for the language of the Constitution. The Constitution simply served as the Court’s springboard to leap from the ” privacy rights” of marriage, procreation, contraception, child rearing and education to a right to terminate a pregnancy, none of which are found in the constitutional text. Thus, it really did not matter to the Court whether it anchored its decision ” in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty . . . or in the Ninth Amendment.” Id., 410 U. S. at 153.
The Court’s cavalier treatment of this issue was deliberate. It was designed to hide the fact that neither the text of the Fourteenth Amendment nor the text of the Ninth Amendment lends an iota of support to the Court’s opinion. As for “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment, prior to Roe v. Wade the Court had consistently defined liberty as a legal term.
In Roe, the Court for the first time considered liberty to be a psychological, sociological, and economic expression. “The unwanted child,” Justice Blackman contended, would cause a woman psychological stress, would impose family responsibilities, and occasion economic hardships. Therefore, he concluded, the woman had a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Id., 403 U. S. at 153.
What an astounding claim! If taken seriously, it could be extended to any situation that interferes with a person’s desire to be free from responsibility from another, including a handicapped infant, a dying parent, or even a cantankerous spouse. What is even more astounding is that the Court elevated the woman’s desire to be free from her parental responsibilities above the interest of innocent human life in the womb. The Court did so by labeling that life less than fully human. And it camouflaged that ruling with repeated assertions that the Constitution only protects “post-natal’ life. Id., 403 U. S. at 158-62.
That is not true. The Ninth Amendment, cited by the Court in favor of its decision, in reality directly contradicts it. That provision states that the “enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (Emphasis added).
The word, retain, denotes that the rights expressly guaranteed by the constitutional text should not be construed in such a way as to deny rights not specified, but that preexisted in the Constitution. This rule of construction should have led the Court to ask the question whether its reading of the liberty provision of the due process clause – granting a right to terminate a pregnancy – would “deny or disparage” a right “retained” by the people. Had the Court asked this question – which it did not – it would have found that its distinction between “potential” and “full” human life violated the unalienable right to life as stated in the nation’s charter, the Declaration of Independence. That document, in pertinent part, states that “all men are created equal” and endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life and, further, that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men. As for the right to life, the Declaration is clear, that right belongs equally to all human beings – without regard to race, sex, or birth. According to the law of the Creator, as confirmed by the science of biology and genetics, human life begins at conception. Senate Report on The Hum a n Life Bill – S. 158 pp. 10-16 (97th Cong., 1st Sess. 1981).
Under this definition of the right to life, there can be no distinction based upon whether the life is in the womb or out of it, whether the life is “potential” or full. Yet, that distinction lies at the very heart of Roe v. Wade in direct contradiction of the right to life retained by the people in the Ninth Amendment.
CONCLUSION
In its Preamble, the Constitution states, as one of its purposes, “to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” A document designed to secure the blessings of liberty to posterity – the yet to be born – cannot be construed to deny to the posterity the right to life.
Roe v. Wade has done just that. It is, therefore, not law, but an unconstitutional and illegal act usurping the people’s right to laws that secure the unalienable right to life. It is time to denounce Roe v. Wade as completely void and of no legal effect whatsoever.
Dr. Herbert Titus is IAI’s Distinguished Senior Fellow in Constitutional Law, Jurisprudence, and Public Policy.
This article was originally published on February, 1996, by The Forecast, Vol 3. No. 5.
The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.
