Liberalism and Optional Law
Conservatives are split on whether or not the Kentucky clerk, Kim Davis, should be in jail because she refuses to allow an illegal edict by the Supreme Court to overrule the democratically passed law of Kentucky.
On one hand, because conservatives believe in the rule of law there is a natural tendency to say that even if we, especially government officials, don’t like a Supreme Court ruling we have to abide by it.
On the other hand, there’s the fact that liberals constantly break the law with impunity. For example, Jerry Brown refused to defend Prop 8 and Obama refused to enforce DOMA yet neither are in jail.
Essentially the question is should conservatives accept rule of law for conservatives but not for liberals?
The sad reality is that rule of law -- that the laws apply equally to all Americans -- no longer exists in America. Obama’s imperial presidency, sanctuary cities, and the liberal establishments refusal to enforce laws they don’t like means that the law does not apply equally, even in principle, to all Americans.
Some cite the Constitutional remedies such as impeachment but the reality is that the liberal politicians have no honor and will support their own no matter what, as they did when Bill Clinton committed perjury to protect himself from sexual-harassment charges.
Remember that in contrast, when Nixon did illegal things, conservatives condemned him.
Effectively both impeachment and amending the Constitution are nearly impossible to achieve unless conservatives have overwhelming majorities since liberals have no honor. The Supreme Court can issue rulings and Obama can use his pen far faster than legal remedies can be implemented, giving those who think the law does not apply to them a big edge.
The question then is: is it worse to accept chaos? Liberals and conservatives both ignoring certain laws, or tyranny, only liberals get to ignore the laws they don’t like.
Clearly good conservatives can disagree on which option is better.
But ceding only to liberals the right to break the law with impunity gives them a huge leg up on converting the country to the liberal run “paradise” they desire.
For example, if that philosophy had been in place in 2000, then Al Gore would have been president since only votes in Democrat-leaning districts would have been “recounted”.
We’ve seen this sort of asymmetry before where laws were passed that prohibited peaceful protests in front of abortion mills but allowed protests in front of military bases. That asymmetry however did not result in people losing their jobs or being ghettoized.
If we accept the ruling on Kim Davis we face a serious potential problem in a number of other areas. Liberals have fought for example to force doctors and nurses to participate in abortions and to require doctors to learn abortion procedures in medical school.
If we accept the fact that conservatives must bow to the law even though liberals don’t, it will set the stage for laws compelling nurses at public hospitals and in the VA to participate in abortions since they too are “government employees”.
We’ve already seen Catholic adoption organizations with great records for helping kids shut down because they won’t put kids into gay “families”. Just recently a Catholic organization with an amazing record of helping women who were being sex trafficked was forced to stop because it wouldn’t refer those women for abortions.
We also see this in the cases where gay bakers aren’t required to bake a cake saying "homosexuality is bad" but Christian bakers are required to bake cakes for gay “weddings”.
We have no obligation to obey unjust laws that force Blacks to the back of the bus or deny religious liberty to people. But do we have an obligation to follow unjust laws that persecute Christians? Most people would probably say no.
Is it time to resist the enforcement of unjust laws? Is today like the 1960s, a time when unjust and immoral laws should be ignored?
Given that liberals have no problem using the full force of the government against anyone who objects to unjust laws our options are either acceptance of second-hand citizenship for the American people or standing up to the liberal elites and saying no moreThe issue of gay “marriage” is clear-cut. The Constitution never mentions marriage but it does say that whatever the Constitution does not cover is reserved to states. That’s why the 14th Amendment had to be passed -- to ensure that blacks were treated fairly -- and why an act of Congress was required to grant Native Americans citizenship. As a result it’s clear that Chief Justice Roberts is right when he wrote:
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.
But if we accept that conservatives must adhere to any whim coming out of the Supreme Court, especially when it overthrows laws voters have supported, then conservatism in American is doomed.
We all know that if the Supreme Court should someday rule that being gay is a crime -- which also has no basis in the Constitution -- that liberals would get away with not enforcing that with impunity.
When deciding how we should address the case of Kim Davis, we need to keep in mind that liberals have demonstrated that they don’t believe in the rule of law. We’re not fighting with honorable men but with people who believe they are better than the rest of us.
We are in an ideological conflict with liberals who are at heart monarchists or oligarchists. Liberals reject the rule of law because they believe that they are right and that we should all be forced to live as liberals wish us to live. That’s why liberals have no problem forcing American schoolchildren to eat what liberals say they should.
The question we face is what is the best path to get us back to an America where the rule of law applies to everyone and where laws come from the political process not judicial edicts.
While the answer is not obvious it would seem true to say that it’s easier to get to freedom from chaos than from tyranny since in chaos neither side has the full power of government while in tyranny one side does.