A Nation of Laws?

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

- Abraham Lincoln, The Gettysburg Address.  Underlines added for emphasis



Of the people, by the people, for the people.

I have been struggling with this concept of late.

Full Definition of REPUBLIC

1

a (1) :  a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) :  a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

b (1) :  a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) :  a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

c :  a usually specified republican government of a political unit Republic

Full Definition of DEMOCRACY

1

a :  government by the people; especially :  rule of the majority

b :  a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

2

:  a political unit that has a democratic government

I realize that there are people who read blog this that think I'm a little on the fringe of things, and that's okay.  We all aren't going to agree on everything.  Daddy always said that's why they make chocolate and vanilla.

For this post, and any subsequent discussion, I'm trying to focus more on a one or two broad concepts, not just my view of the topic.  If I am successful, at the end of this you won't really know which side of the topic I fall on, and I will tell you that many of you would be surprised if you knew.

The United States of America is referred to as a Democracy - majority rules.  Based on the above definitions, an argument could be made that we are a Republic.  Both definitions fit our style of governing - the citizens vote, free elections, representatives elected to represent our views.  The people of this nation all having free and equal voices in the governing of same.  The Will of the People.

In recent months, it seems as if the Will of the People has been completely ignored on some major social issues. 

Let's take same sex marriage.  By and large, up until recently, marriage was viewed as a State's jurisdiction.  States determined who could marry, at what age to marry, proper licensing to marry, and so forth.  If a state didn't want to grant you a license to marry, then you didn't get married in that state.  Seems simple.  It was one in a long list of items that each of the 50 states in our nation controlled.  And the Supreme Court agreed.  At least until they didn't.

Same sex couples seeking legal recognition of their unions wanted to be married.  In a church, in a courthouse, by a Justice of the Peace, it didn't really matter.  They wanted to be married like their heterosexual counterparts.  Unwilling to just grant this wish, state and local governments gave the question to their constituents and votes starting popping up all of the country.

And the people said no.  Each time the resolutions would be defeated by a vote of the people.  And the states used that as a foundation to say that same sex couples could not be married.  Challenges to these laws were filed in the courts and the local courts would uphold the Will of the People.  And there would be appeal after appeal after appeal. 

All the way to the Supreme Court.  Not wanting to get their hands dirty they simply refused to hear the appeals cases on the grounds that the heart of the matter was a State matter and not a Federal one. 

After all, the State was still the governing body issuing the marriage license. 

But then, one day, the Supreme Court said, in effect, all you people out there voting against recognizing a marriage by two people of the same sex are wrong and all you states out there upholding that decision are being unlawful and unconstitutional.

The same group that used to say "not our decision" with one sweeping broad stroke of a pen decided that the Will of the Nine was better than the Will of the People.  They didn't change the law to make it a federal issue, they just said you were wrong and mandated that the states had to issue the marriage licenses no matter what their people said.

Your view of same sex marriage will make you either love or hate this decision, but I'm talking about making the decision in and of itself.  What gives this one small group of people the ultimate authority to decide something like this?  They themselves had already been very clear that the root of the question was not under their purview.  So they changed their purview.

Earlier this year I touched on illegal immigration.  The people of this nation continue to voice support for stopping the flow of people skirting the rules and entering this country at will.  Resolutions are passed, votes are taken, all worthless.  Because someone, somewhere, decides they have the authority to make this decision on behalf of the rest of us.  Yes, we do elect officials - senators and representatives to actually do this, vote on our behalf on issues of this magnitude - but it is hard to say they are doing that when vote after vote after vote says secure the borders, deport, build a wall, change the vetting process and the answers to those votes continue to be amnesty, grandfathered in for those already here illegally, executive orders by the President changing the action to what he thinks best, establishment of Sanctuary Cities, and so forth.  Relatively small groups of people have decided that they know best and their Will is more correct than the Will of the People.

So, you have to ask yourself, Who is Running this Show?  Is this a government of, for and by the People? 

and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." 

There is no worse feeling than being in the minority when the majority rules.  No one wants to be passionately behind an issue and it be voted down.  It is hard to sit quietly and watch changes going on all around that you disagree with.   What do you channel that passion to then?   How do you continue to make your voice heard?  

But here is where another part ofwhat is becoming the problem.  I'm not saying that you stop.  That you decide that one defeat is going to slow you down and keep you from doing what you think is best and right.  But we are becoming an extremely politically correct country and that is not always the proper answer.  Let's say one hundred people attend a sporting event where an opening prayer for the safety of the athletes and wisdom of the officials was asked.  Or Nativity scenes at state capitols.  Statues of the Ten Commandments in state courthouses.  At one time, this was commonplace but we no longer pray or allow Christian displays because one of the hundred might be Jewish, or an atheist, or a Muslim.  Ninety-nine want to pray but the Will of One stops it.  We don't want to exclude anyone, or make anyone feel uncomfortable. 

So we acquiesce.  To the few.

Communities vote to fly the American flag in their front yards and common spaces, but then someone asks what about those that aren't American, or that don't support the military and view the flag as a symbol of oppression? 

So flags come down.  Can't fly those anymore. 

It doesn't matter that almost everyone wants to, only that one doesn't want to. 

And the One wins.

What lesson does that teach the next generation?  The only laws you need to obey are those you like and agree with?  Someone will just change it anyway, or there will be some way around it. 

I have no problem with systems  and laws changing, but from the inside.  Step up and state your case and get the majority on your side of the issue so the Will of the People will once again be the majority, and the majority rules.

So, are we a Nation of Laws?  A nation with a government of the people, by the people, for the people?  Or are we a nation of my way or the highway?  I don't like how it's been done so I'll just do it my way. 

"My Way" was great when Frank Sinatra and Elvis sang about it.  One of my favorite songs, ever.  And while it is not a bad philosophy for living your life, I'm not sure how great it is for governing an entire nation.

Just a Random Thought.