The Slippery Slope of Unintended Consequences

 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” – First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 1789.

 

“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” –Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 1789.

 

 

Anyone familiar with the Constitution of the United States is doubtlessly aware of the Bill of Rights- a set of ten amendments whose purpose was to limit the power of government in the lives of people. The first of these amendments, as referenced above, in essence, guarantees the freedom of thought as well as the freedom to express such thought. While we cannot delve into the mindset of the founding fathers who believed this first amendment to be of primary importance (those that followed were set down in the order of importance), it is noteworthy that the freedom OF religion (NOT the freedom FROM religion as is often stated by contemporary “liberals”, especially those opposed to organized religion) was and is listed first and foremost, before the freedoms of speech, press, assembly and petition that follow.

 

Elsewhere in the constitution lies the framework of our federal government- essentially a three-part institution, with a delicate balance of powers shared by the three branches: a legislative branch (i.e. the House and the Senate) which enacts laws, an administrative branch (i.e. The President and the Cabinet) that enforces laws, and a judiciary branch (i.e. The Supreme Court) which rules on the constitutionality of laws- at least that’s the way it’s supposed to be.

 

With regards to the latter branch of government, specifically, it is the job of the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of laws, but not to violate the Constitution’s delegated powers (Tenth Amendment) and enumerated powers (Article 1, Section 8) by writing laws that do not exist. Nor does the constitution allow the Federal Government to enact laws reserved for the States. Yet, when the judiciary takes on the trappings of the legislative, then justice is the first casualty in a democracy. The second casualty is the rule of law, and the third casualty is the will of the people.

 

Nowhere in the Constitution, does it authorize the Supreme Court to change the meaning of specific laws as they are explicitly stated. (i.e. the Affordable Care Act, which specifically refers to “exchanges established by the States” meaning the fifty states, and NOT the state, meaning a general reference to government) . Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to determine what marriage is, or what constitutes marriage and, alas, who may or may not marry. Such “delegated powers” are reserved to the States in accordance with the tenth amendment.

 

Last week, the Supreme Court effectively overturned the Tenth Amendment by usurping these powers away from the several States, in its two rulings on ACA (ObamaCare) and on gay marriage. Some of the States have set up exchanges, some have not, and the Supreme Court has essentially said “it doesn’t matter- we will force this on all the states to operate as though the exchanges are set up”.

 

Likewise, some of the States have enacted laws providing for legal marriage between members of the same sex, while other States have enacted laws saying that marriage is defined as one man, one woman ( just as President Clinton’s “Defense of Marriage Act” says). Last week, the Supreme Court has effectively disintegrated the DOMA, while also taking the power away from the States (who by the way, issue marriage licenses) to make this determination- all without the constitutional authority to do so.

 

In the case of the latter ruling, those who support the Supreme Court’s decision cite the Fourteenth Amendment, Section One, which states:

 

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

 

Such an argument is fallacious and specious, because marriage is not a right, but rather a licensed enterprise, like the license to drive, or to own a pet, or to practice law or medicine, and the States hold the right to determine the requirements for licensure- not the federal government.

 

Worse, in doing this the Supreme Court has now opened the door for those who wish to make these same claims, as have lesbians and homosexuals, to demand marital rights for bigamists or polygamists. We are already hearing calls to force churches and synagogues, under the threats of tax exemption revocation, to either permit gays to marry, or to lose these financially imperative tax exemptions. Such moves will effectively destroy the first freedom in the First Amendment- the freedom of religion, which would be just fine with atheists and agnostics, but would trample upon the rights of believers to practice their religion as they deem fit. This is the slippery slope of unintended consequences which imperils all of us, and lays credence to the belief that we have arrived upon the dreaded point in time where our most precious and sacred rights are under attack by the special interests of the few, who would gladly take these rights away from us, and then laugh all of the way to the perdition they seek.

 

-Drew Nickell, 29 June 2015

 

© 2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved