Last night we interviewed my good friend John Haskins, our senior fellow at the Veritas Institute (our radio think tank for the study of truth).
The Oxford educated Haskins was once one of the leaders of the Massachusetts pro-family movement that faced the exact dilemma we’re facing here in Iowa over homosexual marriage. That is until he joined a long list of principled conservatives like Prof. HerbTitus, Dr. Alan Keyes, and Judge Roy Moore that the sellout leaders of the Religious Right and conservative movement betrayed them because they demanded they actually act according to the courage of our stated convictions.
Below is a summary of our interview with John about the defining issue in Iowa of our time. I believe the content in this interview is so important that we’re going to leave this up for the rest of the week. Please feel free to share with as many principled people who care about our republic as you can.
Of the numerous questions that surround the current social maelstrom, this is one of the most central. We’ve moved incrementally toward a place where the minority has the power to define terms, replacing the objective standard of the Constitution with the subjective of “differing viewpoints “. Now, advocates of God’s definition of marriage find themselves stymied in a war of words with reporters, officials, even governors (http://www.whoradio.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=121648&article=5279081) who through ignorance, or otherwise, are constricting themselves (and the public) to a mercurial, assumption-based quicksand that brooks no opposition. To put us back on solid ground, we must know what is true according to the law and be ready to give an answer based on those facts. Here’s a breakdown of key concepts courtesy of John Haskins, senior fellow of the Veritas Institute.
Q. What is legal positivism?
H: Simply defined, it means law is being made in the courtroom by judges, even though the American form of government denies that. Of course, every lawyer in America has been brainwashed to believe that they do. We’re now educating lawyers to think that law is whatever the judges say it is. That is a state of slavery, Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson understood that. It also puts lawyers in a position of violating their oath: they’re sworn to uphold the law and Constitution, which means if there’s a conflict between the law and what the judge says they’ll follow the law.
Q. Why does it matter if we give homosexuals the right to marry?
H: Gay marriage is intended by those who push it (meaning, radical homosexual strategists) to eradicate a) parents rights, b) to impair religious freedom, freedom of speech,of association, the most basic constitutional rights we have. This is admitted by these people in private, in published articles, in law classrooms.
a) It has been used this way in Massachusetts (see the case of David Parker who was jailed for telling his child homosexuality was wrong). The idea that children belong to the state is totalitarian governments inculcate in their education. These people has said in strategy meetings “if we do own jobs right, within a few years, children will agree with us, not their parents, about homosexuality (paraphrased)”. This has happened in Quebec, where they threatened to take children away from Mennonite families, in Germany, using a law passed by Adolf Hitler (details on worldnetdaily.com). They mean to guarantee that they are in charge of teaching your children what to think.
b) Churches that do not agree to hire homosexuals as clergy, priests, youth ministers, the churches will be threatened with losing their tax exempt status. This means in many cases that they lose their building. Sermon content will be closely monitored for “hate speech” that calls homosexuality a sin. A Swedish minister was sentenced in criminal court to twenty years in prison for preaching Bible passages that call sodomy a sin. People will be sued for hate speech for disagreeing with homosexuality in public.
Q: Is the court opinion in Varnum v. Brien now the law of Iowa?
H: No, it’s not the law. It has nothing in common with the law, none of the characteristics of the law. Judges cannot make law, but for several generations, lawyers have been indoctrinated with an understanding of the law completely removed from what the founding fathers established. In every state system, you can find judges admitting that they don’t have the power to make law. In Massachusetts’ constitution, you have an explicit statement that judges cannot suspend the execution of the laws. Mitt Romney’s constitutional advisors told him that the Goodrich opinion was void and he should ignore it.
Judges cannot make law; that’s why the legislative branch is called such. Legislating is making law. In 2002, Iowa Dept of Transportation v. Soured, the judges said “we are bound to follow the legislature’s definition and may not add words and change terms under the guise of judicial construction. What are they doing now? They’ve struck themselves down. In O’hara v. the State in 2002, “To solve the dilemma posed by the amendments, we must read into Chapter 20 as amended, language that is simply not there. This, of course, is not within our province. We are bound by what the legislature said, not by what it should or might have said.” These are the judges admitting they cannot do what everybody thinks they just did. When they want to act like dictators, they finesse the language to claim rights they’ve said they don’t have. It is so deeply rooted in English and American law that it was understood until recent generations.
Judge Hadley Arkes said of the Romney situation, “the deeper failure must go to the man who stood as governor, the man who stood holding the lever s of the executive branch. And if it is countdown for marriage, it is countdown also for Mitt Romney,, whose political demise may be measured along the lines of moves he could have taken. It became clear that even conservative lawyers have come to accept the premise that gave courts a position of supremacy.” You will see this with your conservative leaders and lawyers in Iowa.
Q: What is the legal and constitutional response to what the court did Friday?
H: People have to understand that all the court can do is offer an opinion. They cannot execute their own opinions, they don’t have the power to do so. All the founding fathers understood this. The Supreme Court justices even admit this, if you look carefully at what they wrote. They said the language “must be stricken from the statue.” They did not say ‘we are striking it’ because they know they can’t do it. Now it’s up to the legislature to agree. In Massachutsetts, the legislature never agreed. The laws against gay marriage are still on the books. Then Romney came in and violated the law. There is no court order forcing lawmakers to comply. The Iowa Judges are telling legislative and executive powers what they must do, but the judges themselves have no power to change the law. We’ve been giving them more power than they have.
Q: Why are elected officials, even conservatives playing along with this scam?
H: You have to have the heart of a warrior to fight a culture war. The conservative side tof the culture war is being led by people who are not warriors. If they were, they’d be putting their lives on the line, if necessary. There are people overseas fighting for our constitution and they die. Lawyers won’t even risk their reputation.
This is not the law in Iowa. It has no legal authority, and that statement has been upheld by lawyers and law professors over and over again, even by the judges themselves. No public official in Iowa has the right to act on this opinion. It is false, it is an outlaw opinion. Judges are not the definers of legal terms: those are defined by the people in their own constitution and the legislature in their own statutes.
Q: Where do we go from here? A constitutional amendment?
H: An amendment may or may not be successful, but the point is, legally, there’s not even a need for one. This opinion is not the law.
Q: Doesn’t it become “functional law” if political officials act as though it is?
H: There’s n such thing as functional law. I understand what you mean, but that’s surreal. Mitt Romney invented a term to explain this type of thing: defacto law. This term is nowhere in the law itself. You just have a) the law and b) what people do. Governors, recorders, city clerks, justices of the peace either obey the law or violate the law.
Q: How can the conservative minority in the Iowa Legislature proceed?
H: The people we keep electing are not familiar with the Constitution they swear to uphold, so they’re not dedicated to it, they’re certainly not willing to lay their careers on the line to defend it. We’re sending people overseas to die for constitutions we’re shredding back at home. I’d advise the voters as well. We’re out shopping and sitting in front of cable TV, while people are dying for our liberty. This is nonsense. What can we do now that we’ve elected people who have no respect for the Constitution, not even enough to read and understand it?
The first thing you do is make sure anybody who telling you we need a constitutional amendment as step one, is exposed as incompetent or putting up a head-fake. This is not true, there’s no law that has been created. The Massachusetts Constitution says: “the people are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.” That’s the law of the legislature. Same thing in Iowa, you have a republican form of government. So officials cannot issue marriage licenses that are outside the law.
You have to punish officials who act in opposition to the law. You must remove them from office for violating the law. People have to get used to impeaching/removing officials that do not uphold the law. These judges should be impeached. Once you start thinking in these terms, you’re in the right mindset.
To read the rest of Deace’s post, CLICK HERE.
Written by Steve Deace
blog comments powered by Disqus