Kim Davis, Mark Levin, and the Constitution

Supporting Kim Davis (the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples) for her stand is fine, but it’s her stand. What are the real problems her position has created? I don't consider the issue of same-sex marriage to be "a Problem." For me, that is a debate.

What I see as one problem Kim Davis illustrates is the creation of public officials deciding how they will do their jobs. They should be expected to perform their duties absent personal interpretation. That is why there are sanctuary cities: public officials have chosen to disobey the law. They disagree with it. Their constituents support them and voted for them. Therefore, they’re justified?

Mark Levin has criticized the Supreme Court for its ruling in the same-sex marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges. He is correct in his criticism of Justice Kennedy, in my opinion. Kennedy often seeks to do what is right. (Kennedy believes in a Living Constitution: that is, a constitution in which people like him – people who know better than the rest -- breathe life into dead parchment.)

But is that his job? Doing what is right for a justice is following the Constitution, not morphing it. When a justice does not follow the Constitution but does what is right, then that justice is the same as the officials in sanctuary cities. That justice is lawless. But disobeying Supreme Court rulings is lawless, too. Pretty soon all is lawless. Levin criticizes those who say Davis should follow the rule of law.  She has the right to disobey Obergefell, but at her peril -- disobeying law comes with a price – or it does for some. Not for sanctuary-city-minded people, though. Not yet, anyway.

I see Levin’s criticism as aiming ultimately at our system of government’s downhill spiral away from a Constitutional Republic to an elitist majority positioned – in their minds – to decide for us what is best, moral, and right. But not everyone Levin rails at is pushing a leftist agenda. Some are simply pushing for following the law. Levin polarizes discussion as if to say if you don’t agree with me, you are a leftist commie, and that's a shame:

"What they mean is, not the rule of law, but rather that you will accept the fate of this nation as dictated by the left or you’re going to be punished. That’s what they mean as they try to institutionalize and enshrine their leftist agenda into the law so they can use the law against the law-abiding."  http://bit.ly/1QixvX8

Only fatalists accept fate. Activists work to change fate.

Even poor rulings by SCOTUS are law. Dred Scot was the law -- for awhile. Fatalists look at those poor rulings and say, Oh well, that’s the way it is. Activists, especially those who love what the Constitution stands for, say Oh? Well, that needs to be changed. The real focus for those who love what the Constitution stands for – and Mark Levin is definitely one of those – is How? How do we change that?

Justice Roberts, in his dissent from the majority in Obergefell, gives a hint as to how:

"The legitimacy of this Court ultimately rests “upon the respect accorded to its judgments.” Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 U. S. 765, 793 (2002) (KENNEDY, J., concurring). (Is this a dig at Kennedy?) That respect flows from the perception—and reality—that we exercise humility and restraint in deciding cases according to the Constitution and law. The role of the Court envisioned by the majority today, however, is anything but humble or restrained. Over and over, the majority exalts the role of the judiciary in delivering social change. In the majority’s telling, it is the courts, not the people, who are responsible for making “new dimensions of freedom . . . apparent to new generations,” for providing “formal discourse” on social issues, and for ensuring “neutral discussions, without scornful or disparaging commentary.”

Nowhere is the majority’s extravagant conception of judicial supremacy more evident than in its description—and dismissal—of the public debate regarding same-sex marriage." http://1.usa.gov/1Qizz1l

Public debate changes over time. That is the prerogative of The Public. The Constitution stands as the foundation enforcing that prerogative. For many it does just that. But not for all. I see a chink in the Constitution’s armor. Some strive to conform the Constitution to their idea of right, regardless of public debate. They can do this because they are justices of the Supreme Court -- for life. That needs to be changed.

No one should hold a position for life unless it is as president of their own private company. There are too many able persons in this country to have an elite holding offices or positions for life. That is why I support a Constitutional Convention with the authority to discuss, debate, and present to The Public amendments to restore the Constitution as the standard of balance. Supreme Court justices should be restricted to serving limited terms. Congress should be limited to terms. If nothing else, this country needs to engage these questions in a forum reminiscent of the Constitutional Convention of 1787.