Is Defining Marriage the Court's Job?

This week the Supreme Court has been busy hearing two cases concerning the legality of same-sex marriage in the United States. No decision is likely to be made until the court takes their recess sometime in late June.

Many think that the court is going to make a wide, sweeping decision, declaring that same-sex marriage is legal. But is that really the courts job?

The court’s job is to interpret the Constitution and our laws, and make sure the latter aligns with our founding document. However, the court has been more “judicially active” in the past few decades, meaning they have been legislating from the bench – which isn’t their job.

The fact that one of these cases, the Proposition 8 case from California, is even being heard is complete blasphemy. During the 2008 California State elections, Proposition 8 was a proposition on the ballot to amend the California Constitution by defining marriage in their state as “between and man and a woman.”

In 2008 the people of California spoke, saying that they want marriage in their state to be only between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

Of course soon after the people spoke, litigation was filed and in 2010 in a district court, the law was ruled unconstitutional. Again in 2012, the very liberal ninth-circuit court of appeals upheld the lower court’s decision, ruling that the law is unconstitutional under Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses in the Constitution.

I do not believe that these two court rulings could be more wrong.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution expressly enumerates the powers that are given to the federal government. The 10^th Amendment says that any power not enumerated to the federal government is reserved to the states.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to regulate marriage. That is a power that is reserved to each individual state.

If the people of a state decide to not allow same-sex marriage then that is perfectly okay! The same goes for any state that wants to allow same-sex marriage; it would be perfectly okay for the people of a state to allow same-sex marriage, because that is their reserved power.

It is completely wrong and unconstitutional for our federal government to overstep their bounds and arrogantly believe that it is their duty to define what marriage is.

Frankly, that isn’t the government’s job at all. Marriage is purely a religious institution, and the government, on any level, should not be regulating this ageless and sacred practice.

However, I know the inevitable is for the court to throw out a decision either for or against.

Firstly, they should look at marriage under the scope of “Is it a fundamental right, or isn’t it?” If they believe it is, what are the reasonable restrictions that can be placed on it? Would marriage in the cases of incest or polygamy be okay?

These are questions that are going to have to be asked and answered before any decision can be made.

If the court decides for America that same-sex marriage is legal, what are the limits? Where is the line in the sand for the court and the federal government? A wide, sweeping decision could likely open a whole new bag of issues concerning the power of the federal government.

These court cases having been making the nightly news headlines all week, but there’s one question I have to ask: Why is same-sex marriage more important than some of the bigger issues we have as a country, such as the $16.7 trillion debt?

One thing is for sure; 10 years ago this movement didn’t have nearly as much steam as it does now. America is fundamentally changing. But is it really the change we want or need? We are going to have to answer that question come the 2014 and 2016 election cycles.

The Shot Heard Around the World

“The shot heard around the world” is most commonly taught today to be the shot that started the Revolutionary War and America’s fight for freedom. However I believe that as time has gone on, the true meaning behind “the shot heard around the world” has been quite distorted, and this can easily be tied into the media narrative today.

Since the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, there has been a nasty haze looming over DC, figuratively speaking of course. The need to control guns and restrict our rights seems to be the number one issue on Capitol Hill and it has been that way since that fateful December morning.

If you have studied American history then you will understand that the basis of needing to separate from Britain was the restriction of freedoms and, ironically, high taxes. I’m not calling for any succession, but I am calling for all American’s to open their eyes and read the writing on the wall.

“The shot heard around the world” wasn’t a literal shot fired out of a musket; the shot heard around the world was the order sent out by King George III to confiscate the colonists’ guns.

Are you recognizing the parallel’s yet?

The Colonists of 1775 wouldn’t stand for having their own personal weapons confiscated away from them. In that time period, weapons were hand made by each individual owner, or by a local blacksmith, not massed produced, such as the case today.

The musket was the livelihood of a family in those times. The men in the family used the gun to hunt for food and protect the family, such the need arise. They didn’t keep their guns unloaded and stored away, they kept them loaded and ready to fire at the press of the trigger.

They would be kept over or around the door. People were taught how to responsibly handle and care for the gun, because they knew they wouldn’t survive without properly knowing how to use it.

We need to read into the past and take large lessons away from the actions of those brave American’s who stood up for what they knew was right.

The original intend behind the second amendment was not to tell citizens they are allowed to bear arms when they need to put food on the table. Sen. Diane Feinstein and Sen. Chuck Schumer are completely wrong to be sitting on Capitol Hill and holding investigations as to why someone needs more than 10 rounds of ammunition to kill a deer.

Truth is, you don’t need 10 rounds of ammunition of kill a deer. BUT, you do need 10 round of ammunition to protect yourself and others from a triennial government and tyrants like Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer who believe that guns must be restricted in order for our society to be safer.

And this was the original intent behind the second Amendment. Jefferson and Madison knew that if the need ever arose, the people would have to check their government. It’s like a fourth “check and balance”.

The legislation that Feinstein introduced last month, the new “Automatic Weapon Ban”, was shot down in Congress obvious. (pun intended)

What is an automatic weapon anyway? Are automatic weapons just scary “military style” looking weapons? Or how about that concealed .40 caliber handgun in my house, isn’t it automatic?

Any kind of gun ban or restriction, outside the terms of precedent leading Supreme Court cases is 100%, undeniably unconstitutional.

Furthermore, they don’t even work. The Columbine tragedy occurred when there was a national assault weapons ban, yet it still happened. I wonder why that is?

The moment that our guns are taken from us or are so heavily restricted that we won’t be able to easily obtain, use, and manage them, our country will need to take a step back and rethink the path that we’re heading down.

The Founding Fathers, with the writing and passing of the Constitution, put America on a path of freedom and extremely limited government, but I feel as if we’re living in 1940’s Russia. Something is obviously wrong.

Follow Chris On Twitter

Restricting Our Rights is Not the Answer - Pt. 2

Read Part 1 of this Column on my syndicated News feed.

About this time one week ago, the news about a shooting at an Elementary school in the small town of Newtown, Connecticut was first breaking. At the time, no one but those who were there and the first responders truly knew the magnitude of the situation.

One thing was for sure though – gun control would become the topic of discussion very soon.

Hardly did I or anyone else know, within moments of the news breaking worldwide, liberal pundits and those who are pro-gun control began to spin a terrible tragedy into a few political shenanigans as they blamed the guns for killing innocent people.

However, it wasn’t the guns that were used. It was a 20 year-old man named Adam Lanza – a very crazed and abnormal man.

Needless to say, America was about to surcome to the narrative that we had faced each and every time a tragedy of this magnitude occurs.

Gun Control.

Oh, how I hate the term gun control. I hate that people want to blame the guns for killing 27 innocent people, I hate that the president wants to take our guns away and in doing so, he has created a task force to “solve the problem of gun violence in America” headed by none other than the magnificent Joe “I’m a walking gaffe” Biden.

Let’s get a few things straight, shall we?

First, it wasn’t guns that murdered 27 innocent people; it was a single man with free-will to do so. We all should be blaming him, and not the guns. It’s called personal responsibility – something our society lacks to a great deal.

Secondly, every shooting tragedy that I can remember has happened in a gun-free-zone. Now, shouldn’t this tell us something?

Criminals who are dead set on going on a shooting rampage aren’t going to go shoot up a police station. Why? Because THEY ALL HAVE GUNS AND WILL DEFEND THEMSELVES.

A gun free school would make a perfect target because no one on campus has a gun, especially if it’s a place like an elementary school where resource officers are not likely to be present unlike at a Middle or High School.

Let me be clear: Saturday afternoon when the reports of the heroics of the staff at the school were first surfacing, it was told that the principle of the school and the school psychologist were the first two people to make contact with Lanza.

Now, if either of them would have had a weapon and were properly trained on how to use that weapon to defend themselves and the children at the school, I strongly feel like the only person who would have died at that school would have been Lanza himself.

So what am I proposing?

I would like teachers at every school in the country to be packing heat. Not every teacher of course, but possibly something like one handgun and one assault rifle per 50 students. Also, it would have to be known that the campus is not a gun free zone. Most likely this would probably deter any possible shootings at schools ever again.

Now, my AP European teacher told me that he wouldn’t feel comfortable carrying a weapon at school, because there is a possible chance that students could jump and disarm him. I offered him a very simply solution: If you are conceal carrying correctly, no one but you should know that you are carrying. Therefore, the likelihood of you being jumped for your weapon is very, very low. It would be like playing Russian Roulette with the teachers.

I said in part 1 that I wouldn’t be discussing the ramifications of gun control in our country, and I have stuck to that. I offered a solution to the problem of gun violence in American schools, and I wish that a narrative like the one I have offered would be discussed more than gun control.

My next column will probably be on gun control in America. However, I am leaving today to head out to New Mexico to spend time with family that I so rarely see. This being said, my next column will probably not be for another 10 days.

If this is the case, I would like to wish everyone a very Merry Christmas. I hope that joy is brought to each and every one of you this Christmas season.

God Bless you, God Bless Newtown and God Bless America.

Restricting Our Rights is Not the Answer - Pt. 1

It’s been a week since my last column was published. In that respect, I have been a bit lazy. Since my last column, an unspeakable, heartbreaking event occurred, and this is going to be my first column commenting on the event, and my second will be published tomorrow.

My iPhone alerted me of what had happened a little after 10:30 in the morning last Friday. At that time, I and America was unaware of the magnitude of the shooting, and the effects it would have on our country in the days following.

I had absolutely zero words to say after I found out that little children had been murdered. The only emotion that would come out of me, were tears. Tears for the kids, teachers, staff, and tears for America, because I knew the discussion that would quickly follow.

Gun Control. Just hours after the news had been broken, liberal pundits were already speaking out that guns had caused this tragedy, and that we should have stricter gun control.

These columns, comments, and opinions seriously angered me.

In America, do we not have enough decency to not make everything into a political battle? Can some things not have any political spin to them?

These were the questions I was asking myself, my friends, and all of my twitter followers.

I was absolutely appalled and disgusted that such a horrible and tragic event could be turned into political shenanigans in a matter of hours. Did these people not have respect, knowledge, and decency for what had just happened?

It was a reality that no American, young or old, wanted to face. Many, many innocent people including small children had just been murdered in what should be the safest place for them. On top of that, not one person murdered had warranted any reason for their death, yet in a matter of seconds their lives would be so selfishly taken from them.

However, it is a reality that we must face, whether we like it or not.

In our society of “normalcy”, there are abnormal people. Abnormal people do things that you and I cannot comprehend because we process events on a rational level.

The man pulling the trigger was not normal. There was something wrong with him, but there were no real outward signs that anything was wrong, and preventing this massacre was almost impossible. There is only one rational way I could see this massacre being prevented, but we’ll discuss that in tomorrow’s column.

Saturday afternoon, the Connecticut Chief Medical Examiner discussed what he had seen at the scene, and with those of the dead. He told America that each of the children that he had completed an autopsy on had been shot anywhere from 3 to 11 times.

This man, Adam Lanza, wanted these children, teachers, and staff members dead.

For what reason? We will probably never know, and quite frankly, I don’t care to know why. All I know is, there must be some drastic action to take place, so that something like this never happens again, and that’s what we’ll discuss in the column tomorrow.

However, I hate talking about this. It is sad. It makes me cry, and I wish the media would leave the town of Newtown, Connecticut alone.

Also, I do not think it is appropriate for anyone to be speaking of this tragedy in political terms, that’s why tomorrow I will be offering a future solution to this problem, and I will continue to condemn those on both the right and the left that turned this unspeakable act into a political hotbed.

I pray every night for the children, staff, teachers, and all of the innocent lives that were lost because of a single man’s actions. This event has affected me, not like any other, because I am still in school, and I still remember what it was like as a first grader.

I hope we can find it in ourselves to stop the political spinning of this tragedy, and just leave the town alone so they can mourn their losses.

America is mourning with them.

God Bless You & God Bless America.

The War on Christmas - First Amendment Style

With Christmas now less than two weeks away, the attacks on Christmas and the first amendment are in full swing – this is nothing really out of the norm in modern America.

The Christmas tree is now the “Holiday Tree”, and you are no longer allowed to display your nativity scene without some Atheist group filling a lawsuit because it “offended” them.

This is where I draw the line, and I am glad that Bill O’Reilly has too.

Celebrating Christmas was a staple of American culture. But now, if you celebrate Christmas you are not being tolerate of others feelings, concerns, or religions.

This is more than wrong and it is just not rational.

What hurts just as bad as Christmas and Christianity being demonized, is the first amendment is always used as the lefts’ argument against Christmas. “Separation of Church and State,” they will always say.

But let’s get one thing right: Legally, there is no such thing as separation of church and state. It completely doesn’t exist. The first amendment reads:

“..Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, nor preventing the free exercise thereof..”

I didn’t see the Separation of Church and State Clause, did you?

The first amendment doesn’t say anything about Ten Commandments in the public square, nativity scenes on public property, or even that the government cannot favor a particular religion. The first amendment clearly says that Congress cannot establish a religion.

But, what does this mean?

This means that Congress cannot make a law declaring Christianity the official religion of the United States, and if you don’t openly practice Christianity you could be prosecuted for treason.

However, this also means that Congress and governmental level cannot tell a man that he cannot openly practice his religion, even if it means having a nativity scene, a Christmas Tree, or displaying the Ten Commandments.

The actual meaning of the first amendment has long been lost in translation, and most Americans don’t actually know what the first amendment says, nor what it means.

If I told the average American that there is no “Separation of Church and State Clause,” they would probably argue to the death with me that there is such a thing.

I am absolutely tired and more than disgusted with people who infringe on my rights given to me by our founding fathers, because they think I’m infringing on theirs.

But, let me ask a question.

If having a nativity scene in a public square infringes on your rights because you aren’t a Christian, does it not infringe on my rights to not be able to have it placed there? If you don’t like it, go ahead and place your Buddha statue or crescent moon next to it, and I’ll shake your hand and call you my fellow brother. 

The Progressive left, I think, is doing the absolute opposite of the first amendment.

I think they are trying to demonize all Christians, and establish a Secular Humanist religion in America. But that’s just me, what do I know?

America used to be the land of the free, and home of the brave. Now we are America the land of the lawsuit, and home of the coward. It’s sickening.

I hope we can rediscover the true meaning of the first amendment and Christmas for that matter. Those are two long lost things that used to make American exceptional.

Merry Christmas and God Bless you!

You Know You're A Communist When..

Here’s a simple question: At what point do you know you’re a communist?

As a strongly principled Conservative/Libertarian, I feel like I could easily recognize other strongly principled Conservatives and Libertarians because their views fall similar to mine.

Using this logic, shouldn’t one communist be able to identify another communist? Better yet, wouldn’t someone who lived through Communism be able to identify a communist leader?

I think the answer is yes, and there is some frightening (only if you haven’t realized it yet) proof.

Recently an opinion article appeared in Pravda, a Russian Newspaper, by a relatively unknown writer, Xavier Lerma.

Let me start out by saying that after doing a little research on Xavier, I have found that he is not a Communist, Socialist, or Marxist. He is a Conservative, but Russian standards of course, with a true love for Vladimir Putin. If you read the column, you would catch on quickly to his favorable bias towards Putin.

While the column contains extreme spin and favorability towards Putin, everything that Xavier said about American and Obama is true – well, mostly true.

“Recently, Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society and he is ready to continue his lies of less taxes while he raises them. He gives speeches of peace and love in the world while he promotes wars as he did in Egypt, Libya and Syria. He plans his next war is with Iran as he fires or demotes his generals who get in the way.”

What about this isn’t true? Except for the ‘illiterate society’ comment, this paragraph expresses some of my feelings with the reelection of Obama to a tee.

Why do we study history?

We study history in attempt to learn from it, and to the best of our ability, not commit the same mistakes twice. However, we almost never learn from history and we always commit the same mistakes twice.

Xavier gets history though. He has learned from the past of the nation that he holds near and dear to his heart, and he is strongly against Russia committing those same mistakes twice.

Xavier knows that communism doesn’t work, nor does socialism. Xavier knows that low taxes are the way to go, and finally Xavier knows that faith, morals, and strong principles are the key to prosperity.

History tells us these things, and this is why Xavier is able to exploit all of Obamas mistakes. Not only is Obama and his administration not learning from history, but they are going in the direction of a “Soviet Plan”, something of which we know does not work. History tells us this.

The American media should be covering this story – its news. But they aren’t going to, that’s why you probably haven’t even heard about it, because American media doesn’t report the news anymore.

However, when Glenn Beck says something that is deemed to be “politically incorrect”, he is persecuted by the media.

What’s the difference between Beck’s thoughts on America and Xavier’s?

Nothing, and that’s why the media isn’t covering this story.

I suggestion you click on the link and read the column. It could do without all of the favorability towards Putin, but Xavier’s views about Obama and the current state of America are Right. On. Point.

Just Let It Happen Boehner

Following the reelection of Barack Obama, the rhetoric coming off of Capitol Hill concerning the “Fiscal Cliff” has been extremely high, but what’s all of the commotion really about?

The Fiscal Cliff is a series of automatic spending cuts to all levels of the federal bureaucracy (mostly defense) in addition to automatic tax increases. You may have also heard of the fiscal cliff as a sequestration.

The Democrats in Congress want to resolve the “crisis”, by raising taxes on the upper tier of tax payers in order to raise revenue. The Republicans, however, do not want to raise taxes on any American, while they would like to make reforms to entitlement programs, but have offered no real solution to the revenue shortfalls in their plans.

On November 9^th, the President’s first address to the media following his reelection, he declared that he would veto any legislation offering tax cuts to those making more than $250,000. This means the President doesn’t want to extend the Bush Tax Cuts any further.

The President’s position has put Republicans in between a rock and a hard place. They don’t want to raise taxes on the wealthy, but the President is basically giving them no other options.

For the past three Sundays, Bill Kristol has insisted that the Republicans in Congress should compromise with the President and submit to raising taxes on the wealthy. Remember now, this is the same man that thinks the Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate political party and the Arab Spring wasn’t real.

Bill Kristol is by all accounts a dope, and no one on Capitol Hill should heed his “advice”.

However, I do have a suggestion for the Republicans – just let the President lead America straight off of the fiscal cliff.

By coming to any agreement, the media will portray the President as the hero, and the Republicans the enemy – it’s a lose/lose for the Republicans, so just let it happen.

The facts of the matter are that no matter what happens and no matter what deal is agreed upon, America will head over a fiscal cliff.

Any freshman macroeconomic major will confirm that when you raise taxes on those who already fund the government the most (excluding China of course), you are asking for more problems than you ever originally bargained for.

Raising taxes on the wealthy may lead to short term gains, but it will create bigger problems in the long term.

If the Republicans let the President have his way, I can see two good things that come from that, aside from the many bad things.

First, every single tax paying American will feel the effects of the Presidents arrogance and liberal bias. As long as you’re a tax paying America, your taxes will be going up. Americans don’t like their taxes going up, so that will not bode well for the President.

Secondly, there needs to be spending cuts in the government. This fiscal cliff is the only foreseeable way that spending will be cut. Instead of having politicians examine the budgets of every department of the federal government, having across-the-board style cuts will force the bureaucrats to cut spending in wasteful areas.

Finally, I just don’t understand why the President doesn’t negotiate going back to the Clinton era economics. After all, the Clinton era was so magical and there were no problems then, right? All we’d need to do is raise taxes across-the-board and cut federal spending beyond any level that is currently perceived to be possible.

Either way, the next month or so left before the sequestration is to take place is going to be a quite divided time for America, aside from the Lame Duck session of Congress.

I don’t want to see taxes raised on any American, but sadly is looks likely. And for that, we should all thank Barack Obama, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, and Nancy Pelosi.

Follow Chris On Twitter