We have -
Moved To:
http://professor-howdy.blogspot.com/

Is it possible to be totally partial?

If the cops arrest a mime, do they tell him he has the
right to remain silent?

What do you do when you see an endangered animal that
eats only endangered plants?

Isn't it a bit unnerving that doctors call what they do "practice"?

When strike sign makers go on strike, is anything written on their signs?

Why isn't there mouse-flavored cat food?
 

A Continuing Convention
Activism as a Judicial Philosophy

February 7, 2006

Note: This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley.

Last week, Chuck Colson and I attended the swearing-in ceremony for Justice Samuel Alito. After two strenuous confirmation battles in less than six months, I was happy, as were many others, to celebrate and take it easy. Then I read an article by John DiIulio in the Weekly Standard.

DiIulio, a life-long Democrat, was reviewing the book Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. In setting forth his theory of constitutional interpretation, Breyer cites a number of sources—and occasionally the Constitution. This relative neglect makes sense when you consider that, according to Breyer, the job of a justice is "to realize the Constitution's 'democratic objective.'"

That "democratic objective" is the judicial protection of what Breyer, citing the French philosopher Benjamin Constant, calls "modern liberty": the freedom to "think, speak, and act 'free of improper government interference.'" Protecting "modern liberty," in Breyer's view, includes federal judges "yielding" law that helps a "community of individuals . . . find practical solutions to important contemporary social problems."

It's significant that Breyer wrote "community of individuals" instead of "community." That's because his constitutional project is a radically individualistic one that has little, if any, room for ideas about the common good. And it's precisely the common good, Romans 13 tells us, that governments should protect. On the other hand, the radical individualism espoused by Breyer is part of an Enlightenment worldview.

The other notable thing here is that finding "practical solutions" to "social problems" is supposed to be the job of the legislature. Breyer admits that judges may not be any better at this task than the people's elected representatives, but that shouldn't keep them from taking the lead in implementing the Constitution's "democratic objectives"—nor should "persistent popular majorities" that "beg to differ with the judge's own values and views."

It seems to me what Breyer is proposing is nothing less than a continuing and endless Constitutional Convention with the Supreme Court as both framer and ratifier. Thus, even if the American people are not prepared, as President Bush put it, to "redefine marriage," it doesn't matter: According to Breyer, judges are guided by the higher value of protecting "active liberty."

As DiIulio wrote, Breyer's intelligence and his erudition make "active liberty" the alternative to holding fast to the Framers' intentions. And it provides a rationale for using the courts as engines for social engineering.

This is exactly what Chuck and people like Russell Hittinger warned about ten years ago in the book The End of Democracy? They warned us about the kind of judicial usurpation that undermines our "traditions of democratic self-governance" that have safeguarded morals and values consistent with the biblical worldview.

At the time, their critics insisted that they were exaggerating the problem. But if anything, they underestimated the scope of the problem. Breyer's book is unapologetic in its defense of rule by judges.

The only sure defense against this kind of power grab is to keep those who espouse the notions found in Breyer's new book in the minority, which is why relaxing, when it comes to Supreme Court justices, will have to wait.


www.breakpoint.org
 

The Hero
Anyone
Can Be


Our daughter was a high school student on the East Coast, our son-in-law
in the Midwest when they met. And how did they meet when they lived 800
miles apart? The introducers! That would be my friend Chuck and me. I was
going to Chicago for the kickoff broadcast of a new youth broadcast, which
included live call-in. But since I wasn't sure anybody would call the first time,
I asked our producer to help me make sure we had some teenage dialogue by
having a guy and a girl in the studio with me. The subject was, appropriately
enough, "The Three Lies of the Dating Game." I brought my daughter; Chuck
brought this cool guy from the Chicago suburbs. And my producer and I got
to introduce them. No, it wasn't love at first sight - but it was the first chapter
in what became a lifetime love! I think they owe my friend Chuck and me big -
time. Because in many cases, no introducer, no relationship!

You remember the person who introduced you to someone who ended up
being very important in your life - in business, in romance, in a group you
want to be in - or ultimately, when you get to heaven some day. I don't think
we'll ever forget the person who introduced us to Jesus. I sure won't forget
the lady who introduced a little guy named Ronnie to Jesus years ago.

Hey, we can't all preach. We can't all sing or play. We can't all draw, or write,
or lead impressively. But we've got one gift that every person has. You've got
this treasure called influence. At school, at work, at home, at the club, in your
family - somewhere there's a person or people whose life you affect. It may be
one person. It may be a thousand people, but you have influence over someone.
The question is: what are you doing with the influence God has given you?
You're supposed to be using your influence to make the introduction!

One of Jesus' disciples understood that very well. He's the quiet disciple, maybe
like you. You may say, "Well, I'm no Peter - with all his boldness and strength!"
Maybe not, but you may be an Andrew. Anyone can be an Andrew. Every time he
turns up in the Book of John, he's doing the same thing. Act One is in our word for
today from the Word of God in John 1:41-42, right after he had met Jesus. The Bible
says, "The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother ... and he brought him to
Jesus." No quiet Andrew - there's no bold Simon Peter.

Act Two: in John 6, the disciples are trying to figure out how to feed 5,000 people.
Guess who finds the boy with the miracle lunch and brings him to Jesus. Andrew, of
course. Later, some Greeks were wanting to see Jesus. Guess who made the connection?
Andrew - the bringer, the introducer. We don't know of any miracles Andrew performed.
We don't know of any sermons he preached, but we sure do know about people he intro -
duced to Jesus!

That's why God placed you where you are, with the people you know. You're His designated
introducer. You don't have to persuade them to give themselves to Jesus. You don't have to
be a great talker or a charismatic personality. You just have to do what Andrew did - tell them
what's happened since you met Jesus and how they can meet Him, too. Tell them about the
peace in your stormy times, the love in your lonely times, the comfort in your hurting times,
the strength in your weak times the security in your fearful times - all because of Jesus. Tell
them about His love, proven on the cross; His power, proven with an empty tomb.

You know Jesus and you know the person who listens to you. Who do you think Jesus is
counting on to be the introducer? You don't have to be a Peter, but you can be an Andrew.
You take your friend Jesus in one hand and the person you care about in the other hand,
and you be the one who brings them together. For that person you introduce to Jesus,
you will be the friend they will never forget! - - Ron Hutchcraft
 

Dear Howdy,
I'm going to steal your content because of your comments.

Listen up #*%$, your #&%$ poem, everytime you &*#@

post it, it gets deleted, so you are wasting your time.

I'm not kidding about stealing your content either, I have some

high page rank sites that can make good money off that *&%$

that you write.

Good day.


*************************************************************

Here's what my anonymous friend who's mad at me is going to steal & print.
I'm sure that you know that I didn't write it - it's what I posted on his and
other blogs:

1) There is a time for everything,
a season for every activity
under heaven. A time to be
born and a time to die. A
time to plant and a time to
harvest. A time to kill and
a time to heal. A time to
tear down and a time to
rebuild. A time to cry and
a time to laugh. A time to
grieve and a time to dance.
A time to scatter stones
and a time to gather stones.
A time to embrace and a
time to turn away. A time to
search and a time to lose.
A time to keep and a time to
throw away. A time to tear
and a time to mend. A time
to be quiet and a time to
speak up. A time to love
and a time to hate. A time
for war and a time for peace.

2) If I could speak in any
language in heaven or
on earth but didn't love
others, I would only be
making meaningless noise
like a loud gong or a
clanging cymbal. If I
had the gift of prophecy,
and if I knew all the
mysteries of the future
and knew everything
about everything, but
didn't love others, what
good would I be? And
if I had the gift of faith
so that I could speak
to a mountain and make
it move, without love
I would be no good to
anybody. If I gave
everything I have to
the poor and even
sacrificed my body,
I could boast about it;
but if I didn't love others,
I would be of no value
whatsoever. Love is
patient and kind. Love
is not jealous or boastful
or proud or rude. Love
does not demand its
own way. Love is not
irritable, and it keeps
no record of when it
has been wronged.
It is never glad about
injustice but rejoices
whenever the truth
wins out. Love never
gives up, never loses
faith, is always hopeful,
and endures through
every circumstance.
 

'Thought & Humor' - often polemical but
never tasteless/unrefined/uncouth/ribald.


Please note: If you see a UNC student or liberal reading 'Thought & Humor',
please explain to them which is thought & which is humor. They usually get it backwards.......