Category: politics

The Institute on the Constitution's Imaginary Constitution

On the Institute on the Constitution’s Facebook page, the following image was posted on July 12:

The IOTC teachers Michael Peroutka and David Whitney believe that government has no role in the areas listed under family and church in this image above. This is apparently derived from the work of Abraham Kuyper and Christian reconstructionist Rousas Rushdoony (see this source).
As I looked at this, my reaction was that the IOTC teaches the Constitution of their imagination, not the actual one. According to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the Congress has the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” Congress also has the power to establish laws on bankruptcies and to make laws necessary to carry out Congressional powers. However, the IOTC teaches that families have jurisdiction over property and business ownership. Surely, property and business ownership cannot be left to individual families without some form of government regulation to protect the rights of all concerned. Bankruptcies involve individuals (often involving personal property and business ownership) but according to the Constitution, the Congress has the power to make laws regarding this aspect of commerce. Does the IOTC teachers think the Constitution has too much power?
Article 3, Section 2 establishes the courts to decide disputes between citizens over lands (property ownership) as well as other disputes between citizens. The actual Constitution gives citizens a judicial system as a protection. Families may not violate the rights of their members simply because they are biologically related. Churches may not violate the rights of their members simply because a member has signed a church covenant.
Article 4, Sections 2 requires that citizens in one state have the same rights in the several states. Article 6 makes the Constitution the supreme law in the land. The 7th Amendment in the Bill of Rights provides for the right of jury trial. Families and churches cannot claim exemption when disputes arise involving those spheres.
Families can govern their affairs, and churches have freedom to hold their beliefs sacred, unless those activities conflict with the Constitution and the powers given to civil government by it. We will always have debates about what those various limits are, but civil government has a much wider jurisdiction in the actual Constitution than in the one the IOTC teaches.
The IOTC course which is sweeping through Ohio and Maryland especially is particularly dangerous because it claims to teach about the U.S. Constitution but actually seeks to place the Christian reconstructionist interpretation of the Bible over the Constitution.
I prefer the actual Constitution.
 
 

Uganda's Government Fools No One with Statement Regarding Anti-Gay Law

Today, Uganda’s government issued a statement which seems designed to change the Anti-Homosexuality Law into something it isn’t.
Here is the statement:

Statement by Uganda Govt on Anti Homosexuality Act by The New Vision


In case anyone has any doubt about how false this statement is, go read the Anti-Homosexuality Law.
Today’s statement says:

…it’s (the Anti-Homosexuality Law) enactment has been misinterpreted as a piece of legislation intended to punish and discriminate against people of a “homosexual orientation”, especially by our development partners.
The Government of the Republic of Uganda reaffirms that no activities of individuals, groups, companies, or organizations will be affected by the Act. The intention of the Act is to stop promotion and exhibition of homosexual practices.

According to the law, touching between homosexuals could result in life in prison. Touching. The law makes the statement by the government absurd. If my friends in Kampala are reading, please understand that no one believes this statement. Note what the law says:

2. The offence of homosexuality.
(1) A person commits the offence of homosexuality if—
(a) he penetrates the anus or mouth of another person of the same sex with his penis or any other sexual contraption;
(b) he or she uses any object or sexual contraption to penetrate or stimulate sexual organ of a person of the same sex;
(c) he or she touches another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality.
(2) A person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for life.

None of the statement rings true. Even if Uganda’s government means to honor some of these promises, the government’s credibility is lost with the aspects of the statement that are clearly false.

Hobby Lobby Wins Religious Exemption At The Supreme Court; Social Media Reactions

This Burwell v. Hobby Lobby will be scrutinized widely and my purpose here is to put some links together on the decision.
In a 5-4 decision, the “Court holds that the government can’t require closely held corporations with religious owners to provide contraception coverage, though the government may provide that coverage itself.” The decision is a narrow rejection of the contraceptive requirement and does not invalidate other aspects of Obamacare.
A pdf of the opinion is here.
Follow coverage on the SCOTUS blog.
Some reactions:
Watch the Volokh Conspiracy for Eugene Volokh’s assessment of the case.
Larry Ross assembled a few reactions from religious leaders.

The Voice of the Voiceless (sic) Campaign: Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right

Subtitle: Conservatives Against Crazy Therapies #savethepillows (see video below).
Right wing website The College Fix misses the point in an article published last Friday (6/20).
The assumption on the part of Chris Doyle and author Claire Healey seems to be that incorrect information provided by college counseling or resource centers should lead to the addition of more incorrect information at those same centers. In other words, since LGBT centers say some things that might be inaccurate or can’t be proven, ex-gay supporters should be allowed to do the same thing.
This is not “right-minded” but rather wrong-headed.
Doyle can’t offer any evidence for his claims, and as his campaign shows, his group is hardly voiceless.
Conservatives should not react in a knee jerk fashion against what seems like viewpoint discrimination to simply offer what seems to be the opposite position (e.g., gay groups say gays can’t change, conservative groups then should support the notion that gays can change). What seems like the opposite position of the position you don’t like is not of necessity the correct one. In this case, it is true that research has not found a consensus around the causes of homosexuality. However, that does not mean that Doyle’s version of weak fathering and overbearing mothering is correct. In fact, that model doesn’t have support in research. There are many good empirical reasons to question that model for most gays.  Doyle’s therapy approach is based on that causal model which, in addition to the absence of any empirical support, opens it up to skepticism.
Two wrongs don’t create a “right-minded” stance and is a loser as a conservative position.
Chris Doyle’s mentor Richard Cohen in action:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtGouVqsmsg[/youtube]
Sorry, can’t imagine a college promoting this anti-science brand of ex-gay therapy but that is what Doyle’s IHF is known for.

Candidates for Maryland County Council Get Blessing of League of the South's President

Institute on the Constitution’s Owner/Director Michael Peroutka and Senior Instructor David Whitney will face voters Tuesday in the Republican and Democratic primaries respectively for the chance to face each other in the election for Anne Arundel County Council.  The Baltimore Sun profiled them on Saturday and shed some light on their relationship with the white separatist group League of the South.
Last June, Peroutka joined the board of the League of the South and Whitney is the chaplain of the MD/VA chapter of the League. When Peroutka joined the board, he told the League that he would dedicate the work of the Institute on the Constitution as well as his family’s resources to the League. When Peroutka’s name recently  disappeared from the League board roster, I asked League president Michael Hill via Twitter why Peroutka was no longer a board member. I received no answer and so I have been curious about the change. With Peroutka moving into politics again, I thought perhaps they had decided to go separate ways toward their mutual goals. Now we read in the Baltimore Sun article that League president Michael Hill is pleased that Peroutka and Whitney are running for office. Although Hill’s group has endorsed Peroutka before for elective office (when Peroutka ran for president as the representative of the Constitution Party in 2004), the League often shies away from election politics. However, according to the Sun article:

Hill won’t say how many members the League of the South has but said that about half a dozen members are running for elective office this year. He praised Peroutka and Whitney for their leadership in running for office and publicly discussing their beliefs.

Hill has condemned modern America as corrupt so why would he be pleased that his members are running to be a part of the system? The Sun article provides information on that point.

The league advocates for Southern secession to create a new governance for Southern states, including Maryland. Hill said the group first must get candidates elected to local offices before formally pursuing secession.

There you go Marylanders. Elect League of the South members if you want to set the stage for Southern secession.
Hill complains about being called a neo-Confederate group. Perhaps if they didn’t wave the Confederate flag all over the place and lionize Confederate heroes and seek to turn the government back to the Confederate constitution (see the Grey Book), then they wouldn’t get the label. I call them white separatist because Hill’s group advocates solely for white Southerners.