Republican Govenor Jan Brewer vetos anti gay bill ....smart woman..:)

Dumb lobbyist Jack Burkman wants to ban gays from the NFL...a if there R no gay NFL players that have not come out.

So done with the whole gay thing. Do whatever the hell you want,just stay out of my face with it. Now we have the race to be the first out of the closet in every sport. Who the hell cares.
I'll run my business the way I damn please. If I lose business because of my decision that's my loss.
It be great ,if we were just left alone to make are own decisions
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'll run my business the way I damn please. If I lose business because of my decision that's my loss.
It be great ,if we were just left alone to make are own decisions
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fair enough, but this bill was pushed by the conservative house/senate in AZ, not by the infamous 'gay agenda'

Fair enough, but this bill was pushed by the conservative house/senate in AZ, not by the infamous 'gay agenda'

Wasn't it a bill designed to protect just what I ask for ?
It wasn't a bill that was designed to reverse antidiscrimination laws.
I believe it was a bill to protect one's beliefs over the beliefs of others. To each his own I say
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It wasn't a bill that was designed to reverse antidiscrimination laws.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not reverse but rather open up a very fuzzy loophole.

Interesting that there's not a problem with religious freedoms being violated, but they want to pass a bill just in case. I'd be willing to wager that had the bill passed, like magic the violated would start coming out of the woodwork with political action groups pushing them forward.

-spence

it would have unleashed a fire storm if not Vetoed

Not reverse but rather open up a very fuzzy loophole.

It's amazing and instructive to see how far the Constitution has been deconstructed when the first amendment is considered, not the law, but a loophole.

Interesting that there's not a problem with religious freedoms being violated, but they want to pass a bill just in case.

When fundamental freedoms are no longer considered unalienable rights, but are only those rights and freedoms allowed and defined by the government (which was originally prohibited from denying or defining those rights)--when that is the case, then government decides whether those rights are being violated since it prescribes what those rights are. Because you subscribe to this transformation of all rights being dispensed by government, it is easy to see why you think there is no problem with religious freedoms being violated. And why it would be redundant to pass a bill when one is not needed.

On the other hand, those who view certain rights as being inherent and existent before government, and beyond its reach, experience government denying them their exercise of those rights because they conflict with government mandated "rights" meant to benefit specific groups rather than to equally protect everyone, they might well see the only legal, peaceful, recourse would be to "pass a bill" to protect their rights.

I'd be willing to wager that had the bill passed, like magic the violated would start coming out of the woodwork with political action groups pushing them forward.

-spence

Isn't that what is actually happening every time gay activists win a court decision? Aren't those "victims" now coming out of the woodwork in greater frequency and numbers and locations in an unstoppable tide?

there are other STATES that will make the SAME decision SOON

So religious freedom is something you can impose on others? Seems to be an issue more about commerce than free speech.

-spence

So religious freedom is something you can impose on others?

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2: That was funny. No, imposing freedom is an oxymoron.

If you mean that practicing one's unalienable right when it interferes with someone else's unalienable right is not protected by the constitution, you're onto something. It becomes even less constitutional, if that's possible, when a government fabricated right interferes with an unalienable constitutional right.

Seems to be an issue more about commerce than free speech.

-spence

Of course you would see it that way since you ascribe to the progressive "interpretation" of the Constitution. Under that interpretation just about everything is about commerce. The original Constitution only granted the Federal Government specific power to "regulate" INTERSTATE commerce, and "commerce" and "regulate" had far more specific and limited meaning than progressives define those words to mean. And, of course, since the progressives have even removed the INTERSTATE restriction on the Federal authority, ALL commerce, of the broadest definition that can be imposed on that word can be controlled by the Federal Government under any terms it wishes since "regulate" has also been redefined in the broadest possible way. So, yeah, "commerce" is one of the usual fallbacks for progressive jurisprudence.

But, I think (haven't read it), the bill was not about commerce or even speech, but about the First Amendment guaranty of freedom of religion.

But, I think (haven't read it), the bill was not about commerce or even speech, but about the First Amendment guaranty of freedom of religion.

it's not quite as long as the ACA Bill

interesting

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/jan-brewers-foolish-veto-104014_full.html?print#.UxBA0fmwJIU

I just used the word commerce because I knew it would raise your hackles :)

The backlash here was from business more than discrimination. Business understands where this ultimately wants to go...and they don't want it.

-spence

It all comes down to one word… Respect.
I'm just curious if everybody's as upset about the California gay restaurant owner that says he won't serve legislatures who oppose people being gay.
What the gay lesbian transgender community fails to understand is they are the ones lacking in respect.
What somebody does with their genitals is none of my business and I don't need you to tell me about it.
PS... Stop trying to crash the St. Patrick's Day Parade.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What the gay lesbian transgender community fails to understand is they are the ones lacking in respect.

Yea, tell that to the millions forced to live in the closet their entire lives, kids harassed at school, mental health issues, suicides...

They certainly have no respect.

Being born gay isn't the same thing as choosing to hold a belief. Big difference there...

I'm just curious if everybody's as upset about the California gay restaurant owner that says he won't serve legislatures who oppose people being gay.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know you prob. wrote that statement quickly but I always laugh when people imply (the legis.) that people have a "choice" in being gay. I think anyone who thinks that is repressed or actually gay.

I doubt the gov. would have veoted it if the business community didn't come out against it.

Yea, tell that to the millions forced to live in the closet their entire lives, kids harassed at school, mental health issues, suicides...

They certainly have no respect.

Being born gay isn't the same thing as choosing to hold a belief. Big difference there...

Sorry I touched a nerve Spence.
That is not true nowadays and you damn well know it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know you prob. wrote that statement quickly but I always laugh when people imply (the legis.) that people have a "choice" in being gay. I think anyone who thinks that is repressed or actually gay.

I doubt the gov. would have veoted it if the business community didn't come out against it.

Thank you for being so dismissive about my post...
Why you are gay or how you became gay doesn't matter to me or most people. Believe it or not most people simply don't care.
What most people do care about is being able to practice their own beliefs and run their own business the way they would like.
FYI , Before you judge me,and ill assume you haven't , I don't judge others and I'm extremely respectful and excepting of others.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I wasn't dismissive of your post. I think I've always shown more respect for your posts than you have shown for mine (or others). I was talking about what the legislator said.

So you think someone can "become" gay?

I wasn't dismissive of your post. I think I've always shown more respect for your posts than you have shown for mine (or others). I was talking about what the legislator said.

So you think someone can "become" gay?

I don't know how you become gay .i don't know if you're born gay, I don't know if im some ,you just develop a liking for the other sex, I don't know if you get so fed up with the other sex that you change teams:) I don't claim to know anything about it. I will say that i I think in some young people its actually becoming cool.. especially experimenting .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yea, tell that to the millions forced to live in the closet their entire lives, kids harassed at school, mental health issues, suicides...

You can't legislate people into liking or respecting you.....thats how you get a whole group of people who previously were indifferent to you to now dislike you.

it's not quite as long as the ACA Bill

interesting

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/jan-brewers-foolish-veto-104014_full.html?print#.UxBA0fmwJIU

Great article. Cuts through all the agenda driven BS right to the actual point of the bill. One little thing raises my "hackles" far more than anything Spence, a really nice, decent, and likeable guy with whom I disagree on just about everything, says. That little thing Lowry mentions is the "compelling government interest" which can burden religious freedom. That "compelling interest" is a concoction by progressive judges that lets them get around constitutional limitations. The only "interest" the Federal Government is allowed by the Constitution, compelling or not, is that which falls within its enumerated powers. By granting themselves the ability to view legislation in light of some general compelling interest which may even fall outside enumerated limtations, the judges have given themselves the latitude necessary to give constitutional approval to anything the government wishes to do, especially when any "rational basis," another overarching progressive concoction, can be applied. "Compelling" and "rational basis," in general, are not only intrinsically outside the scope of enumerated powers, they are to a great degree subjective. As such, they become a matter of opinion, not a matter of law. And the "rational basis" theory was originally not only a result of a judge's personal perspective, but it was based on flawed data, so was actually "irrational."

I just used the word commerce because I knew it would raise your hackles :)

The backlash here was from business more than discrimination. Business understands where this ultimately wants to go...and they don't want it.

-spence

Doesn't your fear of business controlling government, oligarchy, give you pause about its ability to intrude upon the fundamental rights of the people, and even its ability to give some business the influence to dictate against another business's rights?

Doesn't your fear of business controlling government, oligarchy, give you pause about its ability to intrude upon the fundamental rights of the people, and even its ability to give some business the influence to dictate against another business's rights?
Everything should be judged on its merit, but this isn't an academic exercise. Should we go back to the days where a black person was denied the same services? The only big difference is that it's not always obvious if someone was born gay.

-spence

Everything should be judged on its merit, but this isn't an academic exercise. Should we go back to the days where a black person was denied the same services? The only big difference is that it's not always obvious if someone was born gay.

-spence

I don't believe there are any religions that specifically say that being black is wrong.
Why must you always go down this path?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

QUOTE=spence;1033507]Everything should be judged on its m[erit, but this isn't an academic exercise.

Is this actually in response to my post about your fear of oligarchy? If so, please do discuss the merit of "business" having the power to override individuals' fundamental rights. That would not be an ethereal "academic" exercise. That would be directly to point of the power of others to use government to control you.

Should we go back to the days where a black person was denied the same services? The only big difference is that it's not always obvious if someone was born gay.

-spence[/QUOTE]

This is all the fruit of poisoned seed. Once you diverge from the straight and narrow path, you can continue down a different road, or return to the path you intended to follow. Continuing down the divergent path leads to a different destination.

The Constitution laid out a clear path to individual freedom from the coercion of oppressive government. But, in order to get all to agree, it had to contain the poisoned seed of slavery. It was the worm in the bud which went counter to all the promise and beauty of the flower of freedom granted in the premise that all men were created equal--equal before the law. There was a divergence from that path immediately instituted in the original document. The road to the straight and narrow was repaved in the blood of the Civil War.

But the power to do so led to a new divergent path. The power of the Federal Government to change direction against its own prescribed bounds was inviting to those who wanted to go that way, under the premise that even more and greater improvements to the old road could, and should, be made. But, in order to do that, the old limitations placed on it had to be removed. It was evident to those who followed this new path, that the old way of The People, of individuals, deciding to go their presumably untrammeled way was too disorderly. That if a true "equality" was to be achieved, that equality would have to be prescribed and defined by government as it evolved, not by a static document.

And so long as differences remained among The People, those differences could, and surely would, lead to advantages of some over others, of "oppression" of some by others. The abolition of slavery was not enough--just a beginning. The "more perfect union" spoken of in the old document could now be transformed into "a perfect union."

Freeing the slaves was not enough. How could they fare in a world that was new to them and in which they did not know how to survive. Actually, they did know, black towns that formed were doing well until destroyed by racists.

To make a novel length story short, if the freed slaves actually had the equal protection of the law, they would have eventually done well without further government assistance. If they had been allowed to freely enter upon the old constitutional road, no further "assistance" would have been necessary. No laws would have been necessary to force racist businesses to accommodate them. They were capable of creating their own businesses. An actually "free" market would have given them the power to live their lives and compete for customers. A free market would make it attractive to serve them in every way.

But anti-free, discriminatory laws which ran counter to constitutional equality stood in the way and retarded the growth and ability of blacks to grow in equal status. More poisoned seeds.

Now a cascade of bad seed stemming from the idea that without government various groups or classes of people cannot flourish without special government assistance and protection. Among the many corrupted seeds was the Federal Government's legalistic and fiscal intrusion into marriage which inspires the need for Federal sanction of various groups to "marry" to receive benefits. The old constitutional path, if followed, would not have allowed the Federal Government into the equation. And that intrusion was probably inspired by "conservatives." All facets of the political spectrum seem to want to illegally insert themselves into the constitutional system and overload it with new subjective likes and dislikes to the point of unworkable obsolescence.

Not only does this lead to the destruction and divergence from the old path and its destination of individual freedom, but it ensures that there is no return to it. The new destination is the over-arching security of all-powerful government prescribing in ever expanding detail what exactly we are free to do, or not do. And it is presumed that without achieving this goal of government control we will always have to worry about a black person being "denied the same services."

The Constitution, the old way, if followed correctly, would require individuals, and the groups to which they belong, to flourish or retard on their own merit, and would prohibit others, including the government from interfering. Whether someone was born "gay" or drifted into it would be irrelevant. If they wanted to contract with each other and call it marriage, they would be free to do so without government intrusion or "assistance." If someone wished not to serve them others would, and they certainly have the capability to create businesses that would cater specifically to them as well as to others. They most certainly have the where-with-all to create, produce, and market whatever they wish as they have prolifically demonstrated. The old way would allow everyone regardless of race, religion, or gender, etc. to participate in the free market without over-reaching control of Big Brother.

The new way tells all what they are allowed--in order to create "equality" and a paradoxical form of totally regulated "freedom."

I don't believe there are any religions that specifically say that being black is wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No law says you can't start one....

I don't believe there are any religions that specifically say that being black is wrong.
Why must you always go down this path?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Because it's a good analogy.

And many religions are certainly looked at as being racist, even if it's not clearly spelled out. Hell, even Jesus never clearly called out gays.

If you can interpret anything how you'd like and demonstrate it's a deeply held conviction...what's stopping someone?

-spence

Because it's a good analogy.

The analogy is irrelevant. It is used to allow government intrusion into rights of free association, into ownership of personal property, of freedom of speech, of freedom of religion, as well as a major incursion into the whole constitutional process. Please see my post above this for clarification. Extra Government control is not necessary here if constitutional system is followed.

And many religions are certainly looked at as being racist, even if it's not clearly spelled out. Hell, even Jesus never clearly called out gays.

Again, irrelevant to the constitutional order. Extra government intervention and control in this matter causes less freedom and actually less equality before the law.

If you can interpret anything how you'd like and demonstrate it's a deeply held conviction...what's stopping someone?

-spence

Stopping "someone" from doing what? The Constitution, if followed, stops someone from denying its guarantees.

And if you object to interpreting anything how you'd like and demonstrate your deeply held conviction that your interpretation is correct, how do you not object to progressive jurisprudence which does exactly that.

The analogy is irrelevant. It is used to allow government intrusion into rights of free association, into ownership of personal property, of freedom of speech, of freedom of religion, as well as a major incursion into the whole constitutional process. Please see my post above this for clarification. Extra Government control is not necessary here if constitutional system is followed.
I read your post. It took a while. Here's a summary.


Slavery came out of left field and surprised the process built by slave owning Founders.

They tried to fix it all up with the Civil War but the slaves and libs wanted even more.

Had we just let the black community to themselves, they would have built gleaming cities and slowly -- and in a Constitutionally acceptable manner -- blended into the American fabric...perhaps as early as the 23rd century.

But a bunch of racists (i.e. anti-Jim Crow zealots) rushed the process via social engineering.


Again, irrelevant to the constitutional order. Extra government intervention and control in this matter causes less freedom and actually less equality before the law.
Considering how far our society has moved in terms of race and more recently gay acceptance I'd say that those holding what the majority feels are bigoted positions are certainly less free.

Well done Government, well done.

Stopping "someone" from doing what? The Constitution, if followed, stops someone from denying its guarantees.

And if you object to interpreting anything how you'd like and demonstrate your deeply held conviction that your interpretation is correct, how do you not object to progressive jurisprudence which does exactly that.
Progressive jurisprudence isn't an open book, like I said, everything has to be evaluated on its merit. Just because you can change doesn't mean you must change. With the inverse conservatives would never be able to evolve either...

-spence

I read your post. It took a while. Here's a summary.


Slavery came out of left field

Wrong. Baseball hadn't been invented yet. Slavery existed in cotton fields and cabbage patches, and in the manor's kitchen, and in the driver's seat of fancy carriages, and in various parts of Europe, and Africa, and Asia, and what we call South America, and . . . oh yeah . . . throughout the whole known world.

and surprised the process built by slave owning Founders.

Gee . . . you got that from reading my post. No wonder it took you so long. It takes time to find stuff that doesn't exist. Well, no, it wasn't a surprise to slave owning Founders. It was a well established institution passed down through many centuries of human existence, and, like Obama's troubles, it was . . . . oh, what is that word he so often repeats? Oh yeah . . . it was INHERITED. And practiced by many others beside slave owning Founders--including black slave-owners. An owner of one of the largest number of slaves was black. There were actually free manumitted blacks in the South and free blacks in the North who were business men and others of various productive talents. And many of the Founders didn't own slaves and were morally opposed to slavery and tried to bargain it out of the Constitution. And even some of those who did own slaves, if not most of them, knew it was wrong on philosophical grounds, but thought, like you apparently do, that blacks would be at a loss if freed to be on their own. And there was that obstacle of getting the Southern States to agree to stay in the union. There was, however, a compromise that importation of slaves would not under the new Constitution be allowed after 1808 unless, of course it was amended to change that. There was actually no mention of the word "slave" in the Constitution. Slavery was neither expressly allowed nor expressly prohibited. But the intention of most of the Founders was that it would eventually be eradicated.

They tried to fix it all up with the Civil War but the slaves and libs wanted even more.

"They" did "fix it all up" with the Civil War, and the freed slaves were happy with that, not demanding more than to be left unmolested to flourish on their own. There were some notions of reparations discussed. The forty acres and a mule thing got nowhere. My point was that the experience of an all powerful Federal government as existed during the Civil war, that many consider unconstitutional, and the governments power to tax incomes to support the war, certainly implanted a seed in the psyche of post war progressives that such governance could solve all the perceived inequities. The original bad seed was slavery. The perceived necessity of unearthing that seed spawned further seeds that were as much a poison, or more, to the Constitution as was slavery

Had we just let the black community to themselves, they would have built gleaming cities and slowly -- and in a Constitutionally acceptable manner -- blended into the American fabric...perhaps as early as the 23rd century.

They actually did build some cities that gleamed far better for them than many of our present day cities such as Detroit. Whether they gleamed or not was not the point. The point is, constitutionally, they were free to do so. What transpired to sabotage those efforts was not "Constitutionally acceptable." Nor is a great deal of the crap that destroys black communities today a result of the Constitution. Rather it is a result of progressive governmental intrusion. And, unless that is reversed, and we revert back to the self governing responsibility inherent in the Constitution, those blacks who have surrendered their personal responsibilities to progressive government may not "blend into the American fabric," even by the 23d century.

But a bunch of racists (i.e. anti-Jim Crow zealots) rushed the process via social engineering.


No, they didn't rush the process, they transformed it from personal responsibility to government dependence.

Considering how far our society has moved in terms of race and more recently gay acceptance I'd say that those holding what the majority feels are bigoted positions are certainly less free.

"Majority opinions" may well have moved faster in terms of race had minorities been left to flourish without either unconstitutional government "help" or corrupt unconstitutional government hindrance. Opinions about race and gender change organically if they evolve naturally. That sort of change, in my opinion would change generationally without government force if people are constitutionally left free to live their lives as they see fit. There is a natural coalescence among free people, and a resistance to change and acceptance among people who are divided into opposing camps. Equality before the law engenders that evolution. Laws that divide people, that view them as haves and have-nots, and redistributes from one to another, favors one over another, just further delays true acceptance and love.

Well done Government, well done.


Progressive jurisprudence isn't an open book,

You'll have to clarify that . . . I don't know what you mean.

like I said, everything has to be evaluated on its merit.

Ditto . . . what are you talking about?

Just because you can change doesn't mean you must change.

Where are we going with these platitudes?

With the inverse conservatives would never be able to evolve either...

-spence

Well . . . OK . . . I guess . . .

I'll say this: so-called conservatives have been guilty of planting bad seeds in the constitutional construct as well. Federally defining marriage, for instance, or even legislating Federal privileges for marriage which is the seed for the growth of "gay marriage" and who knows what other types of "marriage" yet to come--where in the Constitution is there found a Federal power to do so? Constant tampering with it, even if it's an attempt to "fix" past tampering and destruction, if not done constitutionally, just leads to further planting of bad seeds. A poorly husbanded garden leads to a briar patch, or worse.

"And that’s what’s so terribly depressing about all of this. We live in a country where more and more people are terrified to work things out themselves in a conversation with someone they disagree with. That’s why I didn’t like S.B. 1062 — because people on the right found it necessary and because people on the left made it necessary."

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/372282/print

Interesting that there's not a problem with religious freedoms being violated, but they want to pass a bill just in case. -spence

Spence, from where do you get the idea that no religious freedoms are being violated? There have been cases, valid cases, of the government ordering people to do that which violates their beliefs. I posted one about a Christian baker who wanted nothing to do with a gay wedding, and the govt said "serve that wedding or we'll fine you." In other words, the government said "we have the authority to tell you what you can believe and what you can't believe".

Let's say a black person owns a house-painting business. If I ask him to paint a confederate flag on the side of my house, does he have the right to say no, or doesn't he?

Like hell no religious freedoms are being violated. The proposed bill is not anti-gay, it is pro-first amendment. Big difference.

I support gay marriage. But I have huge problems with the government telling its citizenry what they are allowed to believe. Everyone should be appalled at that. We cannot ignore the parts of the Constitution that aren't fashionable at the time. If we decide religious freedom only exists until someone's feelings are hurt, we need to amend the Constitution to reflect that. Until then, someone should tell homosexual agitators that freedom of religion applies to everyone, even people they don't always agree with.

Freedom of speech means that someone can hang a painting of Christ covered in feces. Freedom of assembly means that the Klan can hold a rally. Freedom of the press means that Ed Schultz can call Laura Ingraham a "right-wing slut" on the air. And like it or not, freedom of religion (in a country that truly is free) means that I have the right to decline to provide services for, or attend, a gay wedding.

Freedom ain't free. It means you'll occasionally have to put up with that which makes your skin crawl. There's this liberal tolerance and inclusion on display, where liberals want diversity in everything, except in ideas. If you will tolerate others to express their opinions which you despise, you respect freedom. Anything else is called totalitarianism. Which do we want to be, Spence?

"And that’s what’s so terribly depressing about all of this. We live in a country where more and more people are terrified to work things out themselves in a conversation with someone they disagree with. That’s why I didn’t like S.B. 1062 — because people on the right found it necessary and because people on the left made it necessary."

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/372282/print

Another incisive and artistically written essay. I don't know about these "conservative" writers. They seem to possess those qualities which some here think only "liberals" have. Maybe they're closet liberals. Or, maybe they're the real liberals. And those who profess to be politically "liberal" are really authoritarians who must impose their prescription of how we must act--sort of like Spence's imposing freedom.

Which leads to another Spencist maxim: "everything has to be evaluated on its merit." That would apply far more in Goldberg's hidden law than in prescribed law. Rational human beings who are free to observe, speculate, and decide on the basis of their individual experience are not totally bound by prescribed law. They can act in accordance to their perception of individual merit. A policeman can decide on his own to suggest that conflicting parties talk it out rather than strictly imposing the letter of the law.

But those who are caretakers of the prescribed law don't have as much latitude as a policeman on the beat. If a conflict rises to the level of criminal or civil charges to be decided in a court of law, judges and juries must decide on the merit of the case as it falls within the prescription of the law. Now, juries may nullify the law if they feel or believe it would be too harsh or unjust to apply to the "merit" of the case, but judges, though they have some latitude, are not allowed to nullify the law. They can only act within the bounds of law. To do otherwise would be to destroy the law and the concept of law.

The latitude is constricted even further as a case is appealed to higher courts where there is no jury, but only judges who decide. A supreme court is the final defender of the law more than a defender of individual merits, and if the members of that court decide outside the bounds of law, rather than being defenders of the law, they nullify the law permanently.

So the separation of prescribed law and hidden law is critically important. It's true, as Goldberg says, that we live the greater, greatest, part of our lives without constant attention to prescribed law. And that our lives are more comfortable and effective because of that. So, when prescribed law becomes too dominant, when it pervades our everyday existence to a degree where we must be minutely cognizant of it, people are more prone to be, as Goldberg says, "terrified to work things out themselves in a conversation with someone they disagree with."

Then, what is the necessity of prescribed law if hidden law is so effective when, as Spence says, "everything has to be evaluated on its merit"? That essentially asks the question "why have government?" Well, of course, government is in our "nature." Two people discussing and resolving differences is a form of government. Even a single person deciding the best course of action on its own "merit" is a form of government--self government. Families, cultures, societies, States all must, for cohesion, resolve differences, and the larger the entity, the less opportunity for everyone to discuss and resolve those differences. So hidden law cannot hold a large society together.

This seems like it should be obvious and not worthy of discussion. But the devil is in Spence's merits. The merits of different prescribed law--the law that glues the larger society together.

We are having a debate in our time on which type of law, which type of government, is the best. Is it better to have a law, a government, which allows its vast number of citizens to have local discussions on how to lead their lives on personal merit, while setting a limited prescription on its own duties in respect to protecting the rights of its citizens to so act. Or is it better to have a government which can prescribe laws that dictate to citizens how they must act.

The first type, what we call constitutional government, has the advantage of actually being more evolutionary, though it is perceived to be static. It allows change over time without abandoning its self-limited duties because those duties don't prescribe against individual merit. They actually give those merits encouragement to fulfill themselves. The other type, what we refer to as progressive, though it is perceived to be more evolutionary because it presumably changes, in practice, because it removes power from individuals and smaller units of society and translates that power to prescribed law and all-powerful government, in practice it limits the ability of self and local government, and dictates against the hidden law by which individuals on their own merit discuss and govern amongst themselves. As such, progressive government hinders the natural, organic change that evolves through the merit of individual perceptions of themselves and of their fellow citizens through free experience.

One small anecdotal experience may apply here--I recall a Mr. Duditch, a self-realizing man with a strict and sound moral code, but having a bigoted view of blacks. This was when Detroit was still predominantly white, but changing fast and blockbusting was being used to move blacks into white neighborhoods with the effect that whites would move out and leave the space and housing for blacks. The first black family moved into the neighborhood, and Mr. Duditch was very disturbed. It turns out that the black family was not the stereotype that Mr. Duditch expected. They kept their property immaculate, grew flowers (Mr. Duditch was an avid gardener), were polite, and just not what blacks were supposed to be. Mr. Duditch came to like them, have conversations with them, and wound up preferring them to some whites in the neighborhood. He didn't come to his new perception because he was ordered to by some prescribed law. Not by some government mandate that he must do such and such or be fined. He came to it as a free man who judged by his experience--by the hidden law of people discussing amongst themselves rather than by prescribed law. The change of heart did not take generations or require the 23d century to arrive.

So, as Reagan said years ago, it still remains a time for choosing. Do we want to be individually free, on our own merit, to live our lives as we choose and because of what we experience, or must we be forced to live them according to a prescribed law, one which constantly changes to suit the elusive merit of the moment, a merit decided by a few experts on how we must act and be.

QUOTE=spence;1033566]
Slavery came out of left field and surprised the process built by slave owning Founders.

There's this peculiar notion, or more to the point, an ignorant agenda driven bromide, that because some of the founders owned slaves they couldn't actually believe in individual freedom, or didn't have a right to speak of it, or were hypocrites, or weren't qualified to write a constitution based on it. I suppose by the same idiotic reasoning slaves could also not speak of freedom or believe in it. How does a slave become not a slave? How does a slave owner become not a slave owner?

If you're born into a system and live it through most of your adult life, a system accepted by the society you live in, that was inherited by that society and those before it, and was considered, protected, and instituted as the way of life, an institution that was practiced throughout the world for ages, do you just wake up one morning, get brain-zapped with an idea that the slavery, the ties with England, the separate colonies--the whole business--was all wrong. And POOF with a snap of your fingers all would change and become somehow better?

In your dreams, perhaps. But it didn't change because of a dream. It changed because of circumstance. And because of dissatisfaction, not with the way of life you were taught to live, or your association with the world's greatest power, or with the security and opportunity that association provided to you and your forbears, but because that association was beginning to change in a fundamental way. A way that promised to reduce the opportunities for freedom and wealth that it once allowed. A way that promised to reduce you more toward the state of a slave than a free man.

Rather than some idealistic dream of freedom, it was a threat to the actual freedoms you possessed that required a change in the old relation. And that first required a parting of ways, which could only be done violently, and then a construction of a new order. And that construction required a foundation, principles, a new governance which would assure the maintenance and continued fruition of the freedom you coveted.

Though there were calls to ideals of freedom from those like Paine which inspired the Revolution, it was in those moments, and hours and weeks and months of debate afterwards about why you had done this and how you would secure and perpetuate it that the principles of national government were ordained. Those principles were a result of change as much, or more, than the path to it. And the Founders were caught between what they created with its motivating creed of equality and the reality of their existing societal norms.

The world and society didn't instantly change after the Revolution. It was relatively the same but with a new order, and a new form of government. But the principles which were the foundation of this new society were much higher minded than some of its actual practices, including slavery. And the resistance of some to changing that was a problem. And some of the Founders who had hammered out the new government and had arrived at and agreed to its principles but still retained slaves from the previous society knew that was counter to the principle of freedom and so faced an internal dilemma.

Jefferson, who is proclaimed an egregious example of hypocrisy had spoken against slavery even before the Constitution was written. And did so afterwards. He made dire warnings and predictions about the future as a result of slavery. Washington also is a noted "hypocrite." But he actually, in his will, freed his slaves upon his or his wife's death. So why didn't they immediately free their slaves. I suppose the most obvious and immediate reason is they lived in a slave state. There would be obvious problems for the freed slaves for those and many other reasons. That's not to say they were right. They were also, as were most whites of the time, racist in their view of the ability of blacks to thrive on their own. And there was no doubt fear of freed blacks, especially if they didn't have the means to make decent lives.

It was not as simple as a snap of the finger. They knew it was wrong. They made provisions such as the prohibition of slave importation after 1808, and prohibition of slavery into the Northwest Territory, and so on, with the intention that the institution would die out.

But the principle that all men are created equal was a declaration not only to England to be applied to the rebelling colonists, it was a message to the world and to all its people that they had the same rights for which the Revolution was fought. And that ideal was true and worthy for the struggle to obtain it, and because it was true it should be evident to kings and even to slave holders.

The Founders arrived at that truth, and some were mired in a way of life that was not so easily nor instantly divested.

Progressive jurisprudence isn't an open book, like I said, everything has to be evaluated on its merit. Just because you can change doesn't mean you must change. With the inverse conservatives would never be able to evolve either...

-spence[/QUOTE]

You're spot on. Progressive jurisprudence is no book at all. It evaluates everything on whatever merit progressive judges feel applies according to their personal views of the moment. Progressive jurisprudence is not bound by books or laws. They evaluate more by trends of perceived social justice which may change from time to time, even quite often. The trends can switch instantly, in midstream of an election cycle--one day the prevailing trend of progressives even like Obama can be that marriage is between a man and a woman, the next day that becomes passé and tossed into the trash bin of history. What was good ten years ago . . . well . . . that may not work today. That was a long time ago. History marches on. But what is important in progressive ideology, backed by progressive jurisprudence, is that just plain regular folks, sort of the drones, are not allowed on their own to evaluate everything on its merit. Only progressive ideology filtered through progressive jurisprudence is allowed that privilege in order, of course, to create that perfect union of like minds--stepping in unison.

And, of course, because you are not expected to change or to evaluate everything on its merit on your own (which is the purview of progressive ideology and jurisprudence) you will, MUST, change in accordance with ad hoc progressive jurisprudence. In this way, we, conservatives, liberals, progressives, atheists, Muslims, all the various genders, will all evolve together--in the same way. Which eliminates that old, natural way of evolution which happened with the friction of differing or opposing ideas or elements intermingling--in sometimes uncomfortable overly bumptious ways--and brings us all together harmoniously, peacefully into a world that no longer even requires evolution . . . or . . . will no longer be able to evolve.

"It really is that black and white."

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2014/03/03/an-absolute-right-to-refuse-service/?subscriber=1