The Republican Club of Sun City N E W S L E T T E R

June 2015

Everett Schmidt, Editor Sun City Texas

rcsctx.com

(Subjects if Reports in This Issue: The State Board of Education; The Supreme Court Decision on Marriage; Civil Disobedience as a Response to Court Rulings)

 

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBER TO ADDRESS CLUB

Tom Maynard, Member of the State Board of Education representing District 10 and current Executive
Director of the 102,000 member Texas FFA Association, will address the club during its dinner meeting scheduled for Thursday, June 4 in the ballroom of the Social Center in Sun City. He currently serves as chairman of the Board’s Committee on Instruction.

The Board has a number of important duties relating to public education, some of which are inferred in the Texas Constitution, and some of which are stipulated by statute. In connection with the discharge of its duties, the Board has had to serve as a battle ground where clashes of worldviews are intensely and emotionally fought. For example, several years ago there were on-going battles about the extend to which evolutionary theory should be taught as being settled science to the exclusion of other explanations for the beginning of life. More recently, there are controversies about how terrorism should be reported, the extent to which Judeo-Christianity influenced the founding of the country and other such issues which should be included in textbooks. The present controversies  about the Common Core (of which Texas is not a signatory, but which has indirectly been influenced by it) further illustrate the divided opinions with which the Board must grapple.

Our speaker has a wide variety of both professional and life experiences which can serve him and the Board well. In addition to being able to maintain contact with FFA students and their teachers by virtue of being Executive Director of that organization, he has maintained contact with school-age children by being a parent, a teacher and a school board trustee. He is also a musician, having served as a church choir director for 17 years.

Given the growing number of school-age children who come to school from broken homes, he may have gained special and valuable insights into the struggle these children have. This is so because of the fact that he, too, was a product of a broken home, grew up at Cal Farley’s Boys Ranch and had to rise above the humble circumstances with which he had to cope.

He and his wife, Freda, have five children and four grandchildren, and reside in Williamson County.

 

BEGINNING TIMES:   Social Hour – 6:00 PM;    Dinner – 6:30 PM;    Program – 7:00 PM (est.)

MENU: spring salad with homemade dressing selection, fried shrimp, stuffed(cornbread) chicken breast, green bean casserole, old fashioned mini carmel brownies, beverages.

COST: Cost is $16 per person. Checks made out to “The Republican Club of Sun City” should be mailed to: The Republican Club of Sun City, 1530 Sun City Blvd., Suite 120, Box 227, Georgetown, TX 78633. The deadline for payment or reservations is Friday, May 29.

Bill Harron, treasurer, has set up a special collection box on his front porch at 125 Stetson Trail for individuals wishing to hand-deliver payments, with the proviso that the Friday deadline has been met. For information about reservations, contact Bill at 512-864-0965 or Bharron@aol.com

VISITORS ARE WELCOME!

 

STATE  EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER TO ADDRESS CLUB IN JULY

Nita Davidson, who represents Williamson and other central Texas counties in Senate District 5 on the State Republican Executive Committee (SREC), will address the club during its dinner meeting scheduled for Thursday, July 16.

More information about that meeting  will be provided in the July newsletter.

 

OTHER CLUB NEWS

Club treasurer Bill Harron reports that 108 individuals attended the dinner meeting of May 14, with an additional 10-12 individuals attending at observers. In the absence of VP John Congdon (now on vacation), Bill reports that one person joined the club at that meeting, making the total membership now an estimated 258.

 

THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

Foreword. Texas, historically, has had difficulty in assigning the State Board to its “place in the sun.” Much of that difficulty can be attributed to unclear, if not contradictory, language in earlier versions of the Texas Constitution. In fact, viewed from the context of changes subsequently made to the Constitution, the authority of the Board has been reduced from its once formidable standing. For example, the Constitution had at one time specifically instructed the Legislature to provide for a  State Board of Education which was to set aside funds to provide for the free use of textbooks for the state’s children. To carry out that responsibility, the Constitution directed that the Board manage the Permanent School Fund, an awesome responsibility for a lay group which meets only a few times a year.

Some Pertinent Sections of the Current Texas Constitution:

ARTICLE 7. EDUCATION

Sec. 1. SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE OF SYSTEM OF PUBLIC FREE SCHOOLS. A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and  make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools.

Sec. 2. PERMANENT SCHOOL FUND. All funds, lands and other property heretofore set apart and appropriated for the support of public schools; all the alternate sections of land reserved by the State out of grants heretofore made or that may be hereafter be made to railroads or other corporations of any nature whatsoever; one half of the public domain of the State; and all sums of money that may come to the State from the sale of any portion of the same, shall constitute a permanent school fund.

The Composition of the State Board. The reader should understand that not all boards of education of the various states have their memberships determined by a vote of the people, as does Texas. The alternative is to have board membership  – in toto or in part – determined by appointment, probably in the belief that only “experts” in education (as university, public school and other professional personnel) were qualified to handle the complexities of curriculum. But it should be noted personnel from those sources are likely to be these days from the left. The low regard people have today for the Common Core – which is largely a product of elitists and politicians – should be noted in that regard.

But Texas, at one time, came close to having an appointed board, like other states, as is revealed by the following historical developments:

As of 1984, the State Board had 27 members, one from each congressional district. During a special session of that year, one called pursuant to a study by Dallas billionaire Ross Perot, the membership dropped to 15 (the present number), with members being appointed by the Governor. There was, however, agreement that the appointment process should give way to an elective process 4 years hence.

Some legislators, led by Lt. Gov. Hobby, questioned the establishment of a board determined by votes when voters know little, if anything, about board members or potential board members. So, to reconcile the two approaches, a non-binding referendum was place on the 1987 ballot asking voters to resolve the matter, which they did by voting 52.4% for the election option.

In 1995, after so-called “religious conservatives” became increasingly active, the Legislature (which was then controlled by Democrats) became “increasingly disgruntled,” and in regard to the textbook issue, “quietly reduced the board’s powers . . . “ But what may have appeared to the Legislature then as “bickering” among Board members may have been the early stirrings of the clash of worldviews which are now so pervasive.

In 1995, in the wake of that “disgruntlement,”  the legislature completely revised the Education Code in Senate Bill 1 introduced by then-Senator Bill Ratliff (father of the board’s current vice president) to limit the authority of the State Board to “perform only those duties [specifically] assigned to the board by the constitution of the state or by the Education Code.” Previously, the board’s powers extended to those not prohibited by the state.

The Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) Requirement. In determining whether to approve a prospective textbook for adoption, the Board is limited to approving those which have no factual errors and which cover 50% of the essential knowledge standards (TEKS).

In view of reports that today’s students are woefully deficient in understand history and free enterprise (often leaning to socialism), the reader may find some consolation in knowing the Education Code specifies the following as “required curriculum:”  “social studies, consisting of Texas, United States, and world history, government, economics, with emphasis on the free enterprise system and its benefits, and geography”

The Essential Elements (TEKS) and the Theory of Evolution. The teaching of the theory of evolution has been a controversial subject for many years, particularly in regard to whether it should be taught as “fact” – to the exclusion of other explanations for the origin of life – or whether it should, as part of the course, at least be questioned. For a period of time, the conservatives appeared to have won the day with the added phrase “strengths and weaknesses” discussion; however, that phrase was removed in 2009.

Following are excerpts from the Biology course standards. They are presented for two purposes: (1) to enable the reader to judge the suitability of the standards on evolutionary theory, and (2) to enable the reader to see the style (phraseology) with which course standards are expressed.

 

 

• Science concepts. The student knows evolutionary is a scientific explanation for the unity and diversity of life.

 

The student is expected to:

(A) analyze and evaluate how evidence of common ancestry among groups is provided by the fossil records, biogeography, and homologies, including anatomical, molecular, and developmental;

(B) analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record;

©  analyze and evaluate how natural selection produces change in populations, not individuals; (D)analyze and evaluate how the elements of natural selection, including inherited variation, the potential population to produce more offspring than can survive, and a finite supply of environmental resources, result in differential reproductive success;

(E) analyze and evaluate the relationship of natural selection to adaption and to the development of diversity in and among species;

(F) analyze and evaluate the effects of other evolutionary mechanisms, including genetic drift, gene flow, mutation, and recombination; and

(G) analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell.

 

Some Recent Controversies. More recently, according to the Austin American-Statesman, conflicts concerning the teaching of history and government have emerged, some of which have been fueled by a leftist-liberal think tank, The Texas Freedom Network, which paid ten university scholars $20,000 to review history, government and geography prospective textbooks, apparently believing their reports would be received as being unbiased. Included among their findings – consistent with leftist ideology –  are the existence of (1) biased statements that inappropriately portray Muslims in a negatively light, and (2) exaggerations of the influence of Judeo-Christianity on the nation’s founding.

A Wall Street Journal op-ed piece reports that, “The Texas State Board of Education, noting that the AP U. S. history framework is incompatible with that state’s standards, has formally requested that the College Board do a rewrite.” The College Boards exams, it should be noted, have been heavily influenced by the Common Core standards.

 

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE COMING SUPREME COURT

DECISION ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Foreword. By the end of June, the Supreme Court is expected to hand down one of its most significant decisions ever made, one concerning the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. Legal and political opinion now appears to be unanimous that the Court will rule in favor of same-sex marriages.

While there has been some discussion of this issue in the major media, it appears to have centered on the relatively uncomplicated issue of how traditional marriage will be affected, if at all, by an adverse ruling. There has been little, if any, discussion on the far more complicated matters of what might be termed ancillary issues stemming largely from fact that the Constitution does not mention marriage, thus leaving the court to contrive a constitutional right.

There has been little, if any, discussion of the  ancillary issues by the major media. In addition to that void, is the general belief that the broadcast media, printed media and especially  the entertainment industry have been biased in their support of the homosexual agenda.

In an effort to fill this void and to counter the liberal bias of the media, this report, which provides information about significant ancillary issues, is presented.

The Opposing Arguments. According to an Associated Press report:

The arguments of marriage-rights supporters boil down to a claim that states lack any valid reason to deny the right to

to marry, which the court has earlier described as fundamental to the pursuit of happiness. They say state laws that allow

only some people to marry violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law and make second-class

citizens of same-sex couples and their families. Same-sex couples say that preventing them from marrying is akin to a

past ban on interracial marriage, which the Supreme Court struck down in 1967.

 

The states respond that they have always set the rules for marriage and that voters in may states have backed,

sometimes overwhelmingly, changes to their constitutions to limit marriage to a man and a woman. They say a lively

` debate is underway and there is no reason for courts to impose a solution that should be left to the political process.

The states also argue that they have a good reason to keep defining marriage as they do. Because only heterosexual

couples can produce children, it is in the states’ interest to make marriage laws that encourage those couples to enter

a union that supports raising of children.

 

While the Constitution makes no mention of marriage, the Court could use the 14th Amendment to make the same-sex marriage issue the same as a race issue. Author and talk-show host Kirby Anderson explains the result if that is the case:

The Supreme Court’s decision will elevate homosexuality to the same level as race. Refusal to fully endorse homosexuality will be viewed the same as discriminating against someone because of their race. This will be true for businesses, schools, churches; everywhere throughout the culture.

Not only will your child’s school be forced to include homosexual families and relationships in their curriculum, they will be forced to teach homosexual actions as well.

 

In Massachusetts and other states that have legalized same-sex marriage, teaching about homosexuals has already been implemented in the schools, beginning in kindergarten. Parents are not allowed to opt their children out of this teaching.

 

Even though the U. S. Supreme Court has not yet made a ruling applicable to the entire nation, the implications of a favorable ruling for homosexuals can already be noted because of rulings made at the local level – by states and municipalities. Some of those implications are pointed out by Focus on the Family:

 

 

• Private businesses are threatened with fines, sued by the state governments and harassed and intimidated by citizens, unless they agree to offer their services to same-sex wedding ceremonies. Some business owners have even been ordered to attend “re-education” courses as part of their punishment for refusing services.

• Parents are losing the “opt-out” rights in public schools when it comes to sexual materials taught in the classroom. In California, the promotion of homosexuality is infiltrating history and social studies textbooks at all grade levels.

• Private citizens have been terminated from employment simply for holding the view that same-sex marriage is inappropriate.

 

With respect to the last point concerning the violation of a “politically correct” view, note what happened to the following three individuals – who represent but a sampling – who didn’t have the “politically correct” view, as reported by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council:

 

Sportscaster Craig James was fired from FOX Sports Southwest because he opposes same-sex “marriage.” Atlanta Fire Chief, Kelvin Cochran, lost his job defending natural marriage in a book written for his church. Chaplain Joseph Lawhorn was disciplined after conducting suicide prevention training for his fellow soldiers and having the audacity to say how his faith helped him deal with depression.

 

State and Municipal Ordinances. Already, a growing number of states and municipalities have adopted laws or ordinances relating to issues of gay marriage. For example, Houston’s city council passed one such ordinance, as have other  cities in the state and nation. Focus on the Family reports the following in this regard:

 

More than 20 states currently have such public accommodations laws that include “sexual orientation” as a protected class, and many more cities and towns have passed their own, even in places where no statewide law exists. If the Supreme Court rules against social conservatives this month, look for more gay activists to lobby more states and municipalities to pass such laws. In those jurisdictions, legal traps will abound for churches and ministries trying to serve their communities.

 

Tax Exemptions May Be Affected. Michael Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and president of Patrick Henry College, has some pertinent observations about the tax status of both non-profit institutions and their contributors in the wake of an adverse Court ruling:

 

During the hearing, Justice Alito asked, “In the Bob Jones case, the court held that a college was not entitled to tax exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?”

Verrilli [the government attorney] replied that he would need to know more specifics, but allowed that “it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that.”

Alito’s question was premised on the Bob Jones University case from 1983 in which the IRS revoked the school’s tax exempt status because of its policies on interracial dating and marriage. BJU defended on the basis of the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court rejected their defense holding that the government’s goal of eradicating racial discrimination in marriage was more important than BJU’s religious rights.

So, the follow-up question from Alito’s question is obvious: If the court rules in favor of same sex marriage, how can religious colleges that refuse to acknowledge such unions avoid BJU’s fate?

No one should think that IRS implications will stop with colleges. Religious high schools, grade schools and any other religious institution will face the same outcome. And this includes churches.

 

The Impact of Eric Holder’s “Memorandum.” Tony Perkins reports on a far-reaching memorandum issued without authorization by former Attorney General Eric Holder before he left office:

 

Just a few weeks ago, outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder issued an official memorandum creating [on his authority] special status for “transgendered” persons in employment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This legal memo would pervert a law [the Civil Rights Act] intended to fight racism and sexism. Now it will also mean that if your child’s male teacher wants to dress as a woman, he is free to do so even if you and the school object. If a high school boy claims to be transgendered, he can can the use the girls’ restroom even if it makes the girls very uncomfortable.

This unlawful memo releases hundreds of radicalized Department of Justice attorneys, who have enormous power and resources, to launch punitive civil rights case against municipal governments, school districts and businesses. Perhaps churches and ministries will be next.

 

The Fairfax County Public School Board voted to add “gender identity” as a protected class to its policy on non-discrimination. The vote came after a deputy school superintendent warned the board that if the board refuses to amend its policy, the Office of Civil Rights “has the right to recommend termination of federal funding.”

Only one board member objected to the change, asking “Where are parental rights in the education of our children?” and “Are we to say that every school board now has lost control over running the local school?”

Parental Rights. Focus on the Family provides the following discussion on how an adverse ruling by the Supreme Court will exacerbate the myriad problems with which today’s families must cope:

 

In short, the Court’s stamp of approval on the same-sex license to marry will also mean a license for schools to teach children of all ages that homosexuality is something to be endorsed and celebrated – whether parents like it or not. Parents have both a right and responsibility to oversee their children’s education, especially when it comes to topics of sexuality, marriage and family. Christian parents – and even parents of other faiths or no faith at all – recognize that in this often over-sexualized culture, the power to control how, when and if their children are taught about sensitive sexuality and family topics is a freedom worth safeguarding. However, that will be a challenge  – especially with a looming court decision that could further erode that right.

 

For example, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage, parents can expect to see the court-ordered definition of marriage in public school textbooks and lessons plans.  . .

 

California already requires public schools to include the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender  individuals in social studies instruction. Since it’s almost impossible to discuss homosexual individuals and their contribution to society without talking about their sexuality, the topic will likely become more commonplace in the classroom. Sadly, instead of teaching children that people deserve a place in history books because of their outstanding accomplishments, regardless of how they identify sexually, our history and social science courses could become platforms for adult sexual advocacy.

 

Curricula changes will eventually affect homeschool and private schools, too, as activists lobby book publishers to be more “inclusive.” A court ruling imposing same-sex marriage is also likely to empower ongoing efforts to propose nationwide sexuality standards, which also could impact curricula.

 

To date, parents in many jurisdictions have had latitude to speak into education courses or sections of material that discuss sexuality, even to the point of being allowed to opt their children out of such courses or reading assignments. A redefinition of marriage by the Supreme Court puts “opt-out” rights in jeopardy.

 

Parents granted opt-out rights for sex-education programs likely will not be given that same opportunity in other academic topics, like American history and social studies. State and local responses to a pro-same-sex marriage ruling will vary when it comes to retaining or jettisoning parental rights. Federal mandates are also likely, further limiting the voice parents will have in their children’s education on sensitive topics.

 

Impact on the Military. Following is a sampling of how the military has been affected by the homosexual movement, suggesting the effects could be worse in the wake of an adverse Supreme Court ruling:

 

CNSNews recently reported that Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter told a group of ROTC cadets that far more men than women – 10,400 compared to 8,500 – “experienced unwanted sexual contact” last year. He continued to say the U. S. military cannot allow sexual assault to make the all-volunteer force appear unattractive to the next generation of fighter that it needs.

 

Penna Dexter of Point of View reports that “In response to a 2013 directive by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the Marine Corps and the Army have been conducting extensive research and experiments to test the  prospects for women to serve in direct combat units.” Dexter continues: “The only way to get women to meet standards for combat is to dumb them down, which is exactly what Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey is advocating. He says if women cannot meet a certain standard, senior commanders had better have a good reason why that standard should not be lowered.”

 

According to GOPUSA, a monument dedicated to LGBT veterans will be unveiled in a national cemetery near Chicago on Memorial Day, in a celebration of the first federally approved monument to LGBT veterans. The monument will also include an etching that reads: “Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people have served honorably and admirably in America’s armed forces. In their memory and appreciation of heir selfless service and sacrifice this monument was dedicated.”

 

Michael Berry, senior counsel at the Liberty Institute, a Texas-based legal organization dedicated to defending religious liberty in America, said recent high-profile case of military chaplains facing punishment for private counseling sessions that reflected the teachings of their religion could cause devout Americans who are qualified for military service to think twice about joining the military.

“I can’t tell you how many moms and dads I’ve spoken to who say, ‘My son or daughter wants to join the military, [but] in light of what you’ve described, I’m not sure I want to let them join the military anymore,’ and I don’t blame them…”

 

WILL CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE FOLLOW AN ADVERSE COURT RULING?

Should citizens simply “take” what an oppressive government hands them?

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, has stated in regard to the possibility of an adverse ruling on the same-sex marriage case and its ancillary issues that, “Barring a miracle, the family that has existed since antiquity will likely crumble, presaging the fall of Western civilization itself.” Providing support for Dobson’s apocalyptic prediction is this observation by columnist Jeffrey Kuhner: “Marxists have understood one seminal truth: destroy a religion and you destroy the culture and civilization it spawned. This is why modern liberals relentlessly advance the sexual revolution characterized by individual gratification, abortion on demand and birfth control. Sexual permissiveness – the Godless libertine society – is the true agent of agent of change.”

There was a consensus among the nation’s founders that religion was indispensable to a system of republican self-government. Author Daniel Dreisbach contends, “The challenge the founders confronted was how to nurture personal responsibility and social order in a system of self-government. Tyrants and dictators can use the whip and rod to force people to behave as they desire, but clearly this is incompatible with a self-governing people.”

Underscoring this thought is the following statement made by George Washington in his Farewell Address of September 19, 1796:

 

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports . . .

And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion . . .[R]eason and

experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

 

When political efforts are of no avail, what is the law abiding citizen to do? One answer is to engage in peaceful “civil disobedience;” i. e., in a peaceful manner, simply don’t comply with the offending law or ruling.” Mat Staver points out some incidents of “civil disobedience” from the past:

 

Historically we know that Thomas Jefferson would not enforce the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 that President John Adams had signed. Jefferson wrote a letter Abigail Adams saying, what gives you the idea that the judges have the final authority to be the arbiters of the law? If that were the case we would have a despotic branch.

 

Lincoln advocated disobedience to Dred Scott and Andrew Jackson advocated disobedience to the banking bill, so it’s not unprecedented that both executives and individuals have said some laws are just and some are unjust.

 

Martin Luther King’s argument in “Letter from Birmingham Jail” considered just and unjust laws. Just laws are laws in conformity to higher law we have a duty to obey. We also have a duty to disobey laws that are against higher law but be prepared for the consequences of the wrath of the civil authorities. We still cannot obey unjust laws.

 

Today, one can point to acts of oppression on the part of various individuals or branches of government as evidenced by the following sampling: Executive – lying about ObamaCare, issuing illegal order permitting unrestrained immigration, and other acts; Attorney General – lying under oath about Fast and Furious, refusing to comply with legal requests for information, issuing order promoting LGBT (reported above); IRS – targeting various conservative groups; Supreme Court – overruling the will of the people, allowing two Justices who had married same-sex couples to adjudicate the current issue in violation of the law on recusal.

There is, however, now effort to “push back” against an oppressive ruling. Some prominent Christian leaders (Dobson, Michael Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Robert Jeffress, and others) have signed a document titled Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage. The pledge, in part, states: “We will view any decision by the Supreme Court [overturning traditional marriage] or any court the same way history views the Dred Scott and Buck v. Bell decisions. Our highest respect for the rule of law requires that we not respect an unjust law that directly conflicts with higher law.”

Anderson reports that, “Many of the signers went on to say they would engage in civil disobedience. But that they meant ‘peaceful resistance against unjust laws and unjust rulings.’” Bob Unruh reports, “The board of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Counsel, which represents 40,118 evangelical Hispanic churches in America and about 500,000 in Latin America and Spain, …voted to sign the Marriage Pledge, warning that a decision mandating same-sex marriage simply would not be accepted.”

Inasmuch as there will be push back from the left – and especially the leftist media – to that effort, it may be helpful to note that according to recent news reports, the protesters in Baltimore (and perhaps elsewhere) have been paid by an outside group funded by George Soros. These payments may have been taking place in other places when protests are carried out by the left. It should therefore be noted that any civil disobedience carried out by conservatives will be because of sincerely held beliefs, while such acts by leftists (or some) may be because of money.

 

The prospect of engaging in “civil disobedience” is disturbing to the law-abiding citizen who may need some assurance that such a course of action would be “right.” Fortunately, some of the thoughts of great Americans on that matter may be instructive.

For example, the Declaration of Independence states: “ . . .whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [government securing the rights endowed by the Creator], it is the right of people to alter or abolish it. . .” and “when a long train of abuses and usurpations [indicate a design to bring about despotism] it is [man’s] right, it is [man’s] duty to throw off such government.”

Retired Judge Robert Bork did not rule out civil disobedience as a justified course of action in reaction to judicial rulings which are based on usurped authority, saying: “To the objection that a rejection of a court’s authority [or law] would be civil disobedience, the answer is that a court [or a Congress]  that issues orders without authority engages in an equally dangerous form of disobedience.”

Providing response to the notion that such resistance constitutes insurrection, feisty columnist Ann Coulter says: “The conservative argument for enforcing inane court ruling is that the only option is anarchy. But we are already living in anarchy. It’s a one-sided, Alice-in-Wonderland anarchy in which the liberals always win and the conservatives always lose.”

Martin Luther King, Jr., in his work of 1963 titled, “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” provides some useful philosophical considerations as to how to carry out a program of civil disobedience, some of which follow:

• “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path? You are quiet right in calling for negotiation. Indeed,  this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crises and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue.”
• “ . . .I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged  groups seldom give up their principles voluntarily.”
• One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” “The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust…One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to  disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’”
• Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.
• “I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.”
• “In your statement [of King’s critics] you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn’t this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery?”

 

 

QUOTATION OF THE MONTH

 

“America is great because America is good, but if America ever cease to be

good, she will cease to be great.” de Tocqueville