Blog is Moving!

Judge White's blog is now located at http://retiredjudges.org/wordpress/

A Constitutional Law Lesson

Citizens in Berkely, Michigan, are making news for standing up for what the First Amendment actually says: http://www.candgnews.com/Homepage-Articles/10-25-06/FG-NATIVITY.asp Here's an interesting point in the article:

"Meg Boker argued to keep the nativity scene where it is, saying that her children are inundated with immoral and objectionable material every day on television and the Internet, yet she has to fight for any kind of religious or spiritual symbols to be displayed in public. 'When we force religion indoors, we become less tolerant as a society,' she continued. 'We never get to learn about our brothers and sisters.'”

Her assertion - a powerful one - is that the First Amendment simply does not protect people against being offended. Thomas Jefferson affirmed that proposition in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, the icon most closely identified with the concept of "separation of church and state" when he wrote that, "...the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions...." Elsewhere Jefferson wrote:

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:221

A little critical thinking puts the issue in perspective: why is it that the same First Amendment free speech clause that protects the "rights" of persons who wish to speak ill of God shouldn't protect the rights of persons who wish to speak well of Him in public? Regrettably, the Supreme Court's misapplication of the "separation of church and state" principle has given us what Justice Arthur Goldberg warned could become "...a brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive, or even active, hostility to the religious."

Interestingly, the Oxford English Dictionary notes that G.J. Holyoake coined the term "secularism" in 1854 in his book Principles of Secularism to express "a certain positive and ethical element, which the terms `infidel,' `skeptic,' [and] `atheist' do not express." "Secularism" is a doctrine, spirit, or consciousness advocating the temporal (as opposed to the sacred) foundation of "... individual ideas, attitudes, beliefs, or interests." The term comes from the Latin root "Saeculum meaning `age'; `to be secular' means to `be oriented toward this age.'"
One need look no farther than the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins in footnote 11 to become convinced that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) regards secularism (aka secular humanism) is a "religion" in the sense that that word is now popularly defined. Modern dictionaries define "religion" as a set or system of beliefs. Since a "belief" is defined as strongly held convictions, opinions, and thoughts on which one bases actions, it is a fact that virtually all conscious action is by definition, "religious."

Regarding "separation of church and state," in an interesting essay, Terence Jeffrey discusses Justice Rehnquist's observation that "It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history...." Beginning in the early 1960's America's constitutionally-authorized-religious-pluralism began morphing into a judicially-imposed-public-secularism. Having been force fed this diet for two generations now, the malnutrition is increasingly evident, with families that are in distress, a jail population that has tripled over the past twenty years and an acute case of "constitutional-understanding-deficit-disorder" that threatens the very future of our nation.

Still, we can take comfort in the words of abolitionist Frederic Douglass who observed:
"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." [Source: Douglass, Frederick. [1857] (1985). "The Significance of Emancipation in the West Indies." Speech, Canandaigua, New York, August 3, 1857; collected in pamphlet by author. In The Frederick Douglass Papers. Series One: Speeches, Debates, and Interviews. Volume 3: 1855-63. Edited by John W. Blassingame. New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 204.]

If a few Believers in Berkely, MI can agitate on behalf of authentic constitutionalism concerning a creche display, imagine what God can and wants to do in the state of Louisiana with our highest per capita church attendance in America! I sense a refreshing blowing in the wind, and it's none too soon. Take it from this trial judge: THE JAILS ARE FULL!!!

Judge Darrell White (Retired)

20 Logic Errors

20 Logic errors used by evolutionists when discussing origins

1. Fuzzy Words

We believe, we think Given enough time, it will happen Might work Must have formed “Those life forms must have evolved in the absence of oxygen,…” Could possibly have been My guess is Seems like Use of “fuzzy words” demonstrates that evolutionists do not have the evidence to support their claims. 2. Half Truth Half true and half false Often more effective than the complete lie Example: The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to isolated systems, so it is not relevant to evolution, because the earth is an open system 3. Bandwagon The appeal to “everyone agrees” Example: All scientists accept evolution No real scientist accepts creation To see a list of scientists that believe in a literal 6-day creation got to: www.AnswersInGenesis.org 4. Glittering Generalities A broad oversimplification of an explanation Example: Scientists may disagree about the mechanism of evolution, but all agree that evolution is a fact. 5. Loaded Words Using emotionally-charged words to influence a reaction Example: Creationism is a tactic by the “Christian right” to force their religious agenda on our children 6. Association Associating something you want to criticize with something people dislike Example: Associating creation in the same sentence with astrology or known myths 7. Ridicule Attempting to provoke a dislike against a person or idea by name-calling Example: Creationists are troglodytes and flat-earthers 8. Circumstantial Evidence Assuming physical evidences are related Example: We are here therefore we must have evolved (this is often the best evidence used to support evolution) Example: Fossil horses arranged into an evolutionary sequence 9. Either-Or Fallacy Presenting only one possible solution when others are justified Example: If we teach creation then we will have to teach every other creation myth 10. Analogy Improperly drawing parallels while ignoring pertinent differences Example: Evolution is a fact like digestion or gravity 11. Authority Relying on authority rather than logic and evidence Example: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” Example: Citing one scholar who claims the days of Genesis could have been long ages 12. Extrapolation Assuming a trend beyond what the data permits Example: Radioactive dating methods prove the earth is 4.6 billion years old Example: Mutations are the mechanism for evolution 13. Best-in-Field Fallacy An appeal to overlook discrepancies in a theory Example: We don’t have all the answers, but evolution is the best model we have 14. Shifting the Burden of Proof Forgetting that it is your responsibility to prove a claim, not your opponents to disprove it Example: Claiming that creation has no proof and therefore should not be taught, when evolution has never been proven or is even capable of proof 15. Ad Hominem Attacking the person instead of the argument Example: Asserting that creationists are ultra-conservative, do not have real degrees, or are liars Example: Accusing creationists of quoting out of context when they did not 16. Equivocation Confusing the issue by using vague terms or changing the definitions of words Example: Changing the definition of science to support only evolution Example: Not clearly defining terms such as natural selection or macroevolution 17. Card Stacking Listing all the points in your favor while ignoring the serious points against it Example: Pouncing on one item by your opponent but ignoring the major points of his/her argument Example: Trying to prove evolution using finch beaks or antibiotic resistant bacteria but ignoring all the problems 18. Bluffing Appearing to know more than you do Example: Making the claim that the fossil record is full of transitional fossils Example: Dinosaurs evolved into birds 19. Appeasement The appeal that we're not really so different Example: Most religions don’t have a problem with evolution 20. Visualization Using imagery to mislead or to substitute for evidence Example: The evolutionary tree of life Example: The geologic column Example: Reconstruction of alleged “apemen”

Like a Boat without a rudder

«A federal judge hearing a constitutional challenge to a Kansas law requiring doctors, teachers and others to report underage sex between consenting youths said the state presented no credible evidence that underage sex is always harmful.U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten stopped short of issuing a decision from the bench, but he repeatedly interrupted Thursday's closing arguments by Assistant Attorney General Steve Alexander to challenge his assertions."Motives are irrelevant - I want to deal with facts," Marten said. "Where is the clear, credible evidence that underage sex is always injurious? If you tell me because it is illegal - I reject that," Marten said»

AP Wire | 02/09/2006 | Judge: No credible evidence underage sex always harmful:
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/state/13823878.htm

Commentary:  Of course if an elected trial judge were to utter such nonsense, the line would begin forming to oppose his re-election.  However, Judge Marten - clutching his federal commission - could care less about public opinion.  In fact there are only 435 "natural enemies" of the Judge Martens of America.  And if hizhonor reads the paper Monday morning and finds that no impeachment inquiry has been initiated against him, then in the grand scheme of things, he has been officially vindicated and every member of the House of Representatives has, by his/her silence, become complicit in issuing Judge Marten a :-)    of continued "good behaviour." 

That is because impeachment must begin in the House of Representatives.  See Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.  It's that simple (and hard).  Remember James Madison's words, "In republican governments, the legislative authority necessarily predominates." Federalist #51. 

And if "we the people" don't take the time to contact our congressman's office to respectfully insist that that such behaviour is not "good" and deserves impeachment, we become "principals" by "aiding and abetting" the judge's misfeasance.  For in a self-governing nation, there are no innocent bystanders; only those guilty of bystanding!

Judge Darrell White (Retired)

Let's Stop Paying the ACLU to Sue Us!

So far Rodney Alexander and Bobby Jindal are the only members of the Louisiana congressional delegation who are cosponsors of the Public Expression of Religion Act, or PERA (H.R.2679). The bill would prohibit judges in civil suits involving the First Amendment's Establishment Clause from awarding attorney's fees to those offended by religious symbols or actions in the public square – such as a Ten Commandments display in a courthouse or a cross on a county seal. If passed, the ACLU would have to spring for its own attorney’s fees in suits such as the one pending in Tangipahoa Parish where it persuaded a former-state-ACLU-president-turned-federal-district-judge to order the duly elected parish school board members to stop opening their meetings with prayer.

Introduced by Congressman Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind in May of this year, the legislation declares that its purpose is “to eliminate the chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by State and local officials that results from the threat that potential litigants may seek damages and attorney's fees.” As WorldNetDaily reported, Hostettler's proposal would amend the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to prohibit prevailing parties from being awarded attorney's fee in religious establishment cases, but not in other civil rights filings. This would prevent local governments from having to use taxpayer funds to pay the ACLU or similar organization when a case is lost, and also would protect elected officials from having to pay fees from their own pockets. For too long the ACLU has used the law to enrich itself at the expense of taxpayers and as a means to silence public officials who don't want to be sued personally. The ACLU says it is a civil rights organization that collects no fees for the many lawsuits it files to remove any reference to God from the public arena. Where does the money come from for these new newspaper ads? Where does the money come from to pay for the lavish ACLU headquarters in New York City and the six figure executive pay of its management? Much of it comes from your pocket. The ACLU files lawsuits against school districts, usually districts that have few funds, such as in Pontotoc, Mississippi. They then demand that the schools pay their legal fees, which often run in the $300 to $500 an hour range, plus expenses that include staying in luxury hotels. Under a bill passed by Congress years ago to help the civil rights movement, the schools have to hand the money to the ACLU to help them take away the authority of the local school board. The Public Expression of Religion Act (RH 2679) would put an end to tax payer funding for the ACLU. They would have to turn to Norman Lear and George Soros for their funding. The Public Expression of Religion Act would eliminate the federal rule that allows the ACLU to collect attorneys' fees when filing these kinds of lawsuits. In the past Congressman Hostettler has not found enough support in the House to bring his bill to the floor; however, with the ACLU now filing lawsuits to remove "religious" reference from memorials to the veterans who have lost their lives fighting for our freedoms, there may be new momentum for the bill. Please call your congressman about the Public Expression of Religion Act. (Click here to hear interview of Congressman Hostettler and former ACLU attorney Rees Lloyd. This is an MP3 file)

Louisiana’s congressional delegation needs to hear from concerned citizens. After all, our next generation’s future depends on our actions today.

Ban All Holy Days!

Constitutional Law Professor John Eidsmoe has issued the following tongue-in-cheek rationale for banning all holidays.  
December 25 is now history, and the combatants in the "Christmas wars" have laid down their arms until next year. But the issues are far from resolved, and the conflict is far from over. Look for the guns to sound again come next December.
The problem with a ban on "Merry Christmas" is that it doesn't go far enough. To be consistent (though that is a rare virtue these days) we should consider banning all holidays that might offend someone. Looking at my 2006 calendar, I find many holidays at which some might take offense.
New Year's Day is an observance of the Gregorian calendar, an offense to those who don't accept the Gregorian calendar, who don't accept Jesus Christ as the central focus of human history, and who are offended by a calendar named after a Roman Catholic Pope. Let's ban it.
January 16, Martin Luther King Day, is offensive to racists. Some might say racists deserve to be offended, but what right have we to be judgmental? Besides, the day is also used to celebrate the birth of Robert E. Lee, and this is offensive to Yankees. Let's ban it.
February 2, Ground Hog Day, could be offensive to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and others who think it is demeaning to ground hogs, and also to those who think we should celebrate (or demean) another animal instead. Let's ban it.
February 12, Lincoln's birthday, is offensive to Southern secessionists and also to northerners who think Lincoln usurped powers in violation of the Constitution. Let's ban it.
February 22, Washington's birthday, is offensive to those who think Jefferson should have been our first President, and also to those who think the War for Independence was mean-spirited. Can you imagine how an Englishman must feel if he has to be in the United States on George Washington's birthday? We could balance Washington's birthday with Benedict Arnold Day, or King George III Day, but that could offend others. Let's just ban it.
Washington's and Lincoln's birthdays have now been combined into President's Day, February 20. But this offends anyone who is offended at anything that any President has ever done, and also offends those who didn't realize that every President was born on Monday. Let's ban it.
March 1, Ash Wednesday, offends all who do not want to observe the events leading to the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and also to those who are allergic to ashes. Let's ban it.
March 17, St. Patrick's Day, offends all who are not Irish. It sends a message of exclusion to those who are not Irish, causing them to believe that, at least on March 17, they are second-class citizens and not fully part of society. It also offends Scots who insist that St. Patrick was really a Scotsman, and it offends Englishmen who object to the work of St. Patrick in Christianizing Ireland and developing a written legal code for Ireland in advance of anything England had at the time. Let's ban it.
March 20, the first day of spring, is the day the pagan Celts and Germans celebrated the equinox with bonfires, orgies, sacrifices, and other pagan rituals. They haven't done much of this for over 1,000 years, but a non-pagan might be offended, so let's ban it.
April 1, April Fools' Day, demeans and degrades fools. It has also been designated a special day for atheists. Some theists might feel excluded by this, and likewise some atheists could be offended by the designation of a day that shows them for what they really are. Let's ban it.
April 2, the day Daylight Savings Time begins, offends those who don't want to get up an hour earlier (or later), offends those who object to any interference with God's time, and unduly burdens those who complain that the extra hour of sunlight burns the grass on their lawns. Let's ban it.
April 9, Palm Sunday; April 13, Passover; April 14, Good Friday; April 16, Easter. Obviously offensive. I will not say why, because even that would involve the mention of God. Let's ban them.
April 26, Administrative Professionals Day, sends a message of exclusion to those who are not administrators or who are unprofessional, and also is a burden on those who are required to buy flowers for administrative professionals or take them to lunch. Let's ban it.
May 14, Mother's Day, sends a message of exclusion to men, lesbians, and all who are not mothers. Let's ban it.
May 20, Armed Forces Day, endorses violence and sends a message of exclusion for those who didn't have the courage to serve their country. Let's ban it.
May 29, Memorial Day, sends a message of exclusion to those who didn't have the good fortune to die for their country. Let's ban it.
June 14, Flag Day, offends flag burners and their ilk. It could even lead to patriotism. Even worse, it could lead someone to say the Pledge of Allegiance, with that repugnant phrase "under God." Let's ban it.
June 18, Father's Day, demeans women and gays, and also demeans fathers because the day usually doesn't produce as much revenue at the cash registers as does Mother's Day. Let's ban it.
June 21, the First Day of Summer, is the pagan summer solstice (see March 20) and is discouraging to skiers and others who prefer cold weather. Let's ban it.
July 4, Independence Day, offends those who don't like the sound of firecrackers. Even worse, can you imagine how this day demeans those who can trace their ancestors to Tories? Observance of this day could lead impressionable young people to read the Declaration of Independence and be exposed to such offensive phrases as "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," "All men are created equal," "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world," and "firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence." Let's ban it.
August? My calendar shows no holidays during the month of August. This is blatant discrimination against the month of August, and also offends those who shudder at the thought of having to work all month while getting ready for another school year. Also, the hot days of August are sometimes called "dog days" because the constellation Sirius rises and sets with the sun at this time; this could be offensive to dog-lovers.  Let's ban the whole month.
September 4, Labor Day, offends those who don't belong to labor unions, and also sends a message of exclusion to those who don't want to work. Let's ban it.
September 17, Constitution Day, honors 55 dead white males, sends a message of exclusion to those who favored the Articles of Confederation, and could encourage impressionable young people to read the Constitution and learn of its limitations on governmental powers. Let's ban it.
September 23, the First Day of Autumn, is the pagan autumnal equinox (see March 20) and also coincides with Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. Let's ban it.
October 2, is the Jewish Yom Kippur, a holiday that burdens those who lack the self-discipline to fast and lays a guilt trip on people by suggesting that they have sins to atone for. Let's ban it.
October 9, Columbus Day, discriminates against Norwegians who want to honor Leif Ericson as the discoverer of America, and also demeans Native Americans who objected to being discovered. Let's ban it.
October 29, the beginning of Standard Time, offends those who don't want to drive home in the dark and those who now have less time to get a suntan. Let's ban it.
October 31, Halloween, establishes the pagan religion and sends a message of exclusion to those whose religious beliefs prevent them from dressing up as witches, ghosts and goblins. This isn't so bad, since those who object are mostly Christians and therefore outside the protection of the First Amendment. But the Roman Catholic Church as made October 31 All Hallows Eve, and it is also Reformation Day, the day Martin Luther posted the 95 Theses. Some churches even hold Reformation parties on Halloween night! Let's ban it, and ban the 95 Theses as well.
November 1, All Saints Day, sends a message of exclusion to sinners, even saved sinners. Let's ban it.
November 7, Election Day, discriminates against those who cannot vote, will not vote, or get out-voted. Besides, talk of "election" sounds Presbyterian.  Let's ban it.
November 11, Veterans Day, not only sends a message of exclusion to those who did not have the courage to serve their country, but also is sexist since most veterans are men. Let's ban it.
November 23 – Thanksgiving? Thanks to Whom? The offensive religious implications are obvious, not to mention the fact that Thanksgiving is associated with the Pilgrim oppressors of Native Americans. Let's ban it.
December 16, the First Day of Chanukah, is offensive to the descendants of Antiochus Epiphanes, discriminates against those who can't spell Hanukkah or pronounce Chanukah, and against those who prefer darkness to the candle light of menorahs. Let's ban it.
December 22, the First Day of Winter, is the pagan winter solstice. (See March 20, June 21, and September 23.) Since pagans insist that paganism is a religion entitled to the protection of the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, it should also be subject to the prohibitions of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, though admittedly that would be applying to the Constitution a logic that the courts are reluctant to use. Let's ban it.
December 25, Christmas Day. The offensiveness of this holiday is too obvious to mention. I shouldn't even have used the word "Christmas." Let's ban it.
December 26, the First Day of Kwanzaa, sends a message of exclusion to non-Africans and to all those who don't know what Kwanzaa is and are too lazy to find out. Let's ban it.
December 31, New Year’s Eve, offends those who do not believe in celebrations that involve drinking and revelry, sends a message of exclusion to all those whose idea of a wild night is putting a scoop of real coffee in with the decaf, and also implies recognition of the Gregorian Calendar (See January 1). Let's ban it.
So we see that every holiday listed on the 2006 calendar can be offensive to someone. In fact, the very word "holiday" comes from "holy day" and is therefore an establishment of religion.
To avoid giving offense, therefore, we must ban all holiday observances. But since the Constitution doesn't say this, we need to amend the Constitution. But maybe not. The courts seem to think they can amend the Constitution just by re-interpreting it.
Admittedly, we will lose much of the richness of our cultural heritage, and life will be much more banal and unexciting. But at least we won't offend anyone. Except those of us who like holidays.
Or maybe there's an alternative. Why don't we all just lighten up a little, and not look for things to be offended about? Last week I ran into a Jewish friend while shopping; we shook hands, talked about old times, and wished each other Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah. Whether it be Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, Christmas, Ramadan, or Winter Solstice, why don't we all celebrate our holidays and be enriched by each other? Now, doesn't that give tolerance and diversity a new twist?
By John Eidsmoe
Senior Staff Attorney, Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker
Professor of Law Emeritus, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law
Pastor, Association of Free Lutheran Congregations
Lt. Colonel, U.S. Air Force Reserve (Ret.)
Colonel, Alabama State Defense Force
2648 Pine Acres, Pike Road, AL 36064
(334) 270-1789 EidsmoeJA@juno.com

One Nation Under ?

Rabbi Daniel Lapin, founder of Toward Tradition and author of America’s Real War, notes that “In Israel, the mail is not delivered on Yom Kippur.  It is a Jewish nation.  In Saudi Arabia, the mail is not delivered on Friday.  It is an Islamic nation.  In America, the mail is not delivered on Sundays or Christmas.  It is a Christian nation."
Not surprisingly, a November 2005 FOX News poll discloses the following:

• 59 percent of Americans think Christianity is under attack here;


• 81 percent disagree with the statement that religion should be “excluded from public life”;


• 93 percent want “In God We Trust” to remain on our currency and coinage;


• 90 percent are for keeping “One Nation Under God” in the Pledge of Alliance;


• 76 percent say public display of the Ten Commandments should be legal;


• 82 percent favor voluntary school prayer; and


• 77 percent believe “the courts have gone too far in taking religion out of public life.”

Meanwhile, the civil war of cultural values continues to heat up with polygamists now seeking their “civil rights” - http://www.washtimes.com/specialreport/20051211-121113-7195r.htm.  Are they entitled?  Justice Anthony Kennedy and four concurring SCOTUS justices opined in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey that “at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life”.  On the other hand, Noah Webster, in his massive work, the 1828 Dictionary of the American Language defined civil liberty as “the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation."  Thomas Jefferson affirmed that view in his now famous-but-little-understood 1802 letter to Danbury Baptists [enshrining “separation of church and state”] when he wrote that man “… has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties."

Will we continue down this unmistakable “slippery slope”?  Put more personally, if the outcome of restoring our constitutional republic depended on you, would we transmit it intact to our children and grandchildren?  Well, it really does depend on you – and me!  Theodore Roosevelt issued a poignant challenge when he said, "No man is worth his salt who is not ready at all times to risk his well-being, to risk his body, to risk his life, in a great cause." -Theodore Roosevelt