…hurry up and make his “JFK Speech“:
Mitt Romney has said that if his Mormon faith becomes an issue in his race for the presidency, he will address it at length in a speech. Does he have space on his calendar tomorrow?
The press is writing about about his religion. Pollsters are asking about it, and GOP voters inevitably bring it up in any discussion of the 2008 candidates. Will his faith affect how he governs? Will it hurt his chances at winning the nomination?
…it’s time to clear a few things up. It’s not that Romney should come clean about his clean laundry’he should please stay quiet about that’but now is the time to improve on his current approach, which has largely been to make fun of misconceptions about Mormonism (“Take my wives, please” kinds of jokes.) If he doesn’t define what his religion means to him, others will do it for him’focusing on the most loopy aspects. Constant questions and endless press coverage will get in the way of his larger task of pitching himself as the only “true conservative” in the GOP race.
Romney has also got to move fast to stop the conventional wisdom from calcifying that a Mormon can’t get elected in the GOP. Romney’s faith is of particular concern to evangelical voters who make up the GOP’s key voting bloc’some of whom believe Romney belongs to a cult. Conservative columnist Robert Novak has said it will be the issue that keeps Romney from winning the nomination. A recent Rasmussen poll finds that 43 percent of respondents say they will never vote for a Mormon, and 51 percent of evangelicals say that.
Address the Mormon issue, and move on: That’s what the Romney camp hopes will happen when he gives his public speech. But talking about these issues in public will be tricky. First, it’s one thing to answer questions about Christ. It’s another to proclaim your faith in him at length and in public, if you consider your faith a largely private matter.
Romney and his advisers compare the speech he will give to John Kennedy’s appearance before the Houston Ministerial Association in which he addressed concerns about his Catholicism by talking about “an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.” Romney can’t say exactly that, since many of the supporters he’s courting think the doctrine of separation of church and state is not enshrined in the Constitution and has been used by liberals to take religion out of public life. Plus, he’s not asking that his faith not be an issue. He wants it to be an issue. He’s running on it, but he wants to be the one to draw the line marking where his faith ends.
Romney’s aides say he won’t be able to give the speech until he formally announces that he’s running for president. That won’t happen until early next year, because, among other things, the governor wants to spend Christmas with his family one last time before the insanity of a full campaign begins.
I am unconvinced that this speech is necessary. In fact, I would be worried about the perception of this speech as pandering.
Gov. Romney may be better served in this area by commenting as little on his faith as possible (“Taking the High Road” if you will) and waiting for his opponents or their supporters to attack him on religious grounds. That would allow Romney to inflict massive damage by proxy (a role that Hugh Hewitt, Laura Ingraham, and Michael Medved would be all too happy to assume).
Trying to replicate JFK’s speech is simply too blunt and clumsy a tool for this issue. Mitt would be better off letting his enemies destroy themselves.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
I tend to agree with Slate on this one. I don’t think it would be pandering at all, especially when the campaign hasn’t really started yet (in the minds of the general public) and there’s really no one to pander to yet. In fact, discussing the Mormon issue sooner rather than later, before the campaign is in full swing, gets the issue behind him early and out of the way. We’re not talking about a crime or an affair or something to be ashamed of. It’s his religion. By avoiding the issue he implies that he is ashamed of his beliefs, and that impression will not attract the religious right. My advice: Discuss it and move on. THEN, let his proxies take up the cause. I think if he waits, that’s when it will be seen as pandering for the religious vote, or, more likely, it will be viewed as a defensive reaction to both the MSM and the Evangelical movement. And that’s a combo I wouldn’t want to fight at the same time. I don’t know why politicians put off discussing topics they know they’ll have to address eventually. If Romney has to explain his beliefs, which unfortunately these days he will have to do, why not just do it now on his own terms rather than six months or a year from now, on an opposing group’s terms, just as he’s trying to present himself in the best light? In my very brief career in public relations, I learned that you never let your opponent frame the debate, and you never try to hide what everyone already knows. Get the facts out on your terms, and then move on.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
Jake,
I see your point. Perhaps I’m just so saddened that Mitt has to make a speech like this at all. This shouldn’t even be an issue. But as you said, that the state of things this day and age.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
You right about the pudits can come back hard if Romney is attack first. However I think he should do the speech. I read somewhere that some woman in a focus group down in SC would not want ot vote for someone who won’t have a christmas tree in the White House.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
I think it understandable that he needs to address the issue. Back when everyone understood the notion of church-state separation, and ones religion was an obviously private matter, then religous concerns of voters were, in fact, usually based on bigotry. JFK could make the speech that he did – which basically affirmed his belief in that separation, and the issues was over.
But nowadays, especially in the GOP, church-state separation is not a universally accepted point. If one is going to put religous beliefs on the table, as political issues, then it is certainly relevant for voters to inquire about what exactly those beliefs are. And it would not be bigotry to oppose someone on those bases.
You Republicans have made religion a political issue – now you have to deal with it.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
No Tano… Secular Progressives have been attacking the traditions that are important to religious Americans for over 40 years now, forcing them into the political arena (a space they did not occupy until then.)
Your overreach is the reason that exactly 2 Democratic presidents have been elected in the past 42 years.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
“I think it understandable that he needs to address the issue. Back when everyone understood the notion of church-state separation” – There was still mandated public school prayer when JFK made his speech!! Communities across America were so opposed to Abington v. Schempp that they refused to impliment it. There was a massive movement underway to impeach chief justice Earl Warren over such religious decisions. You are harkening back to a day which not exist. While I agree the Republican reaction to social issues has often gone overboard (i.e. federal amendments that should be voted on state by state) it is entities like the SJC and Supreme Court have made the hot “religious” topics political issues.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
“You Republicans have made religion a political issue – now you have to deal with it.”
If Mitt Romney had said something to the effect of, “only Christians belong in government,” then he would naturally be opening himself up to questions about the classification of his religion. But I think you’d find it quite difficult to find anything like that coming out of Romney’s mouth. I fail to see how Romney’s support of the FMA (which I happen to oppose) constitutes putting religion onto the proverbial table, especially when Romney’s given nothing but secular arguments in favor of his position. There are plenty of good reasons why a society might want to be very, very prudent when it comes to amending an institution (marriage) that’s several millennia old that has nothing to do with what anyone’s preferred deity did or did not say about the subject.
It seems to me that it’s the liberal press that’s doing all the talking about religion. McCain, the very definition of a secular conservative, was asked recently on “This Week” about his views on “sin.” Considering that the concept of sin is by its very nature a theological one, what business is it of anyone what McCain or anyone else thinks about the subject? Why is it always the Left that brings these topics up?
November 30th, 2006 at 12:25 am
Your overreach is the reason that exactly 2 Democratic presidents have been elected in the past 42 years.
Heh. I certainly see your point, Kavon. I just happen to think it’s because the Democrats post-1968 have showed themselves entirely incompetent on national security matters. That explains why Carter and Clinton were elected. They were the only 2 times in the past 40 years when foreign policy wasn’t the most important priority for American voters. In 1976, it was post-Watergate and a general disgust for Republicans and a more isolationist stance toward the world. In 1992, the end of the Cold War and the economy in bad shape. In 1996, an economy that was doing better than it had in more than 30 years. I happen to think that historically, 2000 should’ve been a Democratic year too (Gore did get 500,000 more votes than Bush..), but Gore stupidly ran against the strong economy and cost himself the election.
I’m actually pessimistic about 2008 in terms of Iraq. I think that if the war is still going on by then, there is a much greater chance that a Democrat will win the election (styling themselves on the Nixon “Peace With Honor” strategy). I don’t want to see what the Democrats do with control of Congress and the Presidency, especially if it’s Hillary or Edwards.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:42 am
Dave,
I was not focusing on Romney per se, but on the party whose nomination he is trying to win.
As for the FMA, I am a bit confused about your comment. The institution of civil marriage, under American law, is not millenia old. Religous marriage may be that old, but there is nothing in the FMA or any other proposal in the public arena that seeks to change anything about religous marriage.
Religons are, and always will be, free to define marriage anyway they please. If they broaden the definition to include gays, they will do so because they decide to do so. If they dont, then thats fine too.
Civil marriage is another matter, and has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. It is a legal, contractual arrangement that speaks to the various rights and responsiblities, under the law, that are granted to, and expected of couples. A purely secular institution.
I also disagree that it is the “left” that is always bringing up the religion issue. Perhaps to some extent that is true, because many on the left are, to be frank, quite scared by what we see as the drift toward theocracy (I said _toward_ – no implication that we are really anywhere near there). But from my perspective, the overwhelming amount of religion-talk, of the kind you mention, comes from the religous activists themselves. All this talk about Romney maybe having problems as a mormon relate to potential problems with certain conservative christians on the right. Demcorats don’t give a darn about whether he is a baptist or a mormon or a muslim for that matter. As long as, like JFK, he resepcts the absolute separation of church and state.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:43 am
Kavon,
Yes, lets have fun with stats.
Is it our overreach that has caused us to win (at least the popular vote) in three out of the last four presidential elections?
November 30th, 2006 at 12:50 am
Or four out of the last eight?
Or six out of the last twelve?
November 30th, 2006 at 1:05 am
John,
I recognize that there is some truth in what you say about how things were in JFK’s day. On the other hand, lets look at the JFK dispute itself. Leaving aside charges of bigotry (a lot did exist, but lets focus on more reasonable concerns), many feared that, as a Catholic, JFK would feel beholden to the Vatican for making some of the judgements that a president needs to make.
He did not defuse that concern by promising to defer to good ol’ American protestant religous leaders, or to make his decisions straight from the bible, without any Vatican interpretation. He defused the issue by pledging fealty to the notion of an absolute separation of church and state. I.e the great American solution to how to have a peaceful free society with people of various faiths.
The way the issue was then instantly resolved indicates that this was really the underlying concern. That the nation wanted its political leadrs, charged as they were with running a secular institution, the government, to stick to the practical, political, and legal realm, and to keep their religion private. I really dont get the sense that that type of a consensus is quite as universal today, especially in the GOP.
I would be happy to be convinced otherwise.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:11 am
Whatever makes you sleep easier at night. In the past 42 years, Republicans have won 7 out of 10 presidential elections. Kid yourself however you want.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:17 am
Hehe, but it is only 7 out of 11 in the last 42 years and 3 weeks.
And only 6 out of 11 if you look at popular vote, which, given your general thesis about how Americans feel about the parties, is the more relavant measure.
You have a good night too!
November 30th, 2006 at 1:19 am
Tano,
I can appreciate the theoretical distinction between religious and civil marriage, but I’m talking more about the societal impact of introducing a new type of marital arrangement into a culture that, for many centuries, has only seriously recognized only what we now call “traditional marriage.” To me, this has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with the fact that anytime you introduce a major change into the way a society is put together, there will always be unintended consequences, including some that are undesirable. That’s why I generally favor keeping the state out of trying to dink with the culture altogether, because the more the state involves itself in society, the more a major policy shift can cause major changes in society, and not all of those changes will be desirable. It generally seems best to me that individuals, and the culture that they comprise, should be left to change or to not change on their own.
But the marriage debate is one that the state can’t really get out of, because it long ago decided to get involved in the marriage business, and now it has to decide whether it’s going to continue to recognize marriage the way it traditionally has, or make a dramatic policy change. As a conservative, I prefer to see the state take the option with the least risk and maintain the current policy. I also think that these policy decisions should be kept as de-centralized as possible, and the democratic process should be allowed to work, which is why I think the FMA is an overreaction and a bad idea (though there are plenty here who will disagree with me on that one). I tend to agree with Jonah Goldberg, who remarked recently on NRO’s “The Corner” that, given the current trajectory of marriage policy in the western world, it’s probably inevitable that some sort of legal recognition of same sex unions will end up codified into civil law on our shores in more than just a few states. But as this is unchartered territory, I see no reason why being small-c conservative on this issue and letting social change happen gradually, if at all, isn’t a better policy than, say, a Supreme Court decision tomorrow that fundamentally changes the long-held definition of marriage in a nation of 300 million people.
November 30th, 2006 at 3:23 am
Dave,
You write: “It generally seems best to me that individuals, and the culture that they comprise, should be left to change or to not change on their own.”
Well, that is actually what is happening. I dont think it accurate to characterize gay marraige as something that is being introduced by the government or the courts. It is, rather, happening from below, by free people living their lives, and falling in love and building relationships. The question is whether the government is going to recognize that it is happening, and adjust the rules and regulations that govern the legal aspects of couple life, to reflect that reality.
You are right that the state really cant absent itself from this issue – it is far too late for that, since we regulate couple life through heterosexual civil marriage. You prefer the path with least risk, but there are other factors that need to be accounted for, not the least of which is basic justice – the equal application of the laws. So many things that we have done as a society have been risky, given the traditions of the time – from overthrowing a monarch, to abolishing slavery, to extending the franchise to all us peasants, even women. None of the consequences of these acts could have been safely predicted, but they were done none the less, because they were in line with our notions of justice.
Many gay people live lives just like you and me – they fall in love, make a life with their partner, buy a house together, raise children, get sick and grow old together, die in each others arms. We have arranged our laws to recognize that people pair up and do these things together. We facilitate the passage through such a life in countless legal ways, addressing questions of taxation, inheritance, hospital visitation rights, powers of attorney, and so many other things that you and I take for granted. And we happen to have wrapped many of those legal instruments into a nice little package called “civil marriage”. Given that free people, who happen to be gay, face these same situations, it becomes a matter of simple fairness and justice that they be granted those same rights and responsibilites.
By denying them, you are not going to stop gay people from falling in love, and making lives together. That is happening, from the bottom up in society, just as you say such things should. All you will accomplish by denying these rights is to perpetuate injustice, and make a lot of people’s lives more difficult.
Given that it is a question of rights, and of the equal application of the laws, there is most definitly a role to play for the judiciary, if these rights are not granted through the legislature. One of the most important, and fundamental roles of the judiciary is to ensure that the laws are fairly applied. The great potential flaw in democracy is that 51% of the people could, in theory, vote to enslave the other 49%. It is even more dangerous, in a sense, when the proportions are 95% to 5%. That is where the judiciary comes in to say, in effect, that no – even if there is a majority, there are some things you just cannot do. You cannot vote to impose injustice, or to deny to a minority what you make available to the majority.
We would all love it if the majority were to inevitably treat minorites equally and justly. But that hasnt always happened, and significant advances in our society have happened only because the judiciary ruled that it must. I dispute the claim that many make that this is some sort of judicial tyranny. If it is tyrrany, it is the tyrrany of the Constitution – being applied and enforced as it should be.
November 30th, 2006 at 11:53 am
“That the nation wanted its political leadrs, charged as they were with running a secular institution, the government, to stick to the practical, political, and legal realm, and to keep their religion private. I really dont get the sense that that type of a consensus is quite as universal today, especially in the GOP.”
Wow. I had no idea that Americans in the late 50s and early 60s were more tolerant and actually valued the wall of seperation between church and state more than many Americans today. Per your information I am considering asking my money back for that American History degree, as all the authors and professors were apparently out of touch with history when they postulated about the “nuclear family” which formed around the father and were incredibly religious, refusing to vote for politicans who had been divorced. I also feel the law degree is kind of useless. The textbooks must be flat wrong about that after Abington v. Schempp and Roe v. Wade the majority of American communities went into upheaval as they felt that the American government should reflect the “Religious majority” of the nation. When JFK was told he would have to call out the national guard if he wanted to make public officials enforce the school prayer decision, that advisor probably did not realize how tolerant America truly was to the wall of seperation. Even liberal historians like Howard Zinn would say that during JFK’s time religion was inseperable from American politics. I dont mean to be rude, but the idea that the election of a Catholic proves a greater wall between church and state is really far out. The idea that someone’s greatest flaw would be being a Catholic suggests the opposite point. Catholics are not that far off from Christianity, and it still almost killed him against an underwhelming Nixon candidacy that should have been creamed.
“Well, that is actually what is happening. I dont think it accurate to characterize gay marraige as something that is being introduced by the government or the courts.” – I find this so ridiculous it is difficult to address. The fact that a marriage amandment would pass even in Mass. if let voted on, and the only reason gay marriage is on the agenda in politics is due to a court decision seems to indicate the opposite of what you are saying. Simply because gay relationships exist does not mean it must be recognized. You establish a causal connection between an action and thus recognition and that is incredibly faulty reasoning.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
Tano,
First of all, marriage is not a right. Second, gay people already have the same institution granted to them as heterosexual people. Gay men can marry women, and gay women can marry men. The law makes no distinction for sexual orientation of the marriage participants. Furthermore, the law makes no distinction on whether the participants love each other. Emotions are not codified in the law, and the application of the law is equal to the participants.
I’m entirely in favor of equal rights for gays, whether it be in the form of voting, taxes, employment, etc etc etc. But let’s not call two men living together something that it’s not. They’re free to do as they wish, but it’s not a marriage. And government has no obligation to put its stamp of approval on such an arrangement, especially as that arrangement applies to the raising of families. By not expanding the institution of marriage to include any and all living situations, I have no expectation of preventing those situations from happening. But just because they happen does not mean we should fall over ourselves in the rush to encourage it.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
“And government has no obligation to put its stamp of approval on such an arrangement”
Especially when the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose it. I’m against gay marriage. But if the duly elected representatives of state legislatures enact it into law, I will have no choice but to accept it (like many other laws).
I will not accept it’s imposition on us by fiat of unelected judges.
November 30th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Murphy,
First of all, I didnt say that marriange was a right. I said the legal instruments that are wrapped up in civil marriage include many rights – legal rights of action, status and priveledge with regard to taxation, inheritance etc. I dont see how you can dispute that.
With all due respect, your comments about gay men marrying women is just silly. How is that different from saying that black men can marry black women, so a marriage law that were written within traditional notions of normal, within race unions, would not be discriminatory?
Of course, love is not a standard for legal marriage. Nor is child rearing, or even living together. Which seriously undermines any claim that legal marriage is somehow the expression of traditional notions of how to organize society. I can marry a female pen pal who I have never met, living on the other side of the country, and enjoy all the rights and priveledges attendant to marriage. Whereas a committed same-sex couple, living together and raising children are denied these rights. That is irrational, counter-productive to a healthy society, and discriminatory.
You claim that two men living together is not marriage. That is semantics. I have known gay couples who fulfill all the practical definitions of what married life is to a greater extent than do millions of hetero married couples. So you choose not to allow for legal recognition of this reality. I dont see any sense in that.
November 30th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Kavon writes,
“I will not accept it’s imposition on us by fiat of unelected judges.”
Now that is interesting. Given that the judiciary is, to the same extent as the legislature and executive, inherint parts of our Constitutional order, I guess your statement amounts to a rejection of the American political order. Perhaps there are models in other countries that you would prefer?
November 30th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
I take the opposite tack of colleague Kavon and have been advocating that Romney make the JFK speech. I think there are three reasons for this that go hand in hand. First, the polls show that well over 35%, if the elections was being held today, would not vote for a Mormon under any circumstances. Since those numbers come on both sides of the political aisle, at this point they render Romney unelectable in a general election, and I don’t think that you can leave that hurdle to chance.
Second, in politics you are either on offense or defense. If Romney does not address the issue and leaves it to others then he will be playing defense and will not be able to exert control over the issue.
Finally, a JFK speech potentially allows Romney to put the issue behind him. Otherwise the Mormon issue will shadow him forever and potentially cloud everything else he tries to campaign on.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
Kavon,
The Judiciary is a particular part of our political order. It has certain duties and obligations. Deciding what sort of rights Americans should have, as opposed to what sort of rights the constitution “requires” them to have, is not one of them. From what I’ve seen of your view of the constitution on the site, I suspect that you’re simply not capable of agreeing with any of us on this matter. Living constitutionalism is so fundamentally disparate from originalism or textualism that it’s fair to say they’re not even playing the same game.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
John,
So please, make use of your history degree and inform me as to why my analysis of the JFK episode is wrong. In recounting that affair, I made the case that there were certain concerns that people expressed, that JFK chose to address those concerns in a certain way, and was successful in defusing the issue. The conclusions that I drew seemed to flow straightforwardly from that analysis. How was I wrong?
I dont see the relevance of raising the issue of non-support of divorced candidates. That was, most likely, seen as an example of bad character. That has nothing to do with any lack of support for church-state separation.
I also dont quite follow your meaning with regard to Roe and Abington. No doubt many people were upset with those decisions. No doubt that playing out all the implications of that radical document that Madison and Jefferson wrought will continue to be somewhat painful, especially for the tradiionally minded. But there never has been, or will be, sufficient opposition to those principles (in these areas) to actually change the Constitution. In the end, after all the sturm and drang, I do think that the American people understand the value of church-state separation, and they did so back then as well.
Finally, on a minor point – what is this “catholics are not that far off from christianity”? Catholics are / were the original christians. How can you be more christian than a catholic? Have I stepped into some alternative universe here?
November 30th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Tano,
No offense, but your last response is one of the most ignorant comments I have ever read on a blog… and that is really saying something.
To have utterly no understanding of the distinct roles that each branch of our government are meant to play is sad/frightening/ or a combination of both.
So let’s take another example… Let’s say that President Bush holds a press conference tomorrow to announce that he is directing the IRS to impose a 5% income tax on all personal income to subsidize the GWOT effective immediately. Would you say that this is in keeping with our system of government?
What if Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, ordered the Director of the FBI to arrest Donald Rumsfeld? Do you feel that this is within the scope of the Legisative Branch as defined under the US Constitution?
I think you need a brush-up on the term “separation of powers”. You might try looking it up in Wikipedia for starters.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Tano,
I missed your distinction between the rights wrapped up in civil marriage and the right to a marriage. No dispute from me that there are currently a lot of privileges wrapped up in the civil marriage instution.
Defining marriage based on the gender combinations of the participants is entirely different than based on ethnicity combinations. It’s as plain as black and white (pardon the pun). It would also be entirely different to define marriage based on acceptable blood relationships, or upon number of participants, for example. Just because you are setting a qualifying standard for marriage, that standard is not equivalent to every other standard one can think up. Different rules are not equivalent just because they share the common trait of being rules. I see no problem at all with the legislatures and voice of the people recognizing some things in a marriage as being unimportant (for example the racial combination) and other things as essential (1 man & 1 woman).
The examples of childless or long-distance marriage partners are rare exceptions to what actually happens when a man and woman marry. However, when a man and a man want to marry, there is no hope of ever producing children. There is also plenty of secular evidence to support the notion that children benefit from having both male and female parental role models in the home. The citation of examples where a particular or hypothetical man/man combo would be better parents than a particular man/woman combo (and I have no doubt that these examples exist) doesn’t change the big picture. Legislation is aimed at this big picture, at determining what is best for society overall.
We’re not talking about making gay cohabitation or relationships illegal. We’re just talking about the legislatures and the people being able to codify in law that heterosexual marriages are generally preferable for the building block of society, as opposed to any number of heterosexual cohabitations, gay cohabitations, incestual relationships, etc etc etc.
November 30th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
“So please, make use of your history degree and inform me as to why my analysis of the JFK episode is wrong.” – You said people during that time were more aware of a wall of seperation between church and state and that Republicans have changed it so that it is now an issue. That is flat wrong, no way around it historically. JFK should have won in a landslide, he was polished and ran a great campaign, Nixon did not. Instead there was a 2000-type election where we still are unsure who won the popular vote. The reason was people were suspicious of his religion, there was not a great tolerance. The point with the reaction to Supreme Court rulings is that the wall of seperation was forced upon Americans (perhaps rightfully so), and then it was implemented with kicking and screaming. Your critique that Republicans have recently made religious issues part of politics is absolutely ridiculous. The wall has no grown weaker over time, but stronger. Anyone who has done any research would come to that conclusion. As to your last critique, yes Catholics are Christians. I meant as opposed to mainstream American Christianity (Id think it was obvious from the relevant topic) in regards to the JFK issue. It is simply unfathomable to me that you can sit there and really argue that when JFK ran people were more in favor of wall of seperation than Americans or even Republicans are now. I give you evidence that that is not true, through firm facts of history, and your response is that “No doubt many people were upset with those decisions.” So if, no doubt, many people were upset by the decisions (and that is putting it mildly as a majority were upset) does that not prove that the majority did not have the same respect for the wall of seperation, as that is what those decisions addressed? You logic is astoundingly unsound. You have created a historical fallacy that until the evil new Republicans came along the wall of seperation was as you dream it should be, and the exact opposite is true.
November 30th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Kavon,
Gee, perhaps you can explain why my comment was so ignorant. You assert that you will not accept the decision of a lawful court. I see that as a rejection of our American system of government. Seems to be an obvious inference.
I agree with you that the examples you cite are unconstitutional. But the inference then, is that somehow the Court decisios that you oppose are also unconstitutional. I dont see any reason to believe that. Or any legal or Constitutional basis for that. Are they unconstitutional because you say so? Is that the standard. Gee, I must have missed the Kavon clause. What Article is it in?
Here is a counter-example for you. If your legislature were to pass a law denying the institution of marriage to anyone whose first name starts with K, (and they have to pay twice the tax rate, to boot), and then the judiciary stepped in and struck down that law because it violated the Constitution, then would your opinion of fiats by unelected judges change at all?
November 30th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Here is a counter-example for you. If your legislature were to pass a law denying the institution of marriage to anyone whose first name starts with K, (and they have to pay twice the tax rate, to boot), and then the judiciary stepped in and struck down that law because it violated the Constitution, then would your opinion of fiats by unelected judges change at all?
No it would not. My state has the right to define marriage however they wish to. And I have the right to organize all of the Kavon’s, Kenneth’s, Kathy’s, Karen’s,Kathleen’s, etc… that are willing to join me in the cause to work to throw the politicians who passed such horrible legislation out on their ass. This is how American Democracy was designed; that the government that has the biggest impact on my life is the one that is closest to me and easiest to change (my state legislature).
Now I know the liberal counter argument, “So you think that it would be ok for state legislatures to start passing Jim Crow laws again.”
Hell no.
Judicial activism was at play when the Supreme Court issued Dred Scott; judicial activism was at play when “Separate but Equal” was handed down; and it was judicial activism at play when after 400 years of jurisprudence, the MA Supreme Court discovers a constitutional right to gay marriage.
Strict Constructionism would never allow for these kind of decisions, and allows for the people to debate these issues at their local level.
The battle would then be to win people’s hearts and minds in the court of public opinion, instead of alienating half the people who disagree with the decision of the unelected judges from their own government.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
John,
You still don’t address what I, in my profound ignorance, have always understood to have been the dynamic of the JFK incident. To wit – a sufficient number of people were concerned about his Catholicism to cause many, including him, to think that he may not get elected. He addressed the issue by pledging undying fealty to an absolute spearation of church and state. All of the commentary that I have ever heard indicates that this approach was considered successful, and the issue faded. And he was elected.
Now this seems to me to indicate that the concerns that were expressed related to whether or not he really accepted CS separation, or whether he would be influenced by Vatican dogma. Once assured of his support of the separation, the issue disappeared.
Now look at Mitt Romney’s situation. Some have argued that he needs to make a JFK-type speech. Others disagree. But if he does give such a speech, do you think he would say exactly the same thing that JFK would say? Will he stand up and declare fealty to an absolute separation? Is that what the Christian right is hoping to hear? Will that win them over?
Maybe I spend too much time checking into the right side of the blogosphere. But my impression is that there are a lot of people on the right who argue against a strict separation – even arguing that any separation is somehow bad, and not really part of the American tradition.
So that is the basis for my sense that the ground has shifted on this issue. JFK could appeal to an absolute separation, and that seemed to satisfy the critics. Now, I am not sure that that is what is being looked for. In fact, rather the contrary. I sense many on the Christian right feel that the Bush administration has not done enough to “christianize” our political life. I get the sense that their real problem with Romney is that he might not have exactly their agenda in mind, but some other agenda, from a religion that they dont really understand. I dont get the sense that they will be assuaged by a stand for an absolute separation.
I really hope that you can convince me differently, but you havent yet.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
There is a huge difference between saying black men can marry black women and saying that gay men can marry women. In the former, it constitutes racial discrimination. In the latter it constitutes gender discrimination. In the former, it means some men (i.e. unmarried white men) have privileges other men (i.e. all black men) don’t have (i.e. to marry white women). In the latter, it means some men (i.e. unmarried men) have privileges no women have, and some women (i.e. unmarried men) have privileges no men have (i.e. to marry men).
So bans on intermarriage are racial discrimination, which last I checked is unconstitutional at the federal level. Bans on gay marriage are merely sex discrimination, which is rightly not unconstitutional at the federal level (if it were we couldn’t have women’s and men’s bathrooms, sports teams, and so on). Some state constitutions foolishly ban sex discrimination without realizing that it has such consequences, and in those states bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional. But so are men’s and women’s bathrooms, women’s sports teams, laws that protect women against any male advantage, and many other things most liberals on the gay marriage issue would not want to ban.
What banning gay marriage clearly is not, however, is discrimination based on sexual orientation. Men who are gay have the same privileges to marry the same people men who are straight have. Anyone who wants to push the line that this is discrimination ought to do it accurately. It is discriminating against men by not letting them do what women do all the time, and it is discriminating against women by not letting them do what men do all the time.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
I am not disagreeing with you over what happened, the issue did fade, though it continued to play a factor. I am critical of you point of view that when JFK ran was a time “when everyone understood the notion of church-state separation.” As I have pointed out, that is not an accurate assesment of that period and I have provided numerous examples and could provide numerous more. You say your opinion that “the ground has shifted on the issue” is based on spending “too much time checking into the right side of the blogosphere” where you see right-wingers oppoed to the seperation. That is very poor evidence to back up the point i am taking issue with – that during JFK’s time the wall was thicker. I agree with you that many right-wingers do not respect this wall properly, but that does not lead to the conclusion that it is weaker now than previously. I am critiquing your historical assertation and you come back by saying that your perusing of right-wing websites supports a broad historical assertation which runs against conventional wisdom. If prociding evidence of social upheaval when the Supreme Court implimented the wall of seperation does not convince you, I am not sure what will.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
Kavon,
Well good luck then. There are not enough K’s (or gays) in this country to win a majority of a hostile population.
I think you seriously misunderstand how American Democracy was designed. The role of the judiciary in insuring that laws are consistent with the Constitution has been a part of our democracy for over two hundred years, and is necessary and inherint to the continued existence of that Constitution.
My counter argument would not have been about reintroducing Jim Crow laws. I would have merely observed that, under your approach, we certainly would still have them.
The notion that Dred Scott was an example of judicial activism seems pretty bizarre to me. The SC merely upheld the decision of the lower court, including the missouri supreme court. Slavery was legal in Missouri, and it would have been activist for the Court to “take away a man’s legal property without recompense” to paraphrase Justice Taney. The problem there was insufficient activism.
Ditto for Plessy. There the segregation was passed by the LEGISLATURE. Plessy sued on Constitutional grounds that his rights were violated. And the Court UPHELD what the LEGISLATURE had passed.
You obviously dont know what you are talking about here. You are tossing around the term “judicial activism” to apply to anything you dont like, whether it meets any sensible definition or not.
On that issue, do you know who the most activist recent SC justices have been? If you define activism as the court overturning legislative acts, then the most activist judges (substituting their judgement for that of the elected branches) have been Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist. You could look it up.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
“Some state constitutions foolishly ban sex discrimination without realizing that it has such consequences”
Something missing from your argument here. Please list the states where sex discrimination is unconstitutional, and where, therefore, separate bathrooms are illegal.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
If you define activism as the court overturning legislative acts, then the most activist judges (substituting their judgement for that of the elected branches) have been Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist. You could look it up.
-What a joke. If you call attempting to return the Constitution from exile after 50 years of liberal courts wreaking havoc, then yes I suppose they would be JA’s.
I think you seriously misunderstand how American Democracy was designed. The role of the judiciary in insuring that laws are consistent with the Constitution has been a part of our democracy for over two hundred years, and is necessary and inherint to the continued existence of that Constitution.
-If you in your heart really believe your arguments then I doubt that you have ever read a word of James Madison in your life; or apparently ever heard of John Marshall or Marbury v. Madison.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:51 am
Dred Scott was CLEARLY example of judicial activism. It was the first example of the lovely “substantive due process” liberals love to employ. Taney’s decision did not merely uphold a lower decision as you suggest, it said the constitution mandated slavery and that, indeed, blacks could never conceivably be citizens. It then went on to explicate an utterly bizarre, and heretofore unheard of idea that being a citizen of state did not make you a citizen of the country. The SC probably got the Dred Scott decision right in result, but for wildly different reasons. The actual decision was pure judicial activism.
December 1st, 2006 at 3:16 am
Matt,
You are right that there were some wildly activist parts of that decision. I was following the track of the parts of the decision that were relevant to how it would be decided for Mr. Scott. The activist parts of the decision were not really germane to the issue before the court – that is, in fact, a main reaon for why the decision is seen as so outrageous. But the part that actually was dispositive for Scott was not really activist at all.
The issue really boiled down to his status – as property (which was his legal status as a slave), or as a citizen with attendant rights. Taney’s argument, essentially that by granting him rights of citizenship the government would be violating his owner’s preexisting property rights, was perfectly consistent with accepted principles and the law. I dont see how it was activist. Nor is there any problem with the notion of substantive due process. The issue was deeper than that – his status. If property, then his owners substantive due process claims were the only relevant ones, and the decision makes perfect sense. If Scott was a citizen, then his substantive due process claim would have been dispositive. So there is no argument against substantive due process – the argument is whether Scott qualified for inclusion under such a notion.