11 votes

Ron Paul: Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution (2003)

It's been a tough summer for social conservatives, thanks to our federal courts. From “gay rights” to affirmative action to Boy Scouts to the Ten Commandments, federal courts recently have issued rulings that conflict with both the Constitution and overwhelming public sentiment. Conservatives and libertarians who once viewed the judiciary as the final bulwark against government tyranny must now accept that no branch of government even remotely performs its constitutional role.

The practice of judicial activism — legislating from the bench — is now standard for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the laws they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

More: http://archive.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

how about the good old ninth amendment

a right to privacy or consensual gay sex, if it's not a 4th or 14th amendment right, it's for sure a 9th amendment right. if it's not particularly mentioned by the constitution or bill of rights, governments still have zero authority to regulate it--governments don't grant people rights and have no authority to interfere in such matters. I really dislike arguments that side with the constitution to justify giving states the right to be little tyrannies on their own. this is a case where the Federal Government is limiting the authority of a state without actually claiming extra authority for itself--it's merely limiting the power of all levels of government in the US in order to allow people to make their own free decisions. nothing wrong with that.

I don't see the right

Under the 9th you are talking about. Maybe you can help me out there.

The feds are claiming extra authority over the states that was not historically theirs. I can see a lot of problems with that. That is the authority to prohibit states from denying privacy in matters pertaining to sex.

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

great comment

great comment

Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

How can we expect anything else from those criminals?

In the strictest terms within law they cannot be considered "judges". Article 1 Section 10 of the US Constitution requires gold and silver coin as the only lawful tender and every single judge in America is violating their oath by accepting a private bank's debt note as tender for the time they claim is under Constitutional capacity. Every single "judge" in America is actively in breach of duty every working day by violating the tender laws for the pay they receive for that claimed Constitutional capacity. For anyone to maintain themselves within a contractual capacity that individual must operate within the bounds of the defined capacity. Any person who breaches the contractually defined bounds of legal capacity has removed themselves from that capacity and is operating as a full liability man/woman acting on their own accord. This means in no way can they be considered a lawful "judge" in any official capacity.

How can we expect any man/woman who breaches their duty every working day of their lives to be a lawful operator in any way? They are committing fraud by claiming to be operating under such capacity while actively in breach of the defined bounds and it could be argued that since they are being paid with a private entities fraudulent tender that they are actually working for that private bank that issues the fraudulent tender. This is not only fraud and breach of duty but operating under such private entity's capacity while claiming to be the Constitutional government means that they are actively part of a criminal conspiracy that has overthrown the government; this is treason. Given the fact that they have destroyed every other aspect of the Constitutional laws with their "interpretations" while acting under such fraud gives pretty damning evidence that indeed they have intent and motive to purposefully carry out this active treason to overthrow our government. When one examines the fact that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is also now a corporation means that they really are not the Constitutional government and from my experience do not even claim to be. I have asked them in open court and they won't answer. I have also presented the DUNS corporate credit history info of US CORP to them and they won't address the facts but will dismiss cases to get me out of their "courtrooms" asap.

How long is it going to take We the People to realize that we are going to have to arrest these criminals and bring them before lawful juries to be properly tried for their breaches and on-going criminal acts before we can ever expect anything other than criminal tyranny against us all?

Most people think that politics is going to solve this problem but politics was never constructed or intended to solve a crime problem; that's what our courts and juries are for. Our juries could find them guilty and give them the death penalty for their on-going treason. If juries started this process and began mowing the lawn of crime across America then you can bet your ass that the other bureaucrats and "judges" would think twice about what they are doing.

Upholding the tender laws is our path to bring them all to proper and lawful justice with our juries if the People weren't a bunch a ignorant pussies. The crimes are clear and present and their danger to our peace, safety and happiness has been clearly demonstrated and is actively growing out of control. When is everyone going to pull their heads out of their asses and do what is necessary? The law is on our side. Knowing the facts makes me realize that, at this point, all of this is now becoming the fault of the People for either being ignorant of law or committing misprision of a crime for not bringing justice. It is our fault for not bringing justice if this continues any further.

Hell, these criminals now claim it is lawful for their corporation to kill anyone the "President" chooses without due process. How much more destruction of law does it take for the People to bring justice? Damn this is a frustrating situation...

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

fireant's picture

Article I Section 10 does not say that.

Read carefully. It prohibits the States from coining money, but allows states to make gold and silver legal tender in payment of debts. The congress, in Article I Section 8, is delegated the power to coin Money, and regulate the value thereof.

Undo what Wilson did

I have read it carefully and all of the tender cases

"No State shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts"

How much clearer can it be? The tender cases even admit the intent of the ratifiers of the US Constitution intended a single tender of gold and silver coin. The ratifiers has just experienced the collapse of the Continental Currency and sought universal sound lawful money the same throughout all states in the US. The ratifiers also voted on and declined allowing the US fed gov emitting bills of credit. Coinage act of 1792 lawfully 'set the value thereof' and made it punishable by death for bureaucrats changing the value/weight of the tender.

Article 1 Section 10 is not about allowing anything it is all about prohibitions of States in the union and is called the limits on states section. The Feds are supposed to be enforcing the Constitution not violating it. Tenth Amendment explicitly prohibits any other powers of Fed gov not enumerated.

It is clear the original intent and reasoning and all case law on the subject was issued by "judges" who were paid in an unlawful tender making their rulings as null and void as could possibly be.

So, you are wrong here and wrong in the biggest possible way. It is a violation of the most important law there could be; the lawful tender of our whole country. Read it again and go deeper. It is crime and usurpations and all "judges" are in Breach of Duty RIGHT NOW!

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

fireant's picture

"The Congress shall have Power...

...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures." Section 8.
Again, Section 10 is specifically directed at the States, not the Congress.
If we had a legitimate Congress, I would have no problem with them regulating money. Without the 16th and 17th "Amendments", the bulk of the money would stay in the States, where no printing or regulating is permitted, and the State legislatures would not allow the profligate spending and borrowing by the Congress.

Undo what Wilson did

Section 8 further reinforces the requirement

for gold and silver coin as the only lawful tender.

There is no enumeration of the power of the Fed to make anything other than gold and silver coin tender. Tenth amendment blocks all other avenues for Fed gov to change the tender. This means the only other way to change tender is Article V Amendment process. This has never been done which means all tender case law stating anything other than gold and silver coin as tender is invalid and represents unlawful usurpations by criminal men who operated outside of their lawfully bounded capacity. It is not the system operating unlawfully because the system is a legal fiction and cannot do anything. Only men within lawfully bound duty (person) can uphold the law or the man steps out of lawful capacity through their own individual actions and violates the law.

Those "judges" ruling on tender laws were not in official capacity because they stood in breach of duty to the tender laws while establishing "case law" which means they removed all limited liability by stepping out of the official lawful capacity. Since those men stepped out of capacity AND violated the law the "case law" is not case law at all, it is a usurpation by criminal men fraudulently interpreting another tender as lawful who had the motive to expand unlawful power by printing fraudulent tender out of thin air and then enabled a whole army of criminal men to then levy war against We the People with the Civil War which is Article 3 Section 3 Treason. The usurpations, fraud, extortion, theft and warfare continues to this very day. This means that all "judges" today are either confused or criminal men who have no lawful capacity under the US Constitution because they are being paid in an unlawful tender and actively stand in breach of duty every working day and have so for their entire working careers.

This is reality in law and any other position is either confusion or crime. How much motive is there for them to be able operate on an unlawful tender that a private bank can print out of thin air and pay their armies of tyranny and death with to obtain supreme tyrannical power over the people all while they are supposed to be in service to the people?

All elements of breach of duty are present and any other interpretation by the people demonstrates the utter intellectual and physical bankruptcy of the People. Either we are going to uphold the law or not. The path is in our law but it seems even the liberty movement who is so intent on "restoring the Constitution" are simply too pussy to truly uphold the law or even understand that politics is not designed to solve a crime problem. Crime is remedied through justice via the judicial branch with our juries. The fact that every bureaucrat in America is actively in breach of duty to the tender laws means that We the People can criminally charge every single bureaucrat with obstruction of justice and breach of duty who stands in our way of accessing a lawfully seated jury to rule on the facts. We can begin to use our juries to throw these criminals in prison one by one until the rest of the bureaucrats either decide to abide by the law or commit their overt acts of treason against the people who are simply doing their duty to uphold the law.

This is the lawful path and either we are going to uphold the law or not. If we don't then we deserve all the tyranny we will get because we will be committing misprision of a crime ourselves by not bringing lawful justice and remedy. Divine law will offer no protections if we do not uphold the law as it stands. If we lose the protections of Divine law then the complete destruction of our law is punishment for such inaction in the face of such blatant violations of law and overt tyranny upon the people.

Avoid the truth at your own peril. This is not about opinion it is simply REAL LAW. Ignoring the law is no defense.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

fireant's picture

"...and regulate the Value thereof."

Maybe you are just not grasping the simple wording of the Constitution itself, which always prevails.
Congress having power to regulate the value of money means it doesn't matter what money is; they can make as much of it as they wish.
You may not like that arrangement, which is fine, but that is what it is. You are free to attempt change.
State legislators will not allow debt and printing without the 16th and 17th. Money is power, and the money will reside at the State level (who can't print); they aren't going to give any up which isn't constitutionally justified, and agreed to by their ambassadors to Washington.

Undo what Wilson did

Your position puts all states in violation of law

if the tender is anything but gold and silver coin. There is no lawful compliance with those people who obligate themselves to the Constitutional oath when congress makes something other than gold and silver coin a tender that the States are already Constitutionally bound by the people to comply with. We the people established the limitations in the contractual bounds of the Constitution.

Also, regulate the value thereof; to make regular the value. If you go into a court and ask them for to define the value of the dollar they can't. It is impossible for them to answer this because there is no regulated value thereof.

The ratifiers intent was to have a single defined tender throughout all states and made prohibitions upon the States to only gold and silver. Any interpretation of any other tender puts the States and people under oath in a violation of law.

Also as I said before, the ratifiers had a vote on allowing the US fed gov to emit bills of credit and this was rejected. The fact that this was addressed and 10th amendment put the limitations on anything outside the scope of the Constitution as reserved to the States or people means that emitting bills of credit by Fed gov is not within their lawful powers. Todays currency is created through T-bills of credit which was already addressed and rejected.

How can anyone possibly justify putting all States in violation of law ALL the time with making unlawful tender for payment of debts? The language definitely could have been better but the fact is that ALL people under oath within the States are actively violating the law right now. Also given the fact that those who take an oath to uphold the Constitution at the Fed level means that them not enforcing States to maintain compliance with the law means the people in the Fed gov are not enforcing the law and actively stand in breach of duty and misprision of a crime for not upholding the law and ensuring States are compliant.

This is really simple. One tender defined Constitutionally and the Fed gov tasked with coining a regulated value of that tender. Do you think the ratifiers intended the States to be in violation of the law all the time? Even if the Feds defined another tender the States would still have to "make" something other than "gold and silver coin a tender in the payment of debts". These criminals also have a motive for a wrongful pecuniary advantage to make and use an unlawful tender that is not bound by Natural or Constitutional Law. To think the law can be lawfully violated is a completely absurd rational and demonstrates the legal gymnastics required for justification of the implementation of a mathematically guaranteed to fail private bank's debt note that history has ALWAYS shown to cause entire societies/nations to completely fail.

Your position demonstrates a required violation of law where my demonstration shows how the law is properly exercised without violating any other law. For law to be law- No law can violate any other law.

Why is it that your position requires a violation of law where my demonstration does not? That is because your position is not one rooted in real law.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

wolfe's picture

This is obviously old...

and Ron Paul, while right in his general assessment was very incorrect at the time by saying that there is "no right to privacy".

Forth Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

How would someone issue a warrant for bedroom behavior on probable cause? Because they talked with a lisp?

Ron Paul was pandering to social conservatives in this paper. And despite the respect that he deserves, he should be called out when he is wrong, just like anyone.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

The fourth amendment

was not the question in the Lawrence case. "The right of the police to enter does not seem to have been questioned. " (page 563)

The "right to privacy" he is talking about is based on "liberty" in the fourteenth amendment. "(N)or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Why should the courts or laws

Why should the courts or laws decide what two human beings do in private that harms no one else? Can you argue why two men living together is not a natural right as a man and woman living together?

Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

Are you so sure

that their actions hurt no one else? Even so, property owners, to their credit regulate the morals and conduct of those in their household(drugs, sex, religion, work ethic, etc). Couldn't a city similarly regulate the conduct of those within its walls? Could a state regulate the conduct of those in its territory so long as it avoids constitutional prohibitions?

I don't know if anyone is trying to keep men from living together. It is the sex that really bothers people, and if it is kept hidden then there is nothing those people can do about it.

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

wolfe's picture

Ron Paul claimed there was no right to privacy...

Which is incorrect.

Second, this is clearly a fourth amendment issue, not a 14th. According to the 14th, taken in isolation, merely means that someone has to say "we can have your stuff, kidnap, or kill you as long as we say so first".

The question is, if there is no "oath/affidavit", meaning "no victim", and no way to obtain probable cause, how exactly could they obtain the right to enforce such laws? Believe it or not, it is the 4th, not the garbage 14th that "protects" us.

The whole thing is garbage anyway. A non-binding contract enforced by dictate and not consent.

The 4th does indeed create a right to privacy. And for the record, the definition of sodomy, includes oral sex. Making 100% of the modern population guilty of this "abhorrent" (at least religiously) practice.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sodomy?s=t

The nature of the state is to make everyone a criminal (as these types of laws do0, in order to obtain power/control over everyone.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Wait a minute

When the police see some one breaking the law right in front of them, is it unreasonable to search and seize that some one? I don't think so. Their rights under the fourth were never brought up, and I'm guessing that's because the were never violated.

Dr Paul used the word "privacy," and that is the word Justice Stevens used. It can be misleading, but he is talking about the sort of privacy referenced in the Lawrence case and based on the 14th.

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

wolfe's picture

And how...

exactly would the police happen to be strolling through a person's bedroom to notice this "law" being broken?

The right to privacy is enshrined in the 4th amendment to the constitution and is pretty clear about it. What do you think being "secure in their persons, papers," etc means?

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Read the Lawrence case

It is the situation you describe.

"secure in their persons...papers... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

"unreasonable"

Notice that reasonable searches and seizures are not prohibited. That is all it was, a reasonable search and seizure. The police saw some one breaking the statute, and they arrested them. The men were not searched before they were arrested, and the eyewitness testimony was not acquired by searching these individuals.

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

wolfe's picture

A reasonable search...

requires eye witness testimony to a crime being committed, or probable cause (The police witnessing, not just something suspicious, but something believed to be a crime. That is probable cause.)

So where would they get either testimony or probable cause about someone's private bedroom activities?

As far as citing case precedent, I have no interest in arguing over opinions of people that have sided so routinely against the constitution. Their judgement, in many ways, has gone beyond suspect to treasonous.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Where do they get testimony?

"The right of the police to enter does not seem to have been questioned."

"In Houston, Texas, officers of the Harris County Police Department were dispatched to a private residence in response to a reported weapons disturbance. They entered an apartment where one of the petitioners, John Geddes Lawrence, resided. The right of the police to enter does not seem to have been questioned. The officers observed Lawrence and another man, Tyron Garner, engaging in a sexual act. The two petitioners were arrested, held in custody overnight, and charged and convicted before a Justice of the Peace." p 562-563

What else can I say? How can this be an unreasonable search if "The right of the police to enter does not seem to have been questioned"? It's not about unreasonable searches.

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

wolfe's picture

The right to put a bullet in someone's head wasn't questioned...

in that case either, does that mean I now have the right to randomly put bullets in people? Your logic is flawed.

And regardless, court opinion matters little to me. They have proven themselves either incompetent judges, or exceptional statists. And either way, I don't give a rats ass.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

All im doing

Is telling you facts about the case. By now you could have read the case, been smarter for it, understood the real issue, saved my time answering questions about it, and maybe even added some helpful insight.

Just a tip here, when you hear people talking about a court decision, read the judge's opinion. If we could only spend half as much time listening to politicians and instead use it to listen to our judges- well, that would certainly help.

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

wolfe's picture

You're logic is fundamentally flawed.

You misunderstand what a court opinion is, or what it is addresses, or what it's importance is.

I addressed the main topic of conversation, which you have attempted to ignore at every turn. Ron Paul was wrong, right to privacy is a fact of the 4th amendment.

That case required an investigation of another, unrelated charge backed by witness testimony. Which was likely fraudulent, and if the police had not been able to use that -ruse- to obtain entry into the home, had no right to monitor or enforce the other behavior. It was the equivalent of an obstruction charge when you piss a cop off and they have nothing on you except these cops happened to be homophobes as well.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Except that

There is no "right to privacy" mentioned in the fourth amendment. You assume the "right to privacy" is the same as the right to be secure against unreasonable searches. Even if it did say "right to privacy," the fourth amendment actually allows searches so long as they are "reasonable." And it is perfectly reasonable to arrest and search someone when evidence of a crime is in plain sight.

The Lawrence decision was based on "Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause," the fourteenth amendment. And as justice Scalia pointed out, "But there is no right to 'liberty' under the Due Process Clause...The Fourteenth Amendment expressly allows States to deprive their citizens of 'liberty,' so long as 'due process of law' is provided."

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

wolfe's picture

Hmmm.

Makes me wonder if you are listening to me. I never said the 14th provides the right to privacy, exactly the opposite. The 14th gives the state the power to cut off your right arm, as long as they give themselves the power in the law first.

Reasonable search requires a victim and/or witness. In the case of probable cause, that witness is a police officer. Hence, anything without a victim or witness (i.e. in private) cannot be enforced, and if it cannot be enforced constitutionally, the law is not valid.

The 4th was designed specifically to disallow the "fishing trips" that were common practice at the time, and are now again, by codifying the right to privacy.

Just because it doesn't use the specifically modern term that was coined does not mean that wasn't what it does, or what it's intent was. And it is clear from both the simple language, the history, and it's application that it was indeed the intent of the 4th.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

You said

"right to privacy is a fact of the 4th amendment."

But it is not. The right to be secure against unreasonable searches is a fact of the fourth amendment.

You are saying that Ron Paul is wong to make that distinction. Correct?

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

wolfe's picture

He is incorrect.

And so are you, and leaving out the rest of the wording to try and make your case by taking a single, tiny portion of what the 4th actually says.

Reasonable searches can only be deemed reasonable when based on direct eye witness/evidence of a crime.

Do you know the legal difference between "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause"?

Reasonable suspicion means you believe it is likely that a crime has/is/will be committed. To use the example case, you hear a man with a lisp who walks funny. That is "reasonable suspicion", not probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is not grounds for search.

Seeing a man buggering another man would be probable cause. How exactly would that be seen in the bedroom by a random cop on his beat?

The right to privacy is enshrined in the 4th, and yes, that is a fact. Do some research on it's roots.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Ok well I disagree

I do not see a right to privacy in the fourth. At least not the general right to privacy that you seem to think protected Lawrence in this case. The police did have probable cause, and they did not search the defendant to get it. The crime was private consensual sex in plain sight. I know that "private" and "in plain sight" sound oxymoronic, but that's what happened in this case.

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

wolfe's picture

We can disagree.

The reason your above statement is flawed though is that it --required-- a witness claim of -another- crime to be able to "obtain evidence of --this-- "crime"" legally.

Had it not been for the other false report, this could -not- have ever been found/proven. That's not plain site, that is it was discovered based on a "reasonable search" for another crime. Since "homosexuality" was not itemized as what was being looked for, nothing would have been collectable on that charge directly, but because they broke in on the guys, the cops used their personal "witnessing" as their evidence and reason for prosecution.

It's actually precisely what the 4th was meant to prevent to large degree by adding the itemization portion. Nothing is perfect though, and a few cases like this can indeed fall through the proverbial cracks.

We are all would be felons. Regardless of how "clean" we think our lives are, if a cop digs in, they can ALWAYS find evidence of us committing multiple felonies as well as misdemeanors. We are criminals, allowed to be free only at the discretion of the state. So the constitution has failed miserably.

But Ron Paul's social conservative pandering doesn't help matters. He has actually been prone to pandering throughout his career, which is kinda strange. His fallback has always been "states rights to tyranny" when confronted with the hard questions like drugs, prostitution, blue laws, etc. This has always been enough to satisfy us libertarians because at least it's not federal, and satisfied the socons because they could be religious zealots all they want to at a state level.

But, I have really come to dislike his "states rights" approach on the matter as being basically a dodge and an opportunity to pander to one group while not pissing the other off too much.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

I agree with most of that

To the extent that this may be shown to be a "fishing" expedition. I'm not ready to criticize RP's position, though, but I see what you are saying. Thanks.

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.