- The Washington Times - Thursday, August 28, 2003

Obedience to the law

David Limbaugh (“Clash of principles and jurisdiction,” Commentary, Wednesday) should add to his description of Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore’s position on the Ten Commandments monument issue that it rests on obedience to the law, not rebellion against it. Chief Justice Moore’s point is precisely Mr. Limbaugh’s, that the higher law trumps the lower.

The legal logic is clear and unassailable, but there can be no law higher than the law of the creator of the universe. That means that the law of God trumps all other laws, a principle recognized by our Founding Fathers and by nearly all jurists of the time in both America and England.

So, federal law, in its proper jurisdiction, trumps state law. But the law of God trumps federal law in all cases.

That is the point of the Declaration of Independence. Our freedoms are inalienable precisely because no law, federal or state, can remove what God has granted. There is no other way to make them inalienable.

One does not disobey civil law frivolously. But Mr. Limbaugh himself outlines Chief Justice Moore’s case for disobedience — federal law, out of its proper jurisdiction, is running roughshod over state jurisdiction. To that we must add the arrogant and ignorant rejection by the Alabama Supreme Court of the law of God.

Mr. Limbaugh is right. The higher law must be obeyed. Chief Justice Moore is right. When it is a contest between the law of God and the law of the land, the higher law of God must be obeyed. To fail to stand on the highest law is Mr. Limbaugh’s nightmare, the total subversion of law altogether and, finally, reduction to tyranny.



Point of clarification

In regards to Julia Duin’s article, “Ruling divides evangelical Christians” (Page 1, Wednesday), Pat Robertson’s position regarding the Ten Commandments monument was mischaracterized.

Mr. Robertson supports the display of the Ten Commandments and he thinks the ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court associate justices was wrong. However, the legal tactics of Chief Justice Roy Moore, in Mr. Robertson’s opinion, were in error.



CBN Public Relations

Virginia Beach

Thanks for the support

This has been an incredible year for my 13-year-old son, Mattie Stepanek, and I want to thank everyone who has sent us prayers and support (“Spirit soars in Rockville,” Jan. 21).

Mattie, known to many for his “Heartsongs” books of poetry and for being the National Goodwill Ambassador of the Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA), has a rare form of muscular dystrophy. He spent four months in intensive care this year, but thanks to dedicated and creative medical help, he’s now home again.

One thing that kept Mattie going during those hard days was his wish to attend MDA summer camp — a feat he was able to accomplish thanks to the incredible support of our local MDA staff and volunteers. He was also determined to meet his obligations as MDA’s ambassador.

People across the country have written us asking, “What can I do to help?” The best thing you can do is watch the Jerry Lewis MDA telethon on Sunday and Monday. This broadcast raises funds critical to MDA’s research and human services missions, including clinics, summer camps, medical equipment and much more for people in your own community.

Your support is greatly appreciated.


Rockville), “EPA’s power grab” (Commentary) and the letter “Climate change and forest fires,” shows great editorial elasticity. You are to be commended for at least trying to give both sides to an important issue — the human factor and the politicization of global warming and other related matters.

These issues are related. They involve the politicization of science and lack of true scientific method in determining causative factors and resolution of politicized science-advocated problems. In all three cases, the definition of the problem to suit conclusions is evident the moment there is enough interest to bend the science to a preconceived notion. Unfortunately, there are unintended consequences. One merely needs to look at the Environmental Protection Agency’s politicization of the dioxin argument to see a long list of control issues that will be netted if the EPA can sell its unproven point of view. The EPA’s outlawing of the use of freon and the problems with the “hole in the ozone” are not much better supported. The costs to our economy and our residents from banning freon have been significant. The ban was based on similar “scientific” proof. The action created an immensely profitable black market for freon for older systems that cannot be converted. Mexico is the source and a prime user of such freon.

Unfortunately, the letter writer assumes a connection from a government report on the relative probability of forest fires to the very iffy concept that human contribution to global warming is a proven fact. A “fact” it is not, quotations from the 2001 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notwithstanding. Assuming the proposition that such climate change is a result of human activity (not cited in the quote) then making the assumption that therefore a national unwillingness to address global warming threatens our forests is a leap of faith.

The human contribution to global warming has not been proved conclusively, but the politicization of the issue may obscure real evidence for decades to come because any results hereafter produced will be seized by one side or the other to selectively “prove” its case. I, for one, am not convinced, and as a taxpayer and a U.S. citizen, do not propose that my government do something, even if it’s wrong. This is the worst kind of folly. The government is inefficient in such actions, and it is not a monolith. Government control means loss of all alternatives in most cases. The resultant compromises often resemble a camel designed by a horse committee.

As a Westerner, I think it is pretty evident that our Western forests are becoming casualties to more than global warming, although continued drought is certainly a contributing factor. Also contributing is the unfortunate environmentalist-propounded forest management idea that has become doctrine — that if just left alone, our forests would become pristine woodlands again. This has never been the case — certainly not in the West, where wildfires are the most serious. In a historically arid region, failure to become proactive in clearing and managing forest floor detritus is as high on the list of contributing factors producing devastating wildfires as anything that could be resolved by insufficiently scientific conclusions that a limitation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses would resolve. This idea is advocated by those who see combating global warming as a mission for humanity. The reality is that science is very divided on the causes of global warming. The “combatants,” however, don’t want to wait. They see the sky falling.

Until more can be proved, the U.S. government, in the field of forest management or environmental protection, is correct to consider carefully the quality-of-life costs of implementing such a suicidal protocol as Kyoto. This is not unwillingness to act. It is responsible prudence.


Alexandria, Va

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More

Click to Hide