Bad Laws

Something to ponder:  one of the ways the federal government has accrued such extensive, far-reaching, intrusive power -- in fact, maybe the primary way, has been intervening in state and local situations where it was perceived that "bad" laws prevailed.  The old Jim Crow laws of the South that made segregation not just acceptable but legally required were bad.  The federal government stepped in with the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

Bad laws forced black children to be schooled separately from white children.  Then, even in the north, where there were no such laws, the federal courts ordered "forced busing to achieve racial integration" -- overriding, not legal discrimination but geographical and community preferences.

I think there was some legitimacy to the federal government acting as an umpire to make the states play by the rules -- the Constitution -- with regard to freedom and equal treatment.  But this has led to the federal government piling bad law on top of bad law, shredding the spirit of the Constitution, often even trampling on the letter.  When the state and local governments legislated against "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness", the aggrieved could appeal to the federal courts and the federal system.  Now that it is the federal government acting as the oppressor and tyrant, where do we go to get rid of our bad laws?

The bad law issue is a double-edged sword.  Certainly it has played into the hands of those who desire to centralize power and control.  However, it has also established a precedent if we can communicate it.  There is such a thing as bad law.  The oppressed were correct in acting contrary to the laws of states.  It is no different if we need to act contrary to the laws today.  If it was acceptable for minorities to resist the immoral and unfair, though legal restrictions they faced in the past, it is acceptable for us today.

The Constitution does not allow for the suppression of offensive speech or for suppression of religious expression in any context.  I am allowed to express my understanding of the truth even if -- especially if it offends or hurts the feelings of others.  Inoffensive speech needs no Constitutional protection.

So, too, with the other natural human rights enumerated by the founding documents.  These are our rights.  Yes, we accept some limitations, some balancing of my rights against my neighbors in order for us to live in peace and harmony and not damage one another unnecessarily.  But these limitations should apply only with regard to those things that cross the boundary and physically or materially impact our neighbors in a negative way.  We can't dump our raw sewage on the ground or run it onto our neighbor's property, for example, so we all work cooperatively to build sewage systems -- or we agree to comply with the necessary and reasonable requirements of disposal. In any case, the adverse effects must be material and the restrictions minimal.