Skip to main content

The kritarchy strikes again

We, in our times, have seen the failure of our once-vaunted American system of checks and balances between the branches of government. The Judicial Branch, unchecked, has turned itself into a kind of unelected, standing Constitutional Convention, ignoring the law and the Constitution iself at will and instead enforcing its peculiar ideas about what they should say.

We, in America (as is the case to an even greater extent in Canada) have become a kritarchy- a nation governed by judges. Instead of interpreting the laws, our judges are effectively the ones who make them.

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal by Virginia of a U.S. Circuit Court ruling usurping the right of the legislatures of five states to define marriage, and forcing them- on spurious constitutional grounds- to permit the historical oxymoron of same-sex marriage.

The kritarchy must be brought under control. Marriage is an institution which has historically existed to protect child bearing and child raising, not simply to grant privileges to affectional relationships. There can be no question of laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman being discriminatory, since same-sex relationships are unable to produce children (the question of the law not having specifically banned male-female marriages in which for biological or other reasons childbearing is impossible is beside the point; these exceptional circumstances do not change the uniform common law rationale for marriage throughout the history of the American and English legal systems.)

Moreover, the rarity of monogamy in long-term male homosexual relationships threatens the generic expectation of monogamy in marriage, and the instability of gay and especially lesbian "marriages" is notorious.

The survival of our most basic institution clearly requires at this point that a movement begin to amend the Constitution not to define marriage as between a man and a woman, but rather- somewhat less ambitiously- to simply safeguard the right of the duly elected legislatures of the several states to make that decision themselves, as the Constitution in fact contemplates that they should.


Popular posts from this blog

Jan Chamberlain's rhetoric is too strong. But the stand she has taken is right.

I do not share the religion of Jan Chamberlain. I don't even pray to the same god. But I can't help but admire the integrity of the woman who quit the Mormon Tabernacle Choir rather than sing at Donald Trump's inauguration.

Ms. Chamberlain, like me, voted for Evan McMullin in November. Like me, she holds no brief for Hillary Clinton or her agenda. But she cannot, as she put it, "throw roses at Hitler."

As I've said before, comparing Trump to Hitler strikes me as harsh. I believe that Trump is a power-hungry narcissist who exhibits disturbing signs of psychopathy, like Hitler. Like Hitler, he has stigmatized  defenseless minorities- Muslims and undocumented aliens, rather than Jews- and made them scapegoats for the nation's troubles. Like Hitler, he has ridden a wave of irrational hatred and emotion to power. Like Hitler's, his agenda foreshadows disaster for the nation he has been chosen to lead.

But he's not going to set up death camps for Musli…

Neither Evan McMullin nor his movement are going away

Evan McMullin has devoted most of his post-college life- even to the point of foregoing marriage and a family- to fighting ISIS and al Qaeda and our nation's deadliest enemies as a clandestine officer for the CIA. He has done so at the risk of his life.

He has seen authoritarianism in action close-up. One of his main jobs overseas was to locate and facilitate the elimination of jihadist warlords. Evan McMullin knows authoritarians.

And when he looks at Donald Trump, what he sees is an authoritarian like the ones he fought overseas. He knows Donald Trump. After leaving the CIA he served as policy director for the Republican majority in the United States House of Representatives. He tells about his first encounter with The Donald in that role in this opinion piece he wrote for today's New York Times.

In fact, when Mitt Romney and Tom Coburn and all the others who were recruited to run as a conservative third-party candidate against Trump and Hillary Clinton backed out,  McMulli…

Huzzah! Once again, 45 does something majorly right!

First. he appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and now 45 has- at long last- initiated a sensible space policy, with a plan to promote a "rapid and affordable" return to the moon carried out by private enterprise by 2020.  Afterward, it will be onward to Mars and beyond.

This is a great idea for three reasons. First, private enterprise is the future of space exploration, and as far as I know we will be the first spacefaring nation to put most of its eggs in that basket. Second, it's nice to have eggs! Since the Obama administration canceled the Constellation program to develop the Ares booster and the Orion crew vehicle (though it subsequently reinstated the Orion part of the program), the United States has been twiddling its thumbs while China has taken great leaps toward the moon and other countries- including Russia, India, and Japan- have to various degrees intensified their own space programs. It would be both tragic and foolhardy for the nation which first…