Vail Daily letter: Liberal voices | VailDaily.com

Vail Daily letter: Liberal voices

"I am who I am" said God to Moses speaking as one voice — not as many gods seeking a general consensus through many voices to keep current with the ensuing ages as Mr. Van Ens seemingly construes the Constitution and Bible in his article of July 26. This declaration by God as written in Exodus 3:14 seems to me to be rather finite and unwavering in its meaning and context.

True, Jefferson and Madison et. al spoke as many voices when drafting the Constitution in 1787, and after all had their say, their general consensus and compromise was reduced to a writing acceptable to all in 1789, some begrudgingly — this then became the Constitution of the United States. Van Ens reaches further by asserting that this founding charter speaks through "voices" still to meet the ever changing agenda of the times even though it is clear, finite and unwavering in its meaning and context — like Exodus 3:14. Ergo, does Van Ens forget that the Constitution has an amendment clause (Article V) that would facilitate the exigencies of the ever-changing times?

For the law, like the Constitution, to have efficacy, import and adherence by the people, it must be clear, understandable, finite and unwavering in its meaning and context. Otherwise its context would be meaningless as an admonition against unlawful conduct. American jurisprudence historically has followed the doctrine of stare decisis, meaning "to stand by a decision." Van Ens would have it that "if I hear voices, I could deviate from that compromise and final decision (Constitution or Bible)," since the times are now different in our liberal or progressive society. Ergo, sodomy, infanticide, etc. are "old hat", and are now acceptable mores.

Regarding "states' rights" vs. the supremacy of the federal government, Van Ens heard a "voice" that told him the Constitution did not define the "precise boundaries between states' rights and the federal government's domain." The 10th Amendment to the Constitution succinctly and finitely defined those boundaries in its declaration, to wit: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Van Ens would have it that he heard "voices" that convinced him that the federal government had unlimited powers, and that neither the states or the people had any rights when those federal powers were exerted.

"Liberal speak" avers that what rights the states or the people may have are bestowed upon them by a "benevolent" central government, since "voices" trump the law as written. And in this I would add that "voices" also trump sanity in the mind of a schizophrenic.

Fredric Butler