A Constitutional Congress?

by Rick on December 30, 2007

I’ve been spending a lot of time over at Downsize DC, reading through their various campaigns, and several have focused upon Congress; specifically, Downsize DC supports the passage of several bills which, if they are made into law, would provide important groundwork for reforming Congress, returning it to a more constitutional state.

For instance, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution lays out the various powers granted to the Congress. I believe every American should know what these powers are, if only to know whether their elected officials are acting unconstitutionally (and thus, illegally) or are keeping their oath to uphold and protect the Constitution.

The delegated powers are as follows:

  1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, provided that all duties, imposts, and excises be uniform nationwide.
  2. To borrow money on the United State’s credit.
  3. To regulate commerce with not only foreign nations, but also between the States themselves and with American Indian tribes.
  4. To regulate naturalization and bankruptcy laws uniformly nationwide.
  5. To coin and regulate the value of money as well as to regulate standard weights and measures.
  6. To punish counterfeiters.
  7. To establish post offices and post roads.
  8. To promote science and the arts via the securing of patents and copyrights.
  9. To create federal courts.
  10. To define and punish piracy.
  11. To raise and support armies (provided that no appropriation of money to do so lasts longer than two years).
  12. To provide and maintain a navy.
  13. To create rules for governing and regulating the army and navy forces.
  14. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the nation’s laws, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.
  15. To provide for the organization, arming, and disciplining of the militia.
  16. To exercise exclusive legislation over the nation’s capital city.
  17. To create laws which may be necessary and proper in order to carry out any of the above powers as well as any other power granted by the Constitution to the United States government, its departments, and any officers thereof.

As a random for instance, the creation of the Federal Communications Commission cited within its legislation that it was to help in regulating interstate commerce (point #3 above).

However, on the same token, what does broadcast decency have to do with interstate commerce? Yet it is the same Federal Communications Commission which was set up to fulfill a constitutional role that has now become an unconstitutional judge, jury, and executioner of fines for racy broadcasts and other such things.1

I still confess to being overly ignorant of politics and naive of how things work in the real world, but based upon what I know thus far, the Constitution is not a document to be taken lightly, and every member of Congress (not to mention the President and probably numerous other government officials) are required to take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Passing unconstitutional laws, meddling in affairs which do not constitutionally concern Congress (such as the Major League Baseball steroids scandal), and so on need to stop.

And if you agree, I urge you to voice your opinion to your representatives in Congress. Downsize DC has several campaigns set up which will allow you to do just that.

First, check out the Enumerated Powers Act. If this bill is passed, each bill would be required to enumerate, or list out, what in the constitution allows for such a bill to be passed. For instance, a bill designed to borrow money from another nation would cite the second power in the above list. Simple, right? There will certainly be unconstitutional bills which slip through, but by being forced to enumerate precise justification for the bill, quite a few may be abandoned.

Second, consider the Read the Bills Act. Quite simply, this bill would require Congress to read or to hear the entirety of any bill before they vote on it. You don’t honestly think you’re being properly represented if bills are being passed by people who haven’t even read it, do you? Encourage your representatives to support this bill!

Third, give a look-see to the One Subject at a Time Act. If it upsets you that the Real ID Act was streamlined through Congress on the coattails of a larger, no-chance-of-failure bill, then this bill is for you; One Subject at a Time would require that each bill be about one subject only and that the title of the bill would be an accurate reflection of what it contains. This bill fits nicely with the Read the Bills Act.

There are other bills which concern Congress that can be acted upon at Downsize DC, and I encourage you to check them out.

  1. It is my opinion that such things should be regulated by the States; after all, one state may be filled to the brim with conservatives who would in turn elect conservatives who would, again, in turn create conservative state-level laws which, should they desire, could “protect” against indecent broadcasts. Meanwhile, another state, filled with the more liberal-minded crowd, would have much more freedom with what could be broadcasted. []

{ 4 comments }

For I am dust and ashes…

by Rick on December 26, 2007

Martin Luther is perhaps best known as the foremost instigator of the Reformation a few hundred years ago; however, he started his journey of faith entrenched within the Roman Catholic Church, living a monastic life and becoming an ordained priest.

However, when the time came to perform his first Mass, Luther choked up when the time came to say the words, “We offer unto thee, the living, the true, and eternal God.” He stood there as if dumbstruck, eventually walking away in shame, joining his family where they sat.

What did Luther have to say about his failure to recite those words?

At these words I was utterly stupefied and terror-stricken. I thought to myself, “With what tongue shall I address such majesty, seeing that all men ought to tremble in the presence of even an earthly prince? Who am I, that I should lift up mine eyes or raise my hands to the divine Majesty? The angels surround him. At his nod the earth trembles. And shall I, a miserable little pygmy, say ‘I want this, I ask for that’? For I am dust and ashes and full of sin and I am speaking to the living, eternal, and the true God.”1

Wiser words are rarely spoken by men.

Dignified man may be as the crown of Creation, the most blessed of all the creatures, the bearers of the very image of God.

But, oh!, how far goodness is from the hearts of man. Oh!, how wretched the hearts of man before the holiness of God.

Yet even as I say those words, I know I don’t always believe them. It’s easy enough to make the mental assent to those words; the Scriptures declare those truths, I believe the Scriptures, and so I accept those words.

Deep down, do I truly accept that no matter how noble my deeds, no matter how selfless, when they are laid out before Yahweh, they are as polluted garments?2

Whatsoever good may be wrought in me and by me, do I fully credit Jesus Christ, who is to blame for anything that is good? Or do I accept the credit myself? The same goes for good wrought in and by others: Do I praise Jesus for the good, or do I give the credit to the person, who is but a vessel?

I hold out hope that the Lord would strike me as He struck Luther so that I may realize how inadequate I am, how woefully depraved. More than that, though, I desire to know more fully the holiness of Yahweh, more fully how beyond He is.

  1. As quoted in The Holiness of God by R.C. Sproul (page 80). []
  2. Isaiah 64:6, ESV; the phrase “polluted garment” refers to garments stained by menstruation. To put that into a modern context, our righteousness are as used menstrual pads when viewed in light of the holiness of God. []

{ 0 comments }

Same Sex Marriage

by Rick on December 25, 2007

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, ESV, emphasis added

I won’t mince words: Homosexuality is a sin. Not only is that the position of historical Christianity, more importantly it is the position put forth within the Scriptures themselves.

However, the New Testament does not make any special effort in pointing out the sin of homosexuality. When it is mentioned, more often than not, it is mentioned in lists of other sins, sins which permeate the church but which barely register on the radar of Christian discernment next to the hot button issue of homosexuality.

Frankly, I think you’d be hard pressed to find a Christian who doesn’t struggle with idolatry or lust (which Jesus equates with adultery, which appears in the above list). To single homosexuality out is to lessen the gravity of the scores of other sins, and to single homosexuals out — especially in hateful protest — is bordering on reviling them, which incidentally also appears in the above list of sins.

Yes, I believe homosexuality is a sin to be repented of (along with gluttony, idolatry, coveting, murdering, lying, and so on). Yes, I believe the biblical model for a family precludes a homosexual couple from being biblical.

That isn’t any huge revelation to most of you, I’m sure. However, I’ll go out on a limb here;1 I do not believe that the definition of marriage should be a constitutional amendment or anything of such like. I was pleased when I found out that Dr. Ron Paul also opposes such legislation.

If a person wants to be gay, that is there business; I believe that such a lifestyle can be no more legislated against than could legislation be drafted which prohibits monkeys from picking each other’s nits.2

In other words, I believe that, constitutionally, Bible believes have the right to believe & preach against homosexual marriage. I believe that ministers should have the freedom to refuse marrying whoever they want, upon whatever grounds.

On the flip side of a coin, if homosexuals want to get married, there are certainly other means of going about it rather than through Christian ministers who are opposed to the concept. The government should not attempt to restrict those other means — whether through Sodomy Laws or through legislation such as the Federal Marriage Amendment.3

At the very least, the decision to legalize or criminalize homosexual unions should be made at a local level — state or lower — so that the decision more accurately reflects the populace of the region. After all, isn’t that what having a government “by, of, and for the people” is all about? Attempting to make such impactful legislation at the federal level ensures that the people of the nation will not be accurately reflected.

I’m still shaky on that, though, as it simply doesn’t seem like marriage is something the government needs to have its hands in anyway. I’m speaking there as an aspiring biblical purist who recognizes that biblical marriages shared few similarities with today’s elaborate ceremonies, rituals, and assorted traditions.

What is America if not a melting pot of culture? Frankly, I find that absolutely beautiful, and it ought to be an unceasing reminder to the Christians of the nation that the Father is saving souls out of every tribe, tongue, and nation.

And yeah, I dislike homosexual marriage; however, I find myself much more irked by various other sins.

But at the same time, homosexuals are still human; biblically, they bear the image of God, and I am just as sinful as they could ever be. There are 8×8 beams in my eye that need removing before I need to every worry about the sawdust in theirs!

According to the Declaration of Independence, it is self-evident that all men are equal and that all men have unalienable Rights, [and] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Many men are happy in their sins, and biblically we are not mandated to force them onto the righteous path.

Additionally, so long as a person’s exercise of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does not infringe upon anyone else’s rights, the government seems to have no real reason to meddle.

Even within the church, the most we can do is to excommunicate someone, so that they can continue in their sins as Satan destroys their bodies.4

I’m still pretty much a neophyte where politics and the convergence of politics & religion are concerned, so I would appreciate anyone’s feedback on this.

I will conclude by saying that those conservatives who are fighting tooth & nail to outlaw homosexuality are doing the body of Christ no favors. The only way someone will joyfully & willingly give up a sin is through Holy Spirit-borne regeneration & repentance. There needs to be far more “Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand” and far less political protest. Only then will a genuine, lasting change be effected.

Just my 2¢US.

Merry Christmas.

  1. And this is a limb which I feel is more sturdy than, say, the limb many fundamentalist convictions can be found upon. []
  2. I’m not equating homosexuals with monkeys; please don’t read that much into my analogy! []
  3. The Federal Marriage Amendment, if passed, would have federally defined marriage as the union of 1 man & 1 woman. Incidentally, Ron Paul opposed its passage! []
  4. See the first several verses of 1 Corinthians 5 for more on this. []

{ 3 comments }

On the Twelfth Day of Christmas, My True Love Gave to Me…

by Rick on December 24, 2007

Have you ever tallied up just how much stuff you’d have after 12 days of receiving gifts from your true love, if the gift giving matched exactly that famed carol?

Let’s run it down quickly:

  • 12 partridges in pear trees
  • 22 turtle doves
  • 30 French hens
  • 36 calling birds
  • 40 golden rings
  • 42 geese a-laying
  • 42 swans a-swimming
  • 40 maids a-milking
  • 36 ladies dancing
  • 30 lords a-leaping
  • 22 pipers piping
  • 12 drummers drumming

The grand total is 364 gifts, 140 of which are people. (Heh, and you thought Christmas materialism was a recent thing…)

It’s difficult to believe1 that the partridge in a pear tree is supposed to represent Jesus Christ when there are fully twelve of them given in the song, whereas Jesus was sacrificed once for all time. (However, that site does claim it to be a Catholic catechismal thing, so I suppose it could be tied into the supposed repeated sacrifices of Christ made anytime a priest blesses the elements of the Mass.)

At this point, I’m a little wearied of the song anyway, and have appreciated the radio station at work mixing things up a bit with variations such as “The Eight Polish Foods of Christmas”; and if that isn’t up your alley, try out The 12 Days of Theology.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

  1. Okay, I don’t really consider Catholic.org a reliable source, and this comes off as very revisionist; an unbiased history of the song would be great if you have one to share. []

{ 3 comments }

A Naked Revelation

by Rick on December 24, 2007

TruthMy entire life — at least as far back as I can remember, obviously — I have pronounced the word “naked” as “NEKkid.”

Turns out it’s supposed to be pronounced “NAYkid.”

It feels very peculiar to pronounce it that way, though I will try to be conscious of how I’m pronouncing the word in the future.

{ 4 comments }