Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Search / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

Odds and Ends: 

Rebecca Jackson, the Kentucky Derby, and Strange Bedfellows

By Theresa Fritz Camoriano

1.  Rebecca Jackson, Republican candidate for KY governor, is making some firm commitments in her campaign literature that should be impressive to those who support individual liberty. 

She promises to: 

            a.  Introduce a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit the legislature from raising income or sales taxes without a vote of the people in a referendum.

            b.  Veto any increase in taxes.

            c.  Open the books to every Kentuckian on the Internet every three months, so you know how your tax dollars are being spent.

These are good, specific commitments to which she can be held accountable if she is elected.  This definitely beats the typical candidate’s mushy and unaccountable “Trust me, I’ll take care of you.” ads.  (Because they usually do take care of us!) 

2.  The Kentucky Derby – This is Derby week.  The dogwoods and azaleas are blooming, and Louisville is getting ready for the annual “Run for the Roses” at Churchill Downs.  It is an exciting week here, as we kick up our heels and celebrate, with a parade, with various races of hot air balloons, riverboats, rats, and waiters, and with lots of parties in anticipating of the big, two-minute horse race.  When we first moved to Kentucky, we did not understand why all the children old enough to walk were taught to sing “My Old Kentucky Home” and to race stick horses, or why the Friday before the first Saturday in May was treated as if it were a state holiday.  However, after sixteen years of First Saturdays in May in Louisville, we do understand, and we thoroughly enjoy this rite of Spring.  We hope everyone has a great time again this year and all the visitors to Louisville have a safe journey and leave lots of money here!

3.  Strange Bedfellows -- Should the Supreme Court tell Texas or any other state what laws it can make concerning adult consensual sexual activities?  Search the U.S. Constitution, and you will be unable to find any clause that gives the federal government the right to dictate to the states what laws they can or cannot make concerning sexual activities.  If the Supreme Court follows the Constitution, it will leave this issue to the states. 

While most of us do not want the government snooping into our bedrooms, or anywhere else in our homes, for that matter, and many of us do not want the government to try to protect us from ourselves, we should understand that we will have the greatest overall protection against an intrusive government by demanding adherence to the rule of law.  If we are willing to ignore the rule of law in order to achieve the outcome we want in any particular case, then we will not be able to rely on the law to protect us when we need it. 

The current Supreme Court case, in which the Court is being urged to strike down a Texas sodomy law as being unconstitutional, is not really about sodomy.  Instead, it is really a case about states’ rights and the rule of law.  As stated in the U.S. Constitution, any power not granted to the national government is retained by the states or by the people.  Since there is no clause in the U.S. Constitution that gives the national government the power to regulate, or to prevent the states from regulating, sexual activities, the Supreme Court does not have the power to strike down the Texas law.  After so many years of ignoring the Constitution’s limitations on the power of the national government and of creating new powers in the “emanations and penumbras” of the Constitution in order to reach a desired outcome regardless of the law, the Supreme Court has, in the last few years, begun deciding cases based upon what the law really says.  This is a very healthy development, and we should not oppose it, even if it does not give the outcome we desire in a particular case.

Of course, the purpose of the government should be to use its force to protect us from the bad guys, not to go snooping into our bedrooms or the other rooms of our homes or to try to protect adults from themselves.  If the Supreme Court does its job properly and refuses to strike down the Texas sodomy law because there is no basis in the Constitution for striking it down, that will not be the end of the story.  The question then will return to the people of Texas.  The people still will have the ability to tell their state legislators that they think such a law is overly intrusive and should be removed from the books, and Texas jurors still will have the ability to acquit any defendant, regardless of whether they think the law has been violated, if they believe the law is unjust (exercising the right of jury nullification).    

The Supreme Court was not intended to be the ultimate protection against intrusive laws, and it does not have the power to perform that function in every case.  In this case, it is up to the people to demand restraint on the power of the government to intrude into their lives.  The people of Texas who appreciate the importance of keeping the government out of their bedrooms (and their living rooms, kitchens, dens, and bathrooms), and those who do not want the government to protect them from themselves, could demand that the Texas constitution be amended to protect against government intrusion into their homes and family lives.  (Of course, the Constitution already does provide some protection against illegal search and seizure.)  Not only homosexual rights folks, but also home schooling families and family values folks, would have strong reasons to promote such protections against an overbearing and intrusive government.  After all, if the state can snoop into the bedroom to outlaw sexual activity between consenting adults, it also can snoop into the kitchen to regulate what parents feed their children, and it can snoop into the dining room or den to regulate home schooling.  The fact is that none of us can be in the majority all the time, on every issue, so we should have a great incentive to protect the rights of minorities against government intrusion, if only to protect ourselves.

So, if the Supreme Court refuses to overstep its Constitutional bounds, it may encourage many groups of people, who are normally at odds with each other, to work together in the defense of individual liberty.  Another case of politics making strange bedfellows!

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest / Search / White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN