Did I ever mention that Harry Reid is a jerk? Last July, Harry Reid held a Senate hearing about polygamists. A number of polygamists flew to DC to participate, but Reid wouldn't let any of them speak. So much for "DO NOTHING ABOUT US WITHOUT US" !!!
Reid has announced that he will be reviving his efforts to create a national federal task force to crack down on the crimes associated with polygamy. What are the "crimes associated with polygamy"?
Bigamy?
Child Bigamy?
Welfare Fraud?
Money Laundering?
Tax Fraud?
I know this post isn't especially scholarly, but it seems to me that we already have laws addressing those crimes, and Shurtleff and crew have been vigorously cracking down for some eight years, haven't they?
I was watching the Safety Net meeting online last week, and some guy asked the Workforce Services representatives if they are able to accurately determine if the people in Colorado City and Hildale are abusing welfare programs? The officials stated that they monitor every application for accuracy, and are aware of no special problems with abuse or over-use of assistance programs in that area.
In Reid's proposed bill, he talks about polygamous communities being "criminal" organizations. What is a criminal organization? Is that like Al-Qaeda or something? I know that corporations are, in a sense, fictitious persons, and can have standing in a court of law, but an "organization" is an abstract concept, so how can it commit a crime? Reid is an idiot. People commit crimes - not organizations! That would be like saying, "That awful church shot me in the leg!" ABSURD !!! Reid must be trying to say that polygamists are criminals, so, if they organize in some way, then their organizations are criminal. What an idiot! He wants to go after anyone who is "associated" with polygamists, or who is "related" to a polygamist. Heck, it's a good thing he's not going after every Utahn who is descended from a polygamist!
I don't know why more people aren't protesting this ridiculous, bigoted bill. There are supposedly 37,000 fundapolygamentalists in the U.S., but I bet there are 11 million illegal Hispanic aliens in this country. I'll give you three guesses as to which group commits more crimes, collects more welfare dollars, and impregnates more teenagers. Some Hispanics are criminals. Some Hispanics form organizations like LA RAZA. According to Reid's contorted logic, LA RAZA would be a "criminal" organization (subject to RICO statutes like the MAFIA). Why is Reid not forming a task force to crack down on crimes in Latino communities? Latinos are in far more U.S. cities than polygamists are. Last I heard, the Latino population of Idaho is approaching 25%, and they seem to be reproducing faster than polygamists.
Lastly, what is all this CRAP about providing assistance for women and children "FLEEING" polygamist communities? By my last count, we have:
Hope for the Child Brides
Help the Child Brides
Child Protection Project
The Diversity Foundation
Tapestry Against Polygamy
Travesty of Bigamy
Rescuing the Reluctant
Americans Against Religious Freedom (AARF)
Conniving Canadians
Busybodies International
Reid's Rescue Rangers
- and too many others to mention . . . . .
My guess is that there are so few people "FLEEING" polygamous relationships, that these support organizations don't have enough fleeing escapees to go around. After the military assault on the YFZ ranch in Eldorado, I count ZERO women and children who are trying to "FLEE" that community.
If Reid thinks that crimes in "polygamy" are a drain on our precious economy, why do we want to appropriate millions more dollars to fund more wasteful, un-Constitutional government programs to tackle polygamy?
In 2019, we will be paying $865 billion per year just to cover the interest on the federal debts we are currently running up. Doctrine and Covenants (section 87) has the words - "....until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations." Maybe Warren Jeffs isn't so wrong about stuff, after all.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
Hypocrisy
Well, folks, I don't need to belabor this one - I bet several others will opine intelligently about this particular irony, so I'll try to be brief.
The LDS Church is upset about HBO's drama, Big Love. The show is preparing to air an episode including depictions of some of what goes on inside Mormon temples. I don't agree with everything Big Love's producers do. I don't agree with the trivializing of sacred ceremonies simply because "enquiring minds want to know".
In April of last year, law-enforcement officials forced their way into a sacred temple in Texas. They made hysterical allegations about sex rituals. The media pounced on this invasion with gusto. What could be juicier than a sneak peek into what a congregation of believers cherishes as most sacred?
I know the LDS Church really deeply disapproves of anyone publicizing what goes on in a dedicated, holy temple, and especially what recently happened near Eldorado, Texas. Pictures were taken, computers confiscated, and private journals and church records were seized. Much of that material was plastered all over the Internet for hungry inquisitors to devour.
To bolster the legitimacy of the LDS Church's complaint about Big Love, I searched diligently for all of the Church's vigorous denunciations of the mistreatment of the fundamentalist Latter-day Saints since last year. Sadly, I found none. Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y ???
The LDS Church is upset about HBO's drama, Big Love. The show is preparing to air an episode including depictions of some of what goes on inside Mormon temples. I don't agree with everything Big Love's producers do. I don't agree with the trivializing of sacred ceremonies simply because "enquiring minds want to know".
In April of last year, law-enforcement officials forced their way into a sacred temple in Texas. They made hysterical allegations about sex rituals. The media pounced on this invasion with gusto. What could be juicier than a sneak peek into what a congregation of believers cherishes as most sacred?
I know the LDS Church really deeply disapproves of anyone publicizing what goes on in a dedicated, holy temple, and especially what recently happened near Eldorado, Texas. Pictures were taken, computers confiscated, and private journals and church records were seized. Much of that material was plastered all over the Internet for hungry inquisitors to devour.
To bolster the legitimacy of the LDS Church's complaint about Big Love, I searched diligently for all of the Church's vigorous denunciations of the mistreatment of the fundamentalist Latter-day Saints since last year. Sadly, I found none. Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y ???
Monday, March 2, 2009
Growth Industry
Boy, I bet everything that could possibly be said about the evils of CPS/DCFS has been said. If I have any meaningful observation to make, it is with a touch of cynicism.
My wife will occasionally get emotional - really emotional. Occasionally, she gets really disappointed with me for some dumb thing I have said or done, and it turns into a squabble. She says stuff like, "How could you be so thoughtless?" and I say stuff like, "Hey, I'm sorry, I won't do it again, can you let it drop?" She says, "No, I can't let it drop - you are going to sit here and listen to me." I say, "Can't we please talk about it tomorrow?" She says, "No", so I try to exit stage-left until she gets re-composed. It's funny, because, at times like that, she'll say even harsh things and insist that I absorb them and take them to heart, then the next day, she pleads with me to not remember any of the stuff she said the night before because she had being saying things she didn't mean !!!!!!!! It always seems like a big waste of energy to argue for hours over some dumb, petty little thing, but women are women, and we love them, don't we?
In the world of business, if a tire blows on the company vehicle, the first priority is to get it changed and get back on the road. There's no merit in analyzing the broken glass that got stuck in the tire, or arguing for hours over whether the new tire should have a square or triangular tread pattern. In business, you have to weigh where to invest your energies for the greatest profit potential and not fuss endlessly over whether the new tire costs $65 or $70.
Texas CPS gets to break that rule of wise use of resources. The Texas Supreme Court literally drowns the Texas child welfare machine in paper money. It is a very cozy relationship. I actually cracked up today when I learned that the 17 year old YFZ girl brought somebody else's baby for the DNA test. I hear her saying, SCREW YOU, TEXAS (though perhaps in sweeter, FLDS terms) and thumbing her beautiful little nose at the callous machine. It's a tar baby, Texas! If you want to crush the people of the YFZ ranch, you are going to have to kill them first. You already messed up with the first invasion. You lost your credibility, so give up!
Yet Texas is trying to save face. It is scrambling to find and pin some dirt on somebody. No, the FLDS are not perfect (like the rest of Texas's citizens aren't), but I don't see the business case for spending countless millions of tax-payer dollars on hounding a small religious minority which, until recently, had a tradition of marrying at young ages like all of our ancestors. Texas needs to realize that no sum of money will weaken the spirit and resolve of these devout people. Our country is bankrupt. We are in a monster recession. Millions of innocent fetuses are murdered every year, with not a peep of protest from CPS. When it comes to one or two sixteen year olds who have a kid, methinks Texas doth protest way the hell too much!
I know you hate this strange religion, the religion of our ancestor Abraham, whom half the world's population reveres as the father of many nations. HYPOCRISY !!!! I am sick of government duplicity and fraud. The government is broke ($12.2 Trillion broke). Any money we spend now has to be borrowed from a bank who will inevitably want something other than worthless paper money in return. It is arithmetically (and lawfully) impossible for our descendants to repay the debt.
I would say that it is time to quit quibbling over stupid, petty, bigoted stuff, quit whining over one flat tire, quit throwing good money after nothing. Half of our country's workers are public "servants", employed by government, producing nothing, supported by the business proceeds of the private sector. CPS is a growth industry which can justify its continued existence and growth only if it can convince lawmakers that it serves a salutary role and is saving, rescuing and blessing America's families and children, and is the true guardian of their "best interests". Am I the only one who sees something apocalyptically sinister in this?
Renn.
My wife will occasionally get emotional - really emotional. Occasionally, she gets really disappointed with me for some dumb thing I have said or done, and it turns into a squabble. She says stuff like, "How could you be so thoughtless?" and I say stuff like, "Hey, I'm sorry, I won't do it again, can you let it drop?" She says, "No, I can't let it drop - you are going to sit here and listen to me." I say, "Can't we please talk about it tomorrow?" She says, "No", so I try to exit stage-left until she gets re-composed. It's funny, because, at times like that, she'll say even harsh things and insist that I absorb them and take them to heart, then the next day, she pleads with me to not remember any of the stuff she said the night before because she had being saying things she didn't mean !!!!!!!! It always seems like a big waste of energy to argue for hours over some dumb, petty little thing, but women are women, and we love them, don't we?
In the world of business, if a tire blows on the company vehicle, the first priority is to get it changed and get back on the road. There's no merit in analyzing the broken glass that got stuck in the tire, or arguing for hours over whether the new tire should have a square or triangular tread pattern. In business, you have to weigh where to invest your energies for the greatest profit potential and not fuss endlessly over whether the new tire costs $65 or $70.
Texas CPS gets to break that rule of wise use of resources. The Texas Supreme Court literally drowns the Texas child welfare machine in paper money. It is a very cozy relationship. I actually cracked up today when I learned that the 17 year old YFZ girl brought somebody else's baby for the DNA test. I hear her saying, SCREW YOU, TEXAS (though perhaps in sweeter, FLDS terms) and thumbing her beautiful little nose at the callous machine. It's a tar baby, Texas! If you want to crush the people of the YFZ ranch, you are going to have to kill them first. You already messed up with the first invasion. You lost your credibility, so give up!
Yet Texas is trying to save face. It is scrambling to find and pin some dirt on somebody. No, the FLDS are not perfect (like the rest of Texas's citizens aren't), but I don't see the business case for spending countless millions of tax-payer dollars on hounding a small religious minority which, until recently, had a tradition of marrying at young ages like all of our ancestors. Texas needs to realize that no sum of money will weaken the spirit and resolve of these devout people. Our country is bankrupt. We are in a monster recession. Millions of innocent fetuses are murdered every year, with not a peep of protest from CPS. When it comes to one or two sixteen year olds who have a kid, methinks Texas doth protest way the hell too much!
I know you hate this strange religion, the religion of our ancestor Abraham, whom half the world's population reveres as the father of many nations. HYPOCRISY !!!! I am sick of government duplicity and fraud. The government is broke ($12.2 Trillion broke). Any money we spend now has to be borrowed from a bank who will inevitably want something other than worthless paper money in return. It is arithmetically (and lawfully) impossible for our descendants to repay the debt.
I would say that it is time to quit quibbling over stupid, petty, bigoted stuff, quit whining over one flat tire, quit throwing good money after nothing. Half of our country's workers are public "servants", employed by government, producing nothing, supported by the business proceeds of the private sector. CPS is a growth industry which can justify its continued existence and growth only if it can convince lawmakers that it serves a salutary role and is saving, rescuing and blessing America's families and children, and is the true guardian of their "best interests". Am I the only one who sees something apocalyptically sinister in this?
Renn.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Renn sings the Blues
I was pleased to find a well-reasoned counterpoint to the assertions I have made in some of my posts. The author is a certain TXBluesMan. I can tell he is a smart guy. He is vigorous in his defense of the Reynolds decision. I wonder if he would be equally defensive of Davis v. Beason. He makes some intelligent points about Utah's conviction of Warren Jeffs, insisting that the legal reasoning behind the prosecution's "rape-as-an-accomplice" strategy was based in sound statutory language. If he is right, then Jeffs' appeal will not succeed. I still think that the vigorously anti-FLDS prosecution team had to get very creative in concocting an unprecedented, contorted line of reasoning to achieve a conviction, in concert with a globally-tainted jury pool (not unlike the bizarre statute-of-limitations logic used in the Tom Green conviction).
I believe TXBluesMan has done his homework. I believe he genuinely dislikes the practice of polygamy and the Fundamentalist Mormon communities. I honor every American's right to find that lifestyle repugnant, just as I cherish my right to practice it. TXBluesMan insists that we "change the law" and then reassures us that we stand no chance of getting the SCOTUS to overturn Reynolds. I believe that Lawrence v. Texas (June 26, 2003) DID effectively overturn Reynolds. Reynolds says that you can believe what you want, but that the State can step in if what you are doing under the guise of religion (like drinking hallucinogenic tea in a religious ceremony) goes against the State's wishes. TXBluesMan is therefore utterly content that the State of Utah condones promiscuous polygamous copulation among tens of thousands of Utah citizens, but criminalizes such conduct when - a) it is not promiscuous, and b) the actors believe in the theologies of Mormonism.
TXBluesMan, Mark Shurtleff, Thomas S. Monson, many Utahns and probably millions of Latter-day Saints ostensibly DREAD the prospect of a test case making its way to the Supreme Court to invoke Lawrence v. Texas (and Lukumi), to overturn Reynolds and to decriminalize consensual adult, non-legal, cohabitational polyga-bigamy - which is exactly why Utah law-enforcement officials INDIGNANTLY refrain from prosecuting the tens of thousands of polygamists openly walking the streets.
In some ways, I think this whole situation is a bit silly. Utah has laws against public profanity, but Lord Jerry Sloan (UTAH JAZZ coach) gets a waiver.
Alabama has a law against shooting an animal from a moving vehicle (unless it is a whale). STUPID LAWS ARE STUPID LAWS. I know it, and TXBluesMan knows it. He just wants to take an extremely contrary position, because he harbors a deep dislike of our culture and lifestyle. I will fight to the death to defend his right to believe that way, and I am copying his review of my blog below. (Renn)
-------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, February 28, 2009
The Fall of Reynolds? Not Hardly...
There is a new blogger out there using the name Renn Oldsbuster and the blog is named The Fall of Reynolds, an apparent reference to Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878). Many of the pro-FLDS types are going ga-ga over his posts, primarily because he agrees with them. It is certainly not because he has a good grasp of the law...
Lets take a look at some of his posts. We'll start with Warren Jeffs - Innocent? In this post, he is under the mistaken impression that accomplice means something other than what the legal definition is. He states:
However, you and I both know that an "accomplice to rape" has to be proximally involved in the rape act - either by physically holding the victim down, or by barring the door so as to prevent his or her escape.
Uh, Renn? That is not exactly the case. Utah Code Ann. Sec. 76-2-202 states:
Every person, acting with the mental state required for the commission of an offense who directly commits the offense, who solicits, requests, commands, encourages, or intentionally aids another person to engage in conduct which constitutes an offense shall be criminally liable as a party for such conduct.
That's what constitutes an accomplice. In State v. Biggs, 197 P.3d 628 (Utah 2008), the Utah Supreme Court stated (at pp. 631-632):
"To show that a defendant is guilty under accomplice liability, the State must show that an individual acted with both the intent that the underlying offense be committed and the intent to aid the principal actor in the offense."
So then we must look at the Utah Rape statute (Utah Code Ann. Sec. 76-5-402). It states that "A person commits rape when the actor has sexual intercourse with another person without the victim's consent." OK, let's look at consent, defined under Utah Code Ann. Sec. 76-5-406, remembering that the victim was 14 years old at the time of the so-called marriage.
An act of ... rape ... is without consent of the victim under any of the following circumstances: ... the actor knows that the victim submits or participates because the victim erroneously believes that the actor is the victim's spouse...
OK, in Nevada, where Jeffs performed the sealing, there is no common-law marriage, you must have a license (which they did not have). To obtain a license for someone under the age of 16, you must have a court order (which they did not have). Since they were not legally married, but the victim "erroneously" believed that they were, that is enough to prove the crime of rape in Utah. In addition, Jeffs actively encouraged that belief, both in performing the sealing and that she was to give herself to her so-called husband "mind, body and soul."
There is clearly sufficient evidence for the 12 jurors to find Jeffs guilty. In addition, despite some people's contrary views, if Steed is acquitted as the principle in the rape charge, that doesn't do anything for Jeffs on appeal - see Standifer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10 (1980) which stated (at p. 20) that "all participants in conduct violating a federal criminal statute are "principals." As such, they are punishable for their criminal conduct; the fate of other participants is irrelevant." Utah law is no different.
Obviously Oldsbuster doesn't see it that way, but as a long term associate of convicted polygamist Tom Green ("I know Tom Green pretty well...") I would tend to think that he might be a little biased...
As to his main thrust, the Fall of Reynolds, he seeks to explain his position on why Reynolds is not good case law. First, he misstates the background of the SCOTUS decision by Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite as being "summarily" decided. This is clearly a position that is out of touch with reality and the history of the case.
For one thing, polygamy laws were merely one of the weapons that the Federal Government was going to use to bring a treasonable population under Federal authority. One must remember that Brigham Young and 65 other prominent Mormons were indicted for Treason in 1857-58, and only the Mormon capitulation prevented their later arrest and trial, with President Buchanan pardoning the indicted Mormons. This had been a consistent thorn in the side of the Federal government, with the treason case in 1838 failing due to the defendants fleeing the jurisdiction, the 1844 case failing with the death of Joseph Smith prior to prosecution, and the 1858 case ending in a settlement. In 1870, eight "Nauvoo Legion" officers were arrested for treason. Up to the trial of George Reynolds for bigamy/polygamy, the Mormons had opposed the role of the Federal government in almost every aspect. One of the Mormon bishops had gone as far to tell a San Francisco newspaper that "Utah will be admitted as a polygamous State, and the other Territories that we have peacefully subjugated will be admitted also. We will then hold the balance of power, and will dictate to the country." (see Sarah B. Gordon, The Mormon Question, 2002). The Feds didn't much care for this for obvious reasons, especially the fact that both Smith and Young had stated that they were "a king." (Smith in 1844, Young in 1870)
Much like the way the Federal government later used the RICO statute against the Mafia, they used the polygamy laws against the semi-rebellious Mormons. What came of this as far as Constitutional law came from another source.
Justice Waite was well known for his scholarly research, and it was this that turned the initial vote from 5-4 to a 9-0 per curiam decision. Waite had contacted the most prominent historian of the day, Dr. George Bancroft (and author of History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States of America). One of the key points that Waite noted was that within one year of Virginia passing their religious freedom bill on which the Free Exercise Clause is based is that the Legislature passed the Anti-Polygamy Statute of King James I, and in which polygamy was defined as a capital offense.
Justice Waite, taking to heart the writings of the Founding Fathers and the key issue of the Free Exercise Clause, put it perfectly in his opinion, when he stated (Reynolds, at p. 165):
"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."
Remember, when he began writing the opinion, he only had 5 of the 9 justices voting to affirm. Once they saw the outstanding job that he did, it became a unanimous decision.
Next, Oldsbuster states that there was "really no juridical [sic] briefing" which is flat out false. George W. Biddle (Reynolds attorney) submitted a 63 page brief, outlining a strong argument for overturning the conviction on First Amendment grounds. The government brief was 8 pages.
Finally, the court has shown no indication that it will back down from this position. In every single case attacking bigamy or polygamy statutes on Free Exercise grounds, exactly zero have succeeded...
Posted by TxBluesMan at 8:01 AM
I believe TXBluesMan has done his homework. I believe he genuinely dislikes the practice of polygamy and the Fundamentalist Mormon communities. I honor every American's right to find that lifestyle repugnant, just as I cherish my right to practice it. TXBluesMan insists that we "change the law" and then reassures us that we stand no chance of getting the SCOTUS to overturn Reynolds. I believe that Lawrence v. Texas (June 26, 2003) DID effectively overturn Reynolds. Reynolds says that you can believe what you want, but that the State can step in if what you are doing under the guise of religion (like drinking hallucinogenic tea in a religious ceremony) goes against the State's wishes. TXBluesMan is therefore utterly content that the State of Utah condones promiscuous polygamous copulation among tens of thousands of Utah citizens, but criminalizes such conduct when - a) it is not promiscuous, and b) the actors believe in the theologies of Mormonism.
TXBluesMan, Mark Shurtleff, Thomas S. Monson, many Utahns and probably millions of Latter-day Saints ostensibly DREAD the prospect of a test case making its way to the Supreme Court to invoke Lawrence v. Texas (and Lukumi), to overturn Reynolds and to decriminalize consensual adult, non-legal, cohabitational polyga-bigamy - which is exactly why Utah law-enforcement officials INDIGNANTLY refrain from prosecuting the tens of thousands of polygamists openly walking the streets.
In some ways, I think this whole situation is a bit silly. Utah has laws against public profanity, but Lord Jerry Sloan (UTAH JAZZ coach) gets a waiver.
Alabama has a law against shooting an animal from a moving vehicle (unless it is a whale). STUPID LAWS ARE STUPID LAWS. I know it, and TXBluesMan knows it. He just wants to take an extremely contrary position, because he harbors a deep dislike of our culture and lifestyle. I will fight to the death to defend his right to believe that way, and I am copying his review of my blog below. (Renn)
-------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, February 28, 2009
The Fall of Reynolds? Not Hardly...
There is a new blogger out there using the name Renn Oldsbuster and the blog is named The Fall of Reynolds, an apparent reference to Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878). Many of the pro-FLDS types are going ga-ga over his posts, primarily because he agrees with them. It is certainly not because he has a good grasp of the law...
Lets take a look at some of his posts. We'll start with Warren Jeffs - Innocent? In this post, he is under the mistaken impression that accomplice means something other than what the legal definition is. He states:
However, you and I both know that an "accomplice to rape" has to be proximally involved in the rape act - either by physically holding the victim down, or by barring the door so as to prevent his or her escape.
Uh, Renn? That is not exactly the case. Utah Code Ann. Sec. 76-2-202 states:
Every person, acting with the mental state required for the commission of an offense who directly commits the offense, who solicits, requests, commands, encourages, or intentionally aids another person to engage in conduct which constitutes an offense shall be criminally liable as a party for such conduct.
That's what constitutes an accomplice. In State v. Biggs, 197 P.3d 628 (Utah 2008), the Utah Supreme Court stated (at pp. 631-632):
"To show that a defendant is guilty under accomplice liability, the State must show that an individual acted with both the intent that the underlying offense be committed and the intent to aid the principal actor in the offense."
So then we must look at the Utah Rape statute (Utah Code Ann. Sec. 76-5-402). It states that "A person commits rape when the actor has sexual intercourse with another person without the victim's consent." OK, let's look at consent, defined under Utah Code Ann. Sec. 76-5-406, remembering that the victim was 14 years old at the time of the so-called marriage.
An act of ... rape ... is without consent of the victim under any of the following circumstances: ... the actor knows that the victim submits or participates because the victim erroneously believes that the actor is the victim's spouse...
OK, in Nevada, where Jeffs performed the sealing, there is no common-law marriage, you must have a license (which they did not have). To obtain a license for someone under the age of 16, you must have a court order (which they did not have). Since they were not legally married, but the victim "erroneously" believed that they were, that is enough to prove the crime of rape in Utah. In addition, Jeffs actively encouraged that belief, both in performing the sealing and that she was to give herself to her so-called husband "mind, body and soul."
There is clearly sufficient evidence for the 12 jurors to find Jeffs guilty. In addition, despite some people's contrary views, if Steed is acquitted as the principle in the rape charge, that doesn't do anything for Jeffs on appeal - see Standifer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10 (1980) which stated (at p. 20) that "all participants in conduct violating a federal criminal statute are "principals." As such, they are punishable for their criminal conduct; the fate of other participants is irrelevant." Utah law is no different.
Obviously Oldsbuster doesn't see it that way, but as a long term associate of convicted polygamist Tom Green ("I know Tom Green pretty well...") I would tend to think that he might be a little biased...
As to his main thrust, the Fall of Reynolds, he seeks to explain his position on why Reynolds is not good case law. First, he misstates the background of the SCOTUS decision by Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite as being "summarily" decided. This is clearly a position that is out of touch with reality and the history of the case.
For one thing, polygamy laws were merely one of the weapons that the Federal Government was going to use to bring a treasonable population under Federal authority. One must remember that Brigham Young and 65 other prominent Mormons were indicted for Treason in 1857-58, and only the Mormon capitulation prevented their later arrest and trial, with President Buchanan pardoning the indicted Mormons. This had been a consistent thorn in the side of the Federal government, with the treason case in 1838 failing due to the defendants fleeing the jurisdiction, the 1844 case failing with the death of Joseph Smith prior to prosecution, and the 1858 case ending in a settlement. In 1870, eight "Nauvoo Legion" officers were arrested for treason. Up to the trial of George Reynolds for bigamy/polygamy, the Mormons had opposed the role of the Federal government in almost every aspect. One of the Mormon bishops had gone as far to tell a San Francisco newspaper that "Utah will be admitted as a polygamous State, and the other Territories that we have peacefully subjugated will be admitted also. We will then hold the balance of power, and will dictate to the country." (see Sarah B. Gordon, The Mormon Question, 2002). The Feds didn't much care for this for obvious reasons, especially the fact that both Smith and Young had stated that they were "a king." (Smith in 1844, Young in 1870)
Much like the way the Federal government later used the RICO statute against the Mafia, they used the polygamy laws against the semi-rebellious Mormons. What came of this as far as Constitutional law came from another source.
Justice Waite was well known for his scholarly research, and it was this that turned the initial vote from 5-4 to a 9-0 per curiam decision. Waite had contacted the most prominent historian of the day, Dr. George Bancroft (and author of History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States of America). One of the key points that Waite noted was that within one year of Virginia passing their religious freedom bill on which the Free Exercise Clause is based is that the Legislature passed the Anti-Polygamy Statute of King James I, and in which polygamy was defined as a capital offense.
Justice Waite, taking to heart the writings of the Founding Fathers and the key issue of the Free Exercise Clause, put it perfectly in his opinion, when he stated (Reynolds, at p. 165):
"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."
Remember, when he began writing the opinion, he only had 5 of the 9 justices voting to affirm. Once they saw the outstanding job that he did, it became a unanimous decision.
Next, Oldsbuster states that there was "really no juridical [sic] briefing" which is flat out false. George W. Biddle (Reynolds attorney) submitted a 63 page brief, outlining a strong argument for overturning the conviction on First Amendment grounds. The government brief was 8 pages.
Finally, the court has shown no indication that it will back down from this position. In every single case attacking bigamy or polygamy statutes on Free Exercise grounds, exactly zero have succeeded...
Posted by TxBluesMan at 8:01 AM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
