Another Teacher Rape of a Young Boy, Another Future Child Support Claim

By Alan W. Cohen

It seems like it happens every year. Some loco female teacher go gaga over a young boy, and is found out only when a child results. It happened again this week, when it was reported:

“Marissa A. Mowry, 25, was arrested by the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office and taken to the county’s jail, Fox 13 reported.

Mowry reportedly started a sexual relationship with an 11-year-old boy in 2014 when she was 22, police said, adding that the relationship went on until the boy was 14.

In October 2014, Mowry gave birth to a child who is now 3, deputies said.

Mowry is facing sexual battery and sexual assault charges. The Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office Child Protective Division is also investigating the incident, WFLA added.”

Here’s the bad news for that boy. In just four years, he will be a legal adult, and that same rapist will likely go after him for child support and win. Yes, being the victim of a rape is no defense to child support. That was something that was decided in the family courts more than 25 years ago when a Wisconsin Court of Appeals found that a being raped as a minor was no defense to paternity, that the resulting child was the innocent one, and all children deserve to be supported. Period. All 50 states have adopted this principle, as has our federal government. All that matters is that the sperm hits the egg.

A more immoral statement has never been spoken. And that is what our nation has turned into, a land where right is wrong and wrong is right, where the Natural Law that Aristotle spoke of, is turned completely on its head. The Roman senator Cicero distinguished between the laws of nature and the law of man. The law of nature was moral and incorruptible, while the law of man changes with the wind, the will of the mob against the rights of the individual.

What we have in America, and have had for more than 150 years, is man made law trumping natural law. As I explain in my new book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce, the Founders of our great nation believed in the Natural Law, that, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, “we were endowed by Our Creator with certain unalienable rights” including the Right to Parent and the Right to Marry, rights that are forever entwined in Religious Liberty. When our Supreme Court, beginning in 1833, turned away from individual liberty in favor of majority rule, it turned against Natural Law. As Locke once said, Natural Law is right reason, that is purely ethical. Our Founders agreed, finding that government had no authority under the Constitution to compel anyone to do anything when it came to how to raise their children.

In 1888, the Supreme Court rejected the Founders and adopted a bastardized version of English marriage law that was based on the canons of the Anglican Church, forcing all Americans to adhere to what was, in England, a voluntary choice. The government was thus free to compel individuals to adhere to its rules, one being that a husband must support his children or be subject to state determined punishment. In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that children had no right to financial support from their fathers, but if a state required fathers to support their children, it could not discriminate based on marital status. The federal government pounced, and issued laws requiring all fathers to support their children until age 18, creating an immense bureaucracy that puts the IRS to shame, to enforce that edict.

So, for this now 14-year-old boy, who will be forever traumatized, the rape is not over. It will continue for the next 15 years thanks to the federal government and the Supreme Court.

Alan W. Cohen is retired after more than 25 years as an attorney practicing Family Law. He is also the author of America Solved: A New Family for the 21st Century, a scathing review of what he calls The Child Support System.

Recent Past Blogs:

RIP: Herma Hill Kay, Creator of No-Fault Divorce, Destroyer of Traditional Marriage

Simple Health Care Solution Pits Capitalism Against Socialism

America at a Crossroads: Embrace Freedom, or Accept Totalitarianism

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

 

RIP: Herma Hill Kay, Creator of No-Fault Divorce, Destroyer of Traditional Marriage

By Alan W. Cohen

There is one law that neither state legislatures, nor the United States Congress, can destroy. That is the Law of Unintended Consequences, the law that suggests that drastic changes in the status quo might sound good on paper, but in reality lead to disastrous results. So it was with no-fault divorce, and its matriarch, the late University of California-Berkeley law professor Herma Hill Kay, who died last week at the age of 82. Kay, who was three times married, felt that the patriarchal society had imprisoned in her marriage, and wished that all women could be freed to make their own choices. Kay’s problem was not that she was wrong, but that her solution was completely one-sided, creating an full scale war on men that would be the focal point of second wave feminism.

Sharon Presley explains that in a 2015 essay that all Kay and the second wave feminists did was exchange one patriarchy for another. “Libertarians fail to see how women—or men—can be free of domination when they are dominated by a coercive government. If one of the goals of feminism to achieve a society in which women are free to make their own decisions about their own lives independent of the coercive domination of men, we fail to see how a government currently dominated by men is an improvement, let alone feminist.” Presley cites a discussion paper of the Association of Libertarian Feminists that stated in 1975: “…turning to the government just changes the sort of oppression women face, not the fact. Instead of being overburdened as mothers or wives, we become overburdened as taxpayers since child-care workers, doctors, etc., have to be paid by someone unless they are to be enslaved also! Turning to the government to solve our problems just replaces oppression by patriarchs we know—father, husband, boss—with oppression by patriarchs we don’t know—the hordes of legislators and bureaucrats who are increasingly prying into every nook and cranny of our lives!”

As I explain in my new book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce, state and federal coercion has no constitutional validity, but rather is based on the patriarchy of the Anglican Church, where a woman was property of her husband, and confined as the United States Supreme Court said in Bradwell v. State in 1873 to the role of wife and mother.  Religious freedom is forever intertwined in marriage and parenthood, and the state and federal adoption of the canons of a particular religion are directly counter to our Founding documents. Yet, for a century after, the price of confining women to their predetermined role bore squarely on men who, as modern day writers such as Camille Paglia have pointed out, were pushed to take on professions that could daily end their lives And, thanks to Kay, men continued to pay the price as all fifty states adopted her solution, one that permitted women freedom, but continued to place the financial burden of marriage and eventual divorce on both their husbands and their children. Further, as psychologist Barbara Whitehead pointed out in her iconic study, enshrined in her book, The Divorce Culture, women were the instigators of divorce 85 percent of the time, and their reasons had little to do with the actions of their husbands. Rather, women sought some form of nirvana that they called happiness, a place that Aristotle tells us exists only after a lifetime of achievement.

Instead of freedom, all that Kay achieved for women was weakening of both men and women. Permitting the easy escape from a contractual commitment without dire consequences greatly diminished the nature of the bond. Marriages morphed from a lifetime choice to a temporary one. Marriage is hard work. As a result of the no fault divorce, first women, and later men, decided that it is not really worth the effort, and pale in comparison to the emotional strength of their ancestors. Can you picture the spoiled snowflakes of today living in the harsh realities of the 19th Century?
They wouldn’t make it through a single day without folding. Life is not a fantasy. Chick flicks remain stalwart in their romantic belief that the wedding is the beginning rather than the end of the story of life happily ever after. Reality is far from it.

Camille Paglia puts it best when she writes, “women have lost the daylong companionship and solidarity they once enjoyed with other women when they ruled the private sphere. … An enlightened feminism, animated by a courageous code of personal responsibility, can only be built upon a wary alliance of strong women and strong men.”

From her pen to God’s ears.

Alan W. Cohen is retired after more than 25 years as a family law attorney. He is a  blogger and author. He is also the author of the 2015 book, America Solved: A New Family for the 21st Century.

Some of his recent blog posts:

America at a Crossroads: Embrace Freedom, or Accept Totalitarianism

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

Climate Change Non-Deniers Need to Open Up Collective Brains to Capitalism

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

Journalistic Ethics is a Myth, Just Like in Any Other Business; Long Live Journalism

Tomi Lahren Touches The Soul of the Libertarian on Abortion Question

 

Why Anti-Sharia Protests Are Misguided

By Alan W. Cohen

History dictates that anti-Sharia protests are both wrongheaded and unconstitutional.

In 1862, Congress passed its first attempt to destroy a religion that competed with the Christian majority. The Anti-Bigamy laws pushed the followers of the Mormon faith outside the boundaries of the states and into a God forsaken land surrounding an undrinkable lake. A decade later, federal prosecutors were hot on the trail of those individuals that continued to live in Mormonism despite federal edicts. In 1879, the case came before the Supreme Court as an unfortunate man by the name of Reynolds was found guilty for the act of practicing his faith as guaranteed under the First Amendment. Unfortunately for Mr.Reynolds, however, the White Christian majority of the Supreme Court did not agree, finding that polygamy was immoral and had no place in Western Civilization. Almost two decades later, Utah was permitted to enter into the Union only on the condition that it ban polygamy.

Fast forward to 2013. Thanks to the work of George Washington University law school professor Jonathan Turley, the State of Utah files with the federal court an affidavit promising to end prosecution of polygamy. That’s right. Despite the furious, but fruitless, prosecutions, polygamy survived, and at the turn of the 21st century became a popular fare in television shows Big Love and Sister Wives. And, what would happen if polygamists demanded the right to license polygamous marriages? Given the Supreme Court’s latest decision on same-sex marriage, as I explain in my new book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce, the federal courts would have no choice but to find that the state has no authority under the Constitution to license marriage, much less dictate the private conduct of those engaged in purely private behavior when it comes to the family. In fact, as I argue in Private Vows, the federal court would have to find that the legal basis for regulating marriage and divorce is a violation of religious liberty because the Supreme Court in 1888 adopted a bastardized interpretation of the Anglican Church’s canons regarding marriage and divorce and made it part of American law, and it did so to promote the same racist and bigoted agenda as the Ku Klux Klan.

But I digress. Why did polygamy survive? As the Supreme Court noted in a late 19th Century decision, prosecuting it required cooperating witnesses, and that would require that those actively practicing polygamy would have to testify. It proved to be an impossible burden. As long as they do no harm to others, or commit no other crime, people who wish to be free to practice their faith will do so even in the face of an intrusive and powerful federal government. The same can be said for those that want to live under Sharia Law. True believers are not going to come forward to testify against violators.

So, what’s the answer to those that fear the voices of those that would oppose the religious liberty of others, and wish to, as the Supreme Court did in the late 19th Century, impose a specific set of beliefs on the rest of the nation? Should we exclude Muslims from entering the country the way that President Trump is supposed to have done with his travel ban? Clearly, we could not even if we wanted to do so. Rather, we must turn to the reason our forefathers came to America in the first place: Freedom. Only by promoting the liberties of others can we truly be free. Only by respecting the beliefs of others can we truly be the nation that our Founders espoused. For those that say that Sharia Law professes hate speech, the answer is more speech, not prohibition. Will those that advocate for Sharia Law ever understand? Of course not. But the same freedom that permits them to worship will be their greatest obstacle to the world domination they desire.

Alan W. Cohen is a retired attorney, blogger and author. 

Recent past blogs:

Islamist Victory in Antisemitic Public Relations Battle Spells Doom for Freedom, Completes Conquest of Europe

Memo to Elite Media from Mid-America: We Don’t Care! So, Shut Up Already!

Trump Travel Ban Highlights Political Conflicts Inside American Judicial System

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

Easter Message: Why Religion is Vital to Maintaining Our Liberty

Susan Rice and Unmasking: Where is the Democrats’ Moral Compass?

Shocker: Sanctuary Cities Now Claiming Federal Funding is an Entitlement

Syria Bombing: Why History Trumps Libertarian Beliefs

 

Trump Travel Ban Highlights Political Conflicts Inside American Judicial System

By Alan W. Cohen

During oral argument today, May 8, 2017, before the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, one judge asked the ACLU attorney a basic question that pretty much goes like this: If Hillary Clinton had won and issued the identical order, would that order be constitutional. His answer was telling. Yes, of course it would. But this one is not because of comments made by Donald Trump during the election.

Huh? In my 25 years of law practice, and the multitude of oral arguments at the appellate level, this was a first. Judges are to interpret statutes as written, and, only if there is an ambiguity, do they go further to seek the intention of the legislature. Here was a law in place in the 1950s, used many times by many Presidents, including the second most liberal in history, Jimmy Carter, to ban certain foreigners from entering the country. That is the plain language of the statute. It gives the President not discretion, but absolute authority, to exclude entry from the United States he deems is a threat to national security. Period. There is nothing new here.

Yet, it’s not surprising that the judiciary does what it wants to do on an almost daily basis, each knowing that the legislature is pretty much powerless to stop them from interpreting laws however they wish because a higher court, not the elected officials who drafted the law, had the final say. That is our history. In our Mother Country, law was judge created, and opinions of judges were used as precedent, and ironically, permitted a final appeal in the House of Lords. In France, law was always statutory, and the judges were to follow that strict construction of the written language. America began as a judge driven law and gradually morphed into a statute driven law, all while giving to the judiciary the final say on how that law was to be interpreted.

While there are countless examples, nothing better explains it then the treatment of the Fourteenth Amendment. As Mr. Justice Hugo Black once wrote, Congress explicitly passed the Amendment to nullify an 1833 Supreme Court decision excluding state and local government from constitutional scrutiny as it pertained to fundamental rights. Under that ruling, states were free to establish religions, and violate the fundamental freedoms that had agreed to in their compact, those God-given rights to pursue happiness stated in the Declaration of Independence. But when the matter came before that same Supreme Court just a few years after the passage of the post-Civil War Amendments, the Court decided that no, it didn’t, that, despite its clear language stating otherwise, it was just and anti-slavery amendment. As a result of this judicial overreach, our nation endured almost a century of court authorized religious intolerance and racial bigotry, not to mention gender bias.

So when we complain about activist judges seeing everything through a prism of political party, why should we be surprised? That is how the ACLU could argue that if a Democrat issued the same order it would be valid, but since it’s a Republican, it’s not. That is why the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will almost assuredly strike down the ban, not for any legal reason, but because it was issued by a Republican. Based on today’s oral argument, despite that glaring admission from the ACLU attorney, this case can go either way. We just have to determine the political leanings of its court members. The law be damned.

Alan W. Cohen is a retired attorney, blogger and author. His new book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce is available at Amazon.

Most Recent Blogs:

America at a Crossroads: Embrace Freedom, or Accept Totalitarianism

Climate Change Non-Deniers Need to Open Up Collective Brains to Capitalism

New Copy of the Declaration of Independence Brings Out the Crazies

I Have Come to Praise Bill O’Reilly, Not to Bury Him

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

Easter Message: Why Religion is Vital to Maintaining Our Liberty

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

 

 

 

America at a Crossroads: Embrace Freedom, or Accept Totalitarianism

By Alan W. Cohen

Americans are in an abusive relationship with their federal government. Note that I don’t use the term victim, because we are in fact conspiring with the federal government to abuse our freedom.

What happens in a personal abusive relationship? One party asserts control, and the other party acquiesces. Soon those actions become comfortable and expected. The more the weaker party acquiesces, the more power the dominant party attains. But, whenever the acquiescing party feels a powerful moment and tries to reestablish some control, there is a violent reaction. It might be physical at the beginning, but sooner or later physical violence becomes necessary to assert control and to reestablish authority. As the relationship steadily becomes more volatile, the acquiescing party has a choice. Give in or leave.

Americans now face a similar choice.

As a Libertarian, I am appalled at the lack of outrage of the news media and the population in general about how the Obama administration was spying on tens of thousands of Americans, just as I was outraged how Hillary Clinton got away with a crime that would have landed almost anyone in federal prison for life. For my old party faithful, this is exactly what is wrong with you. You have no moral authority.

Yet, with the new health care bill, Republicans appear no better as they struggle to deal with this dependency on the abuses of government, and an electorate suddenly uneducated in the freedoms that we declared when we broke away from the Mother Country. It was in that Declaration of Independence that we asserted our God-given rights that were so fundamental that we could would not give our elected officials the authority to violate them. But that is exactly what we did. In my book,  Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce , I document the history of Americans surrendering their freedoms to what had become a Christian theocracy. Remember when you were not allowed to open you business on Sundays without special permission from the state? Remember how you were not allowed to buy alcohol on Sundays because that was the Christian Sabbath?

Yet, while Americans believed they were ridding themselves of state control in the 1960s, all we were doing was exchanging their Christian government for a national socialist one, the beginnings of cradle-to-grave control over our daily lives. Day by day, little by little, a growing segment of the population began to realize that there was no point in trying to succeed. And, as I explain my 2015 book, America Solved: A New Family for the 21st Century, government began to punish men for success, while at the same time, with the Child Support System, punishing poor men, especially African Americans, for the crime of being poor, creating a new form of slavery.

Now in 2017, Nazis have reemerged on college campuses, rioting and refusing to hear speakers with which they disagree, and the national media celebrates it, just as they looked the other way with Hillary Clinton’s felonious activities and Barrack Obama’s KGB- type spy program.  With the election of Donald Trump, America has temporarily reasserted itself, and patriotism is getting one last gasp. But, as with any abusive relationship, that gasp of freedom is met with a violent response from those in control, regardless of party affiliation. This is the swamp that is Washington, D.C.

It is put up or shut up time, America. You have to leave that abuser and make it on your own. You must reassert those freedoms guaranteed to you in the Declaration of Independence. You must educate your children to appreciate and embrace those liberties that exist only in the United States, liberties that had never existed in any nation at any other time in history. Most important, however, we must teach our children to embrace the freedom of others so that they, too, can recognize and embrace ours. Together, we must rid ourselves of our government masters and take control over our lives, because, if we don’t, totalitarianism is right around the corner.

Alan W. Cohen is an author and blogger, retired from the practice of law after 25 years. His new book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce is available on Amazon.

Read Past Blogs:

Climate Change Non-Deniers Need to Open Up Collective Brains to Capitalism

New Copy of the Declaration of Independence Brings Out the Crazies

I Have Come to Praise Bill O’Reilly, Not to Bury Him

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

Easter Message: Why Religion is Vital to Maintaining Our Liberty

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

Syria Bombing: Why History Trumps Libertarian Beliefs

With Gorsuch vote McCaskill Confirms She is Not Running for Re-election

Susan Rice and Unmasking: Where is the Democrats’ Moral Compass?

Is Hillary the Evil Genius Behind the Trump/Russia Scandal?

Journalistic Ethics is a Myth, Just Like in Any Other Business; Long Live Journalism

Shocker: Sanctuary Cities Now Claiming Federal Funding is an Entitlement

Hear Me Bernie Sanders: There is No Constitutional Right to Health Care

Tomi Lahren Touches The Soul of the Libertarian on Abortion Question

Does Neil Gorsuch have Libertarian tendencies? One Question Tells Us.

March Madness and the Trump Travel Ban: A Two-minute primer

Why Libertorian?

Climate Change Non-Deniers Need to Open Up Collective Brains to Capitalism

By Alan W. Cohen

I don’t know about you, but I have friends on all sides of all issues, and I am both frightened and amused at the extremity of their emotions. They throw insults at each other’s views on social media that they would never do in person. Some are them are quite colorful. One social media friend called me a Climate Change Denier.  I guess that’s akin to being called an atheist in Iran.

Then I got to thinking. What exactly does that mean? Well, apparently for many of the undeveloped brains on college campuses, it means the Earth is in imminent danger of destruction. Wow. In the phrasing of my generation, that’s heavy. Really? Well, we must save the planet from this coming disaster! But how do we do that?

Which brings me to my next favorite phrase in this new ideology: The Carbon Footprint. Well, I consider myself an environmentalist, but I never thought of myself as a polluter. Apparently, that is what I am doing 24/7 for the past 58 years. Every time I take in oxygen and breathe out carbon-dioxide I am polluting the world  So, I am going to throw out everything I know about the climate for a second, everything I know about sun spots, volcanoes, meteors, ocean currents, and the 26,000-year cycle that places us squarely between two ice ages, and consider that problem. How do we reduce our carbon footprint? Let’s go back to 7th grade biology. Hmm. What converts carbon dioxide into oxygen? Oh. I remember. Plants. So, following this problem logically, what we need is more plants and less people. But, unless all of those climate change non-deniers want to commit collective suicide, or wish to become mass murderers, we need a more humane solution.

So let’s get deeper into our scientific brains. What plants are best at eating carbon? Algae.  Well, certainly I am not the first person to realize this phenomenon. It turns out that Americans are a pretty industrious bunch. True. It took Israeli technology to create a cost-effective system that converts seawater to drinking water, but Americans have always been on top of the solving the world’s problems. Technology is providing the answer, as stated in Power:

The bioreactor patented by California-based algal firm PHYCO2 is undergoing a multi-year trial at Michigan State University’s (MSU’s) T.B. Simon Power Plant, a co-generation plant that provides steam, heat, and power to the university and can fire biomass, natural gas, and coal.

The bioreactor absorbs the CO2 from a slipstream of the plant’s boiler exhaust. PHYCO2 says its technology is set apart from other open and closed photobioreactor systems because it eliminates all possible contamination from outside sources, allowing microalgae to grow indoors 24 hours a day, without sunlight.

But let’s get to the root of the problem. Whenever you have billionaires and politicians promoting an idea and demanding that government take charge, you can bet there is profit in it. And, when certain off-shore billionaires promote anti-American ideals in favor of globalism, you can also bet that their profits are the end goal. Pretty ironic, huh? Convince an entire generation that American capitalism is evil just to make a profit. Have to give Tom Stires and George Soros credit for their ingenuity.

But these billionaires do not want young people to process facts, just to react emotionally to fear. Their collective amygdala is firing. It’s fight or flight. It’s a mob mentality. So, here is some free advice for the climate non-deniers. Use the logical part of your collective brains. Go about solving a perceived problem using the scientific method you learned in junior high school. It is not about good and evil. Stare into your smart phone and remember that technology is good. We do not need to return to the Stone Age. That was my generation, when communes and free love was the spirit of the day, and John Lennon sang Imagine. We were wrong.  Communes died out faster than the Mayflower Compact, not because of good and evil, but because human nature would not allow it. Heck, as a teen I had a copy of The Communist Manifesto on my bookshelf. It took me years to understand that their premise was wrong. Each according to his needs. Who decides those needs? Government? Isn’t government made up of people in power? And, wouldn’t the people in power care for their needs ahead of all others? And wouldn’t continuation of their power be their primary need? We only need to look to Washington to see that premise proved. Or, better yet, open up your smart phone and Google Venezuela. Yet, the remnants of that 60s culture chose to go into academia and become your college professors, still convinced that Hippies were right after all.

But I digress. So when you catch yourself being captured by the mass hysteria that is Climate Change, turn on the logic portion of your brain and look at that smart phone in your hand. It has more computing power than the IBM monster that launched Apollo 11. That smart phone did not come from government. It came from an enterprising genius. So, until you develop that filter to discern reality to what billionaires like Tom Stires or George Soros are putting into your empty heads, repeat after me. Capitalism is good. Socialism is bad. America is good. Communism is bad.  Repeat that mantra fifty times every morning. Then, when you grow up, you might have a chance. Maybe.

Alan W. Cohen is an author and blogger, retired from the practice of law after 25 years. His new book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce is available on Amazon.

Read Past Blogs:

New Copy of the Declaration of Independence Brings Out the Crazies

I Have Come to Praise Bill O’Reilly, Not to Bury Him

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

Easter Message: Why Religion is Vital to Maintaining Our Liberty

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

Syria Bombing: Why History Trumps Libertarian Beliefs

With Gorsuch vote McCaskill Confirms She is Not Running for Re-election

Susan Rice and Unmasking: Where is the Democrats’ Moral Compass?

Is Hillary the Evil Genius Behind the Trump/Russia Scandal?

Journalistic Ethics is a Myth, Just Like in Any Other Business; Long Live Journalism

Shocker: Sanctuary Cities Now Claiming Federal Funding is an Entitlement

Hear Me Bernie Sanders: There is No Constitutional Right to Health Care

Tomi Lahren Touches The Soul of the Libertarian on Abortion Question

Does Neil Gorsuch have Libertarian tendencies? One Question Tells Us.

March Madness and the Trump Travel Ban: A Two-minute primer

Why Libertorian?

New Copy of the Declaration of Independence Brings Out the Crazies

By Alan W. Cohen

There is no doubt that certain people in high places want to cast doubt on anything that is America, particularly our founding. But this latest pronouncement coming from two Harvard professors is over the top nuts.

You may have heard on the news that someone in Great Britain discovered a parchment document purported to be an original copy, meaning a true hand written copy of the Declaration of Independence. Assuming that it is a true document, and no one has explained how it could be a true document, what is different from the original? Are there passages different? No. Does the document contain different words? No. Did different people sign the document? No.

So what is the big deal? It turns out that the order of signatures are different. So what? We all know how the Declaration came to be. Continental Congress met and each colony voted. The Declaration went through the mill until all thirteen colonies voted to consent. So, now two Harvard professors are claiming that there is some special meaning to the order of the signatures. In the original, the signers were organized by their newly founded states. In this new copy, they are randomly signed. Before getting into the weeds of what that difference might signify, lets imagine that this document is authentic. How would it have come about? After signing the original, the Continental Congress needed to spread the word, and that required copies. Since no copy machines were then available, scribes copied the document by hand, and then asked the signers to redo their respective John Hancocks. Therefore, there was no purpose behind the order of signatures for the copies. The scribes probably had to chase down the signors, who just signed somewhere on the page.

But two Harvard professors have declared some hidden meaning behind this difference, that it must mean that federalism is a fiction. Alas, the Founders signed as one nation, not as a collection of states. And,  your point is? Doesn’t the Constitution begin We the People of the United States? Of course, it is from the people. The Declaration itself is about alienable rights and the pursuit of happiness, not of the states, but of the people who live in those states. Those same people divvied up authority between the federal and state governments, reserving those inalienable rights for themselves.  That is what we call federalism.

I am beginning to wonder what they are smoking at Harvard.

Alan W. Cohen is an author and blogger, retired from the practice of law after 25 years. His new book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce is available on Amazon.

Read Past Blogs:

I Have Come to Praise Bill O’Reilly, Not to Bury Him

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

Easter Message: Why Religion is Vital to Maintaining Our Liberty

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

Syria Bombing: Why History Trumps Libertarian Beliefs

With Gorsuch vote McCaskill Confirms She is Not Running for Re-election

Susan Rice and Unmasking: Where is the Democrats’ Moral Compass?

Is Hillary the Evil Genius Behind the Trump/Russia Scandal?

Journalistic Ethics is a Myth, Just Like in Any Other Business; Long Live Journalism

Shocker: Sanctuary Cities Now Claiming Federal Funding is an Entitlement

Hear Me Bernie Sanders: There is No Constitutional Right to Health Care

Tomi Lahren Touches The Soul of the Libertarian on Abortion Question

Does Neil Gorsuch have Libertarian tendencies? One Question Tells Us.

March Madness and the Trump Travel Ban: A Two-minute primer

Why Libertorian?

 

 

 

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

By Alan W. Cohen

The one thing I learned while I was in college was that scholars are pretty much set in their ways, and are rarely open to new ideas, especially if those new ideas challenge their entire way of thinking. At 57, I was pretty set in my ways. I had attended a top journalism and law school, had practiced in my field for more than 25 years, writing and teaching seminars. I thought I knew it all, or at least had a firm grasp. I had just published my book, America Solved, my attempt to reverse the destructive federal  child support policies of the past fifty years.

That was almost a year ago. I had been a converted Democrat, and time had transformed me into a Libertarian, with Reason Magazine as my bible. That is where I learned about Randy Barnett and his new book, Our Republican Constitution, and it was in that book that I learned the three important lessons that would lead me to my book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce.

Lesson One: When in law school, I was taught that the source of fundamental rights was the Constitution. It made sense. We have First Amendment rights to free speech, etc. Yet, as are most Americans, I didn’t quite understand the source of those rights not specifically mentioned, especially the Right to Privacy. Practicing in family law, I relied on two of those rights not enumerated, the Right to Parent and the Right to Marry. I accepted those rights because the Supreme Court recognized them as fundamental, although I held on to the view of Mr. Justice Goldberg that those rights exist in the Ninth Amendment. Randy Barnett taught me, however, that the source of these rights lay not in the Constitution, but what was written in the Declaration of Independence. The People have inalienable rights. They transfer some authority to state government, where their elected servants administer their appointed duties for the public good. The People also transfer some to the federal government, i.e., the Constitution, to protect them from foreign intrusion. But since those rights are inalienable, the People lack the ability to transfer, or give up those rights, and thus any act of state or federal legislatures that violate those fundamental rights is void at is inception. Suddenly, it all made sense. The Bill of Rights does not confer rights. It defends them. Congress shall make no law …

Lesson Two:  Elections are based on majority rule, and it has been drilled into us that the view of that majority that should prevail.  We are constantly bombarded from the left and the right, each claiming that their view is correct because they represent the majority. What I learned from Randy Barnett, however, is it that the Constitution is not We the People as the majority, but We the People as a collection of  individuals. As an amateur historian, I recall the folly of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, based on a theory that one group of people could vote to enslave another.  The same question applies to those majority who would restrict the Right to Marry. In 2015, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court made a finding that marriage in America began as a purely private affair, and then evolved. My book,  Private Vows, answers the question of how that happened. But I could not have accomplished that goal without this lesson that I learned from Randy Barnett. Since We the People is a collection of individuals endowed with inalienable rights, and since one of those rights is the Right to Marry, the People could not transfer to their elected representatives the authority to restrict that right. Therefore, state regulation of marriage and divorce is unconstitutional, as are federal laws that impact the Right to Parent.

Lesson Three: Whether it be the current state action to void the Trump Travel Ban or during the Civil Rights Era, where George Wallace and his fellow segregationists so argued, the idea of State’s Rights always intrigued me. Yet, Randy Barnett taught me that State’s Rights is a fiction. States don’t have rights. The Tenth Amendment recognizes that the people did not give complete authority to the federal government. Elected state officials have authority, and that authority is limited to what is specifically conferred. For Private Vows,  Barnett made me fully appreciate that the Tenth Amendment is not a source of authority for what the Supreme Court as recently as 2013 declared, that domestic relations was traditionally left to the states to regulate. Barnett taught me that tradition is not a Constitutional argument. We have to look to our Founding Documents.  Rather, the Declaration of Independence instructs us that the People have the inalienable right to marry, to parent, and to the Pursuit of Happiness. States do not have the authority to regulate marriage and divorce because the Constitution gives the the People’s elected servants no such authority, and any act to interfere in purely private acts is void at its inception.

Thank you Randy Barnett for teaching this old dog a new trick, and I will be forever grateful. You have given me a greater appreciation of the wisdom of our Founders than I thought possible. My personal goal is to share what I learned from you, and to broadcast it for the better of the people of the United States of America.

Alan W. Cohen is a graduate of the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Journalism and the Washington University (St. Louis) School of Law. Now a full-time author and blogger, he practiced Family Law in the St. Louis area for more than 25 years. His books are available on Amazon.

Easter Message: Why Religion is Vital to Maintaining Our Liberty

By Alan W. Cohen

As American Christians near the Easter holiday, it is important to recognize the vital role of religion preserving our liberty. No, I am not talking about our Judeo-Christian heritage. I am talking about all religions.

Our sixth president, and last founding father, John Quincy Adams, once said that religion is nothing more than ethics, and ethics is how we choose to live our lives. Belief in a higher being means recognizing that there is something greater than ourselves, that we are not the center of the universe, a concept that seems lost in many in the younger generation. Religion provides us with the mirror that we truly require to look beyond our own immediate needs, to see our own behaviors, and how it might affect others. I for one am not a religious person, but I live my life by a a credo born of my Jewish faith. I believe that I live righteously, and do what is best for my family, my community and my country. I live everyday thinking how I might accomplish that goal, and my writings, especially my books America Solved, and my February 2017 publication of Private Vows, are my personal evidence of that enterprise. And it is the goal of this blog to better America by seeing it return to the liberty that we lost in the battle over slavery in America as I explained in my introductory post.

Religion teaches us that we must join together for the common good, but it is our personal behavior, our minute by minute interactions with others that is penultimate for freedom to operate. We must have empathy for the rights of others, rights guaranteed to us in the Declaration of Independence. Think about it. Wouldn’t it be nice if those leftist bots that protest the free speech of others on college campuses would grasp that concept? Perhaps, they need to go to church to learn about respect because they certainly hadn’t yet learned it, especially respect for those elders who choose to share their life experiences to better the younger generation.

And so, for my Christian brothers and sisters, enjoy your Easter holiday, and consider how you are working to preserve and protect the rights of others to do practice their faith in the freest nation in the history of the world.

Alan W. Cohen graduated from the University of Missouri-Columbia Journalism School and the Washington University (St. Louis) School of Law. He has retired after practicing family law in the St. Louis area for more than 25 years.

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

By Alan W. Cohen

In my 25 years as a family law attorney, I witnessed an increasing parade of lost souls seeking happiness, never realizing, as Aristotle tells us, that happiness takes a lifetime to achieve. The Declaration of Independence guarantees the right to pursue happiness. It does not guarantee it.  As I explain in my book, America Solved, published in 2015, marriage is a learned skill, cultivated over generations, a skill that has been lost to the false promises of government that made them believe that it was the solution that all their ills, and that they would find solace in a compassionate court system that would bring them comfort and joy.

As I explain in my new book,  Private Vows , the court system was never intended to fix anything. It was intended to deter people, mostly men, from failing to meet their legal obligations, knowing that society was well suited to deter women from doing so. It is, and has been for almost two generations, ill-fitted and ill-suited for the times, becoming divorce factories, churning out sausage that, as H.L. Mencken said of legislation, no one of weak stomach should see be made. Family courts have become, as one lawyer-advertiser accurately describes, little fiefdoms, with judges, under the guise of judicial discretion, applying laws arbitrarily and punishing people capriciously, not to achieve some greater public policy of right and wrong, but to fit their personal whims, much to the distress of those litigants that find themselves in the cross hairs.

In a recent article from P.J.Media, provides some hope. It turns out that millennials are fed up with the status of the family unit as it has become today, and yearn for the stability of the past, the Leave it to Beaver world of stay-at-home moms and worker dads. While they agree that women should have a choice to enter the workforce, millennials crave the world where their children come home to a loving parent, not wailing away in some day care.  As I explain in America Solved, young men and women today are completely confused as to what they were supposed to do. Mind you, the post-war generation is a singular time in history. At our founding we were an agrarian society, where husbands and wives worked side by side, and their children were charged with helping out in any way they could. In the Gilded Age, women took on roles in sweat shops alongside their children to supplement the family income.  They knew that for their marriage to work, they must be all in.

As I explain in Private Vows, the Founders never intended for government to have a role in family matters. As the Supreme Court said in 2015, marriage began in America as a purely private affair, and then morphed into what we have today. The Founders intended for people to have the freedom to make their own life decisions without government interference that is both unconstitutional and unconscionable. Thus, those millennials that seek to restore the sanctity of what they see as traditional marriage, they must seek the wisdom of the Founders, and join to rid themselves of the tyranny of government interference in their inalienable right to the Pursuit of Happiness.

As I explain in America Solved,  government does not solve the problem; government is the problem. As I explain in Private Vows, everything the courts have said for the past 150 years about marital duties and rights is a blatant misinterpretation of what we call the common law. Nothing in the Constitution gives the state, and especially the federal government, the authority to force their views upon us when it comes to the family. Marriage under English law was a contract, and contracts are about voluntary action, and that is what our Founders prescribed.

Alan W. Cohen is a graduate of the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Journalism and the Washington University (St. Louis) School of Law. His books are available on Amazon.