Senator Franken's Right to Hold Judge Moore to a Higher Standard

Alabama Senatorial candidate Judge Roy Moore certainly has his detractors. He was already unpopular among DC's swamp creatures for pushing back against two US Supreme Court decisions: the Ten Commandments monument controversy and his stand against legalization of same-sex marriage. In both instances he exercised his God-given unalienable first amendment right to express and act according to his religious beliefs. Both times as a result of his steadfast will to remain true to his beliefs, he was removed from office as Alabama's Supreme Court Chief Justice.

Then came eleventh hour accusations by attorney Gloria Allred's cast of accusers claiming forty years earlier a thirty year old Moore dated and sexually took advantage of women in their teens and early twentys; followed closely by multiple sex abuse accusations against Senator Al Franken and  Congressman John Conyers; this time with witnesses and photographs. At first most Democrat politicians and media personalities with haste demanded Roy Moore drop out of Alabama's senate race. Similar demands Franken and Conyers immediately resign were absent.

As NeverTrump conservatives and NeverTrump RINO's piled on, egging on Moore to drop out; the US Constitution took a back seat to a "catastrophe too good to waste." For the right of an accused's presumption of innocence was lost on our lawgivers and media elite. In its place was heard for the umpteenth time a right to hold lawgivers to a higher standard. Meaning the seriousness of the charge dictated Moore should quit his patriotic ambitions whether innocent or not. Add to Allred's pickling juice the strategic timing of Moore's accusers attacks, after a deadline preventing Republicans from inserting a new name on the ballot it's no wonder panic among Republicans ensued.

Rights when properly identified are wonderfully powerful. Misidentified they are potentially destructive, especially frightful in the hands of tyrants intent on overwhelming liberty loving individuals, We have known the properly identified rights from our youth regarding: speech, religion, assembly, self-defense, the right to be secure in our  homes and possessions, to name a few. The individual exercising an unalienable right takes a risk, puts himself out there to be free, spends of his own capital and resources. 

Exercise of imagined, made-up rights cost someone else something: their cash, time, hopes and dreams. Whether an individual demands he be given a job paying a ​living wage, housing he can afford, a free higher education, or affordable healthcare; exercise of his "so called" right requires compulsory cooperation of other people, necessitating a bureaucracy to implement and enforce all the rules and regulations We the People (government) can devise. 

Too often over the past seven years under the Affordable Care Act, a right of someone else to purchase affordable healthcare resulted in a "tax" penalty levied against individuals that could not afford to pay for their own insurance. They made too much in wages or otherwise to be granted a government subsidy, paid income taxes to the treasury that helped fund the ACA, plus they paid a "tax" penalty for the privilege of not buying health insurance policies for their families. With the full weight and authority of the IRS, families suffered confiscation of their private property for not purchasing health insurance, couldn't buy groceries or clothing with the cash the government seized, received nothing in exchange for their contribution to the greater good. 

Rights don't require legislation for their regulation and enforcement. Normally they are exercised without government involvement or interference. As introduced in the Declaration of Independence and later enumerated in the Bill of Rights, rights are recognized as pre-existent to the Constitution with the added proviso they shall not be infringed or abridged.

Consider, if only for a moment; the right to affordable healthcare insurance was not taken up as an amendment, did not gain support of two-thirds of both houses of congress. Nor was it ratified by three-fourths of the states. Unlike our well known, commonly accepted, time-honored rights recognized in the Bill of Rights in the late eighteenth century, the ACA was adopted (with kickbacks) one late Christmas Eve by a slimmest of margins, without concurrence of thirty-eight states, The amendment process was not pursued because very few counties, states around the nation, electorally or representatively speaking,  think of paying for someone else's health insurance as a right.

Legislators, including senators do not have rights different from the remainder of the population. Nor do citizens have a right to expect elected officials to live to a higher standard. We might expect such, hope for better. But such a right does not exist. In a few minutes Senator Al Franken will address the Senate and country from the senate floor in response to thirty some Democrat senators asking him to resign, without a hearing, without benefit of investigation. To aid the Democratic Party ambition to take the sex abuse moral high ground AlFranken is expected to take a dive, to dash his presidential hopes, to "throw himself under the bus."

In exchange Democrats expect there will be an ever increasing public demand Judge Moore step aside, resign if elected, or be expelled through a Senate investigation. In spite of Moore's right to presumption  of innocence, the very body that swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and the rights embodied within it, in one fell swoop have denied Franken, Moore, along with Conyers their right to be presumed innocent of the charges levied against them until such time as the accusers can be sorted out: those who are naughty and those who are nice, those who have falsely accused a senator and those who have truthfully accused a senator.

Return to Blog Home Page