(Published in the Washington Times, Friday, August 29, 2003)
August 27, 2003
To the Editor:
David Limbaugh (8/27/03) should add to his description of Roy Moore's position that Moore's whole case rests on obedience to the law, not rebellion against it. Moore's point is precisely Limbaugh's, that the higher law trumps the lower. The legal logic is clear and unassailable.
But there can be no law higher than the law of the creator of the universe. That means that the law of God trumps all other laws, a principle universally recognized by our founding fathers and by nearly all jurists of the time in both America and England.
So, federal law, in its proper jurisdiction, trumps state law. But the law of God trumps federal law in all cases.
That is the point of the Declaration of Independence. Our freedoms are inalienable precisely because no law, federal or state, can remove what God has granted. There is no other way to make them inalienable.
One does not disobey civil law frivolously. But Limbaugh himself outlines Moore's case for disobedience -- federal law, out of its proper jurisdiction, running rough-shod over state jurisdiction. To which we must add, the arrogant and/or ignorant rejection by the Supreme Court of the law of God.
Limbaugh is right. The higher law must be obeyed. And Moore is right. In a contest between the law of the God and the law of the land, the higher law of God must be obeyed. To fail to stand on the highest law is Limbaugh's nightmare, the total subversion of law altogether, and, finally, reduction to tyranny.
[See Roy Moore's defense of his actions.]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Go to: => TOP Page; => Letters to the Editor; => ROAD MAP