NUN’s Nudes and the Constitution
by C Howard Diaz
When I wrote my book, “A Charter of Negative Liberties – Defining the Bill of Rights and Other Commentary,” little did I know that a certain example I used would soon play out in real life.
From dailymail.co.uk, May 11th 2012
“A group of nuns in a Chicago suburb have accused their own mayor of threatening them over their efforts to stop a strip club from opening next to their convent.
The sisters of Saint Charles Borromeo-Scalabrians convent in Stone Park, Illinois, have been rallying, signing petitions and taking legal action to block the club, called ‘Get It,’ which is expected to open later this spring.”
The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to protect the people FROM the central federal government and should be free to determine what they want at the local level. But with decades of abuse our Constitution is becoming more of a thing of the past . The following is what I said about nude dancing.
From my book, “A Charter of Negative Liberties – Defining the Bill of Rights and Other Commentary,” page 51
“Whether or not a female should be able to undress at the Kit Kat Club is not a constitutional issue; it is a social issue—one pertaining to morality. Yet the Supreme Court accepted and made an opinion on the “right” for a woman to dance naked.
In the liberal minds of the Supreme Court, they found that dance is considered expression and the clothes the dancer wears or does not wear can be considered degrees of that expression. Therefore, she now has the right to dance naked at the Kit Kat Club. They want us to believe our forefathers wanted women to be allowed to dance naked and these women are protected by the First Amendment’s freedom-of-speech statement.
A woman does not have the “constitutional right” to take her clothes off, but may do so until the community determines it is no longer moral and votes to change the moral code at the community level. In this manner, I believe, our forefathers knew that moral and social issues should not be included in the Constitution, because morality can change over time. The definition of individual freedom and the idea of a limited government will never change.
When the Supreme Court allowed interpretations like Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade to drag the Constitution into moral decisions it was never designed to cover, the Supreme Court was wrong.
Today, the liberal side of society is attempting to use the political freedoms, defined in our Constitution, as moral freedoms. The result is morality being defined by the Supreme Court in constitutional decisions, a condition that our Founding Fathers never intended.
Prior to Roe v. Wade, forty-nine states had laws against abortion. That expressed the feelings of most Americans before the sexual revolution. Those who supported abortion during that time could not get the laws changed, because the people of the time did not want them changed. The activist Supreme Court got involved and created law instead of protecting the Constitution from this misuse.
If you read the Constitution, you would be hard-pressed to find a way to protect abortion rights in the words our forefathers wrote. Abortion can be legalized without it being a “right,” if the people want it so. And it is the people who should ultimately define the moral issues that affect the people’s society.
A man should not have a constitutional right to commit sodomy with another man, but if the people of any state think it is okay at the community, county, or state level, then so be it.
Americans must quit turning responsibilities left to us by our forefathers over to the federal government. The people must quit running to the federal government to pass laws governing things the people believe are immoral.
The deciding of moral issues does not belong in Washington, DC; it belongs with “we the People.” If we continue to accept the liberal interpretation of an individual’s constitutional rights to include moral issues, we will have made the Constitution of the United States completely incapable of protecting our freedom and thus seal the fate of this once great nation.
“We the People” have allowed the federal government in to abuse its power for decades, and we must shut down Washington, DC, and cut it in size by ninety percent. At the same time, we must rebuild our military, and therefore, the military must not be part of any budget cuts.
The Supreme Court should be ordered by an amendment to the Constitution to remove all decisions that include or are based in a moral context or that address any issue of morality. I say remove, not reverse, because a reversal of a decision based in a moral issue would still be a decision in which the Constitution is not designed to be involved.
Morals may change with time, but the definition of freedom will never change, and the Constitution must be protected from those who abuse it. Politicians at every level who swear to defend the Constitution are abusing the Constitution on a daily basis.
If our forefathers had an inkling this would happen, they could have added one paragraph to the Constitution—actually one sentence—and it would be, “Amendments or decisions made to the Constitution may never consider any issues regarding morality.”
At that time, morality was assumed, and that is the mistake they made. They assumed we would remain a moral Christian nation.
That mistake has allowed immorality to wrap itself around many of our rights, protections, and movements in America, and there are those who want to spread it throughout the world. Countries that still have a deep religious belief must consider us the evil empire because we are quickly becoming one. An immoral nation will not stand.
Another Supreme Court decision determining a moral act as constitutional is sodomy, which is another example of the Constitution being used in a way it was never intended. Following on the heels of this decision are those who want a constitutional amendment that will define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
This is another use of the Constitution that should not be allowed. Good or bad, it does not make any difference on what side of the issue you are on; it is not a constitutional issue. We are allowing the hole to be dug deeper, and there will be the day when the Constitution and the Supreme Court are no longer effective.
I repeat, the Constitution is not a moral document. It is not the Bible or any other moral document. It defines individual political protection from a centralized government, and this is what is under attack by the liberals. Destroy the Constitution and you destroy America.
If the Supreme Court should not address moral issues, where would that leave issues like contraception and abortion?
Legal in every state until the people in each state decide by their votes that those issue are not legal. Considering that women vote in each state, each issue would probably remain legal. More importantly, if Americans decide to allow or not allow contraception and abortion, it is none of the federal government’s business.
Why would any American want the federal government to have anything to do with contraception and abortion? These matters are intended to be left to the people in their own state.
On January 7th, 2012, during a GOP debate, George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney if the states had the right to ban the use of contraception. Mitt did not answer, because it would have taken some time to explain that the people have the right to ban or allow the use at the state level.
Again, if the people of a state, including all female voters, decide that the use of contraceptives is legal, then it is legal. If the people of a state, including all female voters, decide that the use of contraceptives is illegal, then it is illegal. We should not hold our politicians hostage over morality issues.
Morality issues have nothing to do with the president of the United States, and the federal government has no authority to get involved. Anyone who holds our federal government to a women’s issue litmus test risks the destruction of America.
Our Constitution and Bill of Rights were designed to keep the federal government out of our lives and allow us the freedom to pursue our own happiness. It was not designed to allow any president to determine how we live our lives, how we spend our money, or what food we feed our children.
Please pass this along and ask your friends to join my email list so they can receive these free updates. They can email me at firstname.lastname@example.org.