Trying to have it both ways?

I was reading Snopes.com the other day and found what I thought was a rather ironic juxtaposition of articles. The first one was a “Correctly Attributed” blog entry from the rather conservative Country Music Legend Charlie Daniels. (Hey – credit where it’s due: he may be on the wrong side of politics, but even though I HATE country music, I still say that “The Devil Went Down to Georgia” is one of the greatest songs ever written.) It’s basically a slightly more principled defense of the new Arizona Immigration Law than the Right has been offering for several weeks now. It goes without saying that I disagree with his overall judgment on the law, but there was a whole lot less overt, outright racism then we’ve typically seen. It focused on the idea that the LAW is the LAW and you cannot break the LAW. I’m not going to bother to disassemble this entire philosophy right now, but it should be pretty obvious that this country has a well established system for CHALLENGING laws that we think go too far, and there is ample precedent for such laws being struck down. Given the controversy, it’s almost a given that this law will find it self in that process. And if it’s just frustration about the Federal Agencies not enforcing existing law, all I have to say is: That’s their discretion! What AZ has essentially done is say, we don’t like how YOU’RE enforcing the law, so we’re going to do it ourselves. If anyone other than a STATE did that, I’m sure even Mister Daniels would call that “VIGILANTISM.” (And the Supreme Court may yet decide that AZ DID overstep.) In any case, if he’s truly not racist, as he claims he’s not, then I’m sure he would not approve of vigilante action as a means of enforcing immigration law, or indeed ANY law.


That made it very interesting for me to read the NEXT post, which was an update about the Cross Memorial being placed on federal land. What does the LAW say about this? Well… primarily it says that openly Christian memorials can not be erected on Federal Land. And SEVERAL court cases not only upheld that judgment, but even upheld it against several clumsy and still unconstitutional compromises, and even struck down several CONGRESSIONAL actions to try and find a remedy that didn’t involve removing the cross. (Which was put the illegally and without proper authorization in the first place, I might add.) As I read this, I just kept thinking, “Hmmmm, I wonder what Charlie Daniels thinks about the LAW in this case.” I mean – the LAW was clear, and it was upheld numerous times, so what’s the problem? REMOVE THE DAMNED CROSS!

And while I will never presume to speak for a Musical Legend, why do I get the feeling that Mister Daniels probably feels that the cross should stay, and to hell with the Law. IOW: That it’s the LAW that must change.

Now… that’s his prerogative. EVERYONE has some law they don’t like; that they’d like to see repealed or revised or enforced or enacted anew. I’m got tons of ‘em. So there’s nothing wrong with that. Just don’t pull that “The LAW’S the LAW” bullshit whenever it suits you and then act like the law can be challenged whenever you don’t like it. Some laws are just no damned good, and it a matter of interpretation how to APPLY the law in any given case. That’s why we have COURTS, and a CONSTITUTION. So you can’t have it both ways.

Now… as for the guy who STOLE the cross? Speaking for myself, as an individual, I say, “RIGHT ON! BRAVO! And JOB WELL DONE!” The cross has no place on federal land, and was never authorized to have been put there in the first place, and our government should have the balls to enforce the law as had been interpreted MANY TIMES by the court. BUT – to avoid the hypocrisy charge on vigilantism – I will gladly concede that, should the perpetrator be apprehended, he should and must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I applaud the act, but he was the one who decided to take his chances legally speaking. I hope he’s never caught. But if he is, and if he’s convicted, you won’t hear me complain. I’ll SYMPATHIZE, but hey: The law’s the law, right?