All Episodes
Previous Next
June 19, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:26
June 19, 2009, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Way too kind, way too kind.
Thanks.
Appreciate the kindness of Johnny, the kindness of Rush for letting me hang out here today.
And oh, by the way, Tuesday of next week, a kindness that is extended to Mark Stein on Monday.
Always enjoy hearing Mr. Stein and the fill-in stint.
And we will all enjoy Wednesday because that is when Rush returns.
Let us return to your phone calls, a multi-topic day, as Open Line Friday often is.
I think I want to go first to a gentleman who was talking about, who happened to glom onto the census issue I mentioned, because there are a couple of things in today's news.
Michelle Obama comes, Michelle Obama.
That is not Freudian.
That's just a screw-up.
Michelle Bachman, not mistaken for each other ideologically or physically at any time.
Lovely women both.
Michelle Bachman, Republican of Minnesota, said, I'm not filling out my census form beyond how many people are in my house.
And with that, I've sort of gave you a little homework assignment or a little bit of a quest that we can all get together.
Because if we're going to do a little civil disobedience on an intrusive census questionnaire, what is our basis?
And it needs to be a really good one.
Again, the likelihood of us being rounded up and imprisoned for this would seem to be fairly slight.
But let's go to Nolansville, Tennessee, because Kurt ran afoul of this, apparently.
And so perhaps there's stuff to learn from his story.
Hey, Kurt, Mark Davis, in for Rush.
Pleasure to have you.
What's up?
Mark, great program.
You're doing a superior job as the stand-in host.
I'm very glad.
Thanks, Rush.
I received not only one from the Census Bureau last year, about 10 pages, but also from the Department of Agriculture.
Similar, both of them, but a little bit different, as you would imagine, with the Department of Agriculture.
I'm a farmer in Tennessee.
I actually ignored that census in the beginning.
And after the fourth phone call, where they asked me why I had not responded, why I hadn't sent it back in, and did I realize that if I didn't send it back in, I was subject to fine and imprisonment, et cetera, et cetera.
About the second time, I asked them if my government was threatening me, and they were all apologetic.
No, we're not threatening you, but we still need you to send it in.
So the fourth person sent me a second copy, and I did what Michelle Bachman did.
I basically answered the questions that I thought were appropriate.
I put on there, I have to apologize up front, none of your dog-owned business.
The first time I got the one that I didn't like, and then from then on, I just simply wrote, declined.
And then I got two more phone calls, and the second phone call, the guy says, we've got to have a completed form.
And I said, look, you can send the police and you can arrest me, but I am not placing any more information.
You have all you're going to get out of this household.
So do what you've got to do.
And I've not heard from them since.
God bless you.
If we all do this, those of us who are similarly inclined, one of two things will happen.
One, these people will go away, as happened in your case.
Right.
Or two, they will indeed show up.
Someone will be the Rosa Parks of this movement and will, and again, it's not apples and apples, please.
No, not using something metaphoric here.
And there will be video of someone being led away in handcuffs for not answering personal questions on the sound of anything beyond what is constitutionally called for any numeration.
And is that not?
Is that video?
Go ahead.
Is that not the answer to your homework?
Well, no, because it doesn't settle the ultimate thing.
And that is that if that person is indeed taken off and fined or imprisoned, well, they broke the law and they'll pay a price.
But one of the things that doesn't fix it.
One of the ways we routinely test laws that we think are unconstitutional or inappropriate is to have a test case.
So this would be a way of having a test case.
Indeed so.
So let's say that that person then winds up with a fine or imprisonment, and then they appeal it.
Okay.
What would be the basis of their appeal?
That the law in itself was unconstitutional.
On what?
But again, that's where the question arises.
Are speed limits unconstitutional?
Our child seat or seatbelt laws and child seat requirements, you know, listen with seatbelts.
There are libertarians who say they are, and maybe I'm one of them someday.
But there are a thousand laws that you and I obey every day, gladly, that are not in the Constitution.
It's the stuff we don't like that's not in the Constitution that they're foisting down us, that we like to come forward and say, well, then that's unconstitutional.
When, you know, maybe it's not.
So I need to find some way to argue that it is.
The absence of its – I'll tell you what I'll do because I guess it's been an hour or so since I looked at that.
If the census restricted, if the Constitution restricted the census to an enumeration, saying that it will be an enumeration and nothing else, oh, then we're golden.
But it doesn't.
That's what's tricky.
So let me listen.
Good for you for standing up.
Kurt, thanks.
You know, they can't come get all of us.
They can't come get all of us.
And for anybody driving around, walking around thinking, golly Moses, man, does this really rise to the level of civil disobedience?
Yes, it does.
I don't pretend I'm being denied a place where I can sit in the bus.
I don't pretend that I'm being denied the basic dignity that was denied people of certain races, certain sexes, this and that throughout history.
No, no, no.
But here in 2009, approaching the census year of 2010, what we are all being denied so increasingly in this day and age is the dignity of keeping information to ourselves.
Now, here's where it becomes a real sticky wicket.
You ready?
Because you almost heard me drop the P-word, privacy.
And if we as conservatives, well, there may actually be liberals who think that the census is intrusive.
So let's be bipartisan about this.
If there are people who believe that the census is too intrusive, those of us who are conservative who step forward and say, well, they have no right to ask us those questions, we have a right to privacy.
Uh-oh, oh, that is fraught with trouble because guess what?
No, we don't.
We don't have a right to privacy.
Now, we have a Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The cops can't come into your house for no reason to see if you've got weed.
The cops can't stop you and frisk you for no reason.
That's a Fourth Amendment illegal search and seizure issue.
Privacy, guess what?
Not in the Constitution.
And most of us who are conservative and anybody who spends time talking about it and arguing things like Roe versus Wade, that's what they hung Roe versus Wade on.
It's between a woman and her doctor.
She's got a right to privacy.
Guess what?
As Robert Bork properly told us, no, she doesn't.
There is no right to privacy in the Constitution.
We afford privacy as a society because we know that it really is just a good thing to do.
That it is, that there is a dignity that comes with keeping information to yourself.
We certainly have drawn the line with the Fourth Amendment about searches and seizures, which certainly are privacy issues, but in general, a general right to privacy?
Not in there, man.
Not in there.
Maybe we want to put one there.
I don't know.
We can have that debate.
So here's what makes this just a delicious talk show topic.
There are a ton of us listening right now thinking that the intrusive census is a real problem.
But the thing that we invoke to claim that it's a problem is the thing that we reject when used on the issue for like abortion rights and such.
So this is the stuff of chin stroking.
So what shall we do?
What shall we do?
Your thoughts are welcome.
1-800-282-2882.
Let me do another call before we pause.
And then what's thicker, the Manhattan phone book or just the list of stupid ideas that come from government?
I guess I'd have to know the thickness of the Manhattan phone book because here comes another one.
Are you familiar with cash for clunkers?
You can kind of tell what it's about, but every once in a while, government will do things like this.
And it's just insidious and it's just stupid.
And I'll tell you why in our very, very next segment.
But let's see here.
All right.
This is kind of interesting.
Let's go to Idaho Falls, Idaho.
Lynn, hey, Mark Davis, filling in for Rush.
How are you?
Well, I'm doing really good right now.
I'm still in the land of the free right now.
But my plot on the census is that they'll get the fact that there's two of us in the household.
The rest of it, I'm going to plead the Fifth Amendment.
It's in the Constitution, and it's my right.
No, okay.
No, no, no.
This is great.
This is the intellectual exercise that we have to go through is to put things to a test.
Okay?
Fifth Amendment.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment of indictment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces or in the militia when in actual service of time of war public danger.
Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
I love me some Fifth Amendment.
Eminent domain is in there.
You know, obviously being a witness against yourself.
Double jeopardy is in there.
Where in there is the base.
I might have an answer, but I'll ask you first.
Where in there might be a basis for saying no to answering the census?
Well, all I can say is I know there's still a God, and I'm going to plead the fifth.
And like I say, if somebody wants to call in and shoot me down, they can try, but I still have that right.
I think I'm, well, I may just have, and I'm a big fan of God, too.
But here's the thing, right?
It's broad.
Deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Does liberty mean only that you can't put me in jail?
Or is there a liberty argument?
Get Levin on speed dial immediately.
Is there a liberty argument for keeping information to yourself?
Let me take that book.
You're splitting the hairs, buddy.
Well, it's a hair that needs to be split because, you know.
You've been with that hair too far and you're going to have to run for office.
Well, no one.
Enjoying the private sector way too much.
Lynn, thank you.
All right, let's hit the break.
And all right, liberty.
Deprived of life, liberty, or process without due process of law, or life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Okay, what does liberty mean?
You know, the basis, obviously, is they can't drag you off to jail without due process of law.
That's depriving you of liberty.
There are a thousand other ways to deprive you of liberty.
Keeping basic personal information about yourself strikes me as a form of liberty, as a big part of liberty.
Am I stretching or am I on to something here?
1-800-282-2882, rushlimbaugh.com every day, even when Rush isn't here.
He will be back on Wednesday, though.
And that means you got me today, and that's another 42 minutes.
And then Mark Stein on Monday.
And then I come back on Tuesday, and Rush returns on Wednesday.
Okay, all right.
The thinking cap's on.
Back with you in a moment on the EIB network.
It's the Rush Limbaugh Show on the EIB Network.
It is Friday, Open Line Friday.
Rush is away for a lengthy weekend.
He'll return on Wednesday.
I'll return on Tuesday.
Mark Stein will be there when all of us return for the work week.
And look forward to hearing him on Monday and talking to all of you again on Tuesday.
And of course, all of us looking forward to Rush's return on Wednesday.
All right.
If you're just joining us, Congresswoman Michelle Bachman, quite the rising star, in Minnesota, says to the U.S. Census, essentially, I will tell you how many people are in my house as the Constitution requires, but beyond that, blow it out your air.
I think she phrased it somewhat differently.
And I think that's the kind of thing that will spark a lot of people to a similar civil disobedience, if that's what it is.
And so we're in search of a firm basis for our refusal to answer more questions.
And silly me, I actually do go looking for a firm basis for things rather than just because we accuse the left of just doing what feels good and feels right.
Well, I got to tell you, it feels good and feels right to flip the bird to this census form, but I've sort of adopted a bit of a responsibility here to fashion a basis for doing that.
And we may have found one with the help of a gentleman just called us from Tennessee.
He sort of wanted to put it in the general form of pleading the fifth, as if that entitles us to not talk to government in a million different ways.
Not so much, but that is where we find the protection against being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Does the definition of liberty contain not answering questions that are none of government's business?
That either is or isn't a stretch, depending on where you come from, I guess.
I guess the government could come back and say, well, okay, well, I'll tell you what we're going to do.
The establishment of these laws, the requirement that you answer them, is due process of law.
So, you know, ball's in your court.
So with the ball in our court, the search continues for a very serious basis for thwarting that census form.
And again, here's the tricky thing.
I think even constitutional purists would tell you that just because something isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean government cannot do it.
I'm part of the large community that believes they should not do much of what's beyond the Constitution, but from motorcycle helmet laws, which you can either have or not have, child safety seat laws, which we all approve of, speed limits, which most of us approve of, even while violating them.
They're not in the Constitution, but we can have them.
So there we are.
There we are.
All righty, the quest continues.
And I think what we'll do is take another call or two on this and some other stuff, and I'll give you the cash for clunkers idiocy right after the bottom of the hour.
As with a million other things from these people, capital T, capital P, these people in the Obama administration, or the Democratic Party in general.
It sounds so good.
Money to help you buy a car.
Money to help our air get cleaner because it helps people buy cleaner cars and more efficient cars.
What could be better?
I got a great idea.
It's called not giving people money for smokes, crack, and beer.
Details in our next, because that's exactly what it is.
You tell people, hey, here's $4,500 that you don't have to spend on a car.
Well, nothing frees up money for the slovenly among us, like cash for a clunker.
Buy a better car, and you got $4,500 in taxpayer money that you can go out and spend on whatever kind of debauchery and self-abuse you wish.
All righty.
It's the Rush Limbaugh Show.
I'm Mark Davis, filling in from WBAP Dallas, Fort Worth.
And we head next, right to the old homestead.
Greg is in Dallas.
Pleasure to have you, sir.
Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Hi.
Mark.
Hi, how are you doing?
I'm doing great job.
Nice to have you.
Thank you.
I've already made the decision for my family, just like this lady has.
That's about all the information they're getting.
And under the basis that, first of all, there are government websites that are out there to so-called help people in their finances.
And they speak of things like not handing out personal information to people that you don't know.
Right.
Okay, number one.
That's basically the rule that I'm going to imply if anybody asks for anything personal.
And if they do, I mean, why should I give personal information out to anybody whom I believe Acorn, for example, is a fraudulent company, and here are workers from Acorn, a fraudulent company.
Why would I give my information out to those people?
Wisdom.
Wisdom teaches that.
Absolutely right.
The answer that the government would tell you is because the law empowers them to ask and compels you to answer.
If your objection is, yeah, but who in the world knows what kind of Acorn Yahoo this might be in front of me, then what we've established is a kind of a right not to cooperate with the law if we don't trust the face and voice of the law that's in front of us.
And if that's true, it essentially means we can't really cooperate with a cop whose look we don't like, or maybe there's some other authority figure that we have doubts about.
And I mean, doesn't that sort of extend to that?
And Lord knows that's not an argument that would last five seconds.
Well, now, if it was a uniformed officer and if we had uniformed, I know these people, what they're going to look like.
They'll have some matching t-shirt on.
Now, who knows who they are?
They'll have ID, I know.
Okay, so if it was as easy to identify and be assured of their reliability as it is for a real cop, then the bar would be bad.
But a matching t-shirt.
All righty.
All right, let me scoot.
Thanks, and we'll run that up the flagpole when we return.
I'm Mark Davis in for Rush.
Well, it's going to be knocking on the door of about 100 degrees here in Texas today, tomorrow, and let's see, every day till Halloween.
So I hope your weekend and your summer are planned.
And a very, very happy Father's Day to all, to absolutely all of you who are dads, all of you who have dads.
Let us celebrate fatherhood.
Let us revel in the joy of being fathers.
My 17-year-old daughter, Regina, my six-year-old son, Ethan, I love you.
You make my life.
And boy, just this, this has always meant a lot to me.
And Father's Day is big because I'm a dad, and being a dad is one of the greatest titles, one of the greatest honors that can ever drop into your life.
So happy Father's Day to absolutely everybody.
All right.
Cash for clunkers.
Having created so much warmth in the room, let me destroy it with more bitter cynicism.
Congress approves a measure to subsidize car purchases.
Consumers can get as much as $4,500 to trade in old cars.
Now, as it is today, and as it has been forever since the automobile was invented, if you have a car that is, as they say in the industry, crap, and you want a better one, it's a very labyrinthine process.
You save the money and you get a better car.
That's what I did in moving from the 1970 Maverick to the 1976 Buick Century.
That's what I did at various other junctures in my life.
Well, not under these people.
A $1 billion Washington program to give vouchers to consumers who replace junkie cars with fuel-efficient models is likely to ramp up soon.
Congress passed the cash for clunkers measure late last night as part of the, I love this.
You know what it's part of?
Because everything makes such sense in Washington.
It, of course, is part of the war spending bill.
$106 billion for funding the war.
$1 billion of that helps your shiftless cousin buy more meth because he won't have to use that money on getting a on buying a Ford Focus.
So, badiba debau.
It's not clear exactly when the program will be available to consumers.
My vote would be never, if they ask me.
President Obama plans to sign the bill into law.
Imagine my surprise.
Let's see, an administration statement.
We are gratified that the Congress delivered on this administration priority.
Very good.
Standing up for democracy in Iran, not an administration priority.
Throwing money at people to perpetuate their slovenly lifestyle so they can buy a better car.
Administration priority.
The bill's passage comes as welcome news to automakers.
Do you think?
Oh, and by the way, I'm guessing that probably they'll ramp it up if you buy a car from Government Motors GM.
And I'm so weird.
I love GM.
Hadn't this just brought, and listen, my father-in-law, 30 years on the line at the GM plant, Arlington, Texas, that's right behind my head, sitting in this building.
Part of my heart in my head wants to help GM get out of this and go buy every GM car you can so they can get out of this and get government's hooks out of their skin.
But I, you know, I get them.
I know a lot of people that there are a lot of people who say, you know what, won't set foot in a dealership until the government is out of this.
I guess it's a cart and the horse kind of thing.
Anyway, irrespective of whatever make you choose, let's see.
Mike Moran, spokesman for Ford, we appreciate Congress's efforts to move this quickly across the legislative finish line.
God bless automakers.
They don't have, they're the last people to go to for clarity on this.
All this means is more folks are coming in with money to actually buy a car, which virtually no one is doing lately.
What would the measure do?
What would it do?
It would give consumers vouchers worth as much as $4,500 to turn in gas guzzlers and buy newer cars that are more fuel efficient.
I believe if the car that you're buying is like 10 miles per gallon better than whatever clunker you're trading in, that the $4,500 will kick in.
Is there an income thing here?
Could I get this?
I'm doing pretty okay in life.
But if I suppose I got a car that's, I've got, you know, one of the things in my garage is probably older than five years old, and I could probably upgrade on that, get $4,500.
Sweet.
You know, help pay part of my kids' private school tuition next year.
But that's me.
What if it's somebody else?
Now, I hope I didn't deliver an unbridled insult to a whole lot of people when I talked about people's slovenly lifestyles.
I know full well that there are people for whom this will be a very nice bit of help, that they are living a good life and they are responsible yet of meager means.
And this $4,500 of your money and mine will help them to get a better car so they can get to work, cart their family around more reliably.
And that's just, I'm prepared to have the requisite amount of warm fuzzies about that.
That's one way this can work.
The way in which it will work in countless examples is people whose cars either don't work or barely work, and they're maybe doing a little less crack cocaine or maybe smoking a few fewer cartons of smokes or maybe not quite filling the fridge as full with beer because they're saving for the car they got to have, because if they don't have it, they'll get fired and then they'll really be up the creek.
Guess what?
No worries, mate.
Here comes $4,500 of taxpayer money.
So you can head to the liquor store.
You can go to the meth lab.
You can get that carton of luckies.
Go ahead.
The $4,500 frees up your budget.
That is why this whole cash for clunkers subsidizing of, and it is always, always BS, because for every upstanding person whom it will quote unquote help, there are three miscreants down the block for whom it will facilitate their misbehavior.
So what do we say to the upstanding souls who will not be helped if cash for clunkers is shelled?
We say to them, God bless you, work hard, do it the way everyone has done since, oh, I don't know, the beginning of time, and through the sweat of your brow and the effort of your labors, you will get a better car.
And you know what you'll be able to say about it?
I earned it.
I earned it.
That nobody from Poughkeepsie to Palm Beach had to give me money to get my car.
I got my car.
And President Obama didn't help me.
Oh, and there's the deal breaker right now because the Messiah wants to be, you have health care because of him.
You have a better car because of him.
The sunrises because of him.
So cash for clunkers, my foot.
All right.
Where ought we to go now?
Let's go to the phones: 1-800-282-2882-1-800-282-2882.
More on how to provide a basis for saying no to the census.
That's coming up here in just a minute.
But Ryan, let's head up to New England, shall we?
Let's get some wicked lobster in Freeport, Maine.
Tom, pardon the bad dialect, Mark Davison for Rush.
How are you?
Good afternoon.
Hey.
And thanks for doing a great job.
It's my pleasure.
Thank you.
I've been active in Republican politics since before the Goldwater days up here in Maine.
And one of the big problems we have in this country is the Republican Party, which refuses to get off its stuff, refuses to find some passion.
It really, really provides some leadership.
And in the context of what you've been talking about this afternoon, if you take the marriage situation and especially gay rights marriage, if you read the 14th Amendment, when's the last time you read the 14th Amendment?
Knowing you are coming, I have fired it up in front of me.
And last sentence.
Nor deny any person within his jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Plural.
Now, marriage today in this country is an institution and it is a legal institution recognized under that word across the country.
It's universal.
A marriage certificate is recognized in the courts both to enter into marriage and, as we all know, even more so if we try to disengage a marriage.
Are you using that as a basis for the right of gay folks to assert that their marriages must be the legal equal of heterosexual marriages?
What I'm suggesting is the Republican Party could do itself and the country a big favor by seeking to establish some credibility and taking the position that no one has the right to deny any citizen of this country the right to the institution of marriage.
But except for one thing, that's insane.
Using that very argument, I can marry my dog.
Using that argument, I can marry five women.
And please, no angry gay people.
I don't care if anybody's gay.
But if that denying people the quote-unquote right to marry, I mean, it's funny.
A marriage is three things.
It is legal, it is social, it is religious.
Only thing we ever talk about is the legal part.
Gay folks can get married today, and they can have a champagne fountain and go to a church that'll marry them before God, and that's fine.
And the only question is whether it'll be the exact same, recognized exactly the same legally as a heterosexual marriage.
The equal protection of the laws clause of the 14th Amendment in no way guarantees that every human being will be able to come up with whatever definition of marriage he pleases and assert a right to it.
Mark, there is no modification of constitutional rights other than through the courts or through an amendment.
So you, you know, we all have our own ideas about what marriage should be.
My point is that first thing the Republican Party can do is remind people that they have to separate the discussion into at least two different parts.
One, the legal aspect, and secondly, or first, whichever you like, the moral philosophical question.
Well, of course.
And the moral and philosophical is largely left to us as individuals.
What there needs to be is a firm reason for the legal difference.
And I'm late for this break.
Let me hit it.
You give me a great question.
And if anybody's wondering, how can one oppose the legal equanimity of gay marriage without having a homophobic bone in his body?
I've done it my entire life, and I'll tell you how next.
It's the Rush Limbaugh Show.
What a deadbot book.
I love you, love you, love, you love you.
You got to roll.
1-800-282-2882, Rush Limbaugh Show.
Be right back.
Always an appropriate bumper tune in these crazy times.
Michael Sumbelo's maniac.
All righty.
I'm Mark Davis, filling in for Rush.
Happy Father's Day, everybody.
We're out of here in just a few minutes.
And Rush is back on Wednesday.
Mark Stein is here on Monday, and I'm back on Tuesday, which thrills me doubly for reasons I'll tell you just in our closing moments.
Last gentleman calling on the Republican Party to essentially admit that the 14th Amendment gives everybody the right to define marriage like however they want.
Well, new, new, new, new.
Under equal protection of the law.
New, new, new, new, new.
Now, and we probably ought to say this more clearly than we do as conservatives and as Republicans.
Homophobia has nothing to do with this.
Nothing to do with this.
And here's why.
If we say that for a man, that for me, to be married to a man is the same as to be married to a woman, if we give legal equanimity to that, that is, I mean, do your algebra, the associative or whatever property that is, if A equals B and B equals C, then A equals C, that means that men and women are the same, that to be a man and to be a woman is the same, not just deserving of equal rights, equal protection, da-da-da, but are in fact the same, which is antithetical to the human condition.
And I don't just say that as a red flag word, here's what I mean.
I believe that every child has the right to a mother and a father.
There's a difference between moms and dads.
As we head into Father's Day, those should perhaps be in sharp focus.
There's a difference between men and women.
There are attributes women have that I'll never aspire to.
Maybe vice versa.
I don't know.
I tend to think women are a slightly higher evolved form of life most of the time.
Men and women are not the same thing.
We're both human, but bring to the table different aspects of humanity.
And it is the presence of men and women, mothers and fathers, that is the engine of the propagation of the species and not just through procreation.
Men and women are not the same.
I don't ever want women to be drafted.
Don't want men to be drafted either.
We'll deal with that another time.
Adoption.
I believe that the notion of adopting, that you should be able to prefer, you should be able to have a preference for putting a child in a house with a married mother and father.
That's better than two men, better than two women, irrespective.
I mean, not because they're gay, but because motherhood and fatherhood are complementary.
And you see where I'm going here?
That this notion of just waving wand and saying, it's marriage.
Give everybody the right.
That has costs.
Manhood and womanhood are not the same.
Motherhood and fatherhood are not the same.
And that's why keeping the definition of marriage as one man and one woman, legally speaking, is worth upholding.
Now, does that mean gays can't marry?
Not at all.
Go get married.
It's better than promiscuity, please.
But the notion of the right of expectation that these will be viewed as the legal equal of heterosexual marriages is fraught with obstacles that a lot of folks just don't think about.
Now, as far as the other things, human decency issues, hospital visitation, rights of survivorship, those can and should be taken care of in law, of course.
Because that's just issues of basic human decency.
All right.
Well, that either worked or it didn't.
Back for some final words in a moment.
Mark Davis, filling in for Rush on this Open Line Friday.
Okay.
Speaking of things that'll either work or they won't, I'm going to try to get two people on in two minutes.
So brevity will serve us all.
We are in Music City, Nashville.
Bill, Mark Davis, in for Rush.
How you doing?
It seems that we have to sign, when we sign forms for the federal government at the bottom, it always asks us to swear and affirm under penalty of perjury that the above is true.
So if that's the case, it would seem that the Fifth Amendment would apply so that we don't perjure ourselves if we were to answer wrong, incorrectly, or, you know, something along the way.
Gotcha.
Gotcha.
For those just joining us, we're looking for a basis for not filling out the rest of the census form, an actual good, strong constitutional basis.
Not answering is not perjury.
I suppose, right?
I mean, their perjury is lying.
If you fill out bogus information other than who's in your household, that would be perjury, but leaving it blank doesn't strike me as perjury.
And in Napa, California, Paul, Mark Davis, in for Rush, take us out.
Hey, Mark.
How about the Fourth Amendment?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches.
And seizures.
Now, that was the first place we went is does keeping that information to yourself seem like a Fourth Amendment issue is government asking an intrusive question kind of like a search for the census to ask more than just the count, isn't that?
Isn't that altering that the unconscious?
They can, I mean, well, no, it goes beyond what the Constitution requires, but a million, as I've said all day, a million laws do that.
The laws we cannot have are the ones that contradict what the Constitution clearly lays out for.
But you may, as we close up shop here, you may have found something.
Can it be argued that the intrusive question from government, beyond who's in your household, that's where it gets intrusive, that that is like a search.
That just as a cop can't come through your house at 3 o'clock in the morning without cause, nor can a form ask you a question that's none of government's business without cause.
Last minute, I consider our experiment a success.
And today as well, for that, I thank you.
I thank Rush.
Happy Father's Day.
Mark Stein in on Monday.
And holy cow, I'm back on Tuesday.
Have a fantastic weekend.
This is the EIB Network.
▲
Export Selection