How many people are actually

paying attention to where the law is going in this country?

In this space today, I'm going

to refer to several social issues of major importance to many Americans.

I will not, however, be emphasizing one side or the other as far as morality

is concerned. Most of you already have your minds made up on that. But

no matter where you stand, it is paramount that you notice what is happening

in the courts of the land.

About a month ago, the U.S.

Supreme Court struck down a Texas sodomy law, ruling it unconstitutional.

In essence, the court said that it was a privacy issue, and a citizen's

right to privacy makes it illegal to prosecute consenting adults in that

situation.

People from coast to coast

either hailed that decision as a victory for all of America or condemned

it as the beginning of the end of civilization. Regardless of where it

sits on the moral barometer, however, as a matter of law it is a joke.

As with Roe v. Wade 30 years

ago, any personal opinion on the sodomy ruling is irrelevant. The simple

fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court had no business even looking

at either case, because the Constitution does not even begin to address

anything remotely connected to either issue.

Right to privacy? Maybe it's

a great idea, but it's not a constitutional one. As our laws are set up

now, it's a matter for each state's legislature as to whether it should

exist. It is not a matter for the federal government.

The Constitution is filled

with repeated references to this p hrase:

"Congress shall make no law." The founders of this country went

out of their way to make it as difficult as possible for the federal government

to regulate our lives. More and more, however, an activist judiciary has

decided to make its own laws rather than simply interpret what has been

legislated by those with the proper authority to do so.

As for the "right to privacy,"

consider the possibilities:

If it is legal for a woman

to control her body with regard to her unborn child, how can it be illegal

for her to have that same control when it comes to hiring herself out

for sex as a prostitute?

If two consenting male adults

can have sex in their own bedroom within the law, what logic would prevent

them from sharing some heroin in their own living room?

I'm not an attorney, but it

seems to me that some interesting precedents have been set. These possibilities

could be delightful or terrifying to you, depending upon your own personal

beliefs.

It is a simple fact that every

one of these issues is likely to find hard-core support or severe opposition,

with relatively few people in the middle. It is testament to the greatness

of our nation that people with such opposing views can live together in

some semblance of harmony.

But the course charted by the

Supreme Court and many federal courts in the United States has warped

the entire system. The people making these laws have no business doing

so, and the proper procedure that allows for the people's voice to be

heard through their elected representatives has become moot.

So we will continue to hear

ridiculous babbling about hot-button topics such abortion and gay rights

in judicial confirmation hearings, when as a matter of law those issues

should not even be in the picture. Candidates for the U.S. Congress in

2004 will likewise see their feet held to the fire over what should be

a federal non-issue.

As for the biggest prize in

next year's campaigns, however, one thing will remain unchanged. Perhaps

the most influential aspect of the presidency is the power to appoint

federal judges who serve for life. People who are truly concerned about

the judicial direction of the country, whether on the left or the right

politically, will carefully consider their choices for the president who

makes judicial nominations and the senators who would confirm them.

[Monroe Roark's Web address

is www.mroark.com.]