Hope and Change: But is This What America Wants?

Yesterday, President Barack Obama was inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States. Millions of people watched the historic moment, many filled with hope about our future and a yearning for change. Our economy is limping along, thousands of people have lost their jobs and the Dow Jones Industrial Average has seen its worst decline over the last few months since the Great Depression (with yesterday marking the worst decline on Inauguration Day in our history). Clearly, everyone is focused on our economy and their own pocketbook.

However, President Obama's agenda is not focused only on the economy. Quietly, he is prepared to push for many wide-reaching changes in social policy. Let's take an objective look at some of his agenda items. According to the White House's website, President Obama has the following agenda items:

Expand Hate Crimes Statutes

President Obama supports expanding Federal hate crime statutes by pushing for Congress to pass the Matthew Shepard Act, which includes sexual orientation and gender identity. For those who don't know, Matthew Shepard was a gay man who was murdered in Wyoming. Interestingly enough, many don't know that the investigation into his murder revealed that he was killed in connection with a robbery and that his sexual orientation had nothing to do with his killer's intent. Nonetheless, gay rights groups and the media used this senseless and tragic crime to bolster their case for expanded hate crimes legislation.

My Take: I think all hate crime laws are unconstitutional. It is currently illegal to commit a violent act against anybody for any reason. When the state exacts a punishment due to your “hatred” or beliefs in addition to the physical act you commit, that is a direct violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act

In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (by 85% in the Senate and 83% in the House) and President Clinton signed the act into law. It essentially protects states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where they are legal under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. As a constitutional law professor, President Obama is well aware that the U.S. Supreme Court would be required to rule that any state law refusing to recognize such marriages would violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause, as the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and trumps all conflicting state laws. So, by pushing Congress to repeal such act, he would be able to ensure that same-sex marriage becomes legal throughout the United States without having to directly support such action. Thirty states have constitutional amendments confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a women with over 10 more states doing the same by state statute. The repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act would help overturn these constitutional amendments and state statues.

My Take: The repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act is more ceremonial than a removal of a legal impediment to allowing same-sex marriage everywhere. Even if the Defense of Marriage Act is not repealed, there will come a day when the U.S. Supreme Court will be required to determine it's constitutionality. What most non-lawyers don't know is that the U.S. Constitution is supreme over all Federal statutes as well. So, the court would be required (including the “strict constructionists”) to rule the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. The only way to ensure that same-sex marriage does not become the law of the land in all 50 states would be by amending the U.S. Constitution.

Promote Aids Prevention

While promoting Aids prevention is laudable in of itself, President Obama desires to include in his overall strategy a requirement to distribute contraception to prisoners in Federal prisons and provide free needles to drug users so they may abuse illegal drugs in a safe manner.

My Take: Why are prisoners allowed to have sex in prison anyway? Frankly, that is one privilege they should lose. Nonetheless, I believe that if you are in prison and you engage in sex, you run the risk of being infected with sexually transmitted diseases. They should be responsible for their own actions and if they become infected, so be it. With respect to the needle exchange program, how is it that one Federal agency is tasked to arrest you for violating our country's drug laws and another Federal agency is tasked with providing you free clean needles so you can break the law without getting infected? This doesn't make sense. In order for the program to work, law enforcement would have to be barred from waiting outside to arrest the drug users obtaining new needles (many of whom could also be drug dealers). Again, this just doesn't make any sense.

Repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell

Claiming that the key test for military service should be patriotism, sense of duty and willingness to serve, President Obama wants to repeal the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy that was instituted during President Clinton's first term. For those of you who many not be aware of this policy, Don't Ask Don't Tell requires the U.S. military to not ask about one's sexual orientation and the service member is required not to tell anyone if he or she is gay. Those that do come out in the open as gay are subject to discharge.

My Take: According to a recent Military Times poll, a majority of service members do not support the repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy and, most surprisingly, 10% of the respondents said that if repealed they would not re-enlist or extend their service and an additional 14% said they would consider not re-enlisting or extending their service. The military is not a social experiment. It has one mission and one mission only – to fight wars. If even one-half of the 24% refused to re-enlist or extend their service, it would have a devastating effect on our military forces. I do find it interesting that two of the polices/laws mentioned in this post for repeal are ones supported by a Democrat – President Bill Clinton.

Does anyone remember hearing about these issues during the presidential campaign? I don't. All we heard about was the economy, Bill Ayers and Sarah Palin. Do these agenda items reflect what America truly wants? I am sure there are those that support his agenda 100%, but what about the average American who doesn't bother watching or reading about politics in depth or educating themselves about the candidates' positions? I suppose there are those that just care about their pocketbook and want President Obama to fix our economy, but our country's course on social issues will have a lasting impact on us and future generations. The agenda items mentioned above are only a few of the many social items that this new administration is planning to tackle. It will be interesting to see how Americans react when these issues come to the forefront. My guess is that some will wonder if this is what they voted for.