November 22, 2000

Eagle Eye on Austin – News from the Texas Legislature

During pre-filing on Tuesday, Representative Arlene Wohlgemuth (R-Dist. 58) submitted HB 245 mandating courts to apply more rigid standards to couples requesting divorce based on a claim of “insupportability.” The insupportability provision in Texas marriage code currently serves as a catchall excuse for couples seeking no-fault divorce. Wohlgemuth’s bill would ban this granting of no-fault divorce in the following circumstances:

1. The couple are the parents of a child under 18 years of age who was born or adopted by the couple during the marriage,
2. The couple has been married for less than one year, or
3. One of the parties does not request the divorce. 

In our General Election voter guide, Texas Eagle Forum asked candidates if they supported strengthening marriage by reigning-in Texas’ liberal no-fault divorce law. Representative Wohlgemuth has taken up the challenge, and we wholeheartedly support her efforts. Please call Rep. Wohlgemuth and voice your support for HB 245!

Rep. Wohlgemuth can be reached at her office in Austin at (512) 463-0538

Commentary – “Why the Worst Get on Top”

Many Americans have been shaking their heads, wondering why apparent chicanery and presumptive graft are carrying the day in Florida. The old premise that, in the end, the good guys always win—at least in America, anyway—is being turned on its head as attorneys and political hacks from the Gore campaign ferret out hundreds of votes in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties. Why does it now appear that the more dishonest, unscrupulous side is winning?

The answer to this question can be found in the writings of the great economist Friedrich Hayek, who attempts to explain why “the worst get on top.” In his powerful little book, The Road to Serfdom, Hayek points out that no-holds-barred competition for power naturally favors the “worst” in society. They are uninhibited by process, and driven only be ends. In other words, the rules of the game matter not a bit, just the score at the end. Hayek notes that formal law is “general and absolute.” It will “prescribe or prohibit a general type of action irrespective of whether or not in the particular instance any harm follows from it.” The man who imagines himself to be above the law, however, holds to a different view of what law is. Such a man sees the supreme law as being anything that “serves ‘the good of the whole,’ because the ‘good of the whole’ is to him the only criterion of what ought to be done.” Naturally, the good of the whole can be defined in any number of ways, but will always necessitate the success of the unscrupulous man because only he truly understands the needs of the whole.

Although Hayek’s book was meant to address the motives and methods of communists and fascists, one finds stunning similarities in the methods being employed in Florida. Just as in the Clinton impeachment trial, attorneys are spinning, parsing words, and dissembling in an effort to force meaning into law that simply isn’t there. The Democratic Party is expending tremendous resources to produce a particular result (an Al Gore victory) by selectively pleading different sides of like issues. For instance, Al Gore’s attorneys were quick to protect the status of Miami-Dade election board officials as being the final authority on determining hand recounts as long as the recounts were taking place AND favoring Al Gore. In addition, Mr. Gore and his cronies have all been quick to call for fair and accurate counts of all ballots. All good and well. But, when Miami-Dade officials decided this Wednesday to abort their recount because they could not produce a fair count by the court imposed deadline, Gore attorneys wasted no time dragging them into court in order to browbeat them into submission to the “common good.” Granted, operatives for George W. Bush have been busy spinning as well, but at least they have had the law on their side the vast majority of the time.

Such is the difference between the two camps. While the Republicans cry, “defend the rule of law,” the Democrats reply, “defend the will of the people!” While the Democrat argument sounds more pleasing to a sentimental listener, it is full of ambiguity and misleading notions. What is law, enacted by elected legislators, if not the written will of the people? In the end, the “will of the people” as described by Al Gore is no different than what the communists described as “the good of the whole.” It is rhetoric masking the power-driven agenda of a small elite who would like nothing better than to make all decisions for all people—for the good of the people, of course. By avoiding the obvious impediment of the rule of law, Gore and his staff have been free to use all means necessary to force results that are pleasing to him. Unfortunately, a vast majority of the Florida court system has been complicit in this task. George W. Bush, on the other hand, has been saddled with the burden of operating within the rule of law, thus being forced to accept “action irrespective of whether or not in the particular instance any harm follows from it.”

We have been reminded often that the protection of our liberties demands eternal vigilance on the part of our nation’s citizens. Rarely has this warning held more truth and significance for the people of the United States. We must demand that those who would be our leaders abide be the rule of law as clearly enunciated in the Constitution and our resulting legal traditions. In addition, we must not be slow or hesitant to address abuses of the rule of law, and call the violators to account for their actions. As citizens we must do nothing less, or else face the prospect of allowing the worst to get on top.

Please contact us if you would like to request information, or place a friend on our e-mail list.

Phone: 972-250-0734
Fax: 972-380-2853
e-mail: ryanbangert@texaseagle.org
web: www.texaseagle.org