No limitation on trials but limitations on defense?

There has been a story on ABC News for a few days about Charles Hood, a Texas inmate who was found guilty of murder when the judge and prosecutor were dating. The reason: the matter of the affair was brought up too late in the appeals process.

In terms of going back to the principles of conservatism, this bothers me greatly: let us revisit the principles. Conservatives stand for a small government that guarantees law-abiding citizens the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. As part of this effort, government will strive to make itself small, keep taxes low and maintain a strong homeland defense (for national security as well as law and order)

We cannot be focused on a strong national defense where a government can decide that murder has no statute of limitations--but the appeals do.

The only answer that critics will have is that from all available evidence, Charles Hood does appear to be indisputably guilty. If so, however, that should be still determined through a fair trial. Once we let journalists and the public make these "obvious" decisions, we start going down the slippery slope of rule and judgment by media and acclamation, not truth.

The real problem is not just that there is a statute of limitations on appeals but that the justice process was flawed in this case. Since the judge and prosecutor cannot be fired or impeached (they are retired) they should have their pensions revoked. They have corrupted our democracy and as such are a burden on their constituents. Since the affair was apparently "common knowledge" at that time, all their superiors should be severely reprimanded as well.

All this only goes to show that Texas continues to be a "bad" place for criminal justice. However, it is bad not because the people are bad; not because it is conservative; but because Texas is corrupt.

Polygamy through the eyes of the Constitution

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights of the United States permit polygamy.

No two ways about it: if freedom of religion is granted, so is the freedom to a polygamous marriage, if that is part of that religion.

What is truly forbidden by rule of law, is an abusive marriage of any kind and marriage involving minors. These are the only kinds of marriages (monogamous or polygamous) where the law should intervene. The mechanism to resolve domestic violence and abuse is already in place for polygamists, as it is for everyone.

Moreover, we have polygamous relationships everywhere around that are permitted: consenting adults committing adultery, having many children by many women. At best, these are prosecuted in civil court through divorce. Why then would the United States victimize entire communities of peaceful citizens who take care of their children and live their lives and practice their faith?

The authorities are wasting their resources and breaking up entire families instead of dealing with the economy and crime and other serious matters.