Stem the Tide

Over the past week, there's been something short of pandemonium surrounding the virtual verbal battle between Michael J. Fox and Rush Limbaugh (with side battles including Kurt Warner, Patricia Heaton, Jim Caviezel, and CNN). The most recent verbal vomitting has come from McFly himself - that's Michael J. Fox for those of you who slept through the 80's. During an interview with Abc News, Fox admitted that he has never read the very amendment for which he has been stumping.

Not reading the fine print may explain why Mr. Fox ever considered embodying, "Teen Wolf."

But, I digress. Interestingly, the amendment appears to endorse human cloning and, rather limitedly, permit for research into embryonic stem cells for various diseases, including Mr. Fox's Parkinson's Disease.

I do not want to comment on the passage of an amendment that I have not read either; however, I did want to highlight one extremely important piece of information that I just recently became aware. Did you know that there has not been one diseases linked to being treated/cured by the use of embryonic stem cells (the harvest of which requires the destruction of pre-born humans)?

Before you argue that such lack of proof is due to lack of research, I must remind you that embryonic stem cell research has been permitted in the realm of those still-born fetuses have been reserved for science. That is, there is a limited supply of embryonic stem cells that have been tested, but none (zero, zilch, nada) have resulted in the advance of science and the attrition of disease.

Please look at this list from www.stemcellresearch.org. The use of adult stem cells has resulted in cures or treatments for more than seventy (70) different diseases. For embryonic stem cells? None (nil, zip, non).

Oh, number 48 on the list? Parkinson's Disease.

Mike, I truly am sorry for your affliction; however, read the fine print and endorse something that is proving highly successful!

Remember Dr. Emmett Brown's warnings against messing with the time-space continuum. Great Scott!

Humans With Chests and No Heart

C.S. Lewis once observed something to the effect that today's humanity is so concentrated on pleasuring their minds and with filling their bellies with all the pleasures this world has to offer that they have become men with bellies, men with brains, yet without chests. Ol' Jack was observing that modernity has pushed its occupents to gratify their senses and the pleasures of today that modern mankind has forgotten the eternal aspect of their humanity and, in so doing, have left themselves devoid of a soul.

Someone else has observed of today's youth that, "They have forgotten what it means to blush." We see it everywhere and, in the midst of a political season, we cannot avoid it. I was disheartened to learn recently that there is a high school system, in the most conservative county one can imagine, that requires its high school freshmen to draw the genitalia of the opposite gender in a coed health class. You read that right: girls are drawing boys' wedding parts and boys are drawing the private areas of girls. Drawing; not labelling a nameless, anatomical cut-away diagram. They pull out their pencil, paper, and high levels of teenage hormones and draw genitalia. Then, seated next to their latest crush, they giggle - as teens are wont to do.

I am certain you are aware of the Mark Foley scandal and what a furor the same-sex, predatory filandering of the ex-congressman has created. The coverage of this grotesque stuff is the subject of kiddy porn and fit only for the burn pile. Yet, it is being read over broadcast and cable airwaves, posted on various blogs and web news rings, and discussed in detail over the watercooler.

Last week, Senator Mark Allen (R-VA)'s campaign released some excerpts from his opponent's - Alex Webb - novels. [Note: As far as I have been able to decipher, Webb's only claim to be able to be a good Senator is that he is: (a) a novelist and (b) a Democrat, hence not Bush. Good strategy.] The words of the novels I dare not repeat for fear that my mother will read them and, knowing that I have actually peeked at them, be rather ashamed of me. Dime-store novels these are not and involve graphic discussions of fellatio between a father and son (defended as "beautiful" and "normal in context" by Webb), descriptions of east-asian whorehouses, and a lurid description of a stripper's ability to slice a bananna without using her hands.

Now that you are back from vomitting in the toilet, let's disect this a bit.

Drawing genetalia by teens, Congressional pages eliciting and being given Congressional assignations, Senatorial candidates praising incestual fellatio - where is their heart? What has become of hummanity's chest?

Has our society become so ruled by its zipper that even our school curriculum - in the name of "health" - demand children draw things that only married women should know how to diagram? Has culture devolved to the point that Congressman, rather than protect innocent children, will take advantage of them? What does it say of a country that an individual who describes insipid sexual behavior is one vote away from becoming a member of the U.S. Senate?

The answer to these questions is nothing new: it has always been so. Culture, society, countries - these are only constructs consisting of individuals, humans - morally deficient beings. No matter how much we insist that we are knowledgeable, no matter how much we say that pleasure is the end-all-be-all to our lives, we must still acknowledge that gnosis and eros must still be grounded in the powerhouse of the human psyche: the heart. And that heart is "deceitfully wicked, above all things."

But to those of you nodding in agreement, shaking you head in disapproval, and uttering a "tisk-tisk" right now, let me ask you this - Do you still blush? What does it take for you to be embarrassed? Have you become so mesmerized by the trappings of the world that you have forgotten that there are some things with which we must be embarrassed?

I hope not.

With such a push for toleration and "love everyone regardless of their sin," I hope you take time to be embarrassed at what you read and see. I hope your collar becomes a bit hot by the blush that creeps into your cheeks. I hope your gut is wrenched and knotted by the depravity around you.

Why? Because I believe that's how a Holy God reacts to what he sees around us.

Constitution not Subject to Evolution

From time to time, this column – ordinarily dedicated to answering your curiosities about the practice and function of the American legal system – will take time to provide some editorial commentary on current events involving the law. Allow the following departure from our usual format.

Earlier this Fall, Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States addressed the annual membership conference of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In a conversation that included Justice Scalia and Nadine Strossen, the topic of whether the U.S. Constitution was a living (or evolving) document arose. Countering Strossen’s point that the Constitution was, in fact, evolving, Justice Scalia said the following:

“Once you say it evolves and it doesn’t depend on what the people thought they were doing when they adopted it, somebody’s going to have to decide how it evolves. Why in the world would you want nine people from a very uncharacteristic class of society – to wit, lawyers – to decide how the Constitution evolves?”

Commentators much smarter than I have bandied about these arguments with greater eloquence than my fingers can type. In general terms, usually those of a liberal persuasion view the Constitution as a living, breathing document that evolves with our society and culture. In contradistinction, often those of a more conservative persuasion argue that the Constitution has a specific meaning, one that cannot be changed by society’s evolution.

Suppose Ms. Strossen is correct and the Constitution is a living and breathing document, capable of changing meaning as our culture evolves. Which liberties are protected? If the Constitution changes its meanings as society becomes more enlightened, do we ever actually retain any of our “inalienable rights”?

If you hold to Justice Scalia’s point of view, you might be accused of being an originalist or, worse, an absolutist. If the Constitution does not evolve to meet the needs of our developing culture, then did the Founding Fathers contemplate including a bazooka in our Second Amendment right to bear arms?

The debate between the two jurisprudential philosophies reflects, much the more, the debate about truth: is it relative or is it absolute? Taking our cue from Pontius Pilate’s rhetorical question to Jesus, we must also ask, “What is truth?” Does truth change depending upon the circumstances? Upon a culture’s evolution?

Whether it is relativism or originalism I dare say we cannot allow our answer to simply be, “It depends.” If we were to do so, the rights we once thought were inalienable could become rather . . . well . . . alienable.

Our legislature keeps our laws in lock-step with our so-called, “cultural evolution.” But, it is necessary that we maintain a document that is of immovable stock, defining with a modicum of finality that which we as a nation consent to be governed. Left to redefinition by a committee of nine (and lawyers at that!), I suspect our Constitution would go much the way that Justice Scalia predicts: “It would mean whatever they think it ought to mean.”

Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.

Top 10 Ways to Get Out of Jury Duty

Q: How do I get out of jury duty?

A: As an attorney, I get this question all the time. We live in a democracy that is of, for, and by the people, yet we often cringe when we receive that envelope that carries that ominous “Jury Summons” within. Prospective jurors are like students: they want less time in court (class) for their money!

Let me answer the age-old question once and for all. Let me equip you with the tools you need to get out of jury duty. Here they are, the top ten ways to get out of jury duty:

1. Move to Canada – Take up residency north of the border, renounce your U.S. citizenship, and you’ve just earned yourself freedom from jury duty. Of course, you’ll need to learn to add ‘eh?’ to the end of all your sentences. Hoser.

2. Find Neverland – The fact of the matter is that only those who are 18 years and older get to sit on a jury. Manage to always be one of the “Lost Boys” and never a jury box shall you see.

3. Forget Everything You Ever Learned – Only prospective jurors that can read, speak, and understand the English language can sit on a jury panel. So, forget you ever knew it. You only understand American Sign Language (ASL)? That’s OK. The WV Code specifically provides that knowing ASL is sufficient for jury service.

4. Go Directly to Jail – If you have committed a crime sufficient to revoke your right to vote, you have just disqualified yourself from future service as a juror. Of course, only those who actually look good in blaze orange jumpsuits with silver “cuffs” should actually be this bold.

5. Lie and Get Caught Doing It – But then again, “perjury” still has the word “jury” in it.

6. Serve on a Jury –If you serve on a jury (not just have jury duty) within two years of your most recent summons, you don’t have to serve again…for now!

7. Don’t File Taxes – Tax returns are an avenue from which county clerks pull potential jurors. Of course, the IRS might not like your excuse, “I only did it to get out of jury duty!” (And then you’re back to #4. Without passing go.)

8. Don’t Vote – Another area where prospective jurors are found is the voter registration list. No voter’s registration. No jury duty. And no say in our republican democracy.

9. Don’t Drive – All individuals with a driver’s license are eligible to be called for jury duty. Well, gas prices are high….

10. Retire – Our friends and loved ones over the age of 65 get special dispensation: they get to choose whether they want to serve on a jury. Hey, age has its privileges.

Serve your jury duty. It’s about the only way of participating in a branch of government without actually being elected. “The dog ate my summons!” just will not keep you from being held in contempt.

Returning to the Scene of the Crime

Q: Prosecutors often “seek extradition, implying that they want to bring someone from
one state to another. But, when a criminal “waives” extradition, he is sent from
one state to the other. Just what is meant by the term “extradition”?

A: Extradition basically means that there is a criminal that has been detained in one jurisdiction, but another jurisdiction gets him first because that state already called “dibs.”

Suppose Jim Bob commits a crime in WV. He is caught, but before he goes to trial, he manages to escape to NJ. But, Jim Bob unwisely decides break into the Hoboken chief of police’s house, only to be caught and arrested. When they check his record, they discover that he has an outstanding warrant for his arrest. After NJ notifies Gov. Manchin via the WV attorney general’s office, the governor issues a “Governor’s Warrant” and extradition procedures are initiated.

Jim Bob is brought to a court in NJ and told that Gov. Manchin wants to try him for his crimes in WV. Jim Bob has two choices: he can waive extradition or he can demand the powers that be prove he is the Jim Bob named in the Gov. Manchin’s warrant.

If he waives extradition, he is basically admitting, “Yep. That’s me. Ya’ got me sheriff!” The judge reads him his rights, provides a waiver form for him to sign. And then he is put in the pokey until a WV patrolman pops over to NJ to procure the perp.

But, if he chooses not to waive extradition, then lawyers from the WV attorney general’s office coordinate with lawyers from the attorney general’s office of NJ in an effort to prove that the Jim Bob sitting in that NJ courtroom is the one and the same Jim Bob wanted for trial in WV. In other words, they are seeking extradition. After this lengthy, lengthy process proves Jim Bob is, in fact, Jim Bob, ol’ JB is consigned to the county clink until a WV constable can collect the crook.

(Dear Sidebar: Abate the alliteration already. Signed, The WV Word Watchers.)

Whether he waives or is extradited, Jim Bob will be tried in WV first and, after extradition proceedings are done in reverse, he is sent back to NJ to face his charges there. Now you can see that extradition can contemplate bringing or sending. In other words, extradition can be sought or be sent.

Do not miss the importance of extradition. If it were not in place, one criminal could be picked up and sent to trial across the country for another’s crime(s). The extradition process is a safeguard built into our republican democracy that ensures that the right wrongdoer is being tried for the correct mistake.

Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.

Admission to the 'Bar' Costs a Lot

“What does it mean to be ‘admitted to the bar’?”

Put simply, being admitted to the bar means that someone has performed all the requisite acts to possess a law license and, therefore, practice law. That might be quickly understood, but the significance of the phrase is often overlooked. What is “The Bar” and how does one get “admitted” to it?

Most attribute the origination of the phrase, believe it or not, to a literal bar, or railing. In Olde England, those wishing to be lawyers did not necessarily go to law school (lucky Redcoats!). Instead, they learned by apprenticing in the courts every day. In those courts was a literal barrier, a bar, that separated those law students from the actual court where the English “barristers” (lawyers) would argue before judges with faux white hair. Once the student proved himself, he was then “admitted to the bar,” quite literally, he passed from where the students sat, through the barrier, and into the arena in which the barristers plied their trade.

Fast forward a number of years to when the Supreme Court of the United States was still housed in the U.S. Capitol building. Today, if you visit that basement of a courtroom, you will yet see a barrier. Behind the barrier are two or three sets of desks; in front of it, only one set of desks. In those days, the Supreme Court would hear multiple cases at a time, moving them through one after the other. The active cases would be argued by the lawyers sitting at the tables closest to the bench. When that case finished, the attorneys at the next closest set of tables just behind the “bar,” were called forward and their case was “admitted.” Hence, they were “admitted to the bar.”

Today, the phrase has lost a bit of its historical significance. Many courtrooms still house an actual bar that separates the public from the activities of court, but the phrase typically just refers to the granting of a law license. In WV, one is admitted to the bar when he completes college, survives law school, passes a rigorous bar examination, and is recommended to the Supreme Court of Appeals of WV for “admission.” The attorney then swears an oath and is permitted to practice before that court and any lower courts under its jurisdiction.

Each new attorney in WV must also travel in person to Charleston and sign the “roll” (a book containing the signatures of all attorneys ever admitted to our courts – not unlike the legal equivalent of the “Lamb’s book of life”). After studying, testing, signing, and swearing, then, and only then, can one be deemed, “admitted to the bar.”

There you have it! Far from simply a cover charge that gains you admission to your local watering hole, being “admitted to the bar” is a maxim with a storied past and a practical significance.

Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.

Welcome to Sidebar

Welcome, to the premiere of “Sidebar,” a column dedicated to answering your questions about the law.

The idea behind this column is that I will be answering your questions about the law and the legal process – think Andrew Napolitano meets “Dear Abby.” This column is interactive and requires not only your reading, but also your participation.

You see, the name of this column is quite instructive. A sidebar is typically held to the “side” of the “bar” (or judge’s bench) during a trial when an attorney can ask a question, make an objection, or suggest procedure out of the hearing of the jury or any member of the public who may be sitting in back. It is, quite frankly, an opportunity for attorneys and judges to ask stupid questions, without appearing foolish in front of any but the necessary parties.

So it is with this column. You have had these times, haven’t you? You’re watching your favorite legal thriller when, suddenly, just when the perp is about to be sent packing to Sing-Sing, the defense counsel stands, pounds the table, and demands that the case be dismissed for some surprising technicality. As the judge dismisses the case, the prosecutors fume, and the credits roll, you lean to your couch-mate and say, “Can they really do that?!”

Well, dear reader, now’s your chance to find out. Ask me.

You see, we live in, as John Adams once said, “A government of laws and not of men.” As Americans, we proudly trumpet about our unique democracy within a republic, not always understanding exactly what that means. Find out; ask me.

We all know that if we were arrested we have the right to an attorney, the right to stay silent, etc., but do we get a phone call too? Ask me.

When we disagree with something that a politician has said, we critically assert our “freedom of speech,” and yet, we’re horrified when we discover that the freedom is sometimes a qualified one. Talk to me.

If you were paying attention in high school civics, you may remember that the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” To live in our country, you have a duty to understand and participate in the actions of government; yet sometimes you have no idea what is going on in government. That’s ok; let me help you.

I have a Doctor of Jurisprudence (that’s fancy-talk for “law degree”) and, now as a practicing attorney before the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, I make daily sojourns into our laws. It is my job to research the law and give someone my opinion about it in a way that makes sense.

This column comes with only one rule: while it will hopefully make you a better citizen, it is a not a legal advice column. I’m not going to give you legal advice. So don’t ask.

But, I am ready and willing to answer such questions as, “What does it mean that an attorney is admitted to ‘the Bar?’”, “Do our laws really come from the Judeo-Christian ethic”, “What is a SCOTUS?”, “What does jurisdiction mean?”, “What is hearsay?”, “What are ‘term limits?’”, “Can Congress actually overrule a decision by the Supreme Court?”, “What is meant by ‘separation of powers?’”, “Why do lawsuits take so long to resolve?”, “What is mediation and arbitration?”, or “What’s the weirdest law you have ever heard of?”

Got it? Then send your questions to me at: or put them in the mail addressed to me at: opinion@dominionpost.com.

It is my hope that you will find Sidebar informative and that, together, we can help ensure Lincoln’s prophecy: “that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth.”


Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.

It's Personal

This week, allegations have swirled around now disgraced and former Congressman Mark Foley. As I read in another column, if you haven't read the IM transcripts between this pervert and his teenage victims, then don't. It's disgusting business and it further supports my theory that we are wretched creatures at heart and that will affect everything we will do in life....unless we are changed by the grace of Christ.

There are theories a-plenty regarding Mr. Foley's missteps. Most on the political right belive this to be a hatchet job, designed to undermine an upcoming election. Many on the political left believe this to be a broad, conspiracy, reaching to the highest levels of government. Frankly, I think everyone, if they are being honest, believe this to be exactly what it is: a disgusting adult taking advantage of young individuals in his service for his own sexual gratification.

But, let's step back a moment. Do you remember the Clinton impeachment? Do you remember what the political left kept tramping out to whatever camera would record them? It was the line, "The President's sex life has no bearing on his abilities as President. What he does in his personal life is no business of ours, as long as it does not affect his job." The President's actions, abusing a young person in his charge, was ok so long as it did not affect his ability to create a false economy.

It looks like situational ethics may have struck again.

If what goes on in someone's personal life should never hold someone accountable to the loss of their position (as, some argued, it did in the case of President Clinton), then why has Congressman Foley been ousted? Why all of a sudden the righteous indignation by those on the political left who used to trumpet about the phrase, "What happens in someone's personal life is no business of ours?"

Given the impending election, I think you can answer those questions.

Here's the thing: the problem with situational ethics, or that realm of thought that suggests that there are no absolutes, is that that statement is self-defeating. If there are no absolutes, than that absolute statement is patently false, right?

The fact of the matter is that there is an absolute Truth. There is an absolute moral law-giver. There is an absolute moral law. And there is no way we can possibly keep the entirety of that moral law. In fact, from when we first drew breath, we already failed to live up to the entirety of the law.

That's where the doctrine of grace steps in. Christ recognized that our depravity left us with no chance of obtaining righteousness in and of our own pursuit. We would be tilting at windmills, fighting against the goads, or in some other way imitating the blind ambition of the Man of La Mancha were we to try to make ourselves righteous. It just is not possible. But, Christ made provision for out inability. Through his Son's death and sacrifice on the cross - the requisite penalty for our unrighteousness - we are granted Sonship in God's family.

But the doctrine of grace does not give us further license to sin. We are still told to "be holy as God is holy." We are still given the mandate to pursue righteousness, and flee folly and evil.

And perhaps no where is this action more poignantly noticed than in public office and sex. Sex was designed by God, created by Him for our enjoyment and attachment to our spouse. It is meant to be savored, enjoyed, relished, and hotly pursued - but within the parameters of a life-long, marital relationship. Public office makes brilliant what is done in secret, often at the hands of one's opposition. Thus, when one who occupies public office perverts the intention of sex, scandal ensues.

Whether or not this is a hatchet job by the political left; whether or not this is a broad conspiracy reaching to the highest levels of government; or whether or not what one does in one's private life does or does not have anything to do with one's performance in public office, what remains is one absolute: what one ascribes to in private will affect what one does in public.

Gasp! It's an absolute!

You see, if we hold to nothing, we are accountable to nothing, and so nothing limits our action. If we hold to Christ, we are accountable to Christ, and so Christ's Word limits our action. Well, let's restate that: If we hold to nothing, we are enslaved to everything; but, if we hold to Christ, we are free indeed. Truly, it's a matter of the heart.

It's personal.