DeVore on ABC News: Nanny government threatens liberties

Sunday afternoon, just as I was leaving Sacramento with my family after attending the state Republican Party convention, ABC News interviewed me on the trend to legislate every small matter – the Nanny government trend.

An excerpt of the transcript of last night’s airing is below. 

A different story on the same topic is scheduled to appear tonight on KABC 7 News in L.A. 

http://www.news10.net/video/player_news10.aspx?aid=35882&bw=

Nanny Bills or Good Government? New Legislation Triggers Debate

Written for the web by Marcey Brightwell, Reporter   

If you spank your children, eat in restaurants or buy inexpensive incandescent light bulbs for your home, you could be in for some changes. The California State Legislature is considering a string of bills this year that would impact your life.

"I call it a nanny government trend," said Republican Assemblyman Chuck DeVore. "We will lose a lot of liberty and freedom, and we will become a nanny police state. It's rather alarming."

DeVore calls it a disturbing trend, though he admits most of the bills are well intended.

Bills, such as the so-called spanking bill, have already generated controversy.

Legislation targeting light bulbs also has the noble goal of reducing energy consumption. 

Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, has proposed legislation that would require chain restaurants to post nutrition and calorie information about each meal in plan view of customers.

DeVore said he appreciated their motives, but argues that more legislation isn't the solution.

"You might as well pass a blanket law saying the Legislature of the State of California hereby outlaws stupidity," DeVore said. "I think some of these laws would have the same impact."

Comments

[Spanky]

Some would suggest that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq is the nanny state on crystal meth.

How would you repsond to that, Chuck?

[Debbie ONeill]

What the American people don’t realize is that their rights are being taken away by the people they elect.

No child should be beaten but a spanking? .

Government needs to stay out of our every day lives

How does government suggest we punish? Are children supposed to run wild? No punishment for there actions? Boy that’s really teaching them well.

[DanC]

Sorry Chuck, as long as you support bans on Gay Marriage you deny liberty and freedom to a whole class of people simply because they are Gay. You support a nanny state on issues of morality. It is perfectly OK for religion to define marriage as between a man and a woman, but constitutionally speaking, it denys liberty and freedom to people simply on the basis of sexual orientation.

[Chuck DeVore]

DanC, I disagree. Marriage is about far more than love – it is about the huge commitment and energy it takes to bear and raise children.

I am not opposed to domestic partnerships.

Marriage, on the other hand, should be reserved for one woman and one man. Open it up and we will soon see a devout Muslim seeking to have the state recognize his marriage to four women, seeking to have his First Amendment religious freedom protections applied to the state via the Fourteenth Amendment.

Ironically (or not) the Republican Party’s founding platform was in “…opposition to those twin pillars of barbarism, slavery and polygamy.”

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

[redperegrine]

"Marriage, on the other hand, should be reserved for one woman and one man. Open it up and we will soon see a devout Muslim seeking to have the state recognize his marriage to four women, seeking to have his First Amendment religious freedom protections applied to the state via the Fourteenth Amendment."

Chuck, I guess I missed something. Isn't polygamy illegal?

[Bladerunner]

RP--thats his point---I think. A 14th amendment equal protection suit brought by the Big Love folks from the Brigham Young Wing of Mormonism(or the hypothetical devout Muslim mentioned by Chuck). Once you say its a denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians it follows that polygamists can make the same equal protection argument.

Did I get it right Assemblyman?

[Chuck DeVore]

Bladerunner -- not quite the words I would have used, but you did nail the point precisely. The Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments trump any state family law. Since polygamy is an accepted practice in much of the Muslim world, an equal protection case would be bolstered by the broadening of marriage’s traditional definition.

This sort of ConLaw and the theory behind it was a fair amount of the course study in my Lincoln Fellowship with the Claremont Institute in 2004.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

[Publius]

But Chuck, gay and lesbian couples throughout California are taking on the responsibility of raising children, some biological and others adopted. Are these second-class families?

How about dealing with the polygamy issue when and if it comes up.

[Bladerunner]

Thanks Assemblyman. I guess with your friend John Campbell going with Romney using polygamist Republicans as examples isn't politically correct(even though Romney's mainstream Mormon church gave that up in a political deal to acheive statehood). But I think your legal point is fairly sound. And since many are raising families(not that raising families is the litmus test--at least if you look at some of the legal arguments the GLT lawyers make) , no sense waiting--might as well deal with the constitutional issue.

[Bladerunner]

Strike "Republican" following polygamist. I am unaware of any hard data on this--notwithstanding Utah's voter registration and voting patterns. My apologies.

[Art Pedroza]

The real threat to marriage does not come from men who are in committed relationships with other men, but rather from men who are too quick to divorce their wives. Statistics show that even evangelicals divorce quite often. Nothing does more to wreck households than divorce - and it often ruins kids.

[DanC]

Well, if marriage is all about children, then we should ban those cute nursing home weddings where an 82 year old man marries his 77 year old sweetie because they certainly can't have children. Better still, how about taking folks like Newt Gingrich (married 3 times), Rush Limbaugh (married 4 times), and Larry King (married 7 times and counting...) and ban their right to be married since they think so little of the institution?

I hear you guys on the right yabber about freedom and liberty for all, except these people oveer here who happen to be gay. Deny them the same rights has married people. Tell you what, place an amendment on the current gay marriage proposal that gives gay domestic partners *all* of the rights that married couples get including the right to adopt/raise children.

Until you offer the same rights for *everyone* under the constitution, I don't think wrap yourself around the liberty and freedom ideals you claim to hold so dear. I wonder, do you have any Gay friends?

There was a time in this country when blacks and whites could not legally marry.

[Spanky]

"Open it up and we will soon see a devout Muslim..."

Amazing. Only a few words into talking about marriage and DeBore starts with the Muslim drive-bys. Eh, not amazing when you think about it.

Jubal deleting this post in 3, 2, 1...

[Chuck DeVore]

So Spanky, do you understand the equal protection clause (14th Amendment)? I suggest you review the legal writings on this topic before you dismiss my commentary so lightly.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

[Spanky]

Review this, Chuck: any pro-war Republican ranting about the "nanny state" has some seriously misplaced priorities.

[Chuck DeVore]

Spanky, I get it now, it's all so clear. As a STATE lawmaker, I am supposed to end the war. Until I do, I cannot defend liberty here in California. Thanks for the marching orders.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

[Spanky]

Posting pictures of yourself on blogs is not part of your job description as a STATE lawmaker, so as long as you're here, and as long as you claim to be someone who believes in defending liberty, tell us why you believe President Bush should be impeached.

[Spanky]

While we're waiting on Chuck, we should take a moment to be grateful for a public official like Chuck who does not insulate himself from the public. Say what you will about Chuck, but he doesn't do what the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats do once they get elected which, more often than not, amounts to distancing oneself from the public in order to minimize the effectiveness of detractors.

Back to waiting on Chuck. He undoubtedly has a long list of reasons why the president should be impeached. We'll wait.

[Chuck DeVore]

Spanky,

I appreciate your kind observations about my willingness to mix it up on the blogs. I view the blogosphere as the new town square. Were Alexander Hamilton or Abraham Lincoln around today, they’d blog (and do talk radio and TV). Sometimes I disagree with posters such as yourself and sometimes I get annoyed or amused by the constant stream of ad hominems that pass for “debate” on the Internet. But, all in all, I enjoy the dialog. It illuminates me.

As to your comments about impeaching the President, I’d say that Speaker of the House Pelosi has that power and if she thought she could pull it off, she would in an instant. That she doesn’t speaks to your point to me more powerfully than anything I could add.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

[Spanky]

If Hamilton and Lincoln were around today, surely Lincoln would be endlessly texting Hamilton about why he should be on the ten dollar bill.

Perhaps one day, when you no longer have a political career ahead of you, and you no longer feel obligated to tow the party line, you'll speak frankly about Bush.

Hopefully, you won't wait as long as Gerald Ford?