A Reply from Kenny Marchant's Office....

Yesterday, a very pleasant young man from Representative Marchant's local office called me back concerning our mortgage modification debacle.  (See March 11th blog.)  Having declined a call back, I was pleased to see someone at the Washington office had taken the time to retrieve my number off caller ID and forward the information to Todd at the District Office to handle.

Although Fannie Mae's guidelines are set in concrete...no exceptions to the 1.25% rule...I asked him to locate the person in a position at this powerful financial institution who could actually explain the insanity behind this formula and make it go away...Respectfully and with concern, Todd agreed to do his best and get back with me. 

Before e-mailing the release of privacy forms for my signature, we discussed the 'why' behind Representative Marchant's proclivity to actively support numerous pending pro-life legislations. Regrettably, like so many people serving the public in various positions, Todd assumes passing laws on social and moral issues is OK.  We discussed what happened when laws were passed making two other emotionally charged public controversies illegal:  Drinking of alcholic beverages and abortion.  Ultimately, the devastating effects these laws had on human life resulted in their reversals.  The 21st Amendment to our Constitution repealed the 18th's restrictions of consumption and manufacturing alchohol and the Prohibition nightmares.  Roe v Wade determined abortion could not be legislated and a woman had the right to choose what she did with her body, stopping bloody back-alley abortions and its devastating effects and over-riding laws across this country. 

As long as their is diversity in this world, social issues can never be legislated.  There are too many legitimate pros and cons involved when a person's beliefs are brought under legal speculation.  If the courts intervene in favor of either side, chaos will always be the result.  This fact was reiterated when Mr. Justice Blackmun rendered the opinion of the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade:

“We bear in mind, too, Mr. Justice Holmes' admonition in his now-vindicated dissent in Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 76 (1905):”

[The Constitution] is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States.”

Todd patiently listened as I cited these verifiable precedents then asked me if I would prefer the States deal with legislation in these areas...OMG..."No," I said.  "Legislating social and moral issues violates the Constitution.  They should not be legislated at all..." 

There was silence.  He agreed to e-mail me the forms and we cordially said goodbye.  Reaching deaf ears...again.