Apple is still fighting the Justice Department over access to one of their iPhones.
The amazing thing about Apple’s refusal to comply with a court order to unlock Sen Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook’s iPhone is the company’s appeal to the Founders and the Constitution.
Here’s how USA Today reported on the story:
“Apple Inc. charged Tuesday that a court order forcing the tech giant to assist the federal government in unlocking the iPhone of San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook was based on non-existent authority asserted by the Justice Department.
“‘According to the government, short of kidnapping or breaking an express law, the courts can order private parties to do virtually anything the Justice Department and FBI can dream up,’ Apple lawyers argued in new court documents. ‘The Founders would be appalled.”’
The Founders would also be appalled at how the Supreme Court in a 5 to 4 decision declared that the Constitution supports abortion on demand and same-sex marriage.
If the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the right to order private parties to do virtually anything the Justice Department can dream up, then the Supreme Court does not have the right to nullify the decisions of states to ban same-sex marriages.
Apple CEO Tim Cook praised the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling:
After the Obergefell ruling, Apple issued the following statement:
“We applaud the Supreme Court and everyone who worked so hard in the years leading up to today’s historic decision. This is a momentous step forward for equality and fundamental human rights in the United States. We could not be happier for our employees, customers and people all over America who now have the right to marry the one they love.” (H/T: Fortune)
The founders would have deplored forcing Apple to override the security feature on one phone but would have applauded denying 50 states the right to make their own decisions on what constitutes marriage. Give me a break.
Cook goes on to argue that the government’s requested order was “neither grounded in the common law nor authorized by statute.”
The Common Law did not recognize same-sex marriages. William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–1769) were “the first methodical treatise on the common law.”
In “Of Offences Against the Persons of Individuals,” Blackstone stated:
“IV. WHAT has been here observed…, which ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence, of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast…. But it is an offence of so dark a nature … that the accusation should be clearly made out….
“I WILL not act so disagreeable part, to my readers as well as myself, as to dwell any longer upon a subject, the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law, which treats it, in its very indictments, as a crime not fit to be named; peccatum illud horribile, inter chriftianos non nominandum.” ((‘that horrible sin not to be named among Christians’ — Dave Miller.)) (H/T: Apologetics Press)
Trending: A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now Met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms – July 6, 1775
Tim Cook might be surprised that Thomas Jefferson would not support his claims about same-sex sexuality. The Founders, the Constitution, and Common Law may support Apple and Tim Cook in their argument against the Justice Department, but they are no defense for the support of same-sex sexuality and same-sex marriage.