Matt’s Marvelous Mailbag seeks to provide marginally adequate answers to much better questions about politics, economics, social life, theology, or any potpourri you see fit to have answered. Send questions to mailbag.bereans@gmail.com.  

Q: Göran Magnus asks: “As we enter yet another winter season, we find families huddled around the fire and the dinner table. A question comes to mind: What types or subjects of conversation are generally beneficial to have in such gatherings to aid in the development of the children, and the strengthening of the inter-familial relationships? Is this the place to discuss world issues, and provide guidance to youngsters on how to navigate such thought? Rather should conversation be focused personally, on the events of the participants’ daily lives? Something else entirely?

A:  Well, I think a good starting place to frame our thinking on this is to recall Paul’s admonition to think on things that are true and pure and just and honest and of good report and etc.  This should go without saying, but we would hope that our conversations have edification laced into the fabric.  What that entails exactly encompasses a host of subjects, and I don’t think we necessarily have to limit ourselves to just world issues or just the mundane.  You would rightfully find me of equally disturbed mind if I declared that “no man, woman, or child partaking of our bread shall deign to even whisper the word ‘politics’ on penalty of death” or that “a minimum threshold of intellectualism must be kept with righteous zeal lest we slack into the fleeting and trivial business of Auntie and Uncle’s new haberdashery.'”  Perfectly edifying conversations can be had with either subject, and, as I’ve touched on in a previous mailbag, I think the important point is that we engage with youngsters’ questions.  The two grave mistakes I believe we often make in this capacity are to (1) conjure an irrelevant, mendacious, and half-baked answer because we believe we must always have the precise answer on hand and (2) to squelch the questions because we are uncomfortable or uninformed.  Turn “question and answer” time into a family endeavor.  You needn’t cede one iota of truth, and you’ll all be closer as a result of walking through the question together.

Now, I do want to make one “hedge” here, if you can call it that.  While I don’t think any particular subject is necessarily verboten around the dinner table, there is something to be said for prudence.  Just as a blatant example, I probably would not bring up the intricacies of sexual ethics around my Christmas dinner table.  It’s not that it’s an immoral or unimportant subject; to the contrary, it is of enormous importance.  But it is not appropriate in that context.  For my family, the Christmas dinner table is ideally a place of familial union and merriment to commemorate the birth of the Savior and is not particularly well-suited as the time and place for this subject.  So, if I could sum this up in one guiding principle it would be this: Enjoy the familial union within the proper conversational boundaries respective to your own clan.

Q: Louis de Bourbon, Prince of Conde asks: “How do you think Mitt Romney will engage as a Senator? Will he be a significant voice in advocating a non-Trump vision of the Republican Party? Will he attract any support in the halls of power or more broadly in media, civil society, or the public?”

A: Ok, this is pure speculation, but I’m going to give it a go.  I think Mitt Romney is the logical replacement for John McCain in the metaphysical sense.  I have a sneaking suspicion that Romney will be more amenable to Trump’s agenda policy-wise, but, as far as political clout and figure-head relevance go, he’s probably the one.  I can’t really quantify what I mean, but John McCain had a certain “rank” within the Republican Senate leadership that wasn’t written down on paper but was nonetheless palpable, hence why I use the “figure-head” terminology.  McCain’s ethos reached back to an older iteration of the Republican party and carried a certain degree of respect to it that was largely thrown out in 2016 with Trump’s election.  Maybe “guardian” is a good word to use here in the aristocratic sense of keeping the higher virtues and ethics of the party.  Now, I think McCain fumbled the ball on this late in his career in that he was either unwilling or unable to bridge that gap between the old and new (depending on your own view, could be read ‘elite’ and ‘common folk’).  Say what you will about the bulk of his political career, his defeating of the Obamacare repeal was incredibly petty in my opinion.  Was Trump untoward to McCain?  Undeniably so, and Trump ought to be ashamed for some of the things he said to McCain and his family.  But McCain let it get to him, and he ended up taking it out on the country.  So, back to the question, I think Romney is a long-term good for the Republicans in the sense that he picks up that mantle.  In my most optimal world, I think he could end up serving as a pivotal figure in uniting the Republican party once again if he can bridge that gap.  Also, Romney seems to have this unique disposition of simultaneous youth and age, in all the good ways.  He’s immaculately articulate, sharply dressed, well rehearsed, polished, experienced, outgoing, morally balanced….the list goes on and on.  In short, he is the consummate, elite politician, and I think he’ll be invaluable to the Republicans in the Senate.

Q: Louis also asks: “Do you have a favorite college basketball team? If so, how are you feeling about their performance in the early going?”

A: Well, of course.  My Cedarville Yellow Jackets!  I mean who else would I choose……..except maybe Ohio State.   Ok, full disclosure it’s The Ohio State University, but I can get away with that because they don’t really compete on the same field as Cedarville.  Yah, realistically, if you press me on my favorite college team for any sport it’s going to be Ohio State.  I don’t really have much to complain about yet.  We’re 7-1 and just won our first conference game.  The loss to Syracuse was a little disappointing but plenty survivable.  And, for a most welcome change, we’re actually ranked for once, though we’ll see if this lasts.  The problem is that Ohio State basketball hasn’t been good since the days of Jared Sullinger, Aaron Craft, and Deshaun Thomas when we dropped the Final Four game against Kansas.  That game spelled the beginning of the end for any OSU influence in basketball, and we’ve been “rebuilding” (read: bombing hard-core) ever since.  But, for now at least, not much to complain about.  Now football?  Oh…..don’t even get me started…..

Q: And Louis finally asks: “Any thoughts on Gamble v. United States and double jeopardy in federal and state prosecutions?”

A: Just some quick ones.  For those who don’t know, this case basically revolves around the double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment.  The issue at hand is whether an individual can be prosecuted twice for the same crime if the prosecution happens once by the state government and once by the federal government.  So, essentially, if Texas doesn’t convict me for stealing cookies, can the federal government then try to convict me as a chocolate chip caper?  Currently, the answer is ‘yes’ because the Court has viewed the states and the feds as ‘separate sovereigns,’ thus each sovereign gets their one shot.  The main argument against this view is that you don’t have a great textual basis, and it’s especially pertinent now that the double jeopardy clause has been incorporated against the states (i.e. – this clause applies equally to the feds and the states).  My sentiments lie against the status quo, and I think the Court may be moving that way as well, especially since Thomas and Ginsburg thought this doctrine was worthy of review.

Q: Linda asks:  “I read recently where the Ohio House passed a bill on November 15 that would protect babies from abortion if there was a detectable heartbeat. The article said that if the bill becomes a law, abortionists and the women who have the abortion could face murder charges.  Gov. Kasich “who considers himself pro-life, said he won’t sign the law because it won’t stand up to a court challenge.”  

Do you think Kasich is right to not sign based on that reasoning?  Is that the job of the governor or the court?  I thought Kasich signed a law about a year ago related to abortions and Down’s Syndrome that was eventually struck down in the courts.  Why respond differently to this bill when both are about protecting the unborn?  And could the House wait until Dewine becomes governor – might he sign it?”

A: On Kasich’s reasoning on why not to sign it, it doesn’t really matter why an executive decides to veto a bill constitutionally speaking.  The veto is a discretionary power they can use for really any purpose, and they don’t have to explain their veto if they don’t want to do so.  The veto may be wise or foolish, but it’s constitutionally valid either way.  On the Down’s Syndrome bill, I believe it was another state that passed a similar law that was then struck down by a district judge.  The difference here is that you can probably make a stronger case for protecting Down’s Syndrome babies from discriminatory abortion at the Supreme Court level (assuming it gets successfully appealed there) than making the case for murder charges against all abortions after heartbeat detection.  You could be far more cynical and say the Down’s Syndrome bill is more politically expedient than the heartbeat bill, but the first explanation makes enough sense if Gov. Kasich is actually thinking in terms of constitutional legitimacy.  It’s possible that DeWine will be more amenable to signing a bill like this, but we will have to wait and see on that.

On a broader point, the abortion debate gets very sticky when we start talking about consequences for those who have illegal abortions.  It’s really easy to say, “Yes, abortion is a reprehensible, moral evil,” but a lot of pro-lifers tend to balk when pro-choice individuals ask them if they would press murder charges against those who have abortions.  We say it’s murder, so obviously the consequence should be a murder charge, right?  Well, apparently it’s not that straightforward.  I’m not going to elaborate on my view of this just yet, as I think this will probably come up at some point in the future.  I am simply making the statement of fact that pressing for abortion-related murder charges is a much tougher political pill for a governor to swallow than other abortion restrictions.

That’s all for this week.  Nathan had a question related to last week’s electoral college post, but I think we beat that topic to death multiple times over in the comments section, so I will pass on it.  As always, send in your burning inquiries to mailbag.bereans@gmail.com and let me know what you think in the comments (no matter how long the thread gets).