Justice Roberts has officially drunk the kool-aid. No doubt he’ll now be invited to all the correct dinner parties in D.C.
constitutional issues
Supreme Court Watch: Obamacare Ruling Today?
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Obamacare may come today. Thoughts and predictions?
UPDATE: No ruling today… next week it looks like…
Jeb Bush and Ideology
Yesterday Jeb Bush strongly suggested that the GOP was too rigid ideologically and that the party needed to be more flexible to attract a larger block of voters, and while I disagree with Bush, I want to thank him for bringing this subject up because I believe it is a win for conversatives to have this conversation.
First of all, I agree with Amazona when she says that ideology is the foundation of any individual and/or party platform. Ideology drives policy, so if you understand their ideology, you will know and understand the policies they will promote. The ideology that is at the core of the tea party and most conservatives is that of a more constitutionally based government at both the federal and state level, and that is an ideological belief that should always be rIgid.
The decentralized outline for government that is found in the Constitution is, to parapharase Churchhill; “….is not the best form of government but it is the best so far”, and the same can be said about free enterprise. It may not be the best economic platform, but it is the best so far. Capitalism, for all it’s faults, is the most effective economical system ever, in terms of creating more wealth for more people and for creating a higher standard of living for everyone. And contrary to liberal thought, conservatives do want to provide safety nets for those in need, but we want it administered at a local level where it can be more effective, efficient, and help more people.
The good news is that I think the voters are starting to figure that out with the 2010 elections, and then again in Wisconsin. So let’s continue this conversation, and if you are a liberal, please tell me where I am wrong.
UPDATE, by Matt Margolis: I would like to take this opportunity to go on the record saying that I think Jeb Bush was right.. to a degree.
Sorry Cluster, but I have to weigh in.
Yes, I agree with Jeb. But, I see this as a problem with both the major parties, and a problem that starts not with elected officials, but with the voters… Let’s be honest about what’s been happening in recent years. The internet has empowered the extremes on the left and the right by giving them a venue to build an audience and influence. This naturally will result in the ability for these groups to influence people in power.
In recent years we’ve seen elected Democrats and Republicans lose primary battles because they weren’t liberal or conservative enough. Joe Lieberman went from being his party’s Vice Presidential nominee to be booted out. In 2010, Christine O’Donnell beat the more moderate, but more electable Republican Mike Castle, only to lose a winnable U.S. Senate seat in the general election.
This past year, we saw every single candidate in the Republican presidential primary labeled a RINO by supporters of a different candidate. So, yes, I believe that Ronald Reagan would never have made it through this year’s primary, because he was a former Democrat.
Barack Obama, the most extreme left-winger to occupy the White House, isn’t considered liberal enough by left-wing bloggers, and hasn’t exactly won praises from them.
So, let’s be honest about what’s going on, and who’s to blame. We, as bloggers and activists, are criticizing our leaders for compromising or for merely for working with the other side just to get things done. We’ll dissect a voting record to find a few black marks just to feel justified in opposing a decent public servant of our party. Let’s wake up.
Her Eminence, Pope Nancy of the Patriotic American Catholic Church, Speaks
And, as per usual, subtracts from the sum total of human knowledge:
…CNSNews.com asked Pelosi, who is Catholic, whether she supported her church in the lawsuits it has filed, which argue that the administration’s regulation violates the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment.
“What about the 43 Catholic institutions [that] have now sued the administration over the regulation that requires them to provide contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortifacients in their health care plans?” CNSNews.com asked. “They say that violates their religious freedom. Do you support the Catholic Church in their lawsuits against the administration?”
“Well, I don’t think that’s the entire Catholic Church,” Pelosi responded. “Those people have a right to sue, but I don’t think they’re speaking ex cathedra for the Catholic Church. And there are people in the Catholic Church, including some of the bishops, who have suggested that some of this may be premature,” Pelosi said…
Uh, Nance, old gal – ex cathedra is something the Pope does only very rarely and only to rule on matters of doctrine. The Pope does not rule on how we govern ourselves. The Church’s opposition to abortion goes back to the earliest days of the Church and thus requires no, new ruling from the Pope on whether it can ever be allowed – and, so, when 43 Catholic institutions sue the US government in order to fight against a government mandate to violate Church teaching then they are not doing something ex cathedra because they don’t have to…but they are very much defending the teaching of the Catholic Church you claim to belong to.
It really does make you wonder – how did someone this ignorant manage to not only get elected to Congress but manage to become Speaker of the House at one point? Does anyone on the left side of the aisle have any concern for intellectual ability? Was it really no more than she was a fountain of (sometimes illegal) fundraising and a sure vote for the left? Is that all it takes to rise high in the Democrat party? Basic knowledge and honesty play no role?
Natural Born Citizen
This is the second in a series of Constitution-related posts.
Natural-born, Native-born, and Naturalization
Let’s start this discussion with some definitions, dispel some assumptions, and request some civility in the follow-up discussion. This discussion is going to be, as much as possible, restricted to the qualifications for the Office of President of these United States and the portion of U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1 which states “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President”.
Obama Crosses the Line
Well, the President has certainly stepped in it this time.
The Supreme Court firmly established in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 that government behavior that is repugnant to the Constitution is not valid, and it is the duty of the courts to make that determination and to invalidate such behavior. This is called “judicial review:” It is the power of the courts to review the acts of the other branches of the federal government, and to review the laws of the states, and to void them when they exceed the confines of the Constitution. No serious legal scholar has questioned this power in the past 175 years.
The president is entitled to his own opinions, just like everyone else is. He is free to argue and to predict that ObamaCare should and will be upheld. But he cannot seriously suggest, with intellectual honesty, that the Court is without lawful authority to invalidate an act of Congress that the Court determines is repugnant to the Constitution.
Nor can he, with intellectual honesty, issue veiled threats to the Court.
The Court is his equal, as a branch of government. But since 1803, the Court is superior to the president on having the final say as to what the laws and what the Constitution mean; and the president knows that.
Now the Judge says the President “knows” all this, which begs the question, why then did he say what he said? Is it simply his narcissism showing through? Did Justice Kagen already get word to him that ObamaCare will be struck down, and he’s just getting even — in a juvenile, school-yard sort of way. He could have just called the Supreme Court a bunch of poopy heads; it would have been about as effective and classy as what he said. I suppose this could, as a number of pundits have suggested, be a way of preparing his army of useful idiots to take to the streets in protest if and when the Court announces that it has found the law unconstitutional. And, of course, there’s always the possibility that he already knows the Court will uphold ObamaCare, and he will simply be able to say, “see, I told you they couldn’t strike it down”. I’m not betting the farm on that last option, but nothing this crew does surprises me anymore.
The interesting thing to take note of will be opinion polls over the next week or two as they relate to Obama’s approval by Independents. I can’t imagine a large percentage of Independents admiring this latest move by the President, and without a strong majority of Independents’ votes, he’s toast in November.
Supreme Court Oral Arguments on ObamaCare – Open Thread
The Supreme Court is halfway through its 3 days of oral arguments on the constitutionality of ObamaCare, highlighted by this reaction from Justice Anthony Kennedy:
Justice Anthony Kennedy, a possible swing vote for the court, was rigorously challenging Verrilli. Kennedy said he needed to answer a “very heavy burden of justification” to show how the Constitution authorizes Congress to require that individuals buy insurance or pay a penalty.
At one point, Kennedy said the mandate changes the relationship between citizens and the government “in a fundamental way.”
Lots of news on this, and judicial bloggers are having a field day. Good time for an open thread.
The Political Spectrum (Left vs. Right)
This is the first in a planned series of posts about the Constitution and political ideology.
Aside from the belief of the Founding Fathers for the need of an “enlightened electorate” which are both educated on the issues and of high moral standing—the misguided effort of the Progressives to march out the quite often disproven yardstick of “Communism on the Left” and “Fascism on the Right” is one of many of my pet peeves commonly employed by this very same group of uneducated potential voters.
The Communism = Left, Fascism = Right misnomer has more to do with the seating arrangement of the parliaments of Europe than it does with where the political system actually falls on the left-right spectrum. Plain and simple–government is power by rule or control. Political systems (not parties) can be measured by how much coercive power or systematic control the system employs over its people. Remove the monikers from the parties because this argument has nothing to do with parties but rather power and control. Nothing to do with Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats, Progressives, or even the Green party–the measurement is not one of political parties, but rather political power.
The founders considered the two extremes to be anarchy (no government, no law) on one hand and tyranny (absolute control) on the other. On one side, the left, of the scale was tyranny or complete domination which they called “Ruler’s Law” and at the other extreme of their scale (on the right) was “No Law” or total anarchy. What the founders designed was a system shy of total anarchy but based on as much freedom as possible which they called the “People’s Law.” Try to remember this has nothing to do with political parties but rather the amount of systematic control the “ruling class” exerted over the ruled.
Ruler’s Law
Some of the characteristics of Ruler’s Law (which was often described as a tyrannical monarchy) echo the thinking of Progressives; People are not equal, but are divided into classes, all are looked upon as subjects of the King. The entire country is considered to be the property of the ruler(s) who speaks of it as his/her realm. Thrust of Government is from the top down, and not from the people up. “Subjects” have no unalienable rights; rights are issued and rescinded by government hence government is by the whims of men and not fixed by the rule of law. As Jonah Goldberg explains (in Liberal Fascism) “They have a desire to form a powerful state which coordinates a society where everybody belongs and everyone is taken care of; where there is faith in the perfectibility of people and the authority of experts; and where everything is political, including health and well-being.”
People’s Law
This country was therefore founded under Anglo-Saxon Common Law, Natural Law, or what was called the People’s Law, where the people were considered a commonwealth of freemen and the decision and selection of its leaders had to be with the consent of the people. Laws were considered natural law given by divine dispensation, power was delegated among the people, and the rights of the individual were considered unalienable. The primary responsibility for resolving problems was first with the individual, then the family, then the community, then the religion, and finally the government or nation.
Conclusions
With anarchy marking the right boundary of the scale while tyrannical monarchy marks the left side of the scale it becomes easy to mark where on this scale differing political systems, not parties, fall. As we traverse this scale from left to right, political systems like Communism and Fascism are placed at the far left, if not totally on the left side of the scale because of the oppressive nature of the rulers, state ownership, or state control over, of all industry and farms, and the lack of individual rights. Progressive-based systems are next, as is Liberalism (a “child” of Progressive think), but definitely left of center on the scale no matter the form. As Goldberg points out, an effort of Liberal Fascism is “to create an “all-caring, all-powerful, all-encompassing” state” but concludes with “Simply because the nanny state wants to hug you doesn’t mean it’s not tyrannical when you don’t want to be hugged”. No matter how benevolent they attempt to appear–political systems are based on control and power. Finally on the right side of the scale stands our Representative Republic as far to the right without falling into total anarchy allowing its people as much freedom as possible while living under a rule of law. The question of how far to the left on the scale they fall is answered by how much power and control they exert over the individual.
Make no mistake, since the foundation, this country has been shifting left by hook and crook through the likes of Presidents Wilson, Roosevelt, and Johnson, among others but that is neither the original framers’ intention nor those of us who uphold the Constitution today as an outline for the best means of governing the country. We hope this post, as well as subsequent related posts, leads to meaningful, civil discussions about exactly what kind of country and what level of government we want for future generations of Americans. As a final note: A great deal of this posting goes to many people but not least folks like W. Cleon Skousen, Cicero, J. Goldberg, and some residents of this blog.
Gay Judge Refuses to Perform Straight Marriages
You know being a judge is not a position to make political statements
Dallas County Judge Tonya Parker says she won’t perform marriage ceremonies until homosexuals can be wed.
During a Feb. 21 meeting, Parker told the Stonewall Democrats of Dallas that while she has the power to perform legal marriage ceremonies in her court, she will not.
“I use it as my opportunity to give them a lesson about marriage inequality in this state because I feel like I have to tell them why I’m turning them away,” Parker said. “So I usually will offer them something along the lines of, ‘I’m sorry. I don’t perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn’t apply to another group of people.’ And it’s kind of oxymoronic for me to perform ceremonies that can’t be performed for me, so I’m not going to do it
Seriously? Is this what a judge is supposed to do? No. We don’t want judges making rulings base on personal politics. We expect them to interpret the law objectively. Just as we don’t expect or want law enforcement to subjectively enforce the law, based on personal biases.
Of course, this isn’t very surprising… given the example set by the Obama Administration of selectively not enforcing laws it doesn’t agree with.
The Bill of Rights
Back on December 8th a post about Obama bumper stickers generated 133 comments over the course of 4 days. Late in the thread a discussion of the meaning and ramifications of the Second Amendment developed, and commenter Cory veered off into the weeds with some bizarre assertions. Lest I be accused of misrepresenting what he said, let me just quote directly.
In response to Amazona’s casual comment that “BTW, gun control is a Constitutional issue.”
Cory responded with:
“That’s such crap. There is exactly one Constitutional decision to be made about gun control: either I have the right to bear the arms that the Framers had available (or their rough equivalents), or I have the right to bear anything and everything, including a suitcase full of weaponized Anthrax or a nuclear weapon. The one sentence in the Constitution doesn’t leave any room for any interpretations in between, so which is it? You can’t make the Constitution give you the right to a concealed handgun without giving criminals the Constitutional right to weapons of mass destruction, and I have this funny feeling that if you survey the American public, almost zero of them would want that.”
As the error of his logic was pointed out to him by several individuals, Cory just kept digging his hole deeper and deeper, including statements like this gem:
“I only brought up gun control in passing. Amazona was the one that latched onto it like a rabid dog. I actually don’t have a strong opinion on gun control, I just get sick and tired of hearing people debate about the interpretation of a now useless Constitutional amendment instead of having a discussion about what weapon restrictions make the most sense.”
Finally, after what really had been a pretty civil discussion, he blurted out:
“This will be the last time I post on (or read) blogs4victory. I’m sure some of you are already jumping for joy, because you are thinking you have “won”. I’m not really sure what you’ll think you’ve won, as you surely have not drastically changed my mind on anything, but congratulations to you, anyway.”
That was toward the end of the thread, but it gave me the idea for a post about the Bill of Rights in general, and the Second Amendment in particular. I find it to be one of the ultimate ironies of our political system that Madison’s promise of a subsequent Bill of Rights was what it took to secure ratification of the Constitution in 1789, as many feared the power of a central government without codified restrictions on the power of that government. For at least the last century, Progressives have been trying to figure out ways to expand their power by either ignoring, distorting or outright assaulting those individual rights. If that doesn’t have the makings for a spirited discussion, I don’t know what does.
Blogs For Victory 
You must be logged in to post a comment.