Right after I first arrived in this country and it became clear that I was here to stay, people in England were curious to learn how I, and others, could cope without a Queen or some other entity around which to rally.
“Yes”, they said, “We know there’s a flag but that can’t be enough” And they were right but they overlooked our founding documents. First there was the Declaration of Independence which was followed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
And those have stood us in good stead, and still do, unless Obama and crowd have their way.
For a start, in the last couple of weeks, Obama, “the constitutional law professor”, misquotes the second paragraph of the Declaration. Not once, not twice but three times to my knowledge. Obama avers “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights …………”. Almost Barack but not quite.
There are three words missing between “endowed” and “with”.
For extra credit, what are the missing words?
Times up! Those words are, “by their Creator”.
Now Obama claims to be Christian or, at least the Jeremiah Wright variant thereof but, even if he’s Moslem, acknowledging an ultimate power should not be an issue as, after all, we’re talking about the same G-d but I do admit that could be in doubt as one listens to the rhetoric coming out of Mecca and elsewhere.
But, it seems it is a problem for Obama just as it seems to be for other liberals.
Arm in arm with all this, there is the issue of Christine O’Donnell who is running to take Joe Biden’s Delaware seat in the Senate.
In all of life's tribulations, there is nothing so aggravating as being condescended to by an idiot. In last week's CNN debate in the Delaware Senate race between the astonishingly well-spoken Christine O'Donnell and the unfortunate-looking Chris Coons, O'Donnell had to put up with it from Coons for 90 minutes.
O'Donnell wiped the floor with Coons, moderators Wolf Blitzer and Nancy Karibjanian, and the idiotic University of Delaware students asking questions -- all of whom were against her.
With the nation on the verge of another great depression -- the brunt of which, to my delight, will fall most heavily on college students -- guess what the dunderheads asked? GUESS! That's right: They asked about abortion "in the case of rape or incest," "don't ask, don't tell," doing something about "our carbon footprint," and the kook-minister who was going to burn Korans, because ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE!
O'Donnell's responses couldn't have been better if Thomas Sowell were whispering them in her ear. But after every well-thought-out answer she gave, Coons would act as if O'Donnell were speaking in tongues and make a dismissive remark to the moderators: "If you can reconcile all those comments, you're an even more talented reporter than I think you are, Nancy."
O'Donnell managed to simply answer the questions without wasting everyone's time with snippy asides about Coons' replies.
Then Coons would say something incomprehensible, false or insane -- such as his conspiracy theory about the Australians uniting with the Chinese against America.
But I digress.
Coons triumphantly observed that the knotty issue of ”separation of church and state” is enshrined in our Constitution and Ms. O’Donnell questioned that assertion. This brought forth derisive laughter and gasps of shock from an audience that should know better, law students.
The fact remains that the Constitution does not demand any such separation. The First Amendment merely requires that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
The actual “separation” phrase can be found only in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802 but it’s not in the Constitution and so Ms. O’Donnell was right and Mr. Coons was wrong.
Much more scary though was the proof that a bunch of law students are seemingly being taught nonsense and/or they haven’t actually read the document in question. Whichever it is, it does not promise a healthy future for jurisprudence in the country.
If it’s not ignorance of our founding documents on the part of political candidates, it’s a desire to change them.
We already know that Obama sees them as constraints and he’s right about that, thank heavens but now we learn that members of Congress feel the same way.
Congressman Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) was being pressed in a live TV debate, so he may be excused for blurting out the truth.
Here’s a portion of what the very liberal Mr. McGovern said:
“We have a lousy Supreme Court decision [in the Citizens United case] that has opened the floodgates, and so we have to deal within the realm of constitutionality. And a lot of the campaign finance bills that we have passed have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I think the Constitution is wrong. I don’t think that money is the same thing as human beings."
What a stunning statement! There are several things to consider in this argument. For us as constitutional conservatives, it’s entirely acceptable to disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court. I say every day that Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision and should be corrected. The Kelo ruling set a dangerous precedent. That 2005 case allowed the City of New London to condemn a private homeowner’s beautiful house, not for a bridge or tunnel, not for a fort or a federal highway, but simply because the city government could gain more revenue by taking the house and leasing the property to a private developer! That’s a shocking ruling. If that ruling is not corrected, your home will no longer be your castle, it will only be your trailer.
Congressman McGovern doesn’t take issue with the Supreme Court, however, he says the Constitution itself is wrong. Did Mr. McGovern take an oath to support the U.S. Constitution? Does he consider himself bound by his oath?
Sure, you can responsibly disagree with portions of the Constitution. Ronald Reagan, for example, disagreed with the two-term limit for President. He thought the Twenty-second Amendment had been a mistake. But Reagan dutifully left office after two terms. Reagan would have supported an amendment to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment, but as long as it was in the Constitution, he felt bound to respect it.
In Congressman McGovern’s case, however, we see why liberals believe in a “living Constitution.” The living Constitution idea was characterized by Justice Scalia as a Magic Slate. You can write on it, get the interpretation you want, then lift up the plastic screen, and re-write your constitution, according to the passions of the moment.
I think Mr. McGovern is wrong in his analysis of the Citizens United ruling. The Supreme Court did not say that money was more important, or even the same thing, as human beings. It said nothing like that. What the Court did say is that you don’t lose your First Amendment rights because you express your ideas through a corporation, a union, or a non-profit organization.
In striking down major portions of the McCain-Feingold Act, the Supreme Court ruled that government cannot stop pro-life groups, for example, from highlighting the records of politicians like Jim McGovern before an election. By preventing pro-life citizens from drawing voters’ attention to how their elected representatives actually vote, this unwise and unconstitutional measure denied citizens their rights to communicate about political matters. That’s one of the main reasons for the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.
Now that he mentions it, does Jim McGovern really think “money is [not] the same as human beings?” If so, maybe he’ll join Congressman Mike Pence’s (R-Ind.) drive to de-fund Planned Parenthood. That outfit gets billions in taxpayer funds and it kills 350,000 unborn children—undeniably human beings—every year.
It would be great to welcome Jim McGovern to the ranks of those of us who believe human lives are more important than money. I’m not cynical, but I must admit I have doubts that Mr. McGovern, should he win re-election next month, will put his fine words into practice when it comes to unborn children.
Now, we can see why “constitutional conservatism” is important. Without a firm reliance on the Constitution as our anchor, the entire ship of state is adrift. Under the current administration and the current Congress, our ship of state is headed for the rocks.
G-d Bless America and a huge “thank you” for the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.
No comments:
Post a Comment