Obama Is (Supreme) Courting Disaster
There is also the matter of state powers, or federalism, oftentimes mislabeled “states’ rights.” The Framers of the Constitution believed that the problem of federal encroachment on the states’ reserves powers (which are all those powers not delegated to Congress or expressly taken away from the states by the Constitution) was serious enough to warrant its own amendment: the Tenth. But with an additional liberal vote, the Tenth Amendment would become a dead letter. Practically, this would signal the end of states’ ability to impose the death penalty, insist upon opposite sex marriage, or deny benefits to illegal aliens.
And then there is the notion of “positive rights,” which briefly flared up during the presidential campaign when a few conservative bloggers discovered an NPR interview with then-Professor Obama where he bemoaned the fact that the Supreme Court has taken a dim view towards redistributing wealth. So in addition to our foreign policy, an ideologically liberal court may well set domestic economic policies as well.
On each of these issues above, there is every indication that President Obama will appoint down the line liberal ideologues. As a constitutional law professor, Obama wrote exam questions pushing the envelope on gay marriage when the issue was just beginning to percolate in the ’90s. He was one of 22 Democratic senators (a bare minority of the caucus) who voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts, and one of 25 who took the extraordinary step of attempting to filibuster the nomination of Justice Alito. During the Democratic primary, Obama opined that his judicial nominees would have “heart” and “empathy” to understand the plight of various Democratic voting blocs, such as “single women,” “African-Americans,” “gays,” the “disabled,” and the “old.” But deciding cases based on which party best evokes the judge’s empathy mocks the notion of a written Constitution and the rule of law.
When President Obama campaigned as a national healer who would leave the divisive politics of social issues at the door, he meant what he said. Sort of. The practical effect of an ideologically liberal court would be to permanently wrest all social issues from the voting public by constitutionalizing the cultural opinions of the liberal elite, thus enabling liberal politicians to avoid taking unpopular stands on these issues. While they may personally disagree with the court’s decisions, they will tell us there is nothing we can do about it because the court has spoken. A preview of this came during the campaign when Obama professed to disagree with the Supreme Court’s holding that it was unconstitutional to execute child molesters, even though opposition to the death penalty is a cardinal belief shared by all the liberal legal luminaries whom Obama will consider for appointment.
Like many conservative lawyers, I never thought I’d say this, but it is time to pray that Justice Kennedy enjoys an extended tenure on the Supreme Court, or at least for four more years.
I’m actually praying for all of them. I hope Obama doesn’t get to nominate a single Justice in his one-term Presidency. Then the next Prez, a Pub, would get to appoint a whole lot of conservative Justices, as the oldest Justices are the Libs. We could then see 7, 8, or even 9 conservative Justices at once by 2016. That would be funny, as the Dem victory this election ruins all their long-range plans.
Originalism – A convenient way to avoid doing what is just, and instead, point to an Article or an Amendment and say “because it says so, right here.” Even when it doesn’t. It is not going to help you determine “interstate commerce” issues in an increasingly “global,” real-time country. The Framers didn’t, and couldn’t have anticipated the necessary future implications, the connotation of a single phrase might have, in a country ten times the size they experienced, with ten times the cultural differences. You’re talking about a time when it was perfectly okay to *own* someone.
Do you really think we should approach the document from that time, with an unwavering exactitude?
What a sad situation: Presidents of both sides appointing judges for political reasons and not for their moral integrity and wise decisions.
2. J. Williams: Do you really think we should approach the document from that time, with an unwavering exactitude?
Yes. Judges are required to follow the law and Constitution. If it is wrong it can be changed, but the global economy fundamentally isn’t that different, it just bigger and moves faster.
#2 J Williams:
“The Framers didn’t, and couldn’t have anticipated the necessary future implications, the connotation of a single phrase might have, in a country ten times the size they experienced, with ten times the cultural differences. You’re talking about a time when it was perfectly okay to *own* someone.”
Ahhhh, but the Framers built in a mechanism for that…the Amendment process, which has been used SINCE the days that it was ok to own someone.
That’s why it’s no LONGER ok to “own” someone.
And this rather knocks your attempted point into a cocked hat, doesn’t it?
See, what the “Living Constitution” crew are attempting to do is a mirror-image of what the Taney Courts,(of Dred Scott infamy), tried to do. Except that the Taney Courts had tradition and precedent as justification for THEIR folly.
The idea, chum, is that the REALLY important Constitutional issues be decided BY THE PEOPLE.
Not a cohort of federal judges, no matter how learned and distinguished they might be.
JWilliams, you’ve missed the point of originalism. It refers to the concept that government has limits to its powers, and should be small and weak when it comes to matters of daily life, thus affording the maximum amount of freedom for citizens. This is something modern-day leftists have trouble comprehending.
Obviously this being ruled by left-wing “elites” has been their goal for a long time. An oligarchy from the bench.
“With all the fuss these days by conservatives that President Barack Obama is running up the national debt on wasteful spending programs, nationalizing the banking and health care sectors, and reversing the anti-terror policies that have prevented a repeat of 9/11,” When you start with statements like this you destoy your credibility. It makes you wonder about the quality of the Cardozo Law School
The constitution is like a rule book in a game. If you are constantly changing the rules during the game chaos breaks out and no one feels they need to follow the rules since they can just change them.
Send this to everyone you know and have them
forward it to the White House!!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Putin warns US to eschew socialism
American Thinker, by Clarice Feldman Original Article
Posted By: Photoonist- 2/18/2009 2:57:14 PM Post Reply
What is the world coming to? Pat Dollard reports the Russian leader warned the US against adopting socialism because it doesn’t work: Russian Prime Minister Vladamir Putin has said the US should take a lesson from the pages of Russian history and not exercise ”excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence”.
J Williams, like so many Liberals, apparently does not know the purpose of the Constitution. The Constitution is a document which outlines the limits of what the Federal government can do–all other rights, as outlined in the Tenth Amendment, are delegated to the States, not the Federal Government.
But somewhere along the line, that all changed, and the absurd and untenable concept of a “living Constitution” arose to erode the rights of the States and the People to decide for themselves.
=M=
Obama’s first appointment to the Supreme Court has already been selected. Ginsberg will resign for health reasons over the next six months. Obama will appoint Arlen Specter to replace her. Obama and Emanuel are forsaking the revenue opportunities of such a vacancy and paying off Arlen for his support on the spending bill. Arlen’s health is not good and he will not last out Obama’s first term. Thus, Obama will fill the same seat again.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Specter is a member, will easily approve the nomination. And, while the lefties will lose a strong ally in the Senate, PA Governor Ed Rendell(D) will be able to sell the vacancy to the lefty high bidder, probably a black democrat from North Philly.
I’m all for a left-wing oligarchy from the bench. I’m all for liberal justices and lots of em. I’m all for activist judges ruling in favor of liberals and Democrats and ruling against Republicans and conservatives. Why? Because I think I’m right and they’re wrong most of the time. I want as much of the system as possible to support and defend my values first. And if the conservatives don’t like it, I really don’t care. They’ve done too much damage to this country already. As for the Constitution, it’s pushed and shoved and squeezed by everybody who has an agenda. I’d just as soon it be liberals doing the interpreting and not conservatives. Let ‘em stand out in the field and wail about the injustice of it all. It’ll keep ‘em busy while we go about the business of moving this great country forward.
Well, the bottom line in this debate, is which theory of interpretation (a/k/a, hermeneutic) do we as a nation choose? Right now, the Constitution is whatever five justices say it is, unless they say it’s something so outrageous they provoke a successful constitutional amendment. Thus, what’s written in the Constitution is whatever five justices and 13 concurring (or lazy) state legislatures say it is (since you need 38 state legislatures to amend). Clearly, we have a dangerous and unworkable system for declaring something unconstitutional, where a small minority can impose its worldview (through how it interprets the Constitution) on the rest.
We’ve also gotten locked into this “originalist” versus “living” Constitution debate, as if there are only two theories of interpretation — actually, there are about as many ways to interpret writing as there protestant denominations. I make that point on purpose. Because possibility the most analogous situation here is how to interpret the Bible. So how is that done:
1. Roman Catholics: The Bishop of Rome, limited by tradition, decides. Over the years, combined with oral tradition, this becomes the magisterial teaching of the Church. While the Church may get input from the laity (i.e., the people), ultimately, it’s a top-down system.
2. Eastern Orthodox: The Orthodox Bishops, limited by orthodox tradition, teach an interpretation, considering oral tradition and past teaching, make decisions about interpretation — but the teaching MUST BE ACCEPTED by the people. It’s top-down, but any new teaching must be ratified by those in the pews (and especially through ecumenical councils).
3. Anglican: The bishops avoid dogmatic teaching on most issues, holding to a few core interpretations (the 39 articles), and unite in ritual, not theology. Individuals may hold to varied beliefs about interpretation. It worked for about 500 years, until the core teachings and the ritual itself came under attack. Now the church is once again dividing.
4. Protestant: Interpretation is largely left to the individual, who unite around common beliefs of the teaching. Result: 28,000 denominations and rising.
Interpreting the Constitution is analogous to the debate in the Christian Church. What I think we need is something more akin to the Eastern Orthodox system — some sort of democratic (or republican) ratification any time the Supreme Court declares something unconstitutional. That is, five justices don’t just declare something unconstitutional. Instead, if they do, we call together some sort of state council (details later) to ratify the decision. That way, we’ll have less of a top-down system imposed on us, but instead a system that allows consensus, through state representatives.
Bottom line: The power of judicial review is too powerful to leave in the hands of a small oligarchy, who can impose their views on the rest of us. And that power is too powerful whether liberals or conservatives are in charge. We need to tweak the Constitution itself to account for judicial review.
My two cents. I’d be interested to read what others think of this idea.
I’d add that my idea allows for changing ideas about the Constitution — the Constitution can develop, but the justices can’t get too far ahead of the people. It gives some weight to both the “living” and “originalist” theories. The result, I’d hope, is less politicization of the judiciary, and less anger among the people.
Another 2 ruth bader-ginsburgs will exact decades of punishment on the American people for the GOP’s feckless indifference to ethics, finance and common sense. All courtesy of speaker Dennis Hastert and the other GOP congressional porkers of the past 10 years. next time, no Hasterts.
One is astonished that there can even be a discussion on this matter. The constitution is the very basis of our law and provides rules about how the government should work. The selfish, reckless, and illogical (see the self-contradictory statement, “moving our great country…forward” by one of your own) aside, how can one argue that the constitution and its enumeration of rights should be abandoned, for that is what “living constitution” is ultimately about, to be replaced by the faddish ideas of the moment. Destroying the wheels is no way to move a cart forward, that’s for sure.
The reason our country is so fractured is exactly for the reason mentioned in the article. We have judges dictating from the bench. I for one see real destruction in values and morals do to judges liberal thinking. Heck, we’re there now with with the handling of illegals!
An ideologically liberal Supreme Court would wrest all social issues from the voting public and hand them to the elite.
This has been going on for several decades already. Economic issue for almost 100 years. Ultimately, the entitity most responsible for opening the American system to socialism was the US Supreme Court of the 1930′s. They made rent-seeking constitutional, and this policy has only cemented over time. Without any constitional return to the Founder’s principles, the downspiral will only continue despite momentary restraint. Politicians currently have tremendous incentives to accrete power and reward special interests, and little or none to reign in such impulses.
Since January 20th, the ball’s been in Barack’s court and he’s flubbed every chance to make a difference. Actually, his actions have been virtually disgraceful.
Putting tax dodgers in positions of trust. Throwing gasoline on an economic recessionary firestorm. Letting Russia blithely sail into our waters unchecked, tearing the Monroe Doctrine to shreads. And as this article states, planning to install socialist, anti-American supremes.
Moreover, Obama’s overall redistribution of wealth scheme and the lowering our nation’s defenses is a threat to America’s very existence.
Forthwith, any further anti-American actions on his part must result in impeachment hearings. He is ruining this country by making a mockery of everything good and decent that the United States of America stands for.
Everyone here is a Socialist. All of you. You all pay money to state and federal government so that they can provide the essential services you need to function on a daily basis. If you drive on a road, take public transport, call 911 in an emergency, eat food that has been approved by the FDA, watch public television, collect social security, etc., then you are a Socialist by the very definition that you actively partake in, and benefit from, a system in which the government controls the means of production of a product or service. So all of you who are screaming “We gotz ta stop tha Soshalizzum!!11!!” should either get a clue or emigrate, because this country simply could not function at the level to which all of you nimrods are accustomed without many of the socialized services we currently have.
to secure rights, is why governments are created. ours is, i believe, unique in that respect, and is the reason, aside from the chance of the promise of great wealth, that people come here from around the world. i know it is not pc to say so, but i believe that our constitutional republic is the best thing going. the framers were not a group of old men with words now outdated, and in need of a global revision. they were visionaries, whose ideas grew out of the bitter experience of european tyranny, and the extension of liberty , and enlightened thought. these ideas are still the vanguards of freedom, as expressed in the original document, and understood as such . in fact , i would say that the original view is the living one as shown by history. and the countless times that that interpretation has spoken for liberty, i, for one, am unwilling to trade that for anything. mr. jefferson, mr madison, et. al, i’m still with you. give me liberty, or give me death
one of your own: Spoken like the immature, inexperienced, ignorant, inexperienced narcissistic and foul mouthed little Stalinist that you are. What an infantile, self important little rant you just posted. You do not even know what the issues are. How could you? You are not an adult yet.
You are projecting you own incompetence on the adult world.
You are in denial.
It is you that are wrong almost all of the time, as would everyone here agree that is not a troll. People here catch you in lies in almost every post. I doubt if you have been right about much of anything in your very short life. You are already a failure. Pretty lousy start in life, young man.
You consistently spit out lefty lies, are called on it with the facts and logic, and then when it is obvious that you have not a clue about the topic you get frustrated and puff yourself up like this and have little tantrums. Infantile.
I have you to see even one attempt at a honorable or reasonable rebuttal out of you to anyone here that has called you on you nonsensical moonbat “ideas”. The truth and reality of things go right over your head.
We have been over and over this (and we will keep going over and over this until you grow up a bit). You know that my characterization of you is correct. Why don’t you just admit it? You are going to have to admit is sooner or later if you want to accomplish anything real at all in life. You cannot go on like this forever. You are a little boy pretending to be a man. Face it. Do something about it and stop using politics to distract yourself from your weaknesses and fears–they have noting to do about “damages to the country”, you are just projecting “damages to you ego”. should you actulally see who and what you are. It will not work.
You have no idea what “the country” even is, let alone know how “it is damaged” or “who damaged it”. This is all just hogwash on your part.
You have no idea what “Liberals” (read neo-communists) really believe. You have no idea what Conservatives believe. You do not have that sort of depth. You are driven by peer pressure, fear of the world, self loathing and narcissism, not ideas. You are almost completely resistant to intellectual discourse. This is just emotion to you. Face it.
You are just regurgitating Left wing talking points because you do not know any better.
Almost all of the problems facing this country were caused by Liberal Democrats. One scarcely can find a major issue that can not be lain at their feet. You agree with the Democrats because you are an overgrown child, not because you have any wisdom. How could you have any wisdom.? You have done absolutely nothing at all in life yet that matters. If you had a child, you would think twice about trading away his future. You would know that one day he would look you in the eye and asked you why you failed him. But you do not know this because you have never had any real responsibility for anyone on this earth.
The funny thing is that you think that “elites ruling from the bench” will somehow work out for you personally. You are not in that elite, buster. They will be taking away your rights, not theirs. Go have a look at the history if the USSR. It will not stop with whatever “liberal” idiocies you happen to believe in at the moment, you know. It will go on and on until there are no freedoms left for anyone but the inner circle of the elites.
If you knew anything meaningful at all and had brain in your head you would know this.
Rachel you an I are on the same wave length. Oops I forgot the Democrats control Congress. Somehow I doubt if anyone but an idiot would waste time going down this road
Mongoose, nice rant/projection. Like many of you conservatives, you just transfer your own fear and lack of self confidence to others you know little about. I suspect that you are just like the poor conservative schmuck from from Hunter S. Thompson’s Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: “With a bit of luck, his life was ruined forever. Always thinking that just behind some narrow door in all of his favorite bars, men in red woolen shirts are getting incredible kicks from things he’ll never know.”
I don’t know presume to know exactly what you are resentful or bitter about, but it’s clear that you are. It’s fear of change and of loss that makes you a conservative, and so your whole life will sadly be defined by that fear that you’re losing your country, that evil people are taking something that belongs to you, and that liberals are to blame. So you decide to attack all things perceived as liberal. The problem is, there are a lot of great things that are seen as ‘liberal,’ like art, literature, music, and a bunch of other great stuff, but because you’ve already made up your mind that you hate liberals and all things associated, you will never give them a chance. You will always be on the outside looking in at a group of attractive, ambitious, fun young progressive people in cities like New York and LA who are excited about the future and enjoying life in a way that you’ll never understand.
One of Your Own, what happens when the court has all this power, and then shifts back to conservatives? THEN you howl unfair? People never stop to think how abuse of power is a problem when they agree with the ones in charge. The problem is the ones in charge always change.
Anyone who thinks they know better than the men (MEN, not metrosexual liberal little boys afraid of their shadows!) who fought and took our freedom from Britain and created this amazing country that EVERYONE in the world wants to move to, is an idiot with a Messiah complex. Hmmmm.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS TOO FLAWED TO HOLD OFFICE
Eric Holder has got to go.
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/02/remove-eric-holder.html
#13 one of your own:
“I’d just as soon it be liberals doing the interpreting and not conservatives. Let ‘em stand out in the field and wail about the injustice of it all. It’ll keep ‘em busy while we go about the business of moving this great country forward.”
Do you mind if I were to point out that your liberal oligarchs would be “moving this country forward” towards impoverishment, secession, civil war and disunion?
Pretty nice troll, though you’ve not yet come up with one to dethrone Trollmaster Rotwang.
#25
How interesting that you include among liberal “great things” art, literature and music – things which offer nothing useful to a human existence, but fail to include the ugliness of liberalism; avarice, robbery, murder, rape and greed, things which cost society dearly. It is among the enlightened (the group to which you presume to belong) where leaders (which you are not) advocate for voting rights for criminals. The leaders ostensible excuse is for fairness but it is actually calculated to swell the ranks of their membership with more people who agree that it is a good thing to take property forcefully and to redistribute it without regard to who owns it. This is the truly ugly side of liberalism where is is a good thing to hate somebody else because their commerce is more successful than your own. Of course, it is necessary to create a strong government who will willingly rob your neighbor who you are too cowardly to rob yourself.
Steve P: I always thought it was easy to appreciate the difference between between limited government and its limited services (police, fire, army, schools, paramedics) and the rest of the economy which thrives best and supports freedom best if not under the govt’s thumb. I want my food markets, lawyers, private schools, manufacturing etc. to be differently run than the tediously slow, 6 man union crew taking all week to fix a leaky pipe. Or the politicos of both parties cutting deals in congress.
Just because I pay exhorbitant taxes for what little i receive, and seee a basis for limited government does not make inconsistent, my demand that the government keep its paws off the rest of the economy.
A free economy also is a terrific counterbalance to the tendency of government to abuse power: the spying on Joe The Plumber is typical of what government does–to all critics, whether right wing or left wing. Government in inherently coercive and will always be so. A free economy supports freedom-of the press and everywhere else. A left-leaning court embraces every mode of tampering with the private sector–and expanding government power. Is that good? Guess it depends who holds the reins , yes?
Oh and don’t get too caught up in those feckless people in NY and LA: most will be living in nevada and NJ before long rather than support the relentlessly rising taxes needed to support those 6 men union crews, paper pushing desk clerks and supervisors ourt on disability from “stress” and their “retire at age 55″ pensions. Everyone I know in LA loves it but is planning on leaving when they retire: the taxes are eating us alive. Soon it’ll be the rpeserve of trust beneficiaries and other inherited wealth types. Is that good do you think?
“Almost all of the problems facing this country were caused by Liberal Democrats. ”
———————–
Umm yeah. Riiiiggghht! And things are so super duper when the Republicans are in charge aren’t they?
#13 Come back in a year and I bet that catchy tune you are humming is a soft moan of pain. I have liberal friends that were humming right along with you…last month. Not anymore.
> Because I think I’m right and they’re wrong most of the time. I want as much of the system as possible to support and defend my values first. And if the conservatives don’t like it, I really don’t care
Spoken like a true liberal.
Your opinion is superior to hard facts and as long as you get what *you* want, nobody else matters
this country simply could not function at the level to which all of you nimrods are accustomed without many of the socialized services we currently have.
Evidence, please.
Ezra, you’re just mad because you lost that bet that Obama wouldn’t win by more than 100 electoral votes.
A regular liberal Notan Idiot,part of the problem.
“21. Steve P.:
Everyone here is a Socialist. All of you. You all pay money to state and federal government so that they can provide the essential services you need to function on a daily basis. If you drive on a road, take public transport, call 911 in an emergency, eat food that has been approved by the FDA, watch public television, collect social security, etc., then you are a Socialist by the very definition that you actively partake in, and benefit from, a system in which the government controls the means of production of a product or service.”
Not entirely accurate Steve. You fail to use the classic definition of socialism. Which is government , pay close attention here Mon Frere, GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP of the means of production of a product or service. Granted thru regulation control can supplant ownership. How ever we are, in many parts, not there yet.
Lets take a look a roads. Government writes a spec for construction and any other concerns(envionmental?) which it may see fit to impose on bidding parties. You or I may then bid to such specs the work. This is no different than any private contract. It is governed by law. Government does not own or control any more than a private party. The winner of the bid owns/controls the means of production. Certainly it is paid for by taxation on fuel. A very user based tax. A fair way we as a whole pay for a product and service. It is not socialism, in fact it is quite Libertarian in this configuration. Every one pays for their use, either in direct fuel taxes or in cost added to goods and services rendered over public roads.. I.E. fuel taxes as a cost of such product and service. Government is simply the clearing house, there are plenty of private run roads too.
Then there is Socialist Insecurity.. er Social Security. No matter your thoughts on how epic fail it is as either a retirement plan, or just as a very expensive insurance plan. It too is funded by those who actually pay in.. I.E. work. Granted it is devolving towards socialism which I think needs one more element to complete the definition of what it is. And that is the “Government Distribution of all production and services”. When you add that you nail socialism down. And that is what this P.O.S. in office now is going for.
“Spread Da Wealth Barrack Spread Da Wealth”.
And that is it for socialism 101.
To recap. It ain’t about government doin’ som’tin’. It be ‘Bout gettin payed by De gov”.. Spread Da ‘ welt bro spread Da’ welt.
@23. Mongoose:
Can’t you edit? All your personal attacks on fellow commenters are pointless, and more likely apply to yourself than anyone else here:
Really. Stop being so childish.
Bush had his chance to stack the court, and he did a bang-up job, placing two kooks of the wingnut variety deep into the bench. Obama will likely get a chance to replace one or two justices, but Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts are likely to be a thorn in the nation’s side for decades to come. Even in the best case scenario, Obama can only get a bare majority on the court. It will take at least 20 years to get the SCOTUS anywhere near the center, so quit yer whining.
Peace.
DS
Oh yeah, I get sidetracked. Back to the rest of the story.
Page Two.
I do not worry much about what B.O. does. I figure if he were really a “natural born” citizen he would have made his birth certificate public.
Which means, sooner or latter, the adults will be back in the White House and then an Executive order will get to the true Obama birth. If Kenyan .. then every law and appointment passed under his signature is void. Including any SCOTUS.
On September 15th of 2008, within hours, a number of extremely knowledgeable ‘Insiders’ made substantial cash withdrawals from the money markets of the USA, until stopped by intervention of the Treasury. Many hundreds of Billion$ (over 500, and on it’s way to a fast trillion?)from what I recall. I would surmise ‘They’ knew the pulse of ‘the victim’ from the fever pitched Liberal mainstream media rhetoric, and reading the future in dollars, decided it was time to pullout of ‘The Game’. Not surprising, considering the ‘Change’ that followed the election. Now the Judiciary is facing a ‘Change’ at some point in the future. Watch for another massive ‘Withdrawal’ if this Change looks to be radically more left. Remember ‘They’ know far in advance. As was said earlier, ‘Pray’… It’s the only thing that works. DaFlikkers
28 Bilgeman . . . The only difference between my vision and yours is this . . . you PREDICT disaster to come from my pint of view. We are all EXPERIENCING disaster from yours.
#41 one of your own:
“The only difference between my vision and yours is this . . . you PREDICT disaster to come from my pint of view. We are all EXPERIENCING disaster from yours.”
My vision is that of the Amendment process, which is admittedly conservative by it’s nature…it was meant to be so.
Despite some notions to the contrary, the first task of ANY government ANYWHERE is to provide stability. But how to accomplish this stability without stasis? The Amendment process provides enough “bendability” to accommodate for change.
But it has to be a change that is widely and deeply supported by a majority of the citizenry(<—please note this word). Not something imposed “top-down” by whatever pack of oligarchical meddlers who happen to be wearing the Black Robes at any point in time.
So, a campaign slogan of “Change” ain’t necessarily gonna cut it in just two years.
Which is your vision.
You would seek to impose your program on people without their consent by an appeal to authority.
That is why, in places like California, where popular referenda are used in the law-making process, the losing side always scrams off to court lickety-split to try to get a judge to negate the expressed will of the citizens(<—again, that word).
Prop 8…Prop 187…and the re-instatement of the California Death penalty and the recall of CA Supreme Court Justice Rose Bird over her anti-capital punsihment stance, for starters.
I remember that she was commuting death sentences right up until her last hour in office.
Servant of whom? The citizens of California?
No…she was a servant to her own social engineering agenda.
These are the tactics of a general who knows that he doesn’t have the long-term support to realize his goals in the proper Constitutional arena.
The decades long debate over the freedoms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment is an example of
how an extremist minority viewpoint, rather than properly attempting to amend or repeal the 2nd Amendment, resorts to a series of judicial petit-fuehrers to rule by decree.
The Liberal appetites for social and economic control is too great and all-encompassing NOT to try imposing changes so fundamentally radical that they would literally tear this country apart.
Americans just won’t take it.
Either accept the rejection of the parts of your program that won’t sell at the ballot box, or accept the rejection you’ll get from the cartridge box.
The citizenry is the highest authority. We The People created the Government…not the other way around.
42. “That is why, in places like California, where popular referenda are used in the law-making process, the losing side always scrams off to court lickety-split to try to get a judge to negate the expressed will of the citizens.”
Cool, put abortion to a popular vote. Put the Iraq War to a popular vote. Put investigating Cheney to a popular vote. Who’s gonna run to court then?
“I remember that (Rose Bird) was commuting death sentences right up until her last hour in office. Servant of whom? The citizens of California? No…she was a servant to her own social engineering agenda.”
And when no Republicans voted “aye” for the Stimulus bill? Servants of their constituents, or servants of their own partisan agenda?
“The citizen is the highest authority”
But you don’t believe that.
42 Bilgeman “Either accept the rejection of the parts of your program that won’t sell at the ballot box, or accept the rejection you’ll get from the cartridge box.”
That’s your problem in the right, you try to govern by slogans picked from war posters of the 40s. Come on, you know better . . . you know that when the going gets tough the tough get going, right. And don’t be threatening people on this here board. yoYou’d be mighty surprised how many of us liberals have concealed carry permits.
We lost the elections, and Obama gets to appoint for any vacancies that come up. But it really depends on who retires or passes on. If it’s the liberal members of the court, the balance remains the same, if not we are screwed. As for Obama’s re-election chances, let’s not count on him losing. Let’s count on our advancing in congress.
“We the people” are to blame for each and every mess that erupts in this country. We allow these idiots in Washington to develop this veneer of omnipotence, and we pay the price.
We can bitch and moan all we want about Obama and his policies, appointments to cabinet positions, the supreme court, etc., but he told each and every one of us what he was going to do once in Office. Redistribute wealth, bolster affirmitive action, support unions, undermine business, weaken the military . Come on, he was honest about destroying capitalism in this country and he still got elected!!
Life as you and your parents knew it is over for at least a generation…if the US survives that long.
I am an Ayn Rand Objectivist, and knew our march to pure socialism was happening years ago. I have done my part as an individual to support and advocate for limited government, but, sadly, to little avail.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is 1860, again. Are we going to repeat history?
Well, look up the Southern National Congress on the web…..secession is back, and could very well succeed this time!
What is your plan for the future? Where will you go? Batten down the hatches and prepare for a hurricane!
Objectivism of the Ayn Rand variety is a dead end, B.S. philosophy. Here’s why:
1. It is a reactionary philosopy, and reactionary philosophies are always flawed and problematic. Consider the source -Ayn Rand was a wealthy girl who sadly got all her money taken away by Russian Communists. So she grew up hating wealth distribution and started a whole movement around it. Like a scientist, a philosopher must seek knowledge without any preconceptions. Preconceptions will always skew your results and conclusions. Ayn’s preconception was that any redistribution of wealth or curtailing of individual freedom = evil. So therefore her entire philosophy was already loaded from the start. It’s as if Newton, in his observations of gravity, started with the preconception that only certain apples can fall to the ground. The greatest irony of Objectivism is that, by scientific standards, it is not objective.
2. Ayn Rand was not a biologist or anthropologist, yet she claimed to have authoritative insight into the human condition. She argued that the human animal is an individual by nature, and that human happiness and virtue can only really be gained by living a rationally self-interested life. However, if you ask any modern day biologist about the true origins and characteristics of the human species, he would laugh at Rand’s judgment. The human animal, like all animals, is a pack animal that has for the 2 million years of his existence (and millions of years before that) lived in communal, hierarchical environments like chimps and gorillas. An early human who lived a “rationally self interested life” would soon find himself ejected from his tribe and left to fend on his own, where he would be an easy target for predators and other tribes. The community, and the safety and comfort it offers, is the basis of our ‘civilization’ and has been for millions of years. Go look at other primates, and see how many of them are “rationally self-interested”. But Ayn Rand comes along and argues that now that we have money, millions of years of evolution are now out the window because we can buy the things that the community used to provide for free. Obviously, Ayn Rand is not a scientist.
3. No civilization would ever freely accept the system that Ayn Rand advocates. It’s a step away from anarchy. It would have to be forced upon a populace. And the act of forcing this system upon free people would be totally counter to the philosophy.
I enjoyed reading the Fountainhead as much as the next guy, but if you really subscribe to this philosophy then you obviously haven’t thought enough about it. Or perhaps you’re just a sociopath.
Hey, Steve P., you may consider yourself a primate. I am not. Your understanding of Objectivism is very limited. But, then, you are a liberal (I read your prior comment, above), and your position on the matter is understandable.
I’m not here to debate you or any other person of the leftist pursuasion because it is a waste of my time since the left is too emotionally tied to its beliefs and will never debate facts.
However, you and your ilk hold the reins of power, now, and will affect policy and the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come. Let us all watch this experiment of the left and see what happens!
I wish you (and the rest of us) much luck that a robust America returns, but I’m not holding my breath!
Oh, by the bye, Steve P., there is no need to get personal. Why are liberals so hostile? I thought you were the folks that champion love, peace, and compassion. :~)
@48. Spartacus360:
Trolls aren’t primates? Who knew…
Peace.
DS
#42 mister man:
“And when no Republicans voted “aye” for the Stimulus bill? Servants of their constituents, or servants of their own partisan agenda?”
Mike ramirez nailed your precious stimulus for what it is:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/cartoons/CartoonPopUp.aspx?id=319929212778500
“Cool, put abortion to a popular vote.”
The Pro-Lifers have been saying to do this at the state level for years.
Wonder why it never gets the nod from the Pro-Choicers, then.
Because the Choicers won a 5-4 Roe v. Wade election in the Supreme Court at the Federal level, and in true “socialist banana republic” fashion, are never ever going to let the matter be brought up for a plebiscite again.
Kinda like Chavez’s recent serial “Presidential term Limits” elections…or EU unification referenda.
The elections continue until the “correct” result is attained.
“Put the Iraq War to a popular vote.”
We did. It won in 2004, and it won again 2008.
(Are we out of Iraq yet? Have we closed Guantanamo yet? Ignore the facts all you like, but they remain facts.)
“Put investigating Cheney to a popular vote.”
By all means, put it to a vote. And then we can vote to investigate Obama’s claims to natural born citizen status, Chris Dodd’s mortgage dealings, Barney Frank,(where to begin?), Nancy Pelosi’s corrupt union connections…
Oh yes. Let’s!
Methinks that such a course of action would hoist you upon your own petard, chum.
#44 mister man:
“That’s your problem in the right, you try to govern by slogans picked from war posters of the 40s.”
That would have been the 1840′s. It’s still true and still valid today…to quote one of your Liberal heroes back in your face:
“Those who make peaceful reform impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”-John F. Kennedy.
Thanks, chum. I truly savored the opportunity to stuff that down your throat.
“And don’t be threatening people on this here board. yoYou’d be mighty surprised how many of us liberals have concealed carry permits.”
And this is the caliber of dweeb that would lord it over us through activist Justices in the name of Liberalism?
A “Comrade Chairman Cornholio”?
(“Are you THEREATENING me?!!??”)
If it weren’t so pathetic, it would be laughable for its cowardice and its hypocrisy.
Yo-Yo-Yo-You even stuttered…in print, no less!
Look out everyone!
The Eunuch Who Would Be King is whipping out a government-issued permission-slip from his wallet!
He means…BUSINESS!
That lame-ass sh*t might impress YO-YOUR little circle of chums, but I’m quite frankly underwhelmed.
Jump BIG or stay home, punk.
Fold yo-your concealed carry permit 5 ways and shove it straight up yo-your keester with both hands, and then run on along on yo-your elbows.
There’s the “Tee-pee for yo-your BUNNNG-hole”, ace.
Yo-Yer gonna need to grow a pair before yo-you try telling the world what to do and when to do it, Nancy.
“Objectivism of the Ayn Rand variety is a dead end, B.S. philosophy”
Ha! Don’t you wish.
Rand advocates equal individual rights for every citizen regardless of race, creed, color, or socio-economic status. Is this what you fear?
Rand advocates a government limited to the protection of those rights by an objective application of the law, restrained by the Constitution. Is this what you despise?
Rand advocates the creative flourishing of every individual to the extent of his or her willingness and ability, with no one sacrificed to any anyone. Is that what you regard as wrong?
She advocates reason, honesty, integrity, and justice from and for every individual. Is this a threat to you and your values?
Distortions, ad hominem, and false alternatives do not constitute a rebuttal of any philosophy. Try again.
@52. Jeff Perren:
Those rights are protected by the US Constitution. The problem with Rand is that she ignores the fact that these rights come into conflict. Ultimately the US government is a co-operative enterprise of the American people.
“the Objectivist combination of reality, reason, egoism and individual liberty identifies the virtue of independence and the value of trade. Objectivism says little about the value of co-operative activism.”
Not recognizing the nature of our political system, Randian ideology is doomed to irrelevance. If you are advocating a wholesale revolution – “buddy, you’ll have to wait”.
Peace.
DS
“Objectivism says little about the value of co-operative activism.”
What do you mean by “co-operative activism”? Political gang warfare? Lobbyists continually clamoring at the Federal trough? Individuals making their views known through a peaceful, rational exchange?
Funny how for a philosophy “doomed to irrelevance” half a million per year continue to buy her books, dozens of columnists of all political persuasions continue to reference Rand’s ideas, and thousands continue to argue and protest on the basis on that philosophy.
You can attempt to marginalize it if you wish, but libertarians, conservatives, and Objectivists all draw from a similar pool of ideas, whether explicitly formulated by Rand or those of Smith, Locke, Jefferson, Madison, and their modern contemporaries. Do think these millions of individuals are all “irrelevant” because they disagree with your Pragmatist Progressive ideology?
@54. Jeff Perren:
“Objectivism says little about the value of co-operative activism.”
Co-operative activism is what our founders practiced.
Jefferson, Locke and Madison all understood and acknowledged the importance of co-operative activism. I’m not trying to marginalize Rand’s views, just recognizing that regardless of economic insight they make for an incomplete political philosophy. As part of the larger pantheon you cite, Rand’s views are moderated and distilled – but comparing her views to those of the founders is folly, in my opinion, for their vision was much more comprehensive, and their activism more robust.
Peace.
DS
Interesting to hear David S, even in a roundabout way, praise the Founding Fathers. Here is what one of them had to say about the philosophy he favors:
Rand would agree, wholeheartedly, and there is plenty of “cooperative activism” taking place to try to restore this vision of government by Objectivists, and others.
@ 56. Jeff Perren:
That’s fine, but trying to run that play in reverse won’t work. Rand may have believed in some of what the Founders taught – but the Founders would not buy into her simplistic views. Their vision, as outlined in the Constitution, is not compatible with the kind of society envisioned by Ayn Rand. Attempts to force a Randian philosophy on the USA are destined to failure, because her philosophy is not compatible with the Constitution.
Peace.
DS
#50 Bilgeman — The Pro-Lifers have been saying to do this at the state level for years. Wonder why it never gets the nod from the Pro-Choicers, then. Because the Choicers won a 5-4 Roe v. Wade election in the Supreme Court at the Federal level, and in true “socialist banana republic” fashion, are never ever going to let the matter be brought up for a plebiscite again.
Surprise. Red state of South Dakota did EXACTLY this in the last two election cycles. In the 2004 election the measure was very restrictive.
It was stomped. Choicers won. Bigtime.
In 2008 the same lifers group floated the same ballot measure excpet this time allowed for rape and life of the mother.
It was stomped. Choicers won again.
In a red state no less.
Might help if you had *any* command of what we call “facts.” Just sayin’.
#48 — “Hey, Steve P., you may consider yourself a primate. I am not.”
Evolution denier? In 2009?
The subject of abortion is one which causes such squeamish reactions in most Americans that they wish it would just go away so that they don’t have to be reminded of what it essentially involves, namely, the snuffing out of a defenseless human life in the womb.
The “procedure,” as it is euphemistically called by pro-abortionists, sometimes results in severe reactions of repulsion from ostensible care-givers, often involves excruciating pain for the pre-born, and virtually always has as its consequence, death, so it’s no wonder that people would rather not think about abortion, especially if they support it.
All of the above observations had to be accompanied by the qualifiers ”sometimes,” “often,” and “virtually always,” because there are limited exceptions.
Some “caregivers,” the nurses, doctors, and others in attendance, aren’t at all repulsed by what they are doing, often on a daily or hourly basis and, in fact, professional abortionists such as those employed by Planned Parenthood of America, feel they are performing a public service, perhaps akin to a dentist extracting an abscessed tooth.
As for pain suffered by the aborted baby, we hear a great deal about spinal cord development and when pain is physically possible although the baby can never weigh in with an opinion.
And, finally, all abortions do not result in the baby’s immediate death since some few manage to survive botched efforts even if they are then left to die unattended and a rare few go on to live full, if often psychologically-damaged, lives.
This distasteful topic of abortion in America has already been the subject of numerous articles on this website and it is not my intent now to reiterate the details of those articles. Any interested reader is referred to the “Search” feature for previous articles. Most websites, even if their owners and readers are adamantly opposed to abortion, tend to avoid the topic for reasons which are beyond me since I believe it remains the single most illustrative domestic issue on America’s plate, an issue which speaks to the demise of America’s soul.
The inspiration for this current piece is none other than the new Obama administration which has already shown it will be, for at least four years, an ardent advocate for the extinction of untold numbers of American pre-born lives. President Obama’s record as a state senator in Illinois, where he twice voted for allowing babies born alive after botched abortions to languish and die, speaks for itself.
So, too, does the platform of the Democratic National Committee speak for itself. The abortion issue plank basically reiterates President Clinton’s professed ideal of making abortion a rarity and endorses pregnancy prevention. That was a sop to those who believe in the right to life of pre-born babies and it had as much substance in fact and execution, or less fact and substance, as the DNC’s 2008 plank will have under Obama.
Another sop was the commitment to embryonic stem cell research in spite of new discoveries that adult stem cells are …
Read the rest of this article at http://genelalor.com/.)
“Attempts to force a Randian philosophy on the USA are destined to failure, because her philosophy is not compatible with the Constitution.”
I give you credit, David S., for being the most clever Progressive I’ve yet read. Your distortions and lies are subtle and calmly delivered, making you appear quite reasonable.
Anyone familiar with Rand’s philosophy knows that this is blatantly not true, as I’m sure you do as well, but you might have made a few others wonder.
I suggest you back it up with evidence and logic, and those others investigate both sides and decide for themselves.
Incidentally, David, no one intends to “force a Randian philosophy on the USA.” Objectivists favor reason and persuasion. The coercive method is out of the playbook of Statists, like your fellows.
“An ideologically liberal Supreme Court would wrest all social issues from the voting public and hand them to the elite.”
Exactly what the left wants.
from #47 “I enjoyed reading the Fountainhead as much as the next guy, but if you really subscribe to this philosophy then you obviously haven’t thought enough about it.”
=====
Her philosopy makes pretty good sense. I contend that you are the one who doesn’t understand.
@61. Jeff Perren:
Thanks for the nicest backhanded compliment I’ve yet received at PJM.
Happy to oblige, Jeff. Here’s a project where There is now an edited version of the United States Constitution being reworked to conform to objectivism
So it isn’t so much myself, as objectivists themselves, who have identified a conflict between their philosophy and our founding document.
Let me know what you decide…
Peace.
DS
Jeff Perren, I thank you for your eloquence and clarity of thought in defending the tenents of “Objectivism”.
However, if you or I believe we will ever convince liberal, socialists of what our Founding Fathers intended this country to be then we are wasting our time.
Their loathing of this nation and what it stands for is well documented.
Let me pose this question to David S: Ayn Rand lived in the Soviet Union until 1929, and then emigrated the United States. Who better to offer a clear perspective on which system of government is best? What I mean to ask is if the best form of government is socialist, collectivist, totalitarian based wouldn’t she have stayed? Wouldn’t that have been a utopia?
The answer is No! She, along with millions came from the darkness seeking that beacon of hope in world…to the United States to seek life, liberty and the persuit of happiness as an individual human being.
Peace out, Dave
P.S. Here’s a Youtube clip of an Ayn Rand interview with Mike Wallace in 1959. She is very prophetic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMTDaVpBPR0&feature=related
S360