The U.S. Constitution in a Nutshell: O’Donnell Is Right, Coons Is Wrong
The United States Constitution is short and easy to read. It is far shorter and easier to read than most legislation, excepting such fluff as a declaration of a “National Eat Healthy Day.” The guts of it are that the federal government can lawfully exercise only those powers the Constitution grants; everything else is reserved to the states and to the people. Article X of the Bill of Rights says:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Article XIV of the Constitution, among other things, extended to state governments some but far from all of the prohibitions on the federal exercise of power:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Article XV expressly limits the power of both the federal and state governments:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Over the years, the impact of federal laws on individual citizens, as well as on the states, has become engorged by minimizing or ignoring constitutional limitations. These expansions originate with the Congress and the administrative agencies the Congress creates, as well as with executive orders. No legislation should be passed, and no executive order issued, without a clear and detailed statement of its constitutional basis. The federal government should not be permitted to rely upon bases not stated if the stated basis fails.
According to this article:
I have been fascinated by Christine O’Donnell’s constitutional worldview since her debate with her opponent Chris Coons last week. O’Donnell explained that “when I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional.” How weird is that, I thought. Isn’t it a court’s job to determine whether or not something is, in fact, constitutional? And isn’t that sort of provided for in, well, the Constitution? In 2003, O’Donnell said of the Supreme Court that “it’s kind of like we have the nine people sitting there in Washington who have a constitutional monarchy and that is an abuse of the system.” So I do wonder a little whether she’s claiming that her view of what’s constitutional trumps theirs. Not a lot of space for checks and balances in that reading.
To the contrary, Ms. O’Donnell got it about right, demonstrating a healthy regard for the Constitution and the separations of powers it created. I would extend the thought to executive orders and also to the actions of our ubiquitous and very powerful administrative agencies, which all too often pay insufficient attention to the statutes authorizing them.
As observed by Judge Tatel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in an address to folks at the EPA:
As its most fundamental inquiry, administrative law calls upon courts to determine whether an agency’s action falls within the scope of its authorizing legislation. This task often involves no more than reading the law. Then‐Professor Felix Frankfurter, one of the fathers of administrative law, famously admonished his students: “(1) read the statute; (2) read the statute; (3) read the statute!” This is self‐evidently good advice, but you’d be surprised how often agencies don’t seem to have given their authorizing statutes so much as a quick skim. … After all, agency authority comes only from Congress. If the agency can’t reasonably trace its action to a statute, it has no business acting. Although agencies are more accountable than courts, Congress is more accountable still.
As an attorney involved for many years in cases involving the Federal Communications Commission, I know that Judge Tatel was right on point.
The legislative and executive branches obviously do not have the final say on what’s constitutional and what isn’t. That’s up to the courts and ultimately to the Supreme Court. However, the legislative and executive branches do have the first and second says and that’s very important. An imperfect analogy might be made: We The Peons get the first opportunity to decide whether something we want to do is lawful; if we do it and the courts decide that it was unlawful we suffer the consequences (or at least should; sometimes, there are no consequences).
Whacky? Well, if you’re a Leftist… yes! God forbid we should check with the Constitution before passing any laws. They are either unaware, or do not care, that every Congrescritter, Senator, and yes, the President Oneself, take an oath to uphold the Constitution.
Except “Teh One” flubbed his. Or the Justice did when he looked into Obama’s eyes… and knew! Or something. Had a do-over.
I’ll give you a better analogy:
Whose job is it to stop crime? The police? Kinda. Mostly they punish after the fact. Private guards? Citizens? Block Watch members? You individually guarding your own actions?
How about all of the above? It’s everyone’s job to get involved in stopping crime. Same with adherence to the Constitution. It’s everyone’s job.
Forgive me, but the first couple of paragraphs need slight correction. There are only 7 articles in the Constitution, and I believe you are referring to Amendment XIV and Amendment XV. Other than that, I agree with the premise or your article.
Thanks. You are 100% correct. They should be referred to as the Tenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth and (later in the article) Sixteenth Amendments. I know better and the only excuse I have is that a witch must have cast a spell on me.
Illinois Democrat Congressman Phil Hare is typical of the politicians in both parties. Representative Hare became famous when You Tube, posted a clip from a town hall meeting where he admitted that, when it comes to health care reform, he doesn’t “worry about the Constitution.”
Most of our representatives in Congress don’t worry about the Constitution with regard to anything they do. While the final word may be up the the courts, members of Congress should play a vital role in keeping our government within the bounds the Constitution established. The fact that they fail to even consider the Constitutionality of their actions is a slap in the face of our founders. These politicians should be held to account. On November 2, the voters will decide whether the incumbents deserve another 2 years of worry-free service or not.
To me the entire country AND the Constitution are riding on the Obamacare trials in the courts right now. Obamacare MUST be found unconstitutional. If it is not, then Federalism is finished as we know it. Why even bother having a Constitution? If the Federal government can force you to buy things and the states have no say in the matter, why have state governments at all? And, once the Federal government can tell you what health insurance you can have, then they can tell you what car you can have (you can only buy the heavily subsidized Chevy Volt, owned by Government Motors, or GM). Then under Obamacare, the Federal Government will tell you what you can eat and how much you can eat, because if you’re one pound overweight you can be taxed at a higher rate, just like smokers or drug addicts. And then the government will tell you, under Cap and Trade, how hot or cold your house can be, because if you use “too much” energy you’ll be taxed at a much higher rate. The list goes on and on.
I think the shorter question is, do the states still have ANY powers left? If Federal law trumps everything and can force you to buy whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and wherever it wants, what really is left for the states to do? And, with “No Child Left Behind” and all of the Federal subsidies to our local schools, are our states even in control of their own public school educations anymore? If Obamacare is upheld by the Supreme Court, the country really is finished and we will have one all-powerful government in Washington. James Madison would be appalled.
I thought all congressmen swore to uphold the Constitution. If they don’t attempt to know it and understand it how can they swear to uphold it?
This little idea is right on target. Right now congress just does whatever the hell it wants. Now we are going to start replaceing every one of these idiots with people who will restrain, reduce and limit the power of government and their ability to conduct a rein of tyranny on the American people. Too much taxation, too much heavy handedness, too much arrogance and too much corruption.
“I thought all congressmen swore to uphold the Constitution. If they don’t attempt to know it and understand it how can they swear to uphold it?”
Just a thought. Immediately before a person or group of persons (congressmen, senators, presidents or ANY federal elected official) is ‘sworn in’, the entire US Constitution should be read aloud: so that those making their oath are VERY aware to which they affirm. If they don’t agree with it, don’t swear to it! Likewise for the elected State officials. Then all citizens will know that individual’s true stance.
Unfortunately, you could never hold an congressman, or other official, to having sworn to uphold anything. Afterall, if it came down to it, the court would find that a sworn oath violates the separation of church and state. What does it even mean to “swear” something.
To swear to something means you pledge on your personal honor that … oh, Congressman? honor? never mind.
Dan; Absolutely great column, loved it. A friend, and also a UVA law grad, described to me what you also described as Congress’ position on passing legislation, and that is that the Constitutionality of it isn’t considered if/when that legislation goes before the SCOTUS. He stated also that even lower federal courts do not decide upon the Constitutionality of cases. I think that this is absurd and that every officer of the government–military, judicial, legislative, executive or whomever ought to consider the Constitutionality of the work that they do.
I agree with Christine O’Donnell’s position and appreciate it as do many Americans. Her understanding of the enumerated powers and restraint parallels that of many Senators of days gone by, particularly during the 1800′s. By abdicating congressional power to act Constitutionally upon the SCOTUS, Congress has weakened a check and balance placed there by James Madison and empowered the judiciary unnecessarily to act upon matters that should never be before them in the first place.
Thanks for writing this column. Nice work.
Her understanding of the enumerated powers and restraint parallels that of many Senators of days gone by, particularly during the 1800’s.
O’Donnell couldn’t even state ONE Supreme Court decision she disagreed with in her debate. She certainly didn’t mention Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. I wonder why. Understanding of the “Enumerated Powers and Restraint?”? She doesn’t even know what these words mean. Are you serious? She is an empty pantsuit who is being controlled by corporate interests. She probably isn’t even aware that she is being controlled. THAT is scary and depressing.
She was asked to name a decision with which she disagreed. Citizens United most likely did not fit in that category. It noted the clash between the Constitutional right of free speech and a law undermining it for corporations, labor unions and others and declared some of those limitations unconstitutional. The decision certainly irritated President Obama and his merry crew but, in my opinion, was correct.
Which is more preferable, Nate? A Senator who couldn’t name a decision that he/she disagreed with off the top of her head or one that would abdicate his/her responsibility for acting Constitutionally to the judiciary? I’d say the first one is more preferable. Let me remind you that the oath is taken to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” and fails to say that one shall “pass any and all legislation to be further reviewed by the Court for the determination on whether it supports the Constitution or not”. Nice try though.
No matter, she will lose.
The Republican party has done everything but spit on her. The people chose her to get this far, and the party could not accept that decision.
Constitution be damned. If we the people keep electing the same people despite their actions, voting etc..the constitution takes a back seat.
Actually, Nate, she was asked to name a “recent” decision with which she disagreed. Given that the Court has been upholding the Constitution pretty well in recent years . . .
Well, duh:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Oath_vrd.htm
“Upon taking office, Senators-elect must swear or affirm that they will “support and defend the Constitution.” The president of the Senate or a surrogate administers the oath to newly elected or re-elected Senators. The oath is required by the Constitution; the wording is prescribed by law.”
More seriously, nice article.
It’s pretty clear that the oath or affirmation required in Article VI imposes an obligation on officials to act on their own understanding. It is not a requirement to uphold the decisions of federal judges or the opinions of Goodwin Liu. They may choose to agree, but they are not obliged to obey.
Of course Article VI does not require those officials to actually read the Constitution—an obvious flaw in the Article.
I highly enjoyed this article. Very incisive.
BUT, the education system in America has deteriorated to such a degree, that generations of our legislators have been promoted without the foundations for comprehensive reading, writing, and/or speaking.
Our Commander in Chief is a prime example; Unable to speak clearly and concisely without a speaking aid/aide.
And the Democrat Party has been in power for more than FOUR YEARS. And POWER is what their agenda is based on.
Democrats are like children that are given a chore to do, and they do it as badly as they can, so they will not be asked to perform that chore again.
And they have purposely tried to overwhelm the system with their ‘legislation’, knowing it will take months and years to reconcile the damage.
The American People need access to recall petitions for every legislator, from the town council all the way to the President. And if we did have these, the Democrat Party would be abusing them too.
It’s not easy dealing with recalcitrant children.
Of course, Republicans never pass unconstitutional laws. Yes, dripping with sarcasm. At the state level it is done by folks on the right all the time. How about the recent anti-abortion gems by the OK legislature or the AZ anti-immigrant bill and birther bills?
http://open.salon.com/blog/saturn_smith/2010/04/28/unconstitutional_laws_as_a_way_of_life
The whole point is that the states *do* have all powers not specifically given to the Feds.
Good example; More ‘laws’ that are not being enforced. In the Old West this was called “lawlessness”. I’ll be ready when the shootin’ starts.
The next step would be to remove members of Congress who violate their oaths to defend the Constitution when they vote for legislation that is blatantly unconstitutional. In addition, bureaucrats who, in the execution of their duties, violate the clear meaning of the Constitution should be barred from service with any government agency for at least several years, and it might not be bad to force them to take a Constitution course, as drivers have to take a driver’s course for driving privileges to be reinstated.
Your reaction and startling revelation to O’Donnell’s take on the U.S. Constitution is fairly common. The reason is those charged with teaching the civics of the U.S. Constitution teach the words without regard for their meaning. Few can define the Constitution in a single sentence. The Constitution defines the structure, powers and limitations of the U.S. government, and who holds the ultimate authority for its powers, that would be; “WE THE PEOPLE!”
Even a cursory reading of the Constitution reveals Congress as the senior partner. Congress has abdicated its responsibility, an act the framers of the Constitution could not imagine, or that would have taken steps to prevent it!
O’Donnell’s position on action of Congress be tied directly to the specific article of the Constitution should be made an amendment to the Constitution, worded so it applies to all three branches, with binding steel force. This of course would be devastating to those who would circumvent the Constitution. Yes it a living document, with a means built in for update. Liberals and lawyers would not like this as it would severely limit their mischief.
Robert, I have to disagree with you but you are on the right track.
“Congress has abdicated its responsibility, an act the framers of the Constitution could not imagine, or that would have taken steps to prevent it!”
The framers of our Constitution understood very well that the Constitution is not based on law and could not be implemented by law. If we are not controlled by concept we cannot be controlled by law. I think O’Donnell is trying to do the right thing and has a lot of support in that but the strategy cannot work. That is because we do not understand what is at issue. It is not a legal matter but we are trying to solve it with legal solutions. It is a moral matter and must be corrected by moral concepts. If those concepts are erroneous, then the solutions will also be in error. This is what I am trying to lift out in my main post.
I HATE the term “living document”. The constitution is a contract, no more, no less. Contracts are made to be abided by and they can be re-negotiated (amendment process) but no one should be twisting the meaning of the words or ignoring them. The contract is between “WE THE PEOPLE” and those we have elected to represent US. Those we have elected do not have the right to violate the contract. The courts responsibility is to determine when the contract has been violated and correct that violation. The idea of a “living document” wouldn’t go down very well if you hire a contractor to work on your house and they were to decide to change the terms without discussing and negotiating it with you. The government should not be doing this either.
As we set here and talk about this violation of our consitutional protections and discuss the whys our Federal Government is . . . preparing for ENFORCEMENT. Laws have been passed and scores of people are being trained on exactly how to go about collecting revenues from We the People. There will be a virtual totally new set of IRS forms that We the People will be deluged with. We will no longer be able to comprehend what this paperwork means . . . yet thousands of new aduitors are being produced that will invade every aspect of our lives. Our homes will be OPENED to inventory and our belongings will be evaluated, based on the fact that NOT one of us will be able to protect our holdings because we will be forced to pay . . . and when we can not pay . . . our belongings will be confiscated to pay. The real question is how this is going to be perpetrated . . . Obama has virtually created his “Home Army” . . . He has done so by creating a force of over 15 million unemployeed who are standing in line for that government job. The technical and business resources are there and just waiting. Over the next 6 years the country of our forefathers will cease to exist.
A requirement that all legislation and executive orders state expressly the bases on which they are deemed constitutional would be a constant reminder of the need for constitutional compliance…
The “healthcare” legislation, the bill that nobody read and nobody understood, should have been required to include a clause stating the basis for which, the Constitutional authority for which, the federal government can require the American citizen to purchase a product or service.
As it is, the closest we’ve come in the morass is vacillation between Congress’ taxing authority and the Commerce Clause.
The fights over this will go all the way to the Supreme Court.
(pardon me if I find all this absurd)
Then we have really enlightened stuff, like when challenged on this question Nancy Pelosi’s brilliant (cough) reply…”Are you kidding? Are you kidding?”
This current government is a cross between government by cudgel and government by ridiculousness.
We know, by his own words, that this President is hugely frustrated by all the official, Constitutional limits on government power (all those nasty preventive rules in the Bill of Rights constraining government authority !)and dreams about removing those Constitutional constraints and making the federal government all-invasive and all=inclusive.
It’s Barack Obama’s vision of Enlightenment.
Where is there any government authority to make me responsible? Irresponsibility has its consequences and the government has no authority to shield me from those consequences,neither does it have authority to try to force responsibility on me and our government has indulged in both, which would be unconstitutional.
By this reasoning the Farm program of crop subsidies and limitations is unconstitutional. It is also the president for demanding health insurance, seat belts, helmets, etc. Not touching on the wisdom or merit of these devices but the legality of the mandate. Making something legal is not synonymous with making it right. Jezebel made it legal to stone Naboth but could not make it legal for Ahab to take his property.
Thanks for an excellent article. Delaware is so positioned that Coons can probably see the U.S. Constitution from his house, he just can’t read it from that distance. Nor does he care to. Sad for the voters of Delaware.
Once more evidence in this article and some of the comments that “royalty” not answerable to the peons/ plebians … is acceptable in the USA.
Royalty of Lawyers /Congressmen / Judges who read / interpret the foundation document of the charter establishing the USA to suit themselves. The words of the Constitution of the USA are simple, amenable for anyone’s understanding. The document is short, needs little time to read. Written by persons who knew that their audience were not erudite, but simple, ORDINARY people, with basic skills in literacy. This document was written for them, remember WE the PEOPLE.
And now the new royalty, self- appointed of the lawyers / Congressmen of America decide they know better than the ordinary people, getting around, with legalese their own special, secret limited language, the clear meanings of the words of the Constitution. Control language and you control beliefs and behaviours. Orwell wasn’t the first person to understand this.
And the “representatives of the People” who are the ADMINSTRATORS of the government of this ordinary peoples’ nation decide the Constitution is not “relevant” to the changes in society within the past let’s say half century ?
For example the referenced “Pledge to America”? What is that? From elected
representatives. THEY, TO A MAN, ALREADY MADE A PLEDGE : their oath on accepting office as representative IS a pledge. That’s what an oath means. Here again it appears that the super intelligent super educated do not know meanings of the words of the national language. Meanings ordinary people so looked down on from the thrones of Congress and Harvard etc. do know.
The legal system detailed in the Constitution provides THE BEST DEFENCE against the very people who decide they know more than ordinary citizens about what those citizens, without consultation, want and how to provide it. To emphasise their superiority and “authority” dismiss ordinary people with insults and threats.
AND enact laws clearly unconstitutional, even if not so determined by the administrators in the Judiciary, to control and punish citizens. Citizens who do understand words and meanings of the foundation document of the USA. AND refuse to enforce laws they deem inconvenient to their designs which ARE constitutional and within the purview of their responsibilities.
WHAT DOES, WHAT CAN a Law respecting People do in the face of a Lawless administration of their government / nation.?
Hey! The Constitution was written a long time ago by a bunch of old dudes. They had only muskets that shot lead balls. No internet. No computers. No space flight. What could they know? Obama and his cronies are much smarter than them. Hell, we should just throw the dam thing out.
Your paraphrasing of Obumer & company is on the money. I would like to point out that, that antiquated document has provided a means for update, of course neither the President nor the Supreme Court ha a roll to play in that update.
Excellent point! I think we should also repeal the laws of thermodynamics. Then, we would have no more energy problems and few others. As noted in the linked bit of satire,
Not only that, but there should cease to be any places “where the sun don’t shine.” The so called laws of physics are so yesterday; they gotta go.
You realize Dan, Obama-Claus is making two lists, naughty and to be destroyed.
Very true but we did cut poverty, and way more than half with our industry producing things we were willing to pay for and giving income from the employment to pay for those products. This is the only way that we can share our wealth. We must work to produce. As R. G. LeTourneau loved to say, “Men can have what men produce.” We don’t produce the apple tree but, except we tend the tree, we will have no apples.
Ever wonder why everything south of the Rio Grande to Tierra de Fuego remained in poverty for so long and still is? Why wasn’t the United States also poor if it took government to remove poverty?
In a Democracy, the people get the government they deserve – Alexis de Tocqueville
I would add because they received what they demanded.
This is a good article raising many good questions yet does not touch the crux of the problem. Most of you do not speak my language so it may not be possible to communicate my thought. This language is not like English vs Mandarin which is of different origins but of the interpretation of the spoken word in English which has different interpretations. Conservative vs liberal, legal vs moral. When I first became aware of the Constitution Party, around 2000, I saw where its members were in error. Dan Miller has brought this to our attention quite vividly in this article.
~ Ro 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.~
I will start with this verse. If love is the fulfilling of the law then the law is moral rather than legal.
My paternal grandmother described it like this, we have trouble and we have success. They are like a team, a white and a black horse hitched to a double tree. A double tree is a wooden lever with a center pin attaching it to a wagon tongue with one horse on each side of that tongue. If your team is pulling even the double tree is straight across the tongue. Lets make that team with the white horse being our morals and the black horse our legalities representing law. When the white horse does not pull his load the black horse will pull the wagon into his heels and cause damage. If the white horse out-pulls the black horse the reverse occurs.
`The Apostle Paul as he writes to the Romans, and also to others, explains this relationship quite well so that we know that our Constitution is a moral instrument but government and law which is its body, is the material and visible part. We can all see your body but not your thoughts. Morals,rather than legalities, control the shape of this body. And that is where the problem lies. We have two different visions on what is moral. The law cannot discern between these two visions to determine which one is right and should be legal.
Therefore we need to refer back to what is moral and what is immoral. By our own reasoning we have nothing to determine this. The Bible is spiritual but the body carnal. This carnal mind of our body sees that spiritual body of the heart as foolishness.
Moses was given the ten commandments which are not law because they cannot be enforced by law but are observed by consent. Nevertheless, we see where Moses was given far more details which became legalities. If we take a close look at Matthew chapter 23 we see where the authorities of that day had heaped legality on legality till none could be kept.
We have somewhat the same situation with sects among the Amish and Mennonite growing from their Ana Baptist doctrines that were severely persecuted by the Roman Catholic, that is history,so cannot be changed,only denied, ignored or accepted. The point I want to make here is legalities. I have heard of one Amish sect that has a book of rules detailing just how they should dress and what they can use for tools and not use for tools. This is legalities that have nothing to do with the Gospel of salvation.
We do need rules we have and use them to control our traffic. We are at liberty to freely travel our highways but that does not remove the possibility of a collision. We also have many restrictions that do not apply to the world but to our denomination but are necessary for a sound spiritual life as taught by the Bible. Some things, such as tools and dress change but principles cannot change. Love does not change so they are safe guides where legalities are not.
I hope you were able to follow this reasoning because it does support our Constitution but also precedes our Constitution. Unless we are moved by love and compassion we will not keep our Constitution and most certainly the law as government cannot keep our Constitution. We can only keep it because we want to. We cannot confuse privilege or entitlements with rights. We cannot confuse Liberty with freedom. Liberty sets aside our rights in order to give someone liberty to perform his responsibility. In turn, he must give me liberty for my right of way. As we follow the Golden Rule we make this work as it should. It is not that you have the right to cross an intersection because the light is green and I wait because my light is red, then it changes. In other situations we just give the other the liberty to proceed. Consider this for it is what made this nation strong.
I have just listened to our church and both the introduction and the sermon touched on this subject bringing many more thoughts to the surface that would take more space than I have already used but one thought I want to mention.
The questions here have been about the Constitution, the law and our courts and government. The thought that struck me most is are you — am I — keeping the Constitution? You know I have no right to your money and/or property but do you believe you have a right to my money and property? If you believe the government has the right to take my property and give to another you are unconstitutional. If you believe you have the right to produce a product and hire help, thus distributing your wealth, as the proper way to share the wealth, then you are with our Constitution. We can spread this concept over a wide area.
Are you Constitutional?
” the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. ”
This is still the scariest statement to come out of this President’s mouth. This is THE path to tyranny, and either he’s that stupid he doesn’t see it, or he’s that confident that he’ll create it. Welcome to 1984
Well said.
For the record, my answer to my own question above is that neither Congress’ very limited taxing authority lined out in Article 1, section Eight nor the Commerce Clause provides any semblance of anything resembling Constitutional authority for the federal government to require a citizen to purchase a product or a service.
The Constitutional authority requiring you (aka the poor and weak citizen) to purchase “healthcare” insurance comes from Congressional arrogance alone.
However, as the authors and defenders of the Obamacare monstrosity go back and forth on this issue over the years (the Fla. judge just ruled that Congress can’t switch back and forth and will have to defend their claim under the Commerce clause alone), We The Peeps will get to be treated to new levels of absurdity.
Also for the record, since Barry can’t manage to give a stump speech these days without mentioning that R’s want to put the car in Reverse while D’s want to put the car in Drive…
I have one for him, from P.J. O’Rourke…
“Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.”
Reading Dan Miller certainly improves my constitution. Afterward, his words do make me feel better. And I agree O’Donnell has a much better grasp of the nation’s Constitution than her bearded Communist opponent, Chris Coons.
With the U.S. so media intent on savaging O’Donnell, it leads me to believe they are a few commies, I mean progressives, lying in the weeds. But all that savaging, when all is said and done, is turning out to be, for them, a horrible mistake, one of biblical proportions. For it’s given Christine an awareness she never had before; a chance to win. And if O’Donnell wins, the roof caves in on the commies.
SNL and the mainstream media savaged Christine O’Donnell. Now they’re experiencing savager’s remorse
What SNL, and the mainstream media did to a nice lady named Christine O’Donnell, as mouthpieces for Barack Obama, is liable to bite them in the butt.
You see, if you have a political opponent with low awareness, who’s down in the polls, you have to consider letting her campaign die a quiet death.
In the case of Christine O’Donnell, though, who was a self avowed communist….oh cripes, I got confused. It’s Coons, her opponent, who’s the self avowed communist. Let me start over.
However, in the case of Christine O’Donnell, who admitted in high school she associated with kids who dabbled in witchcraft, the mainstream media and SNL had an easy target. They just couldn’t resist taking some cheap pot shots at the woman who nobody knew. They couldn’t resist seeing how many broomstick jokes they could think up. In fact, the girls at MSNBC devoted entire shows trying to turn O’Donnell into the laughingstock of the nation (unfortunately for them, they have no ratings).
“There’s one Republican,” (as Jerry Brown’s team puts it; who won’t have a whore’s chance to win November 2). (Or was his team talking about his opponent for governor?) The more they mock, defame, sully, slander (calling a woman a “whore” is slander prima facie) and denigrate, the more confusing who the leftist speaker is.
Of course, the left savages Trig Palin, too. I’m not dismissing that. And I’m not forgetting how in 2008 Obama said putting lipstick on Palin was the equivalent of putting Revlon on a pig. If anybody detects a pattern of leftist language that savages Republican women, I’m willing to stipulate it to be true. But my habit of getting off track is not a good one. And I want to try to break it.
So where was I? Oh, yeah, I’m about to talk about the mistake the left is making with O’Donnell.
The trouble is, in savaging O’Donnell with “witch” jokes, the political party that likes to squander tax money by the trillions just might have shot themselves in the foot once again, mortally wounding Chris the self avowed Commie’s chances (and Harry Reid’s self avowed “pet”, whatever the heck Reid meant by that) of winning the race Chris Coons likens to beating a dumb “she dog” (you know what he said).
The mistake the Democrat folks made, as I see it, (besides disrespecting women) was giving O’Donnell tremendous awareness.
And if those nice folks who live in Delaware do some digging, and discover Coons is a rubber stamp vote for every runaway spending bill Obama gets stuck in his head; or tries jamming down America’s throat like “Cap and Tax” (brother of ObamaCare); or who knows what other money sucking scheme Obama and his merry men dream up, well, with Coons rubber stamp vote, we all stand to lose our shirts.
But Obama is now realizing with all the awareness Christine O’Donnell now has, and with all the awareness the people of Delaware potentially can gain; finding out, for example that, at the Grand in Wilmington, Coons and Obama were joking what a 15 trillion dollar deficit would look like, well, the leftists may be overplaying their hand. November 2 could turn out to be their Waterloo. Instead of soaking the taxpayers, Obama and Coons may get the soaking.
Now you know why Obama and Joe Biden flew like pixies into Delaware yesterday.
Now that Christine has a high awareness, they want to keep the awareness low what Coons the self avowed Communist really stands for. Big government. Tiny economy. Jobs? Only one for himself.
If the people find out that O’Donnell stands for a big economy and a little government, she wins; game, set and match. Then O’Donnell, the target of every joke on mainstream TV and SNL and the View for weeks, will win by a landslide in just a little over two weeks. Because a Coons victory would ensure a horrendous money slide from your wallets to Obama’s government coffers. Did you know that Coons raised taxes a cool 53%.
“Amidst all of the whirlwind surrounding Delaware Republican Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell, far too little attention has been paid to Chris Coons. Byron York helps fix that problem in his Examiner column:
“Coons, 47, is the top executive of New Castle County, home to a majority of Delaware’s population. From a Republican perspective, there’s one really important thing to know about his time in office: In 2004, when Coons first ran for the job, he promised not to raise taxes. Since then he has raised taxes not once, not twice, but three times.
“Coons inherited a surplus. Celebrating victory on election night in 2004, he said his “top priority would be to continue balancing the budget without increasing property taxes,” according to an account in the local News Journal. Yet in 2006, he pushed through a 5 percent increase in property taxes. In 2007, he raised property taxes 17.5 percent. In 2009, he raised them another 25 percent.”(Byron York, Sept. 17, 2010, the right wing liberal)
Doesn’t it make sense to elect the candidate who stands for big economy and little government. Who stands for not a future of food stamps, but a future of pay checks. I know I’m just Rachel Peepers. I’m just a girl, (I don’t care that the leftists like to call me nasty names; I call them bad things, too). But I really and truly think Christine O’Donnell would make a good senator. She gets it. She’s for jobs, not taxes.
Vote for Christine O’Donnell. While you can still afford the trip to the polls.
Rachel, thanks very much for the very kind words; I sincerely appreciate them. However, I don’t want to fly under false colors. Please keep in mind that I am an Agnostic, although I think the Judeo-Christian nature of our country is not only good but very important to her survival. As I observed here,
I am also one of those disgusting Yalies, having been graduated in 1963, and a (recovering) attorney as well.
There are more than a few of us in the conservative groups, although living in the distant Republic of Panama and not by nature a joiner, I don’t belong to any organized group. I think that there are other Agnostics (as well as homosexuals, even though I am not one and at least until the military implications are resolved don’t want to see DADT eliminated) who have similar views and I feel that we and they are essential if the basic objectives of the T.E.A. groups are to be realized.
I will gladly defend your religion, and hope that you and other Christians are not too offended by my lack of religion. There is plenty of room in the “tent” for all of us who fervently support the very basic premises — respect for and adherence to the Constitution, America’s safety, and minimal governmental meddling. If we can accomplish those things, the United States will be a far better place for us all.
Libertyship, #4
Then under Obamacare, the Federal Government will tell you what you can eat and how much you can eat, because if you’re one pound overweight you can be taxed at a higher rate…
Under the proposed scheme of electronic records keeping, everyone will be required to have a Body Mass Index (BMI) score in their medical records.
This number will be determined arbitrarily and bureaucratically, and nothing logical like body type or family history or genetics will be considered in issuing it.
You will live in fear of a too high BMI. Michelle, the Czarina of Fat, and the bureaucratic lady supervising Obamacare, Kathleen Sebelius, will come get ya.
Really, America, this stuff has gotta stop.
I wouldn’t worry too much about this; the freedom to be fat seems to be very much still with us. Have you looked around?
This article states the argument for “requiring a statement of constitutional authority” eloquently.
Each legislative bill should require a certification that a “constitutional assessment statement” has been researched, found “reasonalbly compliant” as “constitutional,” and be attached to the bill before voting occurs.
(The vote, of course should not be taken until the US public has had assess to the “complete bill” for a minimum of 7 “working days.”)
Any presidential veto should also have language outlining any adversarial disagreement.)
These “related documents” should serve the Supreme Court well in any deliberation requiring attention to the “intent of congress.”
(I’m not sure there is any precedent relative to the SCOTUS taking any similar attention to “presidential intent” when vetos are issued… I suppose the legal briefs of “all the president’s men” address that kind of deliberative concern.)
Now, to take this good argument further… If the EPA regulations can legally mandate an “Environmental Impact Assessment,” I would suggest that our new congress and states’ representatives similarly require a “Financial Impact Assessment” be attached to every federal and state bill mandating actions that will “impact taxpayers.” (I suspect “taxpayers” are a more “endangered species” than a small species of fish called a “snail-darter.)
Finally, to simplify the ongoing legislative process… eliminate “riders” to bills that are unrelated to legislation Iwhich unemcumbered would be passed only based on an “up or down” vote.
(In the event such legislative riders cannot be eliminated, they also should be subject to a “constitutional assessment statement” as well as a “Financial Impact Assessment.”)
This done, the “monster bills,” much political posturing, and our current judicial log-jam should be greatly alleviated. Lawyers efforts could be more efficiently directed towards dealing with more mundane matters, and attention could be given by congress to find ways to implement (not block) the Fair Tax,
On Meghan McCain’s “nutjob” comment (not to mention Coons’ noise this morning), I’m sure O’Donnell (and everybody else) would rather she be a conservative nutjob that a left/liberal with no nuts and no job.
Excellent article, Dan. To continue the debate on whether the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution: the Constitution itself does not make the the Supreme Court (or any federal court) the final arbiter of the Constitution, nor does the Constitution even grant to the Supreme Court the power to declare the laws of Congress or the States unconstitutional. As you know, the Supreme Court gave itself this “right” in its decision in Marbury vs. Madison. So as long as we want to keep the Constitution as the final word on how our government should govern, we should recognize that the Supreme Court is itself acting in violation of the Constitution when it rules on the constitutionality of state and federal laws. If Congress realized that it itself had the final responsibility, with the President, of only passing laws that were constitutional, I believe they would take their responsibility to pass constitutional laws much more seriously than they do now. And if Congress or the President passed laws that were not constitutional, the people would have the remedy of voting them out of office and replacing them with people who obeyed the Constitution. Currently, when the Supreme Court makes decisions that are clearly unconstitutional (Roe v. Wade in 1973), there is no easily applied remedy to fix it.
Is something constitutional is a good test. But not all things lawful are right.
The Ground Zero Mosque is legal. But not decent. Definitely, something not to be made the butt of jokes. Which most Americans agree with. Not all.
If you think Americans against a Ground Zero Mosque is a joke, join Chris Coons in a belly laugh.
Speaking of jokes, a Chris Coons campaign spokesman now says that the May 23, 1985 article Coons wrote for the Amherst Student (newspaper) called, “The making of a bearded Marxist” was just the result of another clown in the belly. “Media Matters”, the blog, says it was just a play off a joke his friends made. I guess “Media Matters” would have me assume that all those words inside the article were simply funny-bone produced. When Coons wrote about America’s “failures and faults”, I guess it was all part of the elbow in the ribs. You get it. Don’tcha?
So when SNL thought it would be hilarious to joke about putting an “added value” sort of Mosque at ground zero, how funny did Coons think that was upon seeing the finished product? I’m curious. I want to know. Is it funny like the United States of America has “faults and failures” (Coons’ words) is funny? Or is it funny that anybody would think that was funny? Come to think of it, I’m starting to wonder when Coons is being serious. But when a guy, let’s call him Coons, goes off to Kenya, Africa for the spring of his junior college year, then comes home and browbeats his country by pointing out its faults and failures, I start to wonder if all the joking isn’t really much more serious. Instead of a clown in the belly, mightn’t there be a hammer and sickle hiding down there? I’m just asking.
I mean, I’d be the first one to laugh at myself in some inane way. I can remember lots of times when lil’ ole’ blonde haired, blue eyed Rachel called herself a living breathing bearded Marxist.
NO I CAN’T. At least not the beard part.
But I do want for a minute to get serious about Chris Coons. Maybe I’m a silly girl, and the Jerry Brown whore thing along with the Christine O’Donnell, (let’s make her the laughingstock of the nation thing) has riled me up a touch.
Maybe Coons isn’t the 53% tax hiker that Byron York convinced me he is.
I guess, when all is said and done, I don’t really give a rat’s concern about a young college student telling off the nation that saved the world from totalitarianism. Twice within forty years.
But this Victory Mosque is my line in the sand. When SNL used it to rip the Republican Party a new one, I think that pushed me past my statutory limit for ignoring acts of indecency directed at Americans both wounded and killed on 9/11. My patience, I think I must admit, has worn a might thin.
Did you know that “Saturday Night Live” is not funny anymore? After almost 3,000 Americans are killed where the Twin Towers used to stand tall and proud, SNL turns it into a funny skit intended to make fun of Americans who believe a mosque is not a decent way to remember our dead. Muslims killed them. Were they terrorists? Of course. By definition they were. If you’re still reading, Rachel’s question is, are you laughing? Well, I’m not either because we love this nation. And, yes, the implication is clear as the bell of St. Mary’s. If you can laugh at death, you’re either a hero, or a traitor.
When SNL mockingly advertises the proposed mosque as the premiere place for gay weddings, I’m not laughing. When SNL advertises the mosque as New York’s best place for pregnancy terminations, my polite patience has reached its end; instead of adult murder, the joke’s on unborn slaughter. When they advertise the mosque as the natural choice for the naturalization of illegal Mexican immigrants, among other things, Rachel is one acetylcholine reaction away from doing something she’ll regret.
The Huffington Post says, and I quote, Bill Hader is hilarious as he advertises doing everything Americans fear in the place they fear most.
“It’s so much more than a mosque!” said the over-the-top faux announcer. With a 20 percent discount for active military!” The sick jokes come rapid fire like my M-14 on automatic.
Or maybe it’s me. Maybe Rachel Peepers has no sense of humor.
Which gets me back to Chris Coons who got so topsy-turvy when people took his “Bearded Marxist” headline seriously.
Where do we go from here, Mr. Coons? Do we meet with some SNL writers and talk about an even funnier idea? How about opening a lamp shop with 100% skin shades a block from Auschwitz?
“Is it funny like the United States of America has “faults and failures””
Do you deny that? I don’t. I know it to be true. If you want to smear apple pie fixins all over it to deny the truth, be my guest, but truth it is. I’d rather try to improve our country than to deny its reality in favor of a flag pin. Conservatives aren’t that way. For them the symbol is enough, because anything beyond the symbol requires hard work . . . and they’d rather complain than contribute.
So, according to this article (quoted above) http://www.slate.com/id/2268261/entry/2268304, a Sen. O’Donnell would have to have the Supreme Court review each and every piece of legislation for its constituionality if she chose to raise the issue during the legislative process.
The Constitution was meant to be understood by any literate person of even modest education and intelligence. It isn’t elaborate code requiring high-end experts to decipher. The Constitution belongs to the people, not the Supreme Court.
Oh, really. Is that why the judiciary, even district courts, so often has to rule on the “constitutionality” of legislation? Obamacare is a perfect example. First the Democrats insisted that forcing the purchase of health insurance was not a tax but permissible under the the federal government’s authority to regulate interstate commerce. Now that the constitutionality of the legislation has been challenged, the Obama Administration lawyers are arguing that in fact required purchase of health insurance is in fact a tax, an authority permitted by the Constitution. I guess our Democratic congressmen who voted for the bill were all “literate persons of even modest education and intelligence”. Or did they lie to the people to justify their passing the bill? So, where do these clever legislators get their advice on constitutionality issues? I bet they were surprised when the Obama Adminstration admitted that it was indeed a tax.
If Coons were right, O’Donnell would turn him into a frog.
Uh, don’t look now (he might hop away) but I think she did. During the debate, he was heard to say, repeatedly, “ribbit, ribbit, ribbit.”
I’m going to “walk into a WalMart pharamacy and put all their Oxycontin in a bag, walk out of the store without paying, and deliver it to Rush Limbaugh’s maid.”
Can’t do that? Show me the law, any law, that says I can’t do that.
Geez, people, really. You’re pimping out our Constitution to defend Christine O’Donnell. Have you no sense of decency? Of priority? Of truth?
Hello webmaster I like your post ….