I was listening to a piece on NPR this afternoon, Tea Party: It’s Not Just Taxes, It’s The Constitution, talking about the enthusiasm that Tea Party members have for the US Constitution and I was struck by their comment that many Tea Party members carry a copy of the Constitution around with them.
Karen Cole says she carries a copy in her purse. “The Democrats are eviscerating our Constitution,” she says. Her friend Betty Anne Olsen agrees. “This current administration is trashing our Constitution; they couldn’t care less about the values. They’re breaking the laws.”
It reminded me of my college days when some Christian students (they called them “Jesus freaks” back then) carried leather-bound copies of the Bible around with them. Now there’s nothing wrong with carrying a Bible or the Constitution; I have a copy of both on my iPhone, but there other parallels that are troublesome and I list some of them here:
- Attributing to the Constitution absolute moral authority and attributing infallibility to the Framers. They idealize the past.
- An attempt to reclaim the past by going back to the Constitution, devoid of the historical baggage of interpretation.
- Using the Constitution as a bastion against any kind of change.
- Reading the Constitution literally, devoid of historical/political/legal context, denying the possibility of any difference in interpretation.
- Reading individual words and short phrases out of the larger context of the document.
- The Constitution is used as a rallying point against perceived enemies.
- They justify their prejudices by the Constitution even if they don’t really know what the Constitution actually says (or doesn’t say) on the subject. (The birther claim that the Constitution clearly states that the President must have 2 citizen parents, is a great example.)
- They deny that the Constitution is a “living document” that has the possibility of adapting to changing conditions through novel application by the courts.
- They believe that the Constitution excludes viewpoints held by others, even to the point of calling those with other views “traitors” (“heretics” is the analogous religious term).
- They use the Constitution as a talisman, carrying conspicuously copies, either booklet or facsimile.
NPR said:
Tea Party members are often vague about exactly how their constitutional rights are being denied. But they all believe the federal government has expanded far beyond what the Constitution intended.
In that regard, I think Christian fundamentalists have a much better handle on exactly what they believe is wrong.
Don’t forget John Anderson: In his second term as a Congressman, Anderson introduced a constitutional amendment that would “recognize the law and authority of Jesus Christ” over the United States.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_amendment
This says it best:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/
When I was in college, some students walked around with buttons “Jesus is the answer.”
In the middle of a lecture, the professor walked up to a student with that button and said, “what’s the question?”
Another time, one student started talking about heaven. The professor, a priest, said to her “how do you know heaven exists? Did you ever get a postcard?” That poor girl was in tears.
More humor for the Post and Fail….This time from old friend Linda Starr….
“Charles Manson, cult leader and convicted serial killer of the 1960’s, used to preach race war and tried to incite it…Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s politics of the “Twelfth Imam” require CREATING mass bloodshed to usher in the ‘Mahdi’, the ultimate savior of mankind…and now the Faux First Lady who is the total antithesis of Laura Bush: Michelle Obama Rouses NAACP Before Vote Condemning Racist’ Elements of Tea Party
The Tea Party represents Americans who want to return to the principles of our Constitution and of our Founding Fathers. By relentlessly insisting, against all evidence, that we are racist can only imply that the NAACP and their supporters intend on pressing for a race war as a way of achieving their political goals. Shame on them. And shame on Michelle Obama using her position to facilitate this kind of division in our country.
Or are they just playing the game of race “chicken” with us, hoping that we’ll just give in to their agenda and abandon the U.S. Constitution as “reparations” for all of our sins?
Do their ends really justify their means?
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/07/14/20183/
“The NAACP has passed a resolution condemning racism in the Tea Party movement.
The resolution was approved in a vote by more than 2,000 delegates at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in Kansas City.
Versions of the resolution condemned “explicitly racist behavior” in the Tea Party movement and called on people to “repudiate” what it described as racist elements of the Tea Party. The final text of the resolution has not yet been made available, however, and that language may have changed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20010467-503544.html
Please do not make the error of thinking that all the folks involved in this lack intelligence. I have recently found that people I respect and are quite intelligent are buying into this. I assume they failed to speak to me about it because my views are known, I have also been reading the book “Bonhoeffer” by Eric Metaxas. Many intelligent Germans embraced an evil philosophy in a time of stress and national fear. Please understand, I am not equating anyone with the Nazis but only the tendency to abandon principle under threats real or perceived. Misha, I think you tend to characterize these folks as naive or out of touch. The folks I know are not. And that my friend, really concerns me. None of this lessons my faith in Christ just in some Christians.
Interesting response from the tea bagger crowd…Of course the movement has nothing to do with race….
http://blog.reidreport.com/2010/07/tea-partier-mark-williams-writes-open-letter-to-lincoln-from-the-coloreds/#more-15246
If you’re feeling pissy that the NAACP condemned your witch doctor signage and you’re out to prove that your movement isn’t racist, wouldn’t it help not to actually say anything that might be construed as racist?
Mark Williams, right wing talk show host, CNN favorite and “organizer” of the corporate-backed Tea Party Express, was all over the airwaves Wednesday, defending “the movement” against the NAACP’s condemnation. I guess Sarah Palin’s linguistic stylings and Michael Steele’s pitifully toned down tweets weren’t enough to get the point across, so Williams was meant to be the closer.
But Williams has a strange way of proving he and his movement aren’t racist…
WILLIAMS: You’re dealing with people who are professional race baiters, who make a very good living off this kind of thing. They make more money off of race than any slave trader ever. It’s time groups like the NAACP went to the trash heap of history where they belong with all the other vile racist groups that emerged in our history.
But Williams was just getting started. Also Wednesday, he took his “non-racist” commentary to the next level, penning his version of an “open letter” to Abe Lincoln … from the “colored people…” in which he accuses black people, or sorry “coloreds,” of not wanting to work, of “striving for welfare,” and wanting to buy “flat screen TVs” with white people’s stolen money. Seriously. It’s an apparent attempt at satire, I suppose, but which aligns perfectly with the views of the tea party movement, which is by and large a mash-up of Libertarians who want to get rid of Social Security, disappointed Palin cultists and old geezer racists who believe Obama only got himself elected so he can steal all the white people’s money and hand it out in the hood.
Williams has a lot of experience being the classy face and voice of the tea party movement. Just in the last six months, his group has been the “brains” behind the nutbag Sharron Angle campaign …
And Williams, who not surprisingly is also a right wing talk jock, has distinguished himself in many ways…
Calling President Obama an “Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief”:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200911200047
Tea Party leader and regular CNN, Fox News guest Mark Williams repeatedly calls opponents “faggot”
As we’ve noted, the Tea Party Express spokesman has also called President Obama and Jimmy Carter “Nazis,” and referred to Obama as the “racist in chief.” Williams is a birther who has forwarded claims that Obama was born in Kenya.
I once stooped to entering a ‘debate’ with a Redemptionist. He claimed to be a “Sovereign citizen” of one of the States, but NOT a citizen of the United States.
The person was making one wrong statement after another about what the Constitution said. Each time I simply refuted him by cutting and pasting the appropriate text from the Constitution.
He(she) said that the only law we needed was the Constitution, I replied that the founders didn’t think so or they wouldn’t have defined the Legislative branch in the Constitution; he/she went on and on about how the 14th amendment was unconstitutional, I pointed out that part of the Constitution can not be unconstitutional; he/she claimed that Congress passed amendments and of course they are unconstitutional if they go against the original provisions of the Constitution, I pointed out that Congress proposes amendments and States ratify them, the same States that he claims to be a citizen of, so it was ratified by him(her).
Finally he/she said (approximately): Do you know that the founders never intended that the Federal Government not have a central seat or specified boundaries, that it is just a collection of independent States with no authority to do anything. “And do you realize that the Washington D.C. was only established in 1871? Think about that!”
I pointed out the clause in Article I Section 8 that reads:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
I suggested that he think about this: The Constitution was completed in 1787, formally ratified by 1788 and the Government began operation in 1789. The location of the ‘federal city’ was chosen in 1790, the City of Washington was named in 1791. Congress held its first session in Washington in 1780. If the authors never meant there to be a capital city as the seat of government why did those self same authors go to so much trouble establishing the seat of government?
I added that before the Organic act of 1871, District of Columbia and the City of Washington (and Georgetown and Alexandria) were administered as separate entities. In 1871 Congress combined them all into the District of Columbia, and The City of Washington officially and legally ceased to exist. Washington D.C. is just a nickname, like ‘the big Apple’ or ‘the Windy City’.
He retorted “If you are going to continue to insult me like that I am not going to publish my in-depth analysis of ” and I don’t believe that poster has surfaced since, but I could be wrong, its a big site.
Liars, hypocrites and fools, all of them.
Point me to ONE who objected to Buxh/Cheney’s egregious grab for executive power and general ignorance of the Constitution and I’ll listen.
Not a peep from that crowd. But Obama is a communist, who is taking our freedom away.
As I wrote before, I personally know someone of Arabic descent, who was convicted when the Constitution was ignored on two types of “evidence.” Arab and Muslim – a subversive for sure. Don’t let the Constitution get in the way of a conviction.
Of course, someone who bothers reading Article III of the Constitution knows that treason is not only difficult to prove, but also given a very narrow definition:
There is a small but similar movement in the UK of people who believe that the law of the land of England and Wales consists only of common law and that statutory law only applies to commercial arrangements in which consent to the statute is given. A video has been put online of one of these nutters disrupting Magistrates’ Court proceedings that had been brought against an individual for failure to pay Council Tax. Amusingly, he seems to think that the birth certificate of the defendant magically forces the court to regard the defendant as present and the “lay advisor” holding the certificate as having standing to represent him.
Was that a typo? Or, was something different was meant by the comment?
I share your experience, and I might add “not racists” to that. The reason that otherwise normal people hold such fantastical views eludes me and that is why I write so much on the topic, in an attempt to understand it better.
I’m working on another article titled: Birther sideshow, that will focus on the gullibility of birthers. Here too I must keep in mind what you say.
“misha 14. Jul, 2010 at 9:55 pm misha(Quote) #
When I was in college, some students walked around with buttons “Jesus is the answer.”
In the middle of a lecture, the professor walked up to a student with that button and said, “what’s the question?”
Another time, one student started talking about heaven. The professor, a priest, said to her “how do you know heaven exists? Did you ever get a postcard?” That poor girl was in tears.”
Those crazy Jesuits! Always stirring stuff up!
That video & its comments are just too much. So the U.K. has its own “Fitzy”. The comment about the 2 6/7% were truly amazing. I thought that innumeracy was only taught in American schools, but apparently it has leaked back across the pond.
My husband is a liberal Democrat, although with not as many socialist tendencies as I, LOL, and he also has a pocket Constitution that he carries around. However, he also carries a book by Gore Vidal that offers many quotes of the founding fathers – especially Thomas Jefferson – in which they state that they knew the Constitution to be flawed and that Jefferson hoped that every generation of educated and enlightened citizens, who were evolved and learned, would revisit the constitution and make necessary changes accordingly. Needless to say, when his co-workers begin to spout the absolute BS they hear from Fox News and the right wing pundits, he immediately points them to the correct information and is able to cite references. Their usual response? “I just don’t believe that.”
There are presumably intelligent people who still regularly fall for old and new internet scams. I believe the motivation is greed.
And well they should, since the idea of a document being alive is a transparent sophism employed to camouflage the de facto commandeering of the amendment process by the courts.
Speaking of transparent sophism . . .
Experience suggests you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, but you are welcome to elaborate all the same. Before you do, however, you might want to consider why Lincoln’s suspension of the Great Writ during the Civil War did or did not constitute a far more egregious power grab, and whether you are prepared to defend the proposition that the Constitution is indeed a suicide pact.
Or perhaps a realization that basic attitudes change. Did we really need a Constitutional amendment to strike segregation? Did we need a constitutional Amendment to strike down state anti-miscegenation laws? Did we need a constitutional amendment permitting married couples to purchase birth control? Attitudes change. The Constitution isn’t a set of laws that covers every possible event in the interation of people. It is a broad document written in vague language, that was the product of a series of compromises. It is not a holy script, handed down by God, or the product of idealist, trying to write a perfect document….and considering textual originalism is a legal interpretive philosophy that is only around 30 years old, how do you think the courts had treated the document for the other near 200 years?
Well said. Some day we may need an amendment to prohibit discrimination against human clones and sentient robots.
Another line these people like to throw out is Socialism is proven to be a failed policy because Russia fell.
They don’t know the difference between Socialism and Communism, it’s all the same to them.
Basic values don’t; and to the degree they are abandoned, the Constitution goes with them, whether it’s nominally in force or not.
“It is not a holy script, handed down by God”
They treat the Constitution the same way they treat Leviticus of the Bible.
They pick out which parts they like and to hell with the rest of it.
Which is hypocritical since all Americans in many ways are dependent upon the products and services of democratic socialism. If they want to pick and choose, fine. That’s why we have Senators and Representatives and the right to vote.
If we all were strictly originalist we would not have ANY of the amendments, including the Bill of Rights. How do you think we have any of the basic rights we all take for granted?
Yguy,
Still waiting for a response to my question, if I didn’t know any better I would feel you really are that immature and insecure 13 year old that has been discussed of.
Why oh why can’t you answer a simple question?
In case you’ve forgotten, the question is.
So, Yguy, do tell.
You want, nay demand to see the mystical long form as you have “issues” with the short one.
What precisely IS it you expect to see in said form that differs from the posted COLB.
Please, enquiring minds need to know, you have never ACTUALLY illuminated our darkness with your wisdom in this area, really, I and others need to know.
What is your requirement, what is it you need to see and will the “long form” suffice.
No squirming now, simple request, what is or are the elements that would calm your fevered mind.
I’m going to go way out on a limb and guess that you won’t get a logical or coherent response if any at all. Ditto for Bovril.
You obviously don’t know the meaning of the word.
They are an endowment from the Creator.
Speak for yourself, if you don’t mind.
Basic values don’t change?
Let’s look at some of those basic values from the founders’ time. An African American is 3/5 a person, and can be considered personal property (a value our founders enshrined in and specifically protected in the Constition). As this is personal property, and not a human being, you can force yourself upon the female 3/5 person you own, and it would not be rape. You can sell the offsprping of this union, and that’s ok, because since it is the product of a union with 3/5 of a person, it’s really not your child in any real sense. If you like, you could even kill your 3/5 person, and as it is your presonal property, there is no threat of prosecution under the law.
The lot of women wasn’t much better. Women were also little more than chattel. A married woman could not own personal property. Under the law a married woman could not be raped by her husband. A man could beat his wife without fear of prosecution (as long as he didn’t beat her too hard as to cause serious damage). A woman would have to suffer all this, and certianly could not ask for divorce on these grounds, because afterall, the values of the time required women fill a certain role, and that role was secondary to the man.
Now again, how do these very basic values on how we treat our fellow human unchanged?
You also left out the part where if you didn’t own property you couldn’t vote. So if you rent good luck having your voice heard.
Sorry, I don’t believe in fairy tales.
Please state for the record which amendments to the Constitution were brought into being by the courts and not the amendment process, using as your source a mainstream publication such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, the New York Times, Boston Globe, Time, Newsweek, etc., or a reputable textbook published by a mainstream publisher such as Houghton Mifflin, Scott Foresman, etc. And no, I don’t mean interpretations of the Constitution, such as have been going on since Marbury v. Madison. I mean AMENDMENTS.
In short, put up or shut up. Thank you.
You are confusing the Declaration of Independence & the Constitution. The Constitution is the basis of our government & laws, not the Declaration. And certainly not ANY “holy” book.
“Before you do, however, you might want to consider why Lincoln’s suspension of the Great Writ during the Civil War did or did not constitute a far more egregious power grab,”
Funny you should mention that. Because in my opinion Lincoln is probably more responsible for changing our interpretation of the Constitution than any other. I think Lincoln’s actions were both unconstitutional and the best course of action for the United States. Lincoln saved the Union and the Great United States that people look back on so nostalgically is the result of his actions.
So should Lincoln have been impeached or applauded?
Enlighten us, yguy. How about you pick a side and argue it. I’m pretty sure that I haven’t seen a fully formed argument from you yet.
Did Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War constitute a far more egregious power grab than Bush/Cheney’s? Why or why not?
Does that justify Bush/Cheney’s power grab?
Is the Constitution a suicide pact and if not, were our options limited to suicide or Bush/Cheney’s power grab?
Was the threat of suicide greater from jihadists than from Timothy McVeigh and the militia movement? Was the threat of suicide greater from jihadists or from the Soviets and their nuclear arsenal?
There are a few sick minds who fantasize about returning to that society.
No wait- I want to hear from Yguy what are these basic rates that the Creator endowed upon all humans. Really i do.
But then, any good birther will swear by Vattel which would include the notion of a state mandated theocracy.
Is Yguy fantasizing about how endowed we are?
I stopped reading here. Get back to me when your understanding of constitutional principles surpasses that of a sea urchin. TIA.
Says the one who confuses the constitution with the declaration of independence
Neither did Franklin or Jefferson, and neither do I. 😉
But you said you believe our basic rights are endowed by a creator, so clearly you do believe in fairy tales.
You’re half right. Even granting the dubious premise that suspension of the Great Writ is reserved exclusively to Congress, Lincoln can reasonably be presumed to have been acting in pursuance of the objectives stated in the Preamble, which in exigent circumstances trumps everything else in the Constitution.
Then so did Jefferson and Franklin, since both affirmed their belief in a Creator by their signature on the DoI.
Right?
Evidently the meaning of “de facto” escapes you.
You need to be specific about what either of them did that was beyond the authority of their respective offices. I suggest you name one such violation, and take your best shot.
Well, there was the little outing of a CIA agent, which in a lot of people’s book was high treason.
So says the person with no legal trainin, who seems to think that Constitutional principles come from the Declaration of Independence, but something that was actually written into the Constitution is not?
I guess I should be greatful that my Comlaw professors had a different view of my understanding of constitutional priniciples…but hey, what does a law school professor have on you?
Here’s a pretty good list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_of_the_United_States#Executive_Branch_scandals_2
And pray tell where do you come up with this wholly unsupported concept that the preamble trumps everything??? And you talk about others’ lack of understanding Constitutional principles?
She was “outed” by Armitage, not W or Cheney – not that I’ve ever seen any convincing evidence that her status was such a big secret to begin with.
Signing statements that acted either to interpret their law (role of the judiciary), or pretty much re-write the law (role of the legislature), by exempting themselves from falling under the law.
And if you want a couple of specific examples (there were about 1000 during his time in office):
Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
Bush’s signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ”prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay.”
Bush’s signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.
Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.
Bush’s signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.
“Lincoln can reasonably be presumed to have been acting in pursuance of the objectives stated in the Preamble, which in exigent circumstances trumps everything else in the Constitution.”
Wow. I guess I missed that part in the Constitution. The President can ignore everything below the Preamble in order to support the objectives of the Preamble?
So if the President decided that there is a Health care crisis he could unilaterally impose health care since the Preamble says the Constitution is established to “promote the general Welfare,”
You are REALLY clueless!
Republican Congressman Bob Inglis of South Carolina, defeated in a recent primary, criticizes Senator David Vitter for promoting birtherism. Quoting Inglis: “As to the Birther matter, let me be clear. The president is obviously a citizen of the United States. … So, really we do lose credibility when we spend time talking about such things. Why do we do that? We do it because we want to vilify the other side. We want to make them into the big bad guys.”
Before we get bogged down with Yguy’s nits, lets discuss his assertions:
“And well they should, since the idea of a document being alive is a transparent sophism employed to camouflage the de facto commandeering of the amendment process by the courts”
Examples please Yguy.
“Basic values don’t; and to the degree they are abandoned, the Constitution goes with them, whether it’s nominally in force or not.”
Examples please Yguy. What are the basic values that are expressed in the Constitution that you see as being abandoned or being proposed to be abandoned?
I’m asking you to explain your beliefs. For example, you said:
Why don’t you tell us what Lincoln did, specifically, and tell us what it was a far more egregious power grab than, specifically?
Can you explain what you believe? Or is that beyond you?
Do you, in fact, believe anything?
Jefferson as well as many of the Founders were Deists and Freemasons, who while they believed in a Creator, had serious doubts about the divinity of Christ. Many of them would not be considered Christians by todays evangelicals. It was their belief in a God without a necessary belief in Christianity that helps explain Article 11 of the 1797 Treaty with Tripoli:
“Article 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
Approved unanimously by the Senate and signed by President Adams.
Not exclusively.
Signing statements don’t do that. Insofar as they go beyond empty rhetoric, they just state the President’s view of his responsibilities under the law to which they pertain in light of the Constitution, which the President is required to interpret so as to enable obedience to his oath of office.
Again, didn’t bother reading the rest.
No, he needs to be aware of which takes precedence, just as he cannot under the Constitution execute a statute that legalizes slavery.
That is a perversion of what I’m talking about – and essentially what Obama et al are doing by contriving a health care emergency so as to accrue power to themselves by addressing it.
Wickard v Filburn, Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas come to mind.
Liberty and justice are being abandoned in favor of license, the cultivation of which inevitably leads to the innocent being murdered or enslaved by the guilty.
And…?
You do realize the government is not the nation, right?
And they are a de facto commandeering of the amendment process how?
Is it possible for you to speak in vaguer, less concrete terms?
How about – “bad things are being done by people instead of good things done by people about stuff.”
C’mon yguy, if you keep going down this road, next you’ll be explaining where in the Constitution you find liberty and justice enshrined and giving concrete examples of how they’re being abandoned in favor of license and how, exactly, innocent people are being murdered or enslaved by the guilty. And that would endanger your streak of never giving actually making an argument!
and can you explain where one finds the score card as to which provisions of the constitution take precidence of which?
Folks.
Yguy is a ridiclulous little troll who has never ACTUALLY been capable of articulating ANY of his stances so why ask him,,,,?
I’ve been asking the same simple question of him for 2 weeks now and he still refuses to answer, exactly the same as with every other question above, a sure sign of the shallowness of his intellectual basis.
I intend to continue asking this simple question every time he posts
Balls in your court Yguy……again I told you, I can keep this up for ever.
I once had someone argue that parts of the constitution can override other parts simply because congress makes its own rules of decorum. Saying somehow punishing Joe Wilson for the You Lie amounted to restricting his freedom of speech
Incorrect Armitage was just one person who outed her Libby also did. So tell me just because one person robs a bank first do you let the accomplises off the hook?
Its not the president’s duty to intepret laws that is the courts the executive enforces them
OK, point out in the Constitution where it says ‘no regulation of interstate commerce’, ‘no abortions’, and ‘no gays allowed’.
And you do realize that the governent was created and derives its authority from the Constitution (a non-Christian document). And that the Nation is based on that non-Christian document.
To prove that he’s a coward who runs from inconvenient truths faster than an Italian from British soldiers?
Any SC decision that rests on a misinterpretation of a constitutional provision stands as such as long as it remains in force by the acquiescence of the other branches.
No need to explain that, as they’re in the very first sentence.
The most obvious example is Roe, which has effectively legitimized promiscuity at the expense of the unborn.
I wait with bated breath for the explanation of how these decisions were rested upon a misinterpretation of a constitutional provision.
Yguy is typical of the birthers. He gathers up birther and tea party propaganda that he con spout on blogs all over the internet, without having to bother to learn enough about the subject to have a real understanding of it.
That is why he will never answer direct questions put to him from real people. The answers to those questions aren’t in the sack o’ slogans he carries with him.
Which sentence? Which liberty specifically is enshrined in the first sentence?
Where in Roe is promiscuity mentioned? Is promiscuity not liberty? What about privacy? The government cannot search your house without a properly issued warrant, but they can force women to carry a fetus to term against her wishes and against the advice of her doctor?
For anyone who realizes that the Constitution was made for America rather than the reverse, and who understands that the Preamble says where we want to go while the rest of the Constitution says how we want to get there, it doesn’t take any cogitation at all to see which must take precedence.
“Any SC decision that rests on a misinterpretation of a constitutional provision stands as such as long as it remains in force by the acquiescence of the other branches.”
This is like arguing with someone about their religious faith.
Like it or not, a Supreme Court decision is the legal interpretation of the law in our country. You may disagree- as I do say for instance regarding the Supreme Courts recent ruling regarding Corporate political payoffs- but it is the legal interpretation and has to be enforced by the Executive.
This is in no way “the de facto commandeering of the amendment process by the courts”, it is the courts interpreting the law and the constitution. Somebody has to do the interpretations.
If you don’t like it- then use the Constitutional process- push for a Constitutional amendment reversing any decisions you disagree with.
By the way- how is Wickard V Filburn an example of the Supreme Court misintrepreting an amendment anyway? Commerce Clause is in the original Constitution.
More accurately, a nonreligious document.
No, the nation is not based on the Constitution. It is based on the collective character of its citizens.
“Liberty and justice are being abandoned in favor of license, the cultivation of which inevitably leads to the innocent being murdered or enslaved by the guilty.”
So……Liberty and justice….as originally envisioned by the writers of the Constitution are being abandoned…… in favor of license? which inevitably leads to the innocent being murderd or enslaved by the guity?
At the time of the Constitution, Slavery was legal through most of the Union. Women did not have liberty. Children could be put to work under horrendous conditions and worked to death.
Justice? If you were a white male, and wealthy, you mostly had full access to a justice system. But if you were Native American, that justice was tenuous at best.
Native Americans and African Americans were among the innocents legally murdered and enslaved at the time of the Constitution- and you are saying that we are abandoning Liberty and Justice?
I get that you are coming from a strongly anti-abortion point of view, and apparently you have real issues with people havin sex outside of marriage too.
But your point of view about what constitutes Liberty or Justice are just wrong. Your kind abhore true liberty. You want government to constrain and restrict personal liberties that offend you.
Quoting Justice Kennedy “Liberty protects the person from unwarrented government intrusions.”
“For anyone who realizes that the Constitution was made for America rather than the reverse, and who understands that the Preamble says where we want to go while the rest of the Constitution says how we want to get there, it doesn’t take any cogitation at all to see which must take precedence.”
What nonsense. The Preamble does indeed state the purpose for the Constitution, but it is such a broad statement that it by itself could be interpreted by you and i completely differently. That is why the Constitution does spell out the specifics, and its why you can’t ignore the specifics if you feel the specifics disagree with the Preamble.
The constitution is Yguy’s version of Leviticus he picks and chooses which parts are valid and which should be followed
And can you show anywhere in the Constitution where the unborn have any rights, or promiscuity is the subject of any regulation?
Well, you have it almost right. The preamble is an aspirational statement, but you have it backwards. The specific provisions of the Constitution are what wins the day, not a vague statement about the board goals of establishing the union. You’re not going to get around a specific Constitutional provision by saying your ultimate goal is supported by the preamble. You’re never gonig to win a legal argument based on the preamble.
Thanks for the compliment. I’m one of those Jewish New York liberals you read about. We’re still celebrating the affirmation of reproductive freedom, which is going to be secure with THREE Jews on the Court.
I suggest you read this: http://gawker.com/5441576/why-do-the-jews-hate-sarah-palin-so-much
You’ll enjoy my comments.
My wife and I lived together for two years before marrying, with my mother in the same house. Before that, my mother let girlfriends stay overnight.
Eat your heart out.
That’s an easy one. Any Amendment supersedes any prior amendment & any provision in the original Constitution. That’s what the amendment process means.
An interesting side note. The 27th Amendment was originally proposed in 1789, but only finally ratified in 1992. If any amendment prior to the ratification of the 27th had dealt with the same topic it would have been superseded by the wording of the 27th. That’s one of the reasons that time limits have been placed on recent proposed amendments like the ERA.
Yguy is a Christofascist. Vote Democratic if you don’t want the country theocratized. He’s guided by a book of fairy tales.
Jerry Falwell, in a speech at his Liberty “University,” called the 1st Amendment “a mistake,” and called for an amendment to nullify the 1st, “with the Jewish people declared a protected amendment.”
Roe presumed to divine, from provisions (mainly 14AS1) which made not the slightest pretense of providing any such definition, that “person” cannot possibly include unborn children. Lawrence twisted 14AS1 to contrive a right to engage in sexual perversion. Wickard interpreted the commerce clause, which can only reasonably apply to transactions (other than with Indians) which cross state lines, so as to allow preventing a man from engaging in noncommercial activity.
I didn’t say *a* liberty was enshrined.
Who the hell cares?
No, it’s license.
No, they can prosecute her and the abortionist for killing it out of convenience.
Nonsense. The President swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, not SC rulings.
So you think a decision made by 5 unelected people is properly checked by the act of a supermajority of states. Have I got that right?
Wow. 🙂
Whoa! Somebody has some serious growing up to do.
That’s because I still have the common sense you abandoned so long ago.
Hmm. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside…”
How do you fit unborn into born? Seems pretty clear that born means born and unborn means something different, something “un-.”
I guess you’re saying that fetuses are naturalized in the United States? I guess I missed that part of my wife’s pregnancies.
Specifics, please?
Do you also disagree with Griswold v. Connecticut, which “contrived” a right to engage in sexual perversion, specifically non-procreative sex – i.e. buying contraceptives. If so, is there any sexual perversion the government is not allowed to control? Can they make you to copulate in the missionary position or outlaw blowjobs?
If not, I await your Constitutional distinction between blowjobs which were outlawed in most states and gay sex.
Define noncommercial? Was the argument in Wickard really that the growing of wheat was noncommercial or that the commercial activity was limited to local, intrastate use?
If I shoot out the tires of every interstate truck that passes in front of my house, I’m not getting paid for that, but it certainly affects interstate commerce, right? But, the Feds cannot regulate my behavior because I’m not getting paid for it? And if I write an iron-clad contract that my drugs cannot be used outside of my state, they don’t have to comply with FDA regulations?
Hey, yguy: I had a fling with this model: http://ubereye.deviantart.com/gallery/
Eat your heart out.
“Roe presumed to divine, from provisions (mainly 14AS1) which made not the slightest pretense of providing any such definition, that “person” cannot possibly include unborn children. Lawrence twisted 14AS1 to contrive a right to engage in sexual perversion. Wickard interpreted the commerce clause, which can only reasonably apply to transactions (other than with Indians) which cross state lines, so as to allow preventing a man from engaging in noncommercial activity”
We could argue the decisions, but once again, someone has to decide these cases. In the Constitution, that power rests with the Supreme Court. if you don’t like that, then you should change the Constitution.
Please, let us not forget who the teacher is (that would be me) and who the remedial con law student is (that would be you).
Can they prosecute her for killing it for non-convenience reasons?
Apparently you do, since you say that Roe legitimized promiscuity. What about Griswold v. Connecticut, which said that the state could not forbid married people from buying contraceptives. That case was concerned with promiscuous non-procreative sex. Do you agree that the government can forbid married folks from buying or using a rubber?
Please distinguish between license and liberty.
Since the first law outlawing abortion before the quickening of the fetus wasn’t enacted until 1803, how does prosecuting the woman and the abortionist for killing a pre-quickened fetus enshrine a constitutional principle?
“Nonsense. The President swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, not SC rulings.”
Yes, and the each branch of our government has its purpose defined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the branch that is entrusted with judicial power. The Executive is entrusted with enforcing the law, and that includes judicial decisions.
I can only infer from your statement that you advocate a government where the Executive would ignore any Supreme Court decision that it says is ‘unconstitutional’. If you don’t see the danger there, then we are probably at an impass.
Oh please….with every comment you post, you total lack of anything regarding the law become more and more apparent.
Oh great teacher, provide a single case that has been decided on the basis of the preamble of the Constitution…
“That’s because I still have the common sense you abandoned so long ago.”
I haven’t seen much of an example of what i could consider common sense from you. I would imagine what you consider common sense is something i have never had.
Apparently where we differ is that i would like the government to follow the rule of law rather than common sense. Because common sense is not defined nor agreed upon by everyone. The Constitution, and laws provide the framework that everyone should be able to rely upon.
I may use my common sense when deciding what bread to pick out at the market. I don’t want my government using ‘common sense’ when deciding what personal behaviour I am allowed to do. I don’t want the government legislating my morals.
So we’ve discovered that yguy has as much respect for freedoms and Constitutions as Mahmoud Ahmednijad. .
Not surprising, really.
Yguy is a fundie or a Holy Roller. Classic authoritarian: he spends his day worrying that someone, somewhere is having fun.
Hey, yguy: I’m going to bake some Alice B. Toklas brownies.
Actually, there was a single paragraph in Roe of whether a person could include unborn, and it has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. It was a side argument made by amici that was easily dismissed with the observation that no use of the word person in the constitution implied it could include a fetus. The decision was based on balancing the interests of the state in preserving prenatal life and the woman’s interest in privacy (which grows out of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments). As the fetus develops and become viable, the state’s interest increase, and the woman’s decreases.
Strike one oh sage professor.
Lawrence? It appears you’re basing you entire interpretation of the case on Scalia’s dissent. Besides my issue with the government (or you for that matter) become aribitor of what is sexually acceptable and what is prevision (particularly when it runs contrary to medical definition), Lawrence struck down Bowers, which was a case full of historic inaccuracies. Lawrence protected the rights of individual consenting adults to decide for themselves what they do in their bedrooms. For someone who was touting liberty not so long ago, I’m surpirsed you’re so supportive of the government peering under your bedsheets.
Strike two.
Wickard…how unreasonable is it to recognize that intra-state activities can effect interstate commerce? So unreasonable that no court has overruled it in 70 years?
Three, and you’re out.
“yguy 15. Jul, 2010 at 1:20 pm yguy(Quote) #
She was “outed” by Armitage, not W or Cheney – not that I’ve ever seen any convincing evidence that her status was such a big secret to begin with.”
You have it 1/3 right. Valerie Plame was outed by leaks to Robert Novak from Armitage, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. The evidence presented in the case United States v. I Lewis Libby showed Ms Plame’s status was indeed a Big Secret. The evidence also suggested the information was leaked to Cheney who leaked to Libby and Bush. Bush leaked it to Rove. Libby’s conviction on two counts of perjury, obstruction and making false statements to federal investigators were based on the fact that he lied to the FBI and the Justice Dept about what Cheney told him about Plame. Libby’s crimes prevented the FBI from finding for certain that Cheney was the original source of the leak.
Jo that reply doesn’t even make sense
As I was curious about Yguy’s assertions i did a quick websearch, and wow. Let me put it this way- this is not the first time that he has stated that the Preamble has primacy over the rest of the Constitution.
I can’t even imagine a United States where the President could unilaterally take action soley because it would be for the ‘welfare’ of the people of the United States without any other law to support his actions.
“So if the President decided that there is a Health care crisis he could unilaterally impose health care since the Preamble says the Constitution is established to “promote the general Welfare,”
That is a perversion of what I’m talking about – and essentially what Obama et al are doing by contriving a health care emergency so as to accrue power to themselves by addressing it.”
You are correct in one way- because Obama utlized the legislature and the Constitution to pass a healthcare bill, but of course he was doing so to promote the general welfare.
But according to you, a President is allowed to unilaterally declare decide what the preamble means and take action accordingly,
“sfjeff 15. Jul, 2010 at 7:35 pm sfjeff(Quote) #
I can’t even imagine a United States where the President could unilaterally take action soley because it would be for the welfare’ of the people of the United States without any other law to support his actions.”
Utterly ridiculous, the preamble is just an introduction to the body of the Constitution. The powers of the President are in Article II.
You can prove this by diagramming the single sentence of the preamble. One of the things I notice in birthers, fundies, rwnj’s is they don’t appear to have ever learned to diagram a sentence so they don’t seem to be able to break a sentence down into its logical parts. I think that’s why they misunderstand so many things they read.
Let’s simplify the one sentence of the preamble for diagramming. Its subject is “We”, its Predicate is “do ordain and establish this Constitution”. All the rest is modifiers and prepositional phrases. “We do ordain and establish this Constitution.” There can be no mistake this sentence is an introduction to what’s in the body of the Constitution.
I fear you are failing to recognize an important point on which you are yguy are, I believe, entirely in agreement. He is criticizing Wickard v. Filburn — the decision that is the basis for the feds making pot growing illegal even when state law permits it.
A state government can, as long as such laws don’t abridge any legitimate rights. For instance, it can ban the sale of contraceptives, but not install cameras in bedrooms.
License is the freedom to do evil, liberty is the freedom to do good.
Distinguishing between good and evil is left as an exercise for the student.
The premise is irrelevant to the question, to which the answer is that it protects the right of the unborn child to life, without which there can be no liberty in this world.
“He is criticizing Wickard v. Filburn — the decision that is the basis for the feds making pot growing illegal even when state law permits it.”
I happen to think that Congress and the Supreme Court have way overreached the Commerce Clause. But I also recognize that the way to address my disagreement would be to amend the Constitution to clarify that the Federal Government would not be able to regulate commercial activiites contained entirely within a state.
“A state government can, as long as such laws don’t abridge any legitimate rights. For instance, it can ban the sale of contraceptives, but not install cameras in bedrooms.”
And once again we come down to what is a legitimate right? Why is the sale of contraceptives not a right but preventing the state from installing a camera is a legitimate right.
“License is the freedom to do evil, liberty is the freedom to do good.”
I actually like that definition. I bet we disagree on what is evil and what is good- at least about many things.
For instance we probably agree that murder is evil, but disagree whether abortion is murder or not. We probably agree that torture is evil, but i know that you approve of it when necessary- which of course would make it good, not evil.
Oh I bet we could find many areas where you and i would disagree with what is good and what is evil.
Not so. The power to make law is vested in Congress at the federal statutory level and the States at the Constitutional level, so obviously anything that issues from the SC can only be respected by the President insofar as it does not run afoul of the Constitution or statutes passed in pursuance thereof.
fify
That you don’t see the danger in a President being obligated to carry out unconstitutional directives from 5 unelected people is, unfortunately, not surprising.
I found Scott McClellan’s kiss and tell book on the subject, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception, an interesting read.
Then you belong in a dictatorship, since that is the inevitable result of divorcing the former from the latter.
More accurately, it isn’t respected by everyone.
No they don’t, unless they’re viewed through the lens of common sense.
For no particular reason, huh?
One of the few things I remember from my high school civics class over 40 years ago was the discussion of the difference liberty and license. Needless to say, the discussion was not very profound since for must of rural Alabama kids, license was something you needed to go huntin’.
And why, pray tell, did the Constitution create the Supreme Court if its rulings could not be enforced?
So is the freedom of association liberty or license?
“Dr. Conspiracy 15. Jul, 2010 at 8:54 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote) #
I found Scott McClellan’s kiss and tell book on the subject, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception, an interesting read.”
I need to read it. I think unless Libby writes a memoir and really spills his guts someday, we’ll never know what really happened. He won’t do it until Cheney dies, and maybe never if he gets his law license back.
And the Constitutional basis for the one and not the other?
But neither the Constitution, nor any laws of the day, protected the rights of the unborn child. It was not a crime at the time of the Founding, to abort an unquickened fetus.
How, then, was Roe a misinterpretation of a Constitutional provision.
Remember, THAT is your argument:
You seem to be arguing that it is irrelevant to whether the court is changing the Constitution that the Constitution did not protect the unborn.
And you, sir, are William Roper:
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
I’m still trying to understand your argument. Please explain why blowjobs and other non-procreative sex is good for heterosexuals, but evil for homosexuals.
And why was it considered evil at the time of the Founding to get a blowjob from your wife? And do state governments properly exercise their power when they forbid blowjobs and non-procreative sex with your spouse?
Here we go… (I’ll go get some popcorn before reading further down the thread)
From this quote, I cannot help but to be reminded of the Parable of the Tares:
Tearing down the good to destroy the bad is quite an old habit of ours, it seems.
They can be enforced as long as they’re constitutional.
Depends on whom you’re associating with. 😉
It is not the executive branch’s job to interpret laws he is there to enforce them
10A and 4A respectively.
Already told you that.
The only reason it didn’t is that what was known about pregnancy in 1973 wasn’t known circa 1800.
Why should I explain an assertion I never made?
Same reason it still is by commonsensical people today.
And who determines if they are constitutional? Who’s power extends to all cases in law an equity arising under the Constitution?
I know exactly what “de facto” means. I repeat: put up or shut up.
history continues to repeat itself, like there is some kind of handbook on how to fool americans handed down from generation to generation, many seems to not understand that many moons ago a group of people were convinced to fight a war for the rich that if the rich had won would not have done anything to improve their situation, despite the fact that that trickery cost more ameriaacn lives then any war in history many still to this day believe they did the right thing.I am talking about the civil war, the elitist that were slaveowners were few, the poor . non homeowners, non slave owners and no rights to votes common people that actually fought the war were many. They lost their lives and some their entire families because someone told them it was their fight. today people are being told to fight healthcare is that really in their best interest, when we all are at risk for cancer and can be uninsurable or dropped at the whim of the insurance comapny? fight extending unemployment benefits (when we all could be out of work tomorrow).reduce size of the governement when they are the only ones really hiring.. it really drives me crazy when people pick a side before the argument even begins. irrational actions create irational responses.in this day and age there are to many tools to helps us as inviduals find the truth.
That would kill the birther argument that Durham went to Kenya to give birth wouldn’t it?
Is there an argument in the blog-o-sphere that Obama was conceived abroad?
I prefer Chocolate Chip Cookies…
I prefer Chocolate Chip Cookies…
Ridiculous. Read up on ‘checks and balances’. Google is your friend.
Congress makes the law. POTUS executes the law. SCOTUS judges disputes about the law.
They all have their role to play and cannot ignore each other.
SCOTUS is not 5 guys out of 9 making unconstitutional directives. SCOTUS is the part of our Government system that determines disputes about laws and the controlling provisions in the Constitution.
This is a big hole in you argument about protection of the Constitution. You are, in this thread and in this line of argument, denying the role of SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution.
You cannot have it both ways: you cannot both defend the Constitution and trash the Constitution.
Furthermore, your insistence, in other threads, that SCOTUS can somehow have a role in forcing the State of Hawai’i to produce the original Hospital produced Birth Certificate, and that that will somehow force Obama out of he White House (in complete violation of the role granted to Legislative Branch by the Constitution, of course ), is further evidence of your schizophrenia. If the POTUS is somehow free to ignore the SCOTUS, how could their action force him out?
Really. Study up on “Separation of Powers” and “Checks and Balances”. Your mental health will thank you for it.
And ever’ body know “pie are round”?
Dammit, now I want some Alice B. Toklas brownies.
yguy never failed Civics 101. He just knows that democracy and the U.S. Constitution would never allow his Christofascist dictatorship, so he just stamps his little feet and whines all day. Sad, really.
Small feet, small mind.
I think the right word is nonsensical in your case. Never in my life have I encountered some who truely lacked as little understanding about our government and acted so assured in their delusions as you. You genuinely don’t have a blessed clue about the checks and balances work in our government. If you can’t get the junior high civics stuff down, do you honestly expect to be able to understand due process, commerce clause, and penumbras and eminations?
Are you saying that what the Constitution protects depends on evolving scientific knowledge?
Why don’t you tell us what scientific knowledge changed between 1776 and 1803 when the first laws came into existence criminalizing aborting an unquickened fetus?
You told me that it misinterpreted the 14th amendment’s “persons born or naturalized” to not include unborn persons.
Then, are unborn fetuses born persons or naturalized persons?
Can I remind you, again, of your argument:
And, now the timeline:
1776 – Nation founded
1787 – Constitution adopted
1803 – Abortion made illegal by statute
1868 – 14th Amendment
1973 – Roe v. Wade
What I’m not seeing anywhere there is a Constitutional amendment saying that quickened fetuses have unalienable rights. You, apparently, are relying on evolving scientific knowledge to commandeer the amendment process.
The fourth amendment only bans unreasonable searches and seizures. What makes having cameras in your bedroom unreasonable?
You’ve already admitted that the State can ban the use of condoms, and, apparently, blowjobs from your wife
Just so we’re clear, you think that getting oral sex from your wife is evil. And you think that that view is shared by “commonsensical” people today.
This is why it might help for you to actually state what you believe. Are you saying, then, that all oral sex is evil? That appears to be what you seem to be claiming above.
Why don’t you explain, then, what makes oral sex evil.
Ultimately, the People, through their representatives.
While the judiciary is necessary for enforcement, it is not itself an agent thereof; which is why Hamilton observed in #78 that it has “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”
Do you think such impotence was an accident?
Then you know I’ve already put up, so shut up. 🙂
You really need to understand “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” before you post another word. You might even try just reading the Constitution. Is that too much to ask of you if you are going to discuss the Constitution.
The constitution gives the Judicial Branch the duty of determining whether a law is constitutional or not. Your phrase, “the People, through their representatives” is defining the Legislative Branch which is responsible for making laws, not deciding if a law is constitutional or not.
While the judiciary is necessary for enforcement, it is not itself an agent thereof; which is why Hamilton observed in #78 that it has “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”Do you think such impotence was an accident?
I refer you to my earlier comments about studying “separation of powers”. The Judiciary has no powers of enforcement over the President or the Congress. If a law is struck down it is not a law and the Executive cannot execute that law. If the POTUS continues to execute laws ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS then the remedy is impeachment by Congress. SCOTUS has no ability to remove the President.
“Ultimately, the People, through their representatives”
Fascinating. Since the People’s representatives are Congress, then any law passed by Congress would automatically be Constitutional, since Congress in your mind is the sole body which can determine what is Constitutional.
Which means of course that you clearly believe that Obama’s healthcare program is constitutional since it was passed by Congress.
And it also means that you believe in the tyranny of the majority, since the Supreme Court clearly cannot, in your opinion, determine whether a law is constitutional.
Well Yguy, I will say you are rather original. Original as in your interpretation of the Constitution and the rule of law in the United States is yours and yours alone.
And you know what I find evil? Evil is you- and the government you advocate- wanting to legislate my behaviour, and wanting to legislate behaviour between a husband and a wife.
You say License is freedom to do evil. I would say that what you advocate is no less than the Talibanism of the United States, where rightious moralists feel that the ‘liberties’ of the West are wicked, and that government can mandate that men not shave their beards, that women can be stoned to death. Just scary fundamentalist stuff.
Yeah I am happy I live in San Francisco. Its not perfect, but every time I see two men walking around holding hands with smiles on their faces, who don’t have to worry about being arrested just because they to be gay, or getting beaten up or killed while the police look the other way, I am very happy to live here, not in some fasco moralist state where the main rule is ‘common sense’ as defined by Yguy.
Yguy is a Christofascist. So is Sarah, but she’s keeping it under wraps for now.
The abortion outrage is something relatively new; a century or so.
Did you know that at the time of Jesus, under roman law, even a born baby wasn’t actually considered a person until something like 1 year-old? You could actually have “late” or post-birth abortions, what we would call infanticide, and not incur any punishment. The bodies of such infants were thrown in a common grave/dump site and not buried in a proper grave according to the roman rituals.
You would think that Jesus, being all-knowing, might have had the forethought of uttering even a smidgen of an objection to the practice, but since he didn’t, I assume it didn’t rank very high on his agenda. He certainly wasn’t shy about expressing his views on other matters.
For most of our history, the Roman Catholic Church considered that the baby was ensouled only at birth — and there’s still plenty of good doctrinal evidence, including the writings of St Thomas Aquinas, to believe so. Therefore, prior to birth, the baby had no soul or only a formative soul (depending on who you read) and wasn’t a “human being”.
And if the People’s opinion of what the Constitution means changes, what then? Does that mean the Constitution…evolves, like it’s a living document?
Lincoln died a hero, despite his suspension of habeas corpus.
George W. left office with, if not the worst approval rating of any President at the end of his term, then close to it.
Doesn’t that suggest that the People have passed a harsher judgment on Bush and his constitutional excesses than they did on Lincoln?
Dear Greg,
You wrote: “Why don’t you explain, then, what makes oral sex evil?”
Well, the things that makes Birther oral sex evil, are its orgasm-triggering anti-Obama utterances.
Benji Franklin
You are welcome to prove me wrong. Show me a link to any writings by you opposing the Bush administration in the past. Otherwise be exposed as the blatant hypocrite you are.
Also you shouldn’t write about religion, or Christianity, when you obviously know little or nothing about it.
That one is easy.
Besides violating the Presidential Oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution (Article II Section 1) and violating his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed (Article II Section 3), Bush and Cheney (1) manipulated intelligence and media so as to allege falsely a national security threat posed by Iraq and (2) deceived the Congress on the rationale for a war of aggression against Iraq and miscarried the action of the Congress, and ultimately waged an illegal war of aggression.
On the domestic front, when Congress passed legislation requiring the Justice Department to give them reports on how the FBI was using the Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers, Bush added a “signing statement” stating that the president could order the Justice Department to withhold any information from Congress upon his whim (if it impaired executive branch operations).
When Congress approved legislation declaring that U.S. interrogators couldn’t torture prisoners, Bush added a signing statement saying that the president could waive the torture ban again upon his whim.
These are but two examples of more than 100 signing statements containing over 500 constitutional challenges Bush added to new laws passed by the Congress, according to legal and constitutional scholars.
Show me the protests by any of the birthers to this egregious abuse, or be branded a liar and a hypocrite.
It’s actually worse than that.
When his tribe tramples the Constitution, it’s okay and they must be defended. When it’s the rival tribe, it’s not okay and they must be fought.
Same actions, different tribes, that’s all.
That yguy for you: no principles, no knowledge, no moral compass, just pure tribal hatred. A Dalek.
There is now… 😉
And I think this leads us back to why a US President should be a natural born citizen. Our form of government only works because of the commitment of the executive to the rule of law and to the ideals of our Constitution. While nothing can guarantee such a commitment, our founders did what they could reasonably do to insure that our presidents think like Americans, identify as Americans and take an oath to uphold the Constitution, which includes deferring to the Supreme Court as to what is constitutional and what is not.
We did have a few presidents recently (Reagan, Nixon and GW Bush) who did not respect the rule of law and we are much the worse for it. But even they still felt it necessary to keep their activities secret or in the case of Bush, claim some legal excuse. I don’t think any of them would have openly defied the Supreme Court: such a thing is unthinkable for an American.
Not exactly. My high school math teacher said that pi was exactly equal to 22 / 7. He was really a good teacher, but just had this little bit of misinformation in his head. Being a reasonable fellow, I was able to convince him of the error.
I suppose that if Congress passed a law that everyone had to walk backwards carrying a gas stove over their heads to keep their boots from exploding and the Supreme Court said it was constitutional, a president might….
Ultimately, your argument seems to be that the final authority on what the Constitution says is not the Supreme Court, but you, or a president that think like you.
Won’t work.
A smiley face is not a substantive answer.
So let’s sum up ConLaw by yguy.
Who decides what is Constitutional? Congress, the President, the people…pretty much everyone except the Supreme Court?
So what does the Supreme Court do? Well, necessary for enforcement…what exactly that role is, apparently only yguy knows, or will make it up on the spot to suit his needs.
The President apprently is a kind of Constitutional ubermensch who can violate specific provisions in the Constitution (except for the ban on slavery…not sure why that one is sacrosanct, and the others aren’t…that is until yguy decides another provision meets his approval) if he can justify it under the broad language of the preamble.
And finally, a liberty is everything that I feel I should be able to do, and a license is everything I feel you should not be able to do.
And when you point out the flaws and absurdity of my arguments, and the fact that they lack any basis in the law or reality, I will merely claim it is because you lack common sense.
Did I get everything?
“The reason that otherwise normal people hold such fantastical views eludes me and that is why I write so much on the topic, in an attempt to understand it better.”
Doc, you’ll drive yourself crazy trying to figure out why they think like they do.
You just have to resign yourself to the fact that they are NOTHING like us.
We can NEVER know what makes the clock tick if we don’t know what language it is ticking in.
With all due respect, I’m so far ahead of you on this it’s not funny.
No, I merely note that said role cannot be exclusive to the Judiciary if constitutional oaths of office are to have any meaning. All you need do to confirm this for yourself is to consider what the proper response of the President would be if Congress passed a law requiring that homosexuals be interned as the Japanese were in WW2, and SCOTUS declared it constitutional.
If you agree that the President would be constrained from executing such a law by his oath, you can surely see that your objection has no merit.
If not, you are welcome to explain why you think the Constitution justifies such patent insanity.
Case in point.
The President isn’t a representative of the People?
No, it means the People evolve – or devolve, depending on one’s perspective.
Greg, thanks for that great post.
There’s just that problem that japanese internment was unconstitutional. You seem to have things a bit backwards. The japanese internment wasn’t something through congress but rather an executive order that was deemed unconstitutional. Once again it isn’t the job of the president to interpret laws.
Oh ye of little brain!
“Your penchant for anal retentivity is getting to be a bit of a bore.”
Yeah its sucks to be wrong doesn’t it?
Thanks Rickey- I hadn’t read that before and its a powerful argument.
“The ultimate expression of the will of the People is the Constitution, which is why federal officers swear an oath to it rather than to SC rulings; and nowhere in that document is the interpretive authority vested exclusively in SCOTUS.”
No one swears to obey the President either, or Congress, yet required to follow orders from federal officers, and obey laws passed by Congress.
The ultimate interpretive authority is the Supreme Court. You may disagree, just as you do with Roe V Wade, but this is the actual way our system works.
With that you can continue to argue your fantasy world of how our government should work and what the Constitution really, really means.
I am just so happy that we do have a Constitution and a Supreme Court that protects me from moralistic theocrats that would have the Federal and State governments legislate individual morality.
Apparently I wasn’t the only one who found the fundamentalism analogy about the Tea Party. A listener to the same NPR story wrote this:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128545979
“the texts are read very selectively. Bits and pieces are plucked out, always without context, to defend a rigid political position.”
He’s met yguy!
I don’t. However, the good Doctor apparently does:
BTW, I think Lupin should be required to prove he isn’t a wife beater. Don’t you? 8)
I believe this says everything about you that needs to be said.
Thanks for your participation.
What does that have to do with a press release?????????
I find some justification here. Lupin has admitted consorting with one Spike Milligan, and Milligan performed with Ray Ellington who was once heard to sing:
I see you found my answer for yourself.
“I believe this says everything about you that needs to be said.”
“There must be some way out of here,” said the joker to the thief,
“There’s too much confusion, I can’t get no relief.
Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth,
None of them along the line know what any of it is worth.”
“No reason to get excited,” the thief, he kindly spoke,
“There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke.
But you and I, we’ve been through that, and this is not our fate,
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late.”
– Bob Dylan
Top points for the Goon Show reference!
I did interface briefly with Spike in the late 70s when I worked on a Goon Show comic strip that ended up not happening., A shame too.
Spike was a bloody genius.
My wife’s sister’s father-in-law went to school with Spike Milligan in Burma!
Two Jewish men are having lunch.
The first man says, “That Einstein is both rich and famous.”
Second man: “Rich AND famous? That’s some trick. How did he do it?”
First man: “He discovered the Theory of Relativity.”
Second man: “Vas iss the Theory of Relativity?”
First man: “Vell, suppose it’s a real cold day. Before you go out, you take a cold shower. It doesn’t seem as cold as it really is. Now, suppose you take a real hot shower. It will feel much colder than it really is. That’s relativity.”
Second man: “And from this, he earns a living?”
Guess I’ll have to take that as a “no”. 🙁
No, the Tea Party hasn’t taken over yet.
Yguy,
Still waiting for a response to my question, if I didn’t know any better I would feel you really are that immature and insecure 13 year old that has been discussed of.
Why oh why can’t you answer a simple question?
In case you’ve forgotten, the question is.
So, Yguy, do tell.
You want, nay demand to see the mystical long form as you have “issues” with the short one.
What precisely IS it you expect to see in said form that differs from the posted COLB.
Please, enquiring minds need to know, you have never ACTUALLY illuminated our darkness with your wisdom in this area, really, I and others need to know.
What is your requirement, what is it you need to see and will the “long form” suffice.
No squirming now, simple request, what is or are the elements that would calm your fevered mind.
No, a declaration of standing by itself wouldn’t require him to do a damned thing.
No, according to my logic, if he believes in good faith that he is eligible, he is obligated to prove it, since an errant declaration of ineligibility by a court would a miscarriage of justice it is in his power to prevent, and since it would poison public opinion against the office of the Presidency for no good reason.
I would be interested to find any such person who can find fault with any of my arguments here.
They probably have a few other things to do than follow blogs.
I would be interested to find any such person who can find fault with any of my arguments here.
Thank you for admitting that you can’t cite a single Constitutional scholar or attorney who agrees with you.
Actually, I’m trying to explain the issue, but clearly it’s slow going.
The Supreme Court is clearly not the exclusive authority on the Constitution — certainly federal appeal courts also make such rulings. But their decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court, which can overturn them. On the contrary, a decision of the Supreme Court can be quoted in any court of law as a controlling authority, and can’t be appealed anywhere. This is what makes them the final authority.
On the issue of granting standing to sue. Many of the Obama eligibility lawsuits do not name Obama as a defendant. Therefore a granting of standing wouldn’t require any action from Obama.
For example, Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels was a lawsuit challenging Obama’s right to receive Indiana’s electoral votes. The suit did not name Obama as a defendant. The plaintiffs sued the Governor not Obama. If standing had been granted and if the plaintiffs had won, the Governor would have had to invalidate Obama’s electoral votes in that state and it might have become a model for other states to do the same thing.
Other suits were Lightfoot v Bowen or Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz which went all the way to the Supreme Court.
If Obama isn’t named as a defendant, there is no need for any response from Obama.
I find the moderation policy here unacceptable, so anyone who wants a piece of me can go here, here or here.
I see no “logic” in the above. In America no person, including a president is required to prove their innocence.
The responsibility is on Obama’s political opposition to prove him ineligible, which they have failed to do in 69 attempts now.
Six months before the election, Obama posted proof of his eligibility on the World Wide Web for any person on the planet with access to a computer to see. He has no other responsibilty and he didn’t really even have THAT responsibility since he met the state election requirements to get on the ballot in 50 states plus the District of Columbia.
US District Court Judge Clay D.Land, a former conservative Republican state legislator in Georgia, nominated to the federal bench by George W. Bush put it very succinctly:
“The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million. Then The President faced a formidable opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President. It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought. Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not instituted impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. See H.R. Res. 593, 111the Cong. (2009)(commemorating, by vote of 378-0, the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and stating. “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961”).–US District Court Judge Clay D. Land in dismissing Rhodes v MacDonald, et. al., September 16, 2009.
Yes everyone go to talkrational since yguy has ran away from there several times to repeat the same BS here that he does over there
I posted before the LOOOOOOOOONG and sordid tale of darling Yguy at Talk Rational and how much he is loved…8-) an example fo the lurve and affection.
http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=26091&highlight=yguy
Ciao Yguy. I am sure there are websites that will unquestioningly embrace your version of the truth.
I actually think Yguy should be our official poster child of “Constitutional Fundamentalism”
“if he believes in good faith that he is eligible, he is obligated to prove it”
But that’s not how the U.S. system of justice works no matter how much you wish it to be otherwise.
“Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.”
– U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land
aw man do you have anything better than that? That’s mainly that guy jerome responding
Just go and a look over there, lots and lots and lots of comedy gold from Yguy…..8-)
In any case I am of the very firm belief that Yguy and Jerome Da Gnome are actually the same individual…….>;-)
Oh, I might add he doesn’t like it if you take him up on his very kind offer to chat to him at the other sites he linked to. Apparently I am a nasty miserable person……..and other words…….
Just catching up here. Great blog post Dr. C and I concur completely. I’ve been saying this in personal conversations to others for quite some time. It is definitely the same strain of fundamentalist thinking and selective quote-mining. Both your article as well as the npr link are spot on.
Well, if I wanted to selectively quote the Bible, I’d use Timothy 2:11-15. See how many of these people believe this (NIV translation):
Gotta love selective Biblical Quotes. Next time you have someone (especially a woman) saying something about the infalibility of the Bible, mention Timothy 2:11-15. And if you’re a man, then say, “But women should learn in quietness and full submission. And women will be saved through childbearing.”
I want to know where they get their leather underwear. (that passage in the OT about mixing types of clothing)
Just found this article from The Constitutional Accountability Center. This is number 4 in a series of briefs addressing Constitutional Issues.
Setting the Record Straight: The Tea Party and the Constitutional Powers of the Federal Government
The CAC also discusses this stuff in a blog post series they call “Strange Brew”
This one is on-topic about the Teabaggers attempts to redefine NBC.
Strange Brew: Immigration and the Tea Party’s Efforts to Deny the Constitution’s Guarantee of Birthright Citizenship
OK, my http was bad in the above post.
http://theusconstitution.org/blog.history/?p=1853