and the Democrats do not. Judge Roberts is a patriotic American and the Democrats are not. When Ronald Reagan famously said, "why do the Democrats always blame America first," he might have provided the obvious answer, i. e., they blame America first because they don't like America, or the Constitution on which it is based, and they act accordingly.
When Democrats take their oath to be on the Supreme Court they must pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. But how can they honestly do this when they don't like the Constitution? Simple: they can't; so they treasonously lie like Greeks bearing a Trojan horse. What they really mean when they take the oath is: "we will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution but only after we change it into something we like." This is the political version of, " I love you; now change"
In an absurd effort at polite dialogue the mass media tacitly covers up this egregious dichotomy in American political dialogue by referring to Republicans as "strict constructionists" and Democrats as "judicial activists." This is a brilliant stroke by the greedy mass media, who wish not to offend anybody so they can sell to everybody, and cowardly politicians, who wish to calm everybody so everybody will vote for them. It soothes the public into thinking the issues are arcane, legal and philosophical ones that are too complex to understand, probably not important, and probably better off left to those boring, pugnacious people who speak and even enjoy legalese.
As if the media hadn't confused America enough, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has a new book out in which he coins two new highly deceptive neologisms to describe the same old patriot/traitor dichotomy: modern liberty versus active liberty. The parameters of the debate do not change though. According to Breyer , The Framers did not mean what they said when they wrote the Constitution, and they certainly did not mean for it to apply very much to a future world about which they could know very little. So what The Framers really wanted then was for modern liberals to develop radical new schemes of gov't for the radical new times in which they lived. What Breyer and his liberal allies fail to comprehend, seemingly based on low conceptual IQ's and huge egos, is that Jefferson's (the most significant Framer) new scheme was the only new scheme in all of human history to ever work. Egomanicial fiddling was tried by Caesar, Napoleon, George III, Mussolini, Mao, FDR, and LBJ and 100's of others. Oddly, they all wanted big gov't while Jefferson uniquely wanted a small gov't that would work better than any that came before, or would come after in the radical new times about which they could, supposedly, know so little about everything except, of course, human nature.
Probably no judicial issue highlights the patriot/traitor dichotomy better than the Interstate Commerce Clause. The Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution was designed to give Congress the power to resolve disputes between states so that commerce would flow freely between states for the express purpose of giving everyone, regardless of the state in which they lived, a higher standard of living. It was not designed to be a communist Trojan horse giving the Federal gov't a blanket power to govern and destroy all American commerce just as Soviet blanket power had destroyed all Soviet commerce. Yet here is how Lawrence Tribe a leading "judicial activist" sees the Commerce Clause: "Marshall indicated that... congressional power to regulate 'commercial intercourse' extended to all commercial activity having any interstate impact -- however, indirect."
And here is what Clarence Thomas, a leading patriot said about the commerce clause, "If Congress can regulate this [two women in California growing small patches of marijuana for medicinal proposes) under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything," including "quilting bees, clothes drives and potluck suppers." Thus, "the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."
The judicial dispute between Democrats and Republicans reflected by the Interstate Commerce clause is not a trivial or arcane one, it is a basic dispute about the very idea of America. Republicans love the freedom from gov't that Jefferson defined for us in the election of 1800 while the Democrats hate freedom in favor of some ill defined Soviet style bureaucracy of ever growing proportions that one day, they hope, will tax enough and be large enough to create utopia on earth. Thankfully, soon to be Chief Justice, John Roberts, prefers freedom and the Constitution.
In a creative but highly disingenuous effort to defend themselves and further subvert the Constitution, Democrats have recently taken to calling Judge Roberts an activist. They reason that he is an activist in the sense that he seems willing to actively strike down liberal decisions made by liberal courts which clearly ignore the Constitution. Their obvious trick is to apply the term "activist" to him for actively defending the meaning of the Constitution when theretofore it had been defined to apply only to those who wanted to actively change the Constitution.
For example, CNN (fondly known as the communist news network) had a recent headline: "Toad case reveals Roberts as activist - Aug 4, 2005". The case in question involved a toad that the Congress sought to regulate, with the Interstate Commerce Clause, from possible extinction. Judge Roberts wondered at the absurdity of it by asking about how the Congress could regulate a toad when the toad resided in only one state and therefore had no direct or indirect connection to Interstate Commerce, whatsoever? To the liberals, the toad mattered and the Constitution did not. They wanted to save the toad; so contorting the quaint, old fashioned Constitution to do so was perfectly legitimate. Let us all pray to God that we learn to care for liberals as little as they care for the Constitution that is, unbeknownst to them, the bedrock of all earthly civilization.
http://thedumbdemocrat.blogspot.com/
Ted Baiamonte
comments: bje1000@aol.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
You are remarkably uninformed. If republicans love the freedom of government so much, why has government grown more under Republican leadership than under the Dems? Clinton actually shrunk the government. The latest Bush has expanded it faster than any other President.
Do you believe there should be no government? Shouldn't government provide for, at least, the security and welfare of its citizens? It's a ridiculously big country. Should we have a teeny tiny group of four government workers to take care of it?
And what the framers said? They wrote the Constitution, and vested it with some very large concepts that they very generally defined. What does "due process" mean? What is "cruel and unusual"? Some say these words, by their generality, require judges to read evolving standards into them. Others say that one should divine precisely what the framers thought the words meant. But the framers, for instance, had no notion of what an electric chair was -- they couldn't say whether an arrest was unreasonable in light of technology that allows us to see into someone's home without entering them.
Struggling to interpret the Constitution faithfully does not make one a traitor.
I notice that, while you claim that democrats stoop to invective (as if Republicans never did), but your branding of those who beleive that the COnstiution was meant to be a living document as "traitors" is deliberately inflammatory. It doesn't invite real debate. It just baits.
You are remarkably uninformed.
******ah good and you're going to explain how??
If republicans love the freedom of government so much, why has government grown more
under Republican leadership than under the Dems? Clinton actually shrunk the government. The latest Bush has expanded it faster than any other President.
******** agreed, but Bush is not all Republicans nor did I say he was "all Republicans"
Do you believe there should be no government?
*******yes but limited gov't as Jefferson intended
Shouldn't government provide for, at least, the security and welfare of its citizens?
*******very vague terms so an answer is impossible unless you can explain your meaning.
For example, if welfare means a guaranteed income then no, if it means being able to help out during a hurricane, then yes.
It's a ridiculously big country.
*********did someone say it was a ridiculously small country??
Should we have a teeny tiny group of four government workers to take care of it?
********** 4 workers for 300 million?? Even Jefferson wanted more than that??
And what the framers said?
*******yes??
They wrote the Constitution,
*********good for you, who would have known??
and vested it with some very large concepts that they very
generally defined.
********agreed but so what??
What does "due process" mean? What is "cruel and unusual"? Some say these words,
by their generality, require judges to read evolving standards into them.
********agreed but so what? We all agree that there is to be no death by hanging
Others say that one should divine precisely what the framers thought the words meant.
*********yes so?? We all know that and agree.
But the framers, for instance, had no notion of what an electric chair was
********so? did someone say they did predict the electric chair???
-- they couldn't say whether an arrest was unreasonable in light of technology that allows
us to see into someone's home without entering them.
********so??
Struggling to interpret the Constitution faithfully does not make one a traitor.
**********agreed but so what????
I notice that, while you claim that democrats stoop to invective (as if Republicans never did), but your branding of those who beleive that the COnstiution was meant to be a living document as "traitors" is deliberately inflammatory. It doesn't invite real debate. It just baits.
*******well you can be baited if you want or you can debate if you want. The fact is the Republican Jefferson Scalia position exists and you have not touched it by writing stuff with which everyone on both sides agrees.
I don't know why you feel that this is a fight between Republicans and Democrats. Two Republicans (of the three that included Judge Roberts) disagreed entirely with Judge Roberts on the toad case; the doctrine which allows for Federal jurisdiction in that case is regarded by Democrats and Republicans alike as well established.
Second, Scalia has shown that he respects the Commerce Clause unless its application veers from enforcing his own moral views (this would be considered "activist"). Aws an example, look at the case of Gonzalez v. Raich, in which a Federal statute used the Commerce Clause to gain jurisdiction over those who grew marijuana for personal use because it indirectly "affected" interstate commerce. (Scalia actually adds the Necessary and Proper Clause to buttress the regulation -- thus lhus leaving open its availability to allow the government to regulate anything.)
Is Scalia a "traitor"? Why don't you recast your arguments in terms of "originalists" and others? (The Raich case suggest that Scalia is not the originalist he claims to be.)
I'm not sure what you mean by the Commerce Clause as a"communist trojan horse". Why is federal power "communist"? How has it been administered in a "communist" way? How is Lawrence tribe's view of the Commerce Clause any different from Scalia's? (The difference may be that Scalia claims the Commerce Clause gives the Federal government limited power, but applies it when he wants to achieve a certain result.)
I don't know why you feel that this is a fight between Republicans and Democrats.
*******it is common knowledge that it is a fight between Democrats and Republicans and of course the Senate vote will reflect that. Where have you been???
Two Republicans (of the three that included Judge Roberts) disagreed entirely with Judge
Roberts on the toad case; the doctrine which allows for Federal jurisdiction in that case is regarded by Democrats and Republicans alike as well established.
*******of course if that were true you'd provide some evidence. Thomas Roberts Reinquist Scalia George Will and most Republicans would prefer to see a far narrower use of the commerce clause.
Second, Scalia has shown that he respects the Commerce Clause
*******everyone respects it???? So what? The issue is, do you use it only when the States can't resolve matter themselves and do you use it to socialize the economy from Washington and regulate toads- do you get it now??
unless its application veers from enforcing his own moral views (this would be considered
"activist"). Aws an example, look at the case of Gonzalez v. Raich, in which a Federal statute used the Commerce Clause to gain jurisdiction over those who grew marijuana for personal use because it indirectly "affected" interstate commerce. (Scalia actually adds the Necessary and Proper Clause to buttress the regulation -- thus lhus leaving open its availability to allow the government to regulate anything.)
*********If that's true, though, why did he vote in favor of the marijuana grower in Kyllo v. United States? And why did he vote in favor of the crack dealer in United States v. Booker? Is the idea that Scalia is principled when he votes in favor of defendants, but is just a social conservative when he votes in favor of the government?
Is Scalia a "traitor"?
******no he is a Republican who generally will vote to diminish the power of the Federal Gov't out of the Jeffersonian belief that freedom from gov't is the basis for our gov't..
Why don't you recast your arguments in terms of "originalists" and others?
******THe article explained that originalist is code for Republican
(The Raich case suggest that Scalia is not the originalist he claims to be.)
*******Scalia has a long and obvious record by now that obviously is not defined by any one case.
I'm not sure what you mean by the Commerce Clause as a"communist Trojan horse".
********it gives them the power to regulate the entire economy which is exactly what communism would require
Why is federal power "communist"?
*******if it continually grows which is the obvious direction it has taken it will at some point be big enough to be considered communist. The Democrats have grown the gov't for 200 years and will not say how big is big enough so it is a legitimate fear, in fact the basic fear of Jefferson.
How has it been administered in a "communist"
way?
*********a communist way is a way that grows and grows much the way the USSR did despite more modest beginnings. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
How is Lawrence tribe's view of the Commerce Clause any different from Scalia's?
*******according to Bork Tribe is a communist or near communist. He obviously is a Democrats who wants an ever bigger gov't and far less freedom while Scalia wants the opposite. A monkey knows the difference between Tribe and Scalia.
(The difference may be that Scalia claims the Commerce Clause gives the Federal government limited power, but applies it when he wants to achieve a certain result.)
*******you're getting yourself all confused by using one case to judge a career
There is no one right way to interpret the constitution.
History will show that many intelligent people within both parties disagree as to the best interpretation of the constitution. History shows that finding consistant ideology for constitutional interetation is not possible, with the way both "concervative" and "liberal" judges flip flop from one case to another.
Your post assumes that Judge Roberts inteprets the constitution the "correct" way while the Democrats interpret the constitution "wrong".
They just interpret the constitution differently.
That is the amazing part of the American constitution. We can all be patriotic while having contradicting interpretations of the constiution, since we live in an open society.
By implying that their is only one "correct" way to interpret the constitution you are implying that we shoulede have a closed society where the first amendment is not necessary.
Anonymous said... There is no one right way to interpret the constitution.
*******so what no one said there was a right way???
History will show that many intelligent people within both parties disagree as to the best interpretation of the constitution.
*****wrong, most Republicans agree that the way Democrats look at the Constitution is wrong
History shows that finding consistent ideology for constitutional interpretation is not possible, with the way both "conservative" and "liberal" judges flip flop from one case to another.
******if everyone flip flopped then there would not be huge and bitter fights about who was nominated to the courts since we would have no idea how anyone would vote- get it now??
Your post assumes that Judge Roberts interprets the constitution the "correct" way while the Democrats interpret the constitution "wrong".
*******true, we think of Democrats as Dumb.
They just interpret the constitution differently.
******Yes, but Hitler would interpret it differently too so it isn't sufficient that anyone can look at it anyway they want and still be American-get it now??
That is the amazing part of the American constitution.
*********that it means nothing? Or anything anyone wants it to mean- get it now???
We can all be patriotic while having contradicting interpretations of the constitution, since we live in an open society.
*******Suppose some of us are Nazis or Democrats or Socialists??
By implying that their is only one "correct" way to interpret the constitution you are implying that we should have a closed society where the first amendment is not necessary.
******well it should be closed to Democratic thinking. But still there would be big differences between Republicans but they would be intelligent differences. When Democrats are in the mix the debate is very dumbed down.
Post a Comment