Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The dead constitution

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The dead constitution

    What's more important to liberals, the Constitution or the courts?

    The more liberal judges that are appointed, and the more they rule based on what they WISH rather than what the Constitution says, the closer our country is to death.

    The battle for the Constitution
    Cal Thomas

    June 24, 2003

    Gregory Peck, who died earlier this month, had many roles for which he will long be remembered. The one that may have had the most influence on this country was the "voice-over" he provided in 1987 for a TV commercial falsely characterizing Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork as favoring poll taxes and literacy tests, among other horrors.

    The same liberal groups that "Borked" Bork are preparing a campaign against President Bush's nominee, should one or more justices retire. Sens. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) have called on President Bush to "consult " with them to avoid a "divisive confirmation fight."

    What this nearly 40-year battle has been about is not just specific issues but the Constitution itself. Did the Founders know what they were doing when they wrote the greatest document ever penned by human hands that organized self-government for individuals, based on certain immutable principles, or were they merely creating an outline, the rest of which could be filled in as it pleased the courts? The answer to that question will determine the future of our country. We cannot afford to continue to get it wrong.

    Since he was denied a seat on the court for which he was uniquely qualified, Robert Bork has produced a body of work that makes the case for returning to the "original intent" and understanding of the Constitution. He has consistently begged Americans to consider the history of the document and not how it has been "spun" by judges and advocacy groups into meaning what they want it to mean.

    In a compelling essay, Bork again has taken on the argument for a "living Constitution" advanced by liberals who have used the courts, instead of the legislatures, to enact an agenda that would never have been embraced by elected officials for fear of voter backlash.

    Writing in the publication The New Criterion (Nov. 21, 2002), Bork reviewed New York attorney Martin Garbus' book, Courting Disaster: The Supreme Court and the Unmaking of American Law."

    Right (or in his case Left) from the start, Garbus claims the Supreme Court has been taken over by right-wingers (David Souter? Anthony Kennedy? Sandra Day O'Connor?). He sets up the ideological preview of coming liberal attractions that will demand Bush be stopped from putting "extremist " judges on the court. None of Garbus' assertions are true, but this is the "reality" liberals will create, and much of the media will willingly follow their lead.

    The real issue, as Bork writes, is not naming "ultra-right ideologues" (Garbus' phrase), but whether "(Bush) will try to appoint justices and judges who interpret laws according to the understanding of the principles of those laws when they were enacted." This is an important point, because if laws are to be made by the courts, what is the purpose of Congress? Are we to be guided by the idea enunciated in 1803 at the dawn of our nation by Chief Justice John Marshall: "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws and not men"? Constitutional attorney John Whitehead has written, "This meant that even the state, its agencies and its officials were under the law, not above it."

    The opposite (and currently prevailing) view of the Constitution is the judicial philosophy of Justice Felix Frankfurter. Speaking of Supreme Court justices, Frankfurter said, "It is they who speak and not the Constitution." That view was echoed in a 1958 Supreme Court decision (Cooper vs. Aaron): "Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the 'supreme law of the land' .. It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is .. It follows that the interpretation of the (Constitution) enunciated by this Court . is the supreme law of the land .."

    When the Constitution is not the supreme law, the Supreme Court will inevitably come to see itself as the supreme law. Charles Evans ******, who became chief justice in 1930, remarked earlier: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is."

    President Bush needs to give the public a brief history lesson as he nominates federal judges, and especially Supreme Court justices, if he is to counter the disinformation campaign now being prepared by those who would discard the Constitution and make up the law as it suits them.

    [ 06-24-2003, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: Mike Tx ]

  • #2
    Charles Evans ****** = Charles Evans H U G H E S.

    What's up with that?

    Comment


    • #3
      Don't you think that the most flagrant violation of the constitution is executive orders? The President, whomever he or she might be can legislate without congressional or judicial concurrance.
      Retired

      Comment


      • #4
        retired, it's a tough choice between executive orders and judicial activism... At least presidents have a fixed term. Justices are in for life.
        Bill R

        Comment


        • #5
          Don't you think that the most flagrant violation of the constitution is executive orders? The President, whomever he or she might be can legislate without congressional or judicial concurrance.

          A pet peeve of mine.

          Executive orders were meant to be used by the president during wartime and only to military troops. Somehow they got "factored" in to basically do whatever a president wants that he cant get past Congress. Clinton was an expert at using them for things that he knew he didnt have a snowballs chance in hades of getting passed.

          They are unconstitutional and they are dead wrong. Most sheeple in America are too uneducated to figure that fact,or they simply dont care. Every single one ought ot be resinded, but we'll never see that. I'll ever go so far as to say that any president that even uses one ought to be tried for treason for circumventing the system that they SWORE to protect. Perhaps even a public hanging might work.
          "The American People will never knowingly adopt Socialism. Under the name of "liberalism" they will adopt every segment of the socialist program,until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened."

          Norman Thomas

          Comment


          • #6
            Watchman, you and I certainly agree on this one. I think executive orders should be abolished immediately!
            Retired

            Comment


            • #7
              Then you'll love this:

              article

              Tuesday, June 24, 2003
              Media Ignore Gephardt's Vow to Overthrow the Supreme Court

              The leftist media establishment has shown a stunning lack of interest in Rep. Dick Gephardt's bizarre threat to vanquish the Supreme Court.

              As we noted Monday in our article on the Supreme Court's rulings on racial quotas, Gephardt said Sunday, "When [sic] I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day."
              Imagine the nationwide media uproar if candidate George W. Bush had said such a thing. But Gephardt was pandering to Jesse Jackson, so any crazy promise seems to be OK in the eyes of the pro-Democrat media.

              A few people outside the media mainstream did take notice. Andrew Sullivan wrote today: "Does Gephardt understand even the basics of constitutional law? Or does he think his audience is too craven to notice an obvious piece of nonsense."

              Rush Limbaugh pointed out the wacko pledge in an item on his Web site headlined "Nine Democrat Losers Meet to Race-Bait."

              But headlines in the daily papers have been hilariously bland and unrevealing. "Democratic presidential hopefuls tackle issues of interest to blacks," according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. "Democratic hopefuls get together at forum," quoth the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Headlines in the Baltimore Sun, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Detroit News and others merely claimed that Gephardt and company were backing so-called "affirmative action," i.e., discrimination against those of European or Asian descent.

              Will these media think it is an "affirmative action" if by some miracle Dick is elected president and manages to "overcome" the judicial branch of government?

              NewsMax has called Gephardt's handlers for comment. Stay tuned.

              [ 06-25-2003, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: PelicanDriver ]
              Paul

              Comment


              • #8
                They use the Courts to push through things that they can't get through legislatures.
                "Integrity is like virginity. Once it's lost, you can't get it back." --drunkhunter

                Comment

                MR300x250 Tablet

                Collapse

                What's Going On

                Collapse

                There are currently 3873 users online. 224 members and 3649 guests.

                Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                Welcome Ad

                Collapse
                Working...
                X