Archive for category Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square
Justices Ignoring the Constitution
Posted by Tom in Constitution, Federalism, Individual Freedom, Judiciary, Justice, Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square, Legal, National Character, Supreme Court on December 19, 2010
What to do about judicial legislation? About justices that ignore the constitution? Doug Bandow posted and excellent article in American Spectator, Does the Constitution Mean Anything? He recites the circumstances of the drafting and ratification of the establishment document, namely the restriction of the type of unlimited powers exercised by the king and parliament against the colonies and the people. It was natural then that the founders drafted a structure dividing government between branches, each with its own domain, and each having a check on the others so that power was in fact divided. Thus a balanced central government was created. But not one of general police powers. No, the federal government was one of limited powers, specifically enumerated limited powers. The general power governments were the states. Thus the states possessed the so-call “police power.” The constitution specifically reserves powers not delegated by it to the federal government, to the states or the people.
Realizing that changes may later be needed, the founding fathers provided for a couple of different processes for amending the constitution. There have been 27 amendments to the document none conferring additional power on the central government.
Bandow goes over the various theories by which judges and justices try to get around this basic governing document which they have foresworn to defend and uphold. Theories of “living constitution,” or “dynamic constitution” or “time is right” for changes that the founders would have drafted if they thought of them, are all part of the judicial tap dance used to deny the validity of the constitution.
He suggests that it is not judicial “activism” that is the sin: ”Originalists” of varying stripes have tended to criticize judicial “activism,” but activism is not the problem. Lack of fidelity to the Constitution is the problem.”
He correctly analyses the current constitutional issues on the Obamacare insurance mandate and then posits the real value of his post, a potential solution to recalcitrant judges short of impeachment, itself a non-remedy.
“GIVEN THE TENDENCY of judges to ignore law and constitution, one helpful fix would be to end life tenure for justices. Intended to protect judicial independence, this provision creates a dangerous and disconnected elite that will always be tempted to overstep its role. Better to appoint judges for a term, perhaps ten years. Rotation in office would still insulate jurists from political passions while limiting the concentration and abuse of power by the judiciary. Errant jurists would naturally leave the bench rather than forever wield unconstrained power — becoming liberal saints along the way.”
While this is perhaps not the only solution to the problem, it seems a sensible one. Perhaps others will be constructed, but this at least causes us to ponder the problem and think about potential solutions.
The issue is important for, “If constitutional protections are but formless inkblots, then no American is truly safe from his or her government.”
Happy Hanukah and Merry Christmas
Posted by Tom in Humor, Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square, Political Correctness on December 17, 2010
And to be ultra PC, with big kudos to Heidi Harris in Las Vegas, I hope you enjoy this liberal ditty:
As Frank Costanza, George’s father on the Seinfeld TV sitcom, used to say, “happy Festivus for the rest of us!”
How’s that for PC!
SHUT IT DOWN!
Posted by Tom in Congress, Entitlements, Federalism, Individual Freedom, Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square, National Character, Statism, Subsidies, Welfare on December 15, 2010
It just burns money. It’s fraught with fraud and waste. It is not in touch with the will of the governed. It has little if any legitimacy. That’s our federal government which will shut down without the passage of an omnibus spending bill of 1,924 pages, pages that no legislator has read or fully understands.
Republicans want earmarks stripped from the bill before they will support it. That’s what the results of the last election would indicate the voters of America are demanding. This seems a reasonable interpretation of the November election results.
The existing stopgap measure that funds the current government operation is set to expire at midnight on Saturday. Absent legislation the government stops.
What a concept! The government stops! How would we function without a government? We would need to conduct our affairs with regard to others. We would need to help others in need. We would need to promote the general welfare of our immediate communities. We would need to come together to settle our private disputes, or, failing that, find a neutral arbitrator to settle them.
Now, the congregate victim class would have no ready bankroll and would need to deal with others on a reasonable basis. There would be no automatic handouts to the entitlement class, but those in need would be required to demonstrate that need.
Commerce would be conducted on a market basis. There would be no subsidies to favor one product or solution over another. Competition would prevail in quality, price, availability, etc. Markets would be allowed to work.
People who wanted services like education, medical treatment, transportation, etc. would pay for them, unless they could claim a real hardship, in which case others would help them. In other words, everyone would pay for what he gets.
If our nation were attacked we would need to take up arms to defend our hearth and home. If hooligans ran roughshod in our streets, we would need to band together to collar them and bring them to local justice.
On balance, all this might not be too bad. A teachable moment as our president is wont to say! Think what burdens would be lifted and what responsibilities would be replaced!
The Fox article today reports the brouhaha as well as any. McCain’s take is enlightening:
“Sen. John McCain tweeted the top 10 earmarks in the spending bill, including $247,000 for virus free wine grapes in Washington State, $413,000 for peanut research in Alabama, $235,000 for noxious weed management in Nevada and $400,000 for solar parking canopies and plug-in electric stations in Kansas.”
“McCain expressed disbelief about the projects.”
“Are we tone deaf? Are we stricken with amnesia?” he said, adding that voters made it clear in last month’s midterm elections that they’re tired of business as usual in Washington.”
When left a choice between stealing from other taxpayers with earmarks and continuing to steal from our grandchildren with every thing else or alternatively shutting down a government that doesn’t work, I say, SHUT IT DOWN!
The Right Stuff–American Vet, American Hero
Posted by Tom in Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square, National Character on November 12, 2010
Steve Oney in today’s WSJ article, The Defiant Ones, tells the story of Louis Zamperini, Olympic record setting miler who shook hands with Hitler, purloined a Nazi flag, flew in WWII in the Pacific, was shot down and tortured by the Japanese. Tortured in order to get him to betray his country. He didn’t crack, thus part of the article title, “Defiant.” The other part, “Ones” adds the author of a book about Louis, one Laura Hillenbrand who is confined to her home in Washington with a rare disease, “chronic fatigue syndrome,” contracted while in college that has left her confined ever since. The book titled, “Unbroken” will be released next week. It as well as the article title tells of people who don’t quit, individuals who don’t let down, Americans who take responsibility for themselves, no matter how bad the hand that they are dealt.
Best part of the story, Zamperini who is 93 has forgiven his Japanese torturer, one Mutsuhiro Watanabe, known as “the Bird,” who beat Louis with a belt buckle. The Bird was never tried for war crimes, so he knew no justice. But Louis wrote to him in the 1990s forgiving him, so he did know mercy!
What a great example of American exceptionalism and so close to Veterans Day!
Keep ‘em entitled! They vote that way!
Posted by Tom in Affirmative Action, Democrats, Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square, Welfare on November 9, 2010
Hats off to John Stossel. Entrepreneur that he is, he had a cup cake sale in midtown Manhattan this week. Great product, tasty cup cakes, and priced right. In fact, the pricing was progressive. The price list read:
Asians–$1.50
Whites–$1.00
Blacks/Latinos–50 cents
What better policy in liberal Manhattan than to give “to each according to his need,” and take “from each according to his ability.” Very progressive, very democratic. Really this was affirmative action at work in a raw, naked way. What kind of reception did he get?
“People stared. One yelled, “What is funny to you about people who are less privileged?” A black woman said, angrily, “It’s very offensive, very demeaning!” One black man accused me of poisoning the cupcakes.”
“My affirmative action cupcake “event” led to some interesting discussions. One young woman began by criticizing me, “It’s absolutely wrong.”But after I raised the parallel with college admissions, she said: “No race of people is worth more than another. Or less.”But do you believe in affirmative action in colleges? I asked.”I used to,” she replied.”
John’s post, I’m Politically Incorrect, is well worth the read. In it he treats affirmative action which he says is racism.
“Advocates of affirmative action argue it is needed because of historic discrimination. Maybe that was true in 1970, but it’s no longer true. Affirmative action is now part of the minority special privilege machine, an indispensable component of which is perpetual victimhood.”
It may be racism, but it surely is a structural entitlement. That entitlement, like welfare entitlements, buys votes for Democrats. It promotes addiction, dependency. It insures continuation of that victimhood from which there is little hope of escape as long as the entitlement continues. It’s really hard to resist, to say no, I’ll do it on my own!
The Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Democratic, Leftist Ilk feeds on victimhood, entitlement, and welfare. Dependents vote for the pols just as druggies pay the pushers. Take the entitlements away and those parasites starve. But the victims, entitlees, recipients, will live and prosper. And those truly incapable of taking care of themselves, are taken care of. Not by government, but by our ingrained inclination to help one another. Synagogs, churches, mosques promote charity and alms giving. Charity hospitals and shelters have flourished in the past and would again if given the chance. Ya see, that’s what the leftists miss, the basic goodness of human nature.
So whether it’s affirmative action, other entitlements, or a cup cake price list, it’s wrong. It keeps people dependent in a subclass that’s hard to escape from.”It’s very offensive, very demeaning!”
Bravo John Stossel!
WaPo 17 Months Late in Reporting Holder’s DOJ Bias
Posted by Tom in Justice, Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square, Legal on October 23, 2010
It’s old news for most of us that Attorney General Holder’s Justice Department dismissed a default judgement against proven Black Panther voter intimidation. But now it’s been confirmed by that liberal bastion, The Washington Post. Now WaPo churlishly reports that the initial reporters were conservatives, as if that were an excuse to dismiss the story. But the paper, to its credit, did dig deeper to turn up additional, confirmatory DOJ evidence of Holder’s discrimination against whites in enforcing voter intimidation cases. Andy Breitbart one of the first to break the initial story gives a magnanimous tip of the hat to the Post:
“This is a devastating piece of work by the Washington Post. This is a rare moment where the old print media has returned to the higher standards of years past, and reported facts. A week from an election, it couldn’t have come at a worse time for Eric Holder.”
That said, it is clear that from the very top the Department of Justice is tainted, and well, unjust. There is nothing more dangerous in a free society than to have the chief law enforcement officer corrupt the law.
Never Never Land…Compliments of the Leftists
Posted by Tom in Centrally Managed Economy, Democrats, Free Speech, Individual Freedom, Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square, National Character, Statism on October 22, 2010
It was hard for me to restrain myself in reading a Fox News item detailing a Civil Rights violation against a Michigan woman for posting an ad at her church seeking a Christian roommate.
“The ad “expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths,” according to the complaint filed by the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan. ”It’s a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement,” Executive Director Nancy Haynes told Fox News. “There are no exemptions to that.”
Harold Core, director of public affairs with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, told the Grand Rapids Press that the Fair Housing Act prevents people from publishing an advertisement stating their preference of religion, race or handicap with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling.
Apparently these leftists do not believe in the Frist Amendment applicable to the states via the Fourteenth. It would do them well to remember it:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
This Hanyes woman is admittedly not the brightest bulb on the tree, as she states the obvious: “If you read it (the ad) and you were not Christian, would you not feel welcome to rent there?” YEAH! HOW ABOUT THAT!
Under these Democratic leftists we have come to the point in our history where Civil Rights are more often than not CIVIL WRONGS. As this case illustrates, we have not only abandoned our founding principles but we have abandoned common snese.
A Great Moral American’s View
Posted by Tom in Individual Freedom, Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square, National Character on September 17, 2010
The video of Dennis Prager’s Q & A at the University of Denver is too good not to post. So here it is, enjoy and get involved:
Historically, Peaceful Majorities Are Irrelevant
Posted by Tom in Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square, Statism, Terrorism on September 1, 2010
I recently received an email tagged as “A German’s View on Islam” which essentially advanced the proposition that complacency of the “silent majorities” in Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, or Tojo’s Japan is responsible for the fanatics accession to power. The email is taken from a dated article by Paul E. Marek and is currently applied to Islam. It reads in part:
“The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history; it is
the fanatics who march…it is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting
wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian
or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire
continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder,
or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It
is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims
and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to
become suicide bombers..” In other words, peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence!
With this historical logic difficult to refute, it was heartening to see today’s WSJ article, “A Symposium: What Is Moderate Islam?” This is a collection of six answers given by Islamic scholars and commentators. I commend a full reading to the piece, but I was particularly drawn to the last two essays, “Don’t Gloss Over The Violent Texts” and “Mystics, Modernists and Literalists.”
From the first, “Radical Islam is not limited to the act of terrorism; it also includes the embrace of teachings within the religion that promote hatred and ultimately breed terrorism. Those who limit the definition of radical Islam to terrorism are ignoring—and indirectly approving of—the Shariah teachings that permit killing apostates, violence against women and gays, and anti-Semitism.”
“Moderate Islam must not be passive. It needs to actively reinterpret the violent parts of the religious text rather than simply cherry-picking the peaceful ones. Ignoring, rather than confronting or contextualizing, the violent texts leaves young Muslims vulnerable to such teachings at a later stage in their lives.”
And, from the second: “The literalists believe that Muslim behavior must approximate that of the Prophet in seventh-century Arabia. Their belief that Islam is under attack forces many of them to adopt a defensive posture. And while not all literalists advocate violence, many do. Movements like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and the Taliban belong to this category.”
Islam has a foundational text problem which gives rise to the terrorists. It is difficult to see how that will be solved even if the silent majorities rise up in force in their totalitarian societies.
By modern analogy, silent majorities are responsible for the ills of great democratic nations. We have witnessed as much here over the last half century with our gradual descent on the road to serfdom, our slip into socialism. Hopefully we wake up soon!
One Brit’s Opinion-No Mosque
Posted by Tom in Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square, Terrorism on August 24, 2010
Europe, indeed England, is witnessing its own Islamifcation. When I traveled to London in the ’70s half the hotel signs were in Arabic; it has only accelerated in succeeding decades. And Shria law governs the local Muslim enclaves. Well here’s a no-holds-barred opinion from across the pond: