At least they're open about it: the New York Times disdains Supreme Court justices who hew to the principles upon which this country was founded. The Times's admission came in the course of an editorial calling on Obama and Clinton to put aside their bickering and focus on beating John McCain. That is vital, in the Times's view, given McCain's pledge to nominate Supreme Court justices in the mold of John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
Writes the Times [emphasis added]:
Mr. McCain predictably criticized liberal judges, vowed strict adherence to the Founders’ views and promised to appoint more judges in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. That is just what the country does not need.
So in the Gray Lady's mind, "strict adherence to the Founders’ views" is "just what the country does not need." Not that this comes as a surprise. Still, it's stunning to see in black and white that, as far as the Times is concerned, the Constitution really shouldn't stand for too much.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
the winds of change
May 7, 2008 - 08:43 ET by candanceI was telling hubby last night that I can feel something different about this election in my bones - that years from now history books will mark this year as the departure from the Constitution.
I do too candance
May 7, 2008 - 08:51 ET by Dee BunkIt's extremely depressing. The media, Obama, Congress and American people no longer value the Constitution. We are getting ourselves into a situation that we'll never be able to come out of. We've lost the Presidency and The Dems are going to have huge margins to work with in the House and Senate. I really can't believe this is happening.
Its a dangerous combination
May 7, 2008 - 09:04 ET by Free ThinkerIts a dangerous combination of apathy and ignorance.
Thinker - ignorance being the biggest chunk
May 7, 2008 - 09:09 ET by Dee Bunkthe media are responsible for most of the ignorance. Most people are too busy to follow politics and really learn the truth about things. They have no choice but to take what the media gives them as truth.
The fault lies with the Republicans
May 7, 2008 - 09:21 ET by KC MulvilleThe weakness of the current Republican crew is just shocking. If the reports are anywhere close to accurate, the GOP is going to get a whipping this year, and deservedly so. They have no backbone at all. Pelosi has rigged the system to stall any vote that could embarrass Democrats, and yet the GOP has done nothing. (Oh, wait, forgive me. They stood out front of the Capitol for a few minutes of protest. Big whup.)
The conservative message is stronger than anything else, but the GOP has to live up to it. They haven't, and now they're paying the price for it.
KC - it's hard to do much with the media against you
May 7, 2008 - 09:52 ET by Dee Bunkthey either don't cover them or make it look like they are crying about nothing.
Yes, we have a bunch of weak Republicans - but they were elected because of a media that rarely lets true conservatives through. Conservative positions are demonized.
not buying it
May 7, 2008 - 09:57 ET by candanceI don't buy that explanation for two reasons:
1) Reagan won with fairness doctrine intact and everyone against him.
2) We had Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney but we gave it to McCain anyhow.
IMO the GOP leadership is forcing conservatives out of the party because La Raza is the future they want.
Candance - We are talking about the Congress not the President
May 7, 2008 - 10:11 ET by Dee BunkReagan won because he had charisma and McCain won because Romney, Huckabee and Thompson split the conservative vote.
The GOP leadership want money and power. They want to win. The media changes public perception and the GOP leadership tries to win based on what perception is out there.
Dee... "The media changes
May 7, 2008 - 10:16 ET by Clear thinkerDee...
"The media changes public perception and the GOP leadership tries to win based on what perception is out there."
This is exactly why I think the GOP is headed for the dump.
"Abstain from McCain"
The GOP tries to win based
May 7, 2008 - 12:23 ET by CortillaenThe GOP tries to win based on their perception of public perception? That sounds familiar... oh, right! The Dems! </sarc> If the Reps had more than a couple of brains between them they'd understand that the Democrats have been playing to public opinion for decades. Mimicing that approach is a sure-fire method to lose, especially when the Dems can use that handy MSM in their back pocket to control what a lot of the public sees and how they see it. The Dems won't touch the "honesty, values, and doing the right thing" approach, so the Reps take full blame for not filling that void. With the internet, a true conservative could easily start building strong grass-roots support, media be damned. There's simply no excuse for the spineless lump of a party we have today.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Cort and Clear - all politicians play to public opinion
May 7, 2008 - 12:44 ET by Dee BunkThe media is forcing out the strong Republicans like Delay, Gingrich, Lott and others. They mercilessly demonize them and destroy their careers. Look at how Gingrich has changed since his demonization. They learn that to get anywhere they have to work with the liberal media. Politicians aren't going to be able to change it. We have to some how. Politicians will always cater to public opinion - in fact that is their function.
Unfortunately, Hollywood and the media keep pulling the public farther and farther left so that true conservatives can't get elected.
It just goes to show how
May 7, 2008 - 13:04 ET by CortillaenIt just goes to show how few people of true character are in politics. If there was actually a full party of strong conservatives, the left's demonization tactics wouldn't be nearly as effective. As it is, those who try to stand up for something get thrown under the bus by the rest of the GOP the instant the Dems and their pet press start the attack. Standing against your enemies (ideologically speaking) is one thing, but it's nigh impossible to stay strong when your "allies" throw you to the wolves or, worse, stab you in the back themselves.
I'm thinking it's about time to completely abandon the Reps; throw them to the wolves for a change. It won't be fun in the short run, but just letting the nation go to hell in a handbasket doesn't sound so great, either. There's entirely too much going on in the world demanding real leaders to just go with the flow.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Character in politics is doing what the people elected you to do
May 7, 2008 - 13:30 ET by Dee BunkLike President Bush. The things conservatives don't like him for like immigration and prescription drugs are things that he ran on - both times. It would have shown poor character to go back on those things.
Congressmen and Senators need to represent the majority in their districts. If we had a fair media then they could state their case to their constituents but we don't, so they have little choice but to follow.
We the people have to change things by getting more involved.
Someone with consistent character
May 7, 2008 - 13:36 ET by sarcasmoWould have kept his promises on spending. Bush didn't even come close, despite the fact that chances are good spending-issues, rather than prescription drugs or immigration, got him elected. Now Republicans -- deservedly -- have a problem convincing the American people they're fiscally conservative. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Sarc - but his major spending was prescription drugs & the War
May 7, 2008 - 13:55 ET by Dee Bunkthe rest of the stuff passed by a Republican congress and I don't think it's ever a good idea to veto bills passed by your party when the other side is so viciously and rabidly against you. If he were vetoing Rep bills then he wouldn't have had anyone on his side.
I blame the Rep Congress and the Dems for the spending - not Bush. If 9/11 hadn't happened and all the nastiness from the Dems, I think he would have vetoed some of it. He was strongly against the Federal screeners and was very vocal about it. He compromised only to keep some of his dem support alive for other aspects of the war on terror.
So yes, the Congress does deserve what it got and unfortunately Republicans are so stupid that they don't work hard to elect different congressmen, they instead give up and let bigger spenders take over. National health care will be the biggest drag on this nation and once implemented it will never go away. It will only get bigger and bigger as they keep trying to fix how bad it will be.
He'd have had me on his side with some vetos.
May 7, 2008 - 13:59 ET by sarcasmoI can't believe fiscally responsible Republicans would not back spending vetos. Even McCain was against his tax cuts because of all the irresponsible spending. I've been griping about spending excess for too long, it's getting very tiresome because nobody is listening. I hold Presidents -- Republican and Democrat -- responsible for the crap they sign, and this one did not veto a thing for WAAAAY too long to impress me.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
But sarc - Bush was re-elected.
May 7, 2008 - 14:20 ET by Dee BunkSo not vetoing didn't hurt him. If he would have vetoed he probably wouldn't have been reelected because he already had a boat load of hate from the media, Hollywood, entertainers and the Dem politicians. He couldn't alienate the Rep congress also or he'd never have got his judges and many other things through. The so called fiscally responsible conservatives were the ones sending him the bills.
When the Dems sent the bills he did veto. No one likes the irresponsible spending, yet they are ready to give blank checks by electing the most liberal President we've ever had and giving him a large majority in the house and a near filibuster proof Senate.
The tax cuts brought more money in so not having them would have only made the problem worse.
It may not have hurt Bush personally
May 7, 2008 - 14:30 ET by sarcasmoBut the fiscal irresponsibility has clearly hurt the Republican brand. When Hillary(!) can claim that she's a fiscal conservative when referencing Bush, that's saying something...Anyway, people like me don't care if statist bills are proposed by Democrats or Republicans -- we expect a veto from our Presidents because that's their job. Sadly, we live not just in a duopoly, but, as Sheldon Richman says, in a one party system.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Sarc - anyone can claim anything if the media let them
May 7, 2008 - 14:52 ET by Dee Bunkobviously any meaningful questions about Hillary's and Obama's plans would reveal them to be much bigger spenders than Bush or the Rep Congress.
People like me don't care who proposes them either. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and judge each individual thing that comes to pass as write or wrong, and it's another thing entirely to have to play the political game of - if you give me this, I'll give you that. The Dems weren't playing. They were giving him nothing but hate and grief for anything he said and did not matter how compromising. He had to play with the Reps. They knew it and they took advantage of it.
I back vetoes. He should
May 7, 2008 - 15:14 ET by ckc1227I back vetoes. He should have vetoed more. A strong leader would have. McCain's reason for being against the tax cuts was a lame one though.Why should the tax paying public be penalized with higher taxes simply because congress can't get its act together?
I back vetoes too
May 7, 2008 - 15:29 ET by Dee Bunkbut we don't matter, the President doesn't have to work with us to get stuff done, he has to work with Congress. There were already Republicans defecting because of the media demonization. If he wanted his tax cuts and War spending he had to give them stuff. There is no possible way to get everything you want in politics unless you control both houses the media and the judges.
We'll see pretty soon how that works.
"Would have kept his
May 7, 2008 - 15:08 ET by ckc1227"Would have kept his promises on spending.Bush didn't even come close"
I'd say he came very close. He promised some big government, big spending programs coming in, and he delivered on them. Sure, he may have been saying that he would cut spending, but with all he was promising, we should have known there was no way he could stick to his spending promise and deliver all these things at the same time. Then you throw in 9/11 and the war on terror, and there you go.
The American people may have a hard time believing that Republicans are fiscally conservative, and I don't blame them. But if spending concerns them, they better pay attention because the dem candidates are talking about increasing spending by close to a trillion dollars. I think that's a conservative estimate. They're likely to reach that figure with nationalized health care alone.
exactly ckc -
May 8, 2008 - 08:10 ET by Dee Bunkwe are on the same page
"Character in politics is
May 7, 2008 - 16:39 ET by Cortillaen"Character in politics is doing what the people elected you to do" I must beg to differ. Character anywhere is doing what's right, regardless of circumstances. The case may be made that honesty (doing in office what you promised during the campaign) is "what's right", but I tend to think that going back on bad promises after you realize your error would be better. Of course, if you campaigned on bad promises knowing full well that they were so, that's a whole new dimension.
In the end, politicians are in the business of pandering to the interests of various groups, and nothing can really change that. I daresay there are few, if any, politicians in the business solely to serve the people and improve the nation.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
but unless something is illegal or unquestionably immoral
May 8, 2008 - 08:13 ET by Dee Bunkthen "what's right" is to represent what the people want like they said they would.
That's your opinion, and
May 8, 2008 - 11:27 ET by CortillaenThat's your opinion, and that's fine, but I don't share it. Honesty is very important, but I think there are times when the right thing may part ways with keeping one's word. Attacking the war effort, taking shots at our troops, pushing radical agendas, and voicing support for communist nations will never be the "right thing" to do, even if you were elected with those in your platform.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Reagan won because he was
May 7, 2008 - 10:26 ET by NL207Reagan won because he was running against Jimmy Carter. Even with the MSM in his tank, Carter's Presidency was such an unmitigated disaster he could not be re-elected.
Reagen Presidency
May 7, 2008 - 10:41 ET by CobraManThat may have something to do with Reagan's first win, but Carter had nothing to do with the second election which gave Reagan an even bigger victory. 49 states! That second election was all Reagan, baby!
Give real, conservative
May 7, 2008 - 10:51 ET by NL207Give real, conservative gorvernance a chance and it will win every time.
The media
May 7, 2008 - 10:30 ET by KC MulvilleAgreed. The media is a huge foe. But they're not invincible. The media covered Reagan, not just because he was a movie star, but because he had something to say. And most importantly, the things he said were already being said by the people themselves. He spoke to what people were already thinking. Can you name a single Republican of whom you can say that today? I can't.
KC... You sound as PO'd
May 7, 2008 - 10:19 ET by Clear thinkerKC...
You sound as PO'd as I am at the GOP leadership. I'm seriously thinking about quitting the GOP after the general in Nov. I want to be in a party that actually wants me, not just my money and vote.
"Abstain from McCain"
Party affiliation
May 7, 2008 - 10:49 ET by KC MulvilleWell, to be honest, I'm one of those lunatic fringe guys who thinks the party system in this country is in serious dysfunction. With so many issues, and such a range of possibilities within each issue, it seems obvious to me that a two-party system is a bad idea.
Think of how the two-party system messed up a mature conversation about stem cells, or Terri Schiavo. When those two issues rose to national consciousness, most of us were willing to listen to all kinds of approaches and policies. But once the partisans got involved, the partisanship forced all of those possibilities into just two options. You're either on one side or the other, and if you're with us on stem cells, you have to be with us on Schiavo, taxes, Guantanamo, and anything and everything else we can think of. It's a dysfunctional system. You can't squeeze any issue into two rigid partisan possibilities.
In my opinion, the Democrat way to accommodate that dysfunction has been to simply accept the system as is, and as a rule, to always advocate the most liberal approach. The Republican method of dealing with the dysfunction is to talk about being conservative, but then to choose the path of least resistance. The beauty of being a conservative is that you're taking partisan government out of the process as much as possible. Not every issue has to be forced into only two options. But then Republicans weasel out, and wind up acting exactly like Democrats.
Yeah, I guess you can tell, this hits a nerve with me.
I agree, candance. I see
May 7, 2008 - 10:00 ET by motherbeltI agree, candance. I see too many politicians and pundits talking about what the country "needs."
It'sa good thing the NYT editorial board wasn't around back then...they would have told the founding fathers that a constitution was "just what the country didn't need; it would be too restrictive and not "flexible" enough.
At what point?
May 7, 2008 - 10:24 ET by dronetekAre we coming to a point where people will have to rise up and defend the consitution? Does anyone here think the American people are even capable of such a thing?
Well there was one civil
May 7, 2008 - 10:27 ET by taterWell there was one civil war in our history, hopefully it doesn't have to come to that but if that's what it takes to defend my freedom sign me up.
"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather
No
May 7, 2008 - 10:36 ET by candanceThe almighty dollar trumps everything, and as soon as people realize the government can tax the rich to line their pockets, they'll let the government get away with anything.
Most people honestly would rather hand over their care to the government so they don't have to fool with buying health insurance or tutoring their children. It's win-win for them.
Candance
May 7, 2008 - 18:22 ET by RESTLESS 1What happens when there are no more rich to tax? Then they will be coming for everybody's paycheck, then the revolution will begin anew.
candance,
May 8, 2008 - 11:50 ET by R D Helm- that years from now history books will mark this year as the departure from the Constitution.
I could not agree more. I think we are at the proverbial tipping point as a nation. Once we go over, there will be no turning back. At least, not without a national uprising of some kind. Highly unlikely in these selfish times.
The age of the dumb(ed-down)mAsses has finally arrived.
Up until last week, I was pretty confident that Obama was essentially unelectable, but I no-longer feel that way.
Perhaps if we had a true conservative running we would have a decent chance in November, but this is the American Idol election, and many who will be casting their votes for Obama would be hard-pressed to even spell Constitution, much less tell you what is actually contained therein.
As things stand today, I believe Barack Obama will win the White House, and right handily at that.
Depressing, that is.
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
thanks RD
May 8, 2008 - 12:45 ET by candanceAt the risk of tooting my own horn, I have sustained that Obama will win since January. Took a lot of flack in those days and now people are starting to agree.
The left is louder, braver, and more popular than ever, and the media has gone into full propaganda mode.
Just call me Cassandra. : - )
candance, well, don't feel that you are alone as a flak magnet.
May 8, 2008 - 22:59 ET by R D HelmI, too have caught much for my comments about Sen. McCain. What is more, I expect to catch still more before this is over.
I think John McCain is completely oblivious to the derision the MSM truly carries for him. He has absolutely no clue as to what is about to be thrown his way. What is worse is that I do not feel he has what it takes to respond effectively to any of it.
The reason the MSM wants Hillary out of the way is so that they can start firing their missiles at him, projectiles they have had loaded up and ready to launch since his essential clinching of the nomination.
What I find truly disconcerting is that he appears to still believe many in the MSM are his friends. He has learned nothing from the few attacks he has undergone so far.
Is he ever in for an epiphany.
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
I'M NOT EXACTLY SHOCKED
May 7, 2008 - 08:46 ET by timzankBut that is a mighty bold statement for "The Paper Of Record" to make.
Founders views, such
May 7, 2008 - 08:47 ET by mattmFounders views, such as freedom of the press?
Restrict Freedom of the Press
May 7, 2008 - 09:20 ET by Dr_LibertyThe NYT absolutely wants to restrict freedom of the press ... just not their press. Their part of the aristocracy remember and above the fray.
Its those bloggers and radio people who are abusing the free press, ya know. Fairness Doctrine here we come.
<insert witty signature here>
I bet if you come down
May 7, 2008 - 08:55 ET by bassndudeI bet if you come down on the first amendment, they would change their tune real quick. Of course, that is the only, in their view, clause that should be up held. Lets see how they react to the goverment telling them what they can and cannot print.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
McCain is blowing smoke
May 7, 2008 - 08:58 ET by Prester JohnHe knows that with a probable Dem pick-up of at least 4 seats in the Senate another Roberts/Alito nominee would never get confirmed. Besides, wasn't he one of the founding members of the Gang of 14?
He's just trying to make nice with party conservatives.
Not a Surprise
May 7, 2008 - 09:08 ET by Increase MatherNo surprise the TIMES see the Constituion as something that should be gotten around. Shortly after the Constitutional Convention finished its business in September 1787, Ben Franklin was leaving Constitution Hall, a woman approached him as asked "What is it to be"...famously, Franklin replied..."A republic, if you can keep it" That's the problem with Repubics and Constitutions, they have rules...not the kind of thing the NYTIMES wants to see get in the way of implementing their agenda. Justice Steven Breyer (Clinton appointee) was asked on a C-Span interview about getting around the original meaning of the Consititution, he replied that he didn't want to get around it, merely supplement it...with European law. Didn't most of our ancestors leave Europe for some reasons?
Breyer is an admitted
May 7, 2008 - 09:46 ET by NL207Breyer is an admitted traitor to the Constitution, which he swore an oath to defend and uphold when he took this office. He should be impeached.
Impeach Breyer!
May 7, 2008 - 09:58 ET by MaximusBraveheartSeems like there should be a provision for that. Anyone know? Guess it would be impossible given the current political conditions... however that is slowly changing.
IMO, any judge who suggests
May 7, 2008 - 10:04 ET by motherbeltIMO, any judge who suggests looking to European law should be ousted. Along with whoever the idiot legislator (Biden?) who looked to "Scottish law" for guidance in voting during the Clinton impeachment.
There is. The Congress
May 7, 2008 - 10:49 ET by NL207There is. The Congress has the power to impeach Federal Judges including the Supreme Court. The last time a Supreme Court Justice was impeached was Samuel Chase in 1804.
An interesting side note: There is an impeached former Federal Judge sitting in Congress today, Alcee Hastings. I don't need to tell you which party he is a member of.
NYT
May 7, 2008 - 09:10 ET by burtonrobsonI agree 100% with de bunk!! It makes me sick with this helpless feeling. It is never going to be the same. sad!!!!
Chicken Little
May 7, 2008 - 09:10 ET by KC MulvilleIt takes either stupidity or gall to complain about right-wing “activism.” The entire premise of the right wing is to limit activism. Conservatives want the court to return to its proper function, and to create no laws on their own. Liberals (like the NY Times here) call that activism simply to equate it with what they do, and say it’s all the same thing. Liberals take it for granted that everyone pushes their agenda, and so when conservatives push their agenda, it’s as much “activism” as when liberals do it. To claim that the Court is activist is a deliberate distortion, because the conservatives insist that the Court not push an agenda. Either the liberals don’t understand that, or they deliberately distort it.
It’s hilarious that the NY Times is screaming about the dire consequences of what another conservative might do. The Times, obviously, feels threatened by traditional judges. They’re responding neurotically, warning that the sky is going to fall, because they simply can’t face the possibility of losing their trump card over the fabric of American life.
The end
May 7, 2008 - 09:53 ET by iveseenitallThe other day a creep named Zakaria wrote an article in Newsweek which posited that America has become #2 in the world. Some Americans, including some posters here, saw that as a positive piece and actually agreed with it. It appears the MSM, the schools, and even some churches have done their job well. Through indocrination, ignorance, and apathy we have shifted to "liberalism"/socialism/communism, the lazy person's form of government, the nanny state. Ben Franklin was implying doubt about America's ability to follow the Constituion and to fight the enemy within, as well as the enemy without. Freedom, the basis of our greatness, is under attack. But, as Franklin feared, we have lost the will to fight. We and our children are in for hard times. Sad.
BTW, check out the MSM, chock full of foriegners, or new citizens, whose loyalty lies elsewhere. They don't understand our Constituiton, nor do they want to. And they are almost never accountable for what they say and write. We may wake up sometime, but it looks as though it will be too late.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
The New York Times...
May 7, 2008 - 09:53 ET by ThalpyThe New York Times--"just what the country does not need."
This is why I like Ron
May 7, 2008 - 10:04 ET by wiwfThis is why I like Ron Paul... in this case ;)
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
No people will tamely
May 7, 2008 - 10:29 ET by expatriotNo people will tamely surrender their liberties, nor can easily be subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved.
On the contrary, when people are universally ignorant, and debauched in their manners, they will sink under their own weight without the aid of foreign invaders. Samuel Adams
Think about it!
If we don't pay attention
May 7, 2008 - 10:37 ET by expatriot"The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities." President T. Roosevelt.
Barry and Hillary
May 7, 2008 - 11:07 ET by iveseenitallEvery time I hear Barry and Hillary tell us how much we need their help, I want to barf. We have become such ignorant, dependent people in so many ways. For example, they cry that everyone has a right to a college education. That's true, but not everyone is entitled to or qualified for a college degree. As a result of their ideas, many college graduates are no more educated than the 5th graders of years ago. They wouldn't understand the Constitution if they read it, which most of them haven't. A college degree has lost its value due to the nanny state. But ignorance is bliss in America today. Our founders are spinning in their graves. Sad.
NEVER,NEVER trust a"liberal'
The NYT is so far out of touch with the mainstream, it's a joke
May 7, 2008 - 10:42 ET by c5thenthe biggest majority of the population when polled, wants the founders words to still mean what they say and not to be interpreted into some twisted idea of modern liberalism.
Whan asked if the freedom of the press is out of touch with reality and should be re-interpreted, most people would say "Hell NO!" but the NYT says that maybe we should restrict freedom of the press to just the views that we like and exclude the ones that we find intimidating.
It's interesting that the Constitution has built into it the method for changing and updating it as required. It's called the Amendment process. Most liberals don't want to go that route because they are affraid they will lose. They would rather appoint like-minded justices to the Supreme Court who will just re-interpret the offending sentence and make it all better.
Like a particular surgical proceedure being the ONLY one that is a "right" because some justice cited the privacy of the individual. Yes it's tortured and illogical, but it made the liberals sigh and feel better.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
If you can keep it?
May 7, 2008 - 13:52 ET by GilIf you can keep it?
Lest we forget.. those are not mere WORDS when we sing about God guiding America "with the light from above". I normally only lurk, but this has struck a nerve with me, also. There is a God in heaven and HE has a plan. Men do not keep the nation.. God does.
Psa 127:1 Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman wakes but in vain.
Except the Lord keep the nation, we all watch to protect the Republic in vain. The fact is, conservatives see how very broken and in need we are and how these kinds of people are trying to undermine the very fabric of what makes America great in order to make it only one among many nations - an "equal" to dictatorships, despotics and terrorism (note their statement "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" - like that has any moral reasoning behind it). America is NOT morally equivalent as a nation to others, as we conservatives well know and defend.
The situation IS dire.. but not beyond hope. What will it take to get revival in the nation where 78% of the population says they are Christians and the one most Bible literate nation in the world? Well, it looks like it will take more than a wake-up call of 3,000 dead Americans on 911. Since America isn't listening, the only choice I see God has is to wake America up. As said in this thread, people are "too busy" to pay attention to the real issues here, and because of that we are in real danger of losing the Republic.
However, notice how war makes people stand up and take notice. Notice how death brings about real change and heart searchings. Read the Bible a bit and tell me.. what will turn America back to her roots? (See Jeremiah chapter 2.) I think we know the answer and should not dispair when we see it happen. It will be horrendous to see such harm on US soil, but the lancing of the boil is also painful.. to save the entire human being.
They call it fear mongering in the MSM to speak of terrorism on US soil. But if the country were on the right track - and NO, I do NOT mean President Bush is off track and we need a racist black to bring "change" to the nation - I mean on the right track MORALLY, I mean concerning defending our freedoms from all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC.. if we were on THAT right track, then we would have peace.
Pro 16:7 When a man's ways please the LORD, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.
We do not have peace because we are not defending it - not ALL of us are defending our freedom, not the whole of America (I exclude you awakened souls in this endictment, I have not seen a more "right" and by that I mean "correct" lot of people as the good posters and bloggers here and on a couple of other good right-wing news/blog sites.)... But we all will end up defending our freedom.
America as a whole will be forced to see the "black and white" of what losing this Republic will mean to them in their everyday lives. When the chains of slavery to Liberalism and its bankrupt destinations finally are seen for what they truly bring (sin brings death), America will turn to God, and God will hand the Republic back to those who survive and have fought for it. But many will die before that day, because the boil to lance is deeper than we can imagine or see. Do not dispair, those who are of the faith and have eyes to see.. it will turn out ok in the end for America. But there is a heavy cost to pay, and it is soon to come. That is my prayerfully arrived at two cents worth, and in spite of its somber tone, it was meant to encourage those of you who I see dispairing. You are the light of the world.. the hope of America.. trust in God as is written on America's currency. He has not and will not fail you.
Gil.
Gil, Do we conceive
May 7, 2008 - 16:25 ET by SyriusGil,
Do we conceive social betterment to be in the pitiless use of irresistible power? Or do we conceive it to rise out of the irresistible might of a body of free men? Has justice ever grown in the soil of absolute power? Has not justice always come from the press of the heart and spirit of men who resist power? Liberty has never come from government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of government power, not the increase of it.
History lesson...who authored the above statement?
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Gil, not to throw water on
May 7, 2008 - 16:37 ET by bassndudeGil, not to throw water on your parade, but the referance of "the light from above.." is not a referance to God, but a literal referal to the flares fired by the cannons.
God gave man freewill, and dominion over the earth. Therefor it is men who have instituted goverments. Refer to the Bible when the Jews when they pestered God for a King untill He gave them one.
God will bless a country, but he will not keep it, unless you count his defense of Israel.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bassndude - "Gil, not to
May 7, 2008 - 17:35 ET by Gilbassndude - "Gil, not to throw water on your parade, but the referance of "the light from above.." is not a referance to God, but a literal referal to the flares fired by the cannons."
Not to be nitpicky but.. I was referring to "God Bless America"
Lyrics below:
God Bless America, land that I love
Stand beside Her, and guide Her
Through the night
With the light from Above
From the mountains, to the prairies
To the oceans white with foam
God Bless America
My Home Sweet Home
http://www.americanapple.com/lyrics
As for man having freewill.. that does not negate God's Sovereign rulership over all nations in Scripture.
Dan 4:17 This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomsoever he will
True, the Israelites rejected God's direct rulership in choosing a King instead of a direct Theocracy, but that does not mean God is not Sovereign over all political decisions and kingdoms of men. As for God not keeping a country, I felt the Word strong enough with the one I quoted which says that Unless the Lord keeps a city, the watchmen watch in vain. That Scripture, coupled with the petition in God Bless America for His guidance "with the light from above" is America asking God to KEEP and GUIDE her.. a principle which I believe the forefathers who gave the US Constitution to America were in agreement with.
Gil.
Syrius - "Do we conceive
May 7, 2008 - 18:50 ET by GilSyrius - "Do we conceive social betterment to be in the pitiless use of irresistible power? Or do we conceive it to rise out of the irresistible might of a body of free men? Has justice ever grown in the soil of absolute power? Has not justice always come from the press of the heart and spirit of men who resist power? Liberty has never come from government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of government power, not the increase of it."
Answer: Candidate Woodrow Wilson, 1912, N.Y. Press Club Address, before he became the twenty-eighth President of the United States (1913-1921).
And I totally agree with his words, too. That is speaking of what man can do on earth as free men to resist tyranny, something I believe God supports and assists. But I was speaking of the complementary concept of God's Soveignty over mankind in bringing about that freedom (often through favoring the very free persons Wilson there describes - as God has had His hand over the nation of America in the ultimate outcome of so many of her conflicts). I spoke so because He is in control above mankind, having all the power (Omnipotence) and is without corruption, unlike men who weild power with base natures and are subject to the fallen human condition. And He gives the victory to whomsoever He wills to.. and will give it again to America in time, as she turns to Him for the wisdom and strength to stand for freedom again.
Gil.
Sorry, Gil...
May 7, 2008 - 20:08 ET by SyriusGil,
I wasn't trying to comment on your thread. I should have posted as a general observation.
Thanks for replying...you are correct. Wilson had paraphrased the last parts from Jefferson. Teddy R ignorant of Jefferson's statements had accused Wilson of being a radical for his speech. As we support our history, its historical figures and statements, we may find the radical ideas of the past resonate the same today only to find the statements do not fit current ideological views. If transported to the present, The Founding Fathers would be alarmed to find the Constitution hasn't been rewritten only amended.
As Jefferson wrote-
"No society can make a perpetual constitution, or even perpetual law."
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
As Jefferson wrote- "No
May 7, 2008 - 23:07 ET by GilAs Jefferson wrote- "No society can make a perpetual constitution, or even perpetual law."
No, Syrius, no SOCIETY can make a perpetual law.. it took God to do that. Things like prohibitions on stealing, committing adultery, murdering, and lying - eternal principles which are merely handed down to men, not made up by them. But of all the forms of governing which have been on the earth throughout the history of mankind, none has equalled or rivalled this system of government in its usefulness for bringing about freedom, prosperity and good to the people it governs. I say we should not tamper with success by trying to overthrow what has been proven by the passage of time or tinker too much in the watchworks, lest we ruin the mechanism. Changing or removing certain central and "self-evident" truths could end the usefulness and ability to function of this "watch".
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. - Sir Winston Churchill
British politician (1874 - 1965)
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/364.html
Gil...handed down by...?
May 8, 2008 - 19:51 ET by SyriusGil,
I understand your points to a certain limit. I draw the line when you state..."eternal principles which are merely handed down to men, not made up by them."...I disagree. Men created those principles not an imaginary being. You may try and propose a principle to a body of men. If they reject you what other type of discourse would be available to you besides physical force. Propose it as a statement from a god and you might have a chance dependent on the strength of your persuasive arguments during those times. Follow the amendments to our own laws over the last 200 or so years. Divine powers? No...compromises between men (& women). Again..."But of all the forms of governing which have been on the earth
throughout the history of mankind, none has equalled or rivalled this
system of government in its usefulness for bringing about freedom,
prosperity and good to the people it governs." Up until a few years ago I would have agreed with your statement. Not now though...This country is way off course from where it should be and I look to forward to when the current administration leaves office. Our civil liberties are being given up for an overblown threat from a few extremists. Its time to stop the fear-mongering and deal with the world in a different view instead of the current militaristic one.
"I say we should not tamper with success by trying to overthrow what has
been proven by the passage of time or tinker too much in the
watchworks, lest we ruin the mechanism. Changing or removing certain
central and "self-evident" truths could end the usefulness and ability
to function of this "watch". " I disagree again...we should always tamper and improve our system and if deemed unworthy or unworkable to our current situation be able to change it for the betterment of everyone in our country and for those around the world.
For now I will quote Lincoln- "I do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. To do so, would be to discard all the lights of current experience-to reject all progress, all improvement."
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
You are stretching! Saying
May 7, 2008 - 23:26 ET by cleverpigYou are stretching! Saying that the country doesn't need McCain's idea of what the Founding Fathers wanted is hardly the same as saying down with the Contitution!
People disagree on the intentions of the founders of this country. Heck, the founders of this country disagreed with one another! Are you going to pick Jefferson's views or Hamilton's views to adhere strictly to?
I know you love to paint the grey lady commie red, but this is really trying too hard. The NYT editorial board doesn't want the conservative brand of strict constructionism in the Supreme Court. So what?
All we really know about
May 7, 2008 - 23:43 ET by MightyMouthAll we really know about the founders is what they agreed to and wrote in the constitution. Anything other than that is open to interoperation. So who gets to interoperate any thing else? The liberal court? The conservative court? How about leaving it up to the states on matters that are not clearly delineated?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
→ cleverpig
May 8, 2008 - 02:05 ET by Cool ArrowDid those founders come up with any kind of document we might refer to?
Would have been nice if these guys had come up with something of that sort, wouldn't it?
♣ a seal
And yet if you ask a
May 10, 2008 - 01:25 ET by cleverpigAnd yet if you ask a conservative and a liberal, both of whom have read the Constitution, what the founding fathers intended for this country, I bet you would get two very different answers. Neither one would include "...and screw the Constitution!"
Legislating from the bench?
May 8, 2008 - 01:40 ET by GilHow about leaving it up to the states on matters that are not clearly delineated? -MightyMouth
The problem is that we are talking about the matters that are clearly delineated, MightyMouth. It isn't the obscure things they want to do away with.. it is the self-evident ones. The quote was:
Writes the Times [emphasis added]: Mr. McCain predictably criticized liberal judges, vowed strict adherence to the Founders’ views and promised to appoint more judges in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. That is just what the country does not need.
What the problem is, MightyMouth, is that we are dealing with strictly adhering to ANY of the Founders' views, not just the obscure ones. These people are those who think it should be the JUDGES views which hold sway. I have to quote another blog site because it is so pertinent:
greybeard
May 6th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Obama camp responds to McCain speech (on Judges)
From NBC’s Mark Murray
Obama would have judges legislate from the bench. (humm a lot of what is already going on)
Judge appointments will be a major impact on where our country heads in next 20 years.
I’d like to point out another Obama comment/ or belief here.
“Can, and should, the existing concepts of American jurisprudence provide racial minorities more than formal equality through the courts?”
…provide racial minorities more than formal equality?
and this:
Obama regarding the confirmation hearings for John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court:
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said, ‘The role of a justice is to favor the weak over the strong. In the most difficult cases, the determining factor is not what the law in question says, or what the Constitution says. In those difficult cases,’ ” what matters is “what is in the judge’s heart.”
…->In the most difficult cases, the determining factor is not what the law in question says, or what the Constitution says
Yes, Obama has some ‘changes’ acomin’ for the masses.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/other-news-for-the-week-of-may-3-may-9#comment-110086
NOW do you see MightyMouth? This would start out as the hard cases, but like abortion being ONLY if the mother's life was in danger, it would move from the most difficult cases to "the determining factor is not what the law in question says, or what the Constitution says.. In those cases, what matters is “what is in the judge’s heart.”
THAT is not in the Founding Father's hearts, as they were seeking to restrict legislation, not give a free hand to whomever had a heart to impose their own will on us from the bench. That is why they wrote the Constitution. When they CHANGE it to the determining factor is not what the law in question says, or what the Constitution says.. then they are destroying the Constitution as a founding document. McCain would protect us from such judicial activism, Obama will give that viewpoint free reign.. to the detriment of the Union and ruin of the country - all in the name of "freedom". It also looks like it will favor the "weak" (read minority point of view, like the tiny but very vocal homosexual minority) and racial minorities. Can you see where the law will head under Obama.. under McCain? Which is closer to the vision of the Founding Fathers? Which is diametrically opposed to their view? Which will lead to the rule of the PEOPLE, which will lead to the rule of the elite (minority).