I submit that the fix needs to go farther than just a new Pres and a conservative majority in both houses. Once those elements are in place, what is needed is some amendments to the Constitution to close some of the most egregiously-abused loopholes the Supreme Court has been able to 'find' (invent) with clearer language that restores things to the way they were intended to be.
Stop the abuse of the Commerce Clause to mean all things based on any rationale at all, and the 'promote the general welfare' clause to be infinitely expansive, among other things. The Supreme Court cannot claim a Constitutional Amendment is unconstitutional. We just have to remove the wriggle room.
As comforting as that may feel, now is not the time to give up and tune out. The assault is not over. It will continue until we have achieved a conservative majority in at least one house of Congress. And the abuses may get worse. We must be vigilant and active, because there is still much more that can be lost in what may turn out to be a very long and grueling 7 months.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Saturday, March 6, 2010
The Power to Choose Members of SCOTUS is Important
What do you think is the single most enduring impact our choice for president can have on our country?
I mean as a general principle, what is the most far-reaching thing a president is empowered to do?
I have believed for awhile that it is his (or her) authority to select federal court judges, and supreme court justices. I was shocked to learn just how quickly the judiciary started taking this country down the wrong path, and how persistent it has been on that path as an institution, worshiping at the altar of "precedent".
The authority to appoint judges and justices "for life", with no recourse for their bad decisions and attacks on the constitution they swore to defend except impeachment, which has been used way too little anyway, has led to disastrous consequences that have far outlived the presidents who made the appointments, or even the judges/justices who made the decisions.
I have begun to think this is the single most important thing to consider when choosing a president.
His policy leanings can be largely checked by a resistant Congress (hopefully starting in January for this case). But if he puts in place a judiciary, from which there is no appeal except by amending the constitution, a judiciary that will turn its head and refuse to defend the constitution, that can change things for generations.
A new congress can repeal Obamacare (the purported "benefits" of which won't even begin to take effect until 2014) and replace it with something reasonable. If Obama won't sign that, then his replacement can in 2013, if we choose wisely. A really strong opposition congress can even begin to refuse to allocate the money for it sooner than that, even if it means shutting down the federal government to call his bluff - (and maybe save some $ along the way???).
My greatest fear right now is whether, and how many, federal judiciary appointments, and particularly how many Supreme Court appointments, Obama may have the opportunity to fill in the remainder of his lame duck presidency.
To learn more about what an out-of-control judiciary, which is not effectively 'checked and balanced' by either of the other two branches of government, can mean, I commend to you another book, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution".
I mean as a general principle, what is the most far-reaching thing a president is empowered to do?
I have believed for awhile that it is his (or her) authority to select federal court judges, and supreme court justices. I was shocked to learn just how quickly the judiciary started taking this country down the wrong path, and how persistent it has been on that path as an institution, worshiping at the altar of "precedent".
The authority to appoint judges and justices "for life", with no recourse for their bad decisions and attacks on the constitution they swore to defend except impeachment, which has been used way too little anyway, has led to disastrous consequences that have far outlived the presidents who made the appointments, or even the judges/justices who made the decisions.
I have begun to think this is the single most important thing to consider when choosing a president.
His policy leanings can be largely checked by a resistant Congress (hopefully starting in January for this case). But if he puts in place a judiciary, from which there is no appeal except by amending the constitution, a judiciary that will turn its head and refuse to defend the constitution, that can change things for generations.
A new congress can repeal Obamacare (the purported "benefits" of which won't even begin to take effect until 2014) and replace it with something reasonable. If Obama won't sign that, then his replacement can in 2013, if we choose wisely. A really strong opposition congress can even begin to refuse to allocate the money for it sooner than that, even if it means shutting down the federal government to call his bluff - (and maybe save some $ along the way???).
My greatest fear right now is whether, and how many, federal judiciary appointments, and particularly how many Supreme Court appointments, Obama may have the opportunity to fill in the remainder of his lame duck presidency.
To learn more about what an out-of-control judiciary, which is not effectively 'checked and balanced' by either of the other two branches of government, can mean, I commend to you another book, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution".
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Glenn Beck at CPAC
Glenn Beck's keynote speech at the CPAC this afternoon was amazing. Even though I had heard some of it before on his regular show on Fox News, the fact that he was willing to stand and deliver this no-holds-barred message to CPAC was inspiring, as was how it was received by the audience. He pandered to no person, no political party, no special interest. He just told it like it is. Just Glenn and his chalkboard and some infrequently consulted notes, and a refreshing absence of teleprompters.
The transcript does not really do it justice, so if you are interested in the delivery, you can see it here: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/36618/.
The transcript does not really do it justice, so if you are interested in the delivery, you can see it here: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/36618/.
Recommended Reading: The PIG to American History
I've been reading an interesting book - "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History". I recommend it to anybody who thinks they know American history. My guess is that you don't. Not really. I keep hearing how the textbooks have been changed over the years, to hide or even pervert the truth about our history, but I figured it wasn't happening when I was in JHS, and that I probably had been taught the truth.
Turns out, even back then, I was not. If you have the intellectual honesty to face it, I recommend this read. If you are up to have some of your long-held beliefs challenged, give it a go. It kept me up until 2am this morning. If you have kids studying history, I think you should get them to read this. It isn't all good, but it is the truth.
The Civil War wasn't about what you probably think it was about. Andrew Johnson, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge were probably much better presidents, in terms of being good for the country, than they get credit for, and FDR and Woodrow Wilson were probably much worse than they get credit for. It was actually Abraham Lincoln who put us on the course of bigger, more controlling and invasive centralized government that our founders tried so hard to prevent. Stuff like that, and much more. A lot of what has happened to our country in the last 100 years is exactly what was discussed and feared by our founding fathers. It ain't all pretty by a long shot, but it is better to know the truth than a sanitized and twisted version of the truth. This isn't from the book, but it is my growing opinion that the most powerful people in America should probably be the 50 governors and their respective state legislatures, and not the President, the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, or even the U.S. Congress.
Turns out, even back then, I was not. If you have the intellectual honesty to face it, I recommend this read. If you are up to have some of your long-held beliefs challenged, give it a go. It kept me up until 2am this morning. If you have kids studying history, I think you should get them to read this. It isn't all good, but it is the truth.
The Civil War wasn't about what you probably think it was about. Andrew Johnson, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge were probably much better presidents, in terms of being good for the country, than they get credit for, and FDR and Woodrow Wilson were probably much worse than they get credit for. It was actually Abraham Lincoln who put us on the course of bigger, more controlling and invasive centralized government that our founders tried so hard to prevent. Stuff like that, and much more. A lot of what has happened to our country in the last 100 years is exactly what was discussed and feared by our founding fathers. It ain't all pretty by a long shot, but it is better to know the truth than a sanitized and twisted version of the truth. This isn't from the book, but it is my growing opinion that the most powerful people in America should probably be the 50 governors and their respective state legislatures, and not the President, the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, or even the U.S. Congress.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Ray Steven's Video - We The People
Neat, catchy video by one of the funniest songwriters ever, Ray Stevens: We the People http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc_-L4fyLUo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)