Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Without Allegiance To The Constitution, Party Partisanship Means Absolutely Nothing!
Chuck Baldwin Ministries ^ | 12-08-03 | Baldwin, Chuck

Posted on 12/08/2003 2:52:59 PM PST by Theodore R.

Without Allegiance To The Constitution, Party Partisanship Means Absolutely Nothing!

By Chuck Baldwin

Food For Thought From The Chuck Wagon December 9, 2003 Conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, labor under the assumption that voting for a Republican candidate somehow translates into a vote for conservative policies. Such is not the case, however. A much better case could be made for the proposition that, in reality, Republicans contribute to the growth and expansion of government to equal or even greater degrees than do Democrats.

For example, since taking office, President G.W. Bush has superintended over the greatest expansion of federal discretionary expenditures since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society came into existence! Furthermore, under Bush, Jr., more rights and freedoms have been lost than since the Franklin Roosevelt years. Yet, this reality seems lost to the vast majority of professing conservatives.

All conservatives can say is, "God forbid that any Democrat should become president." Yet, the fact is, during the past forty years, Republican appointments have dominated the federal courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court, and still the federal judiciary continues to lead the nation in a hard left turn.

The reason that Republicans in general, and G.W. Bush in particular, have made no significant difference to the overall socialist direction of the country is that they are as uncommitted to the U.S. Constitution as are Democrats. Without allegiance to the Constitution it doesn't matter one hill of beans which party is in power!

With Bush in the White House, both parties have supported expanding the federal government's role in public education via the Bush/Kennedy "No Child Left Behind" monstrosity. Both parties have supported gutting the Bill of Rights via the USA Patriot Act and other similar policies. Both parties have supported the massive expansion of the Medicare welfare program. And the list goes on without end.

Furthermore, what good did it do Chief Justice Roy Moore to have a Republican governor and attorney general in Alabama? What good did it do him to have a Republican president and attorney general in Washington, D.C.? What good did it do him to have Republican-appointed federal judges sitting on the bench?

Again, the problem is neither party has any loyalty to the U.S. Constitution! Yet, every president, every member of Congress, and every court justice takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these people prove on a daily basis that they have no intention of honoring their oath of office.

Until the American people begin holding their elected officials accountable to the U.S. Constitution, it will not matter one iota which party is in the White House and which party controls Congress! In fact, until the American people awaken to this reality, the best we can hope for is a divided federal government. By that I mean, when one party controls the White House, be sure the other party controls Congress and vice versa. Liberty and freedom will not long survive one party, Republican or Democrat, in control of the entire federal government!

Of course, the real solution resides with the American people becoming a constitutionally informed, educated, and committed electorate. Is anyone holding their breath?

© Chuck Baldwin


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: constitution; courts; democrats; emk; gop; greatsociety; gwbush; liberalism; liberty; party
It is true that exactly 1/2 of the liberal majority of the U.S. Supreme Court was appointed by Republican "conservative" Presidents Reagan and Bush I.
1 posted on 12/08/2003 2:52:59 PM PST by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
"It is true that exactly 1/2 of the liberal majority of the U.S. Supreme Court was appointed by Republican "conservative" Presidents Reagan and Bush"

Ok, how many of the "conservative" half were appointed by Democrat presidents?

If we allow the Democrats to control the presidency and the Senate, can we expect them to appoint conservatives?

2 posted on 12/08/2003 2:59:39 PM PST by Jim Robinson (All your ZOT are belong to us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Some of those were stealthy libs that "fooled" their promoters. I see a need for a litmus test like the dimocaps use with abortion, affirmative action etc. I advocate better screening and more aggressive support of conservative jurists. It is a battle we cant afford to concede, it is the very soul of the contry at stake and freedom for the whole world. If the USA loses its Constitution the light of liberty will be extinguished.
3 posted on 12/08/2003 3:06:40 PM PST by Evil Inc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
The reason that Republicans in general, and G.W. Bush in particular, have made no significant difference to the overall socialist direction of the country is that they are as uncommitted to the U.S. Constitution as are Democrats. Without allegiance to the Constitution it doesn't matter one hill of beans which party is in power!


Chuck nails it 2 sentences.
4 posted on 12/08/2003 3:10:16 PM PST by WhiteGuy (I oppose big government. - Paul / Tancredo 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.; billbears; 4ConservativeJustices; stainlessbanner
Again, the problem is neither party has any loyalty to the U.S. Constitution! Yet, every president, every member of Congress, and every court justice takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Ergo, the Constitution is actually null and void for a coue d'etat has actually occurred.

Just play a game in your mind that indeed the Constitution no longer rules us, and then list say SCOTUS decisions you regard unconstitutional. Reason out, or pretend another nation rules and see how much sense that theory makes??

5 posted on 12/08/2003 3:20:14 PM PST by Ff--150 (that we through His poverty might be rich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ff--150; sheltonmac; azhenfud
Without allegiance to the Constitution it doesn't matter one hill of beans which party is in power!

We haven't had allegiance to the Constitution in 140 years, why start now?

Of course, the real solution resides with the American people becoming a constitutionally informed, educated, and committed electorate. Is anyone holding their breath?

I'm sure not. I'm supposed to go vote for a anti-2nd Amendment, pro-abortion, big government nanny that is doing her absolute best to destroy centuries old industry in NC in 2006. That is, if I'm a good party member

6 posted on 12/08/2003 3:27:51 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
it doesn't matter one hill of beans which party is in power!

Yeah, you're right. Might just as well vote for the pro-Islamofascism former abortionist from Vermont, then. [::rolls eyes::]

7 posted on 12/08/2003 3:30:21 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("The Clintons have damaged our country. They have done it together, in unison." -- Peggy Noonan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
read later
8 posted on 12/08/2003 3:31:00 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears
"We haven't had allegiance to the Constitution in 140 years, why start now?"

PRECISELY!

Now, make-believe, use your imagination, in your Senator's case, and imagine her working for another nation to enrich them at your expense. Let the imagination loose. Make this ridiculous. Pray about this.

"I'll be d*mned!! This can't be right!?!" guffaws billbears.

9 posted on 12/08/2003 3:40:58 PM PST by Ff--150 (that we through His poverty might be rich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
I disagree with his assessment although not the results. The RATS have an agenda which they are focused on. The Republicans are just stupid and think they can appease the RATS if they throw them a bone now and then. George W found this out early in his term when he appointed the RATS liberal judges thinking he would get his nominations pass. The RATS will take anything and then want more.

There is a clear difference between the RATS and the Republicans. I say throw the RATS out and then start applying the pressure on the Republicans.
10 posted on 12/08/2003 3:45:52 PM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
The Democrats named 2 of the 9 judges -- both liberal: score 100 percent liberal

The Republicans named 7 of the 9 judges -- four liberal and three conservative: score 57 percent liberal

Virtually all Republicans voted to confirm the two Democrat judges. The conservative appointments drew considerable Democrat opposition.
11 posted on 12/08/2003 5:18:58 PM PST by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
early in his term when he appointed the RATS liberal judges

I had actually fogotten about some of the liberal judicial appointments in early 2001. Were these to the Courts of Appeal or to the district courts?
12 posted on 12/08/2003 5:20:19 PM PST by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
The Republicans named 7 of the 9 judges -- four liberal and three conservative: score 57 percent liberal

And how many Judges has the Constitution party or Libertarian party named, a big fat nada.

But Ross Perot did help Clinton in naming two of the most judges, Ginsberg and Breyer.

13 posted on 12/08/2003 5:22:41 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
But Ross Perot did help Clinton in naming two of the most judges, Ginsberg and Breyer

Excuse me, typing to fast again, the above should read.

But Ross Perot did help Clinton in naming two of the most liberal judges, Ginsberg and Breyer.

14 posted on 12/08/2003 5:24:46 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Weren't Ginsburg and Breyer CO-SPONSORED by Patrick Leahy AND Orrin G. Hatch?
15 posted on 12/08/2003 5:26:26 PM PST by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Weren't Ginsburg and Breyer CO-SPONSORED by Patrick Leahy AND Orrin G. Hatch?

Nice try to wiggle out, but both were appointed by Clinton(who got in with help from Perot). Remember that clause in the Constitution where the President nominates SCOTUS Justices.

16 posted on 12/08/2003 5:29:05 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Of course, Clinton appointed those two. But didn't the GOP leadership go out of its way to show that it was "a team player" on the judges? That was nine and ten years ago, respectively. The court has remained static since that time.
17 posted on 12/08/2003 5:32:26 PM PST by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.; Jim Robinson
But didn't the GOP leadership go out of its way to show that it was "a team player" on the judges?

The GOP went out of their way to adhere to longstanding Senate policy re: judges...namely, that the Senate's role is to "advise and consent," not "obstruct and disrupt."

In other words, the Senate Republicans attempted to conserve tradition.

18 posted on 12/08/2003 5:36:09 PM PST by Poohbah ("Beware the fury of a patient man" -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Of course, Clinton appointed those two. But didn't the GOP leadership go out of its way to show that it was "a team player" on the judges? That was nine and ten years ago, respectively. The court has remained static since that time

Uh yeah, but that was before the rats in 2001 decided to get rid of 200 years of Senate precedent and filabuster judicial nominations.

Also remember that Scalia was confirmed by the Senate by something like 97-0 or something like that in 86.

19 posted on 12/08/2003 5:37:19 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.; Jim Robinson
I am guessing President Bush would be much more conservative if we could get rid of the RINOs and liberals that he has to appease in Congress and the Senate.

GW does not impress me to be a RINO or a false conservative. But his hands are tied on some issues. What can he do?

IF he takes too hard a line then we could be looking at a DEM as President, and to me, yes that is worse. Elections are all about the the people in the middle.

I think this means WE have to work harder on educating people about the Constitution, and give a conservative President a more moderate and conservative group of people to play with. We have to work herder in the future.

I agree with much of this article, but I don't think beating President Bush up is the answer.

Next election cycles we need to get our message out more.. putting a Dem in office certainly is not going got help us further Conservatism.

Ramping up the rhetoric now sends a message to future canidates, but staying home on election day, or voting for a Dem is not going to help anything.

20 posted on 12/08/2003 5:56:07 PM PST by Diva Betsy Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
[ The Democrats named 2 of the 9 judges -- both liberal: score 100 percent liberal The Republicans named 7 of the 9 judges -- four liberal and three conservative: score 57 percent liberal Virtually all Republicans voted to confirm the two Democrat judges. The conservative appointments drew considerable Democrat opposition. ]

If true, and it is, that makes almost all republican officals in D.C. ....CRAVEN COWARDS....

21 posted on 12/08/2003 5:59:17 PM PST by hosepipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
It is true that exactly 1/2 of the liberal majority of the U.S. Supreme Court was appointed by Republican "conservative" Presidents Reagan and Bush.

Yep, of all the Justices, only two, Breyer and Ginsberg, were apponited by a Democrat, in both cases by Bill, the Rapist in Chief, Clinton. Chief Justice Rhenquist was first appointed by Nixon and then elevated to CJ by Reagan, although I know you weren't counting him in that "liberal majority".

22 posted on 12/08/2003 6:33:24 PM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
I was going to say that 2/3, that is 4 of 6, was a better estimate, if you use the second amendment as a litmus test. Since 3 or fewer voted to hear the Silveira case, and likely will vote to hear any other second amendment case in the near to medium future. It takes only 4 Justices voting to hear a case to get the case heard.
23 posted on 12/08/2003 6:36:13 PM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: No More Gore Anymore
GW does not impress me to be a RINO or a false conservative. But his hands are tied on some issues. What can he do?

His hands aren't tied so much that he can't wield the Veto pen. Yet instead of promising to veto an extension of the unconsitutional ban on Ugly Black Guns, he supports it. That is not what a true conservative would do. At worst he would say nothing, and then veto it if it came to his desk. At best he would strongly oppose passage of any renewal bill, in part through the mere threat of a veto of whatever else it was attached to.

24 posted on 12/08/2003 6:41:09 PM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
I mean his hand are tied in the since that he has to appease so many loud mouth liberals and RINOs. That being said, to tell the truth,I don't really know much about the Ugly Black Guns bill. I will look it up and educate myself here....any links?
25 posted on 12/08/2003 6:45:24 PM PST by Diva Betsy Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Interesting title, given that political parties aren't even mentioned in the Constitution. Our first, and greatest president wasn't a member of a political party, and Madison, who wrote most of the Constitution pleaded that Americans wouldn't be involved in such partisanship.
26 posted on 12/08/2003 6:59:43 PM PST by FNU LNU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
-- if you use the second amendment as a litmus test. Since 3 or fewer voted to hear the Silveira case, and likely will vote to hear any other second amendment case in the near to medium future.
-EG-




Has there been any speculation about who, [if any] voted to hear Silveira?

It would not surprise me if the answer is none.

The fix is in, [imo] on our RKBA's.

This administration is giving lip service to an 'individual right' to possess legally sold licensed firearms, while backing prohibitory regulations on military style assault weapon types, and on private transfers, as per current CA 'laws'.
We are going to lose our right to keep & sell arms, bit by bit, by bureaucratic decree, fully supported by RINO politicians, and a RINO Court.

Bet on it.

27 posted on 12/08/2003 7:18:32 PM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out the Rickenbacker in me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: No More Gore Anymore
I don't really know much about the Ugly Black Guns bill. I will look it up and educate myself here....any links?




Be prepared to barf at the positions of support you see from some so-called FReepers for CA's gun prohibition 'laws'..

High Court Won't Review Ban on Assault Weapons [declared no individual constitutional right]
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1032533/posts
28 posted on 12/08/2003 7:27:06 PM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out the Rickenbacker in me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Ff--150
Just play a game in your mind that indeed the Constitution no longer rules us, and then list say SCOTUS decisions you regard unconstitutional. Reason out, or pretend another nation rules and see how much sense that theory makes??

Can I just list the ones I think based upon a solid Constitutional basis? It might shorten the list. ;o)

29 posted on 12/09/2003 7:09:50 AM PST by 4CJ ('Scots vie 4 tavern juices' - anagram by paulklenk, 22 Nov 2003)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: No More Gore Anymore
Neither is voting Republican; I'll vote 4 whoever candidate is campaigning Constitution Party.

The final straw was when Bush said he supports Red China over Taiwan; I'm not having that as President!
30 posted on 12/16/2003 12:38:52 AM PST by AIPCQRC ("What is Right is not always popular, what is popular is not always Right.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Of yes, you forgot some others: Earl Warren, the one man that brought down Prayer in Public schools and promoted Lyndon Johnson's socialist programs, was appointed by Dwight D. Eisnhower; a Republican, and don't forget Mike Goodiwn, the one Judge on the 9th Circut Court of Appeals,that ruled against the Pledge of Alleagence, was appointed by Nixon!
And Richard Pryor (a Republican) who didn't get nominated (Thank God), was the one man that viciously persecuted Roy Moore for his belief in God and the Ten Commandments, and kicked him out because of it.

Tweedle De and Tweedle Dum indeed!

God Bless Chuck!
31 posted on 12/16/2003 1:01:27 AM PST by AIPCQRC ("What is Right is not always popular, what is popular is not always Right.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AIPCQRC
I know it is upsetting. I wish you luck.
32 posted on 12/16/2003 6:29:34 AM PST by Diva Betsy Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: No More Gore Anymore; Theodore R.
I think this means WE have to work harder on educating people about the Constitution, and give a conservative President a more moderate and conservative group of people to play with. We have to work herder in the future.

I do agree with you there, and the group that we elect needs to be truly conservative and not just assumed to be conservative because they have an (R) (or perhaps a (C) or (L) ) next to their name. It is time to vote intelligently according to each candidate's records and stated positions, not just blindly voting by ticket.

I agree with much of this article, but I don't think beating President Bush up is the answer.

Just complaining about him or attacking him isn't the answer. The electorate needs to be informed so we could replace him with a candidate that would be faithful to his oath of office, such as Mike Peroutka.

33 posted on 01/12/2004 1:55:02 AM PST by The_Eaglet (Michael Peroutka for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AIPCQRC
As usual, the rich have a campaign finance loophole-Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 32
34 posted on 01/12/2004 2:39:37 AM PST by The_Eaglet (Michael Peroutka for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson