Posted on 04/22/2005 11:26:48 AM PDT by CHARLITE
What do most members of the Democratic National Committee, the American Bar Association and the American Civil Liberties Union have in common? They hate the Constitution of the United States of America.
Of course, people in each group have somewhat different reasons for hating that document. Democrat party leaders hate it because it forces people with minority opinions like themselves to abide by rules which reflect the will of the majority. ABA law practitioners hate it because it does not permit them to make legal decisions based upon their political ideologies. Members of the ACLU hate it because they are socialists, and the Constitution is designed to promote the liberties of individuals while limiting the powers of government.
Some people belong to all three of these groups, and they are among the most despicable, anti-American people you will ever meet, because they hate the Constitution for all of the above reasons and more. Although none of them will ever admit it, that document represents to them the single most offensive thing on earth, namely the restriction of their authority over the American citizenry.
You see, these DNC/ABA/ACLU types think that normal, working class people are idiots, who have no business running their own lives. Average folks are only competent enough to go to work, pay taxes, and shop at WalMart. Beyond that, they're morons, with no clue as to what's really good for them.
Now, before I continue I need to point out, to those of you who weren't paying attention when I used the word "most" in my opening sentence, that there are some people in these groups who don't hate the Constitution.
Senator Dick Shelby, for instance, is a member of the ABA, yet he is a conservative Republican, who introduced the Constitution Restoration Act earlier this year. The legislation is intended to "reinforce states rights by clarifying that the Supreme Court and district courts do not have jurisdiction to hear cases brought against a federal, state or local government or officer for acknowledging God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."
Then there's Zell Miller, the former Senator from Georgia. He's a life-long Democrat, yet he opposed the filibustering of President Bush's judicial nominees by obstructionists in his party, who support only liberal activists for positions on the federal bench.
I was going to include an example of an ACLU member who isn't an America-bashing socialist, but I haven't been able to find one yet.
Be that as it may, I am willing to concede that there may well be someone in that organization who thinks the Constitution, in its current form, is a pretty good thing. If indeed that individual actually exists, I can only suggest that he keep his opinions to himself if he wishes to remain in the ACLU much longer.
I'm sure there are countless liberals out there who are infuriated by what I've asserted thus far in this article, and I'm just as certain that many of them want to know what proof I have to back up my arguments. Frankly, the evidence supporting my contentions is so overwhelming that I can't decide where to begin.
It seems to me that anyone who has been alive for the past couple of decades, and isn't illiterate, shouldn't be having a problem comprehending that the elitists I've writing about are determined to bastardize the Constitution via judicial fiat. They know that they have no popular support for their views, so they have little choice but to turn to activist judges who are willing create laws from the bench on their behalf.
In fact, mentally deficient justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer have been steadily eroding the integrity of both the Supreme Court and our Constitution for years now, and there's no reason to believe that they'll suddenly pull their heads out and embrace the wisdom of their detractors.
These are the kinds of arrogant nitwits who actually believe that the opinions of foreign courts should be taken into consideration by members of the Supreme Court during their deliberations on Constitutional matters. At the same time, the will of the American people, as expressed in the laws of the several states, is often ignored completely by them. If I'm wrong, how then can one explain the recent declaration, by certain members of the high court, that the execution of minors is cruel and unusual, and therefore unconstitutional?
Where in the Constitution are the words cruel and unusual defined in any way which relates to the execution of anyone, let alone minors? Here's a hint... nowhere!
Justice Kennedy wrote, with regard to the abolition of the death penalty for individuals under the age of 18, "Our determination finds confirmation in the stark reality that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty."
To this I ask so what? What does that have to do with our Constitution and our laws? The answer is clear... nothing!
Prior to the aforementioned 5-to-4 decision, twenty states allowed for the execution of minors. Apparently the people of those states believe that determining whether or not a juvenile deserves the death penalty should be left up to a jury of his peers, instead of a bunch of old judges in black robes who think that America is wrong for being different from the rest of the world.
Another justification used by these types of judges after they've made decisions like this one, is that they have somehow been able to gauge the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." What they have never been able to do, satisfactorily, is answer the question: what makes you think it's a judge's job to do that?
It's our elected representatives who are charged with determining what society's standards are! We, the people, let them know what we think of the laws they create when we vote, and when we don't like the legislation they've enacted, we elect other people whose legal proposals more closely reflect our views.
And when the time does come when America's "standards of decency" have evolved to the point at which we feel the need to amend our Constitution, we'll be perfectly capable of doing it, and we won't be asking any judges what they think about our decision.
Believe me, that concept scares the living crap out of the members of those three groups I mentioned previously. The very idea of average citizens deciding for themselves how they will be governed, and under which laws they will live, is like a knife through the heart of those fascist swine.
Make no mistake about it; they want to run your life. If they didn't, why would the ACLU's legal staff be suing everybody and their mothers over matters which have always been considered common sense issues by the vast majority of people? The answer is clear. They know that as long as they keep suing folks who have limited resources, they'll either win by attrition, or their cases will eventually end up before activist judges, who'll declare that the laws they happen to be opposing are unconstitutional. Whether the issues before those judges are actually addressed in the Constitution or not will be irrelevant, because few non-liberal members of the legislative branch of government have the guts to challenge their rulings.
As for the leaders of the Democrat party, those who aren't trial lawyers are usually bought and sold by trial lawyers, and practically all of them are sympathetic to the views of the ACLU. The paltry few who don't march in lock-step behind the rest are either ignored or treated as traitors. There is no room in their world for things like sincere reflection, intellectual honesty, or self-criticism. Their religion is utterly intolerant of such blasphemies.
People often ask me why Republicans in Congress never seem to be as united as their Democrat counterparts are, and my answer to them is always the same, in so many words. Republicans are mostly conservative, and conservatives believe in individuality and the diverse opinions which come with it. Democrats are mostly liberal, and liberals believe in forced equality and the conformity necessary to achieve it.
Put a thousand conservatives in a room together, and you've got a room full of individuals. Put a thousand liberals together in a room, and you've got a room full of sheep, being herded by a few angry sheepdogs.
Edward L. Daley is a leading columnist, whose editorials appear on numerous top web journals and e-zines. (GOPUSA,CHRONWATCH,RENEW AMERICA, and others) He is the owner of the Daley Times-Post http://www.times-post.com
Comments: thofab@adelphia.net
btt
Absolutely true. They haven't an original idea in their heads. They are a bunch of robots.
Good article, and I just finished watching the replay of the forum with Justices, Scalia, O'Conner, and Breyer---
You have to add Sandra Day O'Connor to the this that he had with Ginsberg and Breyer---
O'Connor not only acts like she is senile and goofy, she thinks WE, that don't like them using foreign law, as making to big of a deal about it, and that the Constitution is an "evolving document"
FMCDH(BITS)
Char :)
"Members of the ACLU hate it because they are socialists, and the Constitution is designed to promote the liberties of individuals while limiting the powers of government."
I don't understand this part. It seems to me that the ACLU is constantly fighting for the liberties of individuals while limiting the powers of government. Whether defending Nazis right to march or Oliver North's right against self-incriminating testimony or more recently arguing that Rush Limbaugh's medical records should remain sealed, they seem to me to be solidly on the side of individual Constitutional rights, especially the First Amendment.
That's exactly what they want you to believe.
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.