Posted on 07/03/2005 4:38:32 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, June 12th, 2005
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; The Committee for Justice chairman C. Boyden Gray; Alliance for Justice president Nan Aron.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Sens. Specter, Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.; Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sens. Joseph Biden, D-Del., and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; People for the American Way president Ralph Neas; American Center for Law and Justice chief counsel Jay Alan Sekulow.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and John Cornyn, R-Texas; country singer Toby Keith.
LATE EDITION (CNN) : Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; U.S. Agency for International Development administrator Andrew Natsios.
An emphasis on the Supreme Court is an appropriate subject for discussion today, because that Court-- and its strict interpretation of the document which Adams and the others intended to protect our liberty--is crucial to the freedom of future generations.
Recent decisions on freedom of religious expression and citizens' private property rights are examples of decisions that threaten freedom and harbor the seeds of a return to tyranny.
"Our Ageless Constitution," Bicentennial Edition (1987), outlined principles underlying the Constitution of the United States, one of which it titled, "Private Property Rights." Another section of this Bicentennial Volume, laid out by outstanding constitutional scholars, dealt with the 200-year history of court and legislative decisions that already had seriously eroded those principles.
One essay is reprinted below, with permission:
"Private Property Rights -- A basic Premise Of America's Constitution"
"Tired of having the fruits of their labors confiscated by an overpowering British government, America's Founders declared themselves free and independent.
"Most American schoolchildren can recite their claim that '. all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ... to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' Less familiar, however, are these lines from their Declaration of Independence:
"'He ( King George III ) has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance .... He has combined with others to subject us, ... imposing taxes on us without our consent.'
"What, then, did the Founders consider to be the real cornerstone of man's liberty and happiness? On what basic premise did they devise their Constitution? Let them speak for themselves:
"John Adams: 'The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God ... anarchy and tyranny commence. PROPERTY MUST BE SECURED OR LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST.'
"James Madison: 'Government is instituted to protect property of every sort .... This being the end of government, that is NOT a just government,... nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has ... is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.'
"Their guiding principle was that people come together to form governments in order to SECURE their rights to property - not to create an entity which will, itself, 'take from the mouths of labor the bread it has earned.' What was wrong for individual citizens to do to one another, they believed, was equally wrong for government to do to them.
"The right to own property and to keep the rewards of individual labor opened the floodgates of progress for the benefit of the entire human race. Millions have fled other countries to participate in the Miracle of America."
End of quoted material. Underlining emphasis added
As homes and schools have failed to study, understand, teach, and pass on the principles which produced a constitutionally limited power in the various levels of government, we see the constitution's protections eroded.
The 'redistribution of wealth' advocates of the past several decades, some of whom were dedicated to other philosophies, but many of whom were well-intentioned but ignorant of founding ideas, have provided a gate by which tyranny and oppression threaten liberty. This Court's decision simply has reinforced that oppresive idea.
America's Founders understood the human tendency to abuse power, and they meant for both elected and unelected persons with delegated power to be bound down by the "chains" (Jefferson) of the constitution. It is up to our courts, especially our Supreme Court, to heed Jefferson's admonition:
"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
As late as 1968, Justice Hugo Black's words constitute another wise warning:
"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' view of fairness, reasonableness, or justice. I have no fear of constitutional amendments properly adopted, but I do fear the rewriting of the Constitution by judges under the guise of interpretation."
Ideas have consequences (Weaver)! The Founders ideas, summarized in the foregoing quotations, produced liberty and plenty: the idea exemplified by the Court's recent ruling allowing "arbitrary (property) seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest" is, as Madison asserted, not the idea of a JUST government. Its consequences are, as Adams declared, "anarchy and tyranny." Perhaps decisions that weakened public acknowledgement of the "sacredness" of the "Laws of God" contributed to the Court's willingness to intrude on property rights.
Although I would love to have an excuse to drink chocolate malts, I would not want to have to go through what you had to. Prayers and best wishes for you.
You'll never be alone on here, not with the brilliance of your posts.
The problem with putting up Ashcroft, Gonzales, and to a lesser extent Olsen, is that if the were confirmed to the SC, they would be required to recuse themselves from any case that they had advised on in their previous jobs. Bush is not going to propose any of those guys.
My guess? Garza, Roberts or Brown. But I'll be completely unsurprised if it's another judge who approximates their views. One thing I'm absolutely certain of; George is not going to put up any kind of moderate. Does anyone really think he's that foolish?
(Aside from the One Issue Monomaniacs here, of course.)
Am going to have to dissapear now will return later to see who you have awarded the ribbon to and present the same.
Thanks for the company till then bye bye
Only cells he plagerized from others.
Of course you are correct.
Facts schmacts, talking points and away they go.
Fortunately this idiotic revival of an old discredited charge lasted less than 24 hours before being debunked yet again.
There is nothing they won't keep bringing back up even though their accusations have already been shown to be false.
Great post.
We need to remember how it all started and celebrate it at least once a year if not more.
Of course you are correct.
Facts schmacts, talking points and away they go.
Fortunately this idiotic revival of an old discredited charge lasted less than 24 hours before being debunked yet again.
There is nothing they won't keep bringing back up even though their accusations have already been shown to be false.
Remember that 2004 was the most important election in generations and we won. The left used all the power they have obtained for the last one hundred year to defeat President Bush, but at the end they were utterly defeated.
PS: Eventually you will be found as a troll and you will be be banned.
I don't recall her saying that, but it doesn't surprise me as I've heard her say some rather hateful things. Just out of curiosity as to what she's been up to (haven't seen her on TV in a while) I did a search and found www.juliannemalveaux.com.
It lists 4 books she's written (primarily about race) - 1 of the books had comments by Amiri Baraka (is that Osama's wife?) and another page had this little gem (note that she's called a 'progressive' and an 'intellectual' - but one must consider the source).
Julianne Malveaux, Ph.D - Economist/Author/Commentator
"She is the most provocative, progressive, and iconoclastic public intellectual in the country."
Dr. Cornel West
Thanks, Tex, but don't worry, I've got CLL, which, if you've got to have Leukemia, is the best one to have. Kills you real slow; I might last 20 years, with luck.
Oh, and I wasn't complaining about the loss of weight; I was at 245 lbs back in 2003. I was mostly complaining about the cost of buying new clothes! <G!>
Oh, it's worse than that; Rove's lawyer immediately popped up and pointed out that Rove, when he testified before the grand jury, signed a wavier that any reporter who interviewed him could make public anything he had told them.
[Thwap!!!]
(That's the sound of another "Eeevilll Geeeniuuus" Carl Rove insidious political trap slamming shut)
Even that paragon of journalistic integrity, Michel Issakoff (sp?) has admitted Rove can't be pinned with this. As I said, DU must be in meltdown by now!
It doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that GWB won and JF'nK lost. Phew!
Truthfully, it wasn't so hard for me; I'm apparently one of those odd people who tolerate chemotherapy without the "tossing of the cookies" or general bad feelings. It just makes me dopey, and I can't remember the right word when I talk. (That drives me crazy, as I'm always talking too much!)
True enough, but Gore won the popular vote in 2000. I wouldn't be that enthusiastic about the popular vote tallies in either election. Both were close races.
I would have to agree with you about Oklahoma City. I've felt that way since the day it happened. And, then you add in Jamie Gorelick, Clinton and Reno and it all adds up.
I'm with Jayna Davis, Woolsey and Schippers on this one.
I have both of those problems, and I have no excuse :)
Build your own and get off of Windows for Internet browsing....second computers are cheap.
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.