Posted on 05/10/2009 7:11:26 AM PDT by decimon
While Pres. Barack Obama has, in one sense, tipped his hand by saying that he wants judges with “empathy” for certain groups, he has in a more fundamental sense concealed the real goal — getting judges who will ratify an ever-expanding scope of federal-government power and an ever-declining restraint by the Constitution of the United States.
This is consistent with everything else that Obama has done in office and is consistent with his decades-long track record of alliances with people who reject the fundamentals of American society.
Judicial expansion of federal power is not really new, even if the audacity with which that goal is being pursued may be unique. For more than a century, believers in bigger government have also been believers in having judges “interpret” the restraints of the Constitution out of existence.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
for later
* “...the idea of liberty must grow weak in the hearts of men
before it can be killed at the hands of tyrants.” T.Jefferson
“Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; if it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.” — Judge Learned Hand, 1944
If you thought Bush was shredding the Constitution just look at what Obummer is doing to it. Not only is he throwing it under the bus, he’s stomping on it after it’s been run over, picking it up and then spitting on it, then burning it to ashes.
Correction: our Constitutional Republic died in the 1860s.
Think about it: 75% of the people of the State of Texas voted for independence. 75% —that is an overwhelming majority yet Texas was not allowed to secede from the Union.
Now, many would say that a state does not have the right to secede without Federal approval, but that argument means that the document known as the Declaration of Independence cannot be valid because King George III did not approve it, and it has been said that King George III did not even see it.
Others would say that the vote is not valid because black slaves were not allowed to vote, but that argument does not hold because the general rule of the day throughout the country limited voting to “property-holding” citizens only, and women were not allowed to vote anywhere at the time.
Yes, the victor always gets to write the history books, and history tells his story. That is why many are brainwashed into believing that the outcome of the Civil War was just. Tyranny won in that day, but at least men of God have kept this country together by trying to do the right thing. That is now lost.
—bflr—
As Robert Bork said we are ‘Slouching towards Gomorrah’ in his enlightening book published 1996.
We are also slouching towards a nation totally unrecognizable from the beloved country I used to know.
When the Supreme Court in 1995 declared that carrying a gun near a school was not “interstate commerce,” there was consternation and outrage in the liberal press because previous decisions of the Supreme Court in years past had allowed Congress to legislate on virtually anything it wanted to by saying that it was exercising its authority to regulate interstate commerce.Not only in the liberal press, the RATS in Congress went apoplectic, especially Di-Fi.
The Law over turned by 'The Rehnquist Court' that's referenced above was her baby. And boy, was she ever p*$$ed. For years she had a diatribe on her senate web-page about how 'unfair' it was that it was over turned. She even stated that the fact that it was unconstitutional and she over reached with the commerce clause was irrelevant because --- "She meant well and 'it was for the children'." And iirc, it was also 'The Rehnquist Court' that warned Congress when they over turned another unconstitutional law, that the Commerce Clause DOESN'T pertain to everything.So if 'we' or SCOTUS could reign in Congress with their constant abuse of the Commerce Clause, we may still be able to save the Republic and MAKE the pols and OBAMA, follow the constitution and abide by its restraints.This left a mark, and the RATS never forgot. When Roberts and Alito were being grilled by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Di-Fi and Durban pounded them over and over on their 'opinion' as to Congress' power to use the Commerce Clause in certain scenarios. I can't recall their answers but whatever they were, Di-Fi and Durban were not pleased and found them unacceptable.
But the problem there is first 'it' has to become law' then someone with standing, time and MONEY has to sue.
underpinning the southern states' cry for independence via the legal artifice of States Rights was a foundation whose cornerstone proclaimed that one man could enslave another and make him his property.
The historical documents from many southern states leading up to the Civil War plainly shows the above to be true.
Many times have I seen this claim regarding the Civil War - or as it's called south of the M-D line, the 'war of Northern Aggression" - ultimately resting your case upon our Declaration of Independence.
Just as many times, I've respectfully responded to this canard by asking if that section of our Declaration which reads...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that All Men are Created EQUAL
does not also apply in that interpretation?
As of yet, I've not received an answer to my question...
With respects, especially for ALL the Americans - on BOTH sides of the Mason-Dixon line - who gave their last full measure in our Civil War
JG
Bears repeating.
What is socialism and the answer is
http://www.theusmat.com/
Welcome to Free Republic.
The answer to your query is simple, really. The definition of “men” has changed over time. When the declaration and constitution were written, “men” did not typically include blacks, especially those who were already enslaved. Right or wrong by modern standards, this is fact.
By the time of the civil war, much of the country had changed its societal definition of “men” to include slaves. They sought to impose this redefinition on the rest of American society, including all new states.
The south, which had not adopted this redefinition, resisted through many means, ending up in secession and rebellion. While this is not nearly the sum total of the motivation for the war, it is an accurate portrayal of its relationship to slavery.
People wonder why conservatives resist the wanton redefinition of language. It is not to resist worthy changes, such as recognizing that “men” includes all races, and both genders for that matter. It is to resist the redefinition of words like “marriage” into a corruption of their true meaning - forced by the left in order to subvert the very foundations of society and to promote their own dark visions.
I’ll get off my soap box now, with one final phrase: Words mean things.
Please check http://pushbackuntil.com. It is the only hope we have to take our country back from the hands of irresponsible men and women.
I do not have an issue with your statement, but to my point:
Since ALL MEN WERE CREATED EQUAL, why did the Northerners deny voting rights to minorities and women during the day?
If your argument holds, then the rights of Southern States to secede and ‘go their own way’ is as valid as the Declaration itself ... after all, George III could have also said that ‘the colonists only want to ensure slavery for the future’.
The fate of the South really was tied to the Declaration, and Northerners do not like to accept that fact. The bottom line that the 10th Amendment no longer exists.
I don’t see any way out of this nightmare other than secession.
hello, and thanks for your thoughtful response.
It is not that the answer doesn’t exist - it has since before our nation was born. The Founding Fathers wrote this into our Declaration fully aware of their times. Some were readily against slavery, others at least recognized it as needing to be eliminated without severely disrupting the local economy dependent upon it.
In the face of fighting a war against the (then...) strongest military power on Earth, all knew that anything written in the Declaration of Independence that could be construed in such a way as to cripple or otherwise hinder the Southern states from joining the rebellion would have been foolhardy. Unity of purpose was the absolute essential need for the war to have any chance of succeeding. This, even if one only sees the war as a battle between opposing forces of different military strengths. But the American Revolution was more than just a test of arms.
The Founding Fathers had the highest belief and faith that they were in the right, and that they could win our independence because of this moral strength. This same moral faith also informed them of the dilemma between fighting for freedom using noble words while amongst them were some fellow colonists who owned other men.
The pressing matter at hand was to fight and win first their independence. Creation of a new nation - including how to deal with slavery - had to come afterwards.
Things I’m sure you know, as it’s not uncommon knowledge, but worth repeating now and then. Things that, ironically, aren’t contained in the answers of those defending the “states rights” position.
Now, to address Mr. Beancounter13’s response in item 17...
Semper Paratus,
JG
hi,
Mortman has an excellent response in #15.
For my part, let me ask you again: when the gentlemen from the southern states signed the Declaration of Independence, what might have been their ideas when they read “all men are created equal”?
Was it, “... yes, this is true, except for my slaves because they are not really men...”?
Was it, “... blacks don’t count as men... except when I can use their heads to increase my population count, thus my proportional representation in the House of Representatives...”?
Yet there were already abolitionists, the Quakers very prominent among them, who were making a public and moral train of reasoning about the injustice of slavery. Some of these men were from the South; Jefferson and Washington were both Virginians, and Washington manumitted his slaves upon his death.
This is a fact, and also goes a way towards answering your question about why women did not have a vote. Though I doubt this ‘denial’ was exercised strictly in the North.
And try as I might, I can’t quite seem to wrap my head around your use of the word “minorities” in the current context. The term means something so much more today than the mere dictionary definition. In the context of the times when our Nation was born, I remember reading of Religious minorities, and electoral colleges to ensure that larger states would not dominate/democratize our Republic at the expense of the smaller ones. But ‘affirmative action/cult of victimology” group-politics? There wasn’t anything like that back then, not in the public conscience.
I know you meant something else by the term, I’m just not seeing it. Please help a freeper out with this, eh?
I would very much like to continue this discussion with you, though I don’t think the thread might be the place for it. If you’re willing, we can exchange emails via freepmail, or just use freepmail. I would very much like to take a question & answer approach to understanding your position.
My first question would be, how did it come to be that Southern states defined tyranny - the tyranny which their legislatures thought morally reprehensible enough to secede from - claiming the moral right under the aegis of the Declaration of Independence?
God Bless,
JG
Ah, many questions; where to begin?
Would you pay the equivalent of two-years’ worth of hired wages to buy a horse and then proceed to to beat into oblivion? Slaves that were bought for $500 in the 1800s were a) expensive and b) thought of as beasts of burden. Yes, that is an unfair view of ‘our fellow men’, but that was the view of the day. Not many people could afford to buy other people yet many of those that fought and died were common folk who never owned slaves. Why? Because like true conservatives of today, they did not appreciate somebody living a thousand miles away telling them what to do.
I refer to ‘minorities’ in general as those other non-property holding ‘persons’ who were treated far worse at the hands of the Northern Industrialists. Namely, the Irish, the Italians, and the Germans. Those people who came here to escape famine at home and would readily work 20-hour days just to have a job so that they could pay it all back to the ‘Company Store’ and ‘Company Rent House’. Yes, they may have been ‘free’, but where could they go? There simply was not any other means for them to survive. Oh, and they were not allowed to vote because they did not own land.
By the way, Texas, while a slave state, did not have a high proportion of slaves. We simply have always had an independent streak so that we do not like to be told what to do. Anything along those lines can be construed as ‘tyranny’.
Give me a break!
am sending you a reply via freepmail
Ping.
There fixed. Wish I was wrong but I'm not. And no I don't want it but it is coming anyway.
Lawyers, mostly.
Thank You!
Others may mock my posts regarding the Civil War, but they have not refuted my statement regarding the 10th Amendment.
Yes, the 10th Amendment and its local form of governance can only be restored through bloodshed.
Like you, I do not wish to see it happen, but happen it will. I for one, will not allow the bureaucrats in Washington D.C. tell me that I have to allow gays to marry in my church!
This was a discussion I had with my father-in-law five years ago, and society has progressed just as I foretold ... at the time, the thought was preposterous, but we are up to what? Five states now?
Check that. The Constitution started dying when they passed the 16th and 17th Amendments.
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.