Posted on 08/21/2010 1:31:24 AM PDT by onyx
Yesterday Joe Miller, a decorated Desert Storm veteran, Bronze Star recipient, and Yale law school graduate, engaged in a debate with Republican Party hack Lisa Murkowski. At one point Joe Miller asked Murkowski why she continued to support programs that are outside of the constitutional mandate of limited federal government. Seeat the 7:40 mark) RUNNING: Lisa Murkowski and Joe Miller (Part 1/2)
He cited Murkowski's strong support for abortion, her votes in support of government bail outs and TARP, and Miller asked her where in the Constitution was there support for Roe v Wade and why she voted as a U.S. Senator to affirm that ruling. Her response reveals much about her lack of acumen and why she was reportedly inept as a lawyer.
Murkowski responded that the nation would be in a difficult place if it only funded things that were explicitly authorized in the Constitution. She said, “I’ll give you a very specific point. In our Constitution it specifically provides for funding for a Navy and an Army, but it does not specify Air Force. Are we to suggest that perhaps we should not be funding our Air Force because it’s not included in the Constitution?”
Murkowski's response was inane and shows why she is a failure at constitutional law. The Federal Constitution expressly provides for the federal government to create a federal military and defend the country.
More analysis HERE
(Excerpt) Read more at conservatives4palin.com ...
In fairness the American legal profession IE lawyers is more about learning how to get around Constitutional law then it is about enforcing/applying constitutional law.
So I wouldn’t ask a lawyer to interpret the constitution as they will give you a bunch of court rulings that undermined the same constitution in favor of the power of the courts and the government thus by extension the lawyers that uses and dominate them.
This is not to say that there are not honest folk out there who happen to be lawyers by trade, its simply pointing out that the nature of their profession disinclines them to give an answer which is respectful of the reserved rights of the people.(including the right to self-government and State Constitutional government)
“starie decisis” shouldn’t apply to interpretation of the Constitution, not after the liberals have sat on SCOTUS.
I meant to post, “shouldn’t ALWAYS apply”
So the professors made them do it? Yea, right. It takes a fair amount of active grey matter between the ears just to get to the point of being accepted to law school and we are to accept they don’t have the cognicent reasoning capabilities when reading the Consititution as we simpleton rubes seem to have been graced with?
A pox on them all as far as I am concerned. Career politician lawyers on both sides played on our good will and trust in their knowledge of training. That is the reason we are in the mess we find ourselves and I will always support an outsider non-legal type before I ever will the opposite.
My estimation is the civil legal arena has become nothing more than a life suppport system for attorneys and in many cases the same goes for criminal legal defense attorneys as well. They advance up to be a judge in the very courtrooms they made their alliances and the wheel keeps going round and round.
Thinnist book in the library-"The American Bar Association Listing of Honest Lawyers"
Wiki “Public Choice Theory”, and the name, James M. Buchanan.
Ping
BUMP :)
Take her down, Joe!
With respect you you...you lost me right there.
There can be no "fairness" with respect the "legal profession." There is no "fair" in a courtroom. Its the law as it is being interpreted.
Only what is legal as defined by the U.S. Constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Court.
Being fair with a lawyer is akin to assisted suicide...and much more expensive.
LOL, that’s second the first is Honest Politicians.
Maybe, but aren’t many politicians also lawyers?
That is not the same as saying that Congress must have an entity called "The Army".
A lower case "a" "armies" is a word that means "land-based fighting force."
The US Constituiton gives Congress the authority to have both land-based and sea-based fighting forces, and the overall point is that Congress has the responsibility and authority to provide for the nation's defense.
Murkowski's point is ignorant, in that there is no parallel with abortion. Where is anyone given an approximate authority such as to "provide for birth" or "obstetrical care" or anything close that could then be used to "provide for abortions"?
Mark Levin read excerpts from it last night and engaged in a running commentary. Well worth reading!
I hope she gets her clock cleaned.
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.