Skip to comments.Is the U.S. a land of liberty or equality?
Posted on 07/04/2012 6:34:20 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
If you asked my true religion, I would not answer anything practiced in a church, synagogue or mosque. My real religion is America, and I feel privileged that, among the worlds 7 billion people, I am one of the roughly 300 million lucky enough to be an American. This transcends mere patriotism. I believe in what this country stands for, even though I acknowledge its limits and failures. As individuals, we are no better than most(selfishness and prejudice having survived). As a society, we have often violated our loftiest ideals (starting with the acceptance of slavery in 1787). Our loud insistence of exceptionalism offends millions of non-Americans, who find us exceptional only in our relentless boasting.
But these caveats do not dim my love of country. I am still stirred by The Star-Spangled Banner. I think our messy mixture of democratic traditions, respect for the individual and economic dynamism commands a unique place in human history. In most societies, people are marked by where they were born, their ethnic heritage or religious conviction. In the United States, these are secondary. Americans self-identity springs from the beliefs on which this country was founded, including the belief that no one is automatically better than anyone else simply by virtue of birth.
Our reverence for these ideals remains a touchstone. A few years ago, a friend gave me a copy of The National Hand-Book of American Progress, published in 1876 and edited by Erastus Otis Haven, a bishop in the Methodist Episcopal Church and the second president of the University of Michigan. Haven does laud economic achievements. The telegraph network, introduced in 1844, had grown to 75,137 miles. But mostly, Haven celebrates our ideals and political institutions, which with the tragic exception of the Civil War had settled conflicts peacefully.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
TYPICAL libtard “choice” question
As of last were it is neither... It is just another land of tyranny..
U.S. Constitution, Article 3 Section 2:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
It's only fair...
My vote as well.
Another screwball lefty misunderstanding what equality means in America...it means equal opportunities, not equal outcomes. Equal outcomes are impossible, and to think that it is even possible, or a good goal to strive towards, is illogical and borders on outright stupidity.
...stands up and applauds!!!...
Samuelson’s opinion piece was one of the most dishonest screeds I have ever read.
An originalist, “Tea Party” congressional majority could define those cases beyond the purview of the SCOTUS. For example, Congress could tell the SC, “tax policy is none of your business.” And it would stick.
But to date, no Congress has had the nerve to push back against an overarching SC. That does not mean it could not do so. It could.
We should also remember the words of of Thomas Paine...
These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value.
The idea that coerced equality of outcomes via the federal government is a legitimate part of the American tradition is a complete lie. It's this kind of dishonesty that gives cover to the scumbags who are dragging this country down with their toxic ideas.
Why can't Samuelson just say what this is really about: classical liberalism versus socialism. Or if you really want to get down to it: a belief in a Creator versus atheism. This is really where the disagreement is.
Odd there's no mention of the bloody war to END slavery, or the fact that that institution was hardly unique in America at the time of its founding.
Our loud insistence of exceptionalism offends millions of non-Americans, who find us exceptional only in our relentless boasting.
Frankly, I couldn't care less what non-Americans think of our "boasting." And I can't see how they can come to that conclusion anyway, given the relentless self-flagellation of people like this author.
“An originalist, Tea Party congressional majority could define those cases beyond the purview of the SCOTUS. For example, Congress could tell the SC, tax policy is none of your business. And it would stick.”
Just curious if you’ve thought this through somewhat (I haven’t). What if we had a Congress that passed a law that attempted to constrain the jurisdiction of the USSC, say with respect to anything having to do with federal tax policy. Say the Executive vetoed the bill and Congress overrode the veto.
Now, suppose a case finds itself before the Court having to do with tax policy (because the lower courts didn’t want to rule on the new jurisdictional restriction, preferring that be left to the USSC, their “superiors”). What if the Court rules on the case, basically telling Congress that their statute cannot restrict them, and the Executive branch decides to abide by the Court’s ruling.
What then? I’m not in disagreement with you, just find it interesting to consider a scenario where Congress decided to exercise its constitutional power to restrict the Judicial branch, the Judicial disagrees, and the Executive is in sympathy with the Judicial.
In 1820, Thomas Jefferson expressed his deep reservations about the doctrine of judicial review:
You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
Ask anybody who believes the SCOTUS always has the final word, where in the Constitution does it say that? Ask them to please quote the chapter and verse. They cannot. But I can. Article 2 Section 3, the end:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact,
“Is the U.S. a land of liberty or equality?”