Our Republic On a Slippery Slope

Radiofree West Hartford ^ | August 23, 2003 | Christopher G. Adamo

[CtPoliticsGuy]

The ability of a nation to peaceably govern itself is entirely dependent on its willingness to abide by previously stipulated agreements wherein limits of governmental action are established. Most importantly, such rules must define the method by which authority transitions from one leader to another. The alternative to this approach can only be violent revolution.

For more than two centuries, the United States has, with the notable exception of the Civil War, operated in an orderly manner in which the rights of citizens have been generally regarded as paramount. However, in the past decade or so, an emerging pattern of overt contempt for the American political process has presented the potential to completely destroy those qualities of the Republic that once moved Thomas Jefferson to describe it as a "near perfect" form of government. Consider some events of recent decades. Though they are neither the first nor the only such incidents, the increasing regularity with which they are occurring should be cause for great alarm.

In 1963, the Supreme Court effectively countermanded an inarguable pretext of the Bill of Rights by substituting a phrase "separation of church and state," for the free expression of religion unambiguously stated in the First Amendment. A decade later, "Roe v. Wade" established as constitutional a "right to privacy" nowhere alluded to in the Constitution, but instead fabricated from thin air, as shamelessly explained by Justice Blackmun. Clearly the Supreme Court simply determined to ignore any Constitutional boundaries to its authority and instead asserted itself as the ultimate legislative body. Since that time, its pattern of activism has only worsened.

However, the determined efforts of governing individuals to subvert the law and thus destroy its restraining effect on those in power did not reach their present, dangerous form until the advent of the Clinton administration in 1993. Though Richard Nixon could rightly be labeled as a chief executive who exceeded his authority, he was clearly held to accountability, and would undoubtedly have been removed from office had he not resigned first.

Continued

[.cnI redruM]

There is some validity to that theory. I don't see the blodd-letting in the streets quite yet, but there is less and less civility in our political debate and more of what seems to be chicanery every year.

I could see us up against a major constitutinal crisis.

[Thane_Banquo]

Minnesota Democrats similarly bypassed the law, placing Walter Mondale on the ballot following the untimely death of Senator Paul Wellstone.

From what I remember of the case, this was actually provided for by Minnesota law, and thus the rule of law was indeed upheld.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

[Avoiding_Sulla]

A constitution places limits upon the governing body it legitimizes and of whose powers it defines. What do you have after the words of the constitution of a constitutional republic has been rendered meaningless?

[tahiti]

"A decade later, "Roe v. Wade" established as constitutional a "right to privacy" nowhere alluded to in the Constitution, but instead fabricated from thin air, as shamelessly explained by Justice Blackmun."

Once I read this sentence, I could not read the rest of the article.

This sentence is the reason I quit calling myself a conservative.

I thought conservatism was defined as conserving the principles and convenants of the U.S. Constitution.

The "right to privacy" emanates from the Ninth Amedment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, SHALL NOT be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) retained by the people."

You have the right to be alone. You have a right to privacy.

The flaw in Justice Blackmun's Roe v Wade majority opinion is two fold:

--that the "right to privacy" emanates from the Fourteenth Amendment

--that an embryo is not a human being until it reaches "viability."

Both pronouncements by Justice Blackmun are unambigously and profoundly wrong.

And that is quite simply why Roe v Wade is a flawed decision and not that the "right to privacy" is not enumerated in the Constitution.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

We're 30 years into the leftist revolution. They took over without a shot fired.

[GrandEagle]

Excellent Article! I must point out though that the Democrats are not the only ones who view our Constitution as an obstacle to good government. I personally don't believe that we will recover from the last 10 years of extra constitutional behavior by our elected officials.

[Tench_Coxe]

I'm counting the posts until you're labeled a 'subversive' or 'Communist'.
BTW, I agree with you.

[Nam Vet]

Yes, the Law provided for that event, however, the Law also provided a TIME DATE CERTAIN, which was completely ignored!

Nam Vet

[Thane_Banquo]

As I recall, the Dems were within the time allowed by Minnesota law. NJ was a different matter altogether.

[Nowhere Man]

There is some validity to that theory. I don't see the blodd-letting in the streets quite yet, but there is less and less civility in our political debate and more of what seems to be chicanery every year.

I could see us up against a major constitutinal crisis.

I think you're right. Maybe I've done too much gaming in role playing games like The Morrow Project, Gamma World, and Twilight: 2000, basically, "after The Bomb" genre, but I do forsee a time when the United States will most likely shatter into autonomous, semi-autonomous, or even sovereign nations each set up to their own flavor. Being an alternate history junkie, I did a search on the term "Balkanized America Map" and I got this link: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/misc/balkanus.htm

It's sort of a "what-if" the Constitutional Convention of 1787 fell apart. I can see something like this in our future although you might have different nations because I foresee this happening in the future whereas the "point of divergence" was in 1787 here.

It seems like as time goes on, the discussions get less civil and more of a warlike flavor and there are many times I think that Walter Williams' article in 2000 on secession is becoming more attractive as time goes on. In short, I think we need a divorce. If the left wants homosexual marriage, rip out religion, and other sundry things they believe in, let them, but they should just have their own country while we have ours. I really don't feel comfortable talking about this, but I think this idea may have to be discussed otherwise I do feel we are headed to a huge loggerhead here.

[StriperSniper]

Bump for later

[Nowhere Man]

Here is the rest to that "what-if" site.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/what-if.htm

Very interesting "what-ifs" there.

[ASA.Ranger]

Ref: >>>In short, I think we need a divorce.

…..but they should just have their own country while we have ours <<<


I agree with you. My family fought for the Confederacy. The attempted divorce failed. The baby killers and homosexuals will win. They skillfully market their perversions to the soccer moms. The Supreme Court is lost. The Executive Branch wants to open the borders while its State Department commits treason. The Legislative Branch is filled with egotistical losers that soccer moms and the minorities put in power due to their combined voting block power (approx 41%). I wish I knew the solution but my average IQ does not have enough juice. Good luck to you my friend!

[Nowhere Man]

I agree with you. My family fought for the Confederacy. The attempted divorce failed. The baby killers and homosexuals will win. They skillfully market their perversions to the soccer moms. The Supreme Court is lost. The Executive Branch wants to open the borders while its State Department commits treason. The Legislative Branch is filled with egotistical losers that soccer moms and the minorities put in power due to their combined voting block power (approx 41%). I wish I knew the solution but my average IQ does not have enough juice. Good luck to you my friend!

Yeah, I seem to think that is the only solution that I can think up. I know to many, it might not seem that way but it looks a lot better when other ideas look poor in comparision. Heck it could be a peaceful divide, maybe all the spin off nations could still be trading partners, part of NATO, and so on, but it will just affirm that we are so far apart in our viewpoints, we can't live together so we decided to separate into different houses. I do think all or most of the "liberal countries" would fall apart sooner or later, then once they learn, we can welcome them back into the fold and have a whole USA again.

[dixie sass]

Excellent. All said in one picture