Free Republic

Not until we get control of our borders, the INS, and the State Department Office of Consular Affairs will be make headway in the war on terrorism. The so-called "migrant accord" is a step backward, and a dangerous one.

I think Walters is wrong. The legalizers, like the liberal Democrats they are, will not go away. Neither will the big drug money that supports their efforts. Watch now as their efforts increase to capture border states (particularly Texas and Arizona) to make a beachhead for an attack on the heartland.

No matter "that it will not affect the balance of power in Washington," voter fraud must be pursued and prosecuted with implacable vigor. There was voter fraud in Shannon County. Republicans must stand against it as forcefully as they did the Democrats' attempt to steal Florida in 2000 with "hanging chads."

When the folks at NOW talk about extremeism, we should listen seriously; after all, they are experts in that subject.

Thanks for the e-mail address. I sent the Thune campaign an e-mail of support and urged them to take a stand against voter fraud.

Why do you advocate that these institutions have such powers to abridge your own liberty? It violates self interest & common sense.

Far from it. Tell the court, any court, that John Marshall says that any law you don't like you can violate with impunity by declaring that it does not fit your view of the Constitution. That question has been settled even for folks who deny it. We have a chosen system for defining what the Constitution means, and we'll defend it with the majesty of the law against those whose unlawful conduct declares that the Constitution means whatever they, as individuals, say it means.

Consular Affairs has certainly been a great threat to America by being of great assistance to those who would destroy our liberties. Perhaps only INS should rank higher in the list of supporting cast for al Qaeda. Carping won't fix the problem. The bureaucrats are accustomed to ignoring us. Only by punishing the politicians who nominate -- and confirm -- someone like Ms. Harty can we change the mindset.

It may be that the major dividing line between the pro- and anti-legalizers is not party affiliation but parental status.

Or maybe not. Look at the nations which have legalized pot or are seriously considering it. Socialist/liberal or conservative? Look at the states in this country which are seriously considering legalizing pot. Liberal or conservative? The dividing line is clear, and it is not parental status.

Whether or not "it" violates every precept of what you, or any individual, deems his "inalienable individual rights," the final arbiter on what the Constitution, and any of its provisions, means is the Supreme Court, qualified only by the power of citizens in the admendment process -- either through the Congress and State Legislatures or through a called Constitutional Convention. You and I may disagree with any particular Supreme Court ruling but it's view becomes law of the land, not yours, not mine.

Which institution is the final arbiter on whether or not a legislative act -- national, state or local -- is constitutional? Which institution is the final arbiter on what any constitutional provision means?

You're misinformed, ill-informed, and probably chloroformed.

Isn't this like sounding the alarm after the fire station burns down?

My opinion: stick with your normal routine, don't walk in zig-zag patterns, keep your eyes and ears open for strange things, love your family and friends.

Sure, Rob, but don't stick with that line too long. He's headed south.

Kodak makes good film, but film will not be able to compete with digital photography for much longer.

Yep, for Kodak, "coming out" day is just before "closing up" day.

You are very confused about our constitution, and about my politics.

You've already painted yourself into that corner twice. And I'm still clear about our Constitution -- and your politics.

Like most Socialists (and Liberal Democrats), you keep painting yourself into a corner. When flushed out, you merely paint yourself into another corner. I'll keep flushing because it's important to reiterate that Socialists get on FR and pretend to be libertarians in order to sow discord and disinformation. We can soon spot them for what they are, though, when they start preaching about how conservative it is to legalize marijuana and how they'll decide for the rest of us what the Constitution really says.

Criminal law was not at issue.

Criminal law is very much the issue. You assert that the community cannot pass and enforce laws that conflict with your reading of the Constitution. I say the community can and does. If you break the law, the community may punish you whether you think it is constitutional or not. We have a chosen method, or process, for testing provisions of the Constitution. You are not it.

You say we all possess inherent "natural rights" which nullify any law you disagree with. The right to life? Texas has demonstrated 37 times this year that it is constitutional to deprive a person of his life for the violation of certain laws. The right to liberty? Sell crack, get caught, and we'll see whether or not the community has the constitutional right to deprive you of your liberty. The right to property? Set up a factory, spew toxic material into a public stream and we'll see whether or not the community has the constitutional right to stop you from that use of your property. Ready for the first test?

Yep, "gun-grabbing freeper" describes Socialists like you very well. You and Sarah Brady should be happy together.

You have completely ignored one of the founding principles of our government. -- That we have unalienable rights to life, liberty and property. This concept is addressed in the Bill of Rights twice, because it was being ignored & violated by states after the civil war, under the erroneous USSC 1833 decision, Barron v Baltimore. Our basic inalienable rights can not be infringed by further amendments. They are inherant natural rights, that are not, and never have been subject to the majority type rule that you imagine our constitution allows.

Far from ignoring our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, they are at the core of my comments. If we have "inherent natural rights," the only way to make them meaningful in ways that can be applied to ordinary lives. To argue that one "natural right" is an "inalienable" right to life secured by the Constitution makes it unconstitutional for a state to execute legally any individual for whatever cause. Such is not unconstitutional. How do I know that? Read the Supreme Court's rulings on the death penalty -- unconstitutional at one point, constitutional now. You may reply that Supreme Court rulings merely make some conduct "legal," not "right" or even constitutional. It's your inalienable right, I suppose, to hold whatever views you prefer but you have no inalienable right to determine what the Constitution means. We have chosen a process for that, framed by the Constitution and continually tested, both in politics and law. It's that process I defend.

Similarly, "liberty" can be construed by an individual to mean that he has the inalienable right to do as he pleases -- run over pedestrians on public streets, shoot his neighbor, burn down city hall. He doesn't. There is lawful conduct and unlawful conduct, both of which in our country are determined by the processes of a representative democracy as framed by the Constitution.

The same is true of the rights to property. An individual may interpret that to mean that the community has no constitutional authority to pass a law against his factory spewing toxic chemicals into a public stream. Toxic chemicals were not mentioned in the Constitution, he might say, and therefore no law one way or the other can be made concerning them. Not so. How do I know that? That and similar disputes have been played out in the political and judicial processes which, through a representative democracy, define "Constitutional rights" at any particular time. Spew toxic chemicals into a public stream and you may be arrested, tried, and punished.

I join you in admiring the Nisbet quote, and I appreciate the very interesting link you provided.