Posted on 09/23/2010 7:47:14 AM PDT by Steve495
This post is not about Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell, rather I want to quickly point out how the media – even a journalist who almost exclusively writes about legal issues – can push their own version of the Constitution, rolling their eyes as they talk down to the misguided conservative minions out there. You’re all weird. ...
The media is part of the national problem developed during the past 80 years – the incremental shift of power from the states and people to the federal government. The nine in robes are in no way better than us or more wise. To suggest their view of what’s constitutional trumps O’Donnell’s view – or our own view – is quite arrogant. Their job is to interpret the Constitution as it pertains to specific cases brought before them.
Read more...
(Excerpt) Read more at radioviceonline.com ...
I think Christine O’Donnell is wonderful; she has the right stuff.
I also like Joe Miller of Alaska, Sharron Angle in Nevada and Marco Rubio in Florida, Ken Buck in Kentucky and also Rand Paul among many many others running this time around.
These are great conservative candidates and we should do everything we can to sipport them.
I think Christine O’Donnell is wonderful; she has the right stuff.
I also like Joe Miller of Alaska, Sharron Angle in Nevada and Marco Rubio in Florida, Ken Buck in Kentucky and also Rand Paul among many many others running this time around.
These are great conservative candidates and we should do everything we can to support them.
The Dems are really scared about Ms. O’Donnell; so much time, effort, and print invested in attacking her. What’s interesting about this one is that this is pretty esoteric stuff on a substantive matter(as opposed to the witchcraft-type attacks). This actually provides credibility to O’Donnell’s candicacy because 1) it’s a political issue, not personal (though the writer intended it to be an attack on her intelligence); and 2) O’Donnell’s position is perfectly in accordance with the Consititution.
How about Social Security?
Point taken. Maybe we should not limit it to programs at the state level, and consider programs already available through the private sector as well?
Social Security is an entitlement program “retirement” supplement, yet we have Roth IRAs, 401ks, savings accounts, mutual funds and other investment vehicles like rental property.
You’ve seen elected representatives – both Democrats and Republican – on video specifically reminding voters there are a lot of things the federal government does that is not listed in the Constitution.
Our response to politicians who say nonsense like this should be, "So you are saying that there are many thing the government does that are unconstitutional, and that you don't have a problem with that."
Would we have had any of those without Social Security? There were no government incentives to save before Social Security was enacted.
Just to let you know, Ken Buck is in Colorado.
Certainly we would. As far as I know, we had savings accounts, the stock market, private pensions, family businesses and rental investment property prior to the introduction of the Social Security system in 1935.
My family never needed the federal government to provide an “incentive” to save for retirement or their families future.
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.