Let us examine the current Obama policies and legislation being challenged and debated in the Supreme Court:
- Healthcare Reform Individual Mandate (and at least 3 or 4 other healthcare reform laws)
- HHS' declaration that everyone must provide contraception (including the "morning after pill") in their insurance health benefit packages (even organizations who are morally opposed to such things).
- "Recess" appointments by the president when congress has declared that it is NOT in recess (therefore bypassing the Constitutional mandate that congress must approve appointments).
Keeping in mind that Supreme Court justices are sworn to "uphold and protect" the Constitution, all of the rulings on these issues are likely to go against the current administration. Examining recent decisions further enforces this opinion that even with 4 liberal leaning judges seated, when in doubt, the court has erred on the side of liberty as they are instructed to do by the Constitution.
In EEOC vs. the Lutheran Church for example, the EEOC filed a claim suing the Lutheran Church for firing a Bishop on "religious grounds". The lawsuit was rejected unanimously 9-0. The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government does not have the power to say who religious organizations can or cannot fire based on religious teachings. Number 2: the "contraception" rule is far more intrusive and will probably be rejected unanimously as well.
With these likely defeats on the horizon, what is the new strategy of the "Liberal Masterminds"? Attack the document being upheld by the Supreme Court, of course. Ever the elitists, they believe their socialist beliefs and agenda is flawless and therefore, it must be the Constitution that is flawed and not their utopian schemes. The Constitution should be "interpreted" the way the "masterminds" say it should… not as it was originally written.
Why is it the Constitution is the greatest document ever written when it upholds and protects liberal interests and policy, but when it actually protects individual liberty (it's primary purpose), it is "outdated", "limited" and "archaic".
Reading this particular article on the subject makes me think some of these loons actually crave an oligarchy-ish, monarchial system where our "betters" rule over us because they and other world leaders know what is good for us more than we do. Didn't we cross an ocean and fight a revolutionary war over 200 years ago to get away from that?
I find it shocking that two seated Supreme Court Justices appear to have little to no regard for the very document they are sworn to uphold, but that is not what this particular blog is about.
Some of the more alarming criticisms from the NYT piece are as follows:
"Americans recognize rights not widely protected, including ones to a speedy and public trial, and are outliers in prohibiting government establishment of religion. But the Constitution is out of step with the rest of the world in failing to protect, at least in so many words, a right to travel, the presumption of innocence and entitlement to food, education and health care. "
This article (and this sentence in particular) shows just how ignorant some in liberal circles are when it comes to our constitution. The "rights" the Constitution enumerates are our natural "unalienable rights" granted by "our Creator" and therefore, not the government's to bestow. We are born with these rights, regardless what legislation is passed, who the current and temporary president is and what the current make up of congress is. We are not born with a right to food, for example. At the very minimum, we must work to clean, prepare and cook it (even if we did not have to work to earn it). The Constitution is a document laying out how the government is organized and designed and how this construct is meant to protect individual liberty in every way possible, from the three separate branches (who are suppose to be pitted one against the other limiting tyrannical rule by a select few) to the military's allegiance to the Constitution above all (rather than the commander in chief, for example).
Furthermore, the bill of rights is not about what the government MUST do for its citizens, it is about what the government CANNOT do TO it's citizens. The government cannot, for instance, limit or forbid free speech. It cannot make laws regarding religion or the establishment of a religion, prosecute a citizen without due cause (and even then, it must be a speedy and public trial… a wonderful "outlier", I'd say). It cannot ban firearms. These are examples of what the bill of rights is all about. Despite what the utopian elitists would have you believe, rights and entitlements are not the same things.
Another fine example of liberal lunacy for the NYT article:
"Other nations routinely trade in their constitutions wholesale, replacing them on average every 19 years. By odd coincidence, Thomas Jefferson, in a 1789 letter to James Madison, once said that every constitution "naturally expires at the end of 19 years" because "the earth belongs always to the living generation." These days, the overlap between the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and those most popular around the world is spotty."
Again… rights are not granted by the Constitution… they are natural. Also, if you believe Jefferson is advocating the dissolution and rewriting of the Constitution every 19 years as the writer seems to think, read the article in its full context. This paragraph sums it up well:
"But with respect to future debts; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 19 years? And that all future contracts shall be deemed void as to what shall remain unpaid at the end of 19 years from their date?"
Furthermore, if the writer is so keen on the framers' take on constitutional law, perhaps he should read up on what Thomas Jefferson's also thought about the right to bear arms.
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Many people have forgotten (or simply not been taught) that the primary reason we have a right to bear arms is the very same reason a Constitution and Bill of Rights was written. To protect "We the People" from an overly powerful, tyrannical government.
Thomas Jefferson would be on a Homeland Security watch list today if he said such things.
No comments:
Post a Comment