Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court’
I don’t take my position on any issue lightly. Especially for one who regularly expresses opinions on political and moral issues, I believe it behooves us to seriously research and consider all the facts and cornerstone moral principles before taking a position on an issue. I expect as much from those who seek to serve in public office. Sadly, it appears many politicians consider principles to be disposable things that can be discarded as soon as they are deemed inconvenient.
Senator Rob Portman became the most prominent Republican lawmaker to back gay rights when he reversed his opposition to same-sex marriage on Friday, two years after his son told him he was gay.
In a newspaper opinion piece on Friday, shortly before the Supreme Court is to hear arguments in two key cases on the issue, the Ohio senator said he now supports gay marriage.
“I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married,” Portman wrote in an op-ed piece in Ohio’s Columbus Dispatch.
“That isn’t how I’ve always felt. As a Congressman, and more recently as a Senator, I opposed marriage for same-sex couples. Then, something happened that led me to think through my position in a much deeper way.”
Portman’s 21-year-old son, Will, told the senator and his wife in February 2011 that he was gay and had been “since he could remember.”
As a parent, I understand how love for one’s children can sometimes tempt us to blind ourselves to truths we’d rather not face. But it’s a temptation we must not yield to. Truth, right and wrong are not dependent on our feelings or circumstances.
Does that mean Portman should stop loving his son? Absolutely not! He should love Him unconditionally, no matter what mistakes he makes or what he’s struggling with. But loving a child doesn’t mean redefining an entire bedrock societal institution for their sake. It means embracing them for who they are, responding in grace to what they do, and remembering that all of us are sinners in need of a savior, whether gay or straight.
Leaving apart the question of whether marriage law should be changed, this strikes me as a problematic approach. I mean, marriage law should be changed or it shouldn’t be changed — but it shouldn’t hinge on the sexual attractions of one senator’s son, should it?
What if a conservative senator said, “I’m reversing my views on whether abortion should be legal because my daughter got pregnant and wished she weren’t.”
One of the fascinating things about society today is that personal experience trumps everything else in argumentation. Very few people seem to care about fundamental truths and principles while everyone seems to care about personal experience and emotion. It’s the Oprahfication of political philosophy.
Should a conservative determine good policy this way?
To state it bluntly, Senator Portman, Christianity, the Word of God, and the proper view of homosexuality has nothing to do with you or your changing perspective. It has everything to do with the unchanging Word of God. Your attempt to cloak your opinion by distorting the Word of God is not only offensive but blasphemous. I encourage you to open your Bible and read what it says about false teachers and those who add to or take away from the Word of God.
I understand that your son is a homosexual. As a Christian you are called to love him but you cannot condone his sin and encourage others to do the same. Principles are higher than our individual circumstances. Principles do not change because the circumstances in our lives change.
He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it. (Matthew 10:37-39)
Condoning the sin of homosexuality will not help your son to lead a “happy, meaningful” life. He cannot lead such a life in direct opposition to the Word of the Lord. You have taken the easy path and it will only lead to sin and death, error, and worse.
My prayers are with you and your family but Christians must not let your attempt to pervert the Word of God to fit your own personal life go unchallenged.
Do you know what you believe, and why? Have you actually thought through your position on certain issues, taking into consideration all the facts and core values before taking a position?
This is a very unique and insightful view from an openly gay man with adopted children.
I wholeheartedly support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but I am opposed to same-sex marriage. Because activists have made marriage, rather than civil unions, their goal, I am viewed by many as a self-loathing, traitorous gay. So be it. I prefer to think of myself as a reasoning, intellectually honest human being.
The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely.
Opposition to same-sex marriage is characterized in the media, at best, as clinging to “old-fashioned” religious beliefs and traditions, and at worst, as homophobia and hatred.
I’ve always been careful to avoid using religion or appeals to tradition as I’ve approached this topic. And with good reason: Neither religion nor tradition has played a significant role in forming my stance. But reason and experience certainly have.
Learning from Experience
As a young man, I wasn’t strongly inclined toward marriage or fatherhood, because I knew only homosexual desire.
I first recognized my strong yearning for men at age eight, when my parents took me to see The Sound of Music. While others marveled at the splendor of the Swiss Alps displayed on the huge Cinerama screen, I marveled at the uniformed, blond-haired Rolfe, who was seventeen going on eighteen. That proclivity, once awakened, never faded.
During college and throughout my twenties, I had many close friends who were handsome, athletic, and intelligent, with terrific personalities. I longed to have an intimate relationship with any and all of them. However, I enjoyed something far greater, something which surpassed carnality in every way: philia (the love between true friends)—a love unappreciated by so many because eros is promoted in its stead.
I wouldn’t have traded the quality of my relationships with any of these guys for an opportunity to engage in sex. No regrets. In fact, I always felt like the luckiest man on the planet. Denial didn’t diminish or impoverish my life. It made my life experience richer.
Philia love between men is far better, far stronger, and far more fulfilling than erotic love can ever be. But society now promotes the lowest form of love between men while sabotaging the higher forms. Gay culture continues to promote the sexualization of all (viewing one’s self and other males primarily as sexual beings), while proving itself nearly bankrupt when it comes to fostering any other aspect of male/male relationships.
When all my friends began to marry, I began to seriously consider marriage for the first time. The motive of avoiding social isolation may not have been the best, but it was the catalyst that changed the trajectory of my life. Even though I had to repress certain sexual desires, I found marriage to be extremely rewarding.
My future bride and I first met while singing in a youth choir. By the time I popped the question, we had become the very best of friends. “Soul mates” is the term we used to describe each other.
After a couple of years of diligently trying to conceive, doctors informed us we were infertile, so we sought to adopt. That became a long, arduous, heartbreaking process. We ultimately gave up. I had mixed emotions—disappointment tempered by relief.
Out of the blue, a couple of years after we resigned ourselves to childlessness, we were given the opportunity to adopt.
A great shock came the day after we brought our son home from the adoption agency. While driving home for lunch, I was suddenly overcome with such emotion that I had to pull the car off to the side of the road. Never in my life had I experienced such pure, distilled joy and sense of purpose. I kept repeating, “I’m a dad,” over and over again. Nothing else mattered. I knew exactly where I fit in within this huge universe. When we brought home his brother nearly two years later, I was prepared: I could not wait to take him up in my arms and declare our kinship and my unconditional love and irrevocable responsibility for him.
Neither religion nor tradition turned me into a dedicated father. It was something wonderful from within—a great strength that has only grown with time. A complete surprise of the human spirit. In this way and many others, marriage—my bond with the mother of my children—has made me a much better person, a person I had no idea I had the capacity to become.
Intellectual Honesty and Surprise Conclusions
Unfortunately, a few years later my marriage ended—a pain known too easily by too many. At this point, the divorce allowed me to explore my homosexuality for the first time in my life.
At first, I felt liberated. I dated some great guys, and was in a couple of long-term relationships. Over several years, intellectual honesty led me to some unexpected conclusions: (1) Creating a family with another man is not completely equal to creating a family with a woman, and (2) denying children parents of both genders at home is an objective evil. Kids need and yearn for both.
It took some doing, but after ten years of divorce, we began to pull our family back together. We have been under one roof for over two years now. Our kids are happier and better off in so many ways. My ex-wife, our kids, and I recently celebrated Thanksgiving and Christmas together and agreed these were the best holidays ever.
Because of my predilections, we deny our own sexual impulses. Has this led to depressing, claustrophobic repression? No. We enjoy each other’s company immensely. It has actually led to psychological health and a flourishing of our family. Did we do this for the sake of tradition? For the sake of religion? No. We did it because reason led us to resist selfish impulses and to seek the best for our children.
And wonderfully, she and I continue to regard each other as “soul mates” now, more than ever.
Over the last couple of years, I’ve found our decision to rebuild our family ratified time after time. One day as I turned to climb the stairs I saw my sixteen-year-old son walk past his mom as she sat reading in the living room. As he did, he paused and stooped down to kiss her and give her a hug, and then continued on. With two dads in the house, this little moment of warmth and tenderness would never have occurred. My varsity-track-and-football-playing son and I can give each other a bear hug or a pat on the back, but the kiss thing is never going to happen. To be fully formed, children need to be free to generously receive from and express affection to parents of both genders. Genderless marriages deny this fullness.
There are perhaps a hundred different things, small and large, that are negotiated between parents and kids every week. Moms and dads interact differently with their children. To give kids two moms or two dads is to withhold from them someone whom they desperately need and deserve in order to be whole and happy. It is to permanently etch “deprivation” on their hearts.
The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overturn California’s ban on same-sex marriage and turn a skeptical eye on similar prohibitions across the country.
The administration says unequivocally in a legal brief filed late Thursday that gay marriage should be allowed to resume in California, where it has been barred since the passage of Proposition 8 in 2008.
The Executive branch has no business telling the states and the Judicial branch how to do their jobs, not that he has much of a track record of respecting the separation of powers. Now the Legislative branch is following suit:
More than 100 prominent Republicans have signed an amicus brief supporting Gay Marriage, which will be submitted to the Supreme Court this week.
[...] The Supreme Court will hear back-to-back arguments in two pivotal gay-rights suits next month, which center on California’s Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage and the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act.
[...] While amicus briefs often do not have a significant impact on the Supreme Court, legal analysts say the sheer number of prominent conservatives backing gay marriage in this case may present an exception. Tom Goldstein, publisher of Scotusblog, a Web site that analyzes Supreme Court cases, said the amicus brief “has the potential to break through and make a real difference.”
When they can’t do it by vote, they seek to impose it by force through the judicial system. This may be the Roe v. Wade of our generation, and again, it will be innocent children who pay the price for it.
Some former officials in the Republican Party are urging the Supreme Court to redefine marriage for the nation. But support for marriage as the union of a man and a woman is essential to American—and conservative—principles. Indeed, nothing could be less conservative than urging an activist court to redefine an essential institution of civil society.
As my co-authors and I argue in our new book, What Is Marriage?, and in the amicus brief we filed with the Supreme Court, marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces. It is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, on the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and on the social reality that children need a mother and a father. Marriage has public purposes that transcend its private purposes.
[...] Redefining marriage would further distance marriage from the needs of children. It would deny as a matter of policy the ideal that a child needs a mom and a dad. We know that children tend to do best when raised by a mother and a father. The confusion resulting from further delinking childbearing from marriage would force the state to intervene more often in family life and cause welfare programs to grow even more.
In recent years marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs. Redefining marriage represents the culmination of this revisionism: Emotional intensity would be the only thing left to set marriage apart from other kinds of relationships. Redefining marriage would put a new principle into the law—that marriage is whatever emotional bond the government says it is.
Redefining marriage to abandon the norm of male-female sexual complementarity would also make other essential characteristics—such as monogamy, exclusivity, and permanency—optional. But marriage can’t do the work that society needs it to do if these norms are further weakened. All Americans, especially conservatives who care about thriving civil society capable of limiting the state, should be alarmed.
In the address itself, President Obama made the case that liberty is not timeless; that it must adjust to the times, and that “preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action”–not to defend those freedoms from infringement, but to give them “meaning” through government regulation and redistribution.
White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer put the point more bluntly in remarks published earlier today:
“There’s a moment of opportunity now that’s important,” Pfeiffer said. “What’s frustrating is that we don’t have a political system or an opposition party worthy of the opportunity.”
Note the contempt in Pfeiffer’s words–not just for the political opposition, but for the political system itself–a system designed by the Framers to include checks and balances to hold government power firmly in check.
[...] A year ago, President Obama observed: “[I]t turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change that I would like sometimes.” Back then, facing re-election, he promised to be patient. Today, he is impatient–with the opposition, and the system itself. He will destroy both, if necessary, to achieve his vision of America–one where “government alone” does not do everything, but rather dictates to individuals what they should do, and choose, and want, to serve its sweeping designs.
Ben Shapiro on Obama’s ‘Orwellian’ Inaugural Speech
View on YouTube
Throughout most of human history, transfers of power involved the coronation of a king or emperor, who’s only claim to power was either his birth or the conquest of his rival, whose reign was for life, and whose subjects were at his complete mercy.
Two centuries ago, our founders gave us a radically different system, where leaders were chosen from among the people to be public servants who were held accountable by the people, where no man (regardless of position) was above the law, where power was limited to prevent its abuse, where God alone was our King, and where government was prevented from taking that dictatorial role in people’s lives.
It is an awesome privilege to be the beneficiary of such a gift, and yet it carries a heavy responsibility of civic duty to hold our government and public servants accountable when they overstep their legitimate, constitutional authority.
Today was a day of inauguration, not coronation. We respect the results of the election, but we also remember that the constitutional limits of government power and the rule of law that protects our liberties are NEVER up for a vote.
Today, it was not just a president who is being inaugurated, but also We The People, who must shoulder our responsibility to uphold and defend the constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic. May we take that solemn charge faithfully and honorably, as our founders did.
And we start, by recognizing the threats promised by the newly inauguration president against our liberties:
Sounding the same themes of class warfare that propelled his re-election campaign, President Barack Obama devoted his second inaugural address to laying out his second term agenda: a struggle to undo the seeming injustices of America’s past, and to overcome the army of straw men that stand in opposition to progress.
In the process, President Obama attempted nothing less than an assault on the timeless notion of liberty itself:
Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone.
But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.
After praising the “collective” and mocking the notion that America is a “nation of takers,” President Obama targeted the political opposition. He targeted those who “deny” climate change, attacked those who allegedly refused to reward the elderly for their contributions, and defied critics whom he said wanted “perpetual war.” He attacked the rich–as he has done so often over the past four years–and painted a caricature of an unjust nation: “…our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it….We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few.”
President Obama’s address failed to deliver on promises earlier in the day by senior political adviser David Axelrod that the speech would sound themes of national unity on a day of national “consecration.” Instead, the president sounded combative themes familiar from his divisive first term, albeit wrapped occasionally in the lofty rhetoric of “hope” and “tolerance,” and punctuated by the repeated refrain: “We, the People.”
[...] Throughout his address, the President maintained his voice in a near-shout. This was not an historic address, a reflection on a moment in history; it was an exhortation to political action, in contrast to the political reality of a divided Washington, in defiance of the profound economic challenges still facing the American people.
It was a declaration of political war on individual liberty. It was a wasted opportunity–and a warning.
Obama spelled out his true agenda: destroying founding principles about limited government to meet changing times. While paying lip service to “our skepticism of central authority,” Obama said that times have changed, and “so must we”: “fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges … preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.” This was the sheerest form of rhetoric sophistry; equating freedom with government control is an perverse reversal of language. Of course, the Constitution was written based on the notion that human nature does not change – people are not angels, nor devils, but self-interested creatures capable of greatness or evil, who must be checked against each other. But Obama doesn’t believe that. He believes that man can be made anew.
But only by government. And so Obama demonized limited government as anarchism, suggesting that meeting “the demands of today’s world by acting alone” is like forcing American soldiers to meet “the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias” – a straw man argument so blatant it appeared Obama would wheel out Ray Bolger to present it. In pursuing his agenda, Obama made clear that he will ignore basic realities – “we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.” He made clear that he will create false histories – “we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn.” He made clear that he will redefine taking and giving – those who wish to save their money for their families and children are “takers,” and those who wish to confiscate the wealth of others “strengthen us.”
In the end, Obama’s argument was a collectivist one. And it was an argument designed to irreparably tear this nation apart. Obama himself said it: “Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life; it does not mean we will all define liberty in exactly the same way …”
But this renders the Declaration of Independence Obama cited completely meaningless. The founders may have disagreed on many things, but they agreed on the meaning of liberty: the right to live as an individual, without centralized planning infringing basic property rights, economic opportunities, and religious freedoms. Obama’s fundamental redefinition of liberty to include communitarianism is not merely wrong, it spells the end of the political commonality that has held the fabric of the nation together. If we define liberty differently, then there is nothing to talk about: my liberty is your tyranny, and vice versa. Our goals can never be shared. That gap can never be bridged.
Unfortunately, two of my kids got sick so I had to miss it, but I’m glad to see so many people showing up to defend life, even in the liberal hotbed of Portland.
Two pairs of women flanked the stage in silent contrition, their large signs talking for them: “I regret my abortion.”
It was just one of the messages shared through signs, speeches, statistics and music Sunday, as nearly 1,000 people filled Pioneer Square for the Rally for Life, marking the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s landmark decision legalizing abortion.
Organized by Oregon Right to Life, the Oregon Family Council and the Christian News Northwest newspaper, the hourlong event, which culminated with a march to the waterfront and back, attracted families with babies in strollers and in backpacks, members of the clergy, students, senior citizens and a handful of abortion-rights activists who gathered across the street.
[...] The Most Rev. John G. Vlazny, archbishop of Portland since 1997, opened the annual gathering saying he hoped to “promote public awareness of the fragility and value of unborn life and to offer real choices to women frightened by unplanned or unwanted pregnancies.
“When all is said and done,” he continued, “we want to work to create a society where all life is welcomed and valued.”
Someday soon, we will!
Just when you think their power grabs couldn’t be anymore brazen.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has announced he will begin the new Congress today by violating Senate rules and forcing through a set of procedural changes that will undermine Senate conservatives’ ability to influence legislation. But the “Reid Plan” will have its most dramatic impact on presidential nominations, especially for the Supreme Court.
The Senate is a unique legislative body that protects the rights of individual senators both to debate and to amend. These rights are valued so highly that it takes a supermajority — today, 60 votes — to deny fellow senators those rights. This higher vote threshold and the prospect of extended debate encourage deliberation, compromise and moderation.
Many Senate liberals want to gut this long-standing protection for minorities. Buried in the Reid Plan is a new rule, the “standing filibuster requirement,” that will allow a partisan majority to shut off deliberation and pass legislation by a bare majority. Disguised as a debate-promoting measure, this new plan is actually just a mechanism to eliminate the higher vote threshold that has long been required to proceed to final passage of bills and nominations.
This spells the effective end to minority rights in the Senate. Today’s 60-vote bar to end debate will be gone, and the Senate will be transformed into President Obama’s rubber stamp.
If you think Obama’s cabinet appointments are bad, wait until you see what he has in store for the Supreme Court
When it comes to the Supreme Court – Valerie Jarrett intends to go gay to get her way…
Now here’s the deal with the possible gay appointment. The administration, Democrats, they don’t really care about the gay issue. They don’t care about protecting them. The gay issue is just like the minority issue, it’s simply a way to cower Republicans so Democrats get their way on using government to control people. That’s it. And the thing is, these last four years, they have become very good at it. What the White House wants is the most radical SC appointment in the history of the court. That appointment will then be insulated from attack because of the gay issue. Republicans don’t want to appear “insensitive” and know the media will be ready for an all out offensive against them. This in turn could roll into the 2014 elections very similar to the trumped up rape comments by Mourdock and Akin ended up damaging the entire party in 2012. (I don’t know Akin, but Richard Mourdock is a good man and the media unfairly tore him apart. What else is new though, right?)
Now many inside the party fear the same treatment if they word something less than perfect and having to review an openly gay Supreme Court appointment during televised hearings in this current political climate would place Republicans in a very dangerous position public relations wise if they were to aggressively challenge that appointment just a year out from the Midterm Elections. The White House and Democrats would use the hearing to again paint Republicans as anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-gay, basically anti-everything and everyone, and the media will do double duty to push that portrayal 24/7 for them. The whole “gay” issue of the nominee will be the Trojan Horse to get this radical appointment approved during confirmation. The Democrats get the most radical justice ever on the court, and set up momentum for the 2014 election. I know WHI has said often that Barack Obama is stupid. That may be true, but the people running him are incredibly smart, and very devious and dangerous.
I could care less if a Justice is gay or not and most of us in the party feel the same way. Even the more social conservatives among us don’t place that issue near the top of the list. I do care a greatdeal if a potential justice is the most radical leftwing socialist to ever be considered for the SC. When I received the information, I was instantly reminded of the remarks Jarrett made before the election where she indicated they had “two judges ready to go”. It seems pretty clear that the first of those two is being positioned right now. If the word given to Judiciary is correct, and one of the conservative leaning judges steps down, I have no doubt the White House will move ahead with what Jarrett said earlier, and the socialists will have control of the White House, the Senate, near control of the Supreme Court, and will then use the momentum to take control of the House in 2014. They will have the country locked up tight. People who think things can’t get worse for America need to stop and think a bit more on that. They could get a whole lot worse.
PJTV: Afterburner: Rule of Lawlessness
View on YouTube
A sane congress would have impeached him years ago.
President Obama’s supporters love to call him the “cool” President, a “no drama” guy, and generally like to claim he is unflappable in office. Whatever the truth of that claim, there is one thing for sure: he doesn’t sweat the small stuff. Like following the law. During his four years in office this president has shown he couldn’t care less about the laws he’s supposed to be governed by as president.
This lawlessness started all the way back before he even became president. It was widely discussed in 2008 that he blatantly violated campaign donations laws by refusing to put in controls on his website that would prevent illegal, foreign donations. And we’ve only just learned as 2013 began that his 2008 campaign was levied the largest fine ever imposed on a presidential campaign for violations of campaign laws. In January the nation learned that the FEC fined Obama $375,000 for campaign reporting violations.
Once he became President, Obama immediately began misuse his powers to control Washington’s regulatory machinery to pay back pals and warp rules for ideological reasons. This president generally wields his regulatory powers with kid gloves to pay off supporters while at the same time that velvety hand holds a cudgel to smite foes.
One of his very first moves when he was swept into Washington, for instance, was to begin a program to give big payoffs to his union masters.
[...] Obama has also used Executive Orders to skirt both Congress and the law. Take for instance, Obama’s attempt to implement the Disclose Act through the back door using an EO. The Disclose Act was an effort that failed in Congress but Obama thought he could just ignore Congress and implement it anyway.
This fits with Obama’s announced policy that he would go around Congress whenever he feels like it.
Obama has also engaged in a strong campaign to misuse the Department of Justice for political purposes. His emplacement of Eric Holder as Attorney General was only the first move to turn the DoJ into a weapon against Americans he doesn’t like. Writer and former DoJ lawyer J.Christian Adams has chronicledthe extensive damage Holder’s DoJ has done to the country with his and Obama’s politicization of the department.
[...] Obama has used the Environmental Protection Agency as a weapon repeatedly, as well. In only the latest example we find that a federal court has determined that the EPA overstepped its boundaries by idiotically claiming that water is a “pollutant” in order to force its will on state officials.
Another example of Obama’s disinterest in following the law was his responsibility to report his upcoming regulatory changes, the last report of which was due in October but wasn’t bothered with until December — convenientlyafter the election. The earlier April report he never issued at all.
He’s by no means done abusing the rule of law and the constitution to get what he wants. And until the co-equal branches of government grow the spine needed to keep in him in check, he never will be.
Just days after Piers Morgan claimed that both the Bible and the Constitution are “inherently flawed” and need to be amended, a Georgetown Constitutional Law professor published a piece in the New York Times that called for abolishing the “archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil” US Constitution altogether:
Georgetown Law professor Louis Michael Seidman writes that the time has come to scrap the Constitution.
In an op-ed published in the New York Times Monday, Seidman, a constitutional law professor, claimed that the nation’s foundational document is the real impediment to progress and solutions to America’s troubles.
“As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken,” Seidman wrote. “But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.”
According to Seidman, the country’s insistence that it maintain the will of a centuries-old document “has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public.”
He’s not alone in this sentiment, either. Then-Senator Obama lamented that the Supreme Court didn’t go far enough to “break free” from the constitution in a radio interview in 2001:
W. James Antle III points out however, that we have already largely given up on the constitution already, or we wouldn’t be in the mess that we’re in:
Seidman calls the Constitution “archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil.” He’s wrong, but at least he expresses his contempt for the rule of law openly and honestly, instead of insulting our intelligence with insincere twaddle about a “living document.”
[...] Seidman exercises his constitutional right to miss the point when he blames the fiscal cliff on the fact that revenue bills must originate in the House, or a “grotesquely malapportioned Senate.” But those are the Constitution’s procedural restraints, the equivalent of Robert’s Rules of Order. We got into this mess precisely by flouting its substantive limits on federal power.
Put simply, if the federal government only spent money on its constitutionally enumerated functions, there would be no fiscal cliff. No $1 trillion deficit. No $16 trillion national debt. No $84 trillion in unfunded liabilities for the major entitlement programs and other federal commitments.
It is the constitutional disobedience our man at Georgetown advocates that has the country perpetually on the precipice of financial ruin. He is merely complaining about a too-slow process of dividing up the spoils.
What they’re really advocating here is a revolution to overthrow the United States as a constitutional republic, so they can replace it with a Socialist Oligarchy disguised as a Democracy. At least they’re now finally being honest about it.
I guess Americans have decided that they haven’t hit rock bottom yet. Obama will lead us down the road to Greece. Our own apathy and disregard for the Biblical principles of liberty, government and economics have led us down this path. Only a revival can save our nation now. Lord, we lay our future in your hands.
Here’s what we need to prepare for:
The mask will now come off. Obama doesn’t have to worry about re-election and will push hard to advance his Marxist agenda with no pretense of being a “moderate.”
A flood of regulations that Obama kept on hold and the media hid until after the election will start going into effect, strangling struggling businesses.
Taxmageddon – a record $494 billion tax hike – will go into effect on January 1st, 2013, plunging us into even deeper recession.
The Left will start going after the internet, citizen journalism, social media and talk radio – any competition to the Left-wing propagandist media.
Obama and the Democrat-controlled senate will begin ceding our national sovereignty to the United Nations, one treaty at a time. Parental rights, gun rights, and internet freedom are especially under threat.
Planned Parenthood will expand on the taxpayer dime, preparing to perform thousands of abortions via socialized medicine.
A direct assault on religious liberty as Obama’s HHS forces religious business owners to pay for abortions, and tries to force the Catholic church – the largest competitor to the Welfare State – out of the health care industry and other charities altogether.
With the Republicans still controlling congress, Obama will simply go around them and rule by executive diktat. Republicans will have to grow the spine needed to hold him in check.
With Democrats still in control of the senate, no budgets will be passed. All of Obama’s judges and appointments will be confirmed. And if they aren’t, he’ll go ahead and appoint them anyway.
Obama will likely appoint at least two more activist judges to lifetime appointments in the Supreme Court. The senate will confirm them.
Obama will continue to block drilling and natural gas development, driving up gas prices and making us dangerously dependent on the volatile Middle East while he dumps billions more into “green” energy subsidies.
Obama’s EPA will destroy the coal industry, causing electricity rates to skyrocket, as he imposes thousands more “green” regulations on what’s left of our manufacturing and other industries.
Illegal aliens will be granted amnesty, voting rights and welfare benefits.
Israel will be forced to attack Iran to prevent it from going nuclear. Obama will not support them. The Muslim world will not be afraid of action from the United States, and will feel free to join forces to destroy Israel.
Christian persecution across the globe will intensify, as the Obama administration looks the other way.
The Fed will continue to print more money out of thin air, creating hyperinflation.
These last four years have been exhausting. After this loss, it’s tempting to just put our heads back under the covers and give up.
But we can’t.
We have no choice but to fight back with every resource at our disposal. If we give up, our children and grandchildren will suffer under the tyranny of the USSA, while the rest of the world descends into chaos.
I can’t allow that to happen while there is still breath in my body to fight it.
Remember, THIS is what you’re fighting for:
View on YouTube
Who’s with me?
“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 by 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.” ~ Thomas Paine
Four Supreme Court justices are nearing retirement. The next president will likely fill at least 2-3 of these seats, dramatically shifting the balance either towards constitutional originalism or judicial activism for decades to come.
Jesus admonished: “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” (Matthew 10:16). It is through this biblical prism that I shine my multicolored analysis.
President Obama is a wolf. Though he purports to be Christian, his policies are decidedly un-Christian. This man eagerly advances a culture of death. He is the most radically pro-abortion president in American history. He has dutifully signed off on – and implemented at each opportunity – every extremist demand of the radical pro-abortion and homosexual activist lobbies.
Mr. Obama has shown utter disregard – if not total disdain – for the U.S. Constitution. Not the least of his indefensible infringements is his recent Health and Human Services mandate requiring, under penalty of law, that all Christian and Catholic organizations violate fundamental church tenets by providing abortifacients, sterilization and contraceptive services to employees. This may be the single most egregious breach of First Amendment freedom in our lifetimes. Thankfully, the church isn’t backing down, has refused to comply and is fighting tooth and nail in court to reinstate constitutional liberty.
Scripture says that Christians are known by their fruit. Mr. Obama’s fruit is rotten to the core. He talks like a Christian while his actions scream secular-socialist. I intend to work with every fiber of my being to see that Mr. Obama is not re-elected. To the extent this benefits Mr. Romney, so be it.
It took one word to convince me: judges. The next president likely will fill at least two Supreme Court vacancies in the next four to eight years. Appointing Supreme Court justices may be the single most significant thing any president can do. For better or for worse, it profoundly steers law, public policy and culture at large in perpetuity.
This is our most crucial point of focus: ensuring an originalist, strict constructionist majority on the high court. If Mr. Obama is re-elected and appoints one, two or even three more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs, forget it. America, as our founders envisioned her, is dead.
Though Mr. Romney’s judicial appointment record while governor of Massachusetts was erratic at best, he has pledged during this election cycle, “I will appoint conservative, strict constructionists to the judiciary.”
Flip-flop? Perhaps. Still, Mr. Romney has proved that he cares about and understands political self-preservation. If Mr. Romney wins the White House and expects a second term, there is a strong chance, I believe, that conservatives can hold him accountable to his word.
Indeed, political self-preservation will provide Mr. Romney a strong incentive to honor his pro-life, pro-family conservative rhetoric. Most important, it significantly increases the chances that he will appoint originalist judges to the Supreme Court as promised.
With Mr. Obama, we know what we will get – we’ve already gotten it. You need only consider his Supreme Court appointments of Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. If he is re-elected, why would we expect anything less? We’re guaranteed additional counter-constitutionalist radicals.
Four more years of Obama’s anti-constitution, radical judicial nominees is too scary a thought to entertain. We MUST make Obama a one-term president!
The next president will appoint up to FOUR Supreme Court Justices, who will remain on the bench FOR LIFE! That’s a scary thought!
President Barack Obama, campaigning in the swing state of Colorado Wednesday, decided to make the Supreme Court a key issue for the presidential campaign, after earlier focusing on his health care overhaul law, free contraception and funding for Planned Parenthood.
“Today is the three year anniversary of Sonia Sotomayor taking her seat on the Supreme Court,” Obama said at the Auraria Event Center in Denver. “Yesterday was the two-year anniversary of Elena Kagan taking her seat on the Supreme Court. So, let’s be very clear, the next president could tip the balance of the court in a way that turns back the clock for women and families for decades to come.”
To “establish” a national religion means to force all citizens to participate and adhere to it. A public figure offering a prayer is not “establishing” anything. These people need to get a grip!
“May the Lord bring them comfort and healing in hard days to come,” President Obama said at the end of his speech today, referring to the victims of the Batman shooting in Colorado and their families. By doing so, he “ben[t] the rules” against government establishing a religion, according to the Center for Secular Humanism.
“I think it’s a little unfortunate,” CSH director Tom Flynn told The Washington Examiner. “Even in a situation like this, [when] he leads a public prayer to a deity that it pretty recognizably the Christian God, much as you can understand the emotional context of it, he’s still sending to some degree a message of exclusion to other religions who don’t call their god “Lord” and to non-religious Americans.”
“By the very act of praying, that’s a message of exclusion,” he continued. “If I’m a public official, I think I’m going to look around in the morning and conclude that, ‘hey, this religion thing is just too hot to handle, I should stay away from it in my official capacity.’”
It won’t get past the current senate. We have to take back the senate and White House and get a strong majority in congress to fully repeal this job-killing monstrosity.
House lawmakers voted Wednesday to repeal the federal health care overhaul — the latest in a long line of anti-ObamaCare votes, but the first since the Supreme Court upheld the law and defined one of its key provisions as a “tax.”
The House has voted more than 30 times to scrap, defund or undercut the law since Obama signed it in March 2010. As with those bills, the repeal bill approved Wednesday on a 244-185 vote faces certain demise in the Democrat-controlled Senate.
But Republicans were looking to get lawmakers back on record on the law in the wake of the high court ruling last month. The ruling upheld most the law as constitutional, but in doing so it determined that the controversial penalty on those who do not buy insurance technically qualifies as a “tax” and not a “penalty” as the administration had claimed. That definition fueled GOP criticism of the law, and put some Democrats in a politically tricky position.
Five Democrats ended up defecting Wednesday. Reps. Mike Ross, D-Ark.; Dan Boren, D-Okla.; Mike McIntyre, D-N.C.; Larry Kissell, D-N.C.; and Jim Matheson, D-Utah, all voted yes.
Brian Darling at the Heritage Foundation recommends what should come next:
How to get it to the floor: Once the Senate receives the “Repeal of ObamaCare Act” from the House of Representatives, it is expected that a conservative Senator will use the Senate’s rules to force a vote. A Senator can use Rule 14 of the Senate’s rules to object to a second reading of the bill. This objection would place the House-passed Obamacare repeal bill in a position for debate on a motion to proceed to the bill and a roll-call vote on whether the Senate should consider the measure.
If conservatives fumble the ball and no Senator objects to the second reading, then conservatives will have lost an opportunity for a vote. Failure to object using the Senate’s rules sends the bill to the black hole of a Senate Committee controlled by liberals. The repeal of Obamacare legislation would not be heard from again this Congress.
How long it would take: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–KY) or any other member of the Republican caucus can lodge an objection to the second reading of the bill that will start a two-day process to get the legislation on the Senate calendar. Once on the Senate calendar, the legislation can be considered at any point during the duration of this Congress.
Once on the Senate calendar, any Senator can start the debate and trigger a recorded vote. All that Senator would need is to gather up 16 Senate signatures on a cloture petition pursuant to Rule 22 to commence a debate. The Senator then would take his cloture petition and file it with the clerk of the Senate. The filing of “cloture” would commence a debate and vote.
How the left could block it: The only way for liberals to block consideration of the bill would be to table the bill or filibuster it.
What’s needed to pass it: Now, if four Democrats defect and sign on to the idea of a full repeal of Obamacare, all of a sudden there are enough votes to pass the bill. If the supporters of H.R. 6079 can get to a simple majority of support, the only way liberals could prevent passage of the bill by a simple majority would be to engage in a filibuster of the bill. Yes, the same party that has harped on the idea of “filibuster reform” would be forced into a filibuster to prevent the “Repeal of ObamaCare Act” from passing.
Under this scenario, there are two hardball tactics that can be used to repeal Obamacare. First would be to shame the filibuster-hating liberals into standing down and allowing an up-or-down vote on the bill. Nothing prevents conservatives from keeping the Senate on this bill if they have majority support until liberals relent. They have the power under the rules to file cloture over and over again until they shame liberals into allowing a majority of the Senate to pass the bill.
Another hardball tactic that could be used would be to put the language of this full repeal of Obamacare on a must-pass bill. The federal government will need to pass an appropriations measure before September 1 to fund the government this fall. A steadfast and resolute House could attach the “Repeal of ObamaCare Act” to a continuing resolution to fund the federal government and dare the liberals in the Senate to cause a government shutdown over Obamacare.