Many on the left are trying to make the argument that John McCain is too ignorant about foreign policy to be President because he conflates "Shiite" and "Sunni."
While this is not unimportant, I humbly submit that neither Clinton nor Obama seem to be aware of the fact that most of their proposals for domestic policy -- most particularly, universal health care -- clearly violate the Tenth Amendment, and that understanding the Constitution and respecting the rights of the people of the United States is a lot more important to being President than understanding the differences between various Muslim sects.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at March 20, 2008 01:03 PM | Email This..we're off an running - again.
Posted by: Duffman on March 20, 2008 01:09 PMWhat I loved about the gaffe, and it was a gaffe, was Lieberman leaning over to correct McCain.
I really wish the MSM would stick to the issues. What's next are we going to decide our leaders on whether the can walk down stairs properly, say nuclear properly, know how to spell potatoe? Enough I say.
On the other side, McCain needs to slap his so called staff for putting out stupid statements like the one stating that Iran has been training Al Quaeda. This is a right-wing conspiracy. General Petraeus stated yesterday that Al Qaeda weapons and suicide bombers actually come primarily through Syria.
Posted by: tc on March 20, 2008 01:26 PMAnd Bush Hitler is a chimp, etc.
Emotion over reason, that's the hallmark of the left.
That got me to ruminating a bit. I might be a fun thread to solicit examples of conflation in the public sphere. It's really not quite the same as many of the faulty arguments like the straw man.
The first time this hit home for me was dropping by to see the 70's-era anti-war protests, where radical types with extensive laundry lists of demands ranged from "immoral profits" to abortion rights. It makes for strange bedfellows. A legal immigrant may be fighting illegals for scarce resources. An anti-war Catholic might blanch at the notion of abortion on demand. And so on.
One of the weaknesses of the left is that it is an amalgam of disparate self-interests groups, with far less unanimity, other than antipathy for the right, than is often presumed. I just don't know the extent to which the same is true of the right.
Nope. Not according to the Tenth Amendment.
Posted by: pudge on March 20, 2008 02:16 PMNah, we don't hate him. He's probably a nice guy. We just wish he had never become president. I think a lot of Republicans feel the same way.
Now ya' wanna' talk about hating someone, let's talk about Dick Cheney.
I'm assuming you're referring to partial birth abortions correct?
...and if not, then at what point does your "national sense of humanity" begin?
..don't you hate it when that happens...especially when you have to get up in the middle of the nite to do it... :)
..or am I possibly conflating that with another 'process'...
"Given that Obama said he would meet with the president of Canada, I don't think the left has a lot of room to be criticizing McCain for a supposed lack of understanding of foreign affairs because he mixed up Shia and Sunni."
Somehow knowing the basic facts about the situation in the middle east seems a little more important to me than knowing the correct title of the leader of our neighbors to the north.
Posted by: Noble on March 20, 2008 02:32 PMYou should watch last nights South Park, it was very amusing and had a good take on medias vapidity.
It's kind of a self-fulfilling cycle, people like to watch/read about scandals (given), the media picks up on hints of a scandal (FBI wiretap + Governor) and this peaks their interest, the media does it's job and digs deeper(wiretap identifies Governor with prostitute) and more information is discovered (prostitute name, info, website, how much Governor spent, how long it went on) scandal leads to some sort of action (people calling for Governor to resign) which in turn leads to a resolution (Governor resigning, prostitute becomes famous). A new scandal emerges (what's Britney up to?/Obama's pastor?/McCain's preacher buddies?), people then move on to the next scandal and the cycle repeats itself.
If the MSM stuck to the issues we'd be bored out of our skulls. Sort of like watching Hillary talk about Health Care or the GOP candidates debate how they're more Reagan-esque than their opponent. DULL!!
If we'd listened to the eggheads, we'd never have defeated the terrorists in Iraq.
I really don't care about all these distinctions, I just want to contain the madmen who want to come to this country and blow up stuff.
We don't hate Bush. We just hate so many of the things that he has done. Like ... violating the Constitution by spying on our own citizens.
You hate violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. You LOVE and PUSH FOR violations of the Tenth Amendment.
That is what the Democratic Party stands for today: subverting the very foundations, and transmuting the very nature, of the limited government established by the people of America. Democrats could not care less about the Constitution, except where they happen to agree with it.
While SOME Republicans also have issues with the Constitution, this is not a defining feature of the Republican Party: in the GOP many of us disagree on wiretapping, on due process, and so on.
But it is an absolute characteristic of the Democratic Party: you will disregard the Tenth Amendment.
Posted by: pudge on March 20, 2008 02:58 PMConsider the source. These are the folks that think that an immediate pull-out from Iraq is in US national interests. These are the people supporting either a follower of an anti-American preacher, or the enabler of Slick Willy, both of whom have zero real experience in leadership, and both of whom would lead this nation based on the polling of their extreme constituencies.
Besides, if they don't like McCain, they should send their complaints, in writing, to the MSM.
Posted by: Reality on March 20, 2008 03:05 PMTo call Hillary a "witch" would be an insult to good followers of Wicca everywhere.
Blessed be!
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on March 20, 2008 03:20 PMI mean what kind of fool would run for National Office, and for the Presidency, and frequent a church like TU, and hear statements like that of Wright, and not realize that this would be a major political liability?
It takes the very same ability to ignore such a political reality, as it does for Uncle Witz to comment above, shooting down his argument. This is the essence of the left. Marxism defeats itself, because it does not work. Socialized medicine has failed monstrously in Canada and Britain. Etc.
But they will keep at it, because they are not interested in real success, only in the unworkable schemes they see inside of their collective cocoon ideology.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 20, 2008 03:30 PMYou forgot the Second Amendment too, Dem's are not big on guns.
Democrats could not care less about the Constitution, except where they happen to agree with it.
Nor could SOME Republicans. I think a lot of people are willing to look the other way when different Amendments are violated. Currently the GOP leadership has issues with he 4th one. I would agree that Dem's ignore some 10th Amendment violations but both parties are willing to look the other way when it comes to certain hot button issues (gay rights/abortion/etc).
To say that it's one party problem is a gross misinterpretation of the issue, I would expect that sort of argument from posters who are more unbalanced and less thoughtful in their arguments than yourself.
Only a liberal would think that reading the actual text is misinterpreting the 10th amendment.
Posted by: RBW on March 20, 2008 03:43 PMHillary's now-classified senior thesis praised the notorious Marxist seditionist Sol Alinsky. Barack Hussein Obama followed Alinsky's methods when he "organized" Chicago, met with sixties radicals, and became Wright's protege.
If it looks like a Marxist, talks like a Marxist, and walks like a Marxist, it must be a Marxist. Hillary and Obama are different colors of the same cloth: Hillary is white and Obama is black. Both are infiltrating subversives who must be stopped. We can see their tactics even on this website where "liberals" infiltrate and try to monopolize, distract, control, or ruin the threads.
Posted by: The Pirate on March 20, 2008 03:46 PM
It's in the British interests which is why they're pulling out of Southern Iraq. McCain went to stop the bleed but the Brit's will be making up their own minds. Looks like we'll be flying solo soon (not counting the 15 troops or so troops Poland has sent to help us). Maybe it wasn't such a good idea to go in the first place.
both of whom have zero real experience in leadership
True, but Dubya had very little leadership skills when he got into office. Do you think he's doing a good job? Nixon had a ton of experience going in and he ended up leaving the office in disgrace.
both of whom would lead this nation based on the polling of their extreme constituencies
How do you know? You have a crystal ball? Does the GOP leadership in this state bend to the polling sample taken from the Ellen Craswell/Pam Roach crowd? Will Dino Rossi be advocating public stonings for adulterers and homosexuals? I think not.
You can easily google what the Supreme Court and constitutional scholars have written about the 10th Amendment through the centuries. (I realize that "scholars" might be considered elitist, but I use the term merely to identify that small minority of Americans who have thought or written about the 10th Amendment. I suppose you could poll the others, with similar results.)
You are welcome to hold an unorthodox view of the 10th Amendment, but if you think this is at all relevant to Sunnis, Shiites, or the 2008 presidential campaign, then I have a (federally-subsidized) bridge to sell you.
Posted by: Bruce on March 20, 2008 03:58 PMWe can see their tactics even on this website where "conservatives" defend and try to ignore, disassociate, blame others, on the threads to try and salvage the legacy of the worst President since Nixon.
a new Reuters/Zogby Poll out today.
46% John McCain
40% Barack Obama
48% John McCain
40% Hillary Clinton
And in the
RASMUSSEN POLL: McCain Now Leads By Double Digits:
McCain 51% Clinton 41%
McCain 49% Obama 42%
Keep telling the American people that we need a $700 Billion dollar tax hike, and all the tax cuts Bush made taken away, and a 50 cent Gas tax increase, and Trillions for Health care for everyone.
Please keep it up, we won't even have to campaign!
And McCain is not just mixing them up, his statements show he does not understand the different factions at play. Perhaps he should have spent less time laughing at Paul in the debates and instead took notes.
1) We are at war with well organized members of a religious fringe group.
2) People who follow Louis Farrakhan's divisive words don't blow themselves up to make a statement. Much like followers of Jerry Fawell or Rev. Hagee decisive words.
We can see their tactics even on this website where "liberals" infiltrate and try to monopolize, distract, control, or ruin the threads.
So using the same tactics as Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Wright to label and demonize your opponents is fine, just as long as we're taking about Liberals or "Marxists" and not the white man.
Thanks Pirate for a fine example of the lengths posters will go to illustrate their hypocrisy.
But this is not a tenet of the Democratic Party. Many Democrats do like guns, and support gun rights. Not a majority, of course. But no Democrats I have ever met respect the Tenth Amendment.
Democrats could not care less about the Constitution, except where they happen to agree with it.
Nor could SOME Republicans.
Yes, some. It is unfortunate. But at least it is not all-pervasive, as in the Democratic Party.
RBW: Fortunately, Obama, Clinton, and McCain are all intelligent enough to ignore crackpot libertarians who misinterpret the 10th Amendment. Only a liberal would think that reading the actual text is misinterpreting the 10th amendment.
Riiiiiiight. I quoted the guy who WROTE the Tenth Amendment, and I am the one misinterepreting it. Pull the other one.
Bruce: But only a simpleton would believe that any legal document can be read out of context -- in this case, the rest of the Constitution.
Exactly right.
You can easily google what the Supreme Court and constitutional scholars have written about the 10th Amendment through the centuries.
Yes. And the Supreme Court is not relevant here. The proper context is, as you say, the Constitution itself, not what later people have said about it. There is simply no doubt when you read the Federalist Papers and the congressional debates about the Constitution and the writing of the first twelve amendments and Madison's writings and speeches at the time, what the Tenth Amendment means.
You are welcome to hold an unorthodox view of the 10th Amendment
No, you have it backward. My view IS the orthodox one. It is only in the last century that there was a significant move AWAY from orthodoxy.
Further, the current unorthodox view of the Tenth Amendment literally stands up to absolutely no logical scrutiny. To say that the Tenth Amendment DOES NOT limit the federal government to exercising only its enumerated/delegated powers NECESSARILY means that the Tenth Amendment has no meaning.
And worse, if you, as some try to do, twist "general welfare" into a delegated/enumerated power, you wind up not only with a completely redundant and useless Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, but with an unlimited government subject only to particular exemptions, which is obviously the OPPOSITE of what everyone in 1787 voted for when they ratified the Constitution.
So no, your view of the Tenth Amendment, if it differs significantly from mine, simply cannot be backed up with either history or logic. It can only possibly be backed up by deluding yourself into believing that which is plainly false, or by holding to a philosophy of legal intepretation that is the opposite of your initial claim: that the Constitution SHOULD be read out of its context.
Posted by: pudge on March 20, 2008 04:33 PMWow, and it's only March and just seven months away from the election. That leaves us just seven (long) months for the voters to figure out who they want as President.
These polls might be relevant if the election was held in April, but it's not. Meanwhile the economy is still falling into recession, gas prices are still rising, inflation is still creeping upwards, and the war is still on.
Come November people will be asking themselves "Are you better off then you were four years ago?" If the answer continues to be No, then McCain may be in trouble. Only time will tell, polls this far from the election are hardly relevant to decision day on Nov. 4th.
This November, people will be asking themselves "do I want to vote for a guy who aligns himself with an anti-American racist bigot, and who would put that nonsensical "Black Liberation Theology" and his race ahead of his country? Do I want to vote for a liar? Do I want to vote for a socialist empty suit, entirely lacking in the experience, vision and ability our leader SHOULD have? Or do I want to vote for McCain?"
Of course it's hard to say where we're gonna be at 7 months from now when votes count. (Unless, of course, you're a democrat from Michigan or Florida... then they don't count quite so much.)
But between now and then, even more information will be coming out confirming BO's lack of ability.
This is actually starting to shape up to be yet another 48 state massacre... with you folks again on the "Wright" side of the outcome.
Posted by: Hinton on March 20, 2008 04:59 PMSee: http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/889pvpxc.asp
McCain is near or at 50%, while Clinton and Obama are both languishing around 40%.
Pudge has pointed out, in previous entries, how often Republican Presidents are elected with majorities, and how infrequently the Democratic Presidents achieve a majority vote.
With no ultra-right-wing nutcase or Ross Perot (or are they the same?) running this time, it'll be very difficult for the Dems to hold McCain under 47-48%. And there's a very real possibility that Ralph Nader will steal some votes from Hillary or Obama.
Despite what the socialists in the liberal echo-chamber in Western WA might think - I know many Democrats from other parts of the country who don't like either Obama or Hillary, and who wouldn't have any problem sitting out or voting for Nader, in deference to McCain. They just don't, and won't be able to, spew the hatred of McCain as they have Bush. Are they going to call McCain a draft-dodger? Are they going to claim that he has no experience because he's 'only' been a US Senator? Not bloody likely.
It's FAR more likely that McCain will hit 50% than either Obama or Hillary.
Posted by: Larry on March 20, 2008 06:11 PMCare to enlighten us on YOURS!
I just love it when libs can't win, the second thing out of their mouth is... I'm smarter than you!
Gezzzz grow up Wiz
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 20, 2008 06:37 PMIf a Leftist can burn the American flag and call it speech, then I can burn down his house and call it speech.
If blacks think that I owe them today because of slavery yesterday, then on the marrow I shall sell them down the river because of slavery yesterday.
Posted by: barracks lawyer on March 20, 2008 06:43 PMOut of context? The bill of rights was written shortly after the main body of the constitution in order to convince some of the states to ratify the constitution. In a nutshell what it says is that the Federal government is limited to the powers enumerated in the body of the constitution. How in the world is that out of context?
Posted by: RBW on March 20, 2008 06:47 PMFalse. In fact, all of them do clearly violate the Tenth Amendment.
There's the little thing called Article I section 8 which has one pretty broad paragraph granting lots of powers
Yes. And you will notice that not one of them explicitly or implicitly has anything to do with health care or social security. Therefore, they are unconstitutional. That's the point.
and as it turns out neither Social Security or Medicare has been deemed unconstitutional and I doubt Universal Healthcare will either
Yes, they have: I just deemed them such. Perhaps you mean the Supreme Court has not deemed them such; however, the Supreme Court does not define constitutionality. It only defines what the law recognizes as constitutional. Those are, of course, two very different things. (So no, AD, you are wrong.)
This is not just me talking, it is hundreds of years of Supreme Court justices, such as Felix Frankfurter, who said "constitutionality is what the Constitution says, not what we have to say about it."
Anyone who thinks first of what the court has to say when they think of whether something is constitutional is giving the court far more authority than it has, or deserves.
That doesn't mean we should ignore the court, of course. It just means that it is only the final arbiter of what the law recognizes, not what the Constitution actually says or means.
Thus, the fight has to be a political one and we have to defeat that ideology rather than expecting the Supreme Court to rule a way they clearly cannot.
No, you misunderstand. Talking about whether something is constitutional is NOT a claim that the court will, or should, have anything to do with it. As Justice Bork said, just because something is unconstitutional -- even if the justices AGREE it is unconstitutional -- doesn't mean the court will find it as such, because it has other considerations.
Absolutely, yes, this is an ideological and political fight. And part of that fight is noting the fact that the proponents are proposing to further violate the Constitution, which subverts our rights, and seeks to transmute our limited government into an unlimited one.
Posted by: pudge on March 20, 2008 06:51 PMMy credentials are that I am an American citizen who can both read, and understand, the Constitution.
However, if you must have some other credentials, the person who wrote the Tenth Amendment, James Madison -- no higher authority than him is possible -- said it best:
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may a point teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare. ... I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America ...
Now, feel free to argue against Madison.
Posted by: pudge on March 20, 2008 06:56 PMYou misunderstand my intention. I was not passing judgment on McCain. I was saying that whatever you think about what McCain said, even at worst, it pales in comparison to the lack of understanding Obama and Clinton have of our own Constitution.
Posted by: pudge on March 20, 2008 06:57 PMHuh. I thought you were a lawyer! ;-)
Sort of like the pot calling the kettle opaque. Okay, so let's say Obama and Clinton want the federal government to spend $250 billion a year more on programs that Pudge feels are in violation of the 10th amendment. But what about the fact that Bush is already spending $1 trillion a year on existing programs, which Pudge also feels are in violation of the 10th amendment?
Yes, what about the fact? I have criticized Bush many times for just that very thing, especially NCLB and expanding Medicare drug coverage.
Also, not about "feels." There is no question about it: they violate the Tenth Amendment. Nothing in the Constitution explicitly or implicitly grants power over health care of education etc. Therefore, that power belongs to the states, and the people, respectively. It's right there in black and white.
Posted by: pudge on March 20, 2008 07:54 PMIn fact if it weren't Ron Paul's international policy, I would have been his biggest supporter.
Posted by: RBW on March 20, 2008 08:00 PMTechnically yes, you can even call it Art if you want, just make sure you clear it with the proper authorities down at the fire dept.
Burning a flag is like burning a draft cart, stupid and meaningless. There are plenty of other American Flags (likely made in China/Mexico) and you still have to serve if your drafted (unless of course you flee the country, then you're a criminal). I think the real solution here is for companies to produce more fire retardant flags. Of course that method has it's own share of problems.
So now in the beginnings of a recession, their solution is to steal another trillion or so of your hard earned money so they can hand it out to their constituents.
Believe me people are feeling plenty pinched right now without the massive tax hikes the Democarats are offering.
Nice try, but the polls as showing the disgust of both of your candidates, one a flaming racist, and the other a Flaming B.
Not much choice that everyday America can relate to.
Not much change that America will want.
Posted by: GS on March 20, 2008 08:27 PM
McCain is head and shoulders above Clinton or Obama when it comes to foreign policy. Hopefully McCain will continue to hold the MSM reporter's feet to the fire and when they ask stupid or try to bait him, he calls them on it. Count on the corrupt MSM to start trying to find dirt on McCain and try to make more mountains out of molehills. McCain will have to shake the label of being in lock-step with Bush or being the 3rd term of Bush. His mission should be to frame that argument that he is not like Bush. He has already shown himself to be different from Bush by changing the name from the War on Terror to the War on Radical Islam, which sounds alot more intelligent, IMHO.
Posted by: KS on March 20, 2008 09:40 PMIt's the kindergartner's approach to the law.
Problems arise when you actually have to apply what it says and means to real-life scenarios which, as it happens, are very seldom cut and dry.
Luckily, though, we have an institutional mechanism for making those decisions: the Supreme Court (not pudge). But in pudge's la la legal land, the Supreme Court is obviously not accepted as the final arbiter for these decisions as they obviously can be plainly seen to any literate being!
I mean, seriously, we all are aware that people who ascribe to these views exist, but giving them a megaphone on the state's most popular conservative blog? That just makes all of us look backward by association.
Posted by: AD on March 20, 2008 10:14 PMPudge, I can understand where you are coming from with your 10th Amendment argument, but doesn't the fact that Health Care involve interstate commerce mean that it would fall under the Commerce Clause that the courts have applied to the 10th amendment? You can't have one state controlling the commerce/trade within another state. Isn't it the Federal Government's role for oversight of interstate commerce? Thus, could the Federal Government establish minimum standards that Health Care Authorities (Companies) that deal across state lines would need to abide by. While this would rule out Hillary's mandate, I don't see how it necessarily eliminates Barack's expand FEHB program to allow all companies to utilize. I may be confused how Insurance companies operate. Do they need individual state subsidaries and approval by State Insurance Commissioner to operate, or do they operate across state lines? I would think if it is the latter, then the Federal Government has a role.
Posted by: tc on March 20, 2008 10:25 PMFalse.
To him, it's all so simple. What does the constitution mean? Why, it means what it says, of course, and says what it means! Nothing more or less!
No, it can be hard work. It often is. You see, I have to actually seek to understand not just what the law says, but what the context was when it was written, unlike you, and everyone else who thinks the Tenth Amendment does not limit the federal government. They don't have to think about ... well, anything. It is far too inconvenient to do so.
It's the kindergartner's approach to the law.
Nope. You have it backward. My approach is the OPPOSITE of that. It is the kindergartner who wants to bend rules they don't like or ignore those they don't have a use for. It is the kindergartner who thinks that it is a waste of time to try to understand why laws exist, that's it is easier to just make them say what you want them to say. It is the kindergartner who equivocates on word meanings they dislike.
Problems arise when you actually have to apply what it says and means to real-life scenarios which, as it happens, are very seldom cut and dry.
Yes, exactly: there are problems. But to a liberal (like, say, Justice Breyer), there is no problem: just ignore the law if it is inconvenient to you.
Luckily, though, we have an institutional mechanism for making those decisions: the Supreme Court (not pudge)
And luckily, a majority of the Supreme Court shares my views of legal interpretation, in significant part, if not in whole. My views mirror Scalia's very closely -- indeed, I am positive he would agree with what I've said, as much of it is the same as what he's said many times over the years -- and track closely with Thomas, and Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy as well.
But in pudge's la la legal land, the Supreme Court is obviously not accepted as the final arbiter for these decisions as they obviously can be plainly seen to any literate being!
Um. I paraphrased a Supreme Court Justice when I said what I did. A rather liberal one, at that. Felix Frankfurter. "The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what [the Supreme Court has] said about it."
When I say that the Supreme Court does not define constitutionality, I am simply saying what many on the Supreme Court themselves have said.
And it is perfectly obvious anyway: if the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that the Constitution does not prohibit a state-run church, would a state-run church therefore be constitutional? Of course not. The law would recognize it as such, but the law would be wrong.
I mean, seriously, we all are aware that people who ascribe to these views exist
Right. Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito ... not high-profile people at all.
You appear to take the same approach to discussions like this, as you do about the law: you don't care what the facts are, as long as it matches up with your preconceived reality. You don't like what I have to say, but you don't actually think about it or look into it, you just want it to be wrong, so therefore, it is! Just like how you approach the law: you don't want universal health care to be unconstitutional, so it must not be! Stick your fingers in your ears and LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
Come to think of it, YOU are the one who sounds like a religious "fundamentalist."
Posted by: pudge on March 20, 2008 10:34 PMEven if you grant that government can REGULATE health care -- and, actually, I do grant this -- as part of interstate commerce, it does not follow that this regulation is without limitation, even to the point of controlling and paying for health care for everyone (which is what a "universal health care" program necessarily entails). I am not saying some regulatory authority is unconstitutional, I am saying federal universal health care is.
See my Madison quote above, and substitute "interstate commerce" for "general welfare." Under such a misuse, what would NOT be covered under "interstate commerce"? Heck, most private schools are commercial, so they can be controlled by the federal government, right?
I'll leave it to Justice Thomas to tear this one down if it comes up. He is one of the best writers against the misuse of the commerce clause that I have ever seen.
Besides, for a liberal to use this argument is self-defeating, since most of them want to move health care AWAY from being commercial. If it is run by the government, it is no longer commercial, and they must give it up. (Yes, I know this is not exactly Clinton's or Obama's plan now, but who here believes this is not their goal?)
Posted by: pudge on March 20, 2008 10:44 PMMany Ed.D.'s I've known are Ayers wannabes. They've failed in the adult world of politics, vocations, and family, so they try the propagandist's backdoor of "education" to destroy our archetypes via our kids. It is no accident we spend so much money on education and get so little in return. Like begets like, and crypto-Marxist "educators" beget servile, moronic students.
So once you expose these roaches, what should be done. Simply shun them on websites. Don't read their pollution, and certainly don't dialogue with the losers. Get them banished when possible; remember, their goal is your destruction, one cut at a time. Self-defense is authorized. Counter-propagandize with unwaivering conservative principles, and repel all boarders. Happy Good Friday.
Posted by: The Pirate on March 21, 2008 08:07 AMI can't tell if you are joking, but no, conservative principles dictate that we do NOT banish people for their views.
Posted by: pudge on March 21, 2008 08:14 AMI'd like to see renewed calls for abolishment of the Department of Education as well, which has nothing to do with the Constitution.
Regarding the commerce clause, I think SCOTUS (with Scalia concurring) got it wrong when they outlawed people in California growing their own marijuana for private consumption, when it was legal under their medical marijuana law. Their private consumption had nothing to do with interstate commerce, and I strongly disagreed with Ashcroft and the justice department in that case. If states want medical marijuana, or assisted suicide for that matter, the federal government has no business denying it.
Posted by: Palouse on March 21, 2008 08:25 AMThat said, I have a lot of sympathy for Scalia's separate concurring opinion. He was saying, basically, well, the court has said the commerce clause means this, and that is holding, whether we like it or not. So you can disagree there, certainly.
But he went on and said, if we accept due to stare decisis that there is SOME federal interest here, via to the commerce clause, then Congress has a lot of latitude to say, well look, growing pot for medical use in CA affects the interstate market too, and therefore it can also be regulated (IIRC).
I waver back and forth on how much I agree with him, but it's not an ureasonable position IMO.
Again, however, that is only in the context of past decisions about interstate commerce, and we could have a separate discussion about whether this precdent should have been overturned. In a vacuum, I would absolutely agree, Thomas had the correct position.
On another level, too, I may have dissented: I am not convinced there is a compelling state interest that justifies taking away, in whole, the liberty of the people to smoke pot.
In my ideal world, a. pot would be legal, b. no one would smoke it. The world will never be my ideal. :-)
Posted by: pudge on March 21, 2008 09:35 AMMore likely that McCain is a flip-flopper, that's much easier to prove.
I love how everyone here is rallying around to defend the candidate no one wanted in the first place. =P
Check the archives from December/January/February and see all the lovely attacks that his fellow party members here at SP leveled against McCain when he was still running against Romney. I find it highly amusing how quickly some people here have changed their tune.
Posted by: Catto on March 21, 2008 09:42 AMI didn't really agree with this. They used the wheat case as precedent, but wheat is completely different in that it is a real legal interstate commercial market, whereas marijuana isn't. I think it's fine that government can regulate and ban interstate distribution of marijuana, but there is not a 'real' market in the traditional sense. Those growers couldn't (rightly) export their product or even sell it locally, and if they did, they would be subject to criminal laws. So their growing it really had no affect on the marijuana market, and therefore, interstate commerce.
Posted by: Palouse on March 21, 2008 10:00 AM
Palouse: yes, you identify the biggest reason I have with the interstate commerce use: it is not commerce as such, it is illegal activity. Very weird to call it commerce. And by that standard, anything can be declared federally illegal whether it is a market or not, and this would create an illegal market, which could then be regulated!
But, again, this goes back to precedent, since the court has determined already that this DOES constitute interstate commerce.
All of the conservatives on the Supreme Court, except for Thomas, really do care a lot about precedent. And I am glad Thomas doesn't, because we need a voice to stand up for what is constitutional, rather than what the Supreme Court has said about the Constitution.
Posted by: pudge on March 21, 2008 10:12 AMLikely true, same can't be said for all the Romney supporters on here who now have long tirades about how great McCain's experience is vs the Dem. candidates.
It's quite amusing to see how their attitude changed once McCain started looking like he was going to secure the nomination.
Especially in light of how Romeny still won the straw poll at the American Conservative Union conference after he pulled out. Poor McCain.
But I don't think it's surprising that others are now supporting him after previously favoring Romney. They probably realize how bad HRC or BHO would be for this country. Completely understandable.
Posted by: Palouse on March 21, 2008 01:28 PMThis is exactly how the government expanded their tentacles into things outside the original purview that the Constitution allowed. There was a court case, Wickard vs Filburn. A farmer was producing wheat for his own personal use. He didn't sell any of it to anyone, let alone anyone outside the state. The government argued successfully in court that his wheat production affected interstate commerce because he was no longer buying wheat grown out of state for his personal use. Therefore it was OK for the government to regulate the amount of a crop you grew to eat yourself.
There are no limits whatsoever on Congressional and federal power based on the Commerce Clause. It is now a relic from the past until and unless a future court rules that the bounds have been overstepped.
Posted by: Calvin A on March 21, 2008 03:39 PMYou are opposed to pauls international policy? His biggest arguement against the war was that it was never constitutionally declared. Do you at least agree that congress should have declared war rather than defering that power unconstitutionally to the executive branch?
McCains lack of respect for the constitution (ie support for undeclared wars and anti 1st amendment) is so great that most conservatives I know are at best voting for him but I have yet to meet a conservative that is excited about his candidacy. Without some excitement in the base you are doomed from the get go. That is why Paul would have been such a better candidate.
Posted by: Lysander on March 21, 2008 04:13 PMRight. And the problem is that there IS NO REQUIREMENT for declaring war in the Constitution, implied or otherwise. This is absolutely clear. Declaring war is a political act, not a military one: you can declare war without acting militarily, and act militarily without declaring war.
This fact is a big reason why most conservatives do not trust Paul on foreign policy.
McCains lack of respect for the constitution (ie support for undeclared wars
... which have never been unconstitutional ...
... and anti 1st amendment)
... which was ONE bill, which Bush also signed, and which I disagree with, but I agree with McCain on much more than I disagree with him on. And besides, I think Paul putting things in the Constitution that are not there -- requirements for war declarations, his invention of a constitutional requirement for a gold standard -- show a similar lack of respect. Or maybe lack of understanding. Either way, it is not admirable.
... is so great that most conservatives I know are at best voting for him but I have yet to meet a conservative that is excited about his candidacy.
You don't get out much. I am. Not as excited as I would have been with Fred, but excited anyway. (And don't waste time trying to redefine me as not-conservative, since no one would buy it. :-)
Without some excitement in the base you are doomed from the get go. That is why Paul would have been such a better candidate.
Except, of course, that while there is a core of great enthusiasm for Paul, it is not nearly enough. Paul would never have a remote chance of any sort of beating any of the Democrats who were running, except for Kucinich and Gravel.
Posted by: pudge on March 21, 2008 04:36 PMThe constitution was written carefully to seperate powers between each branch. What branch do you think was given the power to decide when the country would go to war and where in the constitution did you base your decision?
PLease show me where the consitution gives congress the right to transfer its power to coin money and regulate the value of it to a central bank.
I suppose you are excited about McCain but I have not met you. All the republicans I have met are not excited it.
As for Paul, he would crush either of the two remaining democrats. They would both look foolish claiming to be anti war against paul. Thbis is where most of their support comes from.
And even the non Paul supporters seemed much more excited about Paul than McCain at the caucus I attended. Some did not like his war stance, but like it or not, an anti war stance is needed to win this year.
Posted by: Lysander on March 21, 2008 05:14 PMYou are changing the subject. The subject was "undeclared wars," which you and Ron Paul claim are unconstitutional. The power to go to war is a different subject.
PLease show me where the consitution gives congress the right to transfer its power to coin money and regulate the value of it to a central bank.
Um. Uh. What? Congress has no power to physically coin money. It MUST NECESSARILY delegate that power.
Further, the power of delegation is inherent in any power. This has always been assumed, since before, and during, and after ratification.
As for Paul, he would crush either of the two remaining democrats
Nope. Not a chance. You might think he would win in debates, but no, he would not stand a chance to win an election against them. Paul would win almost no moderates, he would win no liberals, and he would not even win half the conservatives.
They would both look foolish claiming to be anti war against paul. Thbis is where most of their support comes from.
There is not a chance that a liberal would vote for Paul, in any case. He wants to DESTROY the social welfare state. While I agree with him, his stance on the war is meaningless compared to the liberal love of the welfare state.
You give the war WAY too much importance.
an anti war stance is needed to win this year.
False. What is needed is a President the people can trust in or out of war. This is what the people will vote for.
I am not confusing the subject. I am asking you who you thinks has the power to decide to go to war acording to the constitution. Congress, President, supreme court, States, or the people?
as for coining money and regulating the value... Obviously that does not mean that congressman need to be working night shift at the mint but it does mean that congress determines how much is coined and ensures it has value. Do you beleive congress does this?
Posted by: Lysander on March 21, 2008 08:13 PMBut they haven't, and I'm left thinking that perhaps their views on the subject are quite a bit more nuanced than you let on.
There are certainly grounds to oppose a national healthcare system on the fact that it would be inefficient and a bureaucratic nightmare. But making the sole basis for an opinion just some narrow ideological dogma is less convincing.
Posted by: AD on March 21, 2008 08:24 PMI didn't say you were. I said you CHANGED the subject. You were talking about declaring war, and then you changed it to "deciding" to go to war. If you would like to admit declaring war is not necessary, please do. If not, please defend that position. Then we can move on from there.
as for coining money and regulating the value... Obviously that does not mean that congressman need to be working night shift at the mint but it does mean that congress determines how much is coined and ensures it has value.
Sigh. I already responded to this, and you ignored half my response.
Posted by: pudge on March 22, 2008 12:52 AMThose things are not in the least bit contradictory.
Are they?
Yes.
Then why does Medicare exist? What about the Department of Education? It would seem to follow that the same men who share your viewpoint would have made some attempt at correcting these very plain constitutional aberrations, correct?
Incorrect. As Judge Bork said, "No judge of whatever disposition would ... plunge the nation into chaos by dismantling government as it exists today."
The goal here is not to have Medicare and Social Security and the Department of Education thrown out by the Supreme Court. The goal is to recognize what the Constitution actually says and means, and to try to prevent further usurpation of our rights.
There are certainly grounds to oppose a national healthcare system on the fact that it would be inefficient and a bureaucratic nightmare. But making the sole basis for an opinion just some narrow ideological dogma is less convincing.
Fine. I am going to fight for a new law in the state disallowing you, personally, from ever posting online again. You can oppose this law on the fact that it serves no real purpose and is unworkable. But making the sole basis for your opposition just some narrow ideological dogma about your "First Amendment rights" is unconvincing.
This is, of course, the exact argument you are making to me. I hope you realize how silly and thoughtless you sound.
Posted by: pudge on March 22, 2008 12:58 AMThe words decleration of war is not necessary, i admit. Now please answer my question I will now be asking for the third time... WHo do you think the constitution grants the power to decide to go to war?
As for the coining of money and regulating the value... You seem to think it is okay for them to delegate the power and not only that, you think it is required that they delegate it. Please show us what value the constitution has if each branch can just delegate its power to other branchs or private insitutions. Do you not see a benifit in a the seperation of powers?
Here I thought you might have a small misunderstanding of the constitution but it is appearing like you have a massive misunderstanding of it if you really think that the branchs of government are free to delegate thier powers to private banks or to other branchs of the government.
Posted by: Lysander on March 22, 2008 12:11 PMUm ... except that neither I nor McCain supports everything the federal government does. So um ... you have no point.
Posted by: pudge on March 24, 2008 11:51 PMIf you'd like to make specific assertions, fine. But attacking the #1 opposer in the Senate of federal pork over the past couple of decades as "supporting everything the federal government does" just makes you look stupid.
Posted by: pudge on March 25, 2008 07:33 AMHow about I try a couple different methods. First I will go to his website and see what he is proposing we cut...
Hmm... I went to his issue page. There was no proposals to cut anything. He did talk about being a strict constitutionalist. One would think this could be a good spot to emphasize what he would cut. Yet nothing.
So maybe it is not a top issue but perhaps if you look overall at what he is looking to do it would cut all these 'majority of programs'. http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=141
Nope. Looking at the national taxpayers union, Mccain would increase spending overall and in each individual category they have. It is hard to imagine a budget that cut the majority of federal programs yet still manages to grow in every category.
Well perhaps we could look at his voting record?
Nope. He has voted in favor of farm subsidies, federal department of education, energy, corporate subsidies, politician subsidies, tons of foriegn aid... Oh I found one. He is opposed to the National endowment for the arts! Wow what a maverick!
So now that I have given it an honest attempt, can you indulge me and give me a few examples of some signifigant programs that McCain opposed because the are unconstitutional. Or maybe a few that you think are unconstitutional that you would like to see dismantled.
Thanks.
Posted by: Lysander on March 25, 2008 09:23 PM