Is Obama in violation of his Oath of Office? Obama has taken the Oath to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. If the Constitution does reflect a fundamental flaw in this country, as Obama says, then we must assume that one of two things is true.
Either 1) he is supporting and defending something he knows to be fundamentally flawed, which brings into question his judgment or, 2) he is NOT supporting and defending it, which means he is in violation of the Oath, and could therefore be impeached.
A third alternative, which may or may not be true, is that he is actively subverting the Constitution, which means that he must be impeached. His actions in regards to GM and the health care industry (among many others) are unconstitutional, lacking any authority from the People. Whether he is moving forward because he openly disregards the Constitution, or because he simply doesn’t understand its limitations on his power, is the question. As Obama is a professor of Constitutional Law, the latter is unlikely. His statement in the clip below seems to bear that out.
Did you call for the impeachment of President George W. Bush when he violated international law by initiating a war of aggression? Did you call for impeachment when Bush went on TV and admitted massive violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution? Did you call for impeachment when Bush admitted authorizing torture of detainees in violation of federal law the Geneva Conventions, and the U.N. Convention Against Torture?
The previous President was so contemptuous of the Constitution that he said it was “just a goddamned piece of paper.” If the Worst President Ever wasn’t impeached, then as a practical matter no Chief Executive will ever again be impeached. But thanks for confirming my opinion of right-wing hypocrisy.
First, your source for Pres. Bush’s alleged comment is dubious at best. Some random blogger who claims to have “talked to three people who were either present for the meeting that day or had knowledge of what happened inside the meeting,” is the best you’ve got? Conveniently, that same blogger claims none of the sources were willing to go on record about it. I guess they don’t much care about the Constitution either if something as petty as fear of retribution would keep them quiet about such an egregious offense by a sitting President.
Second, how about addressing the issue of the post and laying off the standard liberal debate tactic of “when you can’t win, deflect?” Regardless of what Bush did (and believe me, I’m no fan of his on many issues) changes nothing and justifies nothing of what Obama is now doing. So without attempts at misdirection and blame-throwing, which gets us nowhere, what do you say to Obama’s obvious contempt for the Constitution that he is sworn by oath to defend? He has no mandate from which to embark on a Constitutional void-filling crusade from the White House.
OK, what impeachable offense has President Obama committed?
BTW, the clip is something Obama said eight years ago in the context of civil rights. It has nothing to do with current policy.
Media Matters has the facts:
FACT: Obama Explains The Constitution’s “Fundamental Flaw” Was Slavery. The out of context video the RNC links to contains audio from a September 6, 2001 program called “Slavery and the Constitution” on WBEZ Chicago. On the show, Obama explained that the “fundamental flaw” was “Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the framers.” In addition, the framers did not “see…it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth.” [WBEZ Radio]
Here is a link to the entire quote in its context: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_xNyrzB0xI . The guy was elected nearly 9 months ago and sworn in six months ago and this is the best the right can come up with?? I suppose it would be okay to post Republicans, or at least the author of this post, believe allowances for slavery in the original constitution did not constitute a “flaw”, or would I be taking you out of context?
How about the fact that he’s not a citizen of the United States. Not natural born anyway. He has yet to prove his citizenship.
But to the point of this post, he has sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, and yet his policies are more and more designed to promote special privilege for certain races/groups at the expense of others–a decidedly unequal position to take in defending a standard of which the founding principle is that all men are created equal. By what right does Obama take my money and give it to organizations like GM, Goldman or ACORN? Contributing to the inequality of citizens is the most heinous of offenses that any President can commit.
And yes, Bush was guilty of that too.
The point of this post is that Barack Obama does not believe that America is properly founded. His entire position is based on “re-making America” into the kind of socialist society that keeps people in ignorance and dependency, and as a result keeps him in power as he continues to promise to “care” for those who claim such dependency. Never mind the fact that his promises are all turning out to be just political rhetoric.
Say what you want about Bush, the fact is he’s no longer the President. Our current “President” is a liar and a criminal. You don’t think that’s impeachable?
Don’t even get me started on health care.
Ryan–
You call the President a liar and a criminal and call for impeachment. I ask again, what crime has he committed? Also, given the enormous crimes of the past administration, which were ignored by Congress, how can you say that President Obama has done anything worse?
Uh…fraud is a crime. His candidacy for President was fraud, given that he is not a natural-born citizen of the US. And socialism is a direct crime against the founding of this nation.
As to President Bush’s alleged crimes, there is an argument to be made there. His immigration policies alone might warrant impeachment, honestly; but once again, Bush is not the current President, so that ship has sailed. Obama is the sitting President.
On balance, however, if you compare the two, Obama is the greater danger to the well-being of the country. He has contempt for the founding and history of the country, which admittedly isn’t without blemish. Bush was, for the most part, a patriot in terms of his desire to protect the nation (the only real job of the President). Obama wants to fundamentally change America according to his Marxist world-view.
The worst you have against Bush is your belief that he violated the 4th amendment, but he didn’t. First because “search and seizure” doesn’t include surveillance, and second, because probable cause can be shown in those cases. There is no “right to privacy” identified by the Constitution. No one who was not a criminal had anything to fear from the Bush administration and I know of no case in which “illegal” surveillance led to the arrest and prosecution of any innocent person. On the other hand, we know of dozens of cases in which it led to the prevention of direct attacks against American civilians.
And as for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act…what violation was there?
So you tell me, which is worse: a President who pushes the boundaries of the imaginary right to privacy so often cited by liberals (and those with something to hide) in order to protect citizens, or a President who harbors and deep and abiding contempt for the nation he is sworn to serve and is engaging in a concerted and very secretive effort to “remake” America his way?
You’re not addressing the issues. What’s your position on the health care movement, bail-outs, Obama’s citizenship, etc?
Before you leap to President Bush’s defense, he openly confessed to massive violations of the FISA requirement for warrants. In Katz v. United States (1967), the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required for domestic surveillance activities.
As for the Bush administration’s motives, how do you know the purpose of widespread warrantless surveillance was “to protect citizens”? Not one single terrorist was caught after years of surveillance. BTW I do not assume that these programs have ended, and I will levy the same criticism of President Obama if evidence emerges.
I’m not going to address your allegations that President Obama is not a U.S. citizen or that socialism is a crime. Too loony.
Lets be honest Ryan. Obama is a foreign agent. We dems know that of course, and we are OK with it.
Turns out, the fact that so many Americans voted for the Chimp thinking they were being patriotic, made us hate America because, well, Bush is a moron.
We will work hand in hand with Obama to destroy America as we know it. Then we can have gay sex and pornography on the street in front of your home (after Al Quaida has come through).
Please name the good things about America so can destroy them in proper order.
I look forward to getting your list.
Cliff, you sound like a very intelligent guy. Let me ask you this: what would you call an attempt to install socialism at every level? Would you call that protecting America or destroying it. Your answer will tell me everything I need to know about your intellect.
Now, the Surpreme Court making a bad decision is not unheard of. As you’ll note that the the basis for the decision Katz v. US was one of “invasion of privacy,” privacy which has no protection under the 4th amendment or any other section of the Constitution. Honestly, I don’t entirely disagree with the questionable nature of such surveillance, but I’m a good citizen and therefore have nothing to hide, so why should I fear Government eavesdropping? The point, though, is that the legality of it is debatable. If it weren’t, then why didn’t the marjority Dem controlled Congress of the last 2 years of Bush’s presidency do something about it? Either they knew they couldn’t make it stick, or they agreed with the tactics.
I can’t say for certain that I *know* that Bush’s intentions were of the more noble kind. But look at the fruit. No innocent person was prosecuted or imprisoned, no one attacked the US, and if you’re totally honest, you have to admit that such an apparently egregious over-reaching of executive power didn’t end up doing much harm if his intentions were nefarious. So a reasonable person has to conclude, based on the evidence, that no ill will was intended.
As for the citizenship issue, why is that loony? 3 different cases have reached the courts demanding proof of Obama’s citizenship, and in all three cases the judges either threw them out for no reason, or closed the court so they weren’t available to the public. Tremendous evidence exists to support the allegation that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, and they he lived in and was a citizen of Indonesia–a country that does not allow dual citizenship–when he was younger. So either he was a citizen of the US by birth (if born in Hawaii), and he renounced that to become a citizen of Indonesia, or he was born in Kenya. In any case, enough compelling evidence has come forth to at least warrant the provision of proof on Obama’s part. He has never provided it.
If he’s legit, how hard would it be for him to show his birth certificate to a judge in a court of law? He hasn’t done it and refuses to even address the issue when it would be so simple to settle it and then make all of us who question look like a bunch of loons.
Still haven’t heard you address health care, ACORN, or bail-outs (crimes against the citizens of the US).
Ryan–
President Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen. There is no credible evidence to the contrary. This is so ironic because Senator McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone and nobody questions his citizenship. The “birthers” already look like loons, no need for a judge to rule on that!
Socialism is not a crime. Policy differences are not crimes.
Health care is a topic all on its own, and a final bill won’t take shape for months– watch my posts at One Utah. Health care reform is not a crime.
ACORN? What is there to address? Again, no crime committed by President Obama.
I would support a thorough investigation of the Wall Street bailouts for billionaires, including Bush’s TARP bailout and whatever the Federal Reserve has been doing. Nothing criminal has turned up yet, however there are apparent conflicts of interest so who knows?
I almost forgot. Whether or not President Bush and his administration had ill intentions, they did break the law by conducting programs of widespread warrantless surveillance of Americans. Assuming you agree the law applies to everyone, then why not prosecute?
Have you seen Obama’s birth certificate? Then how can you say, without doubt, that he’s a natural-born citizen? McCain was born on a military base, which is considered American soil, so he is a natural-born citizen. You’re just doing what you all do. You don’t have the proof to back you up so you try to insult the opponent into embarrassed silence. Nice try. It would be so easy to put the matter to bed, but Obama refuses to even address it. What’s he hiding? If it’s so obvious he’s legit, why not put up the proof? Why can’t anyone get a look at the alleged birth certificate that supposedly in a vault in Hawaii?
Socialism is a crime against the United States. It’s not a policy difference, it’s illegal. The founding of this country is on the single principle that all men are created equal. Socialism does not recognize that principle, but tries to set citizens unequal with each other by taking from one group and giving to another group. So the group being “fed” by the other is set up as greater than the group doing the feeding. Effectively it becomes ok for one group to steal from the other. Further, the stealing is actually facilitated by the government at its own whim. So the “ruling class” then becomes effectively superior to both the feeders and the fed because they are allowed to do what would otherwise by considered illegal for one citizen to do to another.
Are you a socialist, then?
Yes, health care is an issue all its own, but Obama is trying to force the issue, further socializing the nation and stealing from those who have to give to those who he determines are the “have nots.”
The fraud around ACORN is not a secret. The connections to Obama are also not a secret. Many have called for investigation of ACORN and yet it falls on deaf ears from Obama and Congress. And yet, somehow hundreds of millions of dollars are being once again stolen from me (and you) and given to this fraudulent organization, which effectively amounts to pay-back from Obama for their efforts (fraudulent efforts) to get him elected.
If you think nothing criminal has happened related to the bail-outs then you can’t see the forest for the trees. The bail-outs by their very nature are illegal. What right does Obama (or Bush) have to invest tax-payer dollars into private organizations without giving the purchased shares back to the people who paid for it. In any other context that’s securities fraud. And Obama is neck deep in it.
Finally, again, why not prosecute Bush? Well, Congress could have if they thought they had anything on him. But again, he’s not the President anymore so it’s a dead issue. Whether he’s guilty or not does nothing to absolve Obama.
Government in this country is out of control and we (the citizens) are keeping ourselves blinded by party loyalties.
Prosecutions of former President Bush and members of the Bush administration are far from “a dead issue.” Bush did not pardon himself or anybody else for warrantless surveillance, detainee abuse and torture, etc.
Normally, the statute of limitations on torture is eight years. The USA PATRIOT Act did away with that statute of limitations.
We just learned that former Vice President Cheney ordered the CIA to keep secrets from Congress in violation of the National Security Act of 1947. What else is going to come out? Nobody has immunity from investigation and prosecution.
President Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen. Socialism isn’t illegal. Anyway, by your definition the income tax is illegal.
I saw Obama’s birth certificate. It was a clearly a fake.
LEt the destruction begin!
I knew you were going to go for the FactCheck article. It’s bogus. First, because there are suspicious ties between Obama and FactCheck (Annenburg). Besides, what they showed was not a birth certificate, it was a “certification of live birth,” and is not a valid proof according to law in Hawaii (see?)
Again, it would be easy for Obama to settle the matter. Just produce the original birth certificate and show it to a judge, not a “certification of live birth” posted online to an Obama-friendly web site. Why not just put an end to it?
What torture? Water-boarding? The definitions of torture are debatable at best. There’s a huge difference between “torture” and “interrogation.” In one case, its sadistic pleasure. In the other, it produces measurable results and it ends the minute those results are received. If the subject of interrogation doesn’t want to be put through the displeasure, they shouldn’t try to withhold pertinent information.
If it turns out that Cheney did order the CIA to withhold information then he should be prosecuted for it. So far, though, all we have is a report that the Panetta was “told” that VP Cheney ordered the CIA to keep certain things quiet. In other words, Panetta didn’t actually receive any such direction from Cheney, he was only told that such an order was given. Not real solid. But if it turns out to be true, he should face the consequences, for sure.
Socialism is illegal. The Constitution exists on the fundamental principle that all men are created equal, hence that is the law. The Constitution is designed to sustain that law. Socialism is in direct opposition to that law. If the president wants socialism, he’ll have to do away with the Constitution. Would that not make him any enemy and in violation of his oath?
Income tax may be legal (debatable), but the appropriation of tax funds–what they are to be used for–is very limited. Collecting income tax to fund overseas abortions, ACORN, GM, not to mention medicaid and social security are all misappropriations of tax dollars.
Joke all you want, Cliff. I’ll be laughing last when your boy’s policies end with you in slavery.
Oh Ryan,
Whats the big deal? We enslaved them for a hundred+ years. I’m kinda looking forward to some honest labor.
Its good exercise you know?
Do we grow cotton in Utah?
Oh, Cliff, you do cheer me up. Happy I stumbled across this exchange.
Ryan, I’ve been thinking about how you said that Socialism is in direct opposition to the concept of ‘all men are created equal’. But Socialism is a great equalizer by helping the poorest and the most disadvantaged. Therefore, Socialism must be the most preferred system for a country in which all men are created equal.
Becky,
I know that’s a very appealing theory to many, but how is it equalizing for someone to take from some and give to others? Morality requires the more fortunate to take care of the less fortunate of their own free will. It cannot legally be forced. A citizen cannot take something from another citizen, so why should it be acceptable for government to take from one citizen and give to another. The notion of socialism being the great equalizer is one of the biggest lies in history, and as history has proven, socialism cannot be sustained as the society will eventually and inevitably collapse under the weight of its own dependency. A quick glance at history will show you that.
The government has no right to take from the fruit of one person’s labor to give it to someone else. That person can certainly choose to give it to someone else, and they should, if they have the means, but that cannot be forced or else the one receiving holds a superior position over the one being taken from, and government holds a superior position to both by being allowed to dictate who has and who has not.
Now Cliff, if you want to apologize for slavery, go ahead. You shouldn’t have held slaves to begin with. As for me, I never owned any slaves so I’m not going to apologize for it.
And who are you kidding? You’re a socialist. They don’t know the meaning of “honest labor.” Isn’t that the whole point? You don’t need to do an honest day’s work because Obama will just give you a bail-out from the pockets of those who do?
Becky,
The Founding Fathers expressly avoided Socialism, which is simply applied Democracy. It was not their intent, and only by grossly misunderstanding or twisting the phrase “all men are created equal” can you arrive at your conclusion.
The great lie of the American Left is that Socialism is an equalizer. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing is equalized, because nothing remains constant. What is redistributed is consumed or spent and ends up in the hand of others. The only way Socialism can actually work is if there is a complete and total control of the flow of goods and wealth between individuals. Every transaction must be regulated and monitored to prevent any inequality.
Such a thing is impossible. Human Nature steps in at some point, throws a wrench into the works, and the whole thing comes crashing down. That has been historically demonstrated time and again.
The usual excuse is that real Socialism has never truly been implemented. It’s a lame excuse, but seems quite popular among the Left. What’s really going on is a change of definition. Every time Socialism was attempted elsewhere, it’s proponents were all behind it, moving with and supporting it until its demise. Then come the reasons it didn’t work: not enough control, too much control, they didn’t have it just right, we’re smarter, etc., ad nauseum.
The fact is that Socialism doesn’t work. Period. It never will. It isn’t better than everything else; it’s worse. It is a system of enslavement. I find Cliff’s cavalier attitude about it quite disturbing, as a matter of fact. I thought the Left was all about Progress, but here we are talking about a reversion to a deplorable institution that has been outlawed for decades, in the name of equality. Where is the equality in slavery?
There is no system on earth that provides for everyone’s needs outside of their own hard work. Taking what some have created or earned by their work and giving it to others for any reason is just theft, even when accomplished through government. Try reading “The Law” by Fredrick Bastiat for an illustration of the thinking that was common among the Founders.
Trenton,
I hope my fantastic and glib kidding around did not scare you too badly. I just couldn’t help myself. Your racist freak-show friend got me going.
btw: your comment, “The Founding Fathers expressly avoided Socialism” it so pathetic ignorant, I had to consider for a moment where you come from.
I must take issue btw with the claim of the title of this post. It is false, a lie if you will. Or at least per the video, Obama did not say that.
Am I wrong?
“The fact is that Socialism doesn’t work. Period. It never will.”
I got news for ya Trentortoise. Socialism works great. The Europeans are kicking our asses in pretty much every area measured by the int’l orgs.
Do you just hear stuff and repeat it or make it up all by yourself?
You might also notice, they are not trying to come here. On the other hand expatriation of Americans is over 5 times what it was before the cokehead stole the office.
So I’m a racist now? How about actually citing an instance of racism instead of just using the same old liberal debate tactic: when you can’t win, insult. (Liberals have a lot of tactics that start with “when you can’t win…” because they can never win.)
Just go back to sleep, Cliff. If you actually think any country in Europe is ahead of the US in any area, you really are either intentionally blind or just the dumbest person alive. Give me one legitimate example of socialism “winning.” If you haven’t noticed, Europe is in 10 times worse a state than the US in terms of economy, security, birth rate, etc. You know, all those pesky metrics that are actually required for sustainability and growth. Not to mention crushing taxes and pathetic health care. Watch and learn. And this. And this. And this.
Don’t worry, someone will wake you up when your bail-out check arrives. Right before they slap the leg irons on you.
And read this, the paper that Trenton referred to, “The Law.”
Its been a couple of days since I last visited this site, and I see the birther conspiracy theorists have arrived. I challenge everyone commenting on Obama’s birth certificate to get their original birth certificate from the county clerk’s office in the county of their birth. I guarantee they will only give you a copy with the official county seal and insist on keeping the original on file. Regardless, the fact you won’t be able to produce it I will from this day forward take as evidence you are not a citizen of the US and that your vote for McCain was illegal. Signed affidavits by the clerk or witnesses that have seen the original or birth announcements in the local paper will not be taken as proof you are a US citizen. Likewise, the fact you got a passport by giving a copy of your birth certificate with the county seal to the State Department is meaningless.
Craig,
If you had read this you would understand that 1) there is a big difference between the “certification of live birth” that Obama released, and an original birth certificate; and 2) it’s obviously very possible to get the original certificate (or a valid copy thereof) from the county clerk, since Hawaii’s own state requires and allows “only…the original Certificate of Live Birth…,” which is a “more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth…” in order to process an application of verification of Hawaiian nativity.
So, let’s recap:
Certificate of Live Birth: Proof that you were born where and when you claim to have been.
Certification of Live Birth: Not valid for such verification.
Obama release: Certification of live birth
You still haven’t released said documents yourself, so clearly your vote in the last election was probably illegal. I see no proof you are a citizen and the burden of proof is on you. Birth announcements in the local papers shortly after you were born, verification by the state of a valid certificate and testimony by the doctor that delivered you will prove nothing. Your mother and father were clearly engaged in a conspiracy to plant you in the US with intent to cast votes on behalf of heaven knows what country.
Wow, demanding people prove a negative saves so much time. No need to come up with valid arguments. I think you guys are on to something here.
Boy, what a staggering intellect at work here. Where to start…
1- I didn’t run for President. So if you want to sue me for voter fraud (along with Obama’s buddies at ACORN), go ahead. I can provide proof of my citizenship and eligibility to vote, which does not have a “natural-born” requirement. So sue me. I’ll provide the proof, and you’ll look like an even bigger idiot.
Further, while I did vote, I’m not still voting. What you’re suggesting would be like trying to remove an illegitimate President AFTER he’s already out of office. I already voted, so any attempt to prove it illegitimate are useless at best. Obama is still the President, so it’s perfectly legitimate to require his verification of eligibility, which (as you conveniently neglect to address) he still has not done.
Finally, aren’t you guys (Democrats) the ones who are always blocking attempts to require proof of citizenship as a requirement for voter registration? So why are you asking for my proof of voter eligibility? Oh well, I guess you couldn’t call yourself a good liberal if you didn’t have a double-standard for every issue.
2- Prove a negative? How is demanding proof of citizenship asking for proof of a negative? I’m asking for proof of something–natural-born citizenship–not for proof of nothing. It would be so easy for Obama to put the matter to bed once and for all. Just provide the proof. But he refuses. You don’t find that suspicious?
3- In the end, I recognize it won’t matter to you whether or not Obama was actually allowed to run for President under the Constitution for two reasons: 1) you want to see the Constitution thrown out and replaced with some socialist dogma that rewards you with my labor (just cop to it, man, you can’t deny it), and 2) Obama is your god, and god can do whatever he wants. You’ll just keep worshipping and begging for table scraps (from my table, of course).
Brilliant.
Ryan, we have testimony supplied by the doctor, verification by the state the birth certificate is legit, two birth announcements in the local paper a day or two after he was born, etc. Not to mention the fact a copy of the birth certificate must be submitted to the State Department to get a passport, which he has. Yes, proof of citizenship would get you a passport, but then he would have had to apply for that and there is NO evidence he ever did. Why? Because he was born here and didn’t have too.
Every time he produces evidence you basically come back with, “that doesn’t prove you weren’t born elsewhere”, so yes, you are demanding he prove a negative in spite of your protestations to the contrary. Besides, the burden of proof is on the one making the accusation, not the one being accused. That’s the way it works in our judicial system and that is the way it works in any logical argument. You have produced nothing indicating Obama was born anywhere other than where he says he was and all the documents produced to date claim he was. Don’t get mad at me for using your kind of logic on you. If the burden of proof isn’t going to be on me, I can accuse you of being born on the moon if I want and under your kind of thinking it is up to you to prove you weren’t, at least if you are to be logically consistent. Hey, you haven’t produced anything showing you weren’t born on the moon. Doesn’t that seem a bit suspicious to everyone???
I may question your reasoning, but I have never questioned your belief in the Constitution or love of country. Is it too much to ask you return the favor? Yes, I differ with you on solutions to problems we are facing, but that does not translate into me wanting to “throw out the Constitution” and you loving it more than those you differ with. The freedom to interpret the Constitution for ourselves is, shock, protected by the Constitution itself. Differences of opinion do not automatically translate into hatred for or indifference toward our form of government or Constitution. Saying so only proves how weak your arguments are.
So Craig, let’s get this straight: you think that a doctor, a state employee and an article in the local paper unequivocally establishes a person’s Natural Born status, but then you go on to say that all of us are “free to interpret” the very document which requires the aforementioned Natural Born status for the presidency?
Ok, so that means we are “free to interpret” that the Constitution brands all liberals as traitors which bars them from any form of public office and makes them eligible for execution as enemies of the state. Wow, I like this “freedom to interpret the Constitution” stuff!!
I would say your argument is the one that’s weak, except for the fact that you never had an argument to begin with.
No Mia, I agree you are free to interpret the Constitution as branding all liberals as traitors. You would just be wrong. The founders had a very liberal view of liberty for their time while those loyal to the crown were the conservatives of the era, so I would say you would be interpreting both the Constitution and history incorrectly. But I respect your freedom to interpret it any way you want.
Unfortunately, I can’t say the same for you as you clearly think those that interpret the Constitution differently than you should be denied liberty. The punishment for treason is jail or death as you point out. History has certainly seen far too many people that felt those with whom they disagreed should be put to death. We don’t identify these folks as lovers of freedom. Hopefully they will never gain power in this country in spite of our commitment to taking that risk by respecting their right to express such repressive views.
Craig,
Sadly for you, only those who do not understand law or the Constitution believe that it is subject to interpretation.
And your characterization of history, while accurate in terms of vocabulary, is disingenuous (or at least incorrect if I’m to give you the benefit of the doubt).
True, the founders had a very “liberal” view, but the term “liberal” as applied in that context is not the same as the adulterized meaning that it has taken thanks to the “progressives” of today (another adulterized term). These characterizations are exactly what is throwing the republic into imbalance and disarray. What we should be talking about is correct and incorrect, not such meaningless and shifting designations as “liberals” and “conservatives.”
I’ll give you an example: the end of segregation in the U.S. Would you call that a liberal or a conservative movement? Based on your suggestion about the founders, I would say you’d agree that it was liberal. That said, which party led the charge to end segregation? The Republicans did, with little support and much opposition from the Democrats (see here and here. So are the Republicans or the Democrats the more liberal party?
The point is that “liberal” or “conservative” aside, the founders were correct in founding this nation as a capitalist republic. Today, “liberal” or “conservative,” those who believe that socialism has any place in the United States are incorrect.
I assure you, that the founders would not consider the ideology of today’s left to be correct. Bigger government, more government intrusion and regulation–the rejection of these is precisely the “liberal” stuff that the vision of the founders was made of.
Now, you have to pick a path, because you can’t have it both ways. Either you have to admit that you think (as Obama does) the founders were off base in founding this nation as they did, or you have to admit that you are off base in not following their vision. Surely you must admit that the ample historical record of the vision of the founders does not support the socialist vision of today’s “liberal.”
The Republicans led the charge to end segregation??? Both the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act were passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic president. LBJ lamented the fact their passage meant the loss of the south by the Democrats to the Republicans, which is exactly what happened. Prior to the passage of these acts it was Harry Truman that desegregated the military.
Regardless, Republicans have not always been conservative if by conservative we mean more traditional or conserving/preserving the status quo, which is the common definition of the term. Likewise Democrats have not always been liberal if by liberal we mean more open to change and less traditional approaches and more likely to be promoting change or challenging the status quo. One need only look at the Democratic Party’s stand on slavery prior to and during the civil war and Theodore Roosevelt’s stand on breaking up monopolies or protecting the environment to see that.
While the meaning of “liberal” and “conservative” over time is more or less the same, regardless of the issues of the day those carrying these labels hitch their wagon to, the parties identified with these labels can and does change.
As for the law and the constitution not being subject to interpretation, one wonders why we need a Supreme Court at all if this is true. Article III, section 2 of the constitution itself, in describing the powers of the judicial branch, states in part:
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and
Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the
United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under their Authority; – to all Cases affecting Ambassadors,
other public Ministers and Consuls; – to all Cases of
admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; – to Controversies to
which the United States shall be a Party; – to Controversies
between two or more States; – [between a State and Citizens
of another State;-]* between Citizens of different States,
- between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under
Grants of different States, [and between a State, or the Citizens
thereof;- and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.]”
How can any “controversy” arise the court would need to settle unless there were at least two conflicting interpretations of law, including possibly the Constitution itself?? Clearly the founders knew people like you and I would take different views of the law from time to time (as indeed they did themselves) and therefore these conflicting personal interpretations (i.e. “controversies”) between us as people or the various states would sometimes need to be settled in court. In other words, the courts would have to determine which interpretation of the law was correct. Being people themselves, the judges empowered to settle these cases would have their own interpretation of the law. Indeed, it is possible for two perfectly reasonable people to have two opposing but perfectly reasonable interpretations of the same text. It happens all the time. Just ask any Protestant or Catholic.
But truly, how can you have a free society and not have multiple possible interpretations of the constitution or any one of the numerous laws on the books? Anyone that insists there is only one possible interpretation of the Constitution and all the various laws in a nation with one or two million people living in it as there was at the time the constitution was signed, let alone today with more than 300 million running about, is naive in the extreme. Even strict constructionists that insist nothing should be added or subtracted from the “plain text” of the Constitution, when you get more than two or three of them in a room, differ as to the founder’s intent and the true meaning of the law in certain cases.
Craig,
You need to check the voting record. The Republicans voted in favor of the civil rights acts and the abolition of segregation by large margins over the Democrats.
LBJ’s lamentation was because he knew the Southern Democrats voted AGAINST civil rights, and the Republicans voted IN FAVOR. The people supported these acts and showed it by their votes…for Republicans to replace the segregationist Democrats.
I stated the rest of my argument pretty clearly on the other post, but to summarize again, law is binary: true or false. The Supreme Court exists to ensure that laws are properly founded in truth–natural law. That’s their only job. The fact that they disagree and interpret the law is nothing more than a testament to human fallibility. They are supposed to settle “controversy” over interpretations by understanding and ruling in favor of whichever “interpretation” is correct. (Sorry, I use a lot of quotes.) That does not mean it’s OK for one judge to have one interpretation and for another to have a different one. If they differ, one of them is correct or they are both wrong. Their job is to find out which and rule correctly.
In the case of the Constitution, the standard against which they must judge is the founding law of the nation: All men are created equal. So they must always rule in favor of equality. If they don’t, it’s to their own discredit for allowing their “interpretation” to stand in the way of truth.
Oh, I see. Southerners were all for desegregating and punished the Democratic Party for not supporting desegregation. That is an interesting version of history. Why were southern states all supporting segregation laws and so many southern white voters cheering governors that refused to enforce Supreme Court decisions regarding segregation then? Why did so many of the southern Democrats that supported segregation leave for the Republican Party afterward (Strom Thurmond comes to mind). These segregationists continued to be elected, just not as Democrats. So much for punishment.
The final vote on the Civil Rights Act (with southern Democrats voting against and then leaving the Democratic Party over the several years immediately afterward in reaction to Kennedy’s and LBJ’s support along with that of northern Democrats)was as follows: House Dems – 153-91 in favor; House Republicans 136-35 in favor; Senate Dems 46-21 in favor, and; Senate Republicans 27 – 6 in favor. So most members of both parties supported it but the Dems controlled the White House and Congress at the time and LBJ was twisting arms to get it through. Southern Dems revolted because southern whites were not in favor of desegregation and punished the party in charge with its passage by switching to the Republican Party as LBJ predicted they would.
I would agree ideally all the Supreme Court decisions should be “correct”. Problem is, people have different opinions about what is correct. That is true with the Constitution as well as just about everything else. I am not entirely sure how you can get around that. I can’t think of a time in human history when everyone agreed on what was correct all the time. We can wish everyone had the same opinion of what was correct (boring) or that what was correct was always obvious to everyone, but then if that were the case I doubt any lawsuits would ever arrive in the Supreme Court to begin with.
We can all think of Supreme Court cases that were very difficult and where good arguments on both sides of the issue were made. I know it is comforting to think the world is always black or white and decisions always clear cut, but that simply isn’t true.
Ryan, nice work. All those others are ankle biters…and enough of them is called ‘Community Activism’. Still doesn’t make them right…