Without Allegiance To The Constitution, Party Partisanship Means Absolutely Nothing!

Chuck Baldwin Ministries ^ | 12-08-03 | Baldwin, Chuck

[Theodore R.]

Without Allegiance To The Constitution, Party Partisanship Means Absolutely Nothing!

By Chuck Baldwin

Food For Thought From The Chuck Wagon December 9, 2003 Conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, labor under the assumption that voting for a Republican candidate somehow translates into a vote for conservative policies. Such is not the case, however. A much better case could be made for the proposition that, in reality, Republicans contribute to the growth and expansion of government to equal or even greater degrees than do Democrats.

For example, since taking office, President G.W. Bush has superintended over the greatest expansion of federal discretionary expenditures since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society came into existence! Furthermore, under Bush, Jr., more rights and freedoms have been lost than since the Franklin Roosevelt years. Yet, this reality seems lost to the vast majority of professing conservatives.

All conservatives can say is, "God forbid that any Democrat should become president." Yet, the fact is, during the past forty years, Republican appointments have dominated the federal courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court, and still the federal judiciary continues to lead the nation in a hard left turn.

The reason that Republicans in general, and G.W. Bush in particular, have made no significant difference to the overall socialist direction of the country is that they are as uncommitted to the U.S. Constitution as are Democrats. Without allegiance to the Constitution it doesn't matter one hill of beans which party is in power!

With Bush in the White House, both parties have supported expanding the federal government's role in public education via the Bush/Kennedy "No Child Left Behind" monstrosity. Both parties have supported gutting the Bill of Rights via the USA Patriot Act and other similar policies. Both parties have supported the massive expansion of the Medicare welfare program. And the list goes on without end.

Furthermore, what good did it do Chief Justice Roy Moore to have a Republican governor and attorney general in Alabama? What good did it do him to have a Republican president and attorney general in Washington, D.C.? What good did it do him to have Republican-appointed federal judges sitting on the bench?

Again, the problem is neither party has any loyalty to the U.S. Constitution! Yet, every president, every member of Congress, and every court justice takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these people prove on a daily basis that they have no intention of honoring their oath of office.

Until the American people begin holding their elected officials accountable to the U.S. Constitution, it will not matter one iota which party is in the White House and which party controls Congress! In fact, until the American people awaken to this reality, the best we can hope for is a divided federal government. By that I mean, when one party controls the White House, be sure the other party controls Congress and vice versa. Liberty and freedom will not long survive one party, Republican or Democrat, in control of the entire federal government!

Of course, the real solution resides with the American people becoming a constitutionally informed, educated, and committed electorate. Is anyone holding their breath?

© Chuck Baldwin

[Theodore R.]

It is true that exactly 1/2 of the liberal majority of the U.S. Supreme Court was appointed by Republican "conservative" Presidents Reagan and Bush I.

[Jim Robinson]

"It is true that exactly 1/2 of the liberal majority of the U.S. Supreme Court was appointed by Republican "conservative" Presidents Reagan and Bush"

Ok, how many of the "conservative" half were appointed by Democrat presidents?

If we allow the Democrats to control the presidency and the Senate, can we expect them to appoint conservatives?

[Evil Inc]

Some of those were stealthy libs that "fooled" their promoters. I see a need for a litmus test like the dimocaps use with abortion, affirmative action etc. I advocate better screening and more aggressive support of conservative jurists. It is a battle we cant afford to concede, it is the very soul of the contry at stake and freedom for the whole world. If the USA loses its Constitution the light of liberty will be extinguished.

[WhiteGuy]

The reason that Republicans in general, and G.W. Bush in particular, have made no significant difference to the overall socialist direction of the country is that they are as uncommitted to the U.S. Constitution as are Democrats. Without allegiance to the Constitution it doesn't matter one hill of beans which party is in power!

---

Chuck nails it 2 sentences.

[Ff--150]

Again, the problem is neither party has any loyalty to the U.S. Constitution! Yet, every president, every member of Congress, and every court justice takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Ergo, the Constitution is actually null and void for a coue d'etat has actually occurred.

Just play a game in your mind that indeed the Constitution no longer rules us, and then list say SCOTUS decisions you regard unconstitutional. Reason out, or pretend another nation rules and see how much sense that theory makes??

[billbears]

Without allegiance to the Constitution it doesn't matter one hill of beans which party is in power!

We haven't had allegiance to the Constitution in 140 years, why start now?

Of course, the real solution resides with the American people becoming a constitutionally informed, educated, and committed electorate. Is anyone holding their breath?

I'm sure not. I'm supposed to go vote for a anti-2nd Amendment, pro-abortion, big government nanny that is doing her absolute best to destroy centuries old industry in NC in 2006. That is, if I'm a good party member

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

it doesn't matter one hill of beans which party is in power!

Yeah, you're right. Might just as well vote for the pro-Islamofascism former abortionist from Vermont, then. [::rolls eyes::]

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Ff--150]

"We haven't had allegiance to the Constitution in 140 years, why start now?"

PRECISELY!

Now, make-believe, use your imagination, in your Senator's case, and imagine her working for another nation to enrich them at your expense. Let the imagination loose. Make this ridiculous. Pray about this.

"I'll be d*mned!! This can't be right!?!" guffaws billbears.

[HarleyD]

I disagree with his assessment although not the results. The RATS have an agenda which they are focused on. The Republicans are just stupid and think they can appease the RATS if they throw them a bone now and then. George W found this out early in his term when he appointed the RATS liberal judges thinking he would get his nominations pass. The RATS will take anything and then want more.

There is a clear difference between the RATS and the Republicans. I say throw the RATS out and then start applying the pressure on the Republicans.

[Theodore R.]

The Democrats named 2 of the 9 judges -- both liberal: score 100 percent liberal

The Republicans named 7 of the 9 judges -- four liberal and three conservative: score 57 percent liberal

Virtually all Republicans voted to confirm the two Democrat judges. The conservative appointments drew considerable Democrat opposition.

[Theodore R.]

early in his term when he appointed the RATS liberal judges

I had actually fogotten about some of the liberal judicial appointments in early 2001. Were these to the Courts of Appeal or to the district courts?

[Dane]

The Republicans named 7 of the 9 judges -- four liberal and three conservative: score 57 percent liberal

And how many Judges has the Constitution party or Libertarian party named, a big fat nada.

But Ross Perot did help Clinton in naming two of the most judges, Ginsberg and Breyer.

[Dane]

But Ross Perot did help Clinton in naming two of the most judges, Ginsberg and Breyer

Excuse me, typing to fast again, the above should read.

But Ross Perot did help Clinton in naming two of the most liberal judges, Ginsberg and Breyer.

[Theodore R.]

Weren't Ginsburg and Breyer CO-SPONSORED by Patrick Leahy AND Orrin G. Hatch?

[Dane]

Weren't Ginsburg and Breyer CO-SPONSORED by Patrick Leahy AND Orrin G. Hatch?

Nice try to wiggle out, but both were appointed by Clinton(who got in with help from Perot). Remember that clause in the Constitution where the President nominates SCOTUS Justices.

[Theodore R.]

Of course, Clinton appointed those two. But didn't the GOP leadership go out of its way to show that it was "a team player" on the judges? That was nine and ten years ago, respectively. The court has remained static since that time.

[Poohbah]

But didn't the GOP leadership go out of its way to show that it was "a team player" on the judges?

The GOP went out of their way to adhere to longstanding Senate policy re: judges...namely, that the Senate's role is to "advise and consent," not "obstruct and disrupt."

In other words, the Senate Republicans attempted to conserve tradition.

[Dane]

Of course, Clinton appointed those two. But didn't the GOP leadership go out of its way to show that it was "a team player" on the judges? That was nine and ten years ago, respectively. The court has remained static since that time

Uh yeah, but that was before the rats in 2001 decided to get rid of 200 years of Senate precedent and filabuster judicial nominations.

Also remember that Scalia was confirmed by the Senate by something like 97-0 or something like that in 86.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

I am guessing President Bush would be much more conservative if we could get rid of the RINOs and liberals that he has to appease in Congress and the Senate.

GW does not impress me to be a RINO or a false conservative. But his hands are tied on some issues. What can he do?

IF he takes too hard a line then we could be looking at a DEM as President, and to me, yes that is worse. Elections are all about the the people in the middle.

I think this means WE have to work harder on educating people about the Constitution, and give a conservative President a more moderate and conservative group of people to play with. We have to work herder in the future.

I agree with much of this article, but I don't think beating President Bush up is the answer.

Next election cycles we need to get our message out more.. putting a Dem in office certainly is not going got help us further Conservatism.

Ramping up the rhetoric now sends a message to future canidates, but staying home on election day, or voting for a Dem is not going to help anything.