Posted on 07/27/2005 9:22:57 AM PDT by smoothsailing
Schumer Confesses to Not Understanding Constitution
By Henry Mark Holzer
FrontPageMagazine.com
July 27, 2005
United States Senator "Chuck" Schumer's broke his own stupidity record the other day following President Bush's announcement of John Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court.
In a tag-team appearance with Senator Pat Leahy (D. Vt.), ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, Schumer confessed to the Nation that neither he, Leahy, nor the Democrat party for whom he spoke, understands a fundamental principle of American constitutionalism: separation of powers. Indeed, ever since Schumer confessed, his echo has been heard as Democrat functionaries (e.g., Kennedy, Biden, Durbin, Pelosi) have made the same confession that they, too, do not understand one of the three basic pillars upon which our Republic stands.
All of them, and for that matter most of the media, have been demanding that judicial nominee Roberts "answer questions." That Roberts explain his position on abortion, that he reveal where he stands on affirmative action, that he disclose how he would rule on capital punishment, that he divulge his stand on eminent domain—that, in effect, he make known the platform on which he is running for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States.
From the perspective of the Democrats, this is entirely understandable, even defensible—because they do not understand Separation of Powers, and thus the Constitution's mandated role for a judge in the American system of government, believing instead that the judiciary is simply another political branch. The Democrats see judges—Warren, Brennan, Douglas, Blackmun, Stevens, Ginsburg—as legislators, promulgating from the bench their own social, economic, and even moral, programs, not interpreting the Constitution and laws passed by the politically accountable actual legislature, i.e., Congress.
John Roberts is not a candidate for the Nowhereville Town Council, where the voters would want to know (and would have a right to know) where he stands on building a new senior citizen center, or whether Walmart can open a superstore. He is not even running for a senate seat in Vermont, where voters have questions about dairy subsidies, or in New York, where Long Islanders want to know about shore erosion.
He is a nominee to a judgeship where his task is not to legislate (Article I of the Constitution), but rather to serve under Article III: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . . ." That "judicial power" is the power to interpret and apply the Constitution and laws promulgated not by judges, but by legislators.
It is bad enough that the Democrats don't—or won't—understand this, but apparently they've succeeded in selling their bogus view of American constitutionalism to the American people. Last Friday, the Associated Press reported that "Just over half of all Americans—and a solid majority of women—want to know John Roberts' position on abortion . . . ." Not just the "pro-choice" side, but also those who oppose abortion.
The fact is that no one is entitled to know what John Roberts thinks about abortion—or gay marriage, capital punishment, gun control, self-incrimination, free speech, warrantless searches, compulsory process, the commerce clause—or the price of tea in China.
The Judiciary Committee and the full Senate are entitled to know from President Bush's nominee for an Associate Justiceship on the Supreme Court of the United States basically one thing: what does John Roberts believe is the constitutional function of courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular—and of the judges who sit on those courts.
Until the Republicans extricate themselves from the judges-as-legislators mindset the Democrats have engineered—and in the process educate the American people about Separation of Powers, as the doctrine applies to John Roberts—they are playing the Democrats' game, and perhaps holding a losing hand.
You will note that he continually refers to our government as a democracy.
Well said. I'll tell you one thing, since becoming a FR addict and political/news junkie, I have learned that "Senator" does not mean intelligent and definitely does not mean honest. So many are arrogant, self-centered and just plain stupid, e.g., Boxer, Biden, Murray, Cantwell, Durbin etc. I shudder when I think of the power they yield...
True. I heard Senator Kay Baily Hutchison - (R) being interviewed on a radio station in San Antonio. She was totally clueless about what the Constitution said or meant.
"I shudder when I think of the power they yield..."
You mean "wield." They would never yield one iota of their power, real or imaginary......
That "judicial power" is the power to interpret and apply the Constitution and laws promulgated not by judges, but by legislators.
It's an idiotic title. Schumer might very well have said something that indicates he doesn't understand the constitution, but there's no admission. An admission would be a quote like "I don't understand the separation of powers."
The reason he calls it a democracy is because the dumba** doesn't know what a republic really is. What a pair he and fat Teddy make together!
Re#64 LOL. Nice catch. I'd call that a reverse Freudian slip where wishful thinking controlled my fingers...
Yeah,I noticed that.I live in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and you can only imagine how many folks here refer this as a state.
..could be wishful thinking.
For all practical purposes, in the case of Pennsylvania being a commonwealth, there is no operational significance but in the case of a democracy versus a republic, there is a huge operational difference.
Mr. Holzer might have suggested one other thing the Judiciary Committe and full Senate, as well as 'We, the People,' are entitled to know from this or any nominee.
That critically important thing is: what does John Roberts believe to be the meaning of Article V of the United States Constitution and how does he believe that provision applies to the Supreme Court and sitting judges, the Senate and Congress (legislative branch), and the Executive branch?
By his answer, all citizens will be able to discern what he believes to be the meaning of the term "living constitution."
Clue:
"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives [the executive, judiciary, or legislature]; in a departure from it prior to such an act." - Alexander Hamilton
Leahy reminds me of someone's big dumb older brother jockhead. Dumb as a post but can sure heave that ball. Currently battling Barbara Boxer for the annual Senate Mensa award...after perennial winner Al Gore returned the trophy when he left Capitol Hill.
Go BOXER/Hillary in 08!
I also favor drug and alcohol testing and bans against legislating while drunk...
There are weasels on both sides of the aisle...
I'd not use the word "interpret", but would just leave it apply, with the respect to the Constitution. It's not a document written by and for lawyers. It's language is simple and either proscriptive or prohibitive. The only place where it may need a bit of "interpretation", and I'd prefer some other word, would be to determine the original meaning of those terms of art, which were thought to be self explanatory, such as "Freedom of the Press, Freedom of speech, and so forth". (I would not include "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in that list of terms of art that need clarification, it's perfectly understandable with nothing more than a dictionary of the time, if that)
My point,poorly articulated,was the loss of proper meaning in our language.
One of the best benefits of FR is the opportunity it provides for learning.I've learned from you today,ll2,and I appreciate it.
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.