Posted on 10/04/2005 7:33:33 PM PDT by jdm
Edited on 10/04/2005 7:41:50 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
I would hope that no one is universally admired anywhere. I was just making an obvious observation in relation to a comment made by the poster. I myself have disagreed with GWill on many issues, but overall I find him to be a thoughtful, intelligent conservative and a strong foil to the fax machine liberals he contends with everyweek on "This Week With Stephie's."
I don't see it as 'borking' Miers. With Bork, his legal talents were clear, the borking went after his video rentals. With Miers, the complaint is that there is no evidence of constitutional legal talent or inclination. We aren't digging for bad stuff, we are digging around trying to find the good stuff.
The President shares mine and your concerns. But he decided that it's benefits outweigh the costs.
No, he doesn't share my concerns, or he would not have seen any benefits in the CFR.
What I have seen in Bush is that he's giving the right things like tax cuts that can be quickly repealed, and given the left things that are next to impossible to change like huge increases in spending on education and medicare, and given them CFR and a huge influx of illegals. He talks a good bit about personal responsibility, but tends to have the federal government pick up more and more responsibility, as in his recent calls for more use of the military in disaster and epidemic responses.
The president isn't the final recourse, but he is a major player, if not the major player, in setting the political agenda. If he isn't on board an effort to cancel the CFR, it isn't likely to happen.
Sorry, but that doesn't compute. If I am prevented from printing and distributing my opinion via a printing press & the US Mail (that which the founders would regard as 'the press'), why should the same opinion be allowed on a blog? I don't see where the Constitution has any requirement that I have to own the press, and not merely rent it for a few days in an election year. And why is commercial advertising considered protected speech, and political advertising not protected? To believe that requires a strange reading of history.I don't think you are restricted from starting your own press - it does not say you have to own the press. That's basically what bloggers have done. Is commercial advertising protected speech? I am not aware of that - there certainly are a lot of government restrctions on commercial advertising.
Then, I will not waste time trying to gain your confidence. However, you have gained a smidgen of my confidence because you're a freeper rather than a DUer. And that prejudice is not totally irrational.
Miers attitudes may be on the right side.
That doesn't mean she can write an opinion that logically supports those attitudes in any given case, nor that she can extend that logic to other cases not directly related to the 3 positions you state.
I was hoping for a candidate who believes in original intent, regardless of what ever religious beliefs might be held. But further, I was hoping for a candidate who could run rings around the Souters, Breyers, and Ginsburgs and make their dissents appear foolish.
The best I can hope for Ms Mier is that she promise the Senate that she will always vote with either Scalia or Thomas. The last thing this country needs is a Conservative Christian letting it be known, or even having it assumed that she voted one way because she believed that it was 'the right thing to do', or she consulted here 'WWJD' bracelet.
Maybe she'll vote the right way every time, but if she can't back it up with a logical argument, or does so with an extra-constitutional argument (e.g. looking at Swaziland precedent), she'll be just another road mark on the way to judicial tyranny.
I believe the Supremes have ruled that the government cannot restrict commercial speech in a pre-emptive manner and can only guard against fraud, or exposure of children to adult material. It stated that advertising is speech as defined by the first amendment, but that the 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' type of limits did apply.
Now, what constitutes 'political advertising' as against political blogging or just plain political speech? If you blog that Joe is a good candidate, that's ok; but if I print it on paper and mail it, it's 'advertising' and not ok?
At one point, certain organizations could talk about the issues, but had to be real careful when talking about which candidates sat on which side of which issue, to avoid suggesting that one candidate was better than the other. Now, even speaking about the issues is limited.
Can you really distinguish between political speech and political advertising? What would you use to decide that something is political advertising and not protected political speech? Since politics in the USA involves elections, anything talking about elections is political speech, is it not?
I think of advertising as paying money to place your promotion in someone else's media. That seems to me to be distinct from politcal speech.
Could you point me to some links discussing this? I've been doing some looking and thusfar have only been able to come up with one quote (which is an encouraging one from a RKBA standpoint).
Too bad Sam Kinison is dead - he would've been perfect for the Supreme Court.
"Could you point me to some links discussing this? I've been doing some looking and thusfar have only been able to come up with one quote (which is an encouraging one from a RKBA standpoint)."
That one quote is FAR more than the "conservative heavyweights" such as Brown or Luttig have ever written on the topic.
"Too bad Sam Kinison is dead - he would've been perfect for the Supreme Court."
Denis Leary. Imagine him getting Kelo:
"Plaintiffs argue that collecting more taxes is a public purpose. Plaintiffs are a bunch of f***ing leeches who need to go out and get a real f***ing job!"
Please check out my girl JRB's opinion in Kasler v. Lockyer...
"This case, however, illustrates the illusory nature of the distinction between "fundamental rights" and "areas of social and economic policy." Curiously, in the current dialectic, the right to keep and bear arms - a right expressly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights - is deemed less fundamental than implicit protections the court purports to find in the penumbras of other express provisions. (See, e.g., Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dept. of Health (1990) 497 U.S. 261, 278-279; Zablocki v. Redhail (1978) 434 U.S. 374, 384-387; Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977) 431 U.S. 494, 499-500.) But surely, the right to preserve one's life is at least as fundamental as the right to preserve one's privacy. The founding generation certainly viewed bearing arms as an individual right based upon both English common law and natural law, a right logically linked to the natural right of self-defense. Blackstone described self-defense as the "primary law of nature," which could not be taken away by the law of society. (2 Jones's Blackstone (1976) p. 4.) "[T]he peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and the abandoned, while they neglect the means of self defense. . . . The supposed quietude of the good man allures the ruffian; . . . (but) arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world. . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were (the good) deprived of the use of [weapons] . . . the weak will become a prey to the strong." (1 Paine, The Writings of Thomas Paine (Conway edit. 1894) p. 56.) Extant political writings of the period repeatedly expressed a dual concern: facilitating the natural right of self-defense and assuring an armed citizenry capable of repelling foreign invaders and quelling tyrannical leaders. After the Civil War a series of enactments, culminating with the Fourteenth Amendment, acknowledged the correlation between self-defense, citizenship, and freedom. Section 14 of the Freedman's Bureau Act, which the 39th Congress passed over the President's veto, provided: "That in every State or district where the ordinary course of judicial proceedings has been interrupted by the rebellion, . . . the right to . . . have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens of such State or district without respect to race or color or previous condition of slavery. . . ." (Freedman's Bureau Act (July 16, 1866) 14 Stat. 176, italics added; see Halbrook, Second Class Citizenship and the Second Amendment in the District of Columbia (1995) 5 Geo. Mason U. Civ. Rts. L.J. 105, 141-150 (Second Class Citizenship).)" Halbrook concludes the Freedman's Bureau Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the Fourteenth Amendment leave no doubt that " `the constitutional right to bear arms' is included among the `laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security,' and property, and that `the free enjoyment of such immunities and rights' is to be protected" (Second Class Citizenship, supra, 5 Geo. Mason U. Civ. Rts. L.J. at p. 150) under the Fourteenth Amendment, which would confer citizenship on all persons born in the United States and imbue them with every right of citizenship, including the right to keep and bear arms. (Ibid.) In more recent times, Congress has continued to recognize that the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Second and the Fourteenth Amendments. (Pub.L. No. 99-308 (May 19, 1986) 100 Stat. 449.) The judiciary, too, has consistently acknowledged the interplay between express provisions and implicit protections. In Poe v. Ullman (1960) 367 U.S. 497, the seminal case in the Supreme Court's fundamental rights jurisprudence, Justice Harlan, dissenting, argued the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause protects privacy. He claimed the due process clause covered, but was not exclusively limited to, "the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the constitution," including "freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures." (Id. at p. 549 (dis. opn. of Harlan, J.).) The court continues to cite Justice Harlan's enumeration as part of the full scope of liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against state infringement. (Planned Parenthood Southeastern PA v. Casey (1992) 505 U.S. 833, 848-849; Roe v. Wade (1973) 410 U.S. 113, 169 (conc. opn. of Stewart, J.); Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) 381 U.S. 479, 499 (conc. opn. of Goldberg, J.).)"
It is an absolute outrage that Brown was passed over in favor of Miers.
Tadams8591, I owe you an apology. I just now read your profile page – which is something I should always do before making a reply. There you aver that of all your priorities, your first is Catholicism. If you check my profile page, you’ll see that my first and overarching identity is Christian. I should have addressed you as my brother in Christ and not simply an intellectual conservative.
Likewise, slowhandluke, I should have noticed that you have been around Free Republic for 6 years and thus have certainly weathered quite a few storms unique to conservatives where they “eat their own” (who could forget Elian?!) I should have addressed you as someone who will stay in the fox hole with me and not run when the enemy is fierce, you disagree with me or the ammunition is lacking.
You are all certainly welcome to your views and I do not expect to persuade you with what I am about to say but I shall make this testimony for the record and then withdraw from the debate with the three of you:
The root of this nation was clearly established in the fertile ground of the Christian faith of its founders - but has been drifting toward atheism by the many USSC decisions which became law despite the legislators who were elected to express the will of the primarily theistic population. This same drifting has occurred in many of the mainstream denominations as they have reinterpreted the Scriptures to accept abominations under the guise of reaching more people with the Gospel.
All we have to do is look at Europe to see what happens when people turn away from God and toward their own imaginings of right and wrong.
More important than anything in this physical realm including this nation and its people is that God’s name be hallowed, that His kingdom come, that His will be done. This is the heart of the Lord’s Prayer. We mean it when we pray it – His will, not ours.
Thus we prayed urgently and earnestly, humbling ourselves, turning away from the evil around us and standing on His promise that if we would do this He would heal this land (2 Ch 7:14).
It was not a faithless prayer. We stood praying, believing that we received the healing (Mark 11:24-25). Without that belief, or if we fail to forgive, our desire for this land would not be granted.
Therefore I praise God for the answer to our prayer – for this President, this administration, all of these conservative judicial appointments including these two last appointments to the Supreme Court.
I do not worry about Harriet Miers. If I had any worry, it would have been a statement of disbelief and all my prayers would be literally, in vain.
Moreover, nothing is beyond His power. If He can make a king out of a shepherd, he can make a judge out of a lawyer.
Where and how I get access to print and distribute shouldn't be a concern. If I rent the printing press to make my own magazine, or merely rent a page in that magazine should not be of concern. I believe both activities were known to the Founders, and they made no such distinction.
And the current CFR makes no such distinction about how the information gets distributed, other than not (currently) talking about blogs.
I would consider it quite strange than the only totally free speech medium be one that the Founders did not know of. I suppose even then, should FreeRepublic become a subscription service, I'd be in trouble for paying money to insert my promotion into Jim Robinson's media.
We may just have to continue to disagree. My position is that the government should make no law limiting how or how much or how often political speech occurs.
"Thanks for the preamble on the ESA and Child Safety Acts"
Your welcome.
"I don't see the trade-offs on signing the CFR."
Neither do I but he does. And that is the whole point. He thinks he is doing some thing that's great (like the nomination of Miers and CJ Roberts) but many conservatives don't agree. It is essential we let the Critters and Pres. know our displeasure and our reasons for objecting. I'm sure most of you have already taken it up with him and the Congress.
"Ludicrous? Odd choice of words. Try Constitutional. In any event, there was nothing salvagable in the CFR bill. All we need in campaign finance reform is complete disclosure."
That's what I'm afraid of. We would throw out every good bill that have the least bit of conflict with the Constitution. I don't want any more CFR, ESA, or CSA, where we are constantly forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. We need a new system that guarantees that portions repugnant to the Constitution can be removed yet not affect negatively Legislative checks. We may need another Ammendment.
Our disagreement is more tactics than direction. Maybe Mier will be great, but I agree with G. Will that Bush has lost the benefit of doubt some time back. Maybe Bush got a two-fer in a Christian-Conservative, but he could have gotten a three-fer Christian-Conservative-original_intent_jurist:
A leftist site had this to say about Janice Rogers Brown:
A Christian black woman from the segregated South, Brown supports limits on abortion rights and corporate liability, routinely upholds the death penalty and opposes affirmative action.And JRB would not carry the crony label....she formulates opinions "in prayer and quiet study of the Bible." And in her commencement address, she criticized philosophers and scientists for trying to mold society "as if God did not exist."
My bad, I thought Bork is just a phrase for "not allowing a justice to the Court. I didn't know it has the same connotation as McCarthyism (n. the slander of a patriot to advance a treasonous agenda).
The Pres. is a Hamiltonian or Big Guvmint conservative. He sees government as a boon, not a bane to the people. His vision is for an accountable and beneficial government. It is not arbitrary dumping of money, specific programs are designed to allow for an overall increase in choice, responsibility, and efficiency. Private accounts for SS. The new emphasis on preventative medicine as opposed to much more costly treatment in Medcare/Medcaid. Graduation tests and punitive subtraction of funding if schools fail to perform for NCLB.
Granted, this is by no means a crowd favorite and it is quite opposite of Pres. Reagan's vision. But there are definitely worse alternatives.
As in regards to tax cuts and immigration, progress is being made albeit at a very painful pace for many of us. But I'm not too concerned, you guys are pounding the phone and electronic lines for reform and everyone from the Pres. to the Congresscritters heard you guys loud and clear. They'll take care of it, they have to unless they are suicidal. Also Katrina threw a monkeywrench into everything. So, a slow process is now made glacial. But me worry? I live in a free nation. I don't expect speed. Republicanism is never an efficient affair. Paraphrasing Ol' Truman here "You want efficienycy? Try a dictatorship."
He's still got 3 years left. Let's see how things go.
If it is in conflict with the Constitution, it should be thrown out. It is like being a little bit pregnant.
We need a new system that guarantees that portions repugnant to the Constitution can be removed yet not affect negatively Legislative checks. We may need another Ammendment.
That's the only way it can be done.
Under the line-item veto law, P.L. 104-130, which took effect January 1, 1997, President Clinton became the first president empowered to veto specific spending or certain taxing provisions of legislation. The Constitution previously allowed a president to veto an entire bill only, perhaps containing many provisions of which he approved, in order to strike down one provision he opposed.
On June 26, 1998, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, struck down the line-item veto law, declaring it unconstitutional. In the case of Clinton v. City of New York, the Court held the law unconstitutional on grounds that it violates the presentment clause; in order to grant the President line item veto a constitutional amendment is needed (according to the majority opinion). On July 17, 1998, the Office of Management and Budget announced that funding would be released for the forty-plus cancellations made in 1997 under the Line Item Veto Act and not explicitly overturned previously.
I know they will start the add wheels spinning. I am thinking that the DemonRATs have a rapid response strike team set up in a "war room" similar to that which was ran in the John Kerry campaign. In such a operation you would see Mary Beth Cahill or former adviser to President Clinton, Joel Johnson. Joe Lockhart also comes to mind. If such an operation was being used, I have joy that the first effort against Roberts failed and that big money was wasted in the effort. When such people as Chuck Colsen, Dr. James Dobson, and Jay Sekulow give glowing endorsements to Harriet Miers, I am certain President Bush picked a good nominee and the socialists will have thrown more money down the toilet. I know there were many who have the scholarship that is superior to Miers. However, (I may be sticking my neck out) when Miss Miers gets over with her hearings, I predict the nation will be saying that President Bush made a great mistake selecting Miers for the Supreme Court, she should be running for President of the United States!
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.