What Liberals Really Think

Townhall.com ^ | 10/16/2010 | Ken Blackwell

[Servant of the Cross]

Congressman Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) was being pressed in a live TV debate, so he may be excused for blurting out the truth.

Here’s a portion of what very liberal Mr. McGovern said:

       We have a lousy Supreme Court decision [in the Citizens United case] that has opened the floodgates, and so we have to deal
       within the realm of constitutionality. And a lot of the campaign finance bills that we have passed have been declared unconstitutional
       by the Supreme Court. I think the Constitution is wrong. I don’t think that money is the same thing as human beings."

What a stunning statement! There are several things to consider in this argument. For us as constitutional conservatives, it’s entirely acceptable to disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court. I say every day that Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision and should be corrected. The Kelo ruling set a dangerous precedent. That 2005 case allowed the City of New London to condemn a private homeowner’s beautiful house, not for a bridge or tunnel, not for a fort or a federal highway, but simply because the city government could gain more revenue by taking the house and leasing the property to a private developer! That’s a shocking ruling. If that ruling is not corrected, your home will no longer be your castle, it will only be your trailer.

Congressman McGovern doesn’t take issue with the Supreme Court, however, he says the Constitution itself is wrong. Did Mr. McGovern take an oath to support the U.S. Constitution? Does he consider himself bound by his oath?

Sure, you can responsibly disagree with portions of the Constitution. Ronald Reagan, for example, disagreed with the two-term limit for President. He thought the Twenty-second Amendment had been a mistake. But Reagan dutifully left office after two terms. Reagan would have supported an amendment to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment, but as long as it was in the Constitution, he felt bound to respect it.

In Congressman McGovern’s case, however, we see why liberals believe in a “living Constitution.” The living Constitution idea was characterized by Justice Scalia as a Magic Slate. You can write on it, get the interpretation you want, then lift up the plastic screen, and re-write your constitution, according to the passions of the moment.

I think Mr. McGovern is wrong in his analysis of the Citizens United ruling. The Supreme Court did not say that money was more important, or even the same thing, as human beings. It said nothing like that. What the Court did say is that you don’t lose your First Amendment rights because you express your ideas through a corporation, a union, or a non-profit organization.

In striking down major portions of the McCain-Feingold Act, the Supreme Court ruled that government cannot stop pro-life groups, for example, from highlighting the records of politicians like Jim McGovern before an election. By preventing pro-life citizens from drawing voters’ attention to how their elected representatives actually vote, this unwise and unconstitutional measure denied citizens their rights to communicate about political matters. That’s one of the main reasons for the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.

Now that he mentions it, does Jim McGovern really think “money is [not] the same as human beings?” If so, maybe he’ll join Congressman Mike Pence’s (R-Ind.) drive to de-fund Planned Parenthood. That outfit gets billions in taxpayer funds and it kills 350,000 unborn children—undeniably human beings—every year.

It would be great to welcome Jim McGovern to the ranks of those of us who believe human lives are more important than money. I’m not cynical, but I must admit I have doubts that Mr. McGovern, should he win re-election next month, will put his fine words into practice when it comes to unborn children.

Now, we can see why “constitutional conservatism” is important. Without a firm reliance on the Constitution as our anchor, the entire ship of state is adrift. Under the current administration and the current Congress, our ship of state is headed for the rocks.

[Soothesayer]

In libspeaK, “human beings” means other liberals.

[jazzlite]

...”It would be great to welcome Jim McGovern to the ranks of those of us who believe human lives are more important than money. I’m not cynical, but I must admit I have doubts that Mr. McGovern, should he win re-election next month, will put his fine words into practice when it comes to unborn children”...

When your government has laws that will send you to jail if you destroy the egg of an Eagle, but will protect your right to kill babies, you are in deep trouble.

[R0CK3T]

ALL Liberals think the Constitution is wrong and that our Free Speech can be “disappeared”.

Another prime example of how Liberals and their god (0bama) are the greatest threat to this country’s future.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

The Constitution is not perfect, no work of man is ever perfect. The orginal Constitution recognized slavery and it still sanctions a government monopoly on mail delivery. The XVIIIth Amendment was ridiculous and tested the limits to which the rule of law could be tested, but it was at one time, the law.

What is vital is the rule of law. What liberals prefer is judges who ignore the law in order to arrive at their preferred results. This is in large part because their preferred results, e.g., Gay Marriage and Abortion on Demand, would be achieved via the legislative process only at great expense, if at all. I’m sure the liberals wish that the 2,500 page ObamaCare law had been a Supreme Court decision and not a bill for which they are accountable.

If the Constitution is wrong, amend it, sir. Otherwise, observe it and be faithful to the rule of law, which means be faithful to the constitution.

[Red Dog #1]

I”m curious, has anyone else read Steven Livitt’s and Stephen Dubner”s theory in Freakonomics that although campaign fund raising correlated to election success it wasn't necessarily casual. Instead their statical analysis was that campaign fund raising was much more a reflection of the candidate's popularity versus being the reason. I though it was an interesting challenge to conventional wisdom.

[muir_redwoods]

The 1st amendment recognizes five inherent rights; the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of association and right for redress of grievences to the government.

By failing to recognize the right of a corporation (a group of people who are exercising their right of free association) to engage in free speech (which costs money these days) he is suggesting that by exercizing one part of the 1st amendment, one has to give up another part of the 1st amendment.

To a leftist this makes sense.To sane people it does not.

[ken21]

liberals

emote,

they do not

think.

[Phlap]

Liberals think? Who knew? lol

[JimRed]

Congressman McGovern doesn’t take issue with the Supreme Court, however, he says the Constitution itself is wrong.

If you think the Constitution is wrong, congressman, there is a mechanism for changing it. Submit your proposal!

(crickets)