Krauthammer: Courting a Crisis of Legitimacy

Washington Post ^ | 07/04/03 | Charles Krauthammer

[Pokey78]

I once worked in government. On my first day, I raised my right hand and swore to uphold the Constitution. I thought I knew what that meant.

Recently we have gone to war in Afghanistan, Iraq and a few other places, at least in part to advance democracy and promote our kind of constitutionalism. A foreigner might then ask: What exactly is your Constitution? Now we know the answer. The Constitution is whatever Justice Sandra Day O'Connor says it is. On any given Monday.

[Pokey78]

Another snip:

Conservatives are distressed and liberals ecstatic about the outcome of recent decisions of this allegedly conservative court. In a few short years, it has enshrined in stone (1) abortion on demand, (2) racial preferences and (3) gay rights -- the liberal trifecta, just about their entire social agenda, save shutting down the Fox News Channel.

[Pokey78]

Kraut ping.

[goldstategop]

After all isn't that exactly why liberals seek to make sure the courts remain in their hands? I thought so.

[narses]

Ping.

[thegreatbeast]

"On a recent edition of "Inside Washington," for example, my friend and fellow panelist Colby King of The Post characterized my opposition to the sodomy decision as "right out of the Southern Manifesto."

It was a bit of a stretch (delivered with a bit of a smile)."

Krauthammer is being entirely too gentlemanly. The communists are only smiling so that they might get up tight on you before delivering the dagger's thrust.
Not too long ago (it had to do with the Iraqi war) I witnessed Krauthammer SAVAGED by everyone on the 'This Week in Washington' panel. Nina Tottenberg couldn't even let Krauthammer speak. I was expecting her to throw an aneurysm.

[Romulus]

Recently we have gone to war in Afghanistan, Iraq and a few other places, at least in part to advance democracy and promote our kind of constitutionalism.

I sincerely hope not.

[LiteKeeper]

INTSUM

[dennisw]

The RATS know how crucial the Supreme Court is. That's why they are blocking lower court appointments too. All designed to get GWBush used to the idea that he must appoint judges the RATS approve of. They can be a bit conservative but no solid conservatives allowed per order of the RATS in the Senate.

2004 election can change the numbers in the Senate and that's what we need.

[MamaLucci]

2004 election can change the numbers in the Senate and that's what we need.

Yup. Hopefully someday in the near future, the rats will be pining for the good old days when Sandy O'Connor ruled the world.

[leprechaun9]

A real brief:

"The matters appropriate for this Court's resolution are only three: Texas's prohibition of sodomy neither infringes a "fundamental right" (which the Court does not dispute), nor is unsupported by a rational relation to what the Constitution considers a legitimate state interest, nor denies the equal protection of the laws. I dissent."

[Domestic Church]

"Krauthammer is being entirely too gentlemanly."

And that it the entire problem in a nutshell. You cannot wage war against the likes of socialism as a refined gentleman. They only respect brute force and it's a key component of the left. There is a time and place for a gentleman to use force, as much as one can muster and that time is now against those true enemies who have infiltrated so many of the institutions of this nation.

[MeekOneGOP]

Excellent ! Thanks, Pokey !

[Jim Noble]

I have never read a Scalia dissent that was less than brilliant.

[Rummyfan]

Despite his physical state, Krauthammer stands head and shoulders above the Liliputinas who make up This Week's panel.

[Brices Crossroads]

While I find myself in disagreement with O'Connor much of the time and while I find her opinions(even when I agree with the result)not written nearly as well as Scalia or Thomas, I heard an anecdote about her that convinced me she does have a sense of humor:

During a court conference, Jusice Scalia was railing against the evils of affirmative action/quotas, providing an eloquent and impassioned indictment of affimative action both from a practical and constitutional standpoint. When he finished his rather lengthy monologue, O'Connor turned to him with a smile and said, "Why, Nino, how do you think I got this job?"

[SevenDaysInMay]

Their self-empowering contrived "living" constitution's doctrines, as if they were self-evident, puts these dictators outside OUR LAW OF OUR LAND, so declared within our ratified Constitution.

Our ratified Constitution is treated as if it were but a poorly worded, partial listing of broad agendas empowering centralized government to reward politically favored groups. This is true only because outlaw activists in and out of blackrobes can get away with it.

No court ruling at odds with what our Constitution actually says can be lawful. How could it be? Why bow to up to nine fellow citizens when they act above The Law? Why vote for their accomplices?

For 200 years to date, we have shrunk meekly acting as if unlawful statutes, regulations, and court and SCOTUS rulings may lawfully order and threaten us with the full force of the police powers of the State. Such officious outlaws, wrapping themselves in their convenient creation of "sovereign immunity", coerce We the People "under penalty of law" and death by full auto assault, sniping, or fire - as they create inferior bench law in direct violation of our ratified Constitution, THE "controlling legal authrority".

The very document which they freely usurp is the same document from which they derive ALL of their LAWFUL authority, created and granted, with stated reservations, only by the consent of We the People. SCOTUS and many elected officials are in clear breech of our precious social contract.

Are We the People the only ones to obey our Law of OUR Land?

Our Constitution proclaims that federal blackrobes have as their term of office, the period of "GOOD BEHAVIOR" which most certainly is NOT as a serial violator our Constitution with their rogue rulings, relying on cleverly invented, politically expedient "compelling State interests".

Our Bill of Rights' 9th and 10th Amendments reserve to We the People and the several states rights and powers not GRANTED (NOT WISHFULLY IMPLIED only for the convenience of elite activists and toadies) to our federal government ("...OF, BY, AND FOR THE PEOPLE...). Our 1st assures us that we may talk about what we're going to do about government; our 2nd affirms God-given rights that we can back up such talk.

What makes us think that SCOTUS, Congress, and presidents will honor our Bill of Rights and the 14th's "equal protection" of our rights when they so freely violate our, the RATIFIED Constitution? Because they have the temporary power?

If we are unwilling to dedicate our own lives, fortunes, and sacred honor, why then should we expect honor, much less sacred honor from our professional politicians, in or out of blackrobes?

Because failing to do so is condemning our children's children to living under some fascist rule...

These blackrobe outlaws must be replaced with law abiding men and women willing to obey our Constitution.

[livius]

Thanks for the ping.

This is an excellent article. I certainly hope, btw, that the rumors that O'Connor is going to be the next Chief Justice are wrong, wrong, wrong.