Rush Limbaugh May Not Understand Liberty

March 15, 2005 | Jack Glennon

[tahiti]

I am listening to the Rush Limbaugh show at this very moment.

I am having quite a bit of difficulty reconciling Rush Limbaugh's remarks about judges imposing their morality and/or personal preferences on the rest of the citizenry as result of their constitutional decisions.

Yes, there are decisions that have been made based on a personal preference of a judge.

Most recently the Supreme Court decision to prohibit convicted death row felons under 18 years of age from being executed.

Original meaning of Amendment VIII, "...nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted," could never be interpreted to prohibit convicted felon under the age of 18 from executed without inserting an arbitrary personal preference gleened from what the "rest of the world" does.

However, Rush Limbaugh is advocating a tyranny of the majority, in a sense, through his advocation of enacting laws passed by a poplulist legislature, which would be nothing less than a consensus of morality and/or personal preferences of a group of people versus the morality or personal preferences of single judge.

The constitutions, either federal or state, are meant to limit government power and protect the individual rights of all citizens.

For example, Mr. Limbaugh, your current legal battle with the state of Florida over your use of pain killing drugs may be analyze from a constitutional perspective of original meaning.

What individual right is more fundamental than an individual, free citizen, deciding how he or she shall treat their pain?

How and where does any government entity, constitutionally exert their power to prohibit an individual from determing how much pain killer they need to consume to satisfy the discomfort of their personal pain?

And in fact, the federal constitution, the federal Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges, guarantees that right to make such a decision.

Amendment IX

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others (rights) retained by the people."

Again, the constitution is meant to "limit" the power of government and the tyranny of the majority from imposing the majorities morality and/or personal preferences on an individual.

Is it not the basis of liberty, the basis of acting like a free citizen, living in a free country, to make the individual decision on what and how much an individual shall consume of a chemical or food for medicinal reasons or just plain pleasure?

Is that not a right "retained by the people?"

Without some type of "judicial" review of tyrannical laws that violate the constitution(s), how do we prevent the trampling of guaranteed rights by the poplulist, personal preference, morality driven majority? (bear arms, search and seizures, speech, religion, etc., for example)

Those citizens who are of the Christian faith, what protection of your religiion will you have if and when Muslims are the majority in the U.S., if their is no judicial review to help protect your right to a Christian religion and Muslism being imposed in your life?

The proper and constitutional way for the majority to have their will enacted is to "amend" the constitution, not to pressure legislators to enact unconstitutional laws.

When laws can deny and disparage rights, the constitutional will be rendered useless and the constitution will mean only what the majority wants, stated through their legislators and enacted laws.

Enacted laws are below the covenants of constitution(s)in the hierchacy of the rule of law, if not then there is no need for a constitution.

[aspiring.hillbilly]

The most convoluted post on here lately! All that verbiage and you fail to make any point, have no idea what your position is on the issues you raised....!

[Bigh4u2]

[add925]

[Niks]

I'm dying to see the Dems out there on the Capital steps whining about the "nuclear option". Especially Miss America -- never saw someone crying without blinking. Should be real fun to watch!!

[Kaslin]

Interesting name he used to sign up with

[rudehost]

But you are advocating a tyranny of the minority, where the rights and values of the majority are overruled by the whims and passions of any vocal minority

I like the addition of 'values'. Values in islamic societies include pesky things like not allowing christianity.

Now you would undoubtedly suggest that these values conflict with the rights of christians which is absolutely true. The problem is that typically FR folk think that when their values conflict with other peoples rights the values rule and when their rights conflict with other peoples values rights rule.

Not very different than the Democratic underground I imagine.

[eyespysomething]

ROFLMAO


(without the pic it wouldn't have been as funny)

[CWW]

In a democratic republic, the majority does rule unless that majority seeks to subvert Consitutionally guaranteed rights, e.g., rights protected under the Bill of Rights.

For example, the Legislative branch representing the majority, could pass a law outlawing Fox News based on their conclusion that Fox is biased propaganda. But obviously, that law would violate the First Amendment's prohibition.

The real problem is that Judges and Courts are creating new laws under the guise of constitutional construction -- laws that would never stand a chance to be enacted.

[Bigh4u2]

It struck me too.

[shezza]

Judicial review and legislating from the bench are at opposite poles. Unfortunately, the esteemed judiciary seem to feel it is their God-given right as "supreme" beings to engage more in the latter than the former. Get a copy of Mark Levin's book "Men in Black" and then see how you feel about the judicial branch.

[advance_copy]

Dope smoker tripe vanity alert!

[cotton1706]

You would be wise to read the first line of the Constitution after the preamble (and continue to the end for that matter) "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress."

Since all power to write laws rests in the Congress, how much power is retained by the courts? None. They have no power to decide how we shall live. That is for the people themselves to decide.

[PzLdr]

The problem with your analysis is that you ignore the doctrine/concept/snake oil of "the Constitution as a 'living document'". That little bromide means that the Constitution means whatever the idiot judge looking at a case says it does. "Cruel and Unusual"? I believe the body of the Constitutions provides death for treason. You could get rich the number of times William "Zero"Douglas and "Feelgood" Marshall cited the 8th Amendment on capital cases.Right to Privacy? There's a right to privacy in the first amendment, fourth amendment. But Griswold v. Conn. relied on "penumbras and emanations' in the ninth to establish the privacy right in Roe v. Wade.

In sum, the system doesn't work. There is no safeguard against a judiciary that uses the Constitution as a fig leaf to do what they want. The system the Founders envisaged was based on political process through legislatures, not courts. You don't have the threat of majority dictatorship you envisage (And I trust their intelligence and common sense a lot more than I do a bunch of Ivy League judges and clerks) The problem we have is much older: "Who will guard the guards?"

[FlipWilson]

Say it with me now, "The Constitution does not require a 60 vote super majority to confirm Judges." The fillibuster is not provided for in the Constitution, yet it is being used to, de facto, amend the Constitution. Amending the Constition requires the use of the democratic process, i.e. drafting an amendment that must pass the House and Senate by a 2/3 vote and then be ratified by the states. Allowing the fillibuster to usurp the democratic process is where we are truly robbed of liberty, not when a majority or minority acts to restore a Constitution process upon which our democracy is based.

Did ya get that. P.S. Say this along with me, the Judiciary is a co-equal branch of the government. It does not sit ABOVE the Legislative and Executive branch. It sits with them. When it, once again de facto, sits above the other two branches, the judiciary is free to act as a dictator would. Espousing laws that never met legislative muster, rejecting laws that did. This is a violation of our liberty. Government without representation. . .I believe somewhere in history a revolution was fought over something like that, hmmmm, where was that?

[OSHA]

[sportutegrl]

I am so sick of the tyranny of the majority argument. If you search hard and long enough, you can find one or two rare arguments that show at some point in time the majority supported an opinion, (Jim Crow, Slavery), that we now know was wrong. However, I can think of a thousand ideas at the top of my head that the majority would vote against, and would be the right choice, now and forever: Rape is not a crime/murder is not a crime/all children should be taken from their parents at 3 to be raised on a collective farm/Theft is simply a reallocation of resources/ and on and on and on. Majority rule may not be perfect, but it it democracy and it is the best idea yet for governing a country. What I am afraid of is tyranny of a minority, especially a group of idiots that think they are right.

[Mobile Vulgus]

tahiti,

(I will address this as if it were you who wrote it since you seem toa gree with it all)

First off, it seems your post is meant as an excuse to bring up Rush’s past drug problem, as opposed to a serious discussion of the issue, but I’ll bite anyway.

It seems to me you are confused by a few things. The Federal Constitution IS supposed to be one of "limited" scope, but the State Constitutions are NOT. The Federal Constitution was limited and well defined, but all other powers that you said are "retained by the people" are the venue of the many States. The "people" ARE the States.

So, your claim that the various legislators are somehow being an oppressive majority are no such thing in the venue of their own States’ laws.

And you seem to think there is no difference between "one judge" and a "group of people" in the State legislatures. I find this ridiculous. One judge, one who is free of worrying about accountability, is a far, far different situation than an entire legislature who is beholden to their voters when they pass legislation!!

You also said that the Constitution (you should always capitalize it by the way) is meant to "limit" the majority imposing it’s will. But then you go on to seem as if you imagine that it is to ELIMINATE the majority form being able to do so. "Limit" is NOT eliminate. The Constitution is meant to give the minority the possibility of influencing the majority not to over rule it.

Then you go one to imagine that Rush (or conservatives) want to eliminate judicial review. Not at all! What conservatives want are judges that confer on "original intent" FIRST before they adjudicate a case. I think you overstate what you think Rush is saying.

Next you go on about the "proper way to amend the Constitution". But that is EXACTLY what conservatives are bellyaching about. Activist judges are amending the Constitution by judicial fiat!

So, I think you are hearing only what you WANT to hear when it is all said and done. That and your confusion on certain terms and concepts.

[colorado tanker]

Bingo. The Constitution only restrains the will of the majority when it actually speaks to a subject, not when the whim of the judge disapproves of the action taken, a point that seems to escape judges these days.

[JPJones]

However, Rush Limbaugh is advocating a tyranny of the majority,

I'm listening too, and he most definitly did NOT advocate that.

[ArGee]

I am having quite a bit of difficulty reconciling Rush Limbaugh's remarks about judges imposing their morality and/or personal preferences on the rest of the citizenry as result of their constitutional decisions.

I am not listening to Rush at this moment. But I suspect that your error is in the last two words of the above quoted citizens.

Nobody minds when the courts properly interpret the laws. It's when they write new ones (as in the example you cite) that we are bothered.

Shalom.