A symbiotic relationship has come into play between the Senate and the Supreme Court and it bodes nothing but ill to the welfare of the nation. What the socialist minds could not bring about through legislation, the Court is providing with its decisions. That forms the basis for the illegitimate symbiotic actions of the two branches.
Liberal, anti-constitution control of the Senate is necessary for the liberals to bring about a complete socialization of the nation. As James Madison explained, "we must be on guard for the leveling spirit" now known as equality, the very heart of socialism. The founders very wisely separated and limited the powers of each branch to prevent such an occurrence, yet it is being destroyed as I write this piece.
Article II, Section 2, clause 2 gives the exclusive power to the President to appoint judges to the Supreme Court (inferior court judges also) who will follow the Constitution. That is where the problem is now occurring in the recalcitrant, liberal dominated house of wisdom. Sticking to the facts, personalities and party aside, the President said he would appoint strict constructionist of the Constitution to the bench, such as Justices Scalia and Thomas. That sent the opposition into extreme fits of hysteria and demagoguery since that type of appointee would wreck their plans to control the agenda for collectivization of the nation. With their plans headed for the trash heap it is much easier to understand Jim Jeffords becoming an independent. Categorically, it makes no difference what party Jeffords claims as his political home since he refuses to uphold the Constitution. His votes in congress are proof of the statement. All the change has done is to make it easier for the Senate to control the liberal agenda and ignore the Constitution.
The Jeffords switch in giving control to the Democrats is similar in operation to the parliamentary type government when one government is abandoned and a new one takes shape changing the power structure. Granted that the President and the House are the same but there is a power switch with different people installed in power positions, which changes the make-up and agenda priorities for good or for bad. In effect Jeffords did what the people had not done in the fall election when he handed the Senate to the liberals. The notion of symbiosis comes even closer to reality.
The national media, either clueless, dupes, or engaging in something more sinister, continue to talk about winners and losers in the struggle over the Senate plums. They speak about the President’s agenda being the loser and the others possibly being the winners. To them it is a contest and they seem to enjoy what they perceive as fun and games, all the while ignoring the trashing of the Constitution. (As an aside, the McCain campaign finance bill would leave the national media in a position of absolute dominance in being able to tout an agenda without any opposition to their Marxist leaning rhetoric.) Everyone needs to comprehend that the losers are the people of the United States as our inalienable rights of freedom and liberty are destroyed by the tyrannical rules imposed by those with an anti-United States agenda.
The statements of Senators are interesting as this scene plays out. Tom Daschle, now majority leader, continues to want to stick it to the "rich" even though his duty and that of his fellow Senators is to protect the economic interests of those who make the commerce flow. Without apologies to anyone, the socialist must destroy the "rich", the wealthy, and the successful in order to install godless socialism. Not only that but they must engage in class warfare, a classical tactic of the socialist. (Black Book of Communism, pages 48, 124) The class warfare is possible because the liberal Senate speaks the language of "hate the rich" which appeals to the human tendency to be greedy, the only remedy for such greed being a conscience in tune with God. Thus the need to destroy belief in God becomes of paramount importance as the hate line is preached.
Other Senators have weighed in on the nominee issue and they leave no doubt that they care little for the Constitution in addition to not knowing much about it either. The three cases to which I refer are statements by Chuck Schumer of New York, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and Joe Lieberman. First Schumer said that the nominees that the President sent would not all be approved, that the Senate would have some of their own to offer. He said, "He will get some and we will get some." Excuse me Mr. Schumer, please cite the Article, Section, and clause that says the Senate has the power which you claim for your self. The attitude he exhibits in that statement is all-important to their control of the nation.
Next comes Patrick Leahy, new Judiciary Chairman, who told White House officials, "they are going to have to look for mainstream judges. Nobody wants to see the judiciary lurch to the far right or the far left." Only a socialist could come up with such a stupid statement. First, the court cannot lurch any farther to the left than it is now given the decisions it has made. Two, Leahy has no feeling for the Constitution and equates it with hate speech called the far right. He is to be given some credit for his observation. The Constitution is far right of the position he espouses. Both Schumer and Leahy should have said is that they want nominees who respect the Constitution and the rule of law. Instead hey want litmus tests so they can weed out those (strict constructionist) who will not sing the party line song of activists who will install socialism. Their oaths of office were a lie and their statements on this matter are proof of it.
Joe Lieberman of Connecticut gets the prize for ignorance of the Constitution. Arlen Spector said he would introduce a change in the rules to prevent a Senate member from changing the make-up of the Senate organization. Mr. Lieberman said, "With all respect to Arlen, I think the rule change is unconstitutional," It is amazing how those things, which impede the liberal agenda, are unconstitutional and those things, which would follow the constitution, are ignored. For Senator Lieberman’s edification he should read Article I, Section 5, clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member. If the rule that Senator Spector proposes is not part of the rules for proceedings, then why has the Senate all these years been organizing committees, assigning duties, and delegating authority to committee chairman?
Since Mr. Lieberman wants to be ultra constitutional, there is not one word about organizing along party or ideological lines. To Senator Lieberman that proposed rule has to be unconstitutional because it would jeopardize the control of the Senate and thwart the hoped for manipulation of the Supreme Court and the lower courts. The grand plans for socialization through activist courts would be slowed if not brought to a stop. Party and ideology is a product of the people and not the Constitution. For Mr. Lieberman’s information the only ideology that he should hold is for the limited government that the Constitution tells him is necessary to ensure freedom and liberty.
Control of the Senate is important if they are going to continue the march to Marxism. And with the direct election for the Senate, the people are the unwitting helpers in their scheme, the voters thinking they are exercising an independent voice, when in fact they are tightening the noose around their collective necks.
As you say..."but will they keep the Republic?
you're damn right we will! But "how?" she asks in a small voice............
That's a laugh. Hamilton wanted something akin to an elected king, Clay preached it, and lincoln gave it to him. Face it the Republic is dead and has been for many years. We're living in a Socialist democracy. The 17th Amendment was the last nail in the coffin of the Republic. The sheep bow to Washington, and the 'President' has all the power. The Executive branch even has the absolute audacity to get offended when someone suggests that the power should lie in the Legislative branch.
Come look to see what the Second Revolution wrought. Thinking that allowing popular vote of the 17th Amendment would, in the end, centralize all power with one man has apparently bit the memory of Hamilton's lackeys in the tail once again. The way I see it, the Senate is taking power from the one of the only places it has left. It has been emasculated to the point that they have to fight the President for judicial nominations. And while this time I don't agree with many in the Senate on this position, at least they are trying to wrest a power out of the hands of the Executive branch. It took their power to declare war so apparently the Legislative is trying to take this power
Senator Frist needs your support, he needs to know we are aware of Tom Daschle’s determined obstruction of the Senate and the United States Constitution. Daschle, Clinton and those like him stand in contempt of the United States Constitution in violation of that document and in their oaths of office. If Senator Frist doesn’t demand all Senators do as Constitutionally instructed, then he is in violation of that document.
You can e-mail him, however a letter would be more appropriate, please do something to let him know Americans DO care and we expect Steel in his Spine when it comes to OUR Constitution! Send him this article. .
e-mail ...
http://frist.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Office of Senator Bill Frist
416 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-3344
202-228-1264 (fax)
Office of Senator Bill Frist
28 White Bridge Road, Suite 211
Nashville, TN 37205
615-352-9411
615-352-9985 (fax)
Office of Senator Bill Frist
5100 Poplar Avenue, Suite 514
Memphis, TN 38137
901-683-1910
901-683-3610 (fax)