The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Rudy Go Round

2.22.07 @ 12:01AM

RIGHTS AND WRONGS
Re: Lisa Fabrizio's Rudy Redux:

Ms. Fabrizio's argument that originalists cannot condone any restriction of the liberties listed in the Bill of Rights is mistaken. Prohibitions against public profanity are still in force in many states. This manner of speech is certainly abridged contrary to the First Amendment. A "Fabrizio" originalist (and the ACLU) would hold the right to profanity to be guaranteed. James Madison and George Mason would probably disagree with this interpretation.

The Second Amendment does contain the word "regulated." Unfortunately this opens the door to restriction, some reasonable, many not. Most people agree (NRA included) the prohibition against convicted felons possessing firearms is a reasonable regulation for a militia to follow. Other reasonable prohibitions for firearms possession are illegal aliens, fugitives, and drug addicts. The Brady Bill was a counterproductive regulation that defies the phrase "well regulated" and should have been ruled unconstitutional on those grounds. The good news was originalist Supreme Court Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas eventually ruled part of this bill unconstitutional on Tenth Amendment issues and it has since expired on it own accord. The Brady Bill did not affect the decline in crime rates in New York and I attribute the decline to Rudy Giuliani's tenacity in fighting crime. He was mistaken to support it.

When Rudy Giuliani ran for mayor he promised to reduce crime and taxes in New York City. He did both. His track record for keeping campaign promises (AKA "his say-so") provides a sound foundation when he promises to appoint originalist judges. When he sticks to his campaign promises to send more originalist judges to the courts, then we can rely on the judiciary to correct the occasional lapses of judgment like supporting Brady.

The media currently love Mr. Giuliani because his views are contrary to their perception of the Republican Party. He did not enjoy their love prior to 9/11. His law enforcement efforts were often described as Fascist, a favorite media insult of all good Republicans. If elected, someone should set up a pool to see how long it takes the New York Times to refer to him as Fascist again.

If the media were as clever as Ms. Fabrizio believes they are, they would be supporting John McCain. He is despised by almost every conservative I know (Phil Gramm being the lone exception.) His nomination would truly divide the party. While many of us disagree with Mr. Giuliani on certain issues, he is not despised.

The first primary is almost a year away. It is too soon to award the nomination to anyone, especially this year. Finally, those words (President Clinton) are a recurring nightmare and should be an issue to be considered, among others, when selecting a nominee.
-- Donald Parnell
London, United Kingdom

Ms. Fabrizio is correct when she urges a closer look and Mr. Giuliani. Mr. Giuliani is a Democrat in Republican clothes. Take for example, his remarks on "regulating" the right to bear arms. If we move to a real estate setting one can find numerous examples of government regulations which reduce the permitted use of property to zero.

One can only imagine what a coalition of the timid might do with this gentleman in power. PETA: no animals should be hunted -- gone are rifles and shotguns. Democrats: armed citizens are a government's nightmare -- pistols and knives are gone. Sure we have the right to bear arms; we're just not allowed to buy them.

Why not Mr. Giuliani for Attorney General? That's a job he's well qualified, and prepared for. Perhaps Senator, Head of Homeland Security? Just not President.
-- Jay Molyneaux
Denver, North Carolina

Lisa Fabrizio's article on Rudy Giuliani hit the mark. After reading many so-called conservatives trying to sell "America's Mayor" is the second coming of Ronald Reagan (are you listening, Deroy Murdock?), it was so refreshing to read the truth.

Rudy says that he will appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court, but why should we believe him based on his past statements?

He openly embraced the homosexual agenda while mayor -- even to the point of dressing as a transvestite -- and now he says he opposes gay marriage. His flip-flop on this issue is almost as believable as Mitt Romney's -- which is to say, not very.

If there is anything we conservatives have learned the last 6 years, it is the importance of not compromising our principles. Yes, George Bush has done much good for us: he has kept us safe in the war on terror, appointed strict constructionists to the bench, and been the most pro-life president in our history.

But there is a flip side: namely, his reckless spending (I understand that many would include the Iraq War here, and I appreciate that concern. I even agree with some of it, to a point). How many of us looked the other way when he talked about expanding the federal role of education in 2000? I did. How many of us chose to ignore his mediocre record of defending our borders while Governor of Texas? I did. How many of us experienced cognitive dissonance when the issue of fiscal responsibility came up in the presidential campaign of 2004? I did.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Education, John McCain, Religion, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Iraq, NATO