The American Spectator

Marcus Tullius| 10.29.08 @ 11:08AM

The Mormon prophet Joseph Smith warned us that the day would come when "the Constitution shall hang as if by a thread."

It's our response to this assault that history will judge. I 've raised my hand with millions of others and sworn an oath to defend and protect the Constitution. How far might that oath carry us in the next few years? What will it require of us to fulfill it? Whatever it may be, I will do my duty to the document and system the Framers wrought; for only by doing that will I, and those I love, remain free.

Bill Sanford| 10.29.08 @ 11:36AM

This writer is spot on. Obama, backed by moveon & kos, is a smooth radical that is more evolutionary than revolutionary. Regardless, the goal is the same and that is the implementation of a marxist - oriented
economy in the USA.

A lot of people will come to rue the day that they supported Obama.

Cincinnatus| 10.29.08 @ 11:46AM

That isn't creeping, that is galloping.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,. . .But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Peter F. Killie| 10.29.08 @ 12:40PM

Neumayr's article articulates the single most important reason to vote against an Obama presidency. Even if limited to one term in office, the damage Obama would do through his appointment of judges including in all probability at least one, possibly two Supreme Court Justices, would be permanent. American Democracy as commonly understood would be undermined to the point of collapse. We need to think no further than the recent court decisions regarding gay marriage in California and Connecticut. The prospect of a court that shares the Obama philosophy should frighten any thinking person who cherishes the idea of "government by the people."

megapotamus| 10.29.08 @ 1:02PM

VP is President of the Senate. That is largely a figurehead role but Cheney did cast a tie-breaking vote here and there as well as discharge a couple other timely parliamentarian maneuvers. Whatever. These questions are never fully settled.
Frankly I am somewhat heartened by the hamfisted nature of Barry's anti-Constitutionalism. Observant patriots are always on watch for assault on the Constitution. Little is left practically of it's claim to be one of enumerated powers and we must admit Republicans bear the responsibility of the adults at the table so the fact that Barry has nakedly denounced it as reactionary and illigitimate is, politically, an improvement. If the American electorate is so historically ignorant, grasping and gullible to vote in socialism (not to mention racism) they are at least NOT going to be able to say they were duped or that the policies were not accurately described as socialism. We will suffer some lean times and perhaps some nasty coercion on the ground but our fellow citizens have no stomach for a police state and will finally learn their lesson. It pains me some that it must be re-learned by hard experience but if it must, be it so. Too optimistic? I was quite certain that the nannystate impulse would NEVER free us from the double-nickel but reality did win out over Mommies Against Death. In Barry's Hawaii, they set up a universal children's single-payer health plan. This is indestructible goo-gooism, no? Only after a mere 7 months even the hard Lefties that reside and reign in HI had to abandon it as unworkably expensive. Reality is always the uninvited guest. If you believe in the virtues and eternal rightness of this thing we call Liberty you may believe confidently that she will, finally, prosper.

Mr. Bubba Six Pack| 10.29.08 @ 2:31PM

Cincinnatus, you quote the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution. It is a great call of revolution that you make.

Strict constructionists of the US Constitution surprisingly use the Bill of Rights to limit the rights of US citizens to those listed. This is not the original intent, but is used by the US government to impose limits on our rights (if it is not in there you do not have it), I believe that this is wrong. The Bill of Rights limits the government from abridging certain rights of US citizens. However, at the time of preparing the Bill of Rights certain founding fathers did not want to list some of these rights for fear of future governments interpreting the Bill as the complete list of rights. This fear has come true. Everyone argues that there is no right in the US Constitution then we do not have it. No right of privacy. Do we also not have a right to our own opinion. I do not see that listed. I am not a Constitutional attorney but I know enough to respect the brilliance of the document.

Perhaps if you were a US Constitutional scholar your would understand scholarly discussions of its content and interpretation. I believe in not a simple strict construction of the text, but the constitution must be interpreted based upon its text, the original intent interpreted from the documents and arguments at the time of drafting, and the traditions in place at the time. This must be done in the context of the modern world unanticipated by our founding fathers.

I did nor review for typos or grammar.

cynic| 10.29.08 @ 3:50PM

So how about the amendments. Isn't that what makes the will living? How about the 9th amendment, which is part of the bill of rights? doesn't that invite a living interpretaion. I bet most of you do not even know what the 9th amendment is.

Where in the constitution does it mention signing statements? the living part invented by Republicans.

Brutus| 10.29.08 @ 4:15PM

cynic,

Your understanding of the 9th Amendment is faulty. The amendment is NOT a blank check to be used to purchase new rights as the beholder sees fit. Rather it is a statement that we RETAIN the rights that we enjoyed prior to the document's ratification. So, if you wish to claim a right under the 9th, it is encumbent on you to demonstrate that such a right was in existence under common law, the Articles of confederation or some other precedent prior to 1792.

Adolf| 10.29.08 @ 4:20PM

BHO is so Hitleresque - he scares me.
Greek columns with 80k worshippers. 200k adoring fans at the Berlin wall, and now a 30 min infomercial. People will vote for the idiot because of the fanfare and slick talk . All BHO needs to do is grow a mustach and the image will be complete. Cheer-up conservatives, if BHO wins, it will be a landslide in 2 to 4 years.

Mike P| 10.29.08 @ 4:31PM

I can't decide whether I should laugh at this article and the supportive responses or just feel sorry for the authors.

Firstly, Obama is not a socialist and if you think he is, then you've obviously swallowed the absurd drivel being desparately spewed by the McCain /Palin campaign in its death throes. One of Obama's biggest endorsers and key advisors is Warren Buffet - one of the greatest capitalists of all time. If you want to understand how Obama will govern, look at who his camapign advisors are and at his postions as laid out on his website - not at quotes taken out of context from old interviews or at propaganda from hysterical smear campaigns.

Secondly, how ironic, after watching the Bush adminstration attempt to rape the Constitution and the citizenry for the last five years, to read such whining fanatsies about Obama's views on the Constitution. He taught it. He understands it. Most of you clearly don't.

Palin says believes that as Vice President she will have a "policy" role in the Senate and that as Vice President she is part of the Senate. Her comments illustrate pretty clearly that she has no idea what the hell she is talking about on this or a great many other issues. And we are supposed to laud McCain's choice and welcome her to the second higest office in the land?

Bush and Cheney's attempts to redefine the role and power of the executive branch at the expense of the Congress ought to outrage anyone who has even just a basic understanding of the Constitution.

Enjoy your impending landslide defeat conservatives, you worked for it and you richly deserve it.

The next eight years will see the appointment of intelligent, non-ideological Justices to the court and a return of the exective branch to lawful behavior characterized by respect and defernece to the Article II and Article III branches.
The Founders would be thrilled by the change!

Marion Valentine| 10.29.08 @ 4:32PM

After spending nine years in Navy Intelligence as a Cryptologist, intercepting communications from Marxist/Socialist countries, breaking their codes, and gathering intelligence in "other" ways. I am familiar with their methods of using the media for propangada, using the educational system to indoctrinate young minds, using the judicial system, and voter fraud to steal elections.
This is what is happening now in america.

From everything I have researched in the last two years, has lead me to conclude that Obama was selected, tutored, groomed, scripted, and financed by Radical Marxist/Socialists to become the puppet leader of the USSA.

There is a vast difference between Social Democrats and Radical Marxist/Socialists. Hillary Clinton is a Social Democrat. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Schumer, Durbin, Franks,Boxer, and a few others now in Congress are Radical Marxist/Socialists.

On my website: [valsword.spaces.live.com] I have a 16 minute video of an interview with Yure Bezmenov a KGB agent who defected in 1970. This interview was recorded 24 years ago,
and the transcript highlights, in Yuri's own words confirm what I mentioned in the first paragraph.

I pray that I am wrong, but from everything I have researched, I believe Obama, with a Reid Pelosi led Congress, with a radical judicial system will pull a Hugo Chavez.

In a recent address to his subjects, carried by fiat on all of the nation’s television channels, Venezuela’s authoritarian president Hugo Chávez Frias, who has previously taken over the airways for the celebration of his own birthday, now turned his country’s attention to more urgent matters. The time had come, he explained, to move the “Bolivarian revolution” from its Lenin-like beginnings of transitional capitalism towards a more robust command economy. The nation had at last “broken the chains of the old, exploitative capitalist system,” he said. “The state now has the obligation to build the model of a socialist economy.”
The next stage of the socialist revolution will require making thirty-three separate amendments to the Venezuelan constitution—a document Chávez previously rewrote upon his ascension to Miraflores Palace in 1999. The most dramatic and controversial change will eliminate presidential term limits, ensuring the fulfillment of Chavez’s promise not to leave office until 2021. To Hugo Chávez, a permanent revolution requires that he wield permanent power. It’s a risky move, considering recent opinion polls showing a majority of Venezuelans skeptical to further constitutional “reform,” especially if it means the possibility of adopting a President Chávez for life. But the same public, polling data demonstrates, also opposed the government’s refusal to renew a broadcast license for RCTV, the country’s oldest and most anti-Chávez private television network, and that storm seems to have passed.

condemno| 10.29.08 @ 4:42PM

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives congress the ability to "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof..." When written, that is exactly what the Founders meant: COIN money. Activist judges made paper money legal through the Legal Tender cases. Constitutional purists should read up on it.

interested in fairfax| 10.29.08 @ 4:47PM

Mr. Bubba Six Pack has most of it right. The Bill of Rights lists what the Federal (and now state also) government may not do. Those are the only constitutionally protected rights. That does not mean that other rights not listed cannot be granted, only that they are not protected in the Constitution.

The obvious example is the so-called "abortion rights". The high court erroneously interpreted this as a constitutionally protected right. It is not. That does not mean one cannot have an abortion. It just means that it is not constitutionally protected, which, according to the tenth amendment means the states should be the ones to decide whether abortion is legal.

A constitution as interpreted by Obama is the same as not having a constitution, since there is nothing the government will not be able to do, as long as Congress or the courts say it is legal. What most people don't realize is that the constitution is simply a piece of paper. It is only as good as those sworn to protect it remain faithful to its principles.

Personally, I trust the framers' judgement a lot more than I trust Mr. Obama's when it comes to interpreting the constitution.

Matt| 10.29.08 @ 4:50PM

If a candidate too far to the left is to be feared as socialism, then by extension of that principal, a candidate on the right might be feared for fascism: secret prisons, a suspension of habeus corpus, use of voter suppression techniques... sounds like modern republicanism to me!

TacomaJoe| 10.29.08 @ 4:52PM

Cynic,
Your (and Obama's) reading of the 9th Amendment renders the balance of the Constitution meaningless. Given this absurd result, your interpretation is without merit. The only reason people like you and Obama promulgate such an absurd interpretation is so that you can form the Constitution towards whatever aims further your various agendas. The problem is, if the Constitution is controlled by those in power - rather than the other way around - we have laid the groundwork for tyranny.

Tom Paine| 10.29.08 @ 5:05PM

Mr Neumayr's piece is silly and paranoid. Quite to the contrary of what conservative hacks are now saying, Obama's tax policies simply return us to pre-Bush levels, with an added break for people earning less the a quarter of a million dollars a year.

Obama is ending corporate welfare as we know it and ending the socialism of the rich.

Tax policies that favor the middle class will strengthen the economy. More importantly, they will engender greater unity and concord in this country as we face the challenges of the 21st century.

If you think we'll effectively combat global terrorism and the increasing power of China and India while income disparity grows like it has been in the past two decades, you're fooling yourself.

A Frank Observer| 10.29.08 @ 5:14PM

It's a laugh that with all extra-constituional powers our current administration has bestowed upon itself that ANYONE could go much farther. The object of the constitution is to preserve rights and avoid tyranny. How is more tyrannical to deny rights than it is to affirm them? What happened to the libertarian wing of the Republican Party? Actions should only be outlawed when they infringe on the life, libery, or pursuit of happiness of others, NOT when they are deemed immoral by a vocal minority. In short it will be Obama's first order of business to restore the Constitution to the document it once was before George W. Bush - who slashed through it with every chance he had.

jmh| 10.29.08 @ 5:16PM

explain to me the tyrany and chaos from allowing gay marriages? omg, society is just crumbling! lets move to a less tyranical/chaotic society!

Blixa| 10.29.08 @ 5:35PM

Do they still allow people with no concept of civics or how the US government works write for this rag?

For crying out loud, there is even an entire section in the Consitution on how to amend it (or change it). And that would make it a living document. This isn't a scolarly discussion on deep matters of Consitutional law but basic civics that most Americans should have learned in high school.

GOP RIP

Sog| 10.29.08 @ 5:36PM

Matt,

actually fascism in the past century as used by Nazi Germany, Spain and Italy was accompanied by socialism. The opposite of socialism is capitalism. Though I agree that republicans in the last 8 years have not been very capitalist your contrast does not accurately reflect reality.
The rest of your post is silly nonesense--there is no voter suppression, most people can vote from their homes if they choose for crying out loud.

Tom Jefferson| 10.29.08 @ 5:45PM

Thomas Jefferson was fearful of an unchecked court. We should all be very wary.

"At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486

AB| 10.29.08 @ 5:52PM

Tom Paine,
Corporate welfare does not exist. Corporations, partnership, limited liability companies, etc, despite Democrats efforts to anthropomorphize them and subsequently demonize them, are not people, and they don't have secret agendas. They are associations of owners. If you raise corporate taxes, you tax the American people that hold shares in their 401(k)s and personal retirement accounts. You also create an incentive for people to shift their money to countries where they can retain more of the after-tax earnings of their investment, which they can now do with a click of a mouse. This in turn makes it more difficult for American businesses to fund capital expenditures to grow (and create jobs). Moreover, the American citizens that own these companies have already paid taxes on the income that they used to invest in these evil corporations and will pay again if/when they sell for a profit. It is simply bad policy in a global economy where capital goes wherever it wants in an instant to raise what is already the second highest corporate tax rate in the world.

Another idiotic leftist argument about taxes also deserves debunking. In the wake of the Bush cuts, liberals screamed that $X billion went to the rich! Well, if I pay 40% on $100 and you pay 15% on $10 and our respective rates are lowered to 35% and 10%, yes I get $5 and you get $0.50, but 1) I still pay 3.5 times the amount you pay and 2) the government takes $0.35 of every incremental dollar I earn while it only takes $0.10 of yours. Conservatives believe in personal responsibility and that at some point, it becomes immoral for the government to take any more of our hard-earned money. Liberals believe "from each according to his ability to each according to his need." It's fine that we disagree, but it's time to call a spade a spade and admit that you don't care about destroying our global competitive advantage in order to further the goal of income equality because you believe it's not fair that people that work hard should get to keep the economic benefits of that hard work.

AB| 10.29.08 @ 6:00PM

To curtail a critique on a stray period without addressing the substance of my post, it should read 35 times, not 3.5 times

James| 10.29.08 @ 6:05PM

Neumayr is right on target. Liberal ideas are at odds with the Constitution. So rather than obeying the Constitution, they usurp authority for the courts and write law from the bench. Even Hamilton, the most nationalist of all of the founders who believed more than any other in a big, activist government, said in the Federalists that any assumption by the federal authority of any power not delegated to it is an act of "usurpation", and that is should be treated as such.

How did the founders treat usurpation and tyranny? They rebelled. But now, supposedly, we rebel at the ballot box. Well that obviously isn't working, so what's next?

J| 10.29.08 @ 6:12PM

And perhaps someone would care to critique Pres. Bush's reading (and adherence to) the Constitution?

hereslookingatyoukid| 10.29.08 @ 6:13PM

I went to University in the States, studied there for ten years, got my masters etc and I loved the place. I had never been so surrounded by intelligent people who understood what freedom is, how valuable their constitutional legacy is, the importance of non partisan and bipartisan policy making (fiscal, foreign, social) and the crucial role of an unfettered and educated judiciary, aswell as a level of civic minded behaviour, general politeness and optimism unseen elsewhere. I have been away for ten years now and it has all gone to the dogs. The posts on this blog are for the most part as searingly ignorant as the article that proceeds. What happened to all I discovered in the USA and loved so much, that gave the beautiful landscape, the wide open spaces, such a particular meaning.
I say long live America, but I am referring to that old one I loved and honoured, not this brash shiny conservative religious one. And "OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT 2008"!

Tom Jefferson| 10.29.08 @ 6:19PM

To James: I don't know if this is the answer to your question but here are more words fro Jefferson.

"As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1803. FE 8:256

Obie in Chicago| 10.29.08 @ 7:11PM

Dear Mike P,

As a law school graduate, let me inform you that teaching constitutional law certainly does not mean that one "understands" the Constitution. There are different views as to its interpretation, hence the many dissenting or concurring views in the opinions of our Supreme Court. Constitutional law courses do not focus on the text of the Constitution, but rather seem to attempt to provide various scholarly approaches to the decisions of the Supreme Court in specific cases and controversies.

In other words, Con law has a lot to do with the Supreme Court, which has to do with the Constitution, but it is entirely possible that other people, such as Justice Thomas or Justice Ginsberg or any of their colleagues regardless of political tendency, or a political science professor, or a historian or a journalist or a legislator or a teacher, may understand The Constitution as well or better than a professor of constitutional law in a law school. Remember that one distinguishing feature of law school professors of constitutional law, as brainy as they may be, is that they didn't usually have to be responsible for deciding how to apply their particular view of the Constitution.

Also, another issue with your argumentation is that the Obama campaign has based its arguments around Joe Biden on the idea that he would be right there holding a Pres. Obama's hand, just like Dick Cheney purportedly has for Pres. Bush. Let's keep the Vice-President away from the White House, shall we?

Now let me ask you a question: why are Obama supporters always ranting and raving and foaming at the mouth this election? If Obama is elected, will you speak out to defend the Constitution, if say, your man tries to limit freedom of expression, or will you remain complicit, having achieved partisan victory?

PS I really do live in Chicago, just that houses in my neighborhood cost about 1/5 of what they do in Barack's neighborhood. :)

Bill W| 10.29.08 @ 7:26PM

Obama's election will lead to the end of freedom in America.

Tom Jefferson| 10.29.08 @ 7:29PM

I'd like to remind Mike P. that Joe biden has been been a U.S. Senator for 36 years and he thinks that Article I applies to the Executive Branch. Sounds like he doesn't know what he's talking about either. Sahra Palin was 8 years old when he became a senator and he doesn't know the basic structure of the constitution.

Bill W.| 10.29.08 @ 7:33PM

The Constitution was written by the Founders in reaction to unfettered rule by an authoritarian King. Even with its checks and balances it was not adopted by the states until the Bill of Rights was included. What was the point of the Bill of Rights? To protect the citizens from the tyranny of unchecked government power. Now Obama says the fundamental flaw of the Constitution is that it does not say what the government must do for its citizens. His intention to expand the power and role of government in people's lives is clear.

Vince C| 10.29.08 @ 7:45PM

I just reviewed the transcript of the 2001 interview at http://www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/#50041ecb,2008-10-27 There is no reference to "fatal flaw" or "flaw" in the transcript. Perhaps the fatal flaw of you argument is that you didn't bother reading the transcript of the interview, in which Obama essentially lays out a view that I've heard conservatives like George Will espouse.

Tanner| 10.29.08 @ 7:50PM

"Mr. Bubba Six Pack has most of it right. The Bill of Rights lists what the Federal (and now state also) government may not do. Those are the only constitutionally protected rights. That does not mean that other rights not listed cannot be granted, only that they are not protected in the Constitution. "

Exactly why some of the framers did not want to write a Bill of Rights. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are implied in the constitution, as the government ONLY has the rights granted to it by the constitution. Other rights, such as the right to privacy, are also reserved by the people. Even if there was no first amendment, the people would still retain the right to free speech. The only purpose for the government is to provide a limited number of services and to ensure one person's rights do not infringe upon another person's rights.

Jtm| 10.29.08 @ 7:56PM

'Were he honest, he would call for a constitutional convention to write a new document from scratch, one that would enshrine his enlightened new understandings. But he would never dare proceed so openly, realizing that left-wing ideas too clearly stated provoke backlash."

No, Obama doesn't proceed openly because in a constitutional convention his ideas would lose. Better to leave the constitution writing to his preferred elite--the lawyers.

Bill W.| 10.29.08 @ 8:16PM

To Vince C.

I appreciate your attack on my arugument. But you need to look deeper to find the complete story of his interviews with NPR. Here is a link to other portions of his remarks. Now I had to go to four websites, and follow several links to find what appeared to be the full transcript. Which is far more detailed than that carred by Fox News. And yet, I had to follow two more links to find some the comments about.

Now here he pays lip service to the Constitution as a "remarkable political document" as if it is a relic of the past as opposed to the operative framework for our self-government. And then attacks it as is reflecting the "fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day."

http://amerpundit.com/2008/10/27/obama-constitution-reflects-fundamental-flaw-in-this-country/

Vince C. I await your response.

Tom Paine| 10.29.08 @ 8:22PM

SOG

To say that "socialism is the opposite of capitalism" is a little simplistic, and it's not really accurate to say that fascist regimes were socialist.

Fascist regimes engage in a command economy where they attempt to use the wealth producing power of the market to further their militaristic goals. (Sound familiar?)

In the U.S, we have a mixed economy, and neither Obama nor McCain will change that. They have fairly different tax policies, but they're not that different.

There's some weird paranoia -- tinged with ugly racist innnuendo -- out there in right wing world. I freely admit similar stuff circulates on the left wing fringes.

We just need to keep our heads and ignore the freaks out on the edges. Rush Limbaugh won't save this country, and neither will Rev. Wright.

It will take sensible people in both parties to see the basic good will of those opposed to them to pull us out of this financial disaster and protect this country from its enemies.

peterg| 10.29.08 @ 8:28PM

Wow, Marian, get out into the sunlight before your insane scrabblings over the keyboard start coming out in complete sentences, only inherently meaningless ones...whoops, too late....

julia| 10.29.08 @ 8:34PM

These are videos of another Obama's friend Khalid al-Mansur. Please, spread the word. maybe one of those videos will end up in MSM:
http://www.aswatalislam.net/DisplayFilesP.aspx?TitleID=50050&TitleName=Khalid_Al_Mansour

PS Alaska| 10.29.08 @ 8:35PM

Is this satire? No one without a Paraniod Personality Disorder believes this stuff. You must be careful or someone might think you are serious and do something rash. As for Ms Palin, this Alaskan can assure you that the media has given her a pass because she knows even less then they have let on - but that's just the view from Juneau.

Tom Paine| 10.29.08 @ 9:31PM

The progressive income tax may be liberal idiocy, but it seems fair to me.

If Exxon feels worried about its profits, Dick Cheney will send a 2 billion dollar air craft carrier half way around the world to make them feel better.

If I feel worried about my economic anxiety, no body cares.

That's fine, but it also means that the people who cost more to keep happy should pay higher rates.

It makes sense to me, but I'm not a corporate CEO. I just work hard 50 hours a week and keep falling behind no matter what I do. Maybe I should just shut up and work 60 hours instead.

Steve Collecti| 10.29.08 @ 9:59PM

I realize that this this piece is a polemic for the faithful but its logic and prose is terse nonetheless.

So Obama's " placid temperament " and "quiet tyranny" was able to blind Univ of Chicago Law faculty various attempts to offer him a more permanent position. Chicago - home to Milton Friedman monetarism and Scalia's perverse hermeneutic overreach in originalism ?

Both as Harvard Law editor and constitutional faculty BHO displayed a midpoint that will no doubt disappoint both sides.

How truly frightening it must be to traditional and movement (bowl) conservatives to have a black intellectual who is middle of the road. Where will he land, what will he do?

dward| 10.29.08 @ 10:53PM

I'm an independent. If I don't vote for Obama, a chief reason will by my disgust with the insufferable arrogance of liberals I know, who too often combine self-satisfaction over their own self-alleged open-mindedness, sophistication, and acceptance of the Other, on the one hand, with demonization of those with whom they disagree, on the other. What hypocrites. Yet I know there are good liberals who are not like that. But too many liberals cannot even imagine that someone could have good will and think differently than they do. Hence all the imputation of the most evil and venal motives to Cheney and Bush, and all the selective marshaling of facts bent to support this or that darkest conspiracy theory immune to all reasoned counterargument. Apparently, some not insignificant percentage of liberals believe that the U.S. government was behind 9/11, despite all the scientists -- for example, in the book put out by Popular Mechanics -- who have debunked every aspect of the pseudo-evidence gathered by the 9/11 conspiracy enthusiasts.

The 9/11 conspiracy ideas are an extreme case, but are not so very far out of the ambit of the more mainstream liberal imputing of Darth Vader- like evil to the right. I find such imputations both childish and a sign of all the provincialism the Left usually claims to have risen so far above. It's not just hypocrisy, but positively self-righteous hypocrisy! A sort of hypocrisy squared.

I find Obama appealing, but his policies, more than McCain's, lead to expansion of State power. For example, his plan to create universal State preschool, even though attendance will supposedly always be voluntary, is to me a problem. In public schooling more generally, Obama is luke warm or outright negative on school choice, and favors greater restrictions on school choice than does McCain. With regard to health care, McCain favors a decentralized route to getting people covered, by giving a significant tax credit to each family and thus creating a large private insurance market that will drive prices down as companies compete for millions of new customers. Obama's health plan will certainly be more Statist than McCain's. I'm not someone who believes that markets can handle every problem, but I do think they should be favored, where possible, over Statist solutions.

I disagree with, but respect those who think the main problem in modern life is not the State, but excessive economic inequality. What I can't stomach are those who pretend to understand complexity better than their opponents, but are not sufficiently aware of complexity to acknowledge that there are good arguments on both sides of this issue, that intelligent people can disagree about these things, that Social Democrats and Conservatives can both be moral and intelligent.

davelnaf| 10.29.08 @ 11:05PM

Obama the ideologue will provoke a constitutional crisis at some point in his administration. The Democrats will pay a very high price two and four years from now for their blind enthusiasm for this obvious radical, unless, that is, the voters do us all a great favor and repudiate him six days from now.

Agent| 10.29.08 @ 11:14PM

Tom Paine - you mentioned the point that "Conservatives" always gloss over in their mantra "I earned it - I get to Keep IT" when you said:

"That's fine, but it also means that the people who cost more to keep happy should pay higher rates."

The thing these capitalist Idolaters (I call them that as they always seem to elevate a system of describing human behavior to the status of a Holy Tome - as if it came down the mountain with Moses as an appendix to the Ten Commandments) conveniently forget is that even their High Priest - Adam Smith - believed that the holders of the majority of wealth should pay more for the upkeep and maintenance of society - because they had more at stake.

Not quite "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" but certainly far to the left of the "I earned it, I get to keep it" crowd.

And all of the posts with their sub silentio references to subversive activities (rights of the people to throw down tyrants - whom they infer will be President Obama) might want to consider how the current President has changed the world with his "modifications" to the Constitution. Pray President Obama doesn't take advantage of the Imperial Presidency that W has created or you too may be wondering what ever happened to Habeas Corpus.

From a prison cell we'll never know about.

maryanne| 10.30.08 @ 4:47AM

For a vid about Obama's association not just with marxists, but Marxist Imagery which really shows where his head is at, check this out on YouTube (runs about 2 minutes and is very visual) (you'll need to cut and paste because I have no idea how to do a hyperlink)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SWdlS9cOHw

Here's a link for a conservative bog specifically aimed at Young Voters:

http://youngvotermedia2008.blogspot.com/

Dolmance| 10.30.08 @ 5:07AM

The Republicans, with their breathtaking sense of entitlement, have come to see anyone who disagrees with their dogma as not being opposed to Republicanism, but opposed to to America and the Constitution. But the American people are about to bring them a heavy dose of reality and ride them out of town on a rail. Because there's nothing American about a bunch of incompetent, greedy, corrupt, bought and paid for political hacks who can't imagine winning an election without resorting to divisive wedge issues that even they don't care about, appeals to bigotry and racism, appeals to religious fanaticism, character assassination and social injustice. And all I can say, and a majority of Americans agree with me is - good riddance!!!

JayHughes| 10.30.08 @ 5:24AM

Mr. Neumayr, I can't believe you wasted an entire column on a nightmare scenario spun off from .... nothing. Obama says he wants not just someone who got good grades and a great corporate law job, but "somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom." That's called judicial temperament, where I come from. And sometimes that's good -- even an ardent conservative justice like Clarence Thomas has recognized in his opinions (presumably based on his own experience as a black male) that sometimes cops will make excuses to do onerous and unconstitutional things to suspects.

But wishing for judges with a little life sense isn't evil and it hardly pre-sages a desire to completely remake the judiciary. And why and how could he craft a judiciary that is going to make these changes? The fact of the matter is that three of the justices most likely to leave the Supreme Court are the "liberal" ones -- John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter, so he'd just replace one moderate justice for another. It's unlikely that he'd get to replace more than one of the conservtives during his first term. But, I guess actually thinking through the sense and logic of your fear-mongering takes the fun out of it.

BJ| 10.30.08 @ 6:20AM

If Senator Obama's, I'm going to start sending Vitamin C to the current conservative justices. Maybe they'll outlast him. :)

Russell Schmieder| 10.30.08 @ 8:22AM

A 'strict' interpretation of the constitution is also an interpretation.

All but the most libertarian of libertarians would agree that some amount of redistribution is necessary in modern society. And what about defense? Most conservatives support public education, for example. And say what you want, vast majorities support social security and medicare.

And the fact is, our constitution does not address these issues at all. Hence the long string of Supreme Court decisions defending invalidating various government programs. What is wrong with Obama pointing that out? It's true.

Sure, you can try to avoid the debate by claiming you favor a 'strict' interpretation of the constitution. But if you do that, I guess you must also favor abolishment of the income tax, the runner-up presidential candidate becoming vice president, and counting black people as 2/3 of whites.

Combine this with the scare scenario described here, and you see it's just a tactic. It's just one more person who doesn't agree with Obama and wants him to lose.

Fine, but at least you could be honest about what you think.

Russell Schmieder| 10.30.08 @ 8:42AM

Tom Paine wrote "Conservatives believe in personal responsibility and that at some point, it becomes immoral for the government to take any more of our hard-earned money. Liberals believe "from each according to his ability to each according to his need."

Actually, the latter is what communists believe. I am liberal and I believe in the first.

Anyway, if we want a government at all we have to finance it. It's perfectly fair to discuss how much those taxes should be, and who should pay, no? Don't we kind of have to?

And the reason we have a progressive income tax is not because it is fair. I think it is, but I know people who want to pay less often favor a flat tax. Fine.

But the real reason we have progressive tax scheme is that it is the system that had the highest likelihood of beeing accepted by interested parties. All this talk of fairness is stupid. It's a footnote and never gets resolved.

Tom Paine| 10.30.08 @ 9:43AM

Russell Schmieder,

You quoted me inaccurately, but I suppose you got something like the sense right.

Look, a poster above is correct.

ADAM SMITH approved of progressive taxation. Smith, whose views today's morally nihilistic and anti-intellectual freemarketers probably don't even know, was a civic minded man and would have been appalled by the idea that taxation was immoral or some kind of theft.

That's just not the way he thought about things.

Just so you know, you people who hurl the sobriquet "marxist" or "communist" ever time someone proposes balancing the budget or building a bridge just sound like John Bircher wackos.

Get a grip. Also -- if you look at 20th century history, the real warriors against communism were Democrats.

In fact, the real warriors in general have been Democrats.

Name me one war a Republican president led us to victory in. And don't say "the Civil War." I know that one.

megapotamus| 10.30.08 @ 3:49PM

Iraq.

ruth| 10.31.08 @ 2:06AM

The Cold War, you know--the USSR, the evil empire? Reagan? Does his name ring a bell? Duh!

Jim Gentry| 10.31.08 @ 4:12PM

The free market produces goods and services at a vastly superior rate than any degree of central planning. History clearly demonstrates this. It also distributes these things better by penalizing hoarding through natural supply and demand pricing fluctuations during emergencies. It can also let a few well intentioned fall "through the cracks" even though they may have been attempting to be producers, in fair exchange, of goods and services for their fellow man themselves. Liberal generally fail to acknowledge the shortcomings of the very substantial percentage of society who neither wish to produce goods or services for their fellows in exchange for their own needs, or to refrain from any opportunity for unfair advantage over their fellows. They wouldn't act this way if they were not forced to be poor by the rich! This is seen in the fallacious assertion that crime is caused by poverty. Crime is caused by sociopathy, greed, and laziness. History, and the world itself, is resplendent with examples of widespread poverty absent the crime rates seen today. Socialist redistribution always leads to increased dependence, reduced production, and a period of authoritarian self promotion and clinging to power by the vast administrative personnel engaged in the redistributive effort who themselves provide no real goods or services for the general good. They are inevitably very self-righteous about their employment however, and they are liable to glare at you if you complain while standing in the inevitable line to beg for their services. Meanwhile the equally inevitable law of supply and demand will create an underground market for the goods and services that have deteriorated into unavailability or poor quality by the machinations of central planning. It has ever been thus every time redistribution is tried. The brightest who are the least altruistic become commissioners (commissars) instead of CEO's and become protectors of their own authoritarian domain instead of at least making a product in exchange for their power and riches, like a CEO, who must operate within the law rather than being the law. In every instance, socialist experiment has failed to live up to its utopian promise, but rather, deteriorates until it must be abandoned or overthrown. It will ever be thus, even as the advocates thereof congratulate themselves on their own moral superiority, imagining that morals are a matter of positions on socialist public policy rather than personal behavior. In Fact, Jesus was right when he said "The poor will always be with you." An egalitarian result is beyond the capacity of human ability given the human character condition.
It's like a sign wave folks. Up and down. Never completely successful and always in a slow flux between violent outbreaks. Although, of you have a totalitarian absolute power, like Cuba, you may be able to equally distribute abject poverty outside the totalitarian authorities.
Cheers.

ljc| 11.2.08 @ 7:03AM

My education is not Great, but I recommend a reading of the Avalon translation of the Declaration of the Rights of Man(composed by Tom Paine): "All rights are derived from the Nation," which I assume means the Government. And then it lists the things the Nation can do to the citizens--which is just about anything the Nation wants to do. So much for rights endowed by the Creator. Please someone, ask President Obama who was at Harvard Law what his views on the Declaration of the Rights of Man are. It might be surprising.

Stephen Mason| 11.17.08 @ 11:29PM

Obama has made the point that the rights enshrined in the constitution are really negative rights. After our 200+ year history perhaps it is time to turn the constitution into a "living" document that enshrines new positive rights. I do not know if Obama is so bold as to suggest a new constitutional convention, but this possibility was certainly allowed for by the framers. Not being one to say that just because something has never been done before means that it cannot be done, I say more power to our president if he can generate enough public consensus in order to readdress the outmoded aspects of the constitution. What those aspects are may be very subjective - hence the difficulty in finding consensus.

I do think the lame duck we now have in office finds himself so unpopular in part because of his practical disdain for the constitution. He has expanded the power of the presidency beyond what is legal constitutionally through his shameless use of signing statements and the suspension of habeas corpus for not just foreign nationals but also citizens of the US to name just two of his abuses.

Apart from all the paranoid hype about how "damaging" an Obama presidency might be, I do not think we can do much worse than the national nightmare of the past eight years. Obama has never given any indication in his career before now that he would be willing to go outside the law in order to govern. He is a lawyer. To my mind, someone who has made a study of the constitution is much better poised to defend it, as well as work to change it WITHIN THE LAW. The excesses of George W. Bush, on the other hand, at best show a shocking ignorance of the document, and at worst a deliberate machiavellian undermining of the foundation of our government.

GARY S. GUINAN| 4.8.09 @ 8:31AM

BARAK OBAMA THEW OUT THE CONSTITION OF THE UNITED STATES SO WE COULD COME SOCIALISTS. I AM ANOT A SOCIALIST