The American Spectator : The Prosecution of Nancy Pelosi

Print Email

Text Size

Another Perspective

The Prosecution of Nancy Pelosi

By Jeffrey Lord on 9.14.10 @ 6:08AM

Ruling Class author urges Bill of Attainder against Speaker over health care: the Constitution.

It’s time.

Past time.

Should House Speaker Nancy Pelosi be prosecuted on a Bill of Attainder? Should the House of Representatives consider legislation that begins by saying it is:

“A Bill of Attainder to deprive Nancy Pelosi and other persons of liberty and property without further process of law for having violated the following ex-post facto law barring the setting of mandates on American citizens requiring them to buy health insurance. This case shall be exempt from all judicial review as previously provided by Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States.”

Say what?

You mean such a thing is flatly forbidden by the Constitution? That Bills of Attainder and prosecution of citizens for ex post facto laws (statutes criminalizing an action retroactively) are prohibited by the Constitution? Really?

Well, as Speaker Pelosi said in response to a question that challenged the constitutional authority of Congress to mandate Americans to buy health insurance:

“Are you kidding? Are you kidding?”

As they say in astronaut lingo: Houston, we have a problem.

And that problem, plainly put, is the willingness of our friends on the left to simply ignore the founding document of this country: the Constitution of the United States.

So, what to do with this noodge of a difficulty? A problem that has actually been gaining speed and force for decades, only most recently illustrated by Speaker Pelosi’s “are you kidding” disdain in response to a question about constitutional authority to mandate health care.

In 21097&sr=1-1”> The Ruling Class: How They Corrupted America and What We Can Do About It, Angelo Codevilla provides an excellent idea. Turn the tables on those who have shown a repeated determination to ignore the Constitution. (He includes President Obama in his formulation, but for the sake of constitutional simplicity, we’ll stick with Speaker Pelosi here.) If in fact the Pelosi and Reid Democrats are relieved of their control of the House or Senate or both this fall, come January it is time to begin re-focusing Americans on just why it is America has a Constitution in the first place. Why we have it, what it says — and the fateful consequences of ignoring it.

One of the best methods to teach on this issue, although surely not the only method, is to take Pelosi’s disdain for the Constitution and use Pelosi herself to illustrate just how important the Constitution is and why we need to return to a serious understanding of it. And — horrors! — abide by it.

What would happen if such a piece of legislation calling for the prosecution of Pelosi were introduced in, say, a newly Republican-run House of Representatives come January? Why, according to time honored tradition, the bill would be assigned to committee, of course — in this case doubtless the House Judiciary Committee. Upon arriving, the new Republican Judiciary Committee Chairman — presumably today’s Ranking Member, Lamar Smith of Texas — would assign it to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties and its new chairman, presumably James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin. Why there? Because this is the proper subcommittee that, the House informs us: “shall have jurisdiction over the following subject matters: constitutional amendments, constitutional rights, federal civil rights, ethics in government, other appropriate matters as referred by the chairman, and relevant oversight.”

OK, then. We’re in the right place. Now the fun begins.

Page: 1 2 3 > Last ›

About the Author

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (148) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Shamus| 9.14.10 @ 6:33AM

I can't see any value in holding a kangaroo court, even for a person like Nancy Pelosi. There are many serious matters that must be addressed in the next Congress.

Appleby| 9.14.10 @ 6:59AM

Ditto. Just give her the Bums Rush out the door, repeal the blasted bloodsucking monster and start teaching the Constitution in school again. Kids used to memorize the entire Baltimore Catechism, and my grandson at the age of 8 could recognize and recall over 600 Pokemon characters, although he could barely read (until he met up with Harry Potter and decided he actually wanted to read). Kids who can do that can memorize the Bill of Rights in Grade 3 and the Declaration of Independence in Grade 5, and maybe instead of spending their entire lunch hours discussing who had sex with whom in the Big Brother House last night, they could discuss the surprising parallels between our gripes against King George and those we have against King Zero.

Instead of prosecuting the bums, let us just turn them out to live under the laws they have created. Thats a far worse punishment for them. And meanwhile lets go back to basics and repair the damage at the ground level.

Michael Smith| 9.14.10 @ 7:15AM

The perfect lance for the huge boil on the nation's posterior caused by the persistent ignoring of the Constitution over the past 40 (50, 100?) years. Bring it on! I can already hear the squeals of outrage from the ruling class.

John Navratil| 9.14.10 @ 9:22AM

Mr. Smith,

A nice dream which we know, unfortunately, will never happen. The Republican Party always brings a knife to a gun fight.

The good knows appears to be that a lot of people never did forget what the Constitution says. Will you have one lump, or two?

Redstateboy| 9.14.10 @ 8:23AM

Your lack of reading comprehension is pathetic.
You are obviously a sad product of the Liber-ul infested American Educational System. I suggest you read the piece once again - this time very carefully.

Grzmlyk| 9.14.10 @ 8:35AM

Besides, as Jeffrey Lord pointed out yesterday, Nancy is such a classy lady.

See, I thought that when Nancy said, "Are you kidding? Are you kidding?" that was simply another classless statement emanating from a classless hack.

But apparently, I was proven wrong: The lady oozes class, and all of her rantings and wild-eyed accusation against conservatives - not to mention her Bolshevik mind set and 100 percent hypocritical lifestyle (remember the fleet of jets she "requires" to tote her and her entourage around the country?) - are simply Ruling Class elegance and refinement.

I know that if, I have a daughter, I will teach her to emulate the Baroness Pelosi.

And if I have a son, of course, the paragon of class shall be none other than that epitome of grace, Barack Hussein Obama.

I'm wondering if there is a single conservative pundit out there - besides Rush Limbaugh - who won't, at some point, genuflect before the liberal world view.

Eric Cartman| 9.14.10 @ 9:12AM

She oozes something, alright.

Grzmlyk| 9.14.10 @ 9:37AM

Normally I try not to bitch about Amspec's stable of regulars. But when he said that, and it was so close to those other two articles (by George Neumayr and Andrew Cline) about the Koran Burning being ever-so impolite because it might - faux pas forbid - upset those who want to slit our throats and the fecless "moderate Muslims" who are irrelvant to this jihad, I wonder what the hell is going on.

There's some reflexive need in conservatives to ingratiate ourselves with the enemy.

Margie| 9.14.10 @ 11:01AM

Muslim sympathizers on both sides will be the death of us. I will never partake!

sandyinohio| 9.14.10 @ 11:33AM

I disagree; the congress is mired in law-making when NO MORE are needed, and many need to be reviewed and repealed, like ObamaCare. This would be a wonderful way for the congress, hopefully with A LOT of new members, to proceed

Silver Streak| 9.14.10 @ 12:06PM

My concern with going after the left wingers that so smugly disregard the Constitution is that if they ever get into power again, they will do the same.

The difference is they won't follow the rules of evidence; instead, making up evidence and prosecuting Republicans just to eliminate them.

The left can't be trusted, as we have all seen close up now, so why would we trust them to be fair in any court-like proceedings?

Just vote them out and keep them out for many decades. Then, add an amendment to the Constitution - term limits for all elected representatives and limits for all appointed positions, such as judges. Our government needs fresh thinkers, not career bureaucrats.

borninsocal| 9.14.10 @ 4:35PM

That is the same excuse used by Republicans in not using the "nuclear" option previously. Look what happened to that. Your reasoning is what's called the "Wuss Option" or more commonly called "RHINO Speak". Grow a spine

Ronbert| 9.14.10 @ 5:11PM

AMEN

Adam| 9.14.10 @ 6:00PM

I think it would be great because they would be too busy to spend any Money

Kelly Staples| 9.14.10 @ 6:37AM

Our "friends" on the left? Not hardly.

jo blo| 9.16.10 @ 11:48AM

Thank you. I was thinking as I read this, 'We have no friends on the Left', where the Left means the Democrat Party elites.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.14.10 @ 6:53AM

Mr. Lord

Thank you. I enjoy a little instructive fiction from time to time.
I also enjoy humor. (smile)

Allen Churchill| 9.14.10 @ 7:09AM

Slounds like a fast track to lose the trust of the American people. I would rather Congress investigate where the stimulus, tarp funds went and the Holder justice department's voteing rights section. Above all the new majority must deliver fiscally or they will be gone.

Jeremiah| 9.14.10 @ 7:15AM

I like it. Seriously. When a man puts a gun to your head and tells you to do something you cannot stop him with reason. He has dismissed reason and replaced it with the rule of raw power. You're a fool to think you are going to prove you are better than him if you have a means of turning the tables on him and don't use it. That only encourages the use of raw power rather than the rule of law. The only way to stop him is to turn the tables and put a gun to his head. You don't have to shoot, but after the power-monger is disarmed, you can choose to return to the rule of law.

If the left doesn't like the Constitution they are perfectly free to advocate for changing it - by Constitutional means. Yes, that is long and hard. But the left's ignoring of it or just overturning it by judicial fiat and deconstruction is the equivalent of a gun pointed at the head of our entire system of laws. If they pay no penalty except for the occasional loss of power - and loss only to people who will neither overturn nor punish them for their usurpation of of authority beyond what is allowed, it rewards them for their behavior and guarantees that we can occasionally temporarily check their advance, but never advance back to Constitutional government that insures liberty for individuals and restraint on the part of authorities.

The left has been like al-quaeda, waging war on the Constitution for some time while the right has behaved like the feeble left, mouthing feeble pieties while doing little to defend the principal of Constitutionalism - which is the principle of the rule of law.

We have not provoked a Constitutional Crisis - but we have not defended the Constitution against the assaults the left has been making on it for decades. Their assault and our inaction IS a Constitutional Crisis. It is past time to demonstrate to them that when they ignore the Constitution and resort to the misuse of raw power they subject themselves as well as us to the caprices of shifting majorities.

Perhaps the better method is to prosecute those (including judges) who have trampled the Constitution in raw power plays to enact ideological, but unconstitutional agendas. That is not to provoke a Constitutional Crisis, but to acknowledge the crisis that has long been upon us and finally defend the Constitution and the rule of law - and demonstrate forcefully that assaults on that rule during transient periods of majority will not go unpunished.

The left could enact their agenda honestly - by persuading the nation to pass Constitutional amendments that would make their agenda lawful. But if we do not get serious about defending the Constitution, we will ultimately find ourselves in the terror that the rule of raw power brings.

Deborah D | 9.14.10 @ 8:02AM

Jeremiah--Thank you. I was just writing yesterday about George Soros and his spreading his wealth around to undermine our judiciary ($45 million -- see Michelle Malkin) along with his contributions ($100 million) to Human Rights Watch, which is going after AZ and its immigration law (is it now illegal to protect the American people from invaders?). When does it become treasonous? And if not treasonous, then what is it when someone like him promotes undermining our governance? When can you strip someone of their citizenship? I, too, related his efforts to that of terrorists. If we do not defend the Constitution of the United States right here, right now, then we are sunk. Republicans, wake the hell up.

Grzmlyk| 9.14.10 @ 10:47AM

Deborah, any government employee will tell you that the Constitution is utterly irrelevant to modern governance; it's only a matter of time before the Constitution itself is declared unconstitutional - liberal pretzel logic carried to its ultimate conclusion.

And we have long since had a "gentleperson's" agreement in this country to allow prosecution for treason to go the way of prosecution for sodomy.

Otherwise, Jane Fonda would be doing aerobics in an 8x12 cell to this day, or perhaps long ago sent to that great rice paddy in the sky.

The 1960s: The gift that keeps on giving.

Deborah D | 9.14.10 @ 10:56AM

Yeah, Grzmlyk, it has been going on a very long time. Too many palms getting greased to look the other way. Too many feathers to ruffle, so just ignore it and it will go away. Well, it's getting too late in the day to continue that thinking. That's why we need Americans who believe in the Constitution, and will fight for it, to be in positions where they can do something. I hope to God we're not too far gone to save ourselves.

Grzmlyk| 9.14.10 @ 11:40AM

Well, Deborah, I agree - Just to pick one example, I think Clinton and Gore are guilty of treason for selling China our military secrets in exchange for campaign contributions. Talk about trashing the nationa's future for immediate, selfish gain!

But I think it's even more insidious than that - I believe that our culture has turned so thoroughly inside-out (remember Nancy Pelosi's famous utterance, back when Bush was president, that dissent is the highest form of patriotism?) that there is no such thing as treason anymore.

Well, of course, some Republican or Tea Partier will eventually be brought up on trumped up charges; that's a sure bet. But real treason? It's gone the way of the dinosaurs.

Hell, I believe that every single American who voted for Obama is guilty of treason, along with his entire third-world, nihilistic, homicidal thugocratic administration.

What Obama's election shows is that we have come to the endgame here. We have become so decadent, so corrupt, so saturated in narcissistic self-gratification, so divorced from the values that built a civilization out of the hardscrabble of subsistence, that we have arrived at the conclusion that it's ok to plunder this country as long as WE get OUR "fair share." The hell with everybody else, the hell with the future.

Once you so thoroughly institutionalize the complete inversion of values as we have, I do think we're too far gone; the palace gates have been breached and the mob has overrun it. All that this country once held precious is now being ransacked with still-increasing abandon; the depradations have not even reached their crescendo yet.

Just as the sacking of Rome was the beginning of the end, so the sacking of our values and institutions foretells our own future.

The planes of liberalism have already compromised our infrastructue, and just as the laws of physics doomed the towers to collapse, so the laws of economics, sociology and logic have doomed America to collapse.

As a civilization, we have blown it.

Deborah D | 9.14.10 @ 1:00PM

I have got to believe that we're not that far gone yet. That might very well be wishful thinking, but I'm praying for a miracle. I have to believe that something will happen, someone will appear, somewhere something will click with the country before it's too late. The Founders went up against a powerful, entrenched enemy, and they also had to wake up their fellow Americans. They had to fight a revolution. We're in the midst of one, and many are sleeping through it while we attempt to awaken them on this site. I hope we don't have to collapse to wake everyone up. I look at Venezuela today. What Chavez has done to that country in a few short years -- that will be us soon if Americans don't grab the A-holes in D.C. and shake the hell out of them.

Grzmlyk| 9.14.10 @ 2:26PM

Well, Deborah, I hope you are right. I sincerely do.

But in my opinion, it's not that we're close to collapse and can still prevent it - it's that we've already destroyed the US dollar. Fini. There's no coming back from that; it's just a matter of time before its collapse, and that's what will precipate everything else.

We could elect 100 Tea Party candidates to the senate and it would still be too late - you can't unring that bell. The debt already exists. And we've already begun to debase our currency. The minute the other countries of the world realize that we can never repay our debts except through monetizing the debt - which we've already begun to do - they will flee the dollar and it won't be the world's reserve currency anymore. Once that happens, we won't be able to sell bonds to float our debt, and that means our only option will be printing money - just as Weimar Germany did in order to pay restitution after World War 1.

Look at the price of gold today - that is the best barometer of the collapse of America.

The cultural stuff only means that we will continue to fiddle while Rome burns; we will continue to spend, spend, spend even though it's a foregone conclusion what will happen. It's like Wile E. Coyote chasing the roadrunner - he runs past the edge of the cliff, but he just keeps running in mid-air - until he looks down. And then he falls.

Obama is deliberately collapsing the economy, but he miscalculates the government's ability to pick up the pieces afterward, because the dollar will be worthless. Those employed by Uncle Sam will be as broke as we are when the dollar has no value anymore. Even a liberal can't get money out of an empty vault.

I don't think we're in the middle of a revolution. I think that if the GOP wins in 2010 they will perhaps freeze some spending and do a few things at the margins. But even if we could prevent the dollar's collapse, we'd have to make draconian cuts to entitlements and other discretionary spending, and that's never going to happen. Even Reagan couldn't control spending. Even the Gingrich "contract with America" mostly fell apart before government's ever burgeoning maw.

The leeches sucking the blood out of their host will suck till bursting and they will drain the host until there's no blood left before they detach their lips from the government teat.

So I say this: First the collapse, THEN revolution.

Deborah D | 9.14.10 @ 3:18PM

Eek. I have been stockpiling canned goods for some time. We're looking into buying the lot next door so I'll have space for a garden. So, we're (actually, I'm) planning for the worst and praying for the best. Thanks for your scary outlook. You are a needed reality check for me (and I'm sure for many.) Good luck to you, Grzmlyk, and good luck to us all.

Grzmlyk| 9.14.10 @ 3:56PM

Thanks, Deborah. I do think that it will present us with a chance to rebuild this country - and next time, perhaps we can avoid some of the pitfalls that allowed the crooks to distort the constitution beyond recognition.

Part of our situation, I think, is just human nature and the old second law of thermodynamics - all systems move away from order and toward chaos.

I actually think a collapse will be good for America in the long run because we have to hit the "reset" button, as Hillary Clinton famously - and incorrectly - said in a different context.

It's like filing for bankruptcy - sometimes that's the only way a person or a corporation can survive. Unfortunately, it will be much more painful, but nonetheless necessary if we are ever to get back to an economy, an ethos, and a rule of law that are viable and just.

But good luck to you, too. We will get through it.

rdman| 9.14.10 @ 5:34PM

What happens to the U.S. if the Chinese call in our debt anytime in the near future... what happens to the dollar?

Did you hear what the Chinese representative to the U.N. stated the other day... how much he hated the U.S. and that the U.S. ought to keep its mouth shut concerning world affairs.

How on earth did the super power that was the U.S. become so irresponsible and vulnerable... and weak in less than a decade?

Grzmlyk| 9.14.10 @ 7:09PM

Hi Rdman: I agree totally.

Yes, if China calls in its chits, we're screwed, and that's pretty much a sure bet. They don't want to get paid back in worthless paper. Quite literally, they are going to stop throwing bad money after good.

Also, China has an incipient middle class that will dwarf our own and is poised to consume the products they produce; they won't have to rely on the US market in just a few short years - their own burgeoning consumer market will supply all the demand they need.

Also, we don't make anything anymore; there's no manufacturing base in the US because the government and unions have made it so expensive to produce goods that we've priced ourselves out of the market. We are paralyzed by bureaucracy, regulations, unions, taxes and enviro-whack jobs.

In addition, the government - and many pundits - keep repeating the mantra that we have to spend more to save the economy. Pick up the housing market, buy a new car, buy big-ticket items - all debt-based transactions.

What happened to the idea of saving money? In the old days, institutions lent money based on the assets they had on hand, which meant people like you and me having savings accounts. If a savings and loan didn't have the $$, they couldn't lend the money. The Federal government changed all that, removed the moral hazard from much borrowing by guaranteeing funds and pushed us into being a consumerist society and an unbalanced economy. 70% is consumer spending, and I'm guessing half of that is facilitated by borrowing.

When the music stops, somebody's going to be left without a chair. A lot of somebodies, actually. And the music is about to stop.

I don't mean to depress Deborah any further, but one thing I didn't even mention was the rise of Islam and its growing shadows over this country. This candy-ass fetish we have for "moderate" Muslims is suicidal. Sure, there are Muslims who don't advocate the destruction of the infidel. I feel bad for them, because they're about to get run over by a juggernaut. I'm sure there were Germans who weren't keen on the Nazi party in 1933.

But the moderates will be marginalized or killed off as infidels themselves, and Islam is going to be coming for us.

My only question is, will they do it with overt belligerance, or will they just wait until we hand the country over to them and offer our throats to be slit?

You know, because we want to show how sensitive we are to them.

Grzmlyk| 9.14.10 @ 7:10PM

Oops. I meant, of course, "good money after bad."

having eyes, ye see not| 9.15.10 @ 12:58AM

Re: Obama deliberately collapsing economy and miscalculates govt ability to pick up pieces afterwards.
Obama and the Left want the economy to collapse. The masses are then even more beholden to the govt and those in power for food and money, and in the view of the Left as best of all, the US can not afford the military to defend ourselves and our allies. I do not think there is a miscalculation about it. This country is lead by an Alinsky disciple raised on Marxism and socialism. Obama is doing exactly what he intended to do. One term is sufficient to radically change this country with the sheep in Congress blindly following. Centralized power over manufacturing (GM), political favors to friends, destruction of contracts and of the rule of law, personalized demonization of different views, telling the big lie (opponents never have one new idea). Wake up.

Margie| 9.15.10 @ 1:31AM

Yes but there is still a lot of hope. Real conservatives are winning or haven't you heard? We will never surrender our pride and dignity in America and we will never give up the good fight. We are awake and because of our vigilance we are winning.

"...let him put his mouth in the dust-- there may yet be hope." Lam 3:29.

Rmm| 9.14.10 @ 11:08PM

I have to think that there is a ray of hope left. Enough people who still care and are willing to fight for what is left of our 'democracy' could pull us back from the abyss. But the election of Obama, a pure political hack, is frightening in and of itself. Our government now resorts to strong-arm tactics to ram agendas down our throats.
I believe there is great unrest amongst our people and the Fall elections will address this.

RAMIII| 9.14.10 @ 10:58AM

Thank you for your excellent metaphor Jeremiah. Those who lust for raw power can only be subdued by it. Then they will prove themselves to be the cowards they have been all along!

Fredrick Ward| 9.14.10 @ 10:19PM

"If they pay no penalty except for the occasional loss of power - and loss only to people who will neither overturn nor punish them for their usurpation of of authority beyond what is allowed, it rewards them for their behavior and guarantees that we can occasionally temporarily check their advance, but never advance back to Constitutional government that insures liberty for individuals and restraint on the part of authorities."

In response to this I would quote Thomas Jefferson.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Basically, what this means is if we cannot come back to our roots, reattain our liberties, and freedoms by peaceful process then there is yet another method that our forefathers supported and practiced that may be used; a method they advocated as necessary from time to time. When our country's politicians blatantly ignore We the People as they have recently it is coming close to a time for a revolution to retake this country.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 9.14.10 @ 7:29AM

There's only so much political capital left to spend inside the beltway.

A congressional perp walk would do nothing to help the economy and in some ways could cause further confusion and fear amongst the business class.

The best thing for any one to do after this election is go get to work on the economy 100%.

They should announce an immediate freeze on all federal salaries. The second thing to do is cut each federal agency 1% a year for the next ten years.

They should pass an immediate FICA holiday for one year putting billions back into the economy.

Some federal agencies who produce and do little should be eliminated. The Department of Energy would be a good start. Other incompetent agencies like the S.E.C. should have a house cleaning. There should have been mass firings after Bernie Madoff. Then we find out they are watching porn over there with few repercussions.

In the meantime they should move fast on illegal immigration and eliminate the deportation courts. If you're here illegally and someone hires you make that a felony. They won't be here for long after that.

If the ruling party doesn't have the guts to make some significant changes they won't be around long, whether they are Republicans or Democrats.

JFGalt| 9.14.10 @ 8:14AM

Great ideas except that the people in place are the same ones that need to do the housecleaning. The inmates are in charge of the jail. The fed govt could probably be reduced by 80% and still function but then we would have an even more massive unemployment problem - this goes hand in hand with bringing all our troops home and pruning down the military to proper size. What do we do with all those people not to mention all the industries that support it all? Picture the Hydra - a multi-headed monster that snaps away at you as you try to cut off each head. That was the intent of what they built. The change will be painful if not done properly and that is the way that it would be done - with pain and retribution as the elites will not let go easily.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 9.14.10 @ 8:53AM

Good comment. Except for the fact that only 2 million work for the federal government. If they cut it in half it would add margainally to unemployment while freeing up massive capital to seek more efficient ends.

But you're right, it's a multi-headed monster which will be hard to cut down to size.

The real size of the feds come from contractors who exist behind the scenes. Count their numbers in the millions also.

There's much to do but a soft landing should be achievable.

D. Singh| 9.14.10 @ 7:39AM

Sir

Mr Lord has brightened was proving to be a dull and dreary morning. He has a talent for communicating with university graduates.

He displays immense knowledge of the purposes of the Constitution and current affairs combined with a wit that brings alive what could be a dull subject: politics.

His intellect remains razor sharp.

Thank you.

JP| 9.14.10 @ 7:41AM

Yes, it would be a nice example that illustrates why we have laws. But, I think there are real cases where Congress can excercise its right to defend its own mandated perogatives and obligations. Specifically, the next time the courts overtstep thier bounds. Congress should come down hard with both feet. The next time we have a Boudemaire Case, and SCOTUS ignores the Senate's jurisdictional prohibitions, those justices who formed the majority should be given supeonas to the Senate and read the riot act. If they fail to comply impeach them. Ditto for the next time the courts over step thier bounds concerning the regulatory state (as in giving the EPA the authority to make its own rules), the Senate should at the very least threaten impeachment, threaten to remove large areas of the law off limits to judicial review (the Constitution gives Congress this right), or at the very least redraw the districts (ie carve out 2 or 3 distrcits where the 9th currently resides).

John McGinnis| 9.14.10 @ 7:56AM

"And then, one last vote. In which the bill should be defeated on the floor of the House -- unanimously. With every member voting and all of America watching. ..."

Mr. Lord, by that single sentence you abandon the very first precept of the Constitution. We do not have a Parliamentary system in this country in which the Legislature can merely pass what they wish. I know that is your aim, but you fall into the trap yourself in suggesting the framework you suggest.

Besides, if you wish to have teachable moment let us cast all aside. Nothing in the Constitution says that what you suggest has to go to subcommittee. That is a mechanism borne of Art 1, Sec 5. But if one desires the teachable moment then such a proceeding should be borne fully on the floor of the House till concluded. But the realities are there are not 2/3rds of the House to conclude it and we both know it. So don't waste the taxpayers time doing so.

The teachable moment would be a full floor debate on the Congressional understanding of the limits of the Commerce Clause. As it is currently read by the House it gives the members the Carte Blanche to legislate as they wish. Having narrowed the understanding back to its original reading by the Founders the House submits to a vote the wholesale repeal of any Act, Passage or Law contrary to this new understanding. That members who breach such bounds shall be impeached. The balance of the legislative agenda for the 112th Congress would then be set aside for the review and dismantling of every law previously enacted.

That is both instructive AND utilizes the taxpayers money in a proceeding that We the People... desire.

Doctor Right| 9.14.10 @ 8:01AM

Keep dreaming, Mr. Lord...

Even if the Republicans controlled the House and the Senate with a Veto-proof majority, AND held the White House, those gutless pansies wouldn't have the balls to do it.

These jerk-offs are too busy smearing Conservatives and Tea Party backed-candidates to EVER seriously focus on the REAL enemy.

Seriously, Mr. Lord...What have you been smoking? And where have you been the past 15 years??

JFGalt| 9.14.10 @ 8:07AM

Sadly this is true. But a brighter future has to start with a dream much like this country.

JFGalt| 9.14.10 @ 8:05AM

Some of you don't get it - this country will not get back to its roots without a shock to its system. The progressives in the ruling class must be discredited for what they really are. Businesses may stumble in the very short run but will reawaken in an era of freedom to do business without having to do it some bureaucratic administrator's way. Let freedom ring for those that deserve it and let prison ring for those that have been trying to destroy it for their own gain.

Redstateboy| 9.14.10 @ 8:29AM

It's either a peaceful Revolution or a violent Civil War that we're facing. Many think it's a game but we're faced with losing the last best hope of Mankind here. It's way past time to begin the systematic dismantling of this monstrosity of a Federal Government. EPA? HUD? HEW? to name a few.... GONE! or we'll be gone.

Grzmlyk| 9.14.10 @ 10:53AM

Well, Redstateboy, before revolution or civil war, I believe there is a total economic collapse that is imminent.

Once upon a time, we took the World Trade Center towers for granted as a perpetual symbol of America's sturdy undergirding.

We watched in utter disbelief as they came down in just seconds.

So too the American economy. It is, alas, inevitable.

Fredrick Ward| 9.14.10 @ 10:44PM

Grzmlyk,

No one wants to face that fact, though. However, I agree with you. The downfall of this economy is a horror not many in this country can understand completely.

TR| 9.14.10 @ 1:34PM

I believe it will only take one more act against our Republic - one more 9/11 or Ft. Hood to cause the rise up and violent backlash by true patriots. I can see revolution from my porch. I see and read the sentiment every day by people who just a few years ago would totally discredit such action. When you hear, see and read comments from previously uninvolved people, you have to wonder how many silent people are thinking and planning, but just don;t want to publicize it.
We are truly on the brink, and we are where we are because of the 1960s communists that have become our current leadership in DC. ObaMao was trained by these types, and he is a dedicated follower. He is an empty suit, unqualified and is president solely because of his skin color. He is an affirmative action president, and the best example of why race-based preference is deadly to our Republic.
The "progressives" that post here on a regular basis (vtwin, canukistani, etc) had better make sure they have a bunker to hide in, because the patriots are going to seek out everyone that know that have contributed to this destruction of our nation, and ensure they assume room
temperature. We have taken it for too long. No more. Either honor and respect the Contitution and its limitations, or pay the ultimate consequences.

Hubert Horatio Hornblower| 9.14.10 @ 9:34PM

Mr. Lord is proposing a shock to the system! And yes, most of us agree with you that is what it will take! Anything else will just embolden the left for its next assault on our freedoms!

Mimi| 9.14.10 @ 8:06AM

Y ou wrote a good " WHAT IF " story...It would make a great "movie"...Do you have an agent Jeffery? We get the best education on the CONSTITUTION every night at 6pm on WABC from the GREAT teacher Mark Levin. Millions of Americans today are re-visiting the LAW of the land. The restoring of America began early in the spring in 2009.... some of the POWERS that be are late-comers....but they will get the message loud and clear on NOVEMBER 2nd.

Mimi| 9.14.10 @ 8:14AM

To add: Concerning the greatest wasteful spender in History....Ms. Pelosi does NOT deserve all that much attention. The harm she has done this nation is NO joke!!!

P.Smith| 9.14.10 @ 8:25AM

This will never happen; even those within congress who claim to believe in the founding principles of our Constitution will wither away when it comes down prosecuting someone who violated their oath. These are the same people who have voted to subsidize Americans in just about every way possible and nearly all (probably all) are guilty of these clear violation of the Constitution. If they prosecute Pelosi on this, then they would also need to cast the next vote against themselves. And then the next question is: How many other American citizens readily receive the bounty from the federal government, which is taken from others under the force of law?

John 8:7 - So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

JimH| 9.14.10 @ 8:29AM

If you want to bring back old methods of trying someone, how about trial by ordeal? We could throw Nancy into the Potomac. If she floats the water will have rejected her and we now she is a witch. If she sinks, the water will have accepted her and she is not a witch. Drowned maybe, but not a witch.

Jeremiah| 9.14.10 @ 9:54AM

She'll float.

JLKrueger| 9.14.10 @ 3:23PM

Ah, but if she floats and is therefore a witch, we can burn her at the stake! Gotta love that old medieval legal logic. :-)

Jeremiah| 9.14.10 @ 3:40PM

Hope springs eternal...

MOS was 71331| 9.14.10 @ 1:56PM

There were two great lines in the 50s musical Brigadoon which I'll repeat here. One has Van Johnson responding to a local's question on whether there are witches where he, Van Johnson's character, comes from. VJ's reply, "Yes, but we pronounce it differently." (I think he meant with a B rather than a W.) [This reference is to Nancy.]

My favorite line from Brigadoon was spoken by a character in a New York City bar standing near Van Johnson and Gene Kelly: "I will lie, cheat, and steal for my company, but I will NOT compromise my integrity."

Jimh| 9.14.10 @ 8:30AM

Sorry, fat fingers. Know she is a witch.

crazedfabricator| 9.14.10 @ 8:53AM

Millions of We The People don't need a lesson in what is right and what is wrong for us, it is the whole damn federal government that does. Don't waste our time on more politics for the sake of soothing politicians sensibility's and grandstanding. We are going to do essentially the same thing by voting these crooks bums and elitists out. While a grand idea in principle if I may compliment Mr. Lord, the fact remains it is something that still advocates more power and elitism, because it avoids the main premis of the problem, the people are left out in the cold and another ruling class takes over. NO! This country belongs to WE THE PEOPLE, We are the Sovereign, and it is up to WE what goes down.

Morales| 9.14.10 @ 9:27AM

I studied under "the big daddy of the New Left" He said that the key moment was when FDR decided to pack the Supreme Court rather than ammend the Constitution. Nevertheless we who believe in constitutionalism must live by our principles.

Siegfried X| 9.14.10 @ 9:37AM

There won't be time for a trial anyway. The Democrats are going to pick another leader after they lose the majority.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.14.10 @ 9:38AM

Conversationalists,

Above are some of the most brilliant comments I have ever read here at TAS. I have pasted several of them to my docs. file.

Mr. Lord,

Thank you sincerely for provoking this caliber of thought.
Hopefully upon re-reading your column, some of us will see the not so obvious irony in some of your statements.
I must confess, I did catch on...and laugh to keep from crying...which is after all, the core of comedy.
Good show!

Thom| 9.14.10 @ 12:54PM

Ken, irony or comedy won't solve real problems here. The moment the Democrat news organizations point out that ex-post facto laws are unconstitutional you lose 80% of your audience or the bulk of the Democrats. After that it is just another blowhard Congressional event that no one that works a job will ever see any portion of that does not sell an agenda for the Democrats. If Richard Nixon can walk away from serious criminal charges and Bill Clinton not even be punished after being convicted of what amounts to lying under oath (multiple times) the idea that anyone of the ruling class can be held to any standard of accountability is beyond irony and comedy routines today. Somebody’s ox is going to get slaughtered down the road. The only question left is who’s.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 9.14.10 @ 9:41AM

Here's a funny political ad from John Dennis, featuring the cast from the Wizard of Oz and Nancy Pelosi:

http://rightnetwork.com/posts/1001642025

moron| 9.14.10 @ 9:45AM

Tom DeLay is being persecuted and was run out of office for laws placed on the books after the alleged breaking of the law. DeLay will win this as well, much easier than the one thrown out recently by the corrupt Holder DOJ. One knows there was zero merit to that one if the DOJ threw it out.

Houston Rao| 9.14.10 @ 9:57AM

As appealing as the thought of retribution is, I don't think such theatrical scapegoating is necessitated. Both parties are guilty of the usurpation of powers beyond those granted in the Cconstitution. The left with their social agendas, the right with their positions on marriage and abortion (both sides can duke it out at the local county or state levels to make their corner of the country their utopian land without imposing on the rights of people elsewhere).

What would be more revealing would be a law that enjoins all government officials, elected or otherwise, to avail only of insurance allowed under Obamacare and Medicare and prohibits them from any private insurance or health care.

VBMax| 9.14.10 @ 10:09AM

As much as I'd love to see Pelosi in an orange jumpsuit..............

George True| 9.14.10 @ 10:26AM

A show trial sounds very satisfying, but seriously, is there any way we can hold Pelosi and others accountable for all of the damage they have caused?

Anthony| 9.14.10 @ 10:30AM

This cutesy fantasy exercise is all well and good, but we need real solutions.
By coincidence, I'm re-reading Barry Goldwater's 1979 memoir, which has whole paragraphs that apply directly to what is happening in Washington today. Apparently with the ruling class, some things never change.
Goldwater decried the get along go along Rs, led by Eisenhower with a majority in both houses, who did not have the guts to gut the New Deal. Instead, like our RINOs of today, they dithered around the edges. Goldwater put it bluntly,"they thought they could do the New Deal better and a bit cheaper". Now where have we head this before? Health Care anyone??
Pelosi and her fellow Leftists are more the symptom of the problem as opposed to the problem itself. Same with our Rs and the RNC, who are lusting for control of congress, not to do the work of the people, but to re-gain the perks of power. The planes and those chairmanships, now that's what real success is!!
Our R rulers tell us that unfortunately, good conservatives must regretably be tossed aside for "electable" RINOs, so we can get that precious majority. Of course, they fail to tell us that what they will do with their majority has nothing in common with what the people want.
No, the only way we get rid of the Pelosi's and the ruling class is to take the power out of Washington. Terms Limits are the only practical way of diluting Washington's power, it's that or burn the town down and start anew.
That said, I'm all in favor of JimH's idea, regardless.

Siegfried X| 9.14.10 @ 2:21PM

Yes. Bob Novak, a few months before passing away last year, said that today's Republicans are like 1957 Republicans, the worst he's ever seen. They have no ideas of their own, and no platform. They compromise with the Democrats and really don't care if they are in the majority or not.

George S| 9.14.10 @ 10:40AM

This is like betting all the chips with a pair of threes. What if Pelosi calls the bluff and ignores the hearings? Now what will the Republicans do? Say they go against all common sense and hold the Speaker in contempt...

...the next step would be an indictment. Would any of us sitting in that grand jury violate our oath to uphold the Constitution and issue a true bill just to make a point? And if we do, then there is the issue of the law enforcement community -- would Holder execute an arrest?

All this would do is give the Democrat minority a new lease on life -- rally the troops while painting Republicans as vengeful. Yes, it would be fun to watch, especially when a large number of voters figure out that this little exercise exposes their social security checks or ethanol related jobs to the same scrutiny.

If this ever happens, the worst thing for Republicans would be a silent Democrat party. Republicans have a gift for making fools of themselves. It will be a two year Christmas for Democrats.

Charm| 9.14.10 @ 10:54AM

Absolutely we should do it. The constitution protects us from these idiots. If we don't they will just continue doing it. The political shoudl be afraid of us, not the other way around. The education it would offer everyone, including our youth, would be more valuable then what we get from academia now.

Pete| 9.14.10 @ 10:55AM

Now that makes sense. If nothing else, it might remind the ruling class that they are REPRESENTATIVES, not rulers.

Don L| 9.14.10 @ 10:55AM

The probelem isn't that the left ignores or violates the constitution, it is more so the fact that our friends on the right have perpetually lacked the cajones to impeach them when they do it.

Think: Emanations from Penumbras ? "Row"
We looked to international law... O'Conner
Thurgood Marshall publically said he ought to right past wrong by making law from the bench.
Saunders (?)Kelo, Kelo, Kelo (private property for profit?)
Bush on open borders. Impeaching him on this would have turned the tide -but he's our guy, right?

The right should have tried to impeach them all -win or loose the battle was never engaged. America might have learned what is in our constitution at least. That is the singular most realistic reason the left is able to defy the constitution.

RAMIII| 9.14.10 @ 11:09AM

Don L, Yes you are right! We have strengthened the hands of the evil doers. It is time to STOP!! We must act to diminish their corrupt hold on power and weaken their ability to trample the Constitution and the rights of average citizens -- which is exactly what they would be if they weren't elected as a "public servant".

Nunya| 9.14.10 @ 11:42AM

Don, you're absolutely correct, and I would support your case 100%. However, our Republican leadership only cares about power, not the rule of law or the Constitution.

It's not that they don't have the "cajones" as you so aptly put, it's that they don't care. They will just as soon ignore the Constitution as the other side, as long as they gain more power, money, etc.

We need STATESMEN in Washington, and all we have are power brokers--people who make King George III look like an amateur.

darcy| 9.14.10 @ 7:34PM

The greed and lust for power blinds the Republican leadership to reality or more likely their power is too sweet to jeopardize by standing on principle (if they ever had any). Either way, the Republican leadership, RINOs, the establishment types who wear the 'R' have proven by their actions that they are merely just another variety of looter from their dem counterparts.

But it is also true that the people, we the people, have been HAPPY to believe the lies of the looters -- for all the goodies we got out of it; HAPPY to deny our Founding based, as they say it is, in 'reactionary' Christian principles; HAPPY to live the 'good' life at the expense of the moral life.

HAPPY to let the crooks and cronies in DC undermine our freedoms and erode our national character as long as the economic engine was strong enough to power the prosperity that has been our true god. HAPPY to feed on bread and circuses among other addictive escapes. HAPPY to prove ourselves the weak, timid, and foolish 'subjects' we've become.

We deserve this mess. If God is merciful He will make us drink the whole awful cup that we may return to Him.

I heartily recommend you read "An Appeal for Prayer Against the Turks," by Martin Luther -- NOT King -- which you can find in Luther's Works VOL. 43, published by Fortress Press and available through Concordia Pub. House.

He who has ears, let him hear.

Thom| 9.14.10 @ 11:28AM

Two problems here. First, 80% of news content is controlled by the people that support bypassing the Constitution at every step (except where it lines their pockets). Two, as demonstrated, those that support ignoring the Constitution at the poles with their votes do so for financial gain. A good miniseries would accomplish the same purpose with probably a wider audience but at the end of the day institutional changes in law has to take place to remove the “self interest” of those that benefit from voting for those that defecate on the Constitution. Said another way, if there aren’t consequences to violating the Constitution there will be no change of course. On any given day there are 10,000 lawyers on each side of a question of constitutionality but only one view can prevail. We’ve got seventy plus years of defecation on the Founding principles here and not seventy more years to fix this. Probably not ten, maybe not 5 years.

Americans don’t need an education on the Constitution. Those US citizens that live and vote here but choose to not to be “Americans” in all that means need to be educated in what it means to institutionalize a class warfare society and the ultimate consequence of using “government” to wage that war for the benefit of one portion of the population. No consequence equals no change of course but that Ice Berg is still out there and it is getting larger by the day…..

J Thomas| 9.14.10 @ 11:32AM

She also violate Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution when she swore under oath that Obama was eligible to server as President being born a Natural Born Citizen as required. Obama according to the U.S. State Department was in fact born with Dual Citizenship which by definition is not Natural Born no and if or but - "BY DEFINITION, NOT ELIGIBLE"

Thom| 9.14.10 @ 11:38AM

According to several Court decisions so far no "US citizen has standing in this matter" thus the Constitution is dead....

The Court system won't even enforce the Constitution....

Nunya| 9.14.10 @ 11:44AM

Thom, you're correct. However, I am baffled by the thought that "no US citizen" has standing. WHAT???

The truth is, judges are appointed by lawmakers and the President. They're not about to bite the hand that feeds them, they're going to protect themselves. Again, it's the "Ruling Class" mentality.

Thom| 9.14.10 @ 11:53AM

All the cases that have been dismissed that I know about were done so on some version of the people bringing the suit had "no standing" to bring the suit. They were all US citizens and I would think that the central issue being a natural born citizen would qualify anyone that could possibibly be president would have "standing" but the Courts won't deal with the matter or rarely the letter of the law as written whereas the Constitution is concerned. Hence my view, the Constitution is "dead letter" is its words carry no weight (and consequence).

J Thomas| 9.14.10 @ 12:04PM

So form or support a local Constitutional Tribunal. Document, document, document any and all violators of oath - the Federal Government formed under limited and enumerated powers that refuses to abide by that covenant and headed by a flat out fraud has no legitimate claim to authority and must be ignored, challenged and removed by whatever means. Why talk of repealing health care if was never legally signed into law in the first place? When all is said and done, we the People are vastly more important in the grand scheme then the parasites living off us and refusing to comply with their pact with the people. Soon we will hold our own trials but until then, document, document, document.

Thom| 9.14.10 @ 12:32PM

J Thomas, how did the Democrats, the political entity representing the un-American portion of this population get 60% of Congressional presentation? How did we get an income tax system that by design treats people unequal under the law and naturally skews the population into those who pay and those who benefit from it? The Amendment process is a pretty steep hurdle to overcome by design but we’ve institutionalized into our most important document of law the seeds to our own destruction. As long as there is a progressive income tax, redistribution based Social Security wealth transfers programs like SS and Medicare, brazing welfare programs like Medicaid and all the rest of the “free” give a ways the “ruling class” wins and Uncle Karl Marx is smiling from Hell. The face of your enemy is your neighbor not some faceless bureaucrat in Washington, DC or your State House. You know, MOB rule or the great institution of Democracy where the MOB puts on a coat and tie before they steal you blind and burn down your home.

Flyover Member| 9.14.10 @ 12:47PM

That's why individual states may have to declare the Federal Government is in violation of the rules and limitations the STATES themselves defined when the STATES joined to found the Federal Government . As for SS it is broke and there is no way to pay for it going forward (no matter what the tax rate) so SS is soon to be a mute issue. States would do well to start looking at what articles they will file with the party in breach and developing their own sovereign currency. The district may soon find it's an irrelevant island unto itself if it doesn't change course.

Thom| 9.14.10 @ 12:58PM

"is no way to pay for it going forward (no matter what the tax rate)" This is not true. About 21% up from 15.3% will cover my time left on this earth. In practical terms you may be right but I can assure you the rate can be rasied to cover the shortage far into the future but that doesn't mean there aren't consequences for doing that. That is exactly how it got this far from 1935 to be precise on that.

J Thomas| 9.14.10 @ 1:32PM

I think "Fly Guy" was trying to say that the Fed Gov is spending multiples more then it takes in (this past year $5T spent - $2.2T brought in revenue) and committing to spending multiples ($9T) more when it already has accumulated over one hundred trillion of unfunded liabilities. . . So you will get your full SS check Thom, its just is not gonna buy much because the Fed's paying it's obligations with fiat money like a third world banana republic might.

Thom| 9.14.10 @ 2:26PM

J Thomas, Flyover Guy, when I reach my full retirement age (66) in about 2018, I'll be in that upper third of those receiving SS that get taxed out of a portion of their SS because I will have spent about 40 years making some investments for retirement that combined with pensions, 401 type investments will actually make my SS payment be a much smaller portion of my retirement income before they tax away part of my SS income. The problem with SS from day one, now paying on average less than the government minimum wage is that it promises a minimum wage retirement to a very large number of people (over a third in fact) that don't pay for what they get and everyone above that (two thirds) subsidizes their min payment by getting substantially less than the pay into the system. The progressive income tax system and the three evil sisters of Social Security are perfect compliments of each other. As demonstrated throughout the history of humanity if you rob Peter to pay Paul the Paul's always outnumber the Peters in the end..... I will be robbed regardless of the actual value of the money at that time but the unfunded mandates can be covered by just raising the tax rate and capture income level to whatever is required ( in theory at least ).

John Smith| 9.14.10 @ 8:47PM

Nope raise taxes revenue goes - wait for it . . . DOWN

RacerJim| 9.14.10 @ 4:03PM

According to the latest Courts Martial decision LTC Lakin cannot request/present any documentation pertaining to Obama's citizenship status because it might "embarrass" Obama.

The Courts Martial Judge won't even abide by LTC Lakin's "Chain of Command"...saying it ends at the Pentagon.

Thom| 9.14.10 @ 4:13PM

Paid servants of that authority that pays them generally do what they are told to do without regard to governing principles......

Nunya| 9.14.10 @ 11:35AM

While I love the thought of this, there are several issues that others here have brought up as to why it will never happen--not the least of which is the spineless leaders we have in the Republican party. Frankly, I have lost all confidence in the Republican leadership that we have, especially now that they're promoting RINO candidates over actual conservatives. As several folks here have stated, they've given up all true conservative principles to grab for power.

I've said before, I fear for the future of my country with the idiots we have in Washington.

Gary| 9.14.10 @ 11:36AM

You prosecute Pelosi so that this is not repeated by future congressmen.

dw| 9.14.10 @ 12:09PM

Exactly... there has to be consequences for these people, reid to be included. They purposely and with disdain circumvented the constitution and the will of the people. That is a dictatorship and I am amazed that so many people are willing to take that without a wimper of resistance.
At the time the backboneless republicans should have, at the very least, walked out on that congress. And backed Joe Wilson when he called the obamanator a liar. Wilson was completely right. Politics as usual was not the proper responce.

joli| 9.14.10 @ 12:06PM

People keep getting this one wrong. It wasn't "Are you kidding?" It was "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APUhVXImUhc

Sonny Tufts| 9.14.10 @ 12:11PM

How ironic that Mr. Lord calls for a constitutional awakening when he doesn't even know what's in the document.

He thinks that the Constitution was manipulated by the Supreme Court to allow for slavery, but he doesn't realize that slavery was in the Constitution from day one -- explicitly in the Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3) and implicitly in the "three-fifths compromise" (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3).

Len| 9.14.10 @ 1:17PM

That might explain his slobbering adoration for Lincoln who clearly threw the US constitution aside and declared war (apart from congress) on sovereign nations exercising their inalienable right to separation. Not to mention his arresting and dissolving state legislatures, shutting down of newspapers, arresting and having shot draft protesters, encouraging his generals to violate the precepts of warfare by attacking, robbing, holding hostage and raping civilians.

It is a joke to act like the US constitution was not discarded by both Lincoln and the reconstruction congresses. Article 7 is very clear that the constitution is between the states, yet when one set of conquers the other set and militarily occupies them until they give in to demands for amendments and are economically raped by the occupying forces everyone acts like nothing happened.

dw| 9.14.10 @ 1:35PM

Well as usual you represent the typical shallow liberal thinker who pulls one issue out without proper contexting to the overall realities.
The fact is that many of the founding fathers, including Jefferson, Washington, and many others wanted very much to abolish slavery right then and there, but to do so would have lost the southern states and with that, ended all possibilities of breaking with England and gaining independence, which was the prime issue of the moment.
Due to that reality they were forced to let the slavery issue fall to another day.
That day finally came, after decades of rancor between the slave states and the north, with the election of Lincoln and the painful choices that led to the civil war. Lincoln, who was a republican, and many northern white men gave their lives to abolish slavery and now people like you, no doubt will paint all conservative white men as racist for opposing the dictator that is obama.
And make no mistake while the common theme is that the civil war was fought to save the union, it was the issue of slavery that made it necessary. And Lincoln was on record before his election that slavery was not acceptable in the U.S.

Len| 9.14.10 @ 2:07PM

Wow another genius who doesn't know what the US constitution is.

1) The federal government had no say concerning slavery, other than what was already in the US constitution.
2) Lincoln in his 1st inaugural address not just admitted that he was going to do nothing about slavery, but that his only concern was preserving the Union. He further supported an amendment that was in the air to solidify slavery in the US constitution.

So far you're proving to be a historical moron who knows nothing of history, Lincoln or the US constitution.

3) The war was not fought to end slavery...try reading both Lincoln's statements (like his letter to Horace Greeley in 62) and the congresses reasons for the war, none of which said anything about ending slavery.

Talk about shallow thinker...you are doing nothing but spewing the repeated lies you learned in school.

4) Hard choices?? Clearly you believe that force may be used to compel people to submit to a form of government that people no longer wish to operate under. Unlike the founding fathers who fought a war based on their RIGHT TO SEPARATE you would say that people exist to serve the government, rather than the government the people.

5) or 4)b. Part of the right to erect a government to protect our rights is the right of consent and out of that is the principle of legislative entrenchment, meaning that one generation cannot bind a following generation to legislation.
This is why a newly elected legislature can repeal the previous legislatures acts. This is why Jefferson, among others, were against debt that would be forced upon a later generation, and why things like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare etc. that bind later generations are unconstitutional, not to mention the lack of delegated authority.

6) Hard choice? All Lincoln had to do was say "Go in peace" and "fare thee well". This is what Jefferson, upon hearing that the Northern states were getting ready to secede, said would be his reaction if they did. He further thought it would be good for representative government if such a thing happened, as it would force people to examine what created the schism in the first place and what could be done better.

7) Slavery or revenue? While the south did state that slavery was a reason for separating (note separating, not trying to overthrow the federal government), the north said that it was to preserve the union.
As for revenue being more likely the reason, the south was the source of 87% of the federal governments revenue due to the absurd protectionist (and thus unconstitutional ) tariffs.

8) White men gave their lives to free blacks??
White men like Lincoln who wanted to deport all the blacks? In Lincoln's state a black freeman needed to post a 1,00 bond to be allowed to emigrate, and a number of northern states also had similar obstacles, along with denying blacks the right to vote, and now all of a sudden all these white men experienced an epiphany and were fighting to free the slaves?

9) Racist for opposing Obama? Idiot, I oppose Obama, and all statists like yourself who believe in a big government doing good. I'm a liberal, lmfao. I have no love for them, anymore than I do the repugs who also believe in a living constitution so long as it meets their desired ends.

dw| 9.14.10 @ 4:10PM

I won't insult morons with comparing them with you but I will give you the short version of true history, not what you see through the red tinted glasses of your marxist ideology.

It may be true that there is no specific language alluding to the equality of men in the constitution, but it must be taken in context with the Declaration of Independence which specifically states that, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal". Furthermore by beginning the preamble of the constitution with " We the people" that serves to make it clear that this is a document from the people and for the people and not derived for the benefit of a monarchy or any other ruling type institution. The fact that it does not recognize rule by a higher authority, by extension, means that all people are equal on a base level of existence with no one serving below them or no one ruling above them. It was a document for the common man.
Also in defining the justice system the constitution is very specific regarding the requirement that justice must be distributed equally and that all should recieve equal treatment under the law. (when that does not happen it is a failure of man, not a failure of the ideal)
Also the preamble says the government should "promote the general welfare", which I for one interpret to mean that every state and every citizen of that state should benefit from what the government can provide as dictated through the rights inferred on every citizen by the constitution and the bills of rights, especially the right to be free.
Now as for Lincoln, in 1858 during his debates with Douglas he many times referred to his absolute view against slavery. Douglas accused Lincoln of being an abolutionist for saying "the American Declaration of Independence applied to blacks as well as whites". And when Lncoln famously said "a house divided can not stand" he was referring to the state of slavery in the nation. Lincoln said "I believe this government can not endure permanently half slave and half free".
Lincoln was very concerned that the Dred Scott decision was a step in nationalizing slavery and that that ending the Missouri compromises ban on slavery which by doing so allowed popular decision by the individual states of Nebraska and Kansas to either ban or allow slavery was a continued attempt to nationalize slavery. He debated Douglas on these issues and as such they were popularly known among the citizens.
Lincoln knew all of this would one day lead to some degree of violence and difficult decisions and actions, because sooner or later it would have to be resolved.
And if you do study history there were a hell of a lot of white men that did fight that war to end slavery for they knew it was an evil act that they could not live with and I do believe that included Lincoln.
It appears you would have merely allowed the seperation of the Union and by doing so the continued misery of the slaves. I guess that if an individual "compels" people to live as slaves that is alright with you, but if a group of people "compel" others to discontinue that act it is not ok with you.
I don't know where the racist/obama thing comes from. I oppose obama and it has nothing to do with race, but everything to do with his socialist policies.
So you hate obama and conservatives--you are truly mixed up.

Margie| 9.14.10 @ 4:21PM

Bravo, dw. Well done!

Len | 9.14.10 @ 5:13PM

Was it well done Margie? You have claimed to have reverence for the US constitution, but when I actually point out how it was violated and thrown aside, you applaud the one who justifies this.

Do you understand that as Article 7 states that is was a contract between the states? That it was instrument that granted limited powers for mainly common defense and trade, and that otherwise any moral issues, per the 10th and the 9th, were left to the states. That while the Articles of Confederation had a perpetuity clause which was ignored to create the second constitution, that the US constitution contains no such clause? Could that be because the framers realized that it would be ridiculous to add while they were in the process of violating the 6th and 13th clauses of the A of C in order to form a new government?

Do you believe that the Declaration of Independence is correct in stating that the right to separate from a government is an inalienable right? Do you understand such things as legislative entrenchment (SCOTUS does in principle, though not practice)?

Are you also aware that in no other country was violence used to end slavery? That in the northern states that ended slavery (the ones that didn't allow for artifices to dance around such acts), provision was made for both the freed slaves and slaveowners so as to allow for the slaveowners to be compensated and i some of states the freed slaves to have some ability to enter into society, at least in the states where they didn't ban blacks from voting and didn't impose ridiculous acts only upon blacks that made it all but impossible to live in those states.

Did you also know that while the northern states ended slavery a large portion imposed such difficult to meet requirements, while in the south freed blacks were voting and owning land?

Thom| 9.14.10 @ 4:56PM

Len/Dw why don’t we agree on that that which can be agreed upon and is historical fact.
1) Lincoln the 1st shit on the Constitution in numerous ways and that set the precedents for what we find ourselves up against now.
2) Lincoln the 1st was found to have violated the Constitution on several fronts by the Supreme Court which did nothing to redress those violations. Had Lincoln survived the war do either of you think that would have resulted in him bearing any consequences of that? For the record, I don’t.
3) The immorality of “slavery” as it was known then has never been in question by the bulk of this Nation’s population but without “slave state” participation in the Revolution there would have been no United States for another 40-80 years in all likelihood. If you view the “south” as evil and then ask for their assistance in such a weighty affair as going to war against the world’s best trained and equipped army of the time then you should at least accept the responsibility that goes along with the social contract you entered into with the ratification of the Constitution. Might does not make right and contrary to the views of the ignorant masses that think the South with 1/3 the population, 1/5 the wealth and even less industry rebelled against the North, nowhere is it written that slavery would have lived on forever even in the south given the industrialization of agriculture already taking place and impact that was going to have on the economics of slave labor. We can speculate till the end of time but 618,000 dead Americans out of a total 33,000,000 US population is a pretty steep cost to pay along with the blatant violations of the Constitution by Lincoln against those not even involved in the matter. It was his choice to have “war”. He made it backed by overwhelming force of arms and material.
4) Lincoln the 1st and Lincoln the 2nd (aka Comrade King Obama) share a lot of traits in common. You both say you oppose Obama. If so then one of you needs to stop defending Lincoln the 1st because his rationale was exactly the same as Lincoln the 2nd. I can assure you Lincoln the 2nd will follow the same course of action if his concept of “Union” is threatened by one or more of the “several states” that formed the Union in the first place. The outcome of Lincoln the 1st war diminished respect for the founding principles for all Americans from that day forward. That bill is coming due…..that’s why we have a Constitution in the first place and a need to protect the social contract agreed to. Outside of that is just a matter of having more bodies and bullets than the other guy and then getting to write the history books to suit the outcome……
5) Lincoln was a flawed human being just like the rest of us who was willing to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans to feed this need for “righteous crusade” against the evil as he saw it then. What his crusade opened the door on then is on our plate today. No less evil.

Len| 9.14.10 @ 4:57PM

Here we go..another idiot making the constitution say something it doesn't.

Hey moron, what grant of power in the US constitution prior to the "civil war" gives the federal government authority to decide on slavery?

As I said earlier, you clearly have no idea what the US constitution is and thus throw in irrelevant garbage. The US constitution was an instrument through which the several states created a body of governance for particular purposes and toward that end granted specific, enumerated powers. Slavery was an issue left to the states, and so regardless of how evil it was, it would also be evil (and was) for parties to a contract to violate that contract and take it upon themselves to determine what would be allowed in the states. As the parties had already compromised upon slavery and agreed that per the tenth that internal legislation was left to the states, those outside could only end it by force.

But of course you just pass over the constitution and instead make an argument based on the evil of slavery. You then justify the violation of the contract (an evil), the death of 600,000 soldiers, the pillaging of the south, the crimes (including a lot of rape), the shutting down of newspapers in the north (freedom of the press anyone?), the illegal arrests of state legislators, the conscription forced at gunpoint on many individuals (freedom of conscience, one owns oneself???), the then occupation of southern states for 10 years during which the many administrators funneled southern wealth to the north all because LATER corrupt congresses committed further evil by doing the very same thing of using force to compel people to obey to get the southern states to pass amendments IN VIOLATION of the constitutional guarantee to a republican form of government.

Yes, you're a conservative allright. You talk reverently about the US constitution and the principles guiding it's creation, but in reality you ignore both for your desired end just as the liberals do. You also believe like them in using force to compel people to submit to your version of utopian government.

Right! I'm messed up, as I am the one that has defended the US constitution while you made moral arguments for violating it. I have defended inalienable rights, while you have argued for setting them aside by force for your desired end.

dw| 9.14.10 @ 6:15PM

Ok for the slow minded here we go.
The issue of slavery was overlooked during the fight to concieve this nation and stood as a giant hypocrisy, made to allow for what at the time was considered the much greater good, the freeing of the people from the oppression of a monarchal dictatorship. Jefferson among others tried to address the issue of slavery but, again had to table it in order to get the support of the southern states which was vital if the revolution was to succeed. When they talked of all men being free and equal most of them understood from the beginning they were already in violation of their expressed beliefs and ultimately the base tenet of the constitution they would create. Many of them knew that the non resolution of the slavery issue was akin to a slow growing cancer that would someday have to be addressed. They had to put it off to future generations.
That cancer was smoldering and growing for decades undergoing numerous congressional and court battles until through its own inherent action it finally came to a head in the late 1850's culminating in the southern states quiting the union with the election of Lincoln.
Now, historical relativist can debate Lincoln's actions all they want but context must be maintained and understood. Some in his position may have said 'oh well have a good day and let us know how your doing', but many others like Lincoln decided that the desolution of the nation was just not going to occur. Was it a constitutionally granted act.. that can be up for continued debate, but per the tenets of the constitution and the ideals of our union the enslavement of one group of people by another was definitely unconstitutional and in that regard it can be argued that the federal government had the right to correct that breach of the document. Freedom and equality to all was the foundation our country was built on and that foundation had a major crack that had to be fixed and the time was at hand. And it just so happened that for good or bad Lincoln was there to do it. I doubt that anyone here involved in this debate would have been up for the task and most would have let the union dissolve.
The interpretation of the constitution has been occurring since the beginning and yes Lincoln invoked some very on the edge actions under the heading that we were at war and certain actions in those unusual conditions were justified and necessary.
That is always the dangers when an individual or group of individuals are put in charge and then expected to provide successful leadership.
At least Lincoln understood the base concepts of what our nation stood for, unlike the socialist in charge now.
The bottom line is the Southern States were in violation of the constitutional agreements they signed onto and as such were subjected to the right of the federal government to correct that situation.

Thom| 9.14.10 @ 6:42PM

DW, this “The bottom line is the Southern States were in violation of the constitutional agreements they signed onto and as such were subjected to the right of the federal government to correct that situation” is not supported by any facts either then or now. Please supply the facts to support your statement here since if as you say the Federal Government was in gross violation of its duties from the ratification on…..

This “Jefferson among others tried to address the issue of slavery but, again had to table it in order to get the support of the southern states which was vital if the revolution was to succeed” is not really supported by Jefferson’s example through the end of his life. He didn’t free his slaves until he died. Why would he not do that before hand? He could have freed them anytime he wanted to and taken them out of the South too to enable that if need be.

This is where you get in trouble DW mixing emotion/myth with historical facts. The whole scope of the Civil War is a lot broader and deeper than most Americans care to embrace. Len has given you just a sample of Lincoln’s transgressions against the Constitution and you keep coming back with an emotional arguments and myths mixed with pseudo facts. The matter at hand here is are we a “constitutional republic” or not and if not what are we then? I think the jury has been in for some decades on the first question but the latter one is kind of current events and cause for alarm in some quarters. You’ve made the case that “might makes right” and that the words of the Constitution are mere toilet paper if the Supreme Being at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave says so. A lot of dictators are smiling from hell right about now.

dw| 9.14.10 @ 7:32PM

You are wrong about Jefferson. There is much historical information that indicates he did not approve of slavery.... yes even though he had slaves and was the father of children by his slave mistress.
His original declaration of independence draft condemn slavery but that wording was eliminated from the approved draft due to the southern state sensitivety. That is a fact. He was prepared to set his slaves free if it had been approved. I have to accept the fact that he ultimately did not do that mostly due to the times, but there is historical evidence to support what I'm saying. Look up what his original draft of the Declaration said versus what made it through congress. You are just plane wrong when you assert that many of these men did not want to eliminate slavery. Open your mind and open an accurate history book.
We do not live in a vacum and moral imperitives do effect our behaviors and decisions. Our constitution is full of moral tenets and is based on the most basic moral argument that all people are created equal. Our constitution was created by humans and as such emotions can not be completely ignored in interpretations. I would agree that emotional responces should be kept to a minimum, but I would submit that when the actions of one set of humans results in the oppression of another set of humans, moral indignation should play a part in resultant decisions as to whether action should be taken. After all our very existence is based on our resistance to dictatorship, so why would we not operate from a position that might be biased in that direction. I might ask that if you were passing a house and happened to see through a window, for example. a child being severly abused would you then not act in that childs defence, based on the constitutional right of privacy for the abuser.
My top quote you referenced is not a fact based assertion, it is an argument based on a logical premise that I submit as constitutional justification for Lincoln's actions. It, I believe, is my original argument that I'm putting forth. Hopefully it is ok to have an original thought and not have to be completely chained to whatever some else writes or asserts.

Len| 9.14.10 @ 8:09PM

"our constitution is full of moral tenets"..name one.

Presidents are agents that are GRANTED limited powers. When certain parties withdraw that grant then the president no longer can exercise that power. Lincoln could only do what the US constitution allowed him to do IN THOSE STATES THAT HAD NOT WITHDRAWN THEIR AUTHORITY.
If the people/states cannot withdraw their authority, then they really never could grant it in the first place as such a thing is only a fiction. I may grant a lawyer certain powers of attorney, but then that lawyer cannot then say that to act on my behalf I must do everything he says and have my life managed by him.

As for your little privacy scenario, your error is to ignore that the child being beaten also has the right to not be beaten and that right of person trumps right of property or privacy. BTW this is one of many conservatives failures to acknowledge that the right to privacy is constitutional and clearly protected by the 9th. This does not extend though to killing a human in the womb as, again, the right of a person is the basis of all other rights, and no has the right to murder.

dw| 9.14.10 @ 11:48PM

I submit that the Constitution is a moral tenet in and of itself. It sets forth ideals for our nation to live by. The preamble calls for securing "the blessings of Liberty" and equal justice for all. Human freedom is a moral tenet and the securing of that is called for in the Constitution.
Also a child is not an adult and therefore is not subject to the right of privacy in terms of having the choice to be beaten or not. You are not saying you would allow the child's beating to continue?
And I do agree with you regarding abortion. That is nothing more than legislated murder, not protected by the Constitution.

Thom| 9.14.10 @ 9:22PM

DW,
Jefferson kept "slaves" to his dying breath. What he did matters not what you think he thought. Robert E. Lee gave up his "slaves" well before the Civil War and fought for the Confederacy. Which man actually did something personally about slavery?
.

dw| 9.14.10 @ 11:27PM

I understand your absolutist approach to actions versus thought but do not ignore what Jefferson attempted to do with the Declaration of Independence. The draft he submitted for approval denounced the institution of slavery but was removed by congressional debate. Would it have better if he had let his slaves go...yes and I wish he had. But he knew he was living in hypocrisy on that issue.
BTW, Lee swore to uphold the constitution of the United States but chose to participate in the desolution of the republic instead. Was he a traitor to his country or loyal to his state. And he may have gotten rid of his slaves but he still did everything he could to ensure slaverys survival. He was helping others keep their slaves ny his actions. Is that ok?

sonny tufts| 9.14.10 @ 4:18PM

You might try to actually read what I posted instead of ranting about a completely different topic. I was responding to Lord's bogus claim that the Supreme Court manipulated (his word, not mine) the Constitution to allow slavery.

Len| 9.14.10 @ 5:15PM

Was it different? Have you considered that as I suggested, he made this statement due to his approval for Lincoln's acts and the reconstruction congress' acts?

Charles Curran| 9.14.10 @ 1:16PM

Since you have opened this can of worms. Why not a debate on whether or not 'Barry O' has produced any evidence that he is qualifed to be President? McCain did. Hilledale should take up this topic and see where it leads. Maybe invite Mr. Berg to join in, since he has a lawsuit pending on this very topic.

don| 9.14.10 @ 1:22PM

Tolerance always has limits- it cannot tolerate that which itself is actively intolerant.
-Sidney Hooks

Thus have the people of this nation had enough...

ono| 9.14.10 @ 1:32PM

She will see to it that the election is stolen again in November and 2012 unless everyone gets off their butt and becomes a poll watcher or precinct captain.
I repeat, they intend on stealing this. If they stole it from Hillary they can steal it from anyone unless you get everyone off their butts and monitor the polls for fraud and multiple/serial voting. Capice?
She is incorrigible and has no conscience. Howie dean was appointed head of DNC and Howie appointed nazi pelosi as speaker all in collusion and readiness to steal the 2008 primary for sobama. They didn't win so they had a Rules and Bylaws meeting where they took Hillary's delegates in front of our eyes and they never flinched about it. They denied a true convention roll call nomination for the first time in history and made claims he won by acclimation.
They are incorrigible and will do it again I tell you so get everyone out there to help and stop fraud in elections. (the rep in charge of ethics in elections was murdered a couple days before the DNC convention and was Hillary's best friend) If not, you will be crying the next day and forever more. They will turn this country into a third class facist state if it isn't mostly that way already. We need landslides not tiny margins.
There is alot at stake. Most people are in the dark of what's going on with Islamofacism in this country. Stop calling him a socialist. He's a new age Islamo fascist with sharia law motives. Call it what it is. Pass this on.

Charles Stevens| 9.14.10 @ 2:08PM

Don L, grzmlyk, and Redstateboy are correct... it is long past time to precipitate a crisis, but depending on Republicans to engage such a fight will prove just as useless now as it has been over the decades.

So what's left to do? The Tea Party must start an independent shadow Senate, with members elected by a voting process via the internet. That body will then tackle each issue mentioned with respect to Hillsdale College in this essay. At first it will be predictably mocked by the Old Left Media and the current powers-that-be.

However, slowly it will gather legitimacy, as increasing numbers of the nation's population look to it for intellectual and moral leadership on these existential issues that affect the foundations of our society. I believe that in less than 5 years, it will have more actual power in terms of voter viability than the the one on Capitol Hill. At that point the question for each one of us becomes one of civil disobedience, as each of us decides which government he will obey.

If this or some other method is not used to provoke a Constitutional crisis, if there is no crisis of conscience forced on each one of us, then we can all continue to watch dumbly as the US commits national suicide.

Thom| 9.14.10 @ 3:46PM

There are two schools of thought or bodies of thinking involved in what this article presents. The first is the one that says those elected to represent the people are to be held to a higher standard than those subject to the laws these people enact while the other says criminalizing politics would lead to open warfare rather than a give and take process necessary for the “democratic” process to work. Each reader can decide for themselves which position has dominated politics over the last several decades.

I’m on record in very high places as saying our political process cannot solve the root problems here and that this will end badly for the Nation. I’ve been saying the latter since 1994 thus this isn’t the outcome of any particular President and his administration or Congress. In a very real sense “moderation” has gotten us to where we are and in that same sense “moderation” cannot undo this in time. On the flip side, anything that does not look like “moderation” will be labeled as “extreme” by those that have the most to lose from returning to the relationship outlined and limited in the Federal Constitution. Hence the dilemma and trap of inaction.

As I’ve said numerous times on TAS, there are going to be a lot of disillusioned people after the November elections, on both sides of the political spectrum hence why I say our political process cannot fix this as structured. What Mr. Lord outlined is SOP for Democrat operatives in the House of Representatives going back several decades. He just changed the name of the intended victim and Party in power.

What is at stake here is not particularly new to this world, how society divides itself around government policy isn’t even recent events. Who was it that said originally of Democracy “wait till the public leans it can vote itself a reward from the public treasury?” Nothing new here in recorded history terms but for this “republic” it will be our last gasp if enough serious people don’t take to heart Edmund Burke’s famous quote.

Every day my precious metal collection of tin, brass and lead grows in value along with other more traditional metals because more and more Americans sense the “American” part of our founding principles is fast packing up and leaving town before the “tax man”and “grim reaper” arrives. Another wise man once spoke to the rising cost of what was then a hot topic, health care, by pointing out that if you think it is expensive now wait till it is “free” before you pass judgment on just how expensive it can really become. The same holds true for our founding principles and the liberty so many of us take for granted 24/7. If any political gains are made this November it will be just a very small down payment on the ultimate cost of regaining what has been lost and the total cost is going to be well beyond what most American’s really want to face up to….at this point in time.

RLH| 9.14.10 @ 4:29PM

The prosecution of this horrible women, if successful, would be a delightful episode in our history. However, the truth is, Pelosi reached her political apogee in 2006. Since then her reputation has been falling and since 2008 she has been in free fall not only with most of this country
but even in the Democrat Party. With the arrogant stupidity she displayed in the Health Care disaster and other displays of her disregard
for even minimal political moxie Nancy is now probably the most disliked women in American politics. She deserves the smacking around that will undoubtly happen to her in November 2010.
But is she worth the time and trouble of putting her on trial? Well, maybe. I think though what our country needs to concentrate on is getting rid of those politicians, Democrats and Republicans who have forgotten or disregarded their duties under the Constitution. It will take more than one election cycle to do it. The encouraging news is, We The People are begining to understand what the game is all about. When we have taken control of the House and Senate those RINO's and left wing Demo's still in office will only be there until the next election cycle when we can run better conservative canidates against them in the primarys.
The Republican hirearchy can either get onboard or they will be gone as well. In either case I believe there are enough Americans involved now to continue the stable cleaning until we get it done.

RLH| 9.14.10 @ 5:06PM

Len. I guess is another guy who has somehow become the repository of all the worlds wisdon.
However, Len some of your points leave out some important facts, you say:
The War was not fought to end slavery.
White men didn't gave their lives to save blacks.

Actualy Len the First Army of the Republic was an all volunteer army of about 100,000 men. What motivated a dirt farmer from say Ohio to leave his farm and his family to join that army. Remember there was no telephones or any rapid communications available so he could maintain contact with his family. It was still a pretty wild country in those days. Their familys had to take care of themselves when he left.The fact is, those men were motivated to leave their communities, change their lives and take a chance on being killed or wounded because they didn't want to live in country where slavery was an accepted way of life. "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord". You must have heard the Battle Hymm of the Republic Len.
That first Army of the Republic were men committed to the abolution of slavery Len.
Try and give your country a little credit.

Thom| 9.14.10 @ 5:33PM

RLH, many on both sides but particularly the Northern side of the equation volunteered because of the USD. By the standards of 1860 the Union soldiers were pretty well paid and cared for. After the overwhelming righteous victory didn't occur at the first Battle of Bull Run the North had to resort to the draft in one form or another despite have a 3:1 man power advantage over the South. The Northern forces on a man for man basis just weren’t up to the task until very late in the war when Howdy Doody could have been appointed Supreme Commander of the Northern forces and the outcome not changed.
Don’t misunderstand, I’m sure many fought for and against slavery on both sides but after a point it just became a case of the big dog reclaiming its honor after having the little dog beat it up more times than not initially on.

RLH| 9.14.10 @ 5:49PM

Thom:
I was referring to the First Army of Republic, the all volunteer army.. I am aware that later there were drafted troop and even draft riots.

However if you really believe those men (100,000) only volunteered because of money, well then you must also believe that my brothers in our present all volunteer forces have only enlisted because of money believe me, they are getting paid a lot better than those troops in the 1860's were. Come on man!!

Thom| 9.14.10 @ 6:08PM

RLH, I've served in our military. Many, particularly the noncombat side of the equation are there for the training, the money and out. The combat arms side represents only about 20% of the total force and the bulk of that will never see actual combat during their 20…. This is known far and wide.
No doubt the bulk of the 100,000 you say volunteered for the First Army of the Republic believed in the rhetoric of the day but after the initial battles the hard core reality of the war took on a different tone and as a percentage of the population on both sides available for service the North never approached the commitments the Southerns made to their side. The largest Southern Army field just touched 80,000 while the North fielded several well over 100,000 and even upwards of 120,000. If these volunteers were committed to the cause as you suggest their numbers alone would have been reflected in the results of the battles where vastly superior numbers and better armed Northern formations could not press the attacks home or as at Chancellorsville were routed by a grossly inferior number of Southern troops. Committed troops to a “cause” will fight beyond the norm and the Northern forces never displayed the kind of commitment to “abolishing slavery” as you suggest. I won’t make light of either sides sacrifices but the numbers tell the true tell.

dw| 9.14.10 @ 6:50PM

Thanks for your service.
RLH is mostly correct and I believe he is right in saying that the bulk of the initial army was motivated by the ideal of eliminating slavery. I submit to you also that if the North had better command leadership at the beginning, the civil war could have ended within a year with a lot less loss of life. Without going into too much detail history shows that if someone like Grant had been leading the North in the initial battles, instead of McClelland the North could have routed the southern armies. It was not the men that did not have conviction it was bad leadership that did not commit to the fight. Of course once the war dragged on and the realities set in the reasons for why it is occurring become cloudy and people will be less and less motivated to participate.
Like I say, I think Grant would have had that war won relatively quickly.

Thom| 9.14.10 @ 7:16PM

DW, there were two Grants. A man of the West and a man that couldn't use vastly superior forces in 1864 to crush the South in the Spring Campagin. Try comparing the losses in the Spring 1864 campaign in Virginia between the two sides and then tell me you wanted to be on the spear point of Grant’s army against vastly inferior numbers and take 40,000 more KIA than the South did over the same ground. You are both aware that Grant’s entire command refused his orders at Cold Harbor in 1864 after having taken 7,000 causalities in less than 30 minutes in yet again another frontal assault against Lee’s vastly inferior forces? He ordered a second assault. It might have worked if the Confederates had run out of ammo. Grant was a butcher of his own men in the Eastern Campaign against competent forces of lesser numbers. Be careful what you wish for.

dw| 9.14.10 @ 7:51PM

Thom, yes I understand that by that time the war had become ingrained and the circumstances were completely different. The losses were horrific, and had been so for years by that time.
But go back to the virtual beginning of the war and the indecisive McClelland who diddled and dawdled while the south became stronger .
I don't have the specifics at hand but McClelland did not have the stomach to take the losses and instead of pushing forward he retreated when history shows that if he had advanced on the rebels there is a better than good chance he could have defeated them which could have ended the carnage much earlier. What I am saying is that if Grant with his agressive style had been in charge, instead of McClelland, then he may have been able to do that and ultimately reduce the overall loss of life.
I agree, Grant would take heavy losses to win but he was going up against defended positions in a war that was dragging on at that point.
This is an argument of conjecture.

Thom| 9.14.10 @ 9:17PM

DW, neither Grant or McClelland would have "taken" any losses. Their men would have and as I said, Grant's entire command refused his order for a second assault at Cold Harbor in 1864. That is mutiny in most military rule books. An inferior enemy stood before him and his men refused to commit suicide for their commander. That speaks to Grant’s competence and willingness of his men to bear any burden when called for.
As to aggressiveness I serious doubt that was the root of the Northern problem from McClelland, to Burnside to Hooker to Meade and right on to Grant. The Northern forces were quit “aggressive” at Fredericksburg and blazingly incompetent too. The Civil war is one of those rare events in history where the side that hasn’t a material chance of winning from day one dominates the course of the war for four years while being overwhelmingly outnumbered in every way that counts yet the masses are still blazingly ignorant of the vital statistics of the war and just how incompetent the Northern forces were for most of the war. A full understanding of the conduct of the war would probably reflect badly on a couple of its myths.
As to Grant’s introduction early in the war in the East well, if his 1864 performance with overwhelming forces is any guide to his performance in say 1861-62 then it is quite likely he would have become the Southern recruiting poster since he excelled at getting many more of his men killed and wounded than he inflicted on an inferior enemy. Early on that kind of on unwanted publicity might have had a negative impact on the Northern efforts. Be very careful from the comfort of your armchair Generalship in assessing the willingness of men under your command to be mere chess pieces on a board and do your bidding without regard to their well being. The corporate mindsets that governed the Northern forces, knowing they had overwhelming material and manpower advantages treated their men exactly like expendable game pieces and the battlefield results over four years reflect this in spades. Grant’s 1864 Spring campaign alone accounted for almost half the extra 90,000 dead Northern soldiers the North suffered above and beyond the Southern losses for the entire war. That is not brilliant military competence on parade there but butchery like you would find at Stalingrad.

dw| 9.14.10 @ 11:13PM

Aside from Cold Harbor the men did go into battle usually standing up. marching head long into almost sure death on both sides. At that time that was the "norm" for battle tactics which greatly contributed to the high losses. These battle tactics were much like committing suicide for the average soldier and that occurred from the very beginning of the war and was ordered by all generals on both sides. It was simply the way it was done and again all the generals did it that way.
I really think you need to review your history on the norths generals and their common theme of not pursuing the southern forces at certain particular moments when doing so could have severly damaged the southern armies which were inferior in both men and equipment, but far superior in leadership. McClelland , Burnside, Meade were all guilty of that. And the reason for much of Grants huge losses is after a particular battle instead of withdrawing he would advance which would result in even more casulties. All I am trying to say is, and it is a hypothetical, that for instance, if, at the first battle of Bull Run Grant was in charge instead of McDowel it is quite possible that the war could have been won quicker resulting in less over all casulties. McDowel had no experience leading men in battle and once the enemy was engaged he provided no leadership to win the battle. Say what you will but that would not have been the case with Grant.
You make my point when you talk of the poor generals on the norths side. By the time it got to Grant, Lincoln desperately needed results and that is what he got with Grant.
The cost in lives was great and really not acceptable but as I say a lot of that was due to the common tactic of marching unprotected into a wall of lead, which was done by all generals on both sides.

RLH| 9.14.10 @ 6:30PM

Thom the reason battles are won or lost is for pretty much the same reasons football games are won or lost. Pretty much the Generals and logistics or Coaches and quarterbacks.. superior or inferior numbers are not usually the main factor. BTW I retired with 28 years in the USAF so thank you for your service.

Thom| 9.14.10 @ 7:08PM

RLH, "Thom the reason battles are won or lost is for pretty much the same reasons football games are won or lost." True but ....
That makes my point that at no point from the top of the Union Army command structure to the bottom was the individual man committed to the "cause" of freeing the slaves as its primary motivation. The last time I looked, neither professional military forces nor Football teams play/fight for nothing thus both our current all volunteer forces and professional Football teams have a lot in common in this regard. Return the base pay and allowances in the military pay structure to before it went all volunteer and then see how much of it we have left. They get paid a lot better than I did (all benefits included) adjusted for inflation than I could have ever dreamed when I was in the early/mid seventies and my pay was well elevated over what it had been in the height of VN combat. My point isn’t that our troops are paid mercs or that drove the bulk of those that fought in the Civil War but simply that getting paid regularly and eating the same is a strong motivation for many that do join military forces at the beginning of campaigns. The term “summer solider” comes to mind and a lot of those “volunteers” for the North went home after the first summer of fighting.
While your analogy with a football team is useful I would still point out that if the Southern team had 12 players on the field, the Northern team always had anywhere from 18 to 24 on the field and even with a bozo quarterback numbers will have their effect all else equal. Both sides fought for a “cause” but I think the record shows with 3 times the manpower, 5 times the wealth and enormous material superiority and still having lost about 90,000 more Northern KIA with the vastly superior medical delivery system the North employed and the South could not hold a candle too, the end results speak to the lack of commitment to the Northern “cause” or myth loud and clear.

voted against carter| 9.14.10 @ 7:36PM

Hey KIDS!!! NO, NO, NO!!! Listen up. This is ABSOLUTELY THE RIGHT THING TO DO!!
Only convict her AND JAIL HER.
Then say NEXT CASE;
Mr. Obama, do you need a lawyer? Or shall we appoint one? Oh and Not your wife, as she isn't ALOWED to practice law. Altho she does have a license. I wonder why that is?

Hubert Horatio Hornblower| 9.14.10 @ 8:58PM

Truly the most important and timely column I've read. Let's really do the "teachable moment" thing!

RLH| 9.14.10 @ 9:15PM

Wow. My head is spinning what with all the battle histories from Bull Run on. Guys, guys, can we get back to my reply to Len who said," The war was not fought to end slavery". I believe that the First Army of the Republic, over 100,000 men volunteered for to fiight the war to end slavery.
Not because they were going to get rich on army money. I cannot believe anyone really believes that.

Len| 9.14.10 @ 9:21PM

Not even possible as AGAIN the north both in the person of Lincoln and the congress stated it was to preserve the union. Also, what constitutional power would have allowed for the north to end slavery other than the amendment process?

Answer...NONE...so how then could the north have been fighting to end slavery?

Thom| 9.14.10 @ 9:30PM

RLH, do you know how many of the Confederate states voted for the 13th amendment to abolish slavery as an institution?

Thom| 9.14.10 @ 9:49PM

RLH, who said anything about getting rich here? Three meals a day, new cloths, a roof over your head were valuable things in 1860 terms and not at all comparable to today where we take such things for granted. I realize you want your First Army of the Republic to be as pure as the wind driven snow but the simple fact is then and now that many people enlist for the benefits and security of that. We had a hard time meeting recuitment goals during the height of Iraq fighting when employment was 5% and now with it at an effective 10+ for young people and fighting winding down over there a bit they are having to turn people away. People naturally like to follow the winners in such matters and when the First was formed it was thought the war would be over by the end of summer..... and it would be a cake walk. Didn't quite work out that way did it?

brian| 9.14.10 @ 9:17PM

Obamacare.
Deem and repeal.
'Nuf said.

RLH| 9.15.10 @ 12:17AM

Len you guys always give the same lame statement
The war was fought to preserve the Union
MY GOD. WHY WAS IT NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE UNION
It was the largest and most important issue of the day. It was because of SLAVERY. The south needed it and the north not only didn't but many of the powerful people in the north were morally opposed to the whole idea of it. Read Bruce Catton's Trilogy on the Civil War. Just prior to the start of the war the anti-slavery feeling in the north was rampant. Almost religious in it's fervor.
The 1860 Republican Party was an anti-slavery party. The South knew they were going to be forced into an impossible situation. Thus the attack on Fort Sumpter. You seem to think that only governments can change political landscapes. And yet we are in the midst of a sea change in this country right now. How about whats happening because of the Tea Party. It certainly isn't due to any government promotion. The people in this country can and have forced the governing class to listen and change.
Thom, excuse me but you are the one who thinks the First Army of the Republic was only motiviated by money. A belief I find shameful
for the reasons I have already listed. I do not now or ever will believe that people in the American miliitary are that crass. I don't know where you get the idea that we have ever had a problem with having enough people to fill requirements since we went to an all volunteer military. We never have. You keep moving the target. My premise was and still is that the First Army of the Republic was motivated by patroitism and the anti-slavery
movement so strong in the North. It wasn't because of how much money a private soldier could make or the benefits (what benefits) and for security (you have got to be kidding, security yeah right). I never intended nor did I address all the battles in the civil war and the years after their first enlistment. You I guess still think that the only reason for their feeling of duty to their country was money etc. You said you are a man who has served his country. I am sorry that was your experience.

Rmm| 9.15.10 @ 9:08AM

dw, Thom, why don't you guys get each others phone #'s so you can carry on in private?
Paaalease!!!!

Charles Martel| 9.15.10 @ 10:26PM

Every time I listen to that clip of Obama talking in that same interview about the need for "redistributive change" and he gets to the phrase about organizing the "coalitions of power", I hear the voice of Xerxes from the movie "300".

+++

Obbop | 9.21.10 @ 10:52PM

Pelosi, the best friend an illegal alien invaders best friend.

An enemy of We, the People and in a sane USA she would be tried for treason and run out of town on the proverbial rail.

In my opinion an extremely foul putrid member of the elite class that has declared class war upon the masses of citizens.

"There's class warfare, all right, Mr. (Warren) Buffett said, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

Adult toys | 7.4.11 @ 3:38AM

To me, it's the least important thing in the world to be "politically correct".l like the space.support.
thank you.