The American Spectator : Does the Constitution Mean Anything?

Text Size

Constitutional Opinions

Does the Constitution Mean Anything?

By Doug Bandow on 12.17.10 @ 6:08AM

Not really, certainly not to the defenders of Obamacare.

Obamacare unconstitutional? The denizens of Washington and their many friends who favor expansive and expensive government are worried. At least one judge has actually read the Constitution. Moreover, Tea Party activists are calling themselves constitutional conservatives and insisting that the Constitution is relevant to the operation of the federal government. It is a frightening concept to those constantly seeking to expand Leviathan.

It has been years since the Constitution has had any meaningful impact on what is done in Washington. True, no one challenges the structural provisions — there are a hundred senators, presidential elections are held every four years, etc. And there are lots of court battles over application of the Bill of Rights, largely because it protects some liberties favored by the Left.

But most congressmen pay little, if any, attention to their authority under the Constitution before they pass legislation. And there probably are more unicorns in the wild than executive branch employees who consult the Constitution before imposing regulations.

Yet read the Constitution and you discover a document that carefully creates a national government with limited and enumerated powers. In contrast to state governments, federal authority is constrained. Washington does not have general jurisdiction, or the so-called police power, authorizing it to intervene in any matter not explicitly barred by law or constitution.

None of the 27 amendments expanded federal power in this regard. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, passed in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, did transform federal-state relations: the United States went from being a plural aggregation to a single unit. National power expanded insofar as it protected individual liberty in the states. The constitutional changes did not expand Washington’s authority to infringe the liberty of the same individuals.

However, judicial “interpretation” changed over the years. Although the Founders provided a method to amend the nation’s governing document, activists preferred to take a judicial short-cut. Judges liked the idea of making law and began treating the constitutional text as advisory. This turned the Supreme Court into a sort of continuing constitutional convention, with new amendments routinely enacted with just five votes.

Jurist-legislators covered themselves in high-minded rhetoric. Said the high priest of feel-good jurisprudence, Justice William Brennan: “It is arrogant to pretend that from our vantage we can gauge accurately the intent of the framers on application of principles to specific, contemporary questions.”

Yet the real arrogance is the claim that unelected judges are entitled to overturn settled legal understandings and complex political compromises because they prefer a different outcome. The proper interpretive objective is not to discern the secret intent of a handful of drafters at the Constitutional Convention or a later Congress, but to respect the common expectations of the legislators and citizens who drafted and passed the provision at issue. If the people’s intentions are not controlling, then what is the purpose of the Constitution? The document should simply authorize the executive and legislative branches to do whatever they feel like, subject to judicial review, which will be based on whatever the judges feel like. Why bother with the pretense that constitutional interpretation is occurring?

Not every constitutional question has a clear answer, of course, but that doesn’t mean honest application of originalist principles allows any answer. The nation’s founding document envisioned a national government of enumerated powers. A jurisprudence of unlimited national power violates the nation’s basic law.

Lincoln Caplan of the Legal Times recently justified the “government-can-do-anything” position with an appeal to the phrases “We the people,” “a more perfect union,” and “the general welfare.” All of these are in a preamble written by men who believed that the way to promote the general welfare for the people was through a more perfect union in which the government had only limited power. Revolutionaries who had fought against the excesses of king and parliament were determined not to allow similar abuses in the new nation they created. Silly idealists. They didn’t foresee modern liberalism.

Caplan sneers at the “nostalgia for an inadequate version of the country’s past.” Yet the problem of government abusing power and violating liberty is eternal. That’s why the Founders consciously limited the national government by enumerating its authority. Has time passed their handiwork by? Then the people can follow Article V and amend the Constitution. It isn’t easy, but that is no argument against following the law.

In contrast, advocates of a “living” Constitution prefer lawmaking by zeitgeist. If it feels good, interpret it, was always the unstated approach of Justice Brennan and those who shared his philosophy. Consider the jurisprudential theories, if they deserve to be called such, offered by the book The Constitution in 2020, published last year.

One standard bases judicial interpretation on a “dynamic” sense of history and tradition. Using this argument, the courts should declare a “right” to public education. Another approach is to base constitutional doctrine on “consensuses,” that is, when a big majority of people believe something. Judges get to determine the right-sized majority and the exact consensus that results.

Possessing even less meaning is the “time is right” philosophy, which posits that judges should change the Constitution when, yes, the “time is right.” Obviously legislators have no sense of right timing and little things like the political process shouldn’t get in the way. So leave it to judges. Moreover, a “constitutional moment” may arise with the passage of “landmark legislation.” In this case there is no reason to bother amending the Constitution when you merely have to pass a bill.

Finally, rights should result from the activities of “social movements.” With this form of judicial make-believe there’s no need even to pass a bill if you have organized a “movement.” After all, these “organized communities” are sort of mini-constitutional conventions, even if the rest of us weren’t invited to attend.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author and editor of several books, including The Politics of Plunder: Misgovernment in Washington (Transaction).

Letter to the Editor View all comments (173) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

drudge ette obaman| 12.17.10 @ 6:25AM

The Constitution has been relegated to the same place as Christianity - it must be mocked, be characterized as out of date/outmoded, and important only to non-urbane hicks like people in Alabama or middle America. This paves the way to render it powerless.

The law schools have raised class after class of students who are taught that the Constitution is living. Federalist Society members are scoffed at in these schools.

Yet, the Constitution's power remains and fails to lose all of its strength.Cuccinelli v. Sebelius shows us that it still matters and that some rules and tests must be met, even by Congress and the Executive Branch.

Judge Hudson wrote that "the absence of a constitutionally viable exercise of this enumerated power is fatal to the accompanying sanction for noncompliance." "Section 1501 exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."

And the best dig of all was when Judge Henry Hudson wrote that "The final element of the analysis is difficult to apply in this case given the haste with which the final version of the 2700 page bill was rushed to the floor for a Christmas Eve vote. It would be virtually impossible within the present record to determine whether Congress would have passed this bill, encompassin a wide variety of topics related and unrelated to health care, without Section1501. Even then, the Court's conclusions would be speculative at best. Moreover, without the benefit of extensive expert testimony and significant supplementation of the record, this Court cannot determine what, if any, portion of the bill would not be able to survice independently."

While this resulted in only Section 1501 (the requirement that you buy insurance and be fined otherwise) being struck down as unconstitutional, it also set the standard that court's can't guess what congressional intent is - they must have some decent record to review. Congressional intent can't be divined - this is important and should encourage thoughful legislation with the transparency that deliberations and hearings provide.

Everyone should read the decision. Twice.

Bill Carson| 12.17.10 @ 10:00AM

"Everyone should read the decision. Twice."

I could read it ten times and that won't change the fact that it is a worthless, meaningless document. Even at that, whatever Hudson says means nothing compared to what Ruth Ginsburg thinks--and let me tell you she can beat that document any way she wants. If you don't like it, you better make sure a conservative get appointed. Conservatives better start aggressively making up the law just as liberals do in order to advantage of the FACT that the law can be manipulated any way you want. Conservatives are fools to read the literal words on the document and expect them to be followed.

Purpleguy| 12.18.10 @ 2:10AM

And, where have you been during the Bush years of the Court? On the moon? Eminent domain, corporations are persons extended to free speech even - did you miss those and a dozen little conservative activist sugar plums? If you think "liberal" means activist - you ain't been watching the conservative Court since 2000.

MrOrion| 12.19.10 @ 1:16PM

The McCain/Feingold campain reform bill was almost universally considered to contain unconstitution provisions. Some of those provisions were those restricting the rights of corporations, unions, and special interest groups like the NRA and NOW from election communications. President Bush said he thought it was unconstitutional but would sign it as he thought the courts would toss out the bad parts. I was very disappointed. They took an oath to protect and defend the constitution, not to pitch for everything they can push through congress and see what the courts will let them get away with. Congress should not have considered a bill restricting our first amendment freedoms. Bush should not have signed it no mater what he thought the court would do.

hitnrun| 12.19.10 @ 3:14PM

Eminent Domain was a 5/4 party line Democrat + Anthony Kennedy decision. That's the little factoid that liberal jurists never mention at the teach-ins, conventions, and YearlyKos: they're in favor of "liberties" that fly in the face of traditionalism, patriarchy, and Christianity, but nothing so extreme as liberty from governmental power.

As for corporations - see, that's the difference between liberal and conservative definitions of "activism." A conservative considers an activist judge to be one who allows or creates unconstitutional law, violating their oath of office. A liberal considers an activist judge to be one who overturns unconstitutional law by way of fulfilling their oath of office. Corporations are associations of people exercising their economic freedom and deserve the right to be heard.

SnickerSnak| 12.19.10 @ 11:11PM

"Corporations are associations of people exercising their economic freedom and deserve the right to be heard." Actually, they're not. Corporations are, by law, singular persons.

When your car blows up in your face due to a manufacturing fault you sue the corporation not the engineer, the CEO, the assembly line supervisor, etc. The corporation is the single person responsible for the fault in your car. Everyone else is protected by a little thing called corporate immunity. While working for the corporation they WERE the corporation, they lent their consciousness and physical capacity to the singular entity that is the corporation. Suing the CEO of a corporation makes as much sense as suing the brain of a natural born person. The brain, like the CEO, is just a subset of a single entity.

If you find yourself wondering how they could justify expanding the rights of free speech and political activity to persons created by law then I suggest you examine yourself and your relationship with the government of the United States.

SMIA| 12.20.10 @ 3:11PM

The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech, or of the press..." Whatever else McCain Feingold is, it is a law abridging freedom of speech and of the press. End of story.

da| 12.20.10 @ 8:49PM

nicely put.

SnickerSnak| 12.21.10 @ 12:48AM

You cite the Constitution as if it upholds your argument when in fact the Constitution actually shoots it down.

The Constitution is a contract between the natural born people and the created government. Corporations are people created by the government, as such they have only the rights granted to them by said government. You cannot grant something to someone if you never legally had it to begin with. The government has no freedom of speech, such a right was never granted to them in the Constitution. They are servants of the people and speak only what the people desire them to speak. In other words, since they have no right to free speech, they cannot pass such a right on to a corporation.

SnickerSnak| 12.19.10 @ 11:11PM

"Corporations are associations of people exercising their economic freedom and deserve the right to be heard." Actually, they're not. Corporations are, by law, singular persons.

BubbaSixPack| 12.20.10 @ 9:20AM

"Second verse, same as the first!"

SnickerSnak| 12.21.10 @ 12:51AM

Yeah, sorry about that. Stinking browser didn't refresh when I hit the "submit" button so I thought I missed it. Hit it again and it refreshed...poof... double post.

Gmason| 12.19.10 @ 12:51PM

This is the kind of thinking held by the left - it results in lawlessness, chaos, and ultimately tyranny. That is why their view of the world needs to be exposed for it's error, and their agenda must be stopped. It's dangerous to freedom and those who wish to live in the harmony and security that only the rule of law can provide.

George Payne| 12.19.10 @ 3:30PM

Then all members of this nation better be prepared for what is coming within 10 years and it will not be pretty and it will feed the roots of the tree of liberty. This is not rant this is fact the wheels are in motion, if you will not help then stand aside least you be consumed.

da| 12.20.10 @ 8:46PM

pathetic. not realism, but a thoroughly despicable opportunism ...

Eric Cartman| 12.17.10 @ 10:02AM

Remember what the Liberal Aholes said when The One was elected? "He's a Constitutional Scholar! He teaches Constitutional law!" Pretty scary stuff.

DaveS| 12.17.10 @ 9:17PM

try 'unconstitutional scholar-pretender'

skip| 12.18.10 @ 2:28AM

Don't forget Carter took one single introductory class on the subject and was continually referred to as a nuclear physicist.

hitnrun| 12.19.10 @ 3:24PM

In fairness, they weren't lying. It's just that few people who haven't attended college know that "constitutional law" nowadays means something like the exact opposite of what it sounds like.

hitnrun| 12.19.10 @ 3:25PM

correction: "attended law school."

BubbaSixPack| 12.20.10 @ 9:22AM

Wrong,
I learned the TIT method of constitutional interpretation, Text, Intent, Tradition.

martin j smith| 12.17.10 @ 7:57AM

I have read that some judges do not like the fact that justices are besmearched in public. Well as log as Justices act like political hacks by reworking the Law to fit their ideology then that is the way it is. These justices who object are largely on the left but then again, remember a joint session of congress--the state of the union--and Obama objected to a ruling that over road McCaine-Feingold ? Well...

Vern Crisler| 12.17.10 @ 7:58AM

"The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, passed in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, did transform federal-state relations: the United States went from being a plural aggregation to a single unit. "

Pure nonsense. This just shows how even some defenders of the Constitution know so little about its history. For the umpteenth time, read Raoul Berger's *Government By Judiciary*.

Please.

Purpleguy| 12.18.10 @ 2:18AM

He is right, you are wrong... the Constitution IS dead as far as it's meaning when originally written - as the founders expected it to be. The Transcontinental Railroad is impossible under the Constitution as originally written - so is the Interstate Highway System and a dozen other systemic changes we would hardly want removed today.
Thomas Jefferson said the Constitution should serve for 19 years and then a new revolution would be necessary. No document could serve for over 200 years without change, interpretation - bending, if not breaking. The Amendment process is meant to be the method of change, but the founders made it exceedingly difficult to Amend the Constitution, so the Court filled the void. Even James Madison himself pleaded with the Congress to Amend the Constitution before engaging in TransAtlantic Steamship service support -which is literally unconstitutional too.

Albert| 12.18.10 @ 3:35PM

The Constitution is pretty much dead, or at least on life support. The Democrats (with the help of some idiot Republicans) murdered it with extreme prejudice. However, the US Interstate system is not unconstitutional. The I-system was created as a means of transporting military troops and equipment across the country efficiently and is therefore authorized under Congress' defense powers ("to raise and support an Army"). Furthermore, the Amendment process was never intended to change the US form of government. It was meant as a housekeeping tool. Example: Article 1, Section 8 empowers Congress to raise and support an Army and Navy, but no mention is made of an Air Force. As long as the Air Force was an adjunct of the US Army, this was fine. But to make it a separate branch of the Military requires a Constitutional Amendment. And yes, I know no such Amendment exists or was ever proposed. But it SHOULD be, to keep things legal. Another example would be that the 1st Amendment protects freedom of speech and the Press, but mentions no TV or Radio. Easy solution: pass an Amendment to include electronic media. Democrats do not want such a process or interpretation because it would limit their power under the Constitution as currently amended. To require an amendment to empower the government to do what Democrats already do, well, just won't do.

mzk1| 12.18.10 @ 5:04PM

Doesn't it say "armies"? The impression I get was that a real standing army was never intended, just a Navy. (Federalists please correct.) But the refusal of states to supply troops in 1812 killed that. An Air Force is just another army; I don't see that issue. There is nothing in there about how to organize the government.

If the Constitution really need that much housekeeping, then have a convention, as allowed for in the Constitution.

mzk1| 12.18.10 @ 5:06PM

In fact, an Air Force is arguably a Navy, so it would have more of a base in the Constitution.

Purpleguy| 12.18.10 @ 10:43PM

You are wrong on the Interstate System. States were compelled to give up land, cooperate with each other, and grant Federal right-of-way, which is NOT in the Constitution. You would be right, if the Interstate System simply was used for Army purposes, which of course it is not, nor was it ever intended as such. Pres. Eisenhower did see the value of an Highway system though and wanted to mimic that effort - where did he see it? As Supreme Commander of the Combined Allied Forces in Europe while visiting the fallen Nazi Germany' s Autobahn. He was right of course, but it was and is still unconstitutional. You really should read "Death of the Constitution" .. it would be most enlightening to you all..

hitnrun| 12.19.10 @ 3:20PM

Congress is empowered by the constitution to regulate interstate commerce. Unlike 99% of the citations of this clause in modern times, the interstate highway system *IS* a legitimate and germane exercise of this authority.

Rob| 12.19.10 @ 9:45AM

You're over-analyzing a bit. Radio and television, like paper before them, are merely delivery methods for speech. Therefore, each is already implicitly covered by the First Amendment.

FBanta| 12.19.10 @ 9:53AM

The COTUS was written to deal with human nature: "delegated authority will be abused". Human nature has not changed since Adam.

There is nothing Constitutional about the federally subsidized Transcontinental Railroad (quite possibly the major factor in why Lincoln chose War: he couldn't bear to lose the taxes that funded his cherished, self-enriching "internal improvments"); or the Interstate Highway system.

Just because people like or want something doesn't make it Constitutional.

The Courts have no legal or moral authority to "fill the void" in lieu of Constitutional amendments.

ds80| 12.17.10 @ 8:35AM

We should read it because you sit on a perch and demand that we do? Piss off, Vern. Or give us a compelling reason why we should read it.

Vern Crisler| 12.17.10 @ 8:50AM

Afraid it might topple your neo-Confederate house of cards?

dc| 12.17.10 @ 9:41AM

Do you have an argument in that empty brain somewhere, or are you just "labeling" people, which people like you constantly deride others for doing?
Clearly the "Reconstruction" amendments changed federal/state relationships, as they changed the Constitution through the prescribed amendment process. The judiciary fought back in the Slaughterhouse cases, and the tension between the 14th Am and the P&I clause remains today. But if you really are trying to argue that the Reconstruction amendments eliminated any state sovereignty and reduced rather than expanded individual rights with respect to the federal government, then there's not much use debating you, as you're doing no more than auditioning for a role as Chief Commissar of Maobama's concentration/re-education camps.
Statist pukes like you are just as free to secede from the U.S. as others are--I wish you would. Give utopian socialism the old college try, just do it somewhere else where you and elitist asses like you can rot in your own funk rather than poisoning the rest of us.

Mel Torme| 12.17.10 @ 10:40AM

DC, I think you've got Vern pegged wrong. From my reading of his post, but WITHOUT reading the book he referred us to, I believe he is just disagreeing with the author Mr. Bandow's contention that these 3 amendments made the US a "single unit". I would agree with Vern there.

OTOH, Vern, I don't know what you mean by "neo-Confederate". If it's about states rights then you can call me a neo-Confederate also, and you may be the same.

Vern Crisler| 12.18.10 @ 12:25AM

Mel, you are right. Bandow's claim that the reconstruction amendments changed the nature of the Union, so that all the States were subsumed under the national government, is historically ludicrous. It is a theory promoted by judicial activists and repeated by conservatives who ought to know better.

Technically, States do not have rights. The people have natural rights and form political societies, and confer power on them, for the protection of those natural rights. In the Constitution, the powers of the States and of the national government are balanced. The States are sovereign on domestic issues; the national government is sovereign on national matters.

In order to be a Madisonian constitutionalist, you cannot be just a state rights man. You also have to accept the rights of the nation. It is this mixture of sovereignty that makes our system of government unique.

Karl Wildforster| 12.17.10 @ 6:49PM

I love your fire. People like you make western civilization possible. kudos

Vern Crisler| 12.18.10 @ 12:09AM

dc, you are as ignorant of Constitutional history as most liberals are. There was no "fighting back" in the Slaughterhouse cases; the judges interpreted the 14th amendment as it was intended to be interpreted. There was no change in federal/state relations.

Put aside your Lew Rockwell books and read Berger instead.

Purpleguy| 12.18.10 @ 2:20AM

Neither you, Texas, or anyone else will ever secede from the Union. It is perpetual, period, end of story. Anything else is simply blather from blithering idiots.

mzk1| 12.18.10 @ 5:08PM

Wasn't Texas admitted with the right to secede? Or to subdivide itself into several states? Special case, I would think.

Purpleguy| 12.18.10 @ 10:45PM

Well, after the Civil War, I would think that and any other so-called secession right is a moot point, now isn't it? You do know that Texas' admission as a state preceded the Civil War which re-united the Union and the Confederacy back together as one United States?

Joe College| 12.17.10 @ 10:15AM

Apparently, Vern's a pseudo-intellect bloviator , who's attemptin' to play the lecturing professor with We,The Great Unwashed.
Here's The Cliff Notes:
Government by Judiciary: In it, Berger demonstrated the Warren Court's expansive interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment as it alternately distorted and ignored the intentions of the framers of that amendment as disclosed by the historical record. Berger further drew down heat by presenting arguments that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend it to forbid segregated schooling."

Now, let's cut class & get down to the off campus saloon for some serious priority partying.

dc| 12.17.10 @ 11:58AM

I'm not giving Vern any benefit of the doubt, he's either a unintelligible writer, or he's the utopian socialist/statist I think he is. I don't pretend to have read the book from which Joe College extracted "Cliff Notes," above--reasonable legal and other minds can differ over how expansive the 14th Am was intended to be. What it certainly did NOT do was expand the power of the federal government over individual citizens, nor did it dilute the Bill of Rights.
Bandow's "single unit" formulation does go too far; logically, at least the Texas state constitution would have had to be explicitly changed or rendered a nullity had the Reconstruction Amendments truly stated or intended that the national government subsume all state governments. (As an aside, it wasn't until later that the amendment directly electing U.S. Senators, rather than selecting them by state legislatures, passed--so there's a big stick of evidence in opposition to what seems to be Bandow's thesis--or careless use of terms).
As George S below recognizes explicitly and most other posters here do implicitly, anyone who stumbles onto this site (or is paid by Holder's Black Justice Dept to troll the site) and starts labeling folks "neo Confederates" immediately outs himself as a blue-state coastal (or from Chicago) elitist who despises the Constitution, the fact that states even exist (as other than administrative conveniences for the Federal Leviathan), and can't begin to understand why folks like Gov Rick Perry are deadly serious when they speak about nullification and secession. As other wiser folks have pointed out in other fora, the differences between the leftists/Demon Party now and most Americans are far deeper and far less solvable than the differences between the North and South at the time of the Civil War. Both sides then respected but disagreed about what the Constitution permitted. The opposing sides now don't even agree that the Constitution exists. The left has gutted and will continue to use the Constitution as toilet paper as long as it can get away with it, in the hope of addicting enough Americans to Federal welfare (other people's money) so that they no longer care whether the Constitution exists or doesn't. On the other side are those who realize that without sustained fidelity to the Constitution, the nation crumbles and tyranny advances.
Unfortunately for the aspiring tyrants, Il Duce Negro included, the latter side is armed to the teeth. So it won't be pretty if and when the left tries to enforce its world view on Americans who violently disagree. Leftists should be thankful that thusfar the protests are peaceful and within the electoral and Constitutional order.

Akaky | 12.17.10 @ 12:14PM

dc, it's Il Duce Nero, not Negro, and no, I don't know where he gets the fiddle while Washington burns ;-)

Tim the Enchanter| 12.17.10 @ 12:40PM

Six of one, half a dozen of the other "Nero" is the Latin word for "Black".

dc| 12.17.10 @ 1:05PM

Well you both get it, basically, Obama is a black Mussolini (Nero's worthy successor, though perhaps the former wasn't quite as sadistic in his personal life), a true fascist in the classical sense of that term (which both Mussolini and Lenin, working separately, defined in their early writings).
In some sense Obama is worse than Mussolini. Mussolini at least overtly wanted to restore the "glory" of the Roman Empire, thus his silly ventures to Ethiopia, etc. Obama, by stark contrast, overtly despises the United States of America, and his fondest wish is to see it decline, to knock it down a level or two among the other nations of the world, so that (presumably) more worthy 3d world dictators, slavemasters, and totalitarians can hold more sway across the globe.
Domestically the policies are virtually identical, but I'd argue that foreign-policy-wise, Mussolini was at least a bombastic and misguided patriot, whereas Il Duce Negro is a bumbling and ideologically blindered traitor.

irish19| 12.18.10 @ 1:01AM

Actually, "negro" is the Latin word for black. "Nero" was the emperor who fiddled while Rome burned
(ca. 64 AD if memory serves).

Vern Crisler| 12.18.10 @ 12:18AM

dc, reasonable legal and other minds do NOT differ over how expansive the 14th Amendment was intended to be. There is no question about it for anyone who merely reads the historical record. Its purpose was limited to FUNDAMENTAL rights.

A neoconfederate is one who hates Lincoln, makes excuses for the South, and believes the States retained all their sovereignty even after the Constitution was ratified. Hence they believe the southern States were fully justified in seceding from the Union. If you believe any of these things, you are a neo-confederate.

Vern Crisler| 12.18.10 @ 12:12AM

Joe College, Berger was right. The 14th did not give blacks all rights, civil or political. It gave them FUNDAMENTAL rights. This is a distinction Berger discusses at length. Hence the 14th said nothing about segregated schools. It did however, end black codes, which had the effect of reducing blacks to their former condition of slavery.

George S| 12.17.10 @ 8:37AM

What a difference a century can make. When the Constitution was being debated in Philadelphia in 1787, there was not one transcribed concern as to the limit of power of the Federal government. In fact, the Constitution was not going to be ratified unless a concern of Virginia was addressed and settled. Virginia was worried with the wording of the Tenth Amendment, in that, although the language reserved all powers not enumerated in the Constitution to the states and the people, there was nothing to prevent government from expanding their enumerated powers. To prevent this, Madison penned the Ninth Amendment which stated that the Constitution is not the source of our rights and, that it follows, our rights cannot be disparaged by the Constitution. By definition, government can only grow out of the people delegating their liberty, a zero-sum game (government grows in direct proportion to lost liberties). Therefore, an expansion of government disparages freedom, i.e., rights. If government grows by usurping power, it is violating the Tenth Amendment; expanding an enumerated power violates the Ninth Amendment. Nice and neat, the government is constrained in a box of unmistakably clear language.

Yet, today's judges willfully ignore the historic facts and the contentious convention in which speaker after speaker argued the most minute detail of the power and duties of the federal government, no one advocating for the powerful state. No one got up and said hey, the poor federal government might not be able to do anything constructive on behalf of the people. Nor did anyone express concern that the government has negative liberties and cannot do things for the people, or cannot redistribute wealth, or provide for the general welfare if constrained by the pesky Bill of Rights. None of that would have been tolerated.

Today, however, things have changed because we, the People of the 20th century, saw things different than those men in Philadelphia of 1787. We have had the luxury of liberty, which resulted in wealth and leisure -- free from the hardships of staying alive. Which resulted in an educated class with enough free time to sit around and propose grand socialist theories, and in turn implemented those theories to an approving public who liked the idea of government as a safety net. Once the Treasury door was broken open, the Constitution was diagnosed with a terminal illness. It was now an inconvenience to reelection, a hindrance to the function and administration of the Welfare State and, with the help of the educational establishment, banned to the attic like some crazy uncle no one talks about. Only a matter of time for judges and Congress to ignore the crazy uncle's rambling about "shall make no law".

Here we are today... shocked that a judge actually had the nerve to declare an act of Congress as out of bounds.

Purpleguy| 12.18.10 @ 2:23AM

And, did you forget about Terri Schiavo? Do you really think the Founders expected the elected branches of government to usurp their power as they did then? It's not just the judiciary that could use a cleaning....

Jason| 12.19.10 @ 1:55PM

"When the Constitution was being debated in Philadelphia in 1787, there was not one transcribed concern as to the limit of power of the Federal government."

George, I don't know where you learned all you purport to know about the Constitution and its ratification, but there are two novel sized works out there, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, that are full of concerns over limiting the federal government. I highly recommend you buy them and start educating yourself. Federalist #45 would be a good start.

Louis Jenkins| 12.17.10 @ 8:44AM

Even during the enlightened age (many years ago) that saw my public education, we didn't review the Constitution. I had to read it on my own. Yes it can be changed by the State's vote, but it hasn't. None-the-less, the District of Criminals and their crony Judicuary have done so much against the Constitution that the document now means very little. Perhaps one day we will have to re-write it, and, perhaps, add in some of the things that are found in the Constitution of the Confederacy, absent that part about legally owning slaves. As many in our government do, when asked about the Constitution, they give that deer in the headlights look. Truly, that wisdom filled document is seeing less and less use by the very people we've elected to follow it.

irish19| 12.18.10 @ 1:05AM

"District of Criminals" I like it! I don't like the fact that it is so accurate.

Jason| 12.19.10 @ 1:57PM

If it meant so little, you would not have hundreds of thousands who have sworn to support and uphold it.

chris haynes| 12.17.10 @ 9:41AM

We dont need to figure out what the "founding fathers" intended.

The "intended" meaning of the law is irrelevant. or should be. What matters is what the English words mean, to the average reader, at the time that they were written. So figuring out the meaning of the words in 1790 is what counts.

Here's a case. Its 1915. The lawmakers are worried about speeding. They say 40, 50 60 miles an hour is too fast. Youlll kill yourself, and maybe other people.

So they pass a law. Doesnt mention 40 50 or 60. instead its says speeeds must be "reasonable". In 1915, 60 miles an hour is most unreasoanble

Now its 2010. You go 70 on a clear empty divided highway. Are you breaking the law? No.

The law says "reasonable", and the meaning of the word "reasonable hsnt changed. And in a modern car, 70 is most reasonable, although in a Model T Ford, with primative brakes, it isnt.

Mel Torme| 12.17.10 @ 10:48AM

Some of the words have changed meaning, or reverted to use of one meaning over another over the 220 years, Chris.

Here's an example: "well-regulated" as referring to the militia. From a reading of writings of the time, historians can tell us that the writers of the Constitution mean a "well-trained" militia. If they meant regulated as in "well-controlled by the state", then what in the hell would be the point of the militia? We all know that the founders meant for a militia to be a check on out-of-control government, and there was not even supposed to be a standing army of the US.

So, my point, Chris, is that, while the Constitution should be followed as written, a few words must be read in the way the founders meant them. Most of the document is pretty dang clear.

Bill Carson| 12.17.10 @ 9:49AM

Don't blame defenders of ObamaCare. The constitution is a totally meaningless document! I say this as someone who wished it meant something. It's not worth the paper it's printed upon. If the Right is smart, it will place a high priority on installing judges who will make up law in the Right's favor just as the Left does.

Time to wake up and play the ballgame by the rules currently in effect!

Jason| 12.19.10 @ 2:00PM

If it meant so little, you would not have hundreds of thousands who have sworn to support and defend it.

Maidenform,| 12.17.10 @ 9:57AM

I like "a living constitution" it's like "a living bra" but what do you feed them?

irish19| 12.18.10 @ 1:07AM

*cue rimshot* I have a few ideas about food for living bras-but not in a family blog.

Padoux| 12.17.10 @ 10:24AM

Liberals have little use for the constitution EXCEPT for the freedom of the press, the establishment clause, and civil rights enshrined there. Gun rights, property rights, economic freedom, and limited government as set up by the constitution are conveniently ignored or disdained.

idalily| 12.17.10 @ 6:55PM

Uh, no, they don't even want those. Freedom of the press? No, they wanted to shut down Fox News and implement the "Fairness" Doctrine. Estab;ishment cluase? No, we've seen that pure secularism is now the established religion. Civil rights? Uh, no. Affirmative Action is in itself racist. So which part of the Constitution do progressives believe in? I'll grant that they like the "general welfare" phrase in the Preamble, but only if "promote" is changed to "provide". Other than that, they shred our Constitution every chance they get. So, gotta disagree with you here. Sorry, Padoux.

Jason| 12.19.10 @ 2:04PM

Bravo, idalily. I wrote a paper on the general welfare clause and the deliberate changing of "promote" to "provide". Most don't catch it. Yes, progressives, we are watching, and no, airheads, you cannot change the words in the founding document of our nation.

Gary| 12.17.10 @ 10:46AM

George S (above) is one smart, well-spoken guy. Maybe I'll be able to vote for him someday.

Al Adab| 12.17.10 @ 10:53AM

We had this very conversation this morning with some city council men at the coffee shop. Every elected official is under oath to defend the Constitution, not to foster government programs or "to do the right thing". Unless they is a penalty for being foresworn, this too dangerous trend will continue. Our governments exist to protect the rights of citizens, not totake property, redistribute wealth, promote equality of condition orfund projects to buy votes. Our rights are in jeapordy and unless government at all levels regains its balance and understands its purpose the consequences are terrible to contemplate.

Mel Torme| 12.17.10 @ 10:59AM

Mr. Bandow, you said "[sic, shouldn't begin a sentence with "And"] ... there are lots of court battles over application of the Bill of Rights, largely because it protects some liberties favored by the Left. I don't get this part.

True, the left will defend those amendments that support their causes, but, only until they don't anymore. (All for freedom of speech until talk radio, all in for Amend. IV on illegal searches, back when they were hippies, but not now when they are in charge of the TSA).

Hey, the right (let's just say GOP) is the same way. They're all in for freedom of assembly, until people get too close to the White House. They supported the 4th Amendment and Due Process until they needed to "waive" it for the Drug War.

The Bill of Rights is the key to the whole point of your article, Mr. Bandow. I'm talking about Amendment X. It's a real simple one, with no way to mis-interpret without being treasonous:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Simple, isn't it. We haven't lived like that in 80 years though, and that's why are we are in this financially/morally bankcrupt police-state now.

skip| 12.18.10 @ 12:33PM

The father of the constitution James Madison was even more explicit in federalist no. 45:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

martin j smith| 12.17.10 @ 11:16AM

The ONLY benefit of the past two years is that it has put into as sharp a focus as conceivable just who the Democrat Party really represents. Thus, the 2010 election results. With the " Lame Duck" session I think even more Americans are wising up to these phonies. What the side of Real Democracy and Free Markets has to do are minimally two things: Expose further the reality of Socialist policies ( good example our Employment situation and deficit ) and offer alternative ideas that the Voter can believe in. No tricks and no BS.

Margie| 12.17.10 @ 3:38PM

Well said, martin j. smith. If you've never considered running for office, perhaps you ought to. Your comments speak to exactly what needs to be done, the way they ought to be done, and the how-to get there.
We could use clear thinking people like you.
Ok ok, I'm done praising you now. :^)

Warrior | 12.17.10 @ 9:20PM

The only problem is we put the same party back in control of the House that had no problems running large deficits from 2001 to 2006. The same party expanded entitlements and had no problem imposing liberty infringing programs like the Patriot Act on us. We simply put a smaller and somewhat less malevolent fox in charge of the hen house. Then their first major move is negotiate and compromise with the sociopath in the White House. While the people may be catching on to what has occurred the last two years. How much faith can you put into an electorate that would vote such an impostor to the office of President in the first place. Before even arguing that, please recall the alternative would have been McCain, so we were screwed either way.

Boritz| 12.19.10 @ 9:40AM

Right, there is a mechanism to get ride of errant Democrats, it happened in 1994 and it happened again to the House in November.
What doesn't exist is a way to get rid of the McCains, the Boehners, the Cornyns, the Lindsay Grahams, etc. etc. etc.
A few awful Republicans were sent packing but not nearly enough to leave the party in a position to consistently oppose liberal excesses. Watch for some GOP gang of to 'reach across the aisle' at the worst possible time and snatch liberal defeat from the jaws of conservative victory.

A. C. Santore| 12.17.10 @ 11:24AM

Excellent analysis - except for this: "The proper interpretive objective is not to discern the secret intent of a handful of drafters at the Constitutional Convention or a later Congress...."

Well, according to Justice Breyer, speaking from the "Breyer Patch" of liberal justices, it's not the intent, or even the words, of the Constitution that he follows. It is the "values" that he decides that they held.

According to those "values," he concluded that when the founders wrote "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" they really means that they wanted gun control.

Heavens, this maelstrom of judicial madness is getting more and more vicious and will pull us all down into chaos.

Beanstalk| 12.17.10 @ 12:19PM

Slight correction - I believe he said if they want to keep and bear arms, they could hop on a subway and go to Maryland where they presumably would be welcome with open arms.

Gmason| 12.19.10 @ 1:32PM

"to discern the secret intent"
I don't think the intent was secret! We have the notes from the Constitutional Convention, The Federalist Papers, volumes of letters written by the founders, and discussions and speeches that took place on the floors of every state in the union during the ratification process. There is a vast amount of data available.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.17.10 @ 12:07PM

Doug,
In direct answer to your original question, the Constitution means a lot to me.

The day may very well come when I have to lay my life down for it. Fair enough. A lot of good men already have.
I will decide when that day comes. Believe it!

Al Adab| 12.17.10 @ 1:16PM

We haven't heard from Gill O'Teen of late. Hope all is well.

Beanstalk| 12.17.10 @ 12:11PM

An ever-expanding Federal Government which assumes increasingly "Extra-constitutional" powers can be boiled down to one simple fact -- "He who has the purse, makes the rules."

Uncle Sam became immensely wealthy when he was allowed to levy the income tax across our fair land. And now we the people have become supplicants who are willing to trade our liberties for a few pieces of silver from our rich uncle.

BubbaSixPack| 12.20.10 @ 9:37AM

This is the truth. As long as the federal government has the money, those that want some will follow. As long as the federal government politicians wnat money, they will follow those that have it.

Bill| 12.17.10 @ 1:00PM

Lately, as I read the blogs and websites that deal with politico-cultural issues, I see more and more language similar to that in this piece, to the effect that, "Even the modern Supreme Court has recognized limits to the Commerce Clause, stating bluntly that the justices were not ready to accord the national government unlimited 'police power.'"

When I went to law school, we were taught that the federal government has NO police powers, that such powers are reserved to the states.

Evidently, we are retreating on that front too. When the feds have federal police powers, watch out.

Al Adab| 12.17.10 @ 1:15PM

Bill,
Very good point. The Dept. of Homeland Security caused alarm at the time (as it should still) and of course the actions of TSA also give us pause. It is a power we should beware. For example, the Federal Govt is suing Arizona over that state's intent to enforce immigration law in it's own jurisdiction. Several states filed amicus briefs on behalf of Arizona so the issue of federal authority and indeed Federalism itself remains alive. Keep a watchful eye.

Jack London| 12.17.10 @ 2:17PM

A question for all you far right bottom feeders - if I could show you that something you see as mildly unconstitutional would actually cause or continue great economic and social damage were it not passed would you still be anti?

Steve A| 12.17.10 @ 2:53PM

Hey Jack, Your question is absurd. It is either Constitutional or it is not. There is no "mildly" exception. Once you accept "mildly" then you are into degrees of "mildness" & the whole thing falls apart. So hook up your sled dogs & go visit Sara in Wasilla for a lesson.

Jack London| 12.17.10 @ 3:09PM

Avoiding the question. Let's say it's the health insurance mandate, which many of us don't see as a massive threat to the constitution. The damage to productivity and wellbeing of not providing secure healthcare to all though is a massive threat. If you accept that for the sake of argument, is it a price worth paying to go on without reform?

Steve a| 12.17.10 @ 3:28PM

Jack, Space will not permit a full answer so I will summarize for simplicity. NO. How's tha?. First off, we are talking about INSURANCE, not health care. Nobody is dying outside the ER doors for lack of treatment. You can spare me the preventative care speech. There are several programs in place for free / subsidized immunizations, checkups etc.

We are already absorbing the cost of the care in the system. Forcing insurers to accept pre existing conditions at standard rates eventually jacks up all rates & bankrupts the reserve pool of the individual insurer setting the stage for Govt. Run which is the ultimate STATED goal of this legislation. It is INSURANCE reform, not health care reform. I can't stress this enough.

Jack London| 12.17.10 @ 3:38PM

You didn't read what I asked Steve - I said let's accept for the sake of argument that the mandate is beneficial to the country - I know you don't like it. But would you still be anti only from a constitutional viewpoint regardless of the benefit?

Steve A| 12.17.10 @ 4:36PM

Ok Jack, Tough one. I would have to say my answer on this hypothetical (as I do not think the current health legislation applies to your question) would be a very guarded, posible yes. The yes would be conditional on the long term possibility of the exception to be bent into an erosion of the foundation of the country. The document should be amended first, by an overwhelming consensus of both parties, prior to enacting the law.

Jack London| 12.17.10 @ 4:55PM

OK, appreciate your thoughtful response.

As for healthcare, it's a certainty that we can't cover everyone without universal buy-in into as system that gives all decent coverage but also controls costs, be it the current (mild) reform or through an extension of Medicare. The alternative of health insecurity and inequality is in my opinion hugely damaging to the country and will send us faster behind China and the rest unless we do something about it.

Warrior | 12.17.10 @ 9:30PM

Beneficial to the country can't used as a standard. If it could be proven that a real benefit to the country is to enslave every resident of California, that would make it right. It would be beneficial if everyone in the United States had enough money so as to never struggle or want for anything. You preach from the Utopian pulpit. So we can now justify unconstitutional behavior on basis of what is deemed beneficial? Behind China and the rest? Great triangulation, but little else.

Jack London| 12.18.10 @ 6:12AM

Warrior, if you think it is impossibly Utopian to provide universal health you are clearly not of this world, or at least you've never heard of France, Germany, UK, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark....

The point is that universal healthcare is too important to fight over. Let's draw a line on this one, get it done and then a focus on markets will be that much better with a key productivity enabler in place.

Warrior | 12.18.10 @ 1:39PM

Doesn't work that way and solid kiss my ass goes right back at you. This world is solidly screwed because of the Utopian demands you socialists and dreamers place upon it. First of all, you do not have Universal Healthcare, you have a complete and unmitigated health insurance scam that is being implemented. Next, you won't be happy with Obamacare, it is was just the first mile of the marathon. Once it is proven to be a budget buster and that access to care has diminished. Your ilk will be crying for more government control with a public option Then similar to what you've done for our education system, you will want to throw vast sums of money to throw at the problem. Worse will be that no matter how much money is thrown at the problem, it will just get incrementally worse just as the Post Office and Amtrak has proven. The UK, Sweden, Dutch and French are all broke by the way and once Germany stops donating to the EU it will crumble faster than the Berlin Wall. You socialists and Utopians should all be given California and forced to stay there.

Boritz| 12.19.10 @ 9:50AM

"Let's draw a line on this one, get it done and then a focus on markets will be that much better with a key productivity enabler in place."

I'm okay with this if "it" means defeating Obama and anything close to a majority of Democrats in congress and continuing by defeating the remaining awful sell-out Republicans that got re-elected.

If that's not what you meant then where did you study business administration?

FBanta| 12.19.10 @ 9:39AM

Nowhere in the COTUS is the federal government delegated any authority to require healthcare insurance of Citizens. If an authority isn't specifically listed, it doesn't exist.

Gmason| 12.19.10 @ 1:57PM

Thank you for asking Jack. The answer yes, any price is worth paying to preserve the Constitution and the unique individual liberty the United States has enjoyed. As a follow up point, you make a major error in the premise of your question - two actually.
First you assume there is a major problem, because the government told you that there is. You were not aware of any crisis until the government assured you there is one, and they need to take massive amounts of new powers to fix it, yet you don't question the motive.
Second, you make the assumption that only the government can solve problems when in fact, the opposite is true. People, individuals and communities, are perfectly capable of finding solutions, and in fact in our two hundred year history the free market has provided all kinds of solutions to problems that have then been exported throughout the rest of the world.
Daniel Webster addressed this directly:
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.
There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."

idalily| 12.17.10 @ 6:58PM

Mildly unconstitutional? Isn't that like being a little bit pregnant?

Alfonso| 12.17.10 @ 2:36PM

I'm coming in late here but for one second let's just think what would happen if states governed themselves. This country would be more divided than it is now (YES it is possible). Alabama alone would legalize slavery, incest, and biblical law. You right wingers have a very selfish perspective that does not allow you to operate merely on "right and wrong"... For example... Arizona asking dark people for their papers... WRONG.. Denying anyone the right to enter in a civil union based on sex WRONG... Holding Wikileaks accountable for airing our extremely grotesque laundry.. RIDICULOUS...Extending tax cut for the wealthiest American's in a time of severe economic hardship... MORONIC...The people who remain on the "right" after all of their idiotic and transparently self serving actions are really misguided/misinformed/hopeless. If you have not realized... I'm rambling. This is the third conservative article I have read today, and my central nervous system is about to implode. I'll end with this... I do not think most republicans are Evil, just like I do not think most Religous people are Evil. I understand you mean well ("I just want what I have earned" /"It's all about caring for your fellow man and being good") but you are attached to an entity that has done unmeasurable damage to our country and the world. Both of these establishments are only in place to divide people, to develop a "my team" perspective to keep them motivated toward a goal that doesn't benefit themselves.

idalily| 12.17.10 @ 7:02PM

So glad you don't think we're Evil. I was up all night worrying about it, so I'm glad you clarified.

irish19| 12.18.10 @ 1:17AM

Yes, you are rambling. If you would be so kind as to bag up your ramblings and send them to me, I will put them on my garden in the spring and thus be assured of a bumper crop of whatever I decide to plant.
"but you are attached to an entity that has done unmeasurable damage to our country and the world."
That is one of the most ridiculous and patently untrue things I have ever read.
"Alabama alone would legalize slavery, incest, and biblical law. "
That may actually be the most ridiculous.

skip| 12.18.10 @ 2:16AM

Alphonso,

Life is often ironic.

After reading your drivel I find there are three very appropriate words to describe it: 1) wrong 2) ridiculous 3) moronic.

In fact, those very three words really stand out on just the briefest of glances of said drivel.

mzk1| 12.18.10 @ 8:15PM

Amazing. Proof by assertion. Did it ever occur to you that people might disagree with your "facts" or with your definitions of right and wrong?

People with your idea of "right and wrong" have murdered more people in the last century than in all of human history.

Jason| 12.19.10 @ 2:25PM

"Arizona asking dark people for their papers... WRONG"

No, you're wrong in more ways than one. Those "papers" are a green card that, conveniently and by design, is the size of a credit card and fits nicely in one's wallet. Not to mention the annoying little fact that it is a requirement of the federal government for this card to be carried at all times outside of one's residence. I married overseas while serving and had to go through this ordeal as a U.S. Soldier to bring my wife here. Not only did I have to endure the ordeal, I had to travel to U.S. soil to do it. You're wrong on many levels. Hopefully after your nervous system implodes you'll discover one that values liberty.

dw| 12.17.10 @ 2:57PM

"It is always wiser to err on the side of strict adherence to the narrow interpretations of our constitution, because once the know it alls are allowed to administer all they know, the result is the law of unintended or, perhaps, intended consequences. Only ruin can follow."
O. D. Harrisson
SEE OBAMA AND HIS HOARD OF MINIONS

Alfonso| 12.17.10 @ 3:05PM

The constitution was written during a time when we were performing systematic genocide on our own soil. That's not even mentioning slavery, women's rights, etc. How can we still live by a document that was written before cars, television, and modern industry in general. The constitution was written by a bunch of old white men that haven't a clue about our current society.

Steve A| 12.17.10 @ 3:09PM

Then why has it produced the greatest environment for justice, prosperity & innovation the world has ever seen??

Alfonso| 12.17.10 @ 4:40PM

JUSTICE?!? That is a farse. Prosperity and innovation I'll grant you. And that is because it allowed slavery! Isn't that enough to question its' validity? You should read up on what we did to the Native Americans and then talk of justice and prosperity. Or our covert missions in South America. Overthrowing Democracy! That is what it has shaped, an entitled nation that does much more harm in the shadows than it does good in light. It allowed for unregulated growth by granting to much freedom to corporations.

idalily| 12.17.10 @ 7:06PM

Bullshit. Name one, just one, country that is more just, whose history is more pure. I'll wait.

BTW, it's farce, not farse.

irish19| 12.18.10 @ 1:19AM

Well said!! I wouldn't advise holding my breath while waiting for an answer, though.

Jason| 12.19.10 @ 2:30PM

Glad you appreciate the freedom that our Constitution and the sacrifice of so many gave you. Sounds like it's time for an experiment somewhere else.

dw| 12.17.10 @ 4:02PM

It is the ideals those men and that constitution represent that we strive to live by. In a world of imperfect beings that document has served to provide a standard that we can only hope to attain, but may never realize.
Do not mix up what we do with what we try to do. This document and this country under this document has allowed for best chance for human accomplishment than has ever been achieved before or since.
You have let the contrarions mix you up and have become a criticizer of our country rather than a purpetuator of the fight to achieve the ideals our constitution promises.
Come back from the darkside.

Alfonso| 12.17.10 @ 4:45PM

DW I agree it had good intentions and certainly laid the groundwork for what could have been a great realization to a lofty document. I'm not saying burn the constitution I'm just saying don't let it stand in the way of social progress. I'm saying the nostalgia of the document is the dangerous part. It feeds into the "good ol' days" mindset. I like the way you put it though and I can definantly respect your perspective.

idalily| 12.17.10 @ 7:07PM

Please define social progress? What is that?

skip| 12.18.10 @ 2:20AM

Alphonso,

You are clueless.

Anyone who has read our founding fathers will find they have described our current society perfectly.

mzk1| 12.18.10 @ 8:18PM

So you are for a Constitutional Convention? Or just a dictatorship of people who think like you?

If it were up to me, I wouldn't have let you into the U.S. Of course, I don't live in the U.S., so no skin off my back.

Gmason| 12.19.10 @ 2:06PM

It's obvious from your commentary that you don't have a clue about our Constitution or it's founding. How about educating yourself on those issues before you form an opinion?

Steve A| 12.17.10 @ 3:00PM

Alfonso, Put down the bong there buddie. Pretty sure Alabama would not proceed as you outline, just a guess. Arizona wants to ask everyone for their papers, perhaps you should take a glance at the law. Civil union, no problem, just don't call it marriage, you can have all of the same rights & benefits. Could care less but words actually mean things & "marriage" is defined male / female. Get over it. Raising taxes on anyone, especially job creators, is MORONIC, especially in this economic environment. Even Obama gets that one.

Alfonso| 12.17.10 @ 3:27PM

Steve,
I do smoke pot so touche on that one. The point I was making with the Alabama JOKE was that giving states more freedom to govern themselves only results in further polarizing this country, which as demonstrated, gets nothing done. And as a Mexican American I have read the law, and I am also aware the laws are interpreted by those who inforce them. As long as they get the same rights and benefits you can call it "queer joining" for all i care.
But for the record:
1.
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.
2.
the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3.
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4.
a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.
5.
any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6.
a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7.
a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8.
Cards . a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.
9.
a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10.
Obsolete . the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.

Marriage has a few definitions.

And let me just clear this up businesses are ran for profit. Not to create jobs. Trickle down economics has proven to be noneffective. If you give the rich more money they make/save more money. Creating a demand is what creates more jobs. The best way to do that is to lower taxes on the middle class and lower. The only way to make that realistic is to raise taxes on the wealthy. Taxes are the lowest for the higher brackets since before WW2! In a time when our country is strapped for cash. And Obama and the spineless democrats ceded those cuts in an effort to appease the traffic jam the Republicans vowed and delivered.

dc| 12.17.10 @ 3:34PM

Dear Mexican Hippie:
Arguments fail at a certain point with folks like you who believe to your core that you (not sure why you believe you deserve this, but ok) have a solemn right to the money that productive Americans earn, or (same philosophy, difference is direct/indirect receipt) that all money is presumptively the federal government's, to do with it what it pleases, and drip back money to its favored henchmen (a role to which you clearly aspire). This is what happens to a large extent in Mexico and, frankly, most other countries in the world. Government allows certain people to profit, and the rest suffer as they must, rendering to Caesar at his whim.
Americans rejected that whole philosophy, in 1776, 1789, and many, many times since--including this past November. You may think it's still a good idea. Good luck to you in your efforts to amend the Constitution to implement your "social contract" utopia.
For my part, reading totalitarian ass-monkey rants such as yours remind me why the Second Amendment is so important.
And by the way, you're free to leave this horrible oppressive United States of America anytime you'd like. Just leave your passport at the departure gate and get the F out.

dw| 12.17.10 @ 4:10PM

It is always funny to hear from someone who left their own country to come here only to tear down the country of their deliverance. You fled your homeland because you didn't have the balls to fight to fix it and now you dare comment on our American heritage. You are a coward and you do not know what you are talking about.

idalily| 12.17.10 @ 7:13PM

Please explain how it is fair or just to force the "wealthy" to pay a higher percentage of tax than the less "wealthy" do. Who gets to decide who is "wealthy" and who is not? Also, could you please provide the proof that "trickle down economics has proven to be noneffective".

Steve A| 12.17.10 @ 3:40PM

Alfonso, You actually sound like a reasonable guy. I like that & wish you the best, sincerely.

My point on the "marriage" issue, & I think I speak for many, is this. Just leave me alone. If you want to have all the rights I have with my spouse (who is actually female), & you are homosexual, I could care less. You can even pay the marriage tax penalty. Just do not force me to admit, which I never will, that Jack & Joe is the same as Jack & Jill, because it ain't & never will be.

I run a business with 6 employees. I am proud of the fact that I have created, out of thin air & my desire to earn a living & feed my 3 kids, a successful business that provides salary for 6 families. I busted my ass to make it happen, trust me. Now, you tell me that the best thing for my staff & the country is to jack my taxes.... Just how in the hell am I supposed to go out & hire additional staff & / or give my people increased salary when I am getting jacked?? You have not thought it through. I would GLADLY & have GLADLY pumped virtually all of my evil profit back into my business in the form of added employees, increased marketing, new office etc & this is what stimulates & grows the economy. Not handing more of my $$, which I fairly earned to some jerk in Washington to fund garbage like on display in this current budget bill we are looking at right now. Wake up, my friend.

regards, Steve

dw| 12.17.10 @ 4:25PM

Zombies can never wake up....

Alfonso| 12.17.10 @ 4:25PM

Steve I think we're in agreement on the Marriage issue. And unlike dc is implying, I too am a small business owner and believe me we are getting screwed 8 ways to Thursday. But unfortunately not all of the wealthy are A) in a position to create jobs B) not nearly as benevolant. And Steve if you make over 250K a year than I think you'll be OK. If you don't than you'd most likely get a cut. And DC... Like I mentioned above I am a business owner with 10 employees. As a productive member of society I'm realistic. I'm not asking you to by everyone in the hood a new Benz. I'm asking for people to be provided health care. That's it. And I'd love to leave, but unforunately this is my home and my family and friends are. Everything I care about is here so needless to say I have a vested interest. And you say "utopia" like it's a bad thing. Shouldn't that be the goal? Steve I wish you and your family a happy holliday.
DC go blow Toby Keith

Steve A| 12.17.10 @ 4:42PM

Alfonso, You made me laugh. Take care. Same to you. Be good as Santa is coming, like it or not.

idalily| 12.17.10 @ 7:17PM

The wealthy do not have to be benevolent. They are entitled to do what they like with the money they earned because it is their money. Should they be benevolent? Probably. Must they be made to be so? No, because that is totalitarianism. Paying for your health care is not my job. Pay for your own. I do. And I don't want utopia because IT DOES NOT EXIST. What I want is for the Federal government to stick to the enumerated powers and otherwise leave me alone.

Warrior | 12.17.10 @ 9:40PM

You'd love to leave, but... Are you shitting me? Everything you care about is here, but you'd love to leave? You are complete and total moron. Why do the wealthy need to be benevolent? Take your ass into Bed Stuy or the South Bronx and tell me how many of the poor are benevolent in return. Tell me genius, why does the government need more money? Why is it that the "poor" collecting section 8 money and food stamps are driving late model SUV's, have large screen flat panel TV's and high speed internet to their computers? For the cost of the lower incomes XBox and alcohol money, they could buy an insurance policy for health but choose not to. By the way, if you manage your alleged business as well as you write, bankruptcy can't be that far off.

Alfonso| 12.17.10 @ 4:32PM

And just so we're clear I'm American I have 8 different nationalities including German Irish Polish French and Spanish. I was born and raised here. My family has been here for over 8 generations.

mzk1| 12.18.10 @ 8:23PM

Oh, sorry. I thought you said you were "Mexican American", so I assumed you immigrated.

Well, my family came to the U.S. only four generations back, so perhaps I have a better idea of what the rest of the world is like, and so appreciate the document that those "rich white men" wrote.

As an example, about half of Mexican immigrants, in a recent poll, have anti-semitic attitudes. At the second generation, it is down to a fifth. I know which country I think is closer to the side of the angels, and it isn't your neighbor to the South.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.17.10 @ 4:34PM

Steve,
The only problem Alfonso has is that his name ends with a vowel.
Please try to help me think of anyone in that situation who has ever even imagined a decent governance.

Steve A| 12.17.10 @ 4:40PM

I don't know, maybe Marco Polo?? Have a good weekend. Miller time.

mzk1| 12.18.10 @ 8:25PM

Scalia.

Alfonso| 12.17.10 @ 4:47PM

Ken,

Pretty sure Hitler, Stalin, Napolean, Pol Pot etc all end in vowels.. but GOOD CALL

Warrior | 12.17.10 @ 9:46PM

Obama, Gore, Pelosi, Mussolini, Hirohito, Mao, Trotsky, Alinsky, Castro... actual vowels, which makes this exercise pointless.

Alfonso| 12.17.10 @ 4:48PM

Consonants

irish19| 12.18.10 @ 1:25AM

Wrong. Vowels.
"Hitler, Stalin, Napolean, Pol Pot"
Consonants.

martin j smith| 12.17.10 @ 4:51PM

The meaning of what the Constitution is has come down to this: If you are a Conservative then you believe in restraining government if you are a Socialist ( Democrat,Liberal or Communist ) you believe in expanding same and judges who hold one or the other views vote their ideologies--TO HELL WITH THE PEOPLE OR THE NATION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT IS REALLY NEEDED IS JUDICIAL RESTRAINT. Thus, deicsions should not be calculated based on the ideology of this or that political party. But they are. Thus, implicit in this situation is the need for another kind of"check and balance" in order to avoid dominance of side or another. However when one party seems to so far to represent a different economic or political system from ours ( Socialism in this case ) it is even more difficult. It really becomes political warfare. This is what we now have. I believe the majority of American voters want this political warfare to end. And in that regard, I strongly believe they support relative conservative over Socialism . Thus, when Biden and Obama keep on using the term " middle class"( see today's ceremony of signing the tax compromise ) many should this: who the heck are they talking about ?

Alfonso| 12.17.10 @ 5:11PM

I love how its Conservative... and Socialists (Communists etc). Fox news has programmed you well. But to your point... When told that over 1/2 the country was oppose to the war in Iraq... Dick Cheney said "So?" The former Vice Prez's point.. the people of this country don't know whats best for them. As you can tell by the last election. But where you have no leg to stand, Republicans have been impossible to work with. They have been clearly trying to impede any form of government. They wouldn't even pass the 9/11 first responder bill!

idalily| 12.17.10 @ 7:24PM

If you believe that the wealthy should pay a higher percent in tax than the less wealthy, you are at heart a socialist. If you believe that health care for those who cannot afford it should be paid for by those who can afford it, you are at heart a socialist. Socialism holds as its primary maxim: From each according to his ability to each according to his need. Yes, it is that simple.

mzk1| 12.18.10 @ 8:28PM

I've never owned a television, and my folks never had cable. How could Fox have programmed me? I formed my opinions when WABC (Rush and Shawn's station) has "the Age of Aquirius" as its theme song.

Frosty| 12.17.10 @ 11:44PM

Alfonso,
It would probably be cheaper to buy all the uninsured a "Benz" than pay for their health insurance. Listen, there is not a single person in this country Thad doesn't have immediate access to the best care in the world when they have to have it. What we should be doing is figuring out a way to reimburse doctor's who have been forced BY LAW to provide this care for free. What other person is forced to work for nothing?

irish19| 12.18.10 @ 1:28AM

Very well said. I have been reading that many doctors are now refusing to take on new Medicare patients as they are operating at break-even or a loss. Operating at a loss will become the norm after zero cuts Medicare spending by $.5 trillion to help fund the healthscare bill.

Jack London| 12.18.10 @ 6:14AM

So what's the point of having insurance then? It's idiotic comments like this that make me despair of the intelligence of my fellow Americans.

Bill| 12.18.10 @ 10:54AM

Having insurance and being able to use it are two very different things. When doctors no longer get paid for services (read medicare) and stop taking medicare patients... ding ding ding ding, We have a winner!!! An excuse for single payer... doctors as public employees who can't refuse those medicare patients. Ahhh, take over - complete.

Frosty| 12.18.10 @ 8:40PM

Jack,
See comment below. Love to hear you explain yourself.

martin j smith| 12.18.10 @ 8:18AM

There is an expression: "look who is calling the kettle black" Excuse me Alphonso but I do not represent the Republican Party--I am a Tea Party Symp. I have no use for the mainstream of either political party. As for the so called Democrat(tic ? )
Party--I am not going to try to spendid too much time on them except to say (and this is commo0n on the Left ) most every criticism of the "Republicans" is exactly mirrored on the Socialist Left--To the letter. And, speaking of elections Alphonso--Obama and the democrat Party and the Mainstream RINOS were told: NON!!!!!!!!!
A rebuke, referendum on the government and a NO CONFIDENCE VOTE. Get used to it. The people oppose Socialism and the Liars who are lying.

Bill| 12.18.10 @ 10:27AM

All of this is just interesting distraction.
The fact remains that we are now a country for the corporation and for the benefit of the corporation, on our way to being a world dedicated to the same. Globalism continues apace and our founding documents are about to be retired as 'quaint antiques'.
As the economy continues its collapse wages will fall, and eventually the permanent welfare underclass will lead a life no better than their third world counterparts. Our global elite won't hardly notice as they jet from compound to conference to summit to compound.
The world is no longer as it was and won't the American people be pissed once they figure that out, of course by then they will all be impoverished and it will be too late to do anything about it.

martin j smith| 12.18.10 @ 11:59AM

Bill: I think we keep on truckun and keep informed. I truly believe compared to other times more Americans are informed about the world then ever before and know a rotten carcass when they see it. Then we vote in 2012

Bill| 12.18.10 @ 12:33PM

Hi Martin, thanks. I really hope you are right. I've come to some conclusions that are somewhat antithetical to our capitalist system as it is currently formulated- or at least some would say are antithetical. First - we desperately need a wealth tax on billionaires. (I can hear 'commie' being shouted already). But wait - billionaires wield far too much power through their vast fortunes, as an example of this one need go no further than George Soros. Second, tax policy must stop favoring corporations and must instead (at least at first) favor small businesses, especially urban small business startups. If urban black men, young or old were able to a) find a job, b) make a job for themselves, do you know how many problems that would fix?! I dare say, it would even solve that intractable problem that is …. Wait for it…. Education. Oh, and that was billionaire with a 'b', not millionaire with a 'm'. We need more millionaire small business people, really many many more. (Should I be buying a bullett proof vest?)

mzk1| 12.18.10 @ 5:19PM

Interesting ideas.

I wish, though, that people would stop saying "capitalism". Capitalism was a term invented by an apocalyptic, anti-semitic, fraud artist named Karl Marx. (But he had a good sense of humor!)

It's just the free market. If it isn't completely free, then to that extent it's some other system. But "capitalism" is a myth, a windmill invented by Marx to tilt at.

Gmason| 12.19.10 @ 2:36PM

"If urban black men, young or old were able to a) find a job, b) make a job for themselves, do you know how many problems that would fix?!"
Have you never heard of Ebay or Etsy? They can get started right now, they don't have to wait for the government to do anything.
That is the whole problem with liberalism - people who are sitting around waiting for the government to make their lives better will be waiting for a LONG time.

Gmason| 12.19.10 @ 2:36PM

Jason | 12.19.10 @ 2:49PM

The problem with the theory, Bill, other than it violates property rights, is that the rich can easily and legally move their money to nontaxable resources. Just ask them and they'll tell you. Some say that they start moving money literally every time Obama steps up to the pulpit. You can't tax what isn't there, and you can't regulate it to be there. Flat taxes would encourage these billionaires to keep their money here, knowing that they would pay the same taxes as every other citizen, and actually lower taxes for everyone. Stealing their money isn't going to happen.

Gary| 12.18.10 @ 2:56PM

What advocates of a "living" Constitution would really prefer while pretending to interpret the "zeitgeist", audaciously telling the rest of us what WE think, so as to lord it over and rob us through "lawmaking" by lawbreaking, is that the Constitution were "dead".

FBanta| 12.19.10 @ 9:32AM

Gary: If an authority is specifically delineated in the COTUS, the federal government is responsible to do it (it isn't optional). If an authority is not specifically enumerated in the COTUS the federal government is denied authority to do it.

That is why the Bill of Rights was demanded in order that the COTUS would be ratified.

No modern interpretation is required. This is why every federal officer is required to take a solemn oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS" as opposed to "interpret it according to personal prejudices, or perceived social, popular, or political mandates".

mzk1| 12.18.10 @ 5:13PM

"Permanent constitutional convention" - that's a very thought-provoking way of putting it. We may as well have a real one.

One problem with a "living constitution" is who gets to decide what it means. One day you get Brown Vs Bd of Ed, the next day you get Dred Scot, an example of Judicial activism if there ever was one.

Why not decide that we have "progressed to a greater understanding", and that we know understand that the Federal government's powers must be more circumscribed, so that interstate commerce has the narrowest possible definition? If I was a lower-court judge, I would use that argument. Why does "progress" have to be defined by the New York Times?

mzk1| 12.18.10 @ 5:14PM

"now understand", sorry.

mzk1| 12.18.10 @ 5:15PM

"if I were".

(Arrgh! Well, it's after midnight here in Haifa.)

Frosty| 12.18.10 @ 8:32PM

Jack London,
Enlighten me as to which portion of the comment I made you consider " idiotic" and I'll explain it in more detail so you can understand it a little better.
I see everyone commenting on the Medicare issue. The reality is, doctors can at least refuse to accept Medicare patients if reimbursement doesn't make it worthwhile. The bigger point I was making is that Emergency Room docs are forced by law to see all patients, regardless of their ability to pay, no matter what the complaint is. There are many ER docs who recover less than 25% of their total patient charges due to this. Yet they take on malpractice risk that they must pay for for all these patients who never pay them for their labor. It is the biggest uncinate mandate in the history of this country. I

Frosty| 12.18.10 @ 8:38PM

Unfunded mandate, that is

Jack London| 12.19.10 @ 9:41AM

You said there isn't anyone who 'doesn't have immediate access to the best care in the world when they have to have it'. This is a sick joke for many reasons, but obviously it fails to say why you should have insurance, and of course if you try getting say ongoing 'best care' for a mental health issue, cancer, diabetes etc do you really believe that doctors are giving it away for free and not prioritising those who pay? Here's a test for you: call say the Cleveland Clinic or MD Anderson and book yourself in for state of the art treatment with no insurance.

Yes, there is a lot of uncompensated care - people can get it, often though late and after a long struggle. But what I find very puzzling is why you prefer your taxes and insurance premiums racked up to fund uncompensated care rather than people paying into an insurance system as and when they can, by mandate.

Frosty| 12.20.10 @ 10:54AM

I would say that the reason most people have insurance is because most Americans believe that it is their responsibility to pay for their own health care and also they want to access the healthcare when and where they want. Those who have chosen not to have insurance or who can't afford it are forced to access it through any emergency department or multitudes of government funded county hospitals throughout the country as well as public health clinics, where it is indeed available. If you think MD Anderson doesn't care for the indigent, you would be mistaken.

No, I don't prefer that my taxes and premiums be "racked up" to pay for uncompensated care. I prefer that those who expect care to pay for it or they can choose to go to state and federally funded hospitals and clinics for their care. In the current system, they can go to any hospital and if they need to be admitted, can only be transferred to a state hospital if they approve the transfer, which most don't. That is why the patient who does have insurance faces huge fees, to cover those who get the same care but don't pay for it.

Jack London| 12.20.10 @ 5:22PM

You say you prefer a different way but you;re not prepared to mandate it? Even though premiums more than doubled from 1999-2009, and we're faced with the grotesque spectacle of events like Arizona denying transplants to people for the sake fo a few million dollars? Now that really is a death panel.

As for MD Anderson, you must realise that you have to be very poor to get full or any care under charity schemes - there are millions who live everyday with unmanaged chronic disease, no drugs and no surgery because they fall above the indigent line but still can't afford the care.

So here's the future as MD Anderson puts it. What would you do?
------------------------------------------------------------
What lies ahead?

An estimated 5.9 million Texans — 24% of the state’s population — are without health insurance, the highest percentage of uninsured citizens in the country. Texas also leads the nation in residents who are classified as the “working uninsured,” estimated at 4 million individuals.1

The population of Texas is expected to increase to 25 million in 2010 and to 51.7 million by 2040.2 Texans 65 or older likely will comprise 15.9% of the state’s population by 2040, compared to 9.9% in 2000.

As a result, the population 65 years or older that was nearly 2.1 million in 2000 could grow to 8.2 million by 2040. Since approximately 77% of all cancers occur in people over age 55, the prevalence of cancer in Texas is predicted to soar dramatically during this period.3

1Texas Department of Insurance
2Texas Data Center and Office of the State Demographer
3American Cancer Society

Frosty| 12.21.10 @ 11:15AM

To call the refusal to use taxpayer dollars for transplant surgery for people who, the majority of which have self inflicted disease i.e. cirrhosis of the liver from alcoholism, hepatitis C from drug use, copd from smoking, don't have insurance a "death panel" is the height of Orwellian speech. People should pay for what they use in a free society. There are many who through no fault of their own have poor health and don't have a legitimate expectation of being able to pay for it themselves, and they should receive assistance. Currently there is no attempt whatsoever to separate those who have chosen to make others pay for their care from those who could not reasonably be expected to pay for it.
If you are the mindset of "transplants for everyone regardless of cause or ability to pay", we will never be able to help those who actually can't help themselves. Using your own statistics you quoted in Texas, it should be clear that the US taxpayer cannot provide insurance and state of the art medical to care to that massive volume of people who won't provide it for themselves. It's called bankruptcy. I am sure you wouldn't want to cut any other programs for the poor to help pay for their healthcare. Where is all this money supposed to come from?

VIP2020 | 12.19.10 @ 5:58AM

Unlike other free online games sites, we offer a variety of classic Hasbro board games like RISK, Yahtzee, Scrabble, and Monopoly

FBanta| 12.19.10 @ 9:23AM

Mr. Bandow: good points until I got to "GIVEN THE TENDENCY of judges to ignore law and constitution, one helpful fix would be to end life tenure for justices..."

Article III, Section 1 of the COTUS states: "...The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,.." There is no mention of "life tenure". When a judge makes a clearly un-Constitutional ruling, they need to be held to account, including removal from the bench.

Every federal officer is required to take a solemn oath to 'preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS' before being endowed with any federal authority. Therefore any federal officer who fails in that sacred duty is subject to removal from office.

dave zimmerman| 12.19.10 @ 10:19AM

Guys...Guys.. (and Girls)...What a wonderful debate. I learned a great deal. The depth of knowledge and the ability to present it gives me hope for our US.
And to the person who says you can't start a sentence with and, sure you can.

Mel Torme| 12.19.10 @ 6:12PM

No, you can't. (yeah, I'm always here ;-)

Very good discussion, but it just irks me to hear the full-of-shit socialists no matter how civil they are. We all, including the socialists, if they are capable of learning, will know soon enough what the end result of socialism is - the tide will not turn in this country without violence. (And, sic) you can take that to the bank.

Tom Johnson| 12.19.10 @ 11:13AM

1 Nov 2010
Folks,
Obama’s GAME (Great American Marxist Experiment) is over, a failure. Marxism goes against the basic human instincts that freedom is a natural, God-given right, that what you make (or earn) is yours to keep, that family, not government, is the basic social unit. Democrats have historically been the party to raise taxes and increase the size of government, but Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have taken these mistaken policies to the extreme. Republicans, Independents, and Tea Party members will now be forever vigilant of the Left and we will vote.
Tom Johnson, Largo, Florida

PerryM| 12.19.10 @ 1:34PM

The Constitution means nothing to Liberals - they just ignore it.

Obama ignores it, Harry ignores it, Nancy ignores it, Barney ignores it, education ignores it, and the Lamestream Press ignores it

Sadly we have an entire political party and the press in agreement - the Constitution is so yesterday........

Anna P| 12.19.10 @ 4:53PM

conservatives have ignored the constitution far more than liberals have; for example disappearing their political opponents as "terrorists" and holding them under torture in direct violation of the 5th and 6th amendments.

RRA| 12.20.10 @ 12:36AM

The Constitution is a sacred document. Until it gets in the way and then you toss it aside.

Any side that claims moral/ideological allegiance to that paper on any issue are really only quite full of another tissue you usually find in bathrooms.

William Simpson | 12.20.10 @ 10:07AM

The Constitution means nothing to a government whose intent is to destroy it...

http://wsimpson.wordpress.com/.....n-america/

believer| 12.20.10 @ 1:04PM

I dont know what the big flap is on your Constitutional rights, The Government has been able to do whatever it wants to the public for a long time. If they think your misstreating your kids by a spanking, your kids are gone, if they think your misstreating your pet dog or cat, they are gone as well, with a stiff fine or jail. Constitutional rights in todays America means whatever they want it to mean, with American forces in 129 Country's and our Manufacturing base all but gone, I would say they may as well scrap the Constitution for a good old fashion dictator, at least then the people could choose between fighting or submission, not this lame argument of we are free by the Constitution.

James M. Baker| 12.21.10 @ 11:44AM

So I wish to pose a question. I have been lurking here for several months, reading the posts and the comments afterwards. I know your minds and hearts for the most part seem to be in the right place. What are you actually doing about it? Did you vote in the November elections? Do you campaign for someone you believe will actually do the right job? Did you run for office yourself in the absence of a suitable candidate? Or do we stand here and endlessly debate on a website while America burns around us? While I despise liberal and leftist theories, at least those who believe in the drivel actually get out there and fight to change the world to their view. What do we do? Do we lay down until the only choice left is to fight and die without hope, or do we use our rights as citizens to run for office, elect those who believe as we do, and take our Country back?

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|135 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|75 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|12 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|29 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|23 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5:10PM

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:07PM

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 4:35PM

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 4:24PM

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 3:58PM

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 3:22PM

State Department: Iran Has Soldiers in Syria

Kaylin Bugos | 3:12PM

Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong

Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?