The American Spectator : Cafeteria Constitutionalists

Text Size

Cafeteria Constitutionalists

By W. James Antle, III on 9.16.11 @ 6:09AM

Picking and choosing from the Constitution. Though you can bet limited government isn't on the menu.

Last week, in my inbox appeared an invitation to an event sponsored by a major Beltway liberal organization. They were putting on a talk about the dangers of the Tea Party subtitled "The conservative effort to make everything unconstitutional."

In selling the shindig, my would-be hosts trotted out all the golden oldies made famous in Ted Kennedy's slanderous speech about Robert Bork. "Justice Clarence Thomas," for example, "would strike down the national minimum wage and the ban on whites-only lunch counters." Yes, I'm sure Justice Thomas is itching to legally exclude himself from the Silver Diner.

That's enough to convince me that my Constitution Day would be more profitably spent watching Boogie Nights than attending this particular teach-in. But there were a few more eye-catching nuggets from the invite, especially this: "There is an alternate universe where most of the Twentieth Century violates the Constitution -- and a growing number of lawmakers live in it."

The idea that the Constitution creates a central government with a few, defined powers is always treated as new and novel, a fairly recent innovation gleaned not from the Federalist Papers but from the rantings of radio talk show hosts and the writings of RJ Rushdoony. By contrast, the notion that we have a federal government with virtually unlimited regulatory power and welfare functions is treated as mainstream and normal.

Talk about an "alternate universe."

At the risk of accusations that I want to repeal indoor plumbing and restore the powdered wig to its proper place in American fashion, let's be upfront about it: many limits on federal power that had largely survived the first 150 years of the republic began to erode in the 1930s. There is a sense in which the 20th century was as good for constitutionally limited government as the 1990s were for disco.

Needless to say, liberals find this point of view much more malevolent than the tastes of those who spent the Clinton years pining for more KC and the Sunshine Band airplay. "In their vision," my anti-Tea Party save-the-date card continues, "everything they oppose is forbidden, and much of what they support is mandatory."

Pot, kettle; rubber, glue. One might be forgiven for thinking that decades' worth of liberal jurisprudence on abortion, religion, capital punishment, affirmative action, and a whole host of issues suggest at least a smidgen of a tendency to invoke the Constitution as an all-purpose guide for the judicial canonization of the Democratic Party platform.

After all, which method of interpreting the Constitution is more susceptible to politicization -- attempting to discern what the public thought they were ratifying or figuring out which constitutional phrases judges can suffuse with magical meaning based on such subjective concepts as evolving standards of decency?

In fairness, though, it should be admitted that many Republicans -- regrettably including some who consider themselves conservatives -- regard upholding the Constitution as seasonal work. Like deficits, the Constitution matters only when Democrats are in power. Otherwise, it is perfectly fine for the president to wiretap, waterboard, or even wage war without being so sporting as to consult Congress.

Hopefully, Tea Party activists will not be silent the next time a Republican president unconstitutionally aggrandizes executive power. We've not been so fortunate with Bush-era peaceniks on the left who barely mustered a peep when the current president, unlike Bush, went to war without congressional authorization. Perhaps Republican wars are forbidden and Democratic "kinetic military actions" are mandatory.

Even so, it is true that conservatives would generally find a country governed by a rigorous interpretation of the Constitution more to their liking than liberals would. Therefore, it is not strange that conservatives occasionally admit the fact that numerous liberal policies are constitutionally dubious. What is downright bizarre is how many conservatives have traditionally been reluctant to say anything of the sort.

In fact, even now many high-profile conservatives basically agree with liberals that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. The redoubtable Jennifer Rubin expressed concern when conservative academic Robert P. George implied at a recent forum that Republican presidential candidates ought to have their own ideas about the elected branches' constitutional prerogatives concerning abortion policy.

"Dwight D. Eisenhower didn't ignore Brown v. Board of Education," Rubin wrote. But doesn't that example tell us something about the Court's mastery of the Constitution in Plessy v. Ferguson? A constitutional conservatism that sees no alternatives between blindly following the courts and ignoring them entirely doesn't give liberals much to worry about.

Yet plainly liberals are worried. They profess to be so not because they dislike the Constitution but rather because the Tea Party's "imagined version of the constitution cannot be squared with the document itself." There is a long liberal tradition of praising the Constitution as a "living document" while asserting that its substantive limits on federal regulatory and welfare powers are deader than disco.

Happy Constitution Day.

About the Author

W. James Antle, III is associate editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/Jimantle.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (157) | Leave a comment

Timothy L. Pennell| 9.16.11 @ 8:06AM

I don't understand the article. What is it that you're trying to say?
You keep mentioning The Constitution. What Constitution? We don't have one of those, unless you mean that old piece of paper in The Library of Congress.
Why are you looking at me, that way? You don't believe me?
Tell me what we do that's CONSTITUTIONAL, and I'll give you a THOUSAND things that are NOT.
James Madison (The Father of our Constitution) said that: "The powers of the Federal Government are FEW, and WELL DEFINED. They can be found in the first 9 Amendments." The Bill of Rights. The 10th Amendment states, CLEARLY, that "All powers not enumerated to the Federal Government in the first 9 Amendments, shall be designated to, and the property of the States, and to the People". (we now know it as the "Slavery Amendment", as it is referred to by the Poverty Pimp, Con Artist, Extortionist, "Black Leaders" in their $3,000 Suits with the $1000 shoes, living in their predominately WHITE suburban Neighborhoods. Such luminaries as Jesse Jackson. The REVEREND with the bastard child. Al Sharpton. Who never saw a JEW that he didn't want to kill. Hazel "Free Couch" Dukes. And that Battle Axe, Hatchet Face, Maxine Waters, who's MILLIONAIRE Husband's BANK is doing fine since he got a very suspicious Bailout. (In case you were wondering)
Anywho.
Does the Federal Government have the Authority, under the Constitution, to Refurbish Schools? What about, Hiring Teachers? Firefighters? Police Officers? Can it REALLY buy Auto Companies, and Insurance Companies? What about all of the LAND that it owns? Does the Constitution really permit the Federal government to OWN 80% of a State (Utah) All of these Regulations on EVERYTHING. Does the CONSTITUTION say that the NLRB can prevent a Private Company from opening up a Facility in a RIGH TO WORK STATE. Can the Federal government give out Contracts ONLY to Union Contractors? Is that Constitutional? Is Abortion? Are nullifications of PROMOTIONS, because of a made up term: "Racially Disparate Outcomes" (That's when Blacks are either too STUPID or too LAZY, to pass a test) Constitutional? Why CAN'T you have the Ten Commandments in the Public Square? Why CAN'T you have a PRAYER at a Graduation? How is a PRAYER, UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
Ya see what I mean?
We don't have a Constitution, any more. We just have Appointed Judges. And, whoever has the most judges, WINS.
We The People, LOSE, every time.
So, like I said. What was this article's POINT?

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 9.16.11 @ 8:47AM

Timothy: You never pull any punches do you? But I guess the truth hurts!! Great post!! You're right, the Constitution is just an exhibit now, the words written on it, have absolutely nothing to do with what the Federal Government can, and will do to us. No idea, no matter how outlandish is off base anymore with them!! Kill babies? Sure!! Run Companies? Why not!! We have got to get our act together quick, or the entire history of the United States, will just be an exhibit in some Chinese museum in years to come. Remember those silly Americans, with their silly ideas of freedom? Ha!! We have got to reign in, and destroy, the blackhole that is Washington D.C.!!

Oldefarte| 9.16.11 @ 11:33AM

TLP & LLL: Great commentary and reply!!!!!

Timothy L. Pennell| 9.16.11 @ 9:02PM

Don't ever forget what Michelle Antoinette told us her Boy was gonna do: Barack will CHANGE OUR HISTORY.
Look it up.

Oldefarte| 9.17.11 @ 4:18PM

From the MICHELLE-MY-BELLE files: '....The First Lady couldn’t wait a few days to start her Christmas vacation, and that decision will cost the taxpayers at least $63,000.
Mrs. Obama chose to leave without him Saturday, taking their two children and the dog along with her. Mrs. Obama’s decision to go without the president forced her to take a separate plane, meaning two flights instead of one were needed to ferry the First Family to their vacation destination. Mrs. Obama jetted out to Hawaii on an Air Force C-40B Special Mission Aircraft. The Defense Department bills other agencies $6,330 per flight hour for use the plane. Assuming a flight time from Washington DC to Hawaii of about ten hours, the cost to taxpayers for the flight alone would be about $63,000.
But Mrs. Obama’s determination to get her full two weeks of Hawaiian rest and relaxation probably cost a good deal more. By leaving early, she forced a large logistical support operation – including a retinue of Secret Service agents – to get itself up and running.At least $63,000. Really, Michelle? You couldn’t wait a couple of days?....'

Alan Brooks| 9.16.11 @ 4:09PM

The constitution will have to be entirely revamped at some point; not this decade- but someday. Things will get rrally bad eventually-- as in all nations-- and then the situation will change.
As long as you do not ever reinstate conscription: then the renovation will occur sooner rather than later. You ought to know that as the confederacy was brought down, so you too will be brought down as well. Not for decades, probably; but your reign shall end for sure eventually.

Conservative Bob| 9.16.11 @ 5:10PM

What??? Whose reign? conscription? Sorry but I don't understand your post.

Alan Brooks| 9.16.11 @ 5:16PM

The GOP must someday be replaced by a party that actually conserves something- thus their reign shall end.
And the Selective Service system must be terminated and its files destroyed so no chance of ever reinstating the Draft.

Trinacria| 9.16.11 @ 7:20PM

Don't worry, Bob, it's not you. Trust me.

Alan Brooks| 9.16.11 @ 7:33PM

The author says liberals are plainly worried. Can't speak for them, but I'm worried you are going to botch it up even worse next year with your compromise RINO candidate.
There's a guy at the GOP-dominated Independence Institute who says "never underestimate the ability of Republicans to shoot each other in the foot."

And you will.

Oldefarte| 9.18.11 @ 10:40AM

The Democrats have now defined "...shoot each other in the foot..." by their asinine selection/promotion of this current COMMUNITY ORGANIZER-IN-CHIEF. In such, they will die a slow political demise beginning next November!!!!!!

Alan Brooks| 9.19.11 @ 12:45AM

And who will replace him with? one shudders with foreboding.

Quartermaster| 9.16.11 @ 8:14PM

98-99% of what FedGov does these days is unconstitutional. Overwhelmingly, what FedGov is got its start in dishonest Abe's dictatorship. The GOP started as a progressive party, and that has never ended. The Dems started as a conservative party, and started changing during the 1870s into what it is today.

Buchanan accurately described the two parties as two wings on the same bird of prey.

Bill| 9.18.11 @ 10:36AM

The powers of the federal government are not contained in the Amendments, they are contained in the Articles. The amendments LIMIT the powers of government and acknowledge that the governed (the People) have rights that government is prohibited from infringing upon.

The Tenth Amendment does NOT say, "All powers not enumerated to the Federal Government in the first 9 Amendments, shall be designated to, and the property of the States, and to the People." It says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the People." The Tenth Amendment says nothing about property, and is not known as "The Slavery Amendment." If any of the amendments are known as "Slavery Amendments," they are the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments.

Mike Hawk| 9.16.11 @ 8:07AM

Tea Party Patriots will be having COnstitution Day rallies once again this year where we read the COnstitution . Attend one near you. (Paulbots, do not come with your drug legalization and campaign literature and do not tell us your aged icon is the intellectual father. He's not.)

Red Phillips| 9.16.11 @ 8:29AM

Mike, the title of this article is "Cafeteria Constitutionalists." Well you're being a cafeteria constitutionalist. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes federal drug laws. If you believe something does then please point it out to me. I don't support drug legalization at the state and local level, but fedearal drug laws (and the FDA for that matter) are unconstitutional.

Warrior| 9.16.11 @ 11:57AM

You nailed it Mr. Phillips.

Alan Brooks| 9.16.11 @ 4:12PM

"Nothing in the Constitution authorizes federal drug laws."

Nothing in the Constitution authorized the Confederacy attempting to grab the western territories for slavery, either. Dixie got her comeuppance.
And so will YOU.

Quartermaster| 9.16.11 @ 8:17PM

The Confederacy did not try to grab anything. The Confederacy did not exist until after secession took place. Methinks you need to go back and look at the time line.

And, the Confeds didn't get their"comeuppance." Liberty got it in the neck.

Alan Brooks| 9.16.11 @ 10:22PM

I don't say Lincoln (Lincoln was from a hard background, similar to Jefferson Davis, a cold fish) was a good person or that the North represented freedom or justice; yet you're being legalistic, Quartermaster. The war was fought because Lincoln's election represented abolitionism to the South and the South forcibly took Fed property. The South knew that if slavery wasn't exported to the territories it would die a slow death.
So a de facto Confederacy did exist prior to Lincoln's election; if a basis for the Confederacy did exist and was put into motion so swiftly (terrible swift sword) that the South could go to war only six months after the election of 1860 , it was a real Confederacy before and after. America existed prior to '76 and was called America-- it was often called America and not merely the American colonies. Don't be so petty about it.
Was freedom reduced by the Civil War? yes. But someone always loses, at least that is the way it has been. Some whites won; some lost; some blacks won while others lost.

We are not masters of our destinies-- if you believe in God, then He is the Master. And the South undeniably LOST.

Alan Brooks| 9.16.11 @ 10:43PM

btw,
I surmise Southerners were better people than Northerners, more "pious", but a good person such as Jimmy Carter is "pious" in pursuing bad causes. THe South wasn't made up of dolts, they knew that if the territories weren't admitted as slave states then the South wouldn't merely be outnumbered, out-resourced, out-machined,
it would be vastly outnumbered, out-resourced, out-machined, with no chance of surviving in its form.
So they gambled and lost.

Alan Brooks| 9.17.11 @ 2:29PM

in short, the Confederacy was not so much a bad cause- it was a hopeless, and above all Lost Cause.
When you gamble and lose in Vegas (as we all have at one time or other) they are not sporting about it; they don't return your funds unless perhaps you are Joe Pesci with Robert De Niro backing you up.
As for tomorrow? we will know nihilism in the future, not Constitutionalism.

Oldefarte| 9.18.11 @ 10:47AM

THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN [and has already done so as represented by the moderate success of the Texas economy, thanks to GWB, Perry etc]. Alternatively, major northern cities [Detroit, Philadelphia, etc] are economically dying from their populations'criminal activity, their state/local governments' ineptness and corruptions, etc. Guess that's what you STUPIDLY refer to by "...Dixie got her comeuppance...". Stick it!!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 9.18.11 @ 10:56AM

PS Brooks: The South had a superior army [with more intelligent commanders, who were mostly West Point graduates and defectors of the inferior US Army pre-war] but was simply outnumbered in troop strength. Also, Lincoln's and the North's persuasion of Europe to not sell military armaments to the CSA, and their naval blocade of the South, also contributed to their eventual victory. Get your facts correct, DA!!!!!!

Alan Brooks| 9.18.11 @ 6:35PM

Perhaps the Confederacy was composed of more pious citizens, don't know, it was way before our times (unless you are a REALLY oldfarte, as in 165 years old!). And they had better generals. But Stonewall Jackson was killed early on, and it was a hopeless cause as to the western lands. Without which!
The South will rise again, but the west is best.

Mike Hawk| 9.16.11 @ 6:18PM

Blow it out yer Arse, bud. I'm talking about Constitution Day. They can pass out their drug literature somewhere else. Go get stoned or shoot up on your own. Not at our rally.

Alan Brooks| 9.16.11 @ 6:37PM

Drink your brewskies, Billy-Bob, and getcha some nookie; jes make sure she's over 17 and don't got herpes.
AS that great Midwesterner Al Bundy sez:
"life, liberty 'n' the pursuit of nudity"

Mike Hawk| 9.16.11 @ 9:54PM

You are a f/u dude.

Alan Brooks| 9.16.11 @ 10:32PM

That makes two of us. When did I ever say I was a good person? as for you? no offense, but it is only for you to say: without being able to prove it anyway!
Game Over

Alan Brooks| 9.17.11 @ 5:10PM

To get on-topic, IMO the Constitution is outdated- but so what? we are stuck with it for a long time.

Tough Toenails on Thomas' Table.

Oldefarte| 9.18.11 @ 10:58AM

Now we all know WHAT/WHO is the source of your asinine commentaries!!!!!!

Alan Brooks| 9.18.11 @ 6:39PM

Al Bundy? who/what is your's?: Ted Bundy? Archie Bunker?

Clint| 9.16.11 @ 9:02AM

Independence Hall Tea Party Association

Constitution Day

Saturday, September 17

6:00-7:30 PM

Independence Mall

5th & Chestnut Streets

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Mike Hawk| 9.16.11 @ 9:37AM

Glad you have that one covered. We will be in Phoenixville.

Alan Brooks| 9.16.11 @ 4:31PM

Clarence Thomas is a good person, but he is an Uncle Tom, he is the black equivalent of a RINO, going along to get along.
You have convinced me over the years that we have to fight for things in America, and so do blacks; they are going to stand their ground-- they are not pushovers as Uncle Toms were 160 years ago.

Clint| 9.16.11 @ 5:39PM

Brooks Is The Tar Baby.

Mike Hawk| 9.16.11 @ 6:19PM

Go pull your pud in private.

Mike Hawk| 9.16.11 @ 6:20PM

Brooks that is.

Alan Brooks| 9.16.11 @ 6:39PM

DUH.
Everbody knows yew didn't mean Clint.

Mike Hawk| 9.16.11 @ 9:56PM

Glad to know you figured it it out. I had my doubts (__!__).

Oldefarte| 9.17.11 @ 4:25PM

SHOW-NUF? WHAT'S YOUS TALKIN BOUT WILLIS? Just because he doesn't kiss the rears of Sharpton, Jackson, Conyers, Clyburn, etc; don't critisize him for his intelligence and bravery!!!!!

Alan Brooks| 9.17.11 @ 5:13PM

That's right! Clarence Thomas kisses white posterior instead because he perhaps likes the taste better.

Oldefarte| 9.18.11 @ 11:00AM

No, he's just smarter than most of his race [both their leaders or followers]. Remember Gump said: STYPID IS AS STUPID DOES [and boy do they's beez stupid and they's doos it a lot]!!!!!

Jack in Wi.| 9.16.11 @ 8:14AM

The most uncontitutional act ever done by the Surpreme Court was Roe vs Wade. It usurped the power of the states to regulate and criminalize this monstrous procedure. For almost 40 years we have stood by and let 60 million people be slaughtered, without calling the Surpreme Court out for it's massive power grab. The Constitution gives the Congress the power to restrict the juridiction of the Federal courts. Instead of using this easy way to return to the states the ability to run there own affairs on issues like abortion, homosexuality, pornograhy, prayer etc. We have wasted time pushing for the super majorities necessary to ammend the Constitution. Both Jesse Helms and Ron Paul have understood that Roe could be effectively overturned by a simple majority vote in Congress and the Presidents signature. Ron Paul would push for this solution. Abortion could be back in the hands of the states within a year or 2, if Ron is elected President and Congress goes our way. That is one of the reasons am working like mad for Ron Paul and a pro-life congress.

Mike D.| 9.16.11 @ 9:37AM

We have our differences J from W, but on this I agree. The questions remains whether the Feds can be leveraged to give back the states the rights to self-govern and regulate themselves OR whether the states are going to have to TAKE those rights as granted by the Constitution back by force. Thats the key issue if this Republic is to survive in some form as intended. The states get their constitutional rights back or its over.

Len| 9.16.11 @ 10:48AM

To give back the states their rights, it must be acknowledged that participation in the Union is voluntary, and that the power or authority to govern for the states is dependent on it being delegated or granted by them.

A concept long lost, and yes by many so called conservatives is that of fiduciary granting of power, which was commonly understood at the time the USC was put into effect. This means that an agent is given authority to handle someone's affairs, but that agent can certainly never dictate to the one who has granted this authority.

Guess what, until conservatives stop their romanticized version of the US being a nation, rather than a union of nations, then the constitution is meaningless.

--------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, the writer here mentioned wiretaps, rightly so. Far too many "conservatives" support the Patriot Act, which is a clear violation of the 4th, and further, the issue of actually looking for evidence of something that is in the future as opposed to evidence of a crime that has actually happened (counterfeiting, theft) is certainly not authorized.

"Conservatives" need to come to grips with their adulation of a strong executive, particularly their view of the CINC. Powers that had been previously understood to be executive were deliberately given to the legislature to safeguard us from the executive leading us into war.

For example:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years

To provide and maintain a Navy

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces

and so on.

These were executive powers in GB, but in the US given to the legislature due to the understanding that a too strong executive leads to tyranny and constant wars.

Speaking of constant wars, COMMON DEFENSE is just that defense when aggressive acts against the US have occurred, not preemptive acts, not policing the world, not unseating dictators, etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Something else those drafting the constitution, and many ratifying it understood was the necessity of sound money. This is why the congress (not a private bank) was given authority to COIN money, not make fiat money or bills of credit. In fact, reading the debates one can see that some put forward the need for sound money as a reason the US constitution was needed. One can hardly claim to be a constitutionalist and not be aghast at the the very existence of the Federal Reserve. It also helps if one understands economics, so that one can understand how dangerous fiat money is to an economy.

Al Adab| 9.16.11 @ 1:02PM

Len:
In creating the Federal Constitution, the States ceeded certain of their prerogatives to a limited federal government. They authorized that government to act on their joint behalf in certain specified areas.

Now, if the federal government fails to so act or refuses to so act, do not the States retain or regain the authority to act on their own behalf? They are not emasculated by their creation of the Federal government as they retain all unenumerated powers. The federal government need not "give back" the States their powers, they still have it but simply defer to the Federal government in certain areas.

Len| 9.16.11 @ 1:31PM

Someone can't read...as I stated, and you will bother to read the debates and learn of the drafting of legal documents granting power at that time, the powers are GRANTED..NOT CEDED.

THIS IS WHY THE CONSTITUTION SAYS

"DELEGATED"

AND

"GRANTED"

Len| 9.16.11 @ 1:38PM

I have to add
AND THIS IS WHY I TIRE OF YOU SO CALLED CONSERVATIVES WHO CLAIM TO BE CONSTITUTIONALISTS BUT DON"T EVEN BOTHER STUDYING IT.

The federal government only holds to powers so long as those granting them allow it. The agent (federal government in this case) can be dismissed at any time and another chosen.

Al Adab| 9.16.11 @ 2:09PM

You went off a little half-cocked there. We are saying the same thing and my comment was in agreement not argument. Please re-read my second paragraph. Perhaps the use of ceeded was wrong for as you state the document says delegated.

My point being that the States retain and can therefore exercise the powers they granted should the federal government fail to do so or become "destructive of those ends"

Len| 9.16.11 @ 2:21PM

I apologize.

The states are emasculated in the belief that we are a nation, and not a union, and this is why I despise Lincoln who "settled" the debate over state sovereignty by force, and most conservatives worship Lincoln, but it is amazing how one can claim a right to force states or people to accept governance under an instrument that is fiduciary in nature and clearly states that powers are delegated. If they are delegated how then can they not be withdrawn?

This is the state rights issue, states have external rights against other polities or governments, but not against their own people, and frankly this why the truth is that the US constitution is no longer in effect, because an instrument that is supposed to grant authority to act on behalf of a state is claimed to grant that agent the authority to dictate to the very one granting the power.
?????

Unfortunately far too many want to turn away from this ugly truth, that and the tainting of states rights with slavery, and act as if nothing has happened.

Al Adab| 9.16.11 @ 2:31PM

Thank you Len. It does the cause no good when statements such as mine can be misunderstood. I'm sorry for that.

The 10th amendment did not, as some say, die at Gettysburg. I remember also that Lincoln had the army arrest the Maryland legislature, or many members of it, to prevent a vote on secession.

Now we find the federal government suing States like Ala and AZ over their attempts to protect themselves from invasion. Clearly since the feds refuse to act, the States have every right to do so on their own behalf.

I look forward to reading more from you in other matters as well.

Len| 9.16.11 @ 2:42PM

There are more and here is a good site, if you're not already aware of it....

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

One of the best things I think that has happened recently concerning states rights is Utah's Sound Money Act. Something like this being followed by other states would really be effective in fighting back against tyranny and just economically good.

Alan Brooks| 9.17.11 @ 5:17PM

"Thats the key issue if this Republic is to survive in some form as intended."

America ought to be dissolved as the Soviet Union was- it is too unruly to remain whole; if the SU could do it, we can do it better.

Oldefarte| 9.18.11 @ 11:05AM

No Alan, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT "...ought to be dissolved..." and the political power that it has previously stolen [by Democrats mostly] should be returned to the states where it [according to the constitution] belongs!!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 9.16.11 @ 11:47AM

It should be THEIR, not THERE; AMEND, not AMMEND; the PRESIDENT'S, not the PRESIDENTS; TWO, not 2; and president and congress, not President and Congress. Try working on you grammar and punctuation before working for Ron Paul. As to your statement concerning "....For almost 40 years we have stood by and let 60 million people be slaughtered...", would you and your Paulista friends also 'stand by' and ADOPT those same '60 million people' [ie babies, some or most of them minorities]????????????

Trinacria| 9.16.11 @ 1:47PM

I'm staunchly opposed to the practice of abortion, however, I must confess to a momentary weakness in my convinction upon reflecting on the possibility that a young Mrs. Obama might have availed herself of this option lo these 50 years now past...

Clint| 9.16.11 @ 2:41PM

Do your homework, Farte.

"Speaking at the Iowa Family Leader's presidential lecture series in Sioux City, Paul, an obstetrician and a Christian, explained that he disagreed with the popular belief that to be a Libertarian means having a laissez faire attitude of "it's the woman's body; she can do whatever she wants."

"Life comes from our creator, not our government," Politico reported Paul as saying. "Liberty comes from our creator, not from government. Therefore, the purpose, if there is to be a purpose, for government is to protect life and liberty."

Paul's stance on abortion won him the endorsement in 2008 of none other than "Jane Roe" from the landmark Roe v. Wade legal case of the '70s.

"Roe," whose real name is Norma McCorvey, became a pro-life advocate a decade ago and supported Paul in the last presidential election specifically because of his views on abortion. "I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v. Wade," McCorvey said. "He has never wavered ... on the issue of being pro-life and has a voting record to prove it. He understands the importance of civil liberties for all, including the unborn."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Ron Paul| 9.16.11 @ 3:22PM

VIVA LA REVOLUCION!
OPEN THE BORDERS!
PASS THE DOOBIE!

PAUL 2010

Margie| 9.16.11 @ 4:39PM

Or as Dean Martin used to swoon, "Doobie doobie doo.."

Clint| 9.16.11 @ 5:16PM

Uh Oh !

RINO Attack !

Dr.Ron Paul,
"If you want to regulate cigarettes and alcohol and drugs, it should be at the state level. That’s where I stand on it. The federal government has no prerogatives on this. "

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Ron Paul| 9.16.11 @ 6:54PM

Yes, quite - because it's not the fact that you're being regulated, it's who's doing the regulating. I don't care about government controlling your life; i just don't want it to be the FEDERAL government.

Clint| 9.16.11 @ 8:55PM

States Rights = States Power.

Try Reading The Constitution & The Bill of Rights.

Margie| 9.16.11 @ 8:30PM

He sees that as a "RINO" attack.
LOL!!

Oldefarte| 9.18.11 @ 11:09AM

The only "..RINO Attack..." comes from you and your fellow Paulestineans, since you're all traitors to your falsely declared political party affiliation!!!!!!

Clint| 9.18.11 @ 11:21AM

You're a Slandering Liar RINO-CINO Fart.

You Israel Firster Traitor Bastards , don't own The GOP nor The Tea Party.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Jesus Christ| 9.16.11 @ 7:00PM

Thanks for not dropping my name this time...

God| 9.16.11 @ 9:16PM

That's telling her, Son.

Jesus Christ| 9.16.11 @ 10:26PM

Thanks, Pop.

By the way, mind if I borrow the chariot this weekend?

Alan Brooks| 9.17.11 @ 5:20PM

"Or as Dean Martin used to swoon, "Doobie doobie doo.."

Scoobie Doobie Doo, you're a Jew, put you to sleep at the dog pound...

Occam's Tool| 9.17.11 @ 10:31PM

Margie:

May I quote that great Rasta, Ron Paul:

"Legalize it, don't criticize it..."

I'm sorry, that was Bob Marley---hard to tell the two apart...;-)

Occam's Tool| 9.17.11 @ 10:33PM

Uhh, Paul is wrong on this one, especially if the marijuana and drugs are coming in from overseas. Then it beciomes a matter of enforcing the borders and customs.

But he's so HIIIIGGGGHHH!

Ricky Perry| 9.18.11 @ 10:40AM

Dr.Ron Paul,
" Drug users should not be entitled to government-funded treatment if they abuse legalized drugs."

Margie| 9.19.11 @ 12:44AM

LOL.
Maybe the Rasta Santa will bring him some ganga this "Holiday Season."

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_muVC.....aSanta.png

Ricky Perry| 9.16.11 @ 5:22PM

C'mon Girls !

Let's Do A Ricky Perry Algore Cheerleaders Cheer.

Go Big "HPV"

Go Big "VACINE "

Go Big "MANDATE"

Go Big " HPV VACINE MANDATE "

Woooooooooooo !

Yaaaaaaaaaaaay !

Perry Zero

trinacria| 9.16.11 @ 6:53PM

WTF is a vacine?

Clint| 9.16.11 @ 8:45PM

Get Bent Greaseball.

Trinacria| 9.16.11 @ 10:31PM

WTF does get bent mean?

You really must do better, Sport; it's not really an insult if nobody knows what you mean. C'mon, you can do it - I'll even get you started. How about something like:

You dago, wop, guinnea, greaseball, goombahs are so freakin' stupid that you think a penal code refers to [fill in the blank]

C'mon, Skippy, give me your best shot - I know you can do it!

Ricky Perry| 9.17.11 @ 8:17AM

I'll show you what it means Trina

Now bend over Sweetie Pie.

Trinacria| 9.17.11 @ 1:47PM

Profoundly weak. I'm embarrassed for you.

Occam's Tool| 9.17.11 @ 10:34PM

Like you do for your Jihadist Johns, Clint?

Ricky Perry| 9.18.11 @ 10:28AM

Get those Ron Paul Tea Party Conservatives for me Occam's Tool.

C'mon Girls !
Let's do a Ricky Perry Algore Cheerleader Cheer.

Ge me a "Instate"

Give Me A "Tuition For "

Give Me An "Illegal

Give Me A "Aliens"

Give Me An " Instate Tuition For Illegal Aliens "

Wooooooooooooo !

Yaaaaaaaaaaaay !

Occam's Tool| 9.17.11 @ 10:46PM

No, that's "Get Bent, Greaseball." Really, you need the comma there.

You're the professional writer, Ken. Am I right?

Oldefarte| 9.18.11 @ 11:12AM

At least Perry can go through an airport metal detector without his head-plate causing their alarms to go off!!!!!!!

Clint| 9.18.11 @ 11:25AM

"Mike Wilson, the founder of the Cincinnati Tea Party, conducted a straw poll before the debate watch and a second one afterwards. A straw poll is a non-binding poll where participants are given a ballot, mark a candidate and drop it in a box.

The results were most interesting:

• Ron Paul, the Texas congressman, was the clear favorite, with 51 votes before the debate and 52 votes after.

• Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who burst on to the scene a few weeks ago, to become an immediate top tier candidate, didn’t do himself much good with the Cincinnati tea party crowd – he went from 41 votes before the debate to 25 after."

Oldefarte| 9.17.11 @ 4:29PM

Post your own thoughts/ideas [instead of copy/pasting that of some IDIOT], MORON [and learn the rules of CAPITALIZATION also]!!!!!

Clint| 9.18.11 @ 11:28AM

I'll Post whatever I damned well please, RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooge Fart.

You think you're man enough to stop me, Fart ?

Hmmmmmm ?

MOS 1 1 2 | 9.16.11 @ 4:17PM

You are sensitive to errors in spelling and diction, but insensitive to millions of lives killed by abortion "doctors."

Alan Brooks| 9.17.11 @ 5:23PM

"You are sensitive to errors in spelling and diction, but insensitive to millions of lives killed by abortion "doctors."

But you killed all those insects when you called the exterminator last time around. Reparations to the insect population are in order.

Oldefarte| 9.18.11 @ 11:19AM

No moron, it should be PERSONS or PEOPLE, not 'lives' [You are sensitive to errors in spelling and diction, but insensitive to millions of lives killed by abortion "doctors."]. Also, the TRUTH is that the PERSONS or PEOPLE that are RESPONSIBLE for those lives being """""killed"""" are the STUPIDS and INDIGENTS who fornicated STUPIDLY and cause the CONCEPTION of these """""lives"""" in the first place. What a DUMMIE!!!!!!!

Jack in Wi.| 9.16.11 @ 6:52PM

Old cocker. Who cares about my spelling? I am just a working man, not a writer? How do stand on the Surpreme court taking over for the Surpreme Being? The only man dedicated to the Constitution and the end of what Roe stands for is Ron Paul. All the rest of them, with the possible exception, of Michelle Bachman are nothing but phonies. Romney and Perry are both unelectable people with no basic core principles. They are worse then seeing Obama re-elected. because they are trojan horses of the New World Order. Let Romney take his magic Masonic Mormon underwear and Perry take his big Bilderburger ring and go jump off a cliff hand in hand. Either one is a guaranteed loser. Even if he wins. They are just the Bush's McCain and Dole all over again. No thank you.

Oldefarte| 9.17.11 @ 4:31PM

To plagerize Forrest Gump: STUPID IS AS STUPID SAYS!!!!!!!!!!

Alan Brooks| 9.17.11 @ 5:29PM

"Let Romney take his magic Masonic Mormon underwear and Perry take his big Bilderburger ring"

And Lee Harvey Oswald's bowl of borscht that he ate in Minsk, 1961 was laced with mind control Parsley Sage Rosemary & Tyme, so Simon and Garfunkel (both Jews) could shill for the Illuminati in selling Girl Scout cookies baked with fluoridated water siphoned from a swimming pool near the Vatican where a priest urinated in on November 22nd 1963 at the very moment JFK was assassinated.

Alan Brooks| 9.17.11 @ 5:32PM

AND did you ever realize the album 'With The Beatles' was released on November 22nd, 1963?
coincidence?
No, it was the Gremlin in the Kremlin!

Oldefarte| 9.18.11 @ 11:28AM

Wait Alan, you've previously propagandized from your handlers that it was ALL BUSH'S FAULT. Which is it???????

Occam's Tool| 9.17.11 @ 10:34PM

I thought, Jack, that you had a degree in history?

Did they not teach you how to write?

Oldefarte| 9.18.11 @ 11:30AM

His history degree was apparently received from the same Ivy League agricultural school that Keith Olbermann attended!!!!!!!

Melvin| 9.16.11 @ 8:17AM

I would like to think that the Tea Party having been burned by the Republican Party, will have learned the lesson and trust no one from the current Republican and Democrat Parties, commonly know as the Party of the Political elite.
John McCain was the primary reason that I left the Republican Party.
I guess a person could say that, Johnny Boy was the prism that allowed me to truly see the rot and decay within the party.
I've attended numerous Tea Party rallies, and the people that attend these rallies are truly good people wanting to believe in the system, that built this Country from a mob and into a Nation.
As far as the Tea Party leadership, I don't know, never met anyone, and have only heard what everyone else has heard.
The Tea Party is not or should not be aligned with any political Party is because it can't, and idea itself cannot transcend itself into a political party, the Tea Party idea transcends itself to people who in turn become a political movement.
There are millions of Americans, with yours truly included who truly believe in the Constitution exactly with way it was written.
The Supreme Court are not Gods who hold immense power over our heads. The Party of the Political Elite would like us to believe and embrace that notion, but it is a false notion nevertheless.
The Tea Party Leadership needs to embrace the Constitution and all its principals, not just the principals that will allow a per-disposed political outcome, by Constitutional Cherry Picking.
The Tea Party and it's leadership need to remember one thing. The Tea Party is surrounded by Brooks Brothers wearing Skunks and Weasels, trust them not.

PattyMor| 9.16.11 @ 8:40AM

Long live Clarence Thomas and his merry little band of conservatives on the Supreme Court. And may Justice Kennedy become totally conservative and strike down the Obamanation called Obamacare. Then the conservative Sarah Palin elected to clean out the deadwood and the politicans who have created a dead man walking nation.

Angel| 9.16.11 @ 8:54AM

The Tea Party sir is a grass root phenomenon. The American people have been brought up to believe that the Constitution is too difficult a document for the average person to understand, so leave it to the experts to sort thru it complex intricacies. The Tea Party is made up of hard working regular folks. These individuals are searching for the truth. The learning process is not swift or immediate. They do however, can sense very quickly, when the politicians overexert and sometimes usurp power and that frighten them.

I contend that the Constitution is not a living document, as Woodrow Wilson would attest. It is a general set of laws and limitations on the Federal Government. Limitations design to limit how far the Federal government can trample on the rights of the individual. It comes with it own process to bring the document up to date. It is call the constitutional amendment process. I would challenge you to call out by name those radio personalities that have in anyway misrepresented what the constitution stands for. When you speak of the Tea partier trying to take us back to some by gone era. That sir is a bad generalization. One that is design to mock well meaning citizen who are trying to hold on to their freedom.

There is something wrong with a system that allows the government to decree what is or is not constitutional. Unfortunately, it does speaks to the fact that no system is perfect. Our founding fathers actually came up with an amazing document. Yet the very concept of the supreme court having final say is an obvious flaws. The most egregious being that the President selects the candidate and congress confirms them. To me that's a bit like cronyism, but as yet I cannot reason thru this process clearly enough to come up with an alternative that would be fair and not subject to corruption.

In the bill of rights is our strongest antidote to the excesses and abuses of the Federal government. These amendments are constantly under attack by corrupt politicians. The following is one of the most abused of all

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
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.

Perhaps because it is vague and people do not realize when their rights to freedom are being infringed upon. The Federal government has no absolute power over the people. That sir is tyranny. The Amendment above pretty much solidify who is in charge. I am fairly new at this game. I have only two year of self education on political matters and I have a long ways to go. However, I am dedicated to bringing politicians in Washington down a few pegs. The best way to do that is thru education and involvement in the political process.

I want to see the day when respect for the constitution and the rule of law is taken seriously by Washington. If that makes me a right wing nut job, so be it.

George S| 9.16.11 @ 9:23AM

The only reason we acquiesce to the power that the federal government usurped from the Constitution is the transfer of money. Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, farm subsidies, tuition, tax credits, research grants, pension guarantees, food stamps, etc., exist because people do not turn down free money and plan their lives around it.

We are all for smaller government, as long as my check is unaffected. It is the people who pick and choose what parts of the Constitution are still valid. They are the ones who, after all, elect the Congresses that ignore the document.

Petronius| 9.16.11 @ 9:33AM

The point has been reached where no voter can expect any office holder anywhere to uphold, protect, and defend a document they haven't read, or if they have read it, don't understand a word of it. That's why we have no right to complain that all Our rights have been taken. Rights no longer exist. This country has split into factions with goals of "empowerment". The minimum wage is a misnomer but defined as "worker empowerment." That onerous job killing mandate should be called what it really is; a Minimum Tax Base Law. When the Republicans tried to raise the "minimum wage" while attempting to make that raise exempt from Federal Income Tax, EVERY Democrat voted No for two reasons: They don't want the Republicans getting credit for usurping their political turf and the dirty secret reason is that the chump worker flipping burgers only gets a raise on paper because most of it will be taken in TAX. This is also how baseline budgeting has been maintained all this time. Then there is the Sacred Civil Rights Act which in reality abolished the Right of Free Association ONLY for White People. This Law "empowered" blacks with the "right of inclusion." Ask any white parent in an urban area how he feels when his child comes home from that "integrated school" they must attend having been beaten or robbed by gang bangers with no possibility of recompense. But blacks and other "protected minorities" can exclude anyone they don't want. Try and find a White Man who went to a leftist campus organization and walked away in one piece. The P Oed Patriot got kicked out of Graham Chapel at Wash U when Van Jones appeared. These events are open to the (Liberal) public. And none of this will change, nor will our Rights be restored until the self serving leftist Federal Judges get impeached, convicted, defrocked, and disbarred. That will be a long wait, if ever.

Anthony| 9.16.11 @ 10:21AM

The folks on the left have been at war with the Constitution for decades. FDR was the Ds first leftist general who instituted a direct frontal assault on it.
Mark Levin has used the words unmoored and unteathered when describing our government under the Marxist regime of Obozo and its desire to render the Constitution meaningless.
I my opinion, it's not so much that the left wants to engage in cafeteria constitutionalism, which I agree is happening, but rather, wishes to create an Orwellian version of the Constitution.
The left are deconstruction constitutionalists who can be succinctly defined by the recent pronoucement offered by a member of the Congressional Black Caucus during Obozocare, "we just make it up as we go along".

Oldefarte| 9.16.11 @ 11:51AM

Basically [and oversimplifying] this issue, possibly the one/only area that the federal government should have historically been involved in is the military, since same if a national/collective organization best handled by the national government [and not therefore delegated to the individual states]. Possibly all others are an extension of the federal government not allowed within the framework of our constitution!!!!!!!

TrueBlue| 9.16.11 @ 12:44PM

Don't forget immigration, interstate commerce, and treaties with foreign bodies. But that's pretty much the limit of their power (or supposed to be anyway). It's that "common welfare" bit that the fed uses to create everything else, because it's "for your own good."

Jack in Wi.| 9.16.11 @ 7:02PM

Old fellow: The only man running who understands the Constitutional limitations of both the Presidency and the other branches is Dr. Ron Paul. Get on the bandwagon. It is Ron Paul or ruin. No more undeclared wars and no more murderous Surpreme Court power grabs.

Trinacria| 9.16.11 @ 10:32PM

Yes, quite!

VIVA LA REVOLUCION
OPEN THE BORDERS
PASS THE DOOBIE
NUKE UP THE MULLAHS (they ain't hurtin' nobody)

PAUL 2012

Ricky Perry| 9.17.11 @ 8:22AM

I smoke Bill Clinton's old cigars.

They kind of taste funny.

Vote for Me.

Trinacria| 9.17.11 @ 2:55PM

WTF are you, 12?

Ricky Perry| 9.18.11 @ 10:14AM

I'm in grade school with you, Trina.

Oldefarte| 9.18.11 @ 11:33AM

Is your name MONIKA by chance?????

Oldefarte| 9.17.11 @ 4:37PM

'...The only man running who understands the Constitutional limitations of both the Presidency and the other branches is Dr. Ron Paul...' AND THE ONLY ONE WHO DOESN'T IS JACK IN WI. Also, IT'S THE DEMOCRATS. STUPIDS [try confining your political support to your home state issues, ie Scott Walker and the Republicans fight against the LABOR UNION THUGS AND/OR DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!

fwb| 9.16.11 @ 12:24PM

Human behavior has never been any different. The first Congress violated the Constitution. Why? Because the first Congress was made up primarily of federalists, the guys who lost in the Convention. The federalists wanted the all-powerful central government and the federalists went about getting elected or appointed to nearly every major position available. Cheif Justice John Marshall was a federalist and most often his decisions on constitutional issues were flat out wrong. BUT he moved to expand the power of the courts and the government through those decisions.

We have never lived in a Constitutional government. It is worse today but what people think was correct isn't.

Remember this: The united states are NOT a nation. They are a collection of nations assembled in a UNION. Why do people think of the US as a singular nation? Brainwashing. Everyone was taught the PLEDGE in order to destroy what was supposed to be and to build this all-powerful central government. So far, it's working.

Al Adab| 9.16.11 @ 2:50PM

It was once written united States
now it is United States.

As you wrote the united States are, it is plural.

DTM| 9.16.11 @ 12:37PM

I've said it to my fiends -when GWB was doing the Patriot Act, DHS, TSA etc… democrats feigned outrage - but the reality is they wre actually in the backroom going GO GWB, GO GWB. WHy. Because at some point democrats would be in power and "GWB" enacted x we're just following enacted law/policy.

If anyone believes there is truly any difference between parties, then that person is just deluding one self.

By the way, my political leaning is I make Beck look like a liberal.

Take back the educational system from GOVERNMENT (state & fed)? MAYBE we stand a chance as the idea of America.

TrueBlue| 9.16.11 @ 12:46PM

Well, the states have every right to determine how education is handled in their state, so long as the individual state constitution says they can, but the federal government definitely needs to get the heck out.

Len| 9.16.11 @ 2:00PM

State constitutions are based on fraud to be honest, they start off talking about rights, but then they start talking about such things as education, which can only be done by violating rights.

The legitimate purpose of government is to essentially be a peacemaker through a justice system that is based on no one gaining advantage against another by force and fraud, and a police/military force to enforce what happens in the legal system and assist in providing force in the people's exercise of self-defense, whether individually or as a community.

It also distorts the market to determine through government just what is considered education, and how much of it people need. The more that government at any level in the US has involved itself in education, the more our literacy rate has dropped, the less the general population has evidenced critical thinking skills, the more conflict has conflict has been created as no one really has a say in what schools do or teach.
Education in the American form also creates more of a generational gap, and causes children to become more distant from their family.

I could go on, but suffice it to say, education is a good like anything else, and as such the free market should be allowed to push forth the best models and services. This would also lead to people becoming productive at a younger age, and would be a further boon to the economy.

talkradio55| 9.16.11 @ 1:07PM

The writer here, while making some valid points, has fallen for the Left's lies. Waterboarding, wiretaps, and the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were all perfectly legal and within the constitution.

Bush's solutions for immigration and his spending were unconstitutional, but the War on Terror is a legitimate, constitutional function of the federal government.

The Left really has no use for the Constitution because it is merely an obstacle to their Fascist utopia. The fact is, the entire Democratic Party is unconstitutional, there is nothing in their party platform that is even remotely within American jurisprudence.

Happy Constitution Day

Trinacria| 9.16.11 @ 1:49PM

On point, TR, as usual.

DRed| 9.16.11 @ 2:19PM

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Ronald Reagan's administration signed, and the Senate ratified the UN Convention Against Torture. According to the Constitution, the convention is binding law in the United States.

Trinacria| 9.16.11 @ 3:34PM

One man's torture is another man's enhanced interrogation. You say "potato"; I say "waterboard the son of a bitch"...

War is hell; if one takes the regrettable step of declaring war on a nation and murdering 3,000 innocent civilians, one has rather little standing in the "bitch and complain that I'm not being treated with respect and dignity" department.

Or perhaps you think we should have invited them for tea and biscuits and had a friendly chat regarding their next planned attack? Terribly civilized chaps, aren't we? Do be so kind as to share with us the details of that rather nasty business you've been up to, won't you?

Trinacria| 9.16.11 @ 3:38PM

By the way, did Al Qaeda sign on to the UN Convention Against Torture? Don't recall them being on the list of signatories...

DRed| 9.16.11 @ 4:17PM

Of course they didn't. It's also totally irrelevant.

Trinacria| 9.16.11 @ 4:32PM

So, to be clear, it is your assertion that we can engage in war with an enemy who has not agreed to the "rules of engagement" and then said enemy can accuse us of violating the rules that they have not agreed to acknowledge?

I just want to make sure I confirm you're saying what I think you're saying before I disturb my office mates with a full-out, knee slapping, desk-pounding belly laugh...

DRed| 9.16.11 @ 4:53PM

No, not at all. I didn't say anything close to that. I said that we signed a treaty stating that torture is illegal, and that therefore, in accordance with what the constitution clearly says about treaties, torture is illegal.

trinacria| 9.16.11 @ 6:42PM

Quite so. Torture is illegal.

Now that we've settled that, let's turn to the business of practical application.

(1) How does one define torture? Here's where it gets a bit tricky, isn't it? We can outlaw pornography, but we can't define it - does one bare nipple exceed the threshold, or does it require two? What if the nipples are covered, but one can see the outline through a cotton t-shirt? Is it in the eye of the beholder or perhaps in the mouth of the waterboardee?

(2) Who enforces the law and what is the punishment for violating it? Our constitution entitles U.S. Citizens to a trial before a jury of his peers - shall we subordinate this right to the laws of an international court, particularly in cases where the alleged victim was himself an avowed proponent of and participant in the very acts of which he claims to be a victim? And if an American in the act of protecting the lives of his fellow citizens believes he has no other choice but to risk violating the UN Convention and the United States sanctions his actions, who will enforce the law? Surely you arent suggesting that the boys in baby blue helmets will invade the U.S. in an effort to restore justice - if that's your enforcement "muscle", we'd have rather little to fear now, wouldn't we? Perhaps they could just have their Human Rights council issue a formal complaint, what with signatories like Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Cuba, and Uganda pressing their collective moral weight, we'd be facing a very stern talking to.

War sucks. People die. If you're lucky enough to be fighting an enemy who's sporting enough to agree on gentlemanly rules of engagement, you can go about the cheerful task of politely killing each other. If, on the other hand, they have no such compulsion to fight like gentlemen, we mustn't be obliged to either.

W| 9.16.11 @ 6:50PM

It was signed by Reagan but not effective until ratified by Slick Willie's administration in 1994 when the Dems controlled congress.

This was part of Slick Willie's ignoring the War on Terror, consistent with ignoring the World Trade Center attack in 1993, the Khobar Tower attack, the two embassy attacks, and the attack on the US Cole. It was consistent with treating the terrorrists as a legal issue rather than a war, and erecting barriers prohibiting sharing of information between the CIA and FBI as per Assisstant Attorney General Jamie Gorelick's order.

The question is the definition of torture that uses the words "severe pain" and under the "jurisdiction" of the country.

This is a silly treaty similar to the Kellog Briand Treaty that outlawed war. If a nation is attacked as we were then we defend ourselves by all means necessary.

Trinacria| 9.16.11 @ 6:58PM

Amen, brother! By ALL means necessary.

If you break into my respectable olive oil import/export business in the dark of night with nefarious motives, I shan't be consulting any UN Convention prior to adjusting your attitude (and protecting my family business)...

America. Land of the Free. F--- with us at your peril.

W| 9.16.11 @ 8:02PM

China is a signatory. A country that enforces a one child policy with forced abortions, slave labor, runs over its people with tanks, no freedom of speech-religion-assembly etc. But they agree to not "torture."
According to this idiotic treaty we can shoot on sight a terrorrist, such as witha drone, but we can't slap him or play loud music to get information.

Enjoy your posts, buona notte.

DRed| 9.16.11 @ 8:47PM

So is our government bound by the law? Only by laws passed by Republicans? Only laws that you think aren't silly? I don't understand how you can argue for a constitutionally limited government that has the freedom to ignore silly laws.

W| 9.16.11 @ 9:42PM

Read the treaty.

Trinacria| 9.16.11 @ 10:20PM

With all due respect DRed, your responses have prompted me to reconsider my original skepticism of Darwin's theory.

War with an enemy who recognizes no moral limits is a deadly serious business. You can be a dead moralist if you choose - I'd prefer to survive and sort out my guilty feelings later with a shrink. And I hasten to add that I suspect my family will be grateful that I placed their survival ahead of my loyalty to some treaty with a half-ass sham organization. But, hey, that's just me.

Occam's Tool| 9.17.11 @ 10:37PM

DRed: Enhanced Interrogation involves no permanent bodily damage; therefore, no torture. QED.

Oldefarte| 9.18.11 @ 11:37AM

It insults their sensitivities as Muslims and detracts from their focus on becoming indoctrinated with religious hatred!!!!

Richard Baker| 9.16.11 @ 9:43PM

What always amazes me is that the most profound political thinkers in history are degraded by the most politically illiterate in our midst. The critics solution seems to be one version or another of warmed over socialism/communism/despotism which have been demonstrably proven to be failures and destructive of the glue that binds societies. Wish there were a way that all these critics could be forced to live in a society that lives their dreams. Can you imagine the screams from them?

Jim Hlavac| 9.16.11 @ 10:45PM

And remember this people; out of all the "legal" and "constitutional" ideas that float around; the one that is so utterly divorced from reality is a Constitutional Amendment against sissy smooching or the recognition thereof. We are wholly unrelated to anything. I'm well aware that many heteros are "ew, gays, icky," and I have no problem with this -- but egad, people, do we need to pass a Constitutional amendment, either federally or by the states, so that we sissies can't pursue our happiness? Are you that fearful of us?

It boggles my mind, but come to your sense; it's the deficit, the laws, the IRS, the crony crap, the intrusion into our lives -- and NOT the sissy smooching. We are nothing in the grand scheme of things; and you be fearful of us; and we wonder "why?"

Nick| 9.17.11 @ 2:12AM

Mr. Hlavac,

Yes! To answer you question about whether we need a "Constitutional amendment." Unless, you want to see the institution of marriage destroyed?

Or, perhaps you want to see polygamy? Whether it be one man and several women, or, one woman and several men, or, several men and several women. How would that work, exactly? How would states deal with divorces in such situations?

Would you also like to see incestuous "marriages" between adults? Mom and son? Dad and son? Brother and sister? Daddy and daughter? Mommy and daughter?

If you are in favor of counterfeit marriage for homos, you have to be in favor of counterfeit marriage for brothers and sisters, or, several men and several women. Or, else, you are a hypocrite and intellectually dishonest.

Sheep| 9.17.11 @ 2:58PM

So you mean there's hope for me and Bruce?!!!!

Ovis Publius| 9.17.11 @ 4:10PM

It 'baaggles the mind', because it does not take sheep of the 'simpleton' - rather than the 'ovine' - definition to comprehend the difference between 'fear' and 'disgust' of behavior that is 'abominable', 'abnormal', 'deviant', 'perverted', and 'degenerate', or even to comprehend 'pursuit of happiness' and 'constitutional', not to mention 'marriage', much less 'dictionary'; and don't get this 'allonym' started on what sheep of the 'ovine' - rather than the 'simpleton' definition - throughout this nation are fearful of what will inevitably happen to them by sissified pantywaists who are so utterly divorced from reality.

Lucidity| 9.17.11 @ 6:51PM

Hey! Ovis! I'm over here - jump back over the fence!

Monosemy| 9.17.11 @ 8:16PM

Lucidity, I stay with Ovis Publius, as you would, if not for being Obscurity in deceptive disguise.

Occam's Tool| 9.17.11 @ 10:38PM

Damn Kiwi. ;-)

Occam's Tool| 9.17.11 @ 10:43PM

Dear Jim:

marriage is, on the macrogovernmental level, a mechanism by which the State can perpetuate itself through the encouragement of proper raising of children.

I think Civil Unions are fine for you guys, and certainl;y you deserve the rights of insurance, next of kin in hospitals, all that stuff. But "Marriage" is an institution under attack, and does not need more weight. In addition, EVERY place which has legalized gay marriage has a birthrate below replacement.

There is a reason for some traditions. I do not fear you, and I certainly support your happiness (see "Civil Unions" comments), but some things are reserved for the growth and development of children, and the sublimation of male urges into the protection of women and children.

Occam's Tool| 9.17.11 @ 10:44PM

Sorry, "more weight placed upon its fragile structure." Also, correct the "certainly" typos.)

Oldefarte| 9.18.11 @ 11:43AM

And beyond that, marriage is a sacrament instituted by the Almighty Who designed same strictly between a MALE and a FEMALE, as confirmed by the Natural Law [Honor thy father and thy mother; Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, etc]!!!!

POST American| 9.16.11 @ 11:16PM

---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------

"First of all, you're going to have to rip
up the UN charter which your leaders signed
back in 1945. Every leader who signed that
document pledged themselves and their
nations to world government. Every one of
them committed TREASON in broad daylight
against their own people. The UN is NO kind
of a democratic, or even benevolent institution.
It is entirely a creation of dominant elites
and world banking (ie USURY) ---and designed
to centralize and consoldate power,
bring on authoriarian world control, standardize
(ie annihilate) culture ---and to aggresssively
promote their EUGENICS agenda (ie genocide)."
-ALAN WATT
(unflinching TRUTH online)

---After we've RETRO-actively IMPEACHED
our past 4 CFR/RIIA front op administrations
-----surely the place to start is with EXITING,
defunding and expelling this horror from our
soil.

Timely Renewed| 9.17.11 @ 2:10AM

The question is whether we acquiesce in the New Deal reinterpretation of the interstate commerce clause and other rulings which expanded federal power, or do we restore the original much more limited role of the national government? This decision should be made in the manner prescribed by the document itself, which is amendment, not the vote of a few unelected, life-tenured judges.

The comprehensive solution is to amend the Constitution to restore the original constitutional structure which limited the federal government. However, this is difficult to achieve when Congress holds a monopoly on initiating constitutional amendments. Therefore, we need an "amendment amendment" which gives the States the ability to initiate constitutional amendments without the cumbersome convention presently required by Article V. This will allow grassroots constitutionalists to initiate amendments carefully drafted to achieve the restoration of the original constitutional structure without having to pass through Washington. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com.

Reality check| 9.17.11 @ 6:52PM

You get right on that, will you?

Richard Baker| 9.17.11 @ 8:33AM

Hlavac:
Perversion is.

Jim Hlavac| 9.17.11 @ 10:47PM

And just remember this, you constitutionalists, that of all the cockamamie amendments proposed - the one against sissy smooching is the most ridiculous, unfair, bill of attainder, strange and absurd amendments ever proposed is the one to say "marriage" is "only" between heteros; Do Not Deny Us Our Happiness! We are few, you are many, but really now; get a grip!

Oh, go watch Jerry Springer to learn all about the wonders of hetero marriage.

We gay folks will accept our lot, for we have no choice; but we will hound you forever over that one. We shall continue to be couples; under commercial law, for we can still "partner" under commercial law, even if you deny us family law.

And such an amendment would deny gay Americans the pursuit of happiness; deny us freedom from religion, deny us freedom of speech, oh I could go on.

Egad, people, are you this fearful of us? That you need an amendment against us? For it would not be "for" marriage, but against "marriage" for those few of us whom are gay -- are you really that fearful of us? My God, egad, what a bunch of, well, what a bunch of sissies.

We are we; we are not you; you are not us; you cannot be us, but we will never be hetero, not even with a gun to our heads!

But by God; I have never seen 95% of the people more fearful of reality than that sort of amendment. I fret for any nation that fears its sissies. Leave us the hell alone, and if you don't think we deserve "marriage" give us "twainage," or any other word 100,000 words either side of marriage in the dictionary. But Lord, you people are panic stricken over a few sissies. It is unbecoming a free Republic. How can you fight the real fights against big government if you are all fearful of sissies?

What on earth have we done to you to deserve this fear we do not know. We are we few gays; and you fear us. How bizarre, how bizarre.

Speak up now, against sullying a great document with your fear. And grow up and get a life; and leave us the hell alone.

REALITY| 9.18.11 @ 8:41PM

Why do you fear me?

POST American| 9.18.11 @ 12:25AM

-----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE-------------------

------------"EVERY ONE OF THEM
committed TREASON against
their OWN people."
-ALAN WATT
(viz a viz signatories of the UN charter 1945)

---In other words, 'INTER-nationalism' is
a contrivance of an elite.

---'INTER-nationalists' are, by definition,
TRAITORS.

------------------ANY QUESTIONS?-------------------

Dan Mathewson| 9.19.11 @ 5:36PM

Yes, I have a question. Other than Alan Watt where are your sources?

Keith D. Rodebush| 9.18.11 @ 10:57AM

To say that Lincoln destroyed the Constitution is a specious argument and it always erroneously centers itself around States rights. However, the States never had the right to ignore our basic God given rights to Life, Liberty and Property. Yes, that means the black man too. The Founders knew that the slavery issue would have to be resolved before the nation ever actually worked as intended and Lincoln did that. He did not usurp the Constitution. He defended it. Particularly the Bill of Rights. Dixie defenders are horrific in pretending that States have the right to slavery with no intervention from federal government. Not so, never was and never will be. Same is true for abortion. It is not a States rights issue. It is murder and the federal government should be protecting the childs life not defending mom's murderous intent. The federal government is to protect the citizens rights to Life, Liberty and Property. Life is the first one. Liberty is second. Babies and blacks are rightly protected by federal government under the Constitution. This is the very reason the States implemented it, to give overall protection to the People from tyranny, even on a state level. Do you think the States have the right to deny you the right to bear arms? Of course not. As with the other rights.

Summer| 9.19.11 @ 10:11AM

We have got to reign in, and destroy, the blackhole that is Washington D.C.!!
http://www.topbrandsbags.com
http://www.winter-brands.com

Summer| 9.19.11 @ 10:12AM

Speak up now, against sullying a great document with your fear. And grow up and get a life; and leave us the hell alone.
http://www.summer-products.com
http://www.wholesalehatsshop.com