speciallyblend
05-06-2008, 09:45 AM
QUOTE=erin moore;1439173]From Winston-Salem NC: John McCain
I am living proof that an undistinguished academic record can be overcome in life. Or at least that’s the hope that has long, long sustained me. Your kind invitation here at wake forest brings me here as a candidate for president of the United States. And anyone in that pursuit has plenty of promises to make and to keep. When its all over, however, the next president will be compelled to make just one promise, in the same words that 42 others have spoken when the moment arrived. The framers’ of our constitution had a knack for coming right to the point. And it shows in the 35 word oath that ends with a pledge to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution itself. This is what we require and expect of every president, no matter what the agenda, or the loyalties of party.
All the powers of the presidency must serve the constitution and thereby protect the people and their liberties. For the chief executive, or any other constitutional office, The duties and boundaries of the constitution are not just a set of helpful suggestions. They're not just guidelines to be observed when convenient and loosely interpreted when it isn’t. The clear powers defined by our constitution and the clear limits of power lose nothing of their relevance with time because the dangers they guard against are found in every time.
In America, constitutional restraint on powers is as fundamental as the exercise of power and often more so. Yet the framers knew that these restraints would not always be observed, they were idealists (repeat) but they were worldly men as well. And they knew that abuses of power would arise and need to be firmly checked. Their design for democracy was drawn from their experience with tyranny.
A suspicion of power is ingrained in both the letter and spirit of the American constitution.
In the end, of course, their grand solution was to allocate federal power three ways. Reserving all other powers and rights to the states and to the people themselves.
The executive, legislative and judicial branches are often wary of one another's excesses, and they should be. They seek to keep each other within bounds, and they are supposed to. And although you wouldn't always know it from watching the day to day affairs of modern Washington, the framers knew exactly what they were doing, and the system of check and balances rarely disappoints.
There’s one great exception in our day however, and that is the common and systematic abuse of our federal courts by the people we entrust with judicial power. For decades now some federal judges have taken it upon themselves to announce and rule on matters that were never intended to be heard in courts or decided by judges.
With a presumption that would've amazed the framers of our constitution, and legal reasoning that would have mystified them, federal judges today issue rulings and opinions on policy questions that should be decided democratically. Assured of lifetime tenures, these judges show little regard for the authority of the president, of the congress or of the states. They display even less interest in the will of the people. And the only remedy available to any of us is to find, nominate, and confirm better judges. Quite rightly, the proper role of the judiciary has become one of the defining issues of this presidential election. It will fall to the next president to nominate hundreds of qualified men and women to the courts and the choices we make will reach far, far into the future.
My two prospective opponents and I have very different ideas about the nature and proper exercise of judicial power. We would nominate judges of a different kind, a different caliber, a different understanding of judicial authority and its limits. And the people of America, voters in both parties whose wishes and convictions are so often disregarded by unelected judges are entitled to know what those differences are.
Federal courts are charged with applying the constitution and laws of our country to each case at hand. There's great honor in this responsibility. An honor is the first thing to go when courts abuse their power. The moral authority of our judiciary depends on judicial self restraint. But that authority quickly vanishes when a court presumes to MAKE law instead of apply it. A court is hardly competent to check the abuses of other branches of government when it can't even control itself. One justice of the court remarked in a recent opinion that he was basing a conclusion on Quote 'my own experience.' Even though that conclusion found no support in the constitution or in applicable statutes or in the record of the case in front of him.
Such candor from the bench is rare and even commendable. But it was not exactly news that the court had taken to setting aside the facts and the constitution in its review of cases. And especially, especially in politically charged cases. Often, political causes are brought before the courts that couldn’t succeed by democratic means and some federal judges are eager to oblige politicians who sometimes contribute to the problem as well. Politicians themselves contribute to the problem because we abdicate our responsibilities and let the courts make the decision for us.
One abuse of judicial authority inspires more. One act of raw judicial power invites others. And the result over many years has been a series of judicial opinions and edicts wandering farther and farther from the clear meaning of the constitution and from the clear limits of judicial power that the constitution defines.
Sometimes the express will of the voter is disregarded by federal judges. As, in the 2005 case concerning an aggravated murder in the state of Missouri. As you might recall, the case inspired a Supreme Court opinion that left posterity on the lengthy discourse on international law, the constitutions of other nations, the meaning of life, and quote 'evolving standards of decency.' These meditations were in the tradition of penumbras, emanations, and other airy constructs the court has employed over the years as poor substitutes for clear and rigorous constitutional reasoning.
The effect of that in the Missouri case was familiar, too. When it finally came to the point, the result was to reduce the penalty, disregard our constitution and brush off the standards of the people themselves and their elected representatives.
The year 2005 also brought the case of Susan Kelo before the United States Supreme Court. Here was a woman whose home was taken from her because the local government and a few big corporations had designs of their own on the land she was getting and she was getting in the way. There's hardly a clearer principle on all of the constitution than the right of private property.
There's a very clear standard in the constitution requiring not only just compensation for the use of eminent domain but also that private property may not be taken for public use. But apparently that standard has been evolving, too. In the hands of a narrow majority of the court even the basic right of property doesn’t mean what we all thought it meant since the founding of America.
A local government seizes the private property of an American citizen. It gave that property away to a private developer. And this power play actually got the constitution ......
commercial[/QUOTE]
i had to post this. reading it i thought Ron Paul,but then noticed it was Mccain, I swear Ron paul wrote this speech;):eek:
I am living proof that an undistinguished academic record can be overcome in life. Or at least that’s the hope that has long, long sustained me. Your kind invitation here at wake forest brings me here as a candidate for president of the United States. And anyone in that pursuit has plenty of promises to make and to keep. When its all over, however, the next president will be compelled to make just one promise, in the same words that 42 others have spoken when the moment arrived. The framers’ of our constitution had a knack for coming right to the point. And it shows in the 35 word oath that ends with a pledge to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution itself. This is what we require and expect of every president, no matter what the agenda, or the loyalties of party.
All the powers of the presidency must serve the constitution and thereby protect the people and their liberties. For the chief executive, or any other constitutional office, The duties and boundaries of the constitution are not just a set of helpful suggestions. They're not just guidelines to be observed when convenient and loosely interpreted when it isn’t. The clear powers defined by our constitution and the clear limits of power lose nothing of their relevance with time because the dangers they guard against are found in every time.
In America, constitutional restraint on powers is as fundamental as the exercise of power and often more so. Yet the framers knew that these restraints would not always be observed, they were idealists (repeat) but they were worldly men as well. And they knew that abuses of power would arise and need to be firmly checked. Their design for democracy was drawn from their experience with tyranny.
A suspicion of power is ingrained in both the letter and spirit of the American constitution.
In the end, of course, their grand solution was to allocate federal power three ways. Reserving all other powers and rights to the states and to the people themselves.
The executive, legislative and judicial branches are often wary of one another's excesses, and they should be. They seek to keep each other within bounds, and they are supposed to. And although you wouldn't always know it from watching the day to day affairs of modern Washington, the framers knew exactly what they were doing, and the system of check and balances rarely disappoints.
There’s one great exception in our day however, and that is the common and systematic abuse of our federal courts by the people we entrust with judicial power. For decades now some federal judges have taken it upon themselves to announce and rule on matters that were never intended to be heard in courts or decided by judges.
With a presumption that would've amazed the framers of our constitution, and legal reasoning that would have mystified them, federal judges today issue rulings and opinions on policy questions that should be decided democratically. Assured of lifetime tenures, these judges show little regard for the authority of the president, of the congress or of the states. They display even less interest in the will of the people. And the only remedy available to any of us is to find, nominate, and confirm better judges. Quite rightly, the proper role of the judiciary has become one of the defining issues of this presidential election. It will fall to the next president to nominate hundreds of qualified men and women to the courts and the choices we make will reach far, far into the future.
My two prospective opponents and I have very different ideas about the nature and proper exercise of judicial power. We would nominate judges of a different kind, a different caliber, a different understanding of judicial authority and its limits. And the people of America, voters in both parties whose wishes and convictions are so often disregarded by unelected judges are entitled to know what those differences are.
Federal courts are charged with applying the constitution and laws of our country to each case at hand. There's great honor in this responsibility. An honor is the first thing to go when courts abuse their power. The moral authority of our judiciary depends on judicial self restraint. But that authority quickly vanishes when a court presumes to MAKE law instead of apply it. A court is hardly competent to check the abuses of other branches of government when it can't even control itself. One justice of the court remarked in a recent opinion that he was basing a conclusion on Quote 'my own experience.' Even though that conclusion found no support in the constitution or in applicable statutes or in the record of the case in front of him.
Such candor from the bench is rare and even commendable. But it was not exactly news that the court had taken to setting aside the facts and the constitution in its review of cases. And especially, especially in politically charged cases. Often, political causes are brought before the courts that couldn’t succeed by democratic means and some federal judges are eager to oblige politicians who sometimes contribute to the problem as well. Politicians themselves contribute to the problem because we abdicate our responsibilities and let the courts make the decision for us.
One abuse of judicial authority inspires more. One act of raw judicial power invites others. And the result over many years has been a series of judicial opinions and edicts wandering farther and farther from the clear meaning of the constitution and from the clear limits of judicial power that the constitution defines.
Sometimes the express will of the voter is disregarded by federal judges. As, in the 2005 case concerning an aggravated murder in the state of Missouri. As you might recall, the case inspired a Supreme Court opinion that left posterity on the lengthy discourse on international law, the constitutions of other nations, the meaning of life, and quote 'evolving standards of decency.' These meditations were in the tradition of penumbras, emanations, and other airy constructs the court has employed over the years as poor substitutes for clear and rigorous constitutional reasoning.
The effect of that in the Missouri case was familiar, too. When it finally came to the point, the result was to reduce the penalty, disregard our constitution and brush off the standards of the people themselves and their elected representatives.
The year 2005 also brought the case of Susan Kelo before the United States Supreme Court. Here was a woman whose home was taken from her because the local government and a few big corporations had designs of their own on the land she was getting and she was getting in the way. There's hardly a clearer principle on all of the constitution than the right of private property.
There's a very clear standard in the constitution requiring not only just compensation for the use of eminent domain but also that private property may not be taken for public use. But apparently that standard has been evolving, too. In the hands of a narrow majority of the court even the basic right of property doesn’t mean what we all thought it meant since the founding of America.
A local government seizes the private property of an American citizen. It gave that property away to a private developer. And this power play actually got the constitution ......
commercial[/QUOTE]
i had to post this. reading it i thought Ron Paul,but then noticed it was Mccain, I swear Ron paul wrote this speech;):eek: