FrankRep
10-15-2008, 07:50 AM
The Left’s Closet Contempt for the Constitution
Selwyn Duke (John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/))
14 October 2008
Joe Biden recently said that he considers the ideology of a judicial nominee of great importance. This view is common among liberals, and for good reason.
There is a big difference between leftists’ contempt for the Bible and that which they harbor for the Constitution.
About the former, they tend to be honest with themselves and others. They just come right out and call it outdated, flawed and not relevant to modern times.
Yet not all liberals do this. A minority among them effect a different strategy, which is to co-opt Scripture. These are the people who will conjure up interpretations at great variance with the letter of the book. They are also the ones who may embrace “inclusive language” versions of it (which is funny, too, because I’ve never heard of inclusive Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek).
With the Constitution, the numbers are reversed: the liberals who dismiss it out-of-hand are greatly outnumbered by those who co-opt it. Another difference is that the hatred for the Constitution generally isn’t as great as that for the Bible, partially because it isn’t nearly as old. In the mind of “progressives,” those relativistic people, the older something is, the more it must impede progress.
What brings this all to mind was an exchange (http://townhall.com/Columnists/MarioDiaz/2008/10/09/obama-biden_judicial_litmus_test_exposed,_but_who_cares) between Joseph Biden and vice-presidential debate moderator Gwen Ifill, part of which follows:
Ifill: Can you think of a single issue, policy issue, in which you were forced to change a long-held view in order to accommodate changed circumstances?
Sen. Biden: Yes, I can. When I got to the United States Senate and went on the Judiciary Committee as a young lawyer, I was of the view, and had been trained in the view, that the only thing that mattered was whether or not a nominee appointed, suggested by the president, had a judicial temperament, had not committed a crime of moral turpitude, and was — had been a good student. And it didn’t take me long — it was hard to change, but it didn’t take me long, but it took about five years for me to realize that the ideology of that judge makes a big difference.
Although Biden’s approach as a younger man was also misguided, it’s obvious that his is a case where wisdom certainly did not come with age. What determines the fitness of a Supreme Court nominee is whether he understands the original intent of the Constitution’s framers and is willing to abide by it. That’s it; nothing more, nothing less.
Yet, liberals take issue with this proposition, and for good reason: the Constitution prescribes “rightist” government. But more on this in a moment.
A justice’s role is really as simple as it is important. He is a gatekeeper, a guardian of the supreme law of the land. To understand this, consider a sports analogy. Justices are much like on-course officials in a golf tournament, and the people are like the players, our legislators are like the rule makers and the Constitution is like the rule book.
Now, all in question are obligated to follow the rules; this isn’t negotiable. But if the players come to believe a rule is lacking, they can pressure the rule makers into changing it through legal means (with the Constitution, this is the amendment process).
The on-course officials have a very important but also very limited role; however, rewriting rules isn’t part of it. When their intervention is sought, which is rare, their only job is to determine whether or not a rule has been broken.
On this basis, and this one alone, they must either “strike down” or uphold the act in question. They cannot say, “Well, I like this act, so I’ll allow it even though the rules don’t” or “I dislike this act, so I’ll disallow it even though the rules allow it.” Their personal beliefs are irrelevant.
This is why I laugh when I hear about our different categories of justices. Could you imagine describing on-course officials as “constructionists” or “originalists,” or “pragmatists”? In reality, there are only two types of justices: good justices and bad justices.
Good ones do their job and abide by the Constitution; bad ones don’t.
And good politicians support only good justices. This leaves out Joseph Biden and the rest of his fellow travelers. Why do they support bad ones? Because the Constitution is a blueprint for conservative, traditional – apply whatever label you wish – government. Let’s consider some examples.
When read properly, it’s clear that the First Amendment allows states to infuse their public sphere with religious elements; the founders also never meant for freedom of speech to apply to imagery such as porn. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. The Tenth Amendment prescribes states’ rights and a limited role for the federal government.
As to this role, George Mason University economics professor Dr. Walter Williams points out that two-thirds of Uncle Sam’s spending is unconstitutional, writing (http://www.dnronline.com/opinion_details.php?AID=16162&CHID=59), “Today's federal budget is more than $3 trillion dollars. I challenge anyone to find specific constitutional authority for at least $2 trillion of it.” In other words, the Constitution prescribes small government both in terms of scope and expenditures (and these two things are intimately related).
So what’s the problem? Leftists hate religion and guns but love centralization, cradle-to-grave entitlements and porn. Of course, they could attempt to change the Constitution so that it reflects their agenda, but this is a long, drawn-out, difficult process that requires, of all things, actual public support for your aims. And it’s easier to change the courts – and install “ideological” justices who will impose left-wing orthodoxy from the bench – than the will of the subjects.
Yet there is a larger point to be made. The most consistent definition of “conservative” is: a philosophy advocating maintenance of the status quo. A closely related definition pertains to the preservation or restoration of tradition. (And when a status quo exists for long enough, its elements become, in essence, traditions.) Now, because the Constitution was written long ago and is so very hard to change, it prescribes a status quo; it preserves certain “governmental traditions.” Thus, it is by definition a conservative document.
What does this mean? Well, consider that liberals are ever trying to destroy tradition, as it stands in the way of progressivism. Consider that a consistent definition of liberalism – one that epitomizes the modern left (those progressives) – involves the desire to change the status quo. So what it means is that, by definition, a liberal who understands the Constitution cannot believe in it.
Of course, as with the Bible, when a leftist speaks of the importance of the Constitution, it’s sometimes hard to know if he is deceiving us or himself. Man does have a great capacity for rationalization, after all. But, whatever the case, it’s silly to expect a liberal to believe in a document that limits government power.
You might as well expect a Muslim jihadist to believe in the Pope.
SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/index.php/jbs-news-feed/3436
Selwyn Duke (John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/))
14 October 2008
Joe Biden recently said that he considers the ideology of a judicial nominee of great importance. This view is common among liberals, and for good reason.
There is a big difference between leftists’ contempt for the Bible and that which they harbor for the Constitution.
About the former, they tend to be honest with themselves and others. They just come right out and call it outdated, flawed and not relevant to modern times.
Yet not all liberals do this. A minority among them effect a different strategy, which is to co-opt Scripture. These are the people who will conjure up interpretations at great variance with the letter of the book. They are also the ones who may embrace “inclusive language” versions of it (which is funny, too, because I’ve never heard of inclusive Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek).
With the Constitution, the numbers are reversed: the liberals who dismiss it out-of-hand are greatly outnumbered by those who co-opt it. Another difference is that the hatred for the Constitution generally isn’t as great as that for the Bible, partially because it isn’t nearly as old. In the mind of “progressives,” those relativistic people, the older something is, the more it must impede progress.
What brings this all to mind was an exchange (http://townhall.com/Columnists/MarioDiaz/2008/10/09/obama-biden_judicial_litmus_test_exposed,_but_who_cares) between Joseph Biden and vice-presidential debate moderator Gwen Ifill, part of which follows:
Ifill: Can you think of a single issue, policy issue, in which you were forced to change a long-held view in order to accommodate changed circumstances?
Sen. Biden: Yes, I can. When I got to the United States Senate and went on the Judiciary Committee as a young lawyer, I was of the view, and had been trained in the view, that the only thing that mattered was whether or not a nominee appointed, suggested by the president, had a judicial temperament, had not committed a crime of moral turpitude, and was — had been a good student. And it didn’t take me long — it was hard to change, but it didn’t take me long, but it took about five years for me to realize that the ideology of that judge makes a big difference.
Although Biden’s approach as a younger man was also misguided, it’s obvious that his is a case where wisdom certainly did not come with age. What determines the fitness of a Supreme Court nominee is whether he understands the original intent of the Constitution’s framers and is willing to abide by it. That’s it; nothing more, nothing less.
Yet, liberals take issue with this proposition, and for good reason: the Constitution prescribes “rightist” government. But more on this in a moment.
A justice’s role is really as simple as it is important. He is a gatekeeper, a guardian of the supreme law of the land. To understand this, consider a sports analogy. Justices are much like on-course officials in a golf tournament, and the people are like the players, our legislators are like the rule makers and the Constitution is like the rule book.
Now, all in question are obligated to follow the rules; this isn’t negotiable. But if the players come to believe a rule is lacking, they can pressure the rule makers into changing it through legal means (with the Constitution, this is the amendment process).
The on-course officials have a very important but also very limited role; however, rewriting rules isn’t part of it. When their intervention is sought, which is rare, their only job is to determine whether or not a rule has been broken.
On this basis, and this one alone, they must either “strike down” or uphold the act in question. They cannot say, “Well, I like this act, so I’ll allow it even though the rules don’t” or “I dislike this act, so I’ll disallow it even though the rules allow it.” Their personal beliefs are irrelevant.
This is why I laugh when I hear about our different categories of justices. Could you imagine describing on-course officials as “constructionists” or “originalists,” or “pragmatists”? In reality, there are only two types of justices: good justices and bad justices.
Good ones do their job and abide by the Constitution; bad ones don’t.
And good politicians support only good justices. This leaves out Joseph Biden and the rest of his fellow travelers. Why do they support bad ones? Because the Constitution is a blueprint for conservative, traditional – apply whatever label you wish – government. Let’s consider some examples.
When read properly, it’s clear that the First Amendment allows states to infuse their public sphere with religious elements; the founders also never meant for freedom of speech to apply to imagery such as porn. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. The Tenth Amendment prescribes states’ rights and a limited role for the federal government.
As to this role, George Mason University economics professor Dr. Walter Williams points out that two-thirds of Uncle Sam’s spending is unconstitutional, writing (http://www.dnronline.com/opinion_details.php?AID=16162&CHID=59), “Today's federal budget is more than $3 trillion dollars. I challenge anyone to find specific constitutional authority for at least $2 trillion of it.” In other words, the Constitution prescribes small government both in terms of scope and expenditures (and these two things are intimately related).
So what’s the problem? Leftists hate religion and guns but love centralization, cradle-to-grave entitlements and porn. Of course, they could attempt to change the Constitution so that it reflects their agenda, but this is a long, drawn-out, difficult process that requires, of all things, actual public support for your aims. And it’s easier to change the courts – and install “ideological” justices who will impose left-wing orthodoxy from the bench – than the will of the subjects.
Yet there is a larger point to be made. The most consistent definition of “conservative” is: a philosophy advocating maintenance of the status quo. A closely related definition pertains to the preservation or restoration of tradition. (And when a status quo exists for long enough, its elements become, in essence, traditions.) Now, because the Constitution was written long ago and is so very hard to change, it prescribes a status quo; it preserves certain “governmental traditions.” Thus, it is by definition a conservative document.
What does this mean? Well, consider that liberals are ever trying to destroy tradition, as it stands in the way of progressivism. Consider that a consistent definition of liberalism – one that epitomizes the modern left (those progressives) – involves the desire to change the status quo. So what it means is that, by definition, a liberal who understands the Constitution cannot believe in it.
Of course, as with the Bible, when a leftist speaks of the importance of the Constitution, it’s sometimes hard to know if he is deceiving us or himself. Man does have a great capacity for rationalization, after all. But, whatever the case, it’s silly to expect a liberal to believe in a document that limits government power.
You might as well expect a Muslim jihadist to believe in the Pope.
SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/index.php/jbs-news-feed/3436