If you walk by the National Archives on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington D.C. you will most likely see a line of people waiting to get just a glimpse of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. These two aged documents are browned with time and sealed under layers of a secure glass enclosure in the domed lobby of the Archives. But they still manage to impress their visitors. The inked words of the Constitution, many of them carefully penned by Gouverneur Morris over 200 years ago, are now barely visible. While some foreign visitors may struggle to make them out, we Americans know them by heart. “We the people in order to form a more perfect union…” the Constitution starts, and what follows is one of the most awe inspiring and heartfelt treatises to freedom in the history of man. After all, this one document founded the most successful country the world has ever known. Unfortunately, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg doesn’t believe in the importance of the U.S. Constitution. Ironically, though her job is to “support the Constitution” ( Article 6, U.S. Constitution ) she instead did everything but uphold it last Wednesday. During an interview with Egyptian television network Al Hayat in Cairo, she was asked to give her opinion regarding the type of government Egypt should adopt as they try to rebuild their country following the Arab Spring. Her response? “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” Though she extolled certain parts of the U.S. Constitution, she went on to propose Egypt instead use South Africa’s Constitution as a basis for their new government. I am deeply saddened and disappointed in Justice Ginsburg’s answer. As a Supreme Court Justice who daily delves into the U.S. Constitution looking for answers to the nation’s top cases, I would hope she would have developed a love for this crucial founding document. Yet instead, she implied its irrelevancy! Why would our Constitution not be just as good a foundation for a nation’s government today as it was in 1788? The answer is that it is, and always will be, an excellent foundation for the government of any nation. It was and still is the clearest legal protection of man’s freedoms on earth. Since our founding, our country’s unparalleled success and majestic display of human freedom has been a beacon of hope to the peoples of other nations. For years, immigrants from other countries have fled their oppressive or failing governments to come to our shores because they too sensed the meaning behind the words of our Constitution. I cannot think of another document I would more highly recommend to a country looking to make a fresh start. I would ask Justice Ginsburg to rethink her answer and reconsider her position as a “supporter of the Constitution.” Better yet, I would encourage her to consider why people from all around the world line up to see the distinctly American documents of freedom every day at the National Archives. I hope that one day she will come to understand what the patriotic Americans in line at the Archives understand: the protection and freedom the founding documents offered to the American people over 200 years ago is just the sort of protection every country in the world needs.
Visit link:
Our Constitution is not Irrelevant, Justice Ginsburg
What Is It with Massachusettes Governors and Armored Vehicles? There are actually some reasons to vote for Mitt Romney in this year’s GOP Primaries. I don’t personally find them compelling, and have endorsed one of Gov. Romney’s opponents. I admire the man’s ability to manage large projects and he does know how an executive office works. Voting for Mitt Romney may not be my personal predilection, but it isn’t quite as pointless as wearing a rally cap or tossing maidens down a well for good luck. People have also offered sales pitches on Romney’s behalf that are about as believable as SpongeBob Squarepants discovering the Higgs Boson. One of the sadder aspects of Mitt Romney’s mild ride this year has been watching people I have deemed intellectually powerful perform about as well at ratiocination as my little boy’s favorite cartoon character would at advancing particle physics. When Jonah Goldberg of National Review Magazine wrote The Case For Romney about a week ago, I remembered what outstanding work he had done in the past, and therefore delayed this post until it could age a bit and marinate. I felt I owed him a better expression of my angst than “WTF?” Goldberg states the hypothesis that Mitt Romney would make a great president for Conservatives because he would owe us. He states the following: …there is an instrumental case to be made for him: It is better to have a president who owes you than to have one who claims to own you…..If elected, Romney must follow through for conservatives and honor his vows to repeal Obamacare, implement Representative Paul Ryan’s agenda, and stay true to his pro-life commitments. Oh my! Is that really so? When he was Governor of Massachusetts, how did he repay all the Republicans he owed up there? Romneycare? Was it the complete and utter destruction of the state’s GOP infrastructure and popularity in his wake? Martha Coakley has done far more to help Republicans win high office in Massachusetts than Mitt Romney. Jonah Goldberg tries to explain why Mitt Romney doesn’t quite gel with Middle Class and Working Class Conservative voters. He makes Romney sound like the slightly nerdy white guy sitting around studying mathematics problems in Southside Richmond, VA. Romney doesn’t dislike these people as much as he doesn’t grok their folkways quite, and can’t make himself look authentic. I think this dramatically understates Mitt Romney’s problems with Conservative voters. To Governor Romney, Southern and Mid-Western Social Conservatives are like Dustin Hoffman’s character in the great Western Little Big Man was to the Cheyenne Indians who rescued him from death. Mitt Romney doesn’t even subconsciously believe he comes from the same species. The word Cheyenne, when translated literally, means “human being.” Those who were not Cheyenne were considered something else. Mitt Romney, I’ve come to sincerely believe, considers those not from his own rather isolated Cheyenne Village to be something else. It explains how he could even accidently articulate the fact that he doesn’t worry about the very poor. He’s willing to be nice to people like myself, but it’s not like he’ll any more use for me after Election Day than he would for a prophylactic after an act of sexual intercourse. I couldn’t make Mitt Romney understand who I am and where I come from even if he was really bored one afternoon and decide to amuse himself by actually giving a rat’s anus. There simply isn’t any way on God’s Green Earth that Mitt Romney would ever afford me the status of someone he would actually owe something to. If I ever were presumptuous enough to suggest such a thing it would serve as a profound affront to his self-image and dignity. Like Ann Coulter in the wake of her “THREE CHEERS FOR ROMNEYCARE” debacle and the Massachusetts GOP, anyone foolish enough to believe Mitt Romney owed them something in return for a vote would quickly discover the finite limits of Lord Willard’s sense of noblesse oblige. Some reasons actually exist to support to support Mitt Romney for President. One or two of them might even be worthwhile. However, any sense that he feels a bond of honor to movement Conservatism is simply delusional. I look back at all the great, wise and hilarious things Jonah Goldberg has written for National Review Magazine. This body of superb political commentary gives me reason to hope this endorsement he penned of Mitt Romney was just the lower tail of his Bell Curve. Jonah, for the sake of your honor as a man of intellect; climb down from the Mitt Romney Tank.
See the rest here:
Vote For Romney Because He’ll Owe Us?….Seriously?
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has acted to reverse the democratic decision of the people of California to confine marriage to its traditional parameters of a man and a woman. In making this decision, the court decided that it could overturn the will of the people of California on the basis of what is known in legal circles as “the rational basis standard.” When evaluating the violation of fundamental rights, the court has often used a standard of “strict scrutiny” in cases involving racial or religious discrimination.
Remember Rick Santorum, the neb who finished a distant third in Florida ‘s king-making primary last week? There was a lot of buzz about him after that outcome, mostly speculation about whether he should walk off into the Sunshine State sunset. He had only one victory, in tiny Iowa, and even that one was retroactive, announced weeks after the voting. He had no money, no rich backers, no famous billionaires with comb-overs to offer him apprenticeships. And he definitely needed to lose that lame sweater vest. The pundits wrote him off and I was prepared to accept their verdict… until the Limbaugh endorsement. Suddenly, Santorum has a head of steam and he is pulling ahead of his team of competitors. Minnesota minimizes Mitt! Missouri misses the Romney bus! Colorado colors in Santorum! “Wait a second. What are you talking about? Everyone knows Rush Limbaugh does not endorse candidates!” “I didn’t say he did. I was referring to the David Limbaugh endorsement.” “HUH?!” IT IS TRUE THAT RUSH LIMBAUGH has a long-standing practice of refraining to choose sides in primary elections. That is a good plan for a man who holds a position of public trust as an arbiter of a particular set of values. His job is to lay out principles that others can apply to life situations. If he starts telling people what to do, he becomes a private-sector version of big government: a know-it-all who figures out other people’s lives for them. Every four years during the primaries season, people call in begging him to jump on one of the horses in the Republican race, and he wisely holds back. This time around things are different. Barack Obama has lied about many things but he has been truthful in his terrifying Inauguration promise to “remake” America. It may be too late to undo much of the damage he has wrought but one thing is fairly certain: giving him another term will guarantee a legacy of deep systemic damage to this nation. The pressure was building on Rush to accept that this time was the exception that proves the rule. When Rome is burning, Nero cannot be fiddling.
RedState Morning Briefing For February 1, 2012 Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge. 1. A Big, Big Win for Santorum . . . Errr . . . CPAC 2. Justice Ginsburg and the Need to Oppose Radical Judicial Nominees 3. Ron Paul, Constitutional Scholar ———————————————————————- 1. A Big, Big Win for Santorum . . . Errr . . . CPAC Mitt Romney had a horrible, horrible night. Early yesterday, Mitt Romney’s campaign called Missouri a “beauty contest” and said to focus on Colorado. We did. Wow. I’ve said since Sunday that yesterday would be the first day of voting that Mitt Romney’s “poor” comment to Soledad O’Brien would have an impact. It typically takes a week for comments like that to be digested by voters. Six days after Romney opened his mouth, Rick Santorum swept the night. From Missouri to Minnesota to Colorado the Republican electorate sent a very clear signal — they want conviction over electability. They do not like Mitt Romney. They see Santorum as authentic. They see Mitt Romney as a fraud. Rick Santorum swept the races. Romney, the front runner, got crushed by conservatives. The pattern has held up from Iowa to South Carolina to Florida to Nevada to last night. In every county that saw increased turn out, Not Romney won. In counties with decreased turnout, Romney won most often, but not always. The real winner last night is CPAC – the conservative political action conference. At the end of this week, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich will, in that order, address the crowd. Conservatives in the hearthland last night rejected Mitt Romney as inauthentic. CPAC will be a must win speech for Romney. Considering how often Mitt Romney has lost in the past decade, you’d think he would have given a better concession speech last night. He did not and will need to up his game for his CPAC speech. He must now seriously woo the conservatives he thought he would not need. But what of Romney vs. Santorum? My prediction is that Romney has nothing to lose and will go negative. He will suddenly become as noxious as his supporters are on twitter and in the Washington Post. It will backfire on him. He will seem Newtish and Newt’s recent complaints about Romney’s negativity will be looked at anew. Gingrich is a big loser after last night. But I think the untold story is just how terrible Ron Paul did. He had a caucus strategy that has failed across the board. He has won no states. His strategy is failing him. What a night. Please click here for the rest of the post. 2. Justice Ginsburg and the Need to Oppose Radical Judicial Nominees While most of us have been caught up in the brouhaha of electoral politics, liberal activists have been working indefatigably to pack the courts – the unelected branch of government – with radical statists. We might have turned over a number of congressional seats in 2010, but Obama has successfully turned over many conservative seats in our federal court system. Since taking office, Obama has appointed 125 people to federal judgeships, including 25 to appellate courts, and 2 to the Supreme Court. After three years, Obama’s mark on the federal courts is beginning to become quite potent. The Fourth Circuit appellate court used to be filled with a majority of strict constructionist judges. Now, following Obama’s appointment of five new radicals, the court has totally shifted. This once conservative court ruled in favor of the administration in upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare last year. Obama’s indelible stain on the judicial system will reverberate for years to come. Please click here for the rest of the post. 3. Ron Paul, Constitutional Scholar People like to say, “Ron Paul’s got a great domestic program, it’s just his foreign policy I don’t like.” Really, people only say that because they don’t take the time to understand what Ron Paul’s domestic program is all about, or at least the more insane details thereof. One particular example of this is Ron Paul’s view on monetary policy. Paul, who likes to present himself as some sort of Constitutional scholar, has said in his last several concession speeches that “the Constitution still says that only gold and silver can be legal tender!” This absolutely absurd reading of the Constitution is universally rejected by anyone who can read English. Let’s look at Article 1, Section 10, from which Ron Paul draws his support. Please click here for the rest of the post.
Read this article:
Morning Briefing for February 8, 2012
