- "Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest — his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind; as for the rest of his fellow-citizens, he is close to them, but he sees them not — he touches them, but he feels them not; he exists but in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country."
- Permalink Reply by on
Scalia on Restoring Constitution: 'I Don't Know That I'm Optimistic'
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. (AP Photo/Jessica Hill, File)(CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said recently that--"especially after last term"--he does not know if he is confident the Constitution can be restored to its original meaning.He likened his own efforts to do so to the character "Frodo" in the Lord of the Rings, who fights the good fight not certain he will win.While discussing his new bookReading Law at Stanford University on Oct. 19, the Hoover Institution’s Peter Robinson quoted to Scalia a passage from Scalia's book, Reading Law: "Originalism does not always provide an easy answer, or even a clear one. Originalism is not perfect. But it is more certain than any other criterion, and it is not too late to restore a strong sense of judicial fidelity to texts."
“So here’s the question,” said Robinson. “This book, for that matter your entire career, represents a sustained, determined effort at restoration. Are you optimistic? How’s the project coming?”Scalia said: “That’s an unfair question, especially after last term. I dissented in the last 6 cases announced last term. So I don’t know. I don’t know that I’m optimistic. The fight is worth fighting, win or lose. You know, [like] Frodo in the Lord of the Rings.“Look, it," Scalia contiued, "the problem is that the other approach is enormously seductive. Even for the average citizen it’s seductive, to think that the Constitution means what it ought to mean. ‘It’s a living Constitution. Anything I care passionately about, it’s right there in the Constitution.’”“You know, people used to say when they don’t like something that’s going on, they say: 'There ought to be a law,'” said Scalia. “There used to be a comic strip that’d--there ought to be a law about people playing boom boxes in the park and stuff like that.”“People don’t say that anymore,” said Scalia. “They say, ‘It’s unconstitutional,’ if they really feel passionately about it. And it is even more seductive to judges. It’s a wonderful thing to have a constitutional case and you’re always happy with the result because it means exactly what you think it ought to mean.”The “originalist” perspective says the words of the Constitution should be given the same meaning they originally had in the minds of the Framers. A competing view, often advocated by contemporary liberals, is that the Constitutio is a “living document” and that judge can change its meaning to fit modern mores and sentiments.The Constitution itself expressly provides an amendment process for people who want to change it.Scalia was promoting his new book, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, co-authored by Bryan Garner.
- Permalink Reply by on
Do States Have a Right of Secession?
Do states have a right of secession? That question was settled through the costly War of 1861. In his recently published book, “The Real Lincoln,” Thomas DiLorenzo marshals abundant unambiguous evidence that virtually every political leader of the time and earlier believed that states had a right of secession.Let’s look at a few quotations. Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.” Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’”At Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what “the people” meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.” In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, “Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.” The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil — evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content.” The New York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.” DiLorenzo cites other editorials expressing identical sentiments.Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech, “It is poetry not logic; beauty, not sense.” Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives “to the cause of self-determination — government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth.” Mencken says: “It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves.”In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” The South seceded because of Washington’s encroachment on that vision. Today, it’s worse. Turn Madison’s vision on its head, and you have today’s America.DiLorenzo does a yeoman’s job in documenting Lincoln’s ruthlessness and hypocrisy, and how historians have covered it up. The Framers had a deathly fear of federal government abuse. They saw state sovereignty as a protection. That’s why they gave us the Ninth and 10th Amendments. They saw secession as the ultimate protection against Washington tyranny.Editor’s Comment: Secession is not protection against establishing a government to prevent the abolishment of slavery. The key issue in the right to secession is not separating oneself from a government that prevents the “self-determination” of “peoples,” but separating oneself from a government that fails in its purpose: the protection of individual rights.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Go to the 8:33 mark for the start of the interview, the first few min are tech speak on web searches, but listen to how easy it is to watch a red light camera from ur PC. THEY ARE ALWAYS ON!!
- Permalink Reply by on
- LK,that stuff goes right over my head . . Hackers and defenders are a world far away . . .
- Permalink Reply by on
This 10 part series gives a comprehensive overview of the Constitution
and the principles of liberty and individual responsibility.
It was intended to be our road map for peace, prosperity and freedom.Constitutional Lecture Series
- Permalink Reply by on
- Let me pose a new direction to view the issue of wealth creation and of improvement in the standard of living for all nations - even the third world.Many years ago there were no phones and along came Bell which needed new inventions to improve the ideas of telephones in every house. So, the company funded Bell Labs which in turn invented the transistor and that led to the semiconductor era. Xerox had a special research group at Stanford University where they invented the Personal computer, the computer net work, the Apple Icon on the screen to assign tasks.The board of directors at Xerox said there will never be a need for computers in homes and therefor no need for networks. Well - Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were working for National Semiconductor helping to get customers to use the companies products - they saw the Xerox project and asked if they could use the ideas - sure was the answer there were no patents and thus was born Apple.At the same time others were making PC type product for games and bulletin board connections. This was the start of the World Wide Web idea. IBM then decided that the PC was interesting as a new HARDWARE PRODUCT as IBM did not do soft ware for any of their mainframe computers. So, they needed an operating system and suddenly Microsoft became the employer of hundreds of thousands of employees around the world.From one single enterprise operating as a capitalist company created more jobs and more human advancement than all of the governments on earth have since the beginning of time.Free enterprise Capitalism is the single best system to provide wealth to the poor and to raise their standard of living - it is not government - in fact government issues rules and regulations that slow down the need changes so Industries can adapt to the rapidly changing global market place.
- Permalink Reply by on
- 38 State legislature do not need to ask for anything if they write the amendment of revocation the Congress has no option but to send it out for Ratification - if they do not then the 38 States send it out for ratification votes in the 38 State legislatures and when the 38th legislature approves the amendment it becomes the law of the land - Congress has no power nor do the courts. for if challenged the 38 States can abolish the opposing body for it is the property of the people and the State are the protectors of the people..
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
Lock,
Ann and I cannot thank you enough for supporting and believing in our cause.
This was more than just a campaign -- this was a national movement.
Thank you for the work that you did -- going across neighborhoods to knock on doors and put up yard signs. Thanks for making phone calls, coming to rallies, donating funds, and convincing friends and family to join our team.
What's really inspiring is that you came together because you care about America.
We still believe that better days are ahead. It's up to us to rally together to renew America's promise and restore American greatness.
From the bottom of our hearts, Ann and I thank you for your support, prayers, efforts, and vote. We are forever grateful to each and every one of you.
Today's a new day. Keep believing in America.
Thank you and God bless America,
Mitt and Ann Romney
No comments:
Post a Comment