.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Visit Freedom's Zone Donate To Project Valour

Thursday, September 15, 2005

The Schumer Doctrine

This is one thing that made me very nervous. The transcript here is from day two of the hearings, and Schumer says this:
SCHUMER: And what troubles me and why I think many people are bothered by this right now, is that the president has openly stated that nominees will be chosen in the mold of justices who have stated, repeatedly, their desire to roll back the clock on some of these basic protections.

In my view, over the past 60 or 70 years, maybe longer, three legs have sustained our constitutional rights: the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantees of equal protection and substantive due process; the right to privacy; and a broad delegation of authority to Congress to pass legislation -- usually under the commerce clause -- necessary to protect our nation's security, the environment, Americans' health and workers' civil rights.
Nothing about the First amendment? Nothing about the Fourth? The Fifth? The Tenth? (See Amendments). This is a terribly limited view of the liberties upon which our nation's future rests. Congress's power is (or should be) as limited by the Constitutional prohibitions as the President's. The Bill of Rights, after all, was originally passed to protect the people against the overreaching of the Federal government. Schumer is really saying here that all that's required to protect constitutional rights is to defend federal power against state power, which I guess he views as inherently abusive.

Far too many (perhaps even the majority of) progressives don't approve of free speech, don't approve of basic procedural protections such as no search and seizure, and don't approve of the separation of powers either. The Democrats have proved in the wake of Kelo that they don't think property rights should be protected. RICO is a shocking violation of the Fifth Amendment. The McCain-Feingold Act is an absolute violation of the First Amendment. Both of these were passed as bipartisan bills, signed off on by the President, and allowed to stand by a Supreme Court that is more concerned about deferring to Congress than it is in upholding the Constitution.

I am suspicious that Schumer's statement here really does represent his beliefs, and if so, his beliefs are a threat to the citizens of this country. I know that the average progressive's beliefs are a greased road to disaster.

I wish I believed that the Republicans were serious about advocating for and defending all of the rights in the Constitution meant to protect individual and state liberty, but I don't believe that either. I wish I believed the ACLU really cared about all a citizen's constitutional rights, but it definitely doesn't. If a party truly dedicated to the people's interests and preserving the constitutional structure of government were to arise, I would be in it for life.

I don't believe that we will have a Supreme Court in our lifetime dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of the citizens, and I believe we will have to start organizing on the grass-roots level to overrule the Supreme Court's misdeeds of the past twenty years. We are going to have to overrule the fools a few times with new constitutional amendments before they will get serious.


Comments:
Excellent point. In fact, Schumer is redecorating rather than being substantive. He is and was attempting to definwe the Constitution and the Amendments as an order of priorities- some more and some lesser.

It is a highly political and dangerous agenda.
 
You know, I just reread this post, again. It really is spot on.
 
It's frightening. One of the reasons I read liberal forums is to get an idea of how they think. Granted, you have to wade through a lot of tinfoil hat wackiness. If you bother to do that, one of the marked features of their worldview is that they don't understand or respect the basic civil liberties in the constitution.

Perhaps this can be explained by the world views that are apparently required for teachers nowdays. To find the same thing in a US Senator? That's highly disturbing.

Neither party is immune to this criticism either.
 
just one question: how did the democrats prove that they were in favor of KELO?
 
"The McCain-Feingold Act is an absolute violation of the First Amendment."

BTW, I would argue that this actually ensures first amendment rights, not limits them. A corporation is not a person. Why should they be able to buy a voice at the expence of the actual citizens who are the ones who are protected by the first amendment.
 
Good post!

The liberal justice system has progressively brought us new definitions of what a marrage is, what life is, that there is no such thing as morals, that children don't need to be taught the Christian principles that founded this nation, etc. -- in in the name of so-called civil rights.
 
Dingo,

Your arugment is an upside down argument concerning the 1st admendement. Here is the admendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The first is absolutely clear on what Congress cannot do. And McCain-Feingold is in clear violation.
 
It seem that Democrats do not understand the role of the judiciary. They act as if the role of the court is to promote human progress. That is not the role of the court. That is the role of Congress.
 
Justa Dog

"that children don't need to be taught the Christian principles that founded this nation, etc. -- in in the name of so-called civil rights."

No, that is the parents job, not the governments.

Minh,

The intent of McCain-Finegold was to limit the corporate/business lock on financing elections. Corporations are not people. They don't deserve to have a voice. You should have a voice, not GE. Corporations don't vote. The constitution is about people. Has the actuallity of McCain-Finegold been different than the intent of it, yes, but the intent was to give people back their voice, not take it away.
 
Dingo, McCain Feingold limits a neighborhood association just as much as a corporation. I think you have it wrong.

Dems proved they support Kelo by not supporting the legislation to stop federal money being given out for the takings under it.

Dingo, there is no way you can "ensure First Amendment rights" by limiting the right of people to speak. No way. You are making my point for me here.
 
Just A Dog - I sympathize entirely with your feelings, but remember that to preserve rights we have to fight for them absolutely.

What I object to is the idea that somehow religious speech and content should be further suppressed than other forms of speech and content. Thus you see absurdities like a child being banned from singing a religious song in a school talent pageant, or painting a flight of stairs up to a sky, hate speech laws, etc.

You are right about the idea of civil rights that Dems have, as I am pointing out with Dingo's assistance, is not exactly the average citizen's idea. We think freedoms - they think restrictions on rights to protect citizens from an imaginary repression.

Just A Dog - if you will go down a few posts I believe you will find the FIRE post very interesting. Follow the links at the FIRE site and you will find a number of remarkable cases in which school administrations have attempted to deny religious and political rights to their students and faculty.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?