courts

Stop Hating, Start Debating Part II

Yesterday, we commented on the far left Southern Poverty Law Center's aspersions on more than 150 organizations that stand for traditional marriage. Today, we share some thoughts on the subject of Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. In a letter to supporters, he wrote:

The surest sign one is losing a debate is to resort to character assassination. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a liberal fundraising machine whose tactics have been condemned by observers across the political spectrum, is doing just that.

The group, once known for combating racial bigotry, is now attacking several groups that uphold Judeo-Christian moral views, including marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

How does the SPLC attack? By labeling its opponents "hate groups." No discussion. No consideration of the issues. No engagement. No debate!

These types of slanderous tactics are not limited to a handful of Christian groups. They have been used against voters who signed petitions and voted for marriage amendments in all thirty states that have considered them, as well as against the millions of Americans who identify with the Tea Party movement.

This is intolerance pure and simple. Elements of the radical Left are trying to shut down informed discussion of policy issues that are being considered by Congress, legislatures, and the courts. The SPLC has even admitted that their goal is to censor our views in the media.

We need you to stand with us. Please visit StartDebatingStopHating.com, and join with other national leaders and me in telling the radical Left it is time to stop spreading hate-charged rhetoric about individuals and organizations simply because they disagree with our ideas. Our debates can and must remain civil — but they must never be suppressed.

Remember, if they can silence pro-family organizations, they will attempt to use pressure and the power of government to target pastors and citizens like you who publicly stand for traditional principles.

This is the standard operating procedure for the Angry Left. Having nothing to offer but government control over people's lives, it demonizes anyone and any group of people who stand for traditional values, because those values are grounded in liberty and freedom which is antithetical to its aims. It's too much to ask, but if those in the Mainstream Media, who pontificate about the coarseness of our politics, didn't legitimize attack machines such as the SPLC, the political discourse in this country would improve the next day.

What is sad about the partnership of radical leftists and the MSM is that what they accuse values voters of cheapens the charge against those who actually engage in those behaviors. It's crying wolf. The fact that this partnership cares not about that reveals its sincerity in exposing true hate and harm at the expense of advancing their radical agenda.

The White House's Response To Virginia's Round One Health Care Win

Perusing liberal blogs today has been a hoot. The Left Wing is in hysterics (for example, see Blue Virginia). At least it uses a nice picture of Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. More composed, of course, but no less disingenuous, is the White House itself. Stephanie Cutter, writing on its blog, posted the following:

Having failed in the legislative arena, opponents of reform are now turning to the courts in an attempt to overturn the work of the democratically elected branches of government.

The federal government believes this procedural ruling is in error and conflicts with long-standing and well-established legal precedents . . . designed to preserve the "judiciary’s proper role in our system of government" and to ensure that our courts do not become forums for political debates.

Now that this preliminary stage has ended, the government fully expects to prevail on the merits. The Affordable Care Act falls well within Congress’s power to regulate under the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause.

So little written, so much nonsense. Regarding activist courts, the Left Wing should know better. Much better. But they often prove not understand the U.S. Constitution — or purposefully misguide: The courts were put in place as a safeguard against government encroachment on individual liberty. So, when the government overreaches (especially when new requirements are established), individuals, localities and states have recourse. It is the check against the ruling class which, if not held back, could easily consolidate all power unto itself. By the White House's logic no law can be overturned as long as it is — by definition — passed by Congress and signed by the president. Absurd!

Real judicial activism is legislating from the bench, rather than undoing a law, or something not previously on the books. So the White House has it only half correct, but it is liberals who, over the decades, when failing to get legislation passed into law, have resorted to seeking decrees from courts to invent laws and "rights" nowhere to be found in the constitution. There was no more frank admission of this than the infamous remark by now-Justice Sonia Sotomayor where she said, "The court of appeals is where policy is made." (See YouTube.)

The White House also cities numerous clauses, a debate it assuredly doesn't want to have — at least not before it finishes debating itself. None of the clauses mentioned empower the government to force people to purchases something they may not use. Knowing this, the Justice Department argued at the hearing to dismiss on July 1 that the law comes under the taxing authority of the constitution. But at every turn, including his campaign and during the shambolic legislative process leading up to the health care vote, Barack Obama and Congressional liberals said it was not a tax bill.

As a candidate, Mr. Obama went so far as to oppose an individual mandate, opposition to which is the thrust of Attorney General Cuccinelli's argument (see news release). That the White House and its own DOJ are on separate pages tells us much and perhaps liberal bloggers need rant at them before taking aim on the attorney general. Even bloggers at the White House.

What Cometh In The Age of Obama?

How about a new national security force and more mind-numbing, societal homogenizing that is beyond your capacity to imagine? If you haven't read this post yet, look it over and read the accompanying article. Here are two more articles to read. One, here, is by Michelle Malkin about how a homosexual activist successfully hounded through the courts the Christian online matchmaker eHarhomony.com into offering homosexual dating services, despite the fact that it is a private business and has every right to pursue its own business model. Forget freedom of association, I guess. Who's going to make the homosexual dating sites alter their businesses? But it's even worse. Read Malkin's column then ponder if this is the tip of the iceburg.

The other article, here, is by William Warren of GetLiberty.org about a woman who told an Obama volunteer she was not voting for himand then promptly felt the wrath of Obama's security team who found her out and visited her home. True story. Remember, he openly campaigned for the establishment of a national security force.

The future is . . . very scary. But please, enjoy your turkey and football this weekend.

An Open Letter To Senator Obama

Americans United for Life Action this week bought a full-page advertisement in Ohio newspapers. The ad is an open letter to Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama. It asks him:

Why Do You Oppose Parental Involvement Laws That Protect Our Children From Sexual Abuse?

The letter documents the well-known case of a 14-year-old Cincinnati girl impregnated by a 21 year-old. She went to Planned Parenthood to get an abortion. But in Ohio, parents of minors seeking an abortion must be notified. The girl gave Planned Parenthood the 21-year-old's phone number. Planned Parenthood called the number, got dubious verbal permission from him without any verification as to whether he was really a parent, and performed the abortion. For parting gifts for her business, she was given a bag of condoms and a Depo-Provera shot. (The plot eventually was given up and the boy was convicted on seven counts of sexual battery and sentenced to three years in prison.)

What's this have to do with Senator Obama? He supports FOCA, the so-called Freedom of Choice Act (read here) which would nullify the parental notification or consent laws in 36 states (including those in Virginia) and all laws regulating abortion, laws of which 80 percent of Americans approve. FOCA is a radical bill certain to become law under a radical leftist Congress and White House.  

We applaud Americans United for Life Action for its work to block FOCA and urge our readers to view its blog (www.fightfoca.com) which we have added to our blog roll. Please read its open letter to Senator Obama (click here) and see what you can do to help AUL Action, such as sign its Block FOCA Petition. If there is enough interest, it may run the ad in Virginia as well. (To see the letter in its advertisement format, click here.)

We also are thankful for work of its sister organization, Americans United for Life — a nonprofit, public-interest, pro-life, legal and public policy organization that fights abortion in the courts and in legislatures.

In Our Continuing Quest

In our continuing quest to educate those who think the U.S. Constitution is a "living" document we, from time to time, have referred to quotes from those who wrote it. After all, who knew better the limits and role of the federal government than those who created it? Unfortunately, there are those who either don't know better (many of whom are in our public school systems, sad) or who do (many of whom are in Congress, sadder still) who intentionally disregard their oath to uphold the Constitution through an intentional misinterpretation of it. The public, in either case, gets a greatly distorted idea of the limits the Constitution places on the feds.

One example is the perpetuation of the myth that the Constitution's preamble calls for the federal government to "provide for the general welfare," thus the rationale for every big-government program Congress can imagine, funded, than you very much, by your hard-earned wages. False! It says "promote the general welfare." (Not to mention that there's nothing about "welfare" in any of the articles or subsequent amendments.) Contrast this with the line "provide for the common defence."

Promote. Provide. The former means to encourage. The latter is a mandate. Which explains precisely the reason the Framers wrote the Constitution: Frustrated by the states' hybrid approach to fighting and funding the War for Independence, they wanted a definitive and unifying form of government to deal with external threats and to conduct diplomacy. Pretty self-evident.

Back to what the Framers themselves said. Wrote James Madison, the Father of the Constitution:

With regard to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the powers connected with them. To take them in a literal sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.

Then, once on the floor of the House of Representatives, during debate on an appropriation for some type of relief:

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on the article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

In the early years of the republic, bills were debated in Congress as much for their constitutionality as for their policy ramifications. Presidents vetoed bills on constitutional grounds when they saw no constitutional provision granting the federal government authority to impose itself for the remedy being sought. Then, those matters didn't always make it to the courts. In fact, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the courts the role as sole arbiter of constitutional interpretation. Today, we have too few in public office who are willing to scrutinize the government's constitutional role in anything more than allowing them to get re-elected.