Enumerating the Unconstitutional
We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all "inherent powers" must derive from that Constitution.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, August 17, 2006
The Federal Income Tax
Social Security Tax
Hell! Taxation!
Abortion
Gun Control
The Exclusion of the bible in American classroom
The Exclusion of prayer in public school
The Confiscation of private property for another private citizen
...
This woman is a Carter appointee. That should tell us all we need to know, but what the hell, how about this? Judge Anna Diggs Taylor tried to take an affirmative action case away from another judge, who was assigned the case via blind draw-- standard operating procedure --because she 'suspected' the judge was skeptical of Affirmative Action.
What? She would have given the case a better listen because she's not skeptical? Because she's black? What does a judges skepticism have to do with trying a case? Judges are supposed to be impartial right? In a more perfect world, perhaps, but this is why judicial nominees are so contentious in todays political arena. Each side wants to appoint judges that will reflect and advance their political and ideological agendas... The Right's no different. The Right, however-- for the most part --wants to see strict constructionists take the bench; the Constitution isn't a threat to conservative values. But the Left wants to avoid this at all costs... Without activist judges, they know their agenda has little chance in a court of law.
But back to the opening salvo. Judge Taylor believes it's a violation of the 4th amendment to wiretap calls that original outside the U.S. from suspected terrorists to contacts within the U.S. But most recently, were it not for American cooperation and the use of wiretaps that originated OVERSEAS (the Media still clings to the lie that this is DOMESTIC wiretapping), we could this week be mourning the loss of up to 4,000 dead because Briton failed to stop the plot to detonate bombs in U.S. bound airliners. The problem is, the use of wiretaps in this particular case and many many others involving the war on terror, are not intended to violate anyone's 4th amendment right against unlawful search and seizure, but to prevent terrorists from killing Americans.
Idiocy knows no bounds, but it appears more prevalent in the Liberal Mind-set.
Thank you Jimmy Carter.
from the mind of... Eric | 2:48 PM
10 Comments:
Weak rant. :-) Have you read the ruling? It's linked to ER.
Disturbs me to no end when people assume that a distinguished judge is an idiot because of a ruling they disagree with. It's well-argued, well-cited and it's logical.
You can still disagree with her. But you should do it honestly: Show us the gaps in her logic and the leaps you assume she makes.
I suppose she's a liberal judge -- THANK GOD. But she's no idiot.
Read the ruling.
Here's my take on the "leading legal scholars" who are dissing the ruling.
Being ACADEMIC leading legal scholars, they're used to dealing with incremental change in the interpretation of law, and they think that all the *big* court decisions have been made. They exist only in history.
Bull. Bush, or the regents that actually are running the executive branch right now, made a HUGE, historic leap with this deal -- and it DESERVED a HUGE, historic answer from a court.
Even if she is overturned, thank God she had the guts to rule with a wide swath, which forces the judiciary, and the rest of us who are paying attention, to consider the HUGE, historic ramifications of what Bush et al. are doing.
God bless Jimmy Carter!
Yes, God bless Jimmy Carter. God bless us all, but not for our idiocies, but rather because God loves us enough TO bless us.
Jimmy Carter was the worst president in modern history who has managed to do a lot since his single term to make amends, but all of his good deeds in no way abrogates the abyssmal failure that was his presidency.
As to Ms. Taylor... You're right, she's not an idiot. Merely a dangerously misguided ideologue.
Dude, if you have read the ruling and you still can call her a dangeroulsy misguided ideologue, well, I don't know what to say.
No offense, but I think you need to cool your dang jets and READ it. If you still disagree, you'll be doing so honestly.
What I think is that she dared to let the Constitution and case law lead her to whichever conclusion it led to.
You, on the other hand, have decided what is right -- and would patch together whatever snippets of jurisprudence it would take to get you to your preconceived conclusion. I mean, really. Wouldn't you? You've decided that this war on terro and the threat to theis country is more important that the Constition, haven't you? You've decided it's The Most Important Thing, haven't you?
I think the idea behind this country is more important than this country. The former is what stirs men's hearts. The latter, not so much lately. Ask the rest of the world. They don't hate us for our freedoms! They hate us bcause of our leaders!
Islamo-facists don't hate us because of our leaders... they hate us because of our civilization... the way we live is diametrically opposed to the way they believe the entire WORLD should live. Other western nations hate us, not because of Bush, but because we're willing to step up and say "No! This is wrong!" where they will not-- they are embarrassed by us. They hate us because of our percieved arrogance. Bush is simply a convenient excuse. The reality is, they're unwilling to accept the fact that Islam presents a genuine threat to Western Civilization. They're afraid of what's happening in the world, and they want to blame someone. They wan't to appease their attackers; make them see that the west isn't a threat to them. But we are a threat. Our very existence is a threat to their designs on world domination.
Ahmadinejad says the world would be a more peaceful place without Blair and Bush, and sadly-- to many in the west --that sounds very reasonable. But the truth is, without the likes of Blair and Bush the Islamaniacs would have free reign to advance their designs on world domination. That is their goal... it always has been, even from Islam's very inception.
The west looks at Munich, the Iranian Embassy kidnappings, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, Pan Am 103, the 1st WTC bombing, the Kobar tower bombing, the U.S. Embassy in Tanzania, Mogadishu, the USS Cole, 9-11... The west sees all these as separate individual attacks with no relation to the other. The Islamaniacs do not. Each of these incidents have been but individual battles in a larger war. The Islamaniacs view this war generationally; they don't care how long it takes so long as they win.
Your comment also assumes I haven't read Ms. Taylors decision, because-- I will assume --you feel a reasonable person could not feel the way I do about it if said person had given the decision a critical and honest read. Assuming you do assume such, you are wrong.
But let's look at the 4th amendment; let's pull out the phrase 'against unreasonable searches and seizures...' I would venture that it is indeed unreasonable to tap the phone of a petty thief based solely on the assumption that said thief 'may' be up to his old bag of tricks, without a proper warrant. I would further contend that it is not unreasonable to tap the calls of people known to bave terrorist ties-- or are themselves terrorists --who are calling the US, especially in light of 9-11, Bali, Madrid, and Londonistan. It is not, as Media and Democrats like to phrase it, a 'domestic spying program'. The Left knows this is a lie, as does the media, which makes their actions in this regard dishonest at best. It makes me wonder just who's side these people are on... and the word 'treasonous' comes easily to mind as a result.
But having said all that, let's look at the entire amendment...
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The phrase 'probable cause' also leaps out at me, ESPECIALLY in light of 9-11, Bali, yada, yada. Is it not reasonable to assume one has probable cause to listen in to such phone calls? I mean the ones that originate outside the US from a terrorist sponsoring nation, or a terrorist himself, to someone in the US.
If Congress-- both the Right and Left --is serious about protecting this country, they'd be in session working across party lines satisfying Ms Taylor's ruling via legislation that deliniates the measures allowable to the commander in chief during extreme times such as these. But the Left isn't interested in helping the president do the job he swore an oath to do. Instead, they want to use this farce of a ruling to play politics, and by extension, play with the lives of every single American.
We're at war-- Recognizable as such or not, but we ARE at war. And regardless of who's in the White House, this is a war we cannot lose. This is not a war about politics, economics, or territory. It is a war for the life and soul of western civilization.
Love him or hate him... Bush is who we have; he only has two more years in office. And quite frankly, I wonder just who could possibly fill his shoes and continue a fight that was never promised to be quick and painless. Yes, it's true. Terrorism is not something anyone can war against and utterly defeat. So why bother? Joe Lieberman on Face the Nation this morning said it best... "For our children and our grandchildren".
If you want to look at it in a spiritual sense... Spiritually speaking, Jesus won the war the moment of His resurrection, but the battles continue. We aren't commanded to win any war, but we are commanded to stand and fight nonetheless; not from a position of defense, but one of victory-- The war is already won. All we must do is stand until the enemy is finally dealt with by our Lord.
Are you aware that after the Japanese signed the document that affirmed their unconditional surrender that battles continued in the pacific? The news-- or the reality --that Japan had lost the war had not yet sunk in. The same is true here. If we do not stand against Islam, we have failed to stand for righteousness. Islam is anything BUT righteous. It is in fact one of Satan's greatest achievements in terms of false religion.
I'm not pleased with how this war is going either. But while trying to patch up all the leaks I'm not about to nail my foot to the roof. And THAT, I believe, is exactly what Democrats are doing, albeit unwittingly. I say 'unwittingly' because everything they are doing seemingly comes from a mad desire to aquire political power. And THAT, Brother, is simply not a good enough motive for their current state of rhetoric, let alone their insane desire to pull Bush from the presidency in a tit for tat impeachment scheme. That is their REAL motive for winning the House this fall.
Perhaps I would feel safer with Democrats in charge if they were offering an alternative. ANY alternative. But they haven't. Alternatives aren't on the menu... impeached president is.
Shameful.
Whoa. I'll have to come back to this.
You're gith. I fail to see how a reasonable person can read her ruling and believe she is a dangerous ideologue.
Interesting that you actual engaged her on a few points. Do you think David Loresh and Jim Jones -- true dangerous idologues -- had some points, as well.
My only point was your use of language that no one any good ever: You dismiss her as sub-serious, which is a step or two removed from subhuman, which is the slippery slope of every fundamentalist.
Do it right. Get warrants. Follow the courts. The president is NOT above the law -- ever. Not in war, or in "war."
And yes, I absolutely want Bush and Cheney impeached for high crimes.
Um, "You're gith" should've been "you're right."
Re: Congress, Repubs and Dems, sittign down and working out a way to satisfy the ruling.
You're "gith" about that, partly. The Left is in no mood -- because the Right wants nothing but for everyone in this country to sit down, shut up and do what they say.
"As the ... struggle developed, nearly all groups involved in it steadily substituted emotion for reason. They used stereotypes for facts, and epithets in lieu of cool arguments; they forgot the emollient grace of humor and the wisdom of the long view. ...
"Passions had been so deeply aroused that large sections of the population could not view the situation calmly or discuss it realistically; fear fed hatred and hated fed fear. The unrealities of passion dominated the hour.
"Had some great leader appeared, he might have broken through this emotional fabric. ... (But) a nation which needed a president of penetrating vision, moral courage and practical grasp was given (an) incompetent chieftain (that) leaned to an extraordinary degree upon groups of aides. ... The country was governed by a Directory rather than by a President."
Not commentary from today's news.
Historian Allen Nevins, describing the shape of the country in the 1850s, in the years leading to the Civil War, in Ordeal of the Union: Fruits of Manifest Destiny, 1847-1852, (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1947), ix-x.
Thanks for that perspective, ER. Which era is nastier, I wonder, in terms of political discourse?
Oh, I think we are approaching the level of discourse of the time leading up to, through and immediately after our Revolution, the 1850s and, probably, although I haven't studied the 20th centuty like I have the colonial era and the 19th century, close to the isolationist screaming that persisted right up to Pearl Harbor. We are in historically bad shape as a people -- but we have been here before.
Agreed, and we always got through it. We will again. My biggest concern though is Radical Islam. America has never faced such a foe, and I fear America is not prepared for what's coming.
We are in for rough days ahead.
To quote the Dune remake...
"It will take more than courage to survive what's coming"
----
On a side note... I'm not particularly impressed with Brian Herbert's writing-- He's not his father, but I will buy The Hunters of Dune-- on sale tomorrow --which picks up where his father left off at the end of Chapterhouse Dune. The only reason it's going to get read by me, is the book is based on extensive notes by the master himself... notes that languished in a safe deposit box for 10 years.
Thanks for your input ER
Post a Comment
<< Home