Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 29, 2014, 10:00:40 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
81338 Posts in 2243 Topics by 1046 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Science, Culture, & Humanities
| | |-+  Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 25 Print
Author Topic: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters)  (Read 96383 times)
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2139


« Reply #450 on: July 09, 2011, 06:31:29 PM »

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur59.htm

Let's see: Free speech, press, and religion; 4th and 6th Amendment; and protecting civil rights.... f'ing pinkos. 

I remember when the ACLU supported Rush Limbaugh's medical privacy.  Just because he ate reds doesn't make him a communist.



 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11829


« Reply #451 on: July 09, 2011, 06:38:07 PM »

Yes BD, let's just gloss over the Stalinist origins of the American Criminal Liberties Union, and their use of the US legal system to undercut this country by citing a few constitutional amendments and Rush Limbaugh.

Pay no attention to the commies behind the curtain.....
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11829


« Reply #452 on: July 09, 2011, 06:55:47 PM »

http://www.theacru.org/VadumACLU.pdf

WHAT DOES
THE ‘A ’ REALLY
STAND FOR?

ACLU Exposed The ACLU has been pushing a radical liberal agenda for years, and
despite the rare occasion that they get something right, they of!en
take up anti-American causes.
by Matthew Vadum

Which major liberal advocacy group
zealously guards workers’ rights
but won’t lift a finger to help when
workers suffer government-sanctioned
discrimination as a result of affi rmative
action programs?
And which group protects the right
of Muslim women to wear religious
headscarves—even in jail—but erupts in
apoplectic rage when nativity scenes and
menorahs pop up on public property?
It’s the American Civil Liberties
Union, which has a rich and storied
tradition—of not making any sense.
Even before President George H.W.
Bush helped secure his 1988 election
victory by noting in a televised debate
that Democrat Mike Dukakis was a
“card-carrying member of the ACLU,”
conservatives have long been suspicious
of the Communist-founded ACLU—and
for good reason.
Founded by radicals during the
Progressive Era who simultaneously
professed admiration for American ideals
and for the totalitarian Soviet Union,
the morally preening group, which risks
the wrath of conservatives every year
by manning an exhibit hall booth at the
Conservative Political Action Conference
(CPAC) in the nation’s capital, is a
tangled mess of contradictions. This
fair-weather friend of liberty claims
to protect the U.S. Constitution and
individual rights, but often adopts statist,
Big Government positions on issues that
would alarm the nation’s founders. As a
self-described progressive “social justice”
organization, it believes in “welfare
rights,” which are figments of the
liberal imagination unmentioned in the
Constitution. It seldom defends private
property rights or economic freedoms
but creatively squeezes non-existent
rights and liberties out of supposed
emanations and penumbras in the
Constitution.
In legal terms, the ACLU is a
501(c)(4) legislative lobbying group. Its
litigation and outreach arm, the ACLU
Foundation, is a legally separate
501(c)(3) organization. The ACLU
claims to have more than 500,000
members and supporters, almost
200 staff attorneys and thousands of
volunteer attorneys, and staffed offi ces
in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and the
District of Columbia.
The ACLU constantly applauds
the growing power of the judiciary at
the expense of elected lawmakers. It
does not object to government control
of education and is hostile to school
voucher programs. It invents new
so-called rights on a regular basis and
argues that the Constitution is a living,
breathing document whose meaning
changes with the seasons. It regards
itself as an avant-garde crusader for
unlimited abortion rights, polygamy
and same-sex marriage and brags
that it compelled the state of Alaska
to give equal employment benefi ts to
homosexual employees.
Regarding just about anything having
to do with sex, the ACLU refuses to
pass moral judgment. Columnist Deroy
Murdock notes that the ACLU has
supported the extremely controversial
North American Man/Boy Love
Association (NAMBLA) which “openly
preach[es] pedophilia and arguably
encourage kidnapping, rape and
murder,” while being “energetically
hostile” to the Boy Scouts of America.

The ACLU supported NAMBLA,
which an Ohio court previously found
complicit in a separate case of child rape
for producing a how-to manual, when
it was sued in federal court. Parents of
Jeffrey Curley, a 10-year-old boy raped
and murdered by a former NAMBLA
member in 1997, filed a wrongful death
suit against the group but dropped it
last year after a key witness was ruled
unfi t to testify. “There was never any
evidence that NAMBLA was connected
to the death of Jeffrey Curley,’’ ACLU
lawyer Sarah R. Wunsch told the Boston
Globe. “It’s been our view that for the
last eight years, it’s been the First
Amendment that’s been the defendant
in this case. In America, there’s freedom
to publish unpopular ideas, and that’s
what this case was about.”
Yet, Murdock writes, the ACLU
looked down upon the Boy Scouts,
“an organization that tries to turn
boys into men, with sex alien to the
process.” The ACLU could not abide
the fact that San Diego allowed the
group to lease and manage parkland,
because it considers the Boy Scouts to
be a religious organization and hostile
toward homosexuals. Although the
Scout Oath requires the scout to promise
to do his “duty to God,” and Scout Law
requires him to be “reverent,” the Boy
Scouts had not barred other groups from
using the park and had even allowed the
San Diego Gay Pride Festival to be held
there. The ACLU won in court, and the
Boy Scouts were forced to leave the park.
Conservatives are often galled,
and rightly so, by the ACLU’s moral
pretensions and lofty rhetoric. In its
2007 annual report, the group uses the
same kind of soaring, inappropriately
internationalist language one might
expect to hear from President Obama
or George Soros: “The battle to keep
America safe and free is, at its heart,
a battle to bring America back to
the vision and ideals embraced by
our Founders and enshrined in our
Constitution: separation of powers,
democratic actions and the honor of
fundamental rights. These are the things
that make us free, that show the world
that we are honorable and decent, that
bring the support of our allies and the
respect of those who might be tempted to
oppose us” [emphasis added].
The ACLU, a reliable booster of
international law, doesn’t seem to
understand that the Constitution
was not created primarily to impress
foreigners, allies, potential adversaries
and residents of Manhattan’s
ideologically homogeneous Upper
West Side. It was created to provide a
framework for the nation to be governed,
with specified limits on the exercise of
government power.
SCHIZOPHRENIC AGENDA
The group’s inconsistencies are the stuff
of legend.
For example, the ACLU claims a
special affection for the Bill of Rights,
but strangely has long rejected the
“individual rights” interpretation of the
Second Amendment. The group would
make the amendment effectively a dead
letter because it believes it protects a
so-called collective right to keep and
bear arms only in connection with a
state militia. After the Supreme Court
slapped down this implausible view last
year in the Heller case, the ACLU stuck
to its guns, saying it disagreed with
the court. The group added, somewhat
disingenuously, that it takes no position
on the issue of gun control. “In our view,
neither the possession of guns nor the
regulation of guns raises a civil liberties
issue,” the ACLU stated on its website.
Although conservatives have strongly
criticized the ACLU for decades, and the
group historically supported the Fairness
Doctrine, it generally does defend the
free expression of ideas.
Some conservatives don’t like that it
defends pornography, but occasionally
the ACLU pleasantly surprises
conservatives. Colorado state Sen. Greg
Brophy, a Republican, had jokingly
suggested he wanted an “ACLUSUX”
vanity license plate. He was taken aback
when the ACLU offered to defend his
right to express that sentiment on a
license plate. When state offi cials seized
the medical records of talk radio host
Rush Limbaugh in a drug investigation,
the ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court
motion arguing the officials had
overreached. “For many people, it may
seem odd that the ACLU has come to the
defense of Rush Limbaugh,” said Howard
Simon, executive director of the Florida
ACLU. “But we have always said that the
ACLU’s real client is the Bill of Rights,
and we will continue to safeguard the
values of equality, fairness and privacy for
everyone, regardless of race, economic
status or political point of view.”
The group has also criticized
proposed tobacco control legislation
for curtailing advertisers’ right to
free speech and has attacked various
aspects of the freedom-limiting
McCain-Feingold campaign finance
law. However, it disdains public
prayer even though the attendees at
the Constitutional Convention prayed
together.
The ACLU adores terrorists. At
one point, Bernardine Dohrn, the
unrepentant Weather Underground
leader married to fellow terrorist Bill
Ayers, sat on its advisory board.


Read it all.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2139


« Reply #453 on: July 09, 2011, 09:22:38 PM »

"Some conservatives don’t like that it
defends pornography, but occasionally
the ACLU pleasantly surprises
conservatives. Colorado state Sen. Greg
Brophy, a Republican, had jokingly
suggested he wanted an “ACLUSUX”
vanity license plate. He was taken aback
when the ACLU offered to defend his
right to express that sentiment on a
license plate."

Also, As I recall Stalin was anti religion of any sort.  So, wouldn't defending the rights of Muslims be anti-Stalinist?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11829


« Reply #454 on: July 09, 2011, 09:48:12 PM »

"Some conservatives don’t like that it
defends pornography, but occasionally
the ACLU pleasantly surprises
conservatives. Colorado state Sen. Greg
Brophy, a Republican, had jokingly
suggested he wanted an “ACLUSUX”
vanity license plate. He was taken aback
when the ACLU offered to defend his
right to express that sentiment on a
license plate."

Also, As I recall Stalin was anti religion of any sort.  So, wouldn't defending the rights of Muslims be anti-Stalinist?

No. Like the alliance of convenience previous discussed, sometimes individuals, movements or nation-states align themselves with others that they might not under different conditions. There has been an immense amount of information posted in this forum on the jihadist-leftist alliance. The fact that the global left would be the biggest victim of a triumphant global jihad is lost on them as they see small government oriented capitalists as a much more serious threat. As far as the ACLU in particular, if it's anti-american, they're always willing to support it. They cloak themselves in superficial praise of American freedom, but their actual agenda is anything but that.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30640


« Reply #455 on: July 10, 2011, 12:09:01 AM »


In Defense Of The Constitution

News & Analysis
July 9, 2011
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/CAIRreportLeeBacaMuslimBrotherhood.html

   
     CAIR, Berkeley, And The Report About Nothing

     The Council on American-Islamic Relations(CAIR) and Berkeley
University recently issued a joint report on “Same Hate, New Target:
Islamophobia and Its Impact in the United States 2009-2010 (
http://crg.berkeley.edu/content/islamophobia-report-0910 )”.  There
are a few interesting questions arising from this joint effort between
one of Americas largest Islamic hate groups and a university that
prides itself on politically inclusive speech and“diversity”.

     Some questions for Berkeley;

   -    Why did Berkeley join with a known Islamic supremacist
hate group with proven ties (
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/HLFJudgeSolisUnsealedRulingCAIRHamas.pdf
) to Islamic terrorism to issue a report?
   -    Why wouldn’t Berkeley respond when Anti-CAIR e-mailed
them simply asking for an explanation on their relationship to CAIR?

     The best thing to come from this infamous collaboration
was…exactly nothing.  The report was printed on glossy paper, many
names and high titles of authors were included, and spiffy graphics
were on the cover. Yet it appears nobody has bothered to read the
report.  It seems that CAIR’s ability to attract fawning mentions
of this"report" in the main-stream press has hit a stumbling block.
There are no adoring reporters calling CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper
about the report, there is no mention of it on the talk-show networks.
It appears there is no interest in CAIR and Berkeley’s phony report
on "Islamophobia".  (We did find news releases paid for by CAIR (
http://www.google.com/search?q=Same+Hate%2C+New+Target%3A+Islamophobia+and+Its+Impact+in+the+United+States+2009-2010&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=Same+Hate%2C+New+Target%3A+Islamophobia+and+Its+Impact+in+the+United+States+2009-2010&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=nws&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=dd5639e19c54e10d&biw=992&bih=583
) touting their farcical report.)

     Time and money was wasted, trees were needlessly cut down,
much pontificating and smoke blowing went into the Report About
Nothing and it seems nobody cares.

     This is as it should be.

-------------------------
 
   
     L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca's Muslim Community Affairs Unit
Spills The Beans On The Muslim Brotherhood?

     L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca has unfortunately shown to be a
tireless defender of CAIR (
http://www.investigativeproject.org/2675/compelling-testimony-political-theater
). Despite all evidence (
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/WhatLawEnforcementSaysAboutCAIR.html )
proving CAIR's creation by HAMAS supporters and operatives (
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/HLFJudgeSolisUnsealedRulingCAIRHamas.pdf
) to advance the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood and support HAMAS (
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/FBItiesCAIRHamas ), Baca has publicly and
enthusiastically defended CAIR as witnessed at the recent
congressional hearings (
http://www.investigativeproject.org/2675/compelling-testimony-political-theater
) held by Rep. Peter King.

     So an interesting event occurred at the Islamic Center of
Southern California (
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/355.pdf ) (ICSC).
The Center was hosting a community town hall meeting led by the Muslim
Public Affairs Council (
http://www.investigativeproject.org/1785/mpac-pursues-islamist-ideology-in-guise-of-civil
) (MPAC), a group founded (
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/358.pdf ) and
staffed (
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=554287 )
by supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood and other like-minded
Islamofascists (
http://www.danielpipes.org/4603/mpac-cair-and-praising-osama-bin-laden
).
 
     The L.A. County Sheriff’s Muslim Community Affairs Unit
(MCAU) was featured, represented by Deputy Sherif Morsi whose goal (
http://homeland.house.gov/sites/homeland.house.gov/files/Testimony%20Baca%20Attach%201.pdf
) as a MCAU official is to “build a stronger relationship with the
Muslim community for better understanding and cooperation with law
enforcement.”

     Deputy Morsi was questioned by Alan Kornman (
http://theunitedwest.org/la-sheriff%E2%80%99s-muslim-community-affairs-unit-is-a-civil-rights-lawsuit-waiting-to-happen/
) of"The United West ( http://theunitedwest.org/ )" about the MCAU and
whether other religions had a special unit in the L.A. County
Sheriff's office to help build their community support. (The short
answer, No. None.)

     When Mr. Kornman spoke to Deputy Morsi after the meeting,
Kornman had started to ask a question about the Muslim Brotherhood
when Deputy Morsi immediately cut off the entire question upon hearing
the words "Muslim Brotherhood" by saying: (video 4:44 (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1x7C8P_Hu6g ))

     "I don't work terrorism, that's not my function,...I don't
deal with terrorism, I'm not going to make any comments on
terrorism..."

     Deputy Sheriff Sherif Morsi did what probably no other Muslim
in that meeting would have done, let alone in public. When asked about
the Muslim Brotherhood he quickly and emphatically equated the group
with TERRORISM. There can be no mistake here. Morsi clearly related
the Muslim Brotherhood with Terrorism.

     L.A. County Deputy Sheriff Sherif Morsi apparently knows the
real danger the Muslim Brotherhood poses to the United States of
America.

     Maybe he can one day clue-in his boss?

Andrew Whitehead
Director
Anti-CAIR
ajwhitehead@anti-cair-net.org
www.anti-cair-net.org ( http://www.anti-cair-net.org/ )

Story Links:
http://crg.berkeley.edu/content/islamophobia-report-0910
http://www.google.com/search?q=Same+Hate%2C+New+Target%3A+Islamophobia+and+Its+Impact+in+the+United+States+2009-2010
http://www.investigativeproject.org/2675/compelling-testimony-political-theater
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/355.pdf
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/WhatLawEnforcementSaysAboutCAIR.html
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/HLFJudgeSolisUnsealedRulingCAIRHamas.pdf
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/FBItiesCAIRHamas
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/355.pdf
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/358.pdf
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=554287
http://www.danielpipes.org/4603/mpac-cair-and-praising-osama-bin-laden
http://homeland.house.gov/sites/homeland.house.gov/files/Testimony%20Baca%20Attach%201.pdf
http://theunitedwest.org/la-sheriff%E2%80%99s-muslim-community-affairs-unit-is-a-civil-rights-lawsuit-waiting-to-happen/
http://theunitedwest.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1x7C8P_Hu6g
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2139


« Reply #456 on: July 10, 2011, 06:39:22 AM »

Yes BD, let's just gloss over the Stalinist origins of the American Criminal Liberties Union, and their use of the US legal system to undercut this country by citing a few constitutional amendments and Rush Limbaugh.

Pay no attention to the commies behind the curtain.....

GM: You claimed that "No one with an American Criminal Liberties Union membership has anything but contempt for the republic."  While you take the name in a misleading manner, you spoke in absolutes.  To make such an absolute statement demands that you poll everyone with an ACLU membership, or anyone who has ever held an ACLU membership, and make sure that nary a one has "anything but contempt for the republic." 

I then provided you with a list of cases that the ACLU has taken to the USSC and won.  On this list are cases that strengthened individual freedoms, including many cases related to free speech and the free exercise of religion.  Many of the cases stem from issues regarding the 4th and 6th Amendments. 

As you might know, the Constitution is the document that leads, and in some ways defines, the republic.  Yet, when I use it to debunk the argument that made in absolutists tones, you say I hide behind it???  The nerve I have to hide behind a few constitutional amendments! 

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11829


« Reply #457 on: July 10, 2011, 08:43:49 AM »

GM: You claimed that "No one with an American Criminal Liberties Union membership has anything but contempt for the republic."  While you take the name in a misleading manner, you spoke in absolutes.  To make such an absolute statement demands that you poll everyone with an ACLU membership, or anyone who has ever held an ACLU membership, and make sure that nary a one has "anything but contempt for the republic." 

Ok, i'll qualify that to say that some might be suckered in by the superficial claims of caring about the constitution and are ignorant of the Stalinist origins of the group. They might not know of how the ACLU defends NAMBLA while waging lawfare against the Boy Scouts. However, ACLU membership tends to attract those on the left, which by definition requires a contempt for America.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30640


« Reply #458 on: July 10, 2011, 01:37:02 PM »



"some might be suckered in by the superficial claims of caring about the constitution and are ignorant of the Stalinist origins of the group. "

That would include me when I was in.  I would submit though that you remain a tad too harsh.  I think a noticable percentage of regular members includes who are simply making a well intentioned statement that they believe the C, applies to everyone, even the anus clients that the ACLU so often represents.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11829


« Reply #459 on: July 10, 2011, 02:12:11 PM »

Ah, but despite the image they attempt to cultivate, they do not defend the constitutional rights of everyone, just those that fit their leftist agenda.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2139


« Reply #460 on: July 10, 2011, 03:56:32 PM »

Ah, but despite the image they attempt to cultivate, they do not defend the constitutional rights of everyone, just those that fit their leftist agenda.

Lefties like Limbaugh and Nazis. 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11829


« Reply #461 on: July 10, 2011, 04:17:01 PM »

Ah, but despite the image they attempt to cultivate, they do not defend the constitutional rights of everyone, just those that fit their leftist agenda.

Lefties like Limbaugh and Nazis. 

The Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei aka National Socialist German Workers' Party aka the Nazi party was pretty darn socialist and was praised by the American Communists that the ACLU sprang from until the Soviet-Nazi alliance fell apart.

The ACLU defending Limbaugh was a pretty clever gambit, was it not? Or do you think it was motivated by something other than a desire to cultivate the facade that the ACLU is a non-partisan defender of civil rights?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30640


« Reply #462 on: July 10, 2011, 04:26:16 PM »

The point I was addressing was the nature of those who make up the support of the ACLU, not the leadership itself.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2139


« Reply #463 on: July 10, 2011, 10:10:38 PM »

GM: Do you refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance since it was written by a socialist?

You simply can't ignore the socialist roots of this pledge, and its goal to undermine the republic.  It is SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11829


« Reply #464 on: July 10, 2011, 10:31:42 PM »

GM: Do you refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance since it was written by a socialist?

You simply can't ignore the socialist roots of this pledge, and its goal to undermine the republic.  It is SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm
Interesting bit of history. I did not know that. I always make sure to say it with this line:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Which makes the ACLU and their fellow travelers howl in agony, like vampires splashed with holy water.  wink
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2139


« Reply #465 on: July 10, 2011, 10:36:34 PM »

No way.  That is just a convenient marriage of the socialist and Congress.  Just because it has "under God" in there now does not mean you can ignore the socialist history of the Pledge.  We must stop this socialist movement from entering our schools.  They poison our children's minds at such a young age.  Once the pledge is socialist, it is always socialist. 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11829


« Reply #466 on: July 10, 2011, 11:03:13 PM »


http://www.aclu.org/content/aclu-urges-supreme-court-uphold-ruling-removing-phrase-under-god-pledge-allegiance-recited-p

ACLU Urges Supreme Court to Uphold Ruling Removing the Phrase ""Under God"" From Pledge of Allegiance Recited in Public Schools
March 24, 2004
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today urged the Supreme Court to uphold a federal appeals court ruling that public schools are constitutionally barred from linking patriotism and piety by reciting the phrase "under God" as part of the Pledge of Allegiance.

"The government should not be asking impressionable schoolchildren to affirm their allegiance to God at the same time that they are affirming their allegiance to the country," said ACLU Legal Director Steven R. Shapiro.

"Removing 'under God' from the Pledge is not anti-religious," he added. "Just the opposite is true. The only way the religious reference in the Pledge can be upheld is for the Court to conclude that the words 'under God' have no religious meaning, which is far more insulting to people of faith."

As the ACLU noted in a friend-of-the-court brief, Congress added the phrase "under God" at the height of the anti-communist McCarthy Era. In signing the bill, then-President Eisenhower said that the phrase "under God" was added so that schoolchildren would "daily proclaim the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

**With God's blessing, the socialist taint is washed away, enraging the Stalinist Lawfare Unit.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11829


« Reply #467 on: July 10, 2011, 11:15:56 PM »

**And God offers redemption, to even the ACLU, if they would only seek his grace.

http://post-gazette.com/nation/20020628undergod0628p3.asp

How the Pledge got God
Minister, now 91, gave Ike the idea one Sunday morning

Friday, June 28, 2002

By Tom Gibb, Post-Gazette Staff Writer

ALEXANDRIA, Pa. -- He was a Scotsman come to America, just 3 1/2 years removed from his homeland. So, unlike his schoolboy son, George Docherty didn't have The Pledge of Allegiance stamped deep in memory.

 The Rev. George Macpherson Docherty, 91, proposed inserting the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to President Eisenhower in February 1954. (Lake Fong, Post-Gazette)

As Docherty recalls it almost 49 years hence, the exchange between father and son, went something like this:

"What did you do in school today?"

"Well," second-grader Garth Docherty obliged, "we started with The Pledge of Allegiance."

So, the junior Docherty repeated it for his father -- the 1953 version, the next-to-the-current revision that read, in part, "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

"It struck me that it didn't mention God," George Docherty recounted yesterday from his home in Alexandria, Huntingdon County. "I was brought up in Scotland, and in Scotland, we sang, 'God save our gracious king.' It was everybody's belief that God was part of society."

George Docherty's puzzlement might have died there.

But this was the Rev. George Macpherson Docherty. And the Rev. George Macpherson Docherty was three years into his pastorate of Washington, D.C.'s New York Avenue Presbyterian Church -- two blocks from the White House, the church attended by President Lincoln and frequented by his successors.

On the first Sunday in February 1954, a few months after the exchange with his son, Docherty raised the issue from the pulpit -- with President Dwight D. Eisenhower in the front pew of the 1,400-seat sanctuary.

In his sermon, Docherty reasoned that reciting the Pledge didn't make nonbelievers profess a faith in God.

"He is pledging allegiance to a state, which through its founders, laws and culture, does as a matter of fact believe in the existence of God," he said. "Without this phrase 'under God,' The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag might have been recited with similar sincerity by Muscovite children at the beginning of their school day."

Afterward, according to Docherty, Eisenhower told him, "I think you've got something."

The long story cut short: newspapers picked up the message and the Congressional Record reprinted the sermon in full.

And 4 1/2 months later, in a nation fretting at the Cold War and what they saw as godless communism, the Pledge officially was leavened to 31 words, with the addition of the phrase "under God" after "one nation."
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2139


« Reply #468 on: July 11, 2011, 06:01:16 AM »

Two words don't change the history of the Pledge or the meaning of the other words.  Tere is a guy who stands tall and wants to end the use of the socialist indoctrination of the Pledge (see below).  If you can't ignore history, you can't ignore history, GM.  But, if you are willing to look at the outcomes, say the protection of liberties involving speech, press, and religion (even the exercise thereof) like the ACLU has a, well, history of working toward, then I guess you can accept the change that two little words in the Pledge can make....

http://thatsrightnate.com/2009/07/30/the-socialist-threat-of-the-pledge-of-allegiance/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11829


« Reply #469 on: July 11, 2011, 07:09:28 AM »

"But, if you are willing to look at the outcomes, say the protection of liberties involving speech, press, and religion (even the exercise thereof) like the ACLU has a, well, history of working toward"

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=7151

The ACLU also asserts that the First Amendment, which was NEVER meant by its authors to do so, “protects” child pornography. This is material so foul, that after my years as a federal prosecutor and Director of the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography, I call it “crime scene photography” because of the actual abuse required for its production. The ACLU asserts there should be no federal or state governmental restriction on its distribution, reproduction, sale, and use by pedophiles and others. A very small minority of the American public shares this view. 
 
 
 
These are just two of the many extreme positions that the ACLU holds that we discuss in the book.
 
 
 
FP: The ACLU is for polygamy and child pornography? This is truly incredible – and shameful. Why do you think so few people know about this? How come the media isn’t all over this outrage?
 
 
 
Sears: The ACLU has made no secret of their incredible “First Amendment” defense of the distribution of even the roughest child pornography for those who know where to look for it. Their former national counsel’s testimony supporting this “right” in Washington D.C. before the Pornography Commission was delivered after a slide show of such photos depicting in frightening detail the sexual abuse and then murder of a small boy. The ACLU actually filed a brief before the United States Supreme Court defending the “rights” of child pornographers in the New York v. Ferber case. But they are clever enough that you do not see the ACLU creating television or print ads to proclaim their support for these positions.
 
 
And of course no matter how much one is offended by this and other forms of the vilest pornography imaginable, the ACLU say the government cannot take any action that could protect any citizen from unwanted exposure.  Ironically, this is the same ACLU which claims that offended persons must be forcefully protected by them in court from the dreaded public display of the Ten Commandments or Christmas.

 
 
Similarly, from their founder’s earliest sentiments, to their policy guide and board statements, to President Strossen’s comments at Yale in 2005 the ACLU record of support for polygamy and much more than that to redefine “marriage” is clear but generally unknown.
 
 
 
The major media has generally given them a free pass on all of this, and why the media choose to ignore these facts and give the ACLU a “free pass” is beyond us.
 
 
 
FP: So what do you think is the ACLU’s true agenda?
 
 
 
Sears: To get the answer to this question, let’s look at a little history. Today the highest award the ACLU bestows annually is its Roger Baldwin Medal of Liberty named for their founder who they still hold in highest regard. Though Baldwin said he was not a communist, he visited the Soviet Union in 1924 and wrote glowingly about Stalin’s government and the great social experiment then being undertaken in that country (see page 15 of our book). Then let’s look at the words of Roger Baldwin back in 1935 when he wrote the following in his thirtieth anniversary Harvard University classbook:
 
 
 
“I am for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately the abolishing of the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion.  I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth.  Communism is the goal.”
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2139


« Reply #470 on: July 11, 2011, 07:41:46 AM »

Is child porn protected by the First Amendment, GM?  If not, it is NOT an outcome.  I provided you with a list of cases that the ACLU has supported at the USSC and won.  Those ARE outcomes.  Did you look at the list?  Did you see the protected speech?  The protected press?  Probably not.  I realize that no matter what the ACLU does, you will not change your mind.  Once your mind is made up, there is no changing it.  No matter what.  I am glad that you can justify your socialist leaning with the Pledge of Allegiance, though.  Well played!
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11829


« Reply #471 on: July 11, 2011, 07:55:12 AM »

So, we should just ignore the ACLU's Stalinist origins and their advocacy of the rape of children/NAMBLA?
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2139


« Reply #472 on: July 11, 2011, 08:22:43 AM »

No more so than we should dismiss the socialist agenda of the author of the Pledge.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11829


« Reply #473 on: July 11, 2011, 08:34:46 AM »

No more so than we should dismiss the socialist agenda of the author of the Pledge.

Really? Those things are morally equivalent to you?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5824


« Reply #474 on: July 11, 2011, 11:20:40 AM »

A couple of observations without jumping all the way in here.  There is a contention between what I think of liberty and what others with a more socialistic view think of justice.  I've always taken note that in the pledge liberty comes before justice.

The story that the ACLU helped Rush Limbaugh IIRC is that they were dragged in kicking and screaming.  Here we had a high profile political 'enemy' of theirs being publicly humiliated over a criminal charge that LE had no chance of proving without forceably opening his most personal and private records, violating his civil liberties.  In the early crucial days of the scandal, the story at least on one side was - where is the ACLU on this? Isn't this perhaps one of the highest profile violations ever of the types of civil liberties violations they stand so publicly for? After quite a delay (Oct to Jan?), yes they came in and put an end to that criticism.  Not on the news of the violation but (at least in perception) in response to a spreading question - where is the ACLU on this.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/12/143050.shtml
"It may seem odd that the ACLU has come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh," the state chapter's executive director, Howard Simon, said ..."
  - Why would that seem odd?

My question on it all is something like this, are not basic economic freedoms a part of civil liberties?  Does the ACLU ever fight against 62% taxation in MN for example or the right of a shopkeeper in Abilene to not have Washington set his minimum wage, or the right across the country to choose fee for service healthcare?
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2139


« Reply #475 on: July 11, 2011, 06:53:43 PM »

GM: It was you who said that the Stalinist history of the ACLU should not be ignored, but you are quite open to overlooking the socialist history of the Pledge.  Why is this?  While I recognize the differences between Marxism, communism, Stalism, and socialism, those on the right simply conflate them.  So, yes, for the sake of this argument, I am quite willing to let them be morally equivilant.

Are you seriously trying to argue that NAMBLA is threatening to the republic?  Let's go back to your original contention that ACLU members hate the republic.  I have serious doubt that NAMBLA will lead to the demise of the US as we know it.  I find that particular organization to be disgusting, with reprehensible goals. 

According to the ACLU, here is the reason that it supported NAMBLA:

Why did the ACLU represent NAMBLA?
The ACLU of Massachusetts' represented members of NAMBLA because, while the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children, we do advocate robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit struck at the heart of the First Amendment. It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something people find reasonable. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people reject. For more information about the case, please contact the ACLU of Massachusetts.

For the record, I think it is important for the ACLU, or other organizations, to protect free political speech.  It is easy to support popular causes.  It is not so easy to support the controversial ones. 

Voltaire springs to mind here.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11829


« Reply #476 on: July 11, 2011, 07:07:21 PM »

"GM: It was you who said that the Stalinist history of the ACLU should not be ignored, but you are quite open to overlooking the socialist history of the Pledge.  Why is this?  While I recognize the differences between Marxism, communism, Stalism, and socialism, those on the right simply conflate them.  So, yes, for the sake of this argument, I am quite willing to let them be morally equivilant".

Do you grasp the difference between a simple patriotic oath and a Stalinist organization designed to undercut this nation from within?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30640


« Reply #477 on: July 11, 2011, 07:10:05 PM »

And the ACLU has done good work on this issue.  

But something that forms an important part of my sense of the group is my memory of the literature I received from them containing foaming hatred of President Reagan on what we might call now "radical progressive criteria" or "affirmative man endowed rights".   These values were deep in the essence of the organization.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11829


« Reply #478 on: July 11, 2011, 08:13:33 PM »

Why did the ACLU represent NAMBLA?
The ACLU of Massachusetts' represented members of NAMBLA because, while the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children, we do advocate robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit struck at the heart of the First Amendment. It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something people find reasonable. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people reject. For more information about the case, please contact the ACLU of Massachusetts.

For the record, I think it is important for the ACLU, or other organizations, to protect free political speech.  It is easy to support popular causes.  It is not so easy to support the controversial ones. 

Criminal conspiracy is not protected speech. Ret. FBI S/A Bob Hamer did undercover work investigating NAMBLA http://bobhamer.net/samplechapters.html
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5824


« Reply #479 on: July 11, 2011, 09:50:04 PM »

What GM does not see is that we have been wrongfully legislating our values on these people with laws against bestiality, sex with young children, limiting marriage to a husband and a wife, and threatening to treat an identifiably distinct unborn life like its a life.  You say criminal conspiracy but they say oppression of their free spirit and desires that are morally equal to yours.

The problem I see with sex with sheep, sex with elementary aged school children and killing the unborn is establishing with certainty the consent of the other party.  How can anyone support child labor prohibitions but oppose restrictions on a child's choice of sex partners (or does ACLU oppose child labor laws as well?).  If children are capable of consent and deserving of liberty, couldn't we send them to war at 8 or 9 too.

Abhorrent speech is abhorrent speech.  The Supreme Court chooses its cases.  The ACLU could stand to choose its cases a little more carefully.  Twisting the meaning of founding principles does nothing IMO to defend the Bill of Rights.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2139


« Reply #480 on: July 12, 2011, 06:57:17 AM »

If I understand the case correctly (and I may not), the issue was the age of consent.  The age of consent is a legal definition, set by a legislature.  There is nothing magical about the age of consent, as seen by a variety of ages for sexual and marital consent from state to state.  That would make any attempt to either alter the age of consent or abolish it all together political speech.

I don't like NAMBLA, I don't understand NAMBLA, I don't condone NAMBLA.  I'll never fund NAMBLA, join NAMBLA, or befriend anyone I know is a member of NAMBLA.  That does not mean that NAMBLA lacks political speech rights. 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11829


« Reply #481 on: July 12, 2011, 07:45:07 AM »


http://old.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp

February 27, 2004, 9:20 a.m.
No Boy Scouts
The ACLU defends NAMBLA.



An old friend of mine once said this about the American Civil Liberties Union: "They're a bunch of whale-saving, criminal-loving pinkos — and thank God for them."

This remark nicely summarizes the ambivalence with which many people regard the ACLU. Few organizations dance closer to the very edge of the loony-Left precipice than it does. There seems to be no thug too hardened nor any cause too exotic for the ACLU to champion. At the same time, if America ever were unlucky enough to face a president who decided to remain in the Oval Office past her expiration date, the ACLU would battle her and her junta with every sharp courtroom argument, pointed legal filing, and well-aimed briefcase it could muster.

That said, the ACLU lately has stained the dark side of its reputation through its actions in two cases involving the treatment of vulnerable, young Americans. The ACLU is defending those who abuse children while attacking those who give them moral guidance. This contrast reveals the priorities of today's ACLU.

The Manhattan-based public-interest law firm is defending the North American Man-Boy Love Association in a $200 million civil lawsuit filed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Curley. The Curleys claim that Charles Jaynes was driven by the literature and website of NAMBLA, an outfit that advocates sex between grown men and little boys, reportedly as young as age 8.

Jaynes did not simply read NAMBLA's materials and ponder its message. He and Salvatore Sicari actively sought a boy with whom to copulate. They picked 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge, Massachusetts. They lured him into their car as he played outside his home in October 1997. When Curley resisted their sexual advances, they choked him to death with a gasoline-soaked rag. Then they took the boy's body across state lines to Jayne's apartment in Manchester, New Hampshire. They molested the cadaver and stuffed it into a cement-filled Rubbermaid container. Finally, they crossed state lines again into Maine, whereupon they tossed Jeffrey Curley's remains into the Great Works River, from which it was recovered within days. Jaynes and Sicari were convicted of these crimes in 1998, for which they are serving life sentences.

So why blame NAMBLA? Is it any more responsible for this atrocity than is Vintage Books, the publisher of Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita? Imagine that Jaynes and Sicari had read that 1955 novel about a middle-aged intellectual's affair with a 12-year-old girl. What if these two men found an equally young female who they abused and killed, just as they murdered Jeffrey Curley in real life? Putting aside the fact that Lolita is a work of fiction, would Vintage Books face civil justice?

Probably not, nor would NAMBLA if it limited its output to fictional depictions of "man-boy love." It is difficult to pin imaginary crimes on actual criminals who turn make-believe into mayhem.

Within the realm of nonfiction, as revolting as its ideas are, NAMBLA certainly has a First Amendment right to argue that America's laws should be changed to permit sexual relations between adult men and third-grade school boys. Most Americans would disagree vehemently, as well they should. That's called debate. It's the American way.

As ACLU of Massachusetts Legal Director John Reinstein sees it: "Regardless of whether people agree with or abhor NAMBLA's views, holding the organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read their materials would gravely endanger important First Amendment freedoms."

However, as Fox News' Bill O'Reilly noted, there is more at play here than pamphleteering. "According to lawyers familiar with [NAMBLA's] website," O'Reilly explained, "it actually posted techniques designed to lure boys into having sex with men and also supplied information on what an adult should do if caught."

NAMBLA is "not just publishing material that says it's OK to have sex with children and advocating changing the law," says Larry Frisoli, a Cambridge attorney who is arguing the Curleys case in federal court. NAMBLA, he says, "is actively training their members how to rape children and get away with it. They distribute child pornography and trade live children among NAMBLA members with the purpose of having sex with them."

Frisoli cites a NAMBLA publication he calls "The Rape and Escape Manual." Its actual title is "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships."

"Its chapters explain how to build relationships with children," Frisoli tells me. "How to gain the confidence of children's parents. Where to go to have sex with children so as not to get caught...There is advice, if one gets caught, on when to leave America and how to rip off credit card companies to get cash to finance your flight. It's pretty detailed."

"In his diary, Jaynes said he had reservations about having sex with children until he discovered NAMBLA," Frisoli continues. "It's in his diary in 1996, around the time he joined NAMBLA, one year before the death of Jeffrey Curley."

The practical, step-by-step advice Jaynes followed goes far beyond appeals to sway public opinion in favor of pedophilia. Such language aids and abets felonious conduct. If such conspiracy results in homicide, it is reasonable for NAMBLA to face civil liability if not criminal prosecution.

Ohio's Court of Appeals found NAMBLA complicit in an earlier child-rape case. NAMBLA's literature, discovered in a defendant's possession, reflected "preparation and purpose," according to the Buckeye State's top bench.

The ACLU has offered material support to those who openly preach pedophilia and arguably encourage kidnapping, rape, and murder. Yet this legal group is energetically hostile to an organization that tries to turn boys into men, with sex alien to the process.

Since 1915, the Boy Scouts have managed land within San Diego's Balboa Park. It has built a swimming pool, a 600-seat amphitheater, and a camping facility that accommodates 300. Camp Balboa serves some 12,000 Boy Scouts annually through daylong events and weekend sleepovers. The Scouts' tie to this land is a 50-year lease offered by the San Diego City Council and signed in 1957. In exchange for their stewardship — including private investment for maintenance and development — the Scouts hand the city an annual lease payment of $1.00.

This arrangement is too much for the ACLU to swallow. It sued the City of San Diego to expel the Boy Scouts from Balboa Park. The ACLU contends that the Scouts are a religious organization and thus should be dislodged from the facility. Never mind that the Scouts did not bar other groups from using the park. In fact, according to Hans Zeiger, an 18-year-old Eagle Scout who has written about this controversy, Balboa Park hosted last summer's San Diego Gay Pride Festival.

Clinton-appointed U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones deemed the Boy Scouts a religious organization last July and declared that their involvement with Balboa Park violated the separation of church and state. The ACLU used this ruling to secure a settlement wherein the City of San Diego cancelled the Scouts' lease on the park, even though it did not expire until 2007 and, in fact, was extended in 2001 for 25 years. The ACLU also scored $950,000 in attorneys fees and court costs, thus fleecing taxpayers and deepening its pockets.

San Diego's Boy Scouts are appealing Judge Jones' ruling. A federal judge someday may decide whether or not the Scouts' good deeds will go unpunished.

The ACLU's supporters should contemplate where this organization has placed itself vis-à-vis NAMBLA and the Boy Scouts. The ACLU seemingly believes that everyone deserves a lawyer, no matter how odious his case. Perhaps, although it would be nice to see NAMBLA siphon its own bank account rather than the ACLU's to justify its evil ways. The ACLU decides for itself where to devote its finite resources. Hence, its leaders freely chose to stand with cheerleaders for pederasty while torpedoing those who mentor rather than rape little boys.

Today's ACLU makes one wish it would find some whales to save.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5824


« Reply #482 on: July 12, 2011, 08:22:05 AM »

"I don't like NAMBLA, I don't understand NAMBLA, I don't condone NAMBLA.  I'll never fund NAMBLA, join NAMBLA, or befriend anyone I know is a member of NAMBLA.  That does not mean that NAMBLA lacks political speech rights."
-------
Thank you Bigdog. I like the first part of that very much and I will grudging consider the truth of the last sentence.  

I know of one situation.  The man now in jail was a very prominent local person, head of the local bar association.  The unidentified boy, friend of the man's son, is someone we knew.  Top of the class student, never returned to school after testifying at the trial.  Has gone far away to counseling and school so in effect has lost his family in addition to his friends.  Man-boy 'love' is a crime with a victim. 

Maybe a bank robbers union can lobby against armed robbery restrictions, and rapists and murderers can argue for looser laws and lighter sentences, but no one needs to take their side or help their cause.  I personally find it to be more a perversion and exploitation of the Bill of Rights than a potential erosion - to claim we are unable differentiate those examples from real political speech.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2139


« Reply #483 on: July 12, 2011, 08:19:24 PM »

Although it is in Boston, this conference might interest several of you.

http://conconcon.org/
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2139


« Reply #484 on: July 12, 2011, 08:37:11 PM »

GM: Thanks for the post.  Did the ACLU support the language for policy change, the rape manual, or both? 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11829


« Reply #485 on: July 13, 2011, 07:16:17 AM »

GM: Thanks for the post.  Did the ACLU support the language for policy change, the rape manual, or both? 

I don't know. Given it is doubtful that the ACLU takes every case offered it, why would they want to take one involving this? Although I recall that at least one ACLU official has been arrested for similar conduct.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11829


« Reply #486 on: July 13, 2011, 07:21:27 AM »

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/2008-pdfs/april08leb.pdf

Criminal speech: inducement and the First Amendment
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30640


« Reply #487 on: July 17, 2011, 11:23:41 AM »



"The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting, with noiseless foot, and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains, is ingulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, 1821
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2139


« Reply #488 on: July 17, 2011, 07:07:41 PM »

This is a good quote, but keep in mind he had a long time dispute with John Marshall.  Kin is funny that way.



"The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting, with noiseless foot, and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains, is ingulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, 1821

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30640


« Reply #489 on: July 17, 2011, 07:12:39 PM »


Well, maybe so, but over the sweep of time, his point is not without merit.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2139


« Reply #490 on: July 23, 2011, 10:20:12 AM »

An article most of you will like:

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202504720006&Its_not_Thomasgate&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5824


« Reply #491 on: July 23, 2011, 02:10:37 PM »

Thanks Bigdog.  I hold Thomas up there as a principled American hero.  The story of his upbringing is quite remarkable.   http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/27/60minutes/main3305443.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30640


« Reply #492 on: July 23, 2011, 11:53:48 PM »

BD:  You're right  smiley

Doug:  I liked that quite a bit.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30640


« Reply #493 on: July 28, 2011, 06:09:23 PM »

=================================
THE PATRIOT POST
Alexander's Essay -- July 28, 2011
=================================
On the Web: http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2011/07/28/what-power-to-tax-and-spend/
Printer Friendly:
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2011/07/28/what-power-to-tax-and-spend/print
PDF Version: http://pdf.patriotpost.us.s3.amazonaws.com/2011-07-28-alexander.pdf

-------------

What Power to Tax and Spend?

-------------

The Question Americans Should Be Asking

"The Constitution, which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and
authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all." --George
Washington

Barack Hussein Obama's refusal to send a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) to the
states as condition of House Speaker John Boehner's support for raising the national
debt ceiling has pushed federal funding negotiations to the precipice of the
Treasury Department's 2 August default deadline. Boehner has retreated on the
House's "cut, cap and balance
(http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2011/07/21/a-sign-of-sanity-amid-the-budget-banter/
)" plan and its BBA provision is no longer a stipulation in negotiations. He has
also reduced the "cuts" in the House plan, and may acquiesce to the larger debt
ceiling increase the Democrats
(http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2008/10/24/the-once-noble-democratic-party/ ) want
in order to avoid another debt ceiling battle prior to the 2012 elections.

Notably, most House conservatives, including the Tea Party freshmen, are standing
with Boehner, choosing a pragmatic approach until 2012, when they hope to strengthen
their numbers in the House and Senate, and retake the presidency.

The current budget debate was the first serious consideration of a BBA since it was
advocated by President Ronald Reagan
(http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2011/02/03/the-reagan-centennial/ ) in the 1980s
and later passed by the House as part of the Republican Contract with America in
1995. (At that time, it received 300 votes, including 72 Democrats.)

Now, as then, Leftist Democrats
(http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2011/03/10/democratic-socialism/ ) in the Senate
have created a formidable gauntlet to its passage because it would severely
undermine their power to redistribute wealth, power that is the only assurance of
their perpetual re-election
(http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2011/04/21/its-not-what-the-american-people-want/
). A BBA would sunset their dynasty.

So, where to from here, and what question should conservatives be asking? First, let
me offer a brief review of the current budget/debt crisis.

The current legal limit (ceiling) on outstanding U.S. debt is $14.29 trillion. The
federal government currently spends about $10 billion every day, and about $4
billion of that is borrowed with guarantees that future generations of Americans
will repay the principal and interest.

The House budget plan, as of today, allows a $900 billion increase in the debt
ceiling, but includes cuts of approximately that amount over 10 years, which is to
say it is not a "net-net" plan to balance the budget now, and does not reverse debt
accumulation.

Obama's 2012 budget is $3.7 trillion. Conservative estimates are that his "budget
plan" will add more than $12 trillion in debt over the next decade. The only way the
U.S. can remain solvent under those circumstances would require colossal tax
increases and fiscal policies that inflate the economy -- both of which will break
the back of free enterprise
(http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2010/07/08/barackracy-part-1/ ) and ultimately lead
to more taxes and inflation until the whole charade collapses.

This debt bomb (http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2011/02/10/the-debt-bomb-showdown/ )
poses the most significant threat to Essential Liberty
(http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2009/09/03/essential-liberty-part-1/ ) in our
nation's history. Our editorial team outlined this mounting national security threat
(http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2004/02/20/the-other-national-security-threat/ )
back in 2004.

Across the nation, 49 of 50 states have some form of balanced budget requirement.
The federal government, however, recognizes no such limitations and for three
decades has been spending far more than it takes in.

Not only must the debt accumulation be stopped, it must be reversed.

To accomplish this reversal, the most pressing question in the current debate is not
"which budget plan is better?" Rather, it is "By what authority does the central
government collect taxes, and on what items is it authorized to spend those combined
taxes and accumulated national debt?"

Tell me what you think
(http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2011/07/28/what-power-to-tax-and-spend/#post-comment
)

To answer that question, let's review the limitations on taxing and spending our
Constitution
(http://patriotpost.us/document/the-constitution-of-the-united-states-of-america/ )
imposed upon Congress before the courts twisted Rule of Law into the so-called
"living constitution
(http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2005/09/16/a-living-constitution-for-a-dying-republic/
)," which is subject to the rule of men. Under the latter, Congress has unlawfully
assumed the authority not only to collect and spend taxes on any objects it desires
(in order to perpetuate re-election), but to regulate everything else
(http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/07/Red-Tape-Rising-A-2011-Mid-Year-Report
). (For the record, the cost of that regulation is estimated at $1.75 trillion
annually -- more than twice the total income taxes collected in 2010.)

This unlawful spending and regulation is in abject violation of our elected
officials' oaths to "support and defend
(http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2008/11/14/our-sacred-honor-to-support-and-defend/
)" our Constitution, and a breach of trust in their contract with the American
people, which has created a perilous national security crisis
(http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2011/04/07/the-most-perilous-national-security-crisis-since-1860/
). But on the question of their constitutional authority, former House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi infamously claimed, "Nobody questions that
(http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2009/10/29/nobody-questions-that/ )."

To get a sense of how enormous the outlaw-spending crisis has grown, I quote Obama
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's efforts to shock Republicans into submission this
week: "Just remember, this is the United States of America. We write 80 million
checks a month. There are millions and millions of Americans that depend on those
checks coming on time. ... We cannot put those payments at risk and we do not have
the ability to limit the damage on them if Congress fails to act in time."

By what authority is the central government taxing and borrowing to distribute 80
million checks a month?

The "General Welfare Clause" in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution provides,
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of
the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout
the United States..."

During the constitutional ratification debates, our Founder's made clear that
taxation in support of expenditure for the "general welfare
(http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/01/Enough-Is-Enough-Why-General-Welfare-Limits-Spending
)" of the nation was subject to severe limits.

Alexander Hamilton, our nation's first Treasury secretary, argued for a somewhat
more expansive interpretation of "general welfare," while James Madison, our
Constitution's author, reiterated that the enumerated powers contained therein
strictly limited the context of "general welfare."

Madison's view prevailed. As president, Madison vetoed a federal highway bill in
1817 because such expenditures were not authorized by our Constitution and,
moreover, were clearly the responsibility of the states, as specified in the Tenth
Amendment
(http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2000/01/01/on-the-tenth-amendment-federalism/ ).

According to Madison, "It has been urged and echoed, that the power 'to lay and
collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the
common defence and general welfare of the United States,' amounts to an unlimited
commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the
common defence or general welfare."

However, wrote Madison, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done
by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a
limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one."

In Federalist No. 45, Madison declared, "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 former will be
exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign
commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the
objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties,
and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of
the State."

As for extra-constitutional taxation, Madison was unequivocal: "I cannot undertake
to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to
Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

The authentic interpretation of expenses authorized by our Constitution was
sustained until the War Between the States, when Abraham Lincoln
(http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2009/02/13/lincolns-legacy-at-200/ ) stretched them
beyond constitutional bounds.

But the wholesale adulteration of our Constitution began with Franklin Delano
Roosevelt's (http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2004/09/24/useful-idiots-on-the-left/ )
regime. Under duress of economic depression, he implemented such
extra-constitutional programs as the Social Security Act, Federal Housing
Administration, Home Owner's Loan Corporation, the Tennessee Valley Authority and a
plethora of other "New Deal" federal spending programs, not one of which was
authorized by our Constitution.

In 1936, the Supreme Court (U.S. v Butler) cemented this broad and unprecedented
interpretation of the General Welfare Clause in alliance with FDR -- and the rest is
history.

The High Court's interpretation far exceeded its constitutional authority. In
Federalist No. 81, Alexander Hamilton made it clear that this sort of judicial
activism was illegitimate: "[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which
directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit
of the Constitution."
That notwithstanding, what our Constitution authorizes versus what the courts via
judicial diktat have since interpreted it to authorize have rendered Rule of Law
null and void. The resulting debt crisis is a menacing threat to Liberty
(http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2011/05/12/sunset-or-sunrise-on-liberty/ ).

So, what's the solution?

Tell me what you think
(http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2011/07/28/what-power-to-tax-and-spend/#post-comment
)

Thomas Jefferson warned, "To preserve independence ... we must not let our rulers
load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and Liberty,
or profusion and servitude. ... The fore horse of this frightful team is public
debt. Taxation follows that, and in its turn wretchedness and oppression."

A BBA is a good way to limit outlaw spending. However, there is no chance of a BBA
passage with a Democrat administration and Democrat-controlled Senate. And if a BBA
did pass, it could result in tax increases indexed to budget increases if it does
not require a supermajority to raise taxes, a spending cap to keep the "balance"
from perpetual increases, a provision to protect it from tax increases forced by
judicial diktat, and a provision to ensure it is not construed as to affirm the
constitutional authority of current spending programs -- most of which have no such
authority.
Moreover, no amendment will suffice until the authority of our Constitution is
restored, and that will require a broad challenge from "the People," and the first
step in that challenge was born in the Tea Party movement
(http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2010/06/24/the-tea-party-movement/ ) this past
election cycle. That momentum must be sustained if there is any hope to preserve
Liberty.

On that authority, Jefferson noted, "Our peculiar security is in possession of a
written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. ... If it
is, then we have no Constitution. ... In questions of power, then, let no more be
heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the
Constitution."

Alexander Hamilton wrote, "A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital
principle, the sustaining energy of a free government. ... [T]he present
Constitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banners, bona fide
must we combat our political foes -- rejecting all changes but through the channel
itself provides for amendments."

George Washington, in his farewell address to the nation, wrote, "The basis of our
political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their
constitutions of Government. But the Constitution, which at any time exists, 'till
changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory
upon all. ... If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of
the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an
amendment in the way which the constitution designates. But let there be no change
by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is
the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

Obama and his arrogant socialist cadres
(http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2010/08/19/obama-and-the-socialist-bourgeoisie/ )
believe they are smarter than our Founders. They certainly believe they can outsmart
most of the American People. Unless more of us begin to ask relevant questions about
Rule of Law (http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2009/09/03/essential-liberty-part-1/ )
and constitutional authority, they may be right on the latter contention.

(A note of thanks to my colleague, Matthew Spalding, constitutional scholar at the
Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/ ), for research assistance on this
essay.)

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post (http://patriotpost.us/subscribe/ )
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2139


« Reply #494 on: July 31, 2011, 07:50:09 AM »

This is shifted, as per Guro's request, from the 2012 Presidential thread to this thread.  For background information on the original discussion, please see: http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2112.500 (July 29-30).

From GM: "I'm not arguing, I really don't understand how a driver's license from a different state is given "full faith and credit" yet a concealed weapon license is not. The issuance of a license (driver or CCW) seems to to me to fall under the definition of a public act, thus a "shall" and not a "may" catagory.

I asked a state trooper that was teaching a class I was in on traffic code (Troopers really know traffic code, they sleep, eat and breathe it in my state) about out of state drivers who are in technical violation of state traffic code while in our state (in this case, the display of a front lic. plate). My state statute say all vehicles on public roadways MUST (not may) display a front license plate when operating a vehicle on a public roadway. The statute does not make allowance for out of state vehicles. We have a bordering state where only the rear plate is required. The trooper and every other person I've asked has never explained why that statute doesn't apply to the out of state vehicles. Is that a "full faith and credit" thing?"

First, GM, let me apologize for assuming that you were being argumentative and not seeking information.  I did indeed, manage to make an a$$ of myself. 

Second, the answer, as I understand it, to the question is that Congress has taken action in this area.  I will post 2 Wikipedia articles below that provide some background information, but please note that the cooperation began at least by the 1950's (Beemer Resolution) and has supported sine by a variety of congressional actions (ex: funding the Joint Executive Board). 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Compact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Agreement
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11829


« Reply #495 on: July 31, 2011, 09:27:51 AM »

"First, GM, let me apologize for assuming that you were being argumentative and not seeking information."

No worries. It's safe to assume I'm being argumentative 99.9% of the time.

The interstate compact makes sense. I knew there was an agreement that resulted in DL's getting suspended for non-payment of out of state traffic violations. I didn't know exactly how it worked.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11829


« Reply #496 on: July 31, 2011, 09:52:34 AM »

Followup question: Is there an interstate marriage registry? If you live in MO. and get married in Vegas, how does MO. know (aside from you filing jointly on state income tax or a name change on a DL)?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5824


« Reply #497 on: August 11, 2011, 12:02:33 PM »

Posting this as a (right wing) opposing opinion to the group at Harvard Law School putting on a conference advancing the idea of calling for a new constitutional convention, posted recently by BD.

I support the idea of a conference to discuss this seldom used provision, but I oppose calling a convention because the very few new amendments I would favor tend to be very specific in nature, mostly not structural.  (I also oppose abbreviating or truncating words that start with c-o-n.)

 August 11, 2011 by  Steven Hayward
Con-Con-Con Job?

So over the transom comes a notice about the Conference on the Constitutional Convention (or “Con-Con-Con” for short) up at Harvard Law School next month, which is bringing together figures from left and right to mull over an Article V constitutional convention.  As the participant in a couple of successful “post-partisan” right-left efforts at compromise over some knotty-pine policy issues such as energy and climate change, as well as the “Modernizing Liberalism” effort I wrote about here back in June, far be it from me to pour cold water on such an effort.  This isn’t going to sport the Kumbaya mushiness of “No Labels,” for one thing.  It’s going to feature prominent lefties such as Larry Tribe and Laurence Lessig, and right-thinking folk such as Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds (Glenn will give one of the keynotes, in fact), and Cato’s very sound John Samples, along with some Tea Party activists.

It is one thing to reach policy compromises even over deeply divisive policy issues such as the debt ceiling.  Constitutional compromise is another matter, and it is easy to predict that the Con-Con-Con effort will make little progress for an elusively simple reason: the basic condition that made the compromises of the 1787 convention possible do not exist today.  The Framers of 1787, and, significantly, their critics who became the Anti-Federalists, shared a general agreement about first principles (with one important exception which I’ll come to in due course), which made institutional compromise possible.  The Framers were all believers in the creed of individual natural rights as expressed in the prologue to the Declaration of Independence, and moreover believed that limiting government required anti-majoritarian institutions such as the Senate, separation of powers, the Electoral College, and federalism, among other things.  The modern left believes in none of these things, and every agenda of constitutional reform from the left calls for abolishing or weakening all of them.  (See, for just one example, Larry Sabato’s really bad book on the subject, and Sabato is far from being a hard leftist.)  The left would like to abolish the Senate and the Electoral College, just for starters.  Deep-dish thinkers like Cass Sunstein have argued for making the judiciary more powerful, precisely because it is more immune to popular political accountability.

For the Framers in 1787, most of their arguments were over how to limit government power and secure individual liberty most effectively, which meant they were arguing over small differences.  You might almost say that the Philadelphia convention was a group of rightists arguing with themselves.  Today’s left, starting at least as far back as Woodrow Wilson, who dismissed the natural rights philosophy of the Declaration of Independence and attacked the principle of the separation of powers, wants to remove as many limitations on government power as possible.  As such the Con-Con-Con exercise has little hope of reaching a principled compromise over constitutional reform, and even if a suite of reforms might get the necessary ratification of three-fourths of the states, it is likely the reforms would make our political divisions worse.

The one case of where the Framers had to compromise because they had a serious difference of first principles is instructive—slavery.  Even though there was probably majority sentiment for abolishing slavery in 1787, tolerating slavery in the South was unfortunately necessary if there was to be a union and a constitution at all.  And, of course, it required a civil war to resolve this problem ultimately—not an encouraging precedent for constitutional “compromise” today.

The way the modern left has willfully misconstrued the convention’s compromises over slavery is revealing and significant, as it shows the left is unable or unwilling to distinguish the first principles of the Constitution from its compromises.  The left likes to criticize the Founders for their toleration of slavery, for example, by claiming the three-fifths clause means that black Americans were only “three-fifths of a person.”  In fact the intent and action of this clause was to diminish the political power of slave states, which wanted slaves counted as whole persons for the purpose of apportioning House membership.  I always have fun pointing this out to students, and asking if they’d feel better about the Founders if they had allowed more political power to slave states in 1787 by counting them as whole persons.  It usually elicits dumbfounded looks, silence, and subject-changing to Jefferson and Sally Hemings or something.

Moreover, the entire treatment of slavery in the convention and in the text of the Constitution is significant.  Note that the term “slave” is never used; instead, the drafters employed euphemisms, such as “persons held to service” or “other persons.”  Even the fugitive slave clause does not use the term.  Here’s an interesting point that only emerges from Madison’s notes on their deliberations.  The original proposed language for the fugitive slave clause was “No person legally held to service in one state. . .” Madison himself objected to the term “legally;” he told the convention that he “thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men,” and that the word “legally” seemed to favor “the idea that slavery was legal in a moral view.”  So the term was struck.

It is for these and other reasons that Frederick Douglass was able to make out that the Constitution was an anti-slavery document at the level of principle, yet somehow modern liberals can’t make this out at all because they have rejected the principles and logic of the Founding (following, I might add, the same ground of reasoning as Calhoun and other pro-slavery southerners of the mid-19th century, a fact that seems not to embarrass modern liberals, but this is a subject to dilate more fully another day).

Finally, one last observation.  The Con-Con-Con organizers downplay the risk of a “runaway” constitutional convention on the grounds that nothing radical would ever get the approval of three-fourths of the states.  This makes some sense, until you recall that the Philadelphia convention of 1787 was a “runaway” convention.  How so? It was called for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and required the unanimous consent of all 13 states for revisions to be adopted.  Yet what the convention produced was a wholly new Constitution that would go into effect if only nine states ratified it.  So much for following the law as it was spelled out explicitly in the Articles.  I often pose this problem to students, asking whether the convention acted illegally or unconstitutionally, or what possible justification they could claim for their acts.

Madison discussed this very problem in Federalist #43:

    Two questions of a very delicate nature present themselves on this occasion: 1. On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it? 2. What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it?

    The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature’s God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed.

In other words, Madison is here making a very delicate reference to the right of revolution as it is expressed in the Declaration of Independence—in fact this is the only place in the Federalist Papers where there is a distinct echo of the Declaration. I note that whenever Tea Partiers or their sympathizers like Michele Bachmann invoke the Declaration’s right of revolution today, they are called “dangerous extremists.”  I’ll happily stand with “extremists” like Jefferson and Madison any time.

About the second question Madison’s long answer is less convincing, and rests ultimately on the hope, subsequently borne out, that it will be a moot point if every state ratified the Constitution, as in fact happened.  Madison finally repairs behind the formula “The time has been when it was incumbent on us all to veil the ideas which this paragraph exhibits.”  In other words, let’s avert our gaze and hope for the best.  That worked then; I don’t think we can do it now, because, as bears repeating, the modern left does not agree with the principles of 1787.  As such, I don’t want to try even agreeing with them about the lunch menu.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/08/con-con-con-job.php
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30640


« Reply #498 on: August 30, 2011, 03:31:42 PM »



www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30640


« Reply #499 on: August 31, 2011, 07:27:10 AM »

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please." --Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 25 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!