A Time for Clarity Not Muddy Waters

I think we can already call who will lose this election – the church, especially The Evangelical Church of What’s Happening Now.

With notable exceptions, even supposedly orthodox church leaders have utterly failed their people and the country this election.  The Trump is a Messiah guys have failed us.  The Woke Church crowd has failed us, to say the very least.  

But it is not only these churchly extremes that have failed us.  There is an element that has muddied the waters with nuances and moral equivalencies when clarity is called for.  Sadly, this video from the ACNA Diocese of Christ Our Hope is an example of this failure.

There may be elections when such videos would be helpful.  This is not one of them.  What we are facing is too awful, too destructive, and too difficult to reverse should the electorate (augmented by election fraud) make the wrong choice.  What is at issue is not policy differences that good people can disagree on, but the destruction of our American society itself.

Yes, that may sound alarmist.  But it is a time for clarity, for reality checks, not for excuses and high-sounding fig leaves for evil.  So some reality checks:

1. His “bi-partisan commission” cop-out aside, Biden refuses to disavow calls to pack the Supreme Court, i.e. to increase the number of Supreme Court justices and appoint Constitution-tearing Leftists to the new open spots not unlike Hugo Chavez.  The Constitution would then be a dead letter.

2. Democrats have been open about other plans to turn us into an unconstitutional Leftist One-Party State should they gain the White House and the Senate.  Combine statehood for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, open borders, and amnesty and eventual citizenship for illegals, and the electorate would be so changed that Democrats would control the White House and the Senate for decades to come.  Again, you can kiss America and the Constitution good-bye if that happens.

Really these two reality checks alone make voting for Biden and the Democrats either grossly disloyal to this country or grossly ignorant, hardly acceptable in a Christian citizen.  I mean, really, if a “Christian” hates America that much, they should do the right thing and leave.  (Or if they are that ignorant, they either should not vote or should get informed before voting.)  One doesn’t have to love America to be a Christian.  But a Christian should not vote to destroy the society and the Rule of Law that gives him the freedom to be a Christian in relative peace.

But that’s not all.

3. It is now quite obvious that Biden and his family have sold influence to China, Russia, the Ukraine and God knows who else.  Biden literally sold us out to China.  It is criminal and beyond.  If you haven’t seen the details, then may I suggest reading the New York Post or watching Tucker Carlson rather than the New York Times, CNN, and the rest of the Democrat Fake News media.

I could give many more reality checks, but most would pertain to policy.  I will give one obvious one.

4. Biden and Kamala Harris (spit) are baby killers.  They want open season on the unborn for all nine months of pregnancy, no doubt paid for by taxpayers.  Yes, I am well aware that such despicable “Christian” prevaricators such as the AND Campaign are trying to justify Christians voting for baby killers.  They and the baby killers will have a lot to answer for in the Judgement.  

But even if it wasn’t for reality check 4, for Christians who wish to be good American citizens, a vote for Biden or for most Democrats for that matter is not a viable choice.  Democrats are pretty open now about what they have secretly wanted to do for some time - trash the Constitution, turn the Supreme Court into their rubber stamp, import an un-American electorate, and turn America into a Leftist One-Party State.  Under these circumstances, voting for Democrats is profoundly disloyal and destructive.  

(No, you don’t have to vote for Trump although I have.  If you find both major choices unacceptable, a vote for a Third Party sends that message honorably and well.)

Again, if you hate America so much as to vote to destroy America, then instead do the right thing and leave or at least remove yourself from politics.  But cut it out with using the name of Christ to support such evil or to deceive the sheep like the AND Campaign or to muddy the waters like the ACNA Diocese of Christ Our Hope.  You are harming both church and country.

On the Edge of a One-Party State

How about that debate? :D

Sorry. I know last night’s debate was not pleasant viewing.  I don’t know who said shut up more, Biden at Trump or me at my television.  And, like many, my IQ may have decreased last night.  So forgive me if this post is not my most eloquent. 

Having said all that, there was one moment last night that disturbed me more than the whole rest of the debate, and that was Biden refusing to say whether he would end the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court:

Chris Wallace, in one of the few tough questions he posed to Biden, said this:

So my question to you is, you have refused in the past to talk about it, are you willing to tell the American tonight whether or not you will support either ending the filibuster or packing the court?

Biden refused to answer, something the Trump quickly challenged.  Here's the colloquy:

BIDEN: Whatever position I take on that, that'll become the issue. The issue is the American people should speak. You should go out and vote. You're voting now. Vote and let your Senators know strongly how you feel.

TRUMP: Are you going to pack the court?

BIDEN: Vote now.

TRUMP: Are you going to pack the court?

BIDEN: Make sure you, in fact, let people know, your Senators.

TRUMP: He doesn't want to answer the question.

BIDEN: I'm not going to answer the question.

TRUMP: Why wouldn't you answer that question? You want to put a lot of new Supreme Court Justices. Radical left.

BIDEN: Will you shut up, man?

TRUMP: Listen, who is on your list, Joe? Who's on your list?

WALLACE: Gentlemen, I think we've ended this —

BIDEN: This is so un-Presidential.

TRUMP: He's going to pack the court. He is not going to give a list.

And this is not the first time Biden has refused to answer.  I hope he does not get away with his non-answer.  Given what passes for jurisprudence from Democrat hacks-in-black, if Democrats do pack the Supreme Court, you can pretty much kiss the Constitution and the rule of law good-bye and America with it.  We would be on the road to Venezuela.

Think I’m exaggerating?  Early in the Hugo Chavez regime, the Supreme Court of Venezuela had the temerity to say no to some of his designs.  His response?  He packed the Supreme Court.  He, like the current leadership of the Democrat Party, expected judges to do his bidding regardless of trivialities like a constitution or the rule of law.   So he packed the Court and got just that.  

Should Biden get elected and Democrats win the Senate, we are in serious danger of that happening right here in the United States.  Democrats have already long demonstrated they think the purpose of judges is to do their policy bidding regardless of the Constitution and the rule of law.  Should they gain enough power to pack the Supreme Court, that is what they, and we, will get.  And we will no longer be a Constitutional republic but a Leftist One-Party State.  Why?  Because elections do not matter with Leftist Dictators in Black Robes.  If we are not wise enough to vote for untrammeled Marxism, a Democrat-packed Supreme Court will shove it down our throats . . . for “justice”, of course. 

And, also of course, should Biden be elected, he will reopen the floodgates of illegal immigration (or just make it legal) and give away amnesty and citizenship like candy on Halloween.  Democrats are not pleased with the current electorate, so they will change it by importing a more pliable, less American one.  Even if they do not pack the Court, so changing the demographics of the electorate will make us a Leftist One-Party State just like they did with California.

Democrats make even create two new states from Washington, D. C. and Puerto Rico to pack the Senate with four more Democrat Senators.  I have my doubts whether they will be able to do that in the near future.  But that is on the DemocRAT agenda as well.  And, again, you can pretty much kiss America good-bye if they succeed.

So there is much more on the ballot this year than public policy.  What is on the ballot is whether you will have much say on public policy in future elections.  For if Biden wins, we are in grave danger of being on the road to a Leftist One-Party State.  And if Democrats take the Senate as well, we are practically there.

Why We Are So Divided

Daniel Greenfield has written one of the better explanations I’ve seen of why we are so divided as a country.  In short, the Left has taken over the Democrat Party and is refusing to submit to the Constitutional Rule of Law.  And that includes attacking the Constitutional freedoms of opponents, of which the violent attacks on Trump rallies and right-of-center speaking engagements are only the tip of the iceberg.  One can hardly be unified with those trying to attack and enslave you.

Some highlights of Greenfield’s piece:

Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.

The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don’t accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left.

It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning….

There is no form of legal authority that the left accepts as a permanent institution. It only utilizes forms of authority selectively when it controls them. But when government officials refuse the orders of the duly elected government because their allegiance is to an ideology whose agenda is in conflict with the President and Congress, that’s not activism, protest, politics or civil disobedience; it’s treason.

Exactly.  Today’s Left only submits to Constitutional democracy when they win.  And when they win, they work to tear down Constitutional democracy.  

We can have a system of government based around the Constitution with democratically elected representatives. Or we can have one based on the ideological principles of the left in which all laws and processes, including elections and the Constitution, are fig leaves for enforcing social justice.

But we cannot have both.

Now I do not think we are headed towards a shooting civil war.  But I do think the only good way in front of us to deal with our current divisions is the complete and virtually permanent defeat of the Left. (Another tolerable possibility is a national divorce as Ace has advocated from time to time.  But that appears unlikely.) For it is not just policy differences at stake.  Our Constitutional freedoms are at stake.  We must defend them and defeat their enemies.  Yes, today’s Democrat Party is among the enemies.

The left is a treasonous movement. The Democrats became a treasonous organization when they fell under the sway of a movement that rejects our system of government, its laws and its elections.

Remember This Week

After DemocRATS and other Leftists once again and in numerous ways show their contempt for American Constitutional democracy by protesting against the inauguration of a freely and fairly elected President – let that sink in: they are protesting against the result of a free and fair election – after Democrats again really show what they think about Constitutional democracy, remember this week. 

I’ve said it before, but I will repeat it and will keep repeating it because it must be remembered: Leftists and the Democrat Party they now control only respect Constitutional democracy when they win.

And that is why our political disagreements are at a different level and of a greater importance than decades ago.  But I will let that subject pass for a later time.

Lame Duck Presidents Should Be Made More Lame

A follow-up to last night’s post: Mark Levin, prompted by how Obama and his stooges have conducted themselves since the election, last night proposed a Constitutional Amendment sharply limiting the power of an outgoing President between an election and the Inauguration of the next POTUS.

I concur although I’m not sure of the best form of such an amendment.  Levin’s proposal of a shorter lame duck period has problems.  For one thing, what if there is a lengthy election dispute as in 2000?  But the UK seems to do just fine with an immediate transition. 

I do think a provision that no new executive orders or regulations can be issued without 2/3s approval of both houses of Congress would be good.  I also reluctantly see the need to limit pardon power in the lame duck period.  Ideally, an ethical POTUS would make just but unpopular pardons as he departs.  But a corrupt and unaccountable POTUS can do too much damage . . . which is what I expect from Obama this coming week.

We can thank Bill Clinton especially for the need for a Constitutional Amendment.  The manner in which he and Hillary left the White House in 2001, particularly his pardons, was beyond despicable.  Yet, thanks to the Democrat “News” Media and predominantly Democrat faux historians as well as Establishment Republican cowards helping the rest of us to forget (Well, curmudgeons like me never forget.), the two suffered no lasting political consequence.  She was elected Senator and came too close to being elected President.

Thus, the Clintons showed that a DemocRAT POTUS can do pretty much whatever he wants as he leaves with little if any lasting harm to his reputation and standing.  (We would never be allowed to forget if a Republican POTUS so departed scandalously, of course.)

Which is one reason never to elect a DemocRAT as President ever again.  But we are not that rational of a country.  So a Constitutional Amendment is needful to protect us from outgoing DemocRATS and from ourselves.

Will the Supreme Court Spank Obama For Violating the Rule of Law?

Yes, my headline may seem an exercise in wishful thinking.  And perhaps it is. 

But when the Supreme Court decided to hear a challenge of Obama’s Immigration Action from 26 states, it asked something that was both overlooked and rare.  As noted by George Will (Emphasis mine.):

The court has asked to be briefed on a matter the administration must be reluctant to address; the Justice Department requested that the court not insert a “constitutional question” into the case. The question the court will consider is: Did Obama’s action violate the “take care clause”?

Obama has sworn to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” which says the president shall “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law in Houston and adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute in Washington says that only three times has the court relied on the take care clause to limit executive actions, and the justices have never asked for a briefing on this clause.

It seems at least some on the Supreme Court are ready to give Obama a dressing down on his willfully violating the Rule of Law in the area of immigration, and one the Courts have rarely given a President before. 

I hope I am not engaging in wishful thinking, but, at the least, this is certainly a case to watch.

“Judicial Putsch”

As quickly as possible, I want to join in condemning the tyrannical ruling of the Supreme Court this morning on same-sex marriage.  It is a judicial coup against constitutional democracy the likes of which we have not seen since Roe v Wade.

It cries out for resistance and nullification not because of the issue of same-sex marriage (If people of various states decide to recognize gay marriage through a democratic process, that is their political and constitutional right.), but because of the importance of constitutional democratic self-rule.  I have therefore already called on Governor Abbott to resist and defy this ruling.

Justice Scalia’s dissent says it better than I can and is one for the ages.  Justice Scalia on this morning’s “judicial putsch”:

I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.

The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance….

So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about mar- riage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves….

Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of mar- riage. Many more decided not to. Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work….

But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect. That is so because “[t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions . . . . ” One would think that sentence would continue: “. . . and therefore they provided for a means by which the People could amend the Constitution,” or perhaps “. . . and therefore they left the creation of additional liberties, such as the freedom to marry someone of the same sex, to the People, through the never-ending process of legislation.” But no. What logically follows, in the majority’s judge-empowering estimation, is: “and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”15 The “we,” needless to say, is the nine of us. “History and tradition guide and discipline [our] inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.”16 Thus, rather than focusing on the People’s understanding of “liberty”—at the time of ratification or even today—the majority focuses on four “principles and traditions” that, in the majority’s view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman.

This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy….

And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

II

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds— minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly— could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic… The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.

Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the “least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.” With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.

----

Indeed, the Supreme Court with this ruling is asking for a Constitutional crisis, and one it is not guaranteed to win.

But, more likely, we have lost that much more of our constitutional republic – and that to cheers.

“Obama Is About to Commit an Act of Constitutional Infamy”

I need to get ready to get to Burnet with my novel Pilot Point.  Yes, the Pilot Point Gun Show Tour is about to resume.

But I cannot let pass without comment that, as Peter Wehner writes, Obama with his executive amnesty is about to commit an act of Constitutional infamy – really a coup against the Constitution as well as against the American people and their just-elected Congress.  It is certainly the most brazen attack on our Constitution in my lifetime.

And why?  What Labour did to Britain shows the way.  The U.K. electorate was too English and Tory for Labour’s tastes, so they imported Labour voters.  The U.S. electorate is too American for Obama’s tastes, so he is importing Democrat voters.

At least Labour did not tear down the rule of law to do so.

And that leads back to the issue that is even more important than Obama’s attempt at social engineering – if his executive amnesty is allowed to stand, it would set a precedent for a monarchal President that the Founders took pains to avoid and ruled out in the Constitution. 

And this alarms even some Obama supporters, as it should.  To his credit, Jonathan Turley (an Obama-voter, btw) is among those concerned:

As the liberal law professor Jonathan Turley put it last night, this is a “particularly dangerous moment” for the president to defy the will of Congress yet again, just 15 days after an election in which the American people registered their emphatic (anti-Obama) judgment. “What the president is suggesting is tearing at the very fabric of the Constitution,” according to Professor Turley. “We have a separation of powers that gives us balance. And that doesn’t protect the branches — it’s not there to protect the executive branch or legislative branch — it’s to protect liberty. It’s to prevent any branch from assuming so much control that they become a threat to liberty.”

Any attack on the rule of law and any threat to liberty invites consequences, doubly so when it is so opposed by Americans and by the opposition party they just, for the most part, elected. 

And as I predicted just after the election, this could indeed get very ugly.

Which is the Party of the Rich?

I should say right off that I am not interested in class warfare, unless its (non-violent) warfare against the ruling class.  And, unlike many, I appreciate those who use their wealth for good ends.  But I do want to do my part to blow up that old meme that the Republican Party is the Party of the Rich.

I have my issues with the Republican Party, but the numbers indicate that the Democrat Party is more the Party of the Rich.  Check out Matthew Continetti’s article, particularly page 3 where most of the numbers are.

Seven of the ten richest counties in the country voted for Barack Obama in 2012, many of them by huge margins. Six of the ten are in the Washington, D.C., metro area, which has benefited from government employment and payment regulations, from government contracting, and from consulting, lobbying, and lawyering for clients petitioning the government. The median income of Falls Church City, Va., is $121,250 dollars. In 2012, Falls Church City voted for Obama 70 percent to 30 percent.

Democrats represent eight of the ten richest congressional districts in the country. Democrat Carolyn Maloney represents the district with the highest per capita income of $75,479. Outgoing congressman Henry Waxman represents the district with the second-highest per capita income of $61,273. The only two Republicans on the list are Representative Leonard Lance, whose New Jersey district ranks seventh, and outgoing Representative Frank Wolf, whose Virginia district ranks tenth. The average per capita income of Democratic House districts is $1,000 more than Republican ones.

Do read him to find out more.  What gets my blood boiling is that six of the ten richest counties in the U. S. are in the Washington, D. C. area and that they vote heavily Democrat.  So these people are getting rich off us taxpayers, and they vote to keep looting us.

If I had my druthers the District of Columbia would be expanded to swallow up these parasites so they would no longer have representation in the House and Senate.  But since that is not happening, I am warming to the idea of an Article V Constitutional Convention.  It is past time for the rest of the country to take power away from the Washington area Feds and their affluent and parasitic supporters.

Hat tip to Ace.

An Ignorant Dictator in a Black Robe

Whatever one thinks of gay marriage, the ruling of Federal Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen (By the way, anyone notice that the more names a woman uses, the more likely she’s a liberal drone?) striking down Virginia’s gay marriage law is tyrannical and downright ignorant.

Why tyrannical?  She struck down a Virginia Constitutional Amendment approved by voters in 2006.  She put her dictate above that of Virginians to amend their Constitution.  Her word is more important than constitutional democracy itself.

Why ignorant?  She demonstrated for all to see that she doesn’t know the Constitution from the Declaration of Independence from Obama’s . . . aura.  In an already cloyingly written ruling comes this gem:

Our Constitution declares that “all men” are created equal. . . .

That’s the Declaration of Independence that says that, lady.

But who cares about the Constitution anyway.  The whims of The Dear Leader and of allied dictators in black robes are so much more important, don’tcha know.

MORE: She is an Obama appointee.  Why am I not surprised?

Obama: “I can do whatever I want.”

I’ve spent much of the ten years of this humble blog warning about attacks on the Constitution and on the rule of law, about Obama and his totalitarian streak, and other such trifles.  Too much I’m afraid.  I actually thought such matters were important.

But now I have seen the light.  I’ve had it all wrong.  It is so much better to have a President with the fortitude to put his foot down and say, “I can do whatever I want.”*

Let’s say you are President.  I know.  Who wants anyone else to be President but Obama?  But play along with me.  Is carrying out a law you worked and lied to get passed now threatening to get your allies pasted in the mid-term elections?  Then just say “I can do whatever I want,” and put your whim above the law!  Put off key parts of that law until after those annoying mid-terms!

Well, I guess you could just cancel those annoying mid-term elections, but there’s no need to stir things up quite that much when you can just put off or ignore pesky laws and then steal win some elections with fraud, I mean, accurate and careful counting . . .  and recounting if the need arises.  Count every vote until you get the correct result!  (That’s zero wrong votes in some precincts, just so you know.)

And who cares what the law says?  After all a real American President can say, “I can do whatever I want” and then do whatever he darn well wants!  And isn’t life so much simpler that way?

So praise Dear Leader President Obama!  Because of him, I and this whole country has seen the light.  The rule of law is a triviality to be dispensed with when we have someone like Obama, whose glorious whim is so much better than any law.

And, yes, I am indeed sorry I’ve wasted so much space on this blog and on twitter whining about trifles like the Constitution.  Heck, people like me shouldn’t even have freedom of speech.  And I am so glad Obama’s IRS is dealing with that, too!

--- 

*Yes, Obama was joking . . . somewhat.  He also joked about sending the IRS after his enemies.  But nothing came of that, did it?

Roe v Wade and the Cowardice of the States

Today is the 41^st anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision overturning the abortion statutes of the vast majority of the states (48 if my memory is correct).  Tens of thousands, including several bishops of the Anglican Church in North America, will walk in the snow today in Washington in protest in the 40^th March for Life.

I myself participated in at least two Marches for Life back in the early 80’s.  One of them was in the snow as well.

The damage Roe v Wade inflicted extends far beyond life issues.  It made a mockery of the Constitution, of democracy, and of Constitutional federalism by asserting that the Constitution somehow demanded striking down the abortion statutes of most states and replacing them with a regime of abortion-on-demand virtually all the way to birth.

Roe v Wade was a coup against Constitutional democracy and against the states by men acting as dictators in black robes.  Justice Byron White’s dissent calling it “an exercise of raw judicial power” put it nicely.  He also stated:

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment.

That is because there was nothing.

What is saddest of all is that the Supreme Court got away with it.  Yes, there has been strong movement ever since to undo Roe v Wade in various fashions, from Constitutional Amendments to a Human Life Statute to working for good Supreme Court appointments and more.

But what should have happened was defiance.  The Supreme Court may interpret the Constitution.  But it cannot obliterate it then rewrite it in its own image; or at least it should not be able so to do.  This was an absurd and outrageous ruling, really a coup against the Constitution, and should have immediately been given the respect it deserved – none. 

The states, even states moving toward liberalizing abortion laws, should have told the Supreme Court what they could do with its ruling, with its brazen attack on their rights to defend life, and then defied the ruling and carried on with their own laws as best they could.  This awful ruling was an opportunity to rally the people and the states to put the Supreme Court and the Feds in their place and to revive Constitutional governance.  And if the new President, Richard Nixon, had any principles, he should have encouraged and supported such efforts by publicly and clearly refusing to allow the Executive Branch to enforce the ruling.

But did any state so attempt to defend the Constitution and the lives of the unborn?  Any state?

The answer is what I find saddest of all about January 22^nd.

The Big Issue at the Supreme Court

Most are overlooking the most important issue at stake at the Supreme Court as Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) are being argued this week – will we be a Constitutional federal democracy or not?

As I noted earlier this month, over 7,000,000 Californians voted to amend their state constitution via Proposition 8 in a free and fair election.  Will they be denied the right to amend their own state constitution?  Will marriage laws, which have traditionally been determined by the states (a tradition DOMA protects), now be determined from on high by the Supreme Court?  Will we go further towards becoming a dictatorship of Washington, D.C. and a dictatorship of the black robes?

I support traditional marriage.  At the same time, I understand those who support state-recognized gay marriage while I very much disagree with them.  But I am not so understanding towards those who would overturn Constitutional democracy in order to impose their pet and novel view of marriage.  And that is exactly what is being attempted at the Supreme Court.

I know gay marriage is just the most important issue ever in both politics and religion nowadays.  But the integrity, if you will, of our Constitutional democracy is just a bit more important.

The Rand Paul Filibuster - Democrats Block Anti-Drone Resolution

An important episode yesterday in Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster is not getting much attention.  So I will do my part to remedy that.

Sen. Rand Paul just offered to end his filibuster and allow a vote on CIA nominee John Brennan if he could get a vote tomorrow on a non-binding resolution regarding drone killing of US citizens on US soil. But Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin objected to allowing a vote on the resolution. So Paul resumed speaking.



Paul's resolution said it was the sense of the Senate that "the use of drones to execute or target American citizens on American soil who pose no imminent threat clearly violates Constitutional rights" of due process.

I mentioned yesterday that opposition to domestic drone excesses crosses party and ideological lines.  And support for Sen. Paul’s filibuster did come from scattered lefty sources including Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Van Jones, and even Code Pink.

But that does not change the big picture about Democrats.  Most Democrat politicians don’t give a . . . don’t care about the Constitution and about your Constitutional rights. 

Dick Durbin’s objection is yet another instance of that.

“Let's Give Up on the Constitution”

I have long contended that Liberals and Leftists detest our Constitution and see it as an obstacle to their designs.  They rarely come right out and admit it, of course.

But now that they are feeling their oats after the re-election of The One, do not be surprised if more of them do come out and admit that they believe the Constitution should be ignored and worse. 

In fact, that may already be beginning.  In the words of (MULTIPLE irony alerts) Louis Michael Seidman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, “…before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.”

Because nothing increases freedom like abolishing the rule of law.  The rule of “The People” is SO much better.

Happy New Year?

----

MORE: I have to repeat this brilliant tweet:

Constitutional law profs are becoming to the Constitution what ethicists long ago became to ethics.