Constitution | Ain't Complicated

Mr. Levin, It’s No Use

Mark Roth tells Mark Levin his defense and promotion of the US Constitution is a waste of time. Hope for a Constitutional rescue is pointless. America is lost.

I’ve listened to some of your informed, eloquent, impassioned monologues defending and promoting the US Constitution. Though I think they are helpfully enlightening, I’m convinced you’re wasting your time.

For your laudable mission to succeed, the Constitution must be carefully observed and honored. And protected, defended, and enforced, for it can do none of those for itself.

Alas, far too many judicial and political leaders entrusted with such a task have been (and are) derelict in that. Furthermore, far too much of the populace just doesn’t care. And both of those numbers are on the rise, not the wane.

The judicial, political, Constitutional war to preserve this republic as founded is lost. Nothing can be done to rescue the United States of America. Nothing. Do the political and cultural math — the numbers just aren’t there. Read it all

Mangling the First Amendment

Cal Thomas published yesterday,

Intellectually, I understand the Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision that the First Amendment protects the most violent of video games.

Well, I don’t understand.

Because I thought the First Amendment was intended to protect political speech.

But I can’t see that it says so expressly:

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

So we’re “stuck” with going by what it actually says.

I still say the modern-day usage of the First Amendment has become mangled, perverted, and distorted.

And inconsistent. For example, how does the government get away with fining broadcasters for using certain language on the air waves? And for another example, how come imaginary hate speech isn’t protected?

Politics.

Humanity.

Imperfection.

Oh well.

I must say, though, that I’m very thankful for the First Amendment.

And I’ll also say that I agree with Mr. Thomas’ closing statements:

In a perfect world, children would listen to, respect, and obey their parents. But this is far from a perfect world and parents could use occasional help from the state in preventing violent culture from undermining what’s in the best interest of the child, and the country. This ruling by the Supreme Court does not achieve that end.

Is Texas Too Big to Fail?

Drudge is reporting:

Gov. Rick Perry joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution HCR 50 in support of states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

:I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”

Perry continued: “Millions of Texans are tired of Washington, DC trying to come down here to tell us how to run Texas.”

A number of recent federal proposals are not within the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally designated powers and impede the states’ right to govern themselves. HCR 50 affirms that Texas claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.

It also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.

Well, what does the 10th Amendment say?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

BDS, Phase 2?

From Bush Derangement Syndrome to Barack Derangement Syndrome...

For the last five years or so, BDS has stood for Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Former psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer, noting the reaction of liberals to George W. Bush and his policies, in a 2003 column coined the term Bush Derangement Syndrome to describe “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency—nay—the very existence of George W. Bush”.

During Phase Two, BDS officially stands for Barack Derangement Syndrome.

Says who?

Why, me, of course.

Now, with that aside, what do you think will be the official Supreme Court decision here?

Decision on Obama citizenship pending

The Supreme Court held off Friday on deciding whether to grant a hearing in a long-shot lawsuit that would decide whether Barack Obama can constitutionally become president as a “natural born” U.S. citizen.

The Friday list of court orders that denies or grants hearings did not mention the lawsuit, which says Mr. Obama should be disqualified from the presidency because he purportedly acquired the same British citizenship that his father had when he was born.

A spokesman for the court said the decision on whether to hear the suit brought by retired New Jersey lawyer Leo Donofrio is likely to be announced next week.

Ken Ya Be President?

Look. I thought this might interest you. But don’t go jumping to any conclusions about me because I’m calling your attention to this! 😯

Obama’s Kenya Birth

It is common knowledge throughout the Christian and Muslim communities in Kenya that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., the United States Presidential candidate, was born in Mombosa Kenya.

And how did I come across this piece?

Well, Google told me — because of the use of Anabaptists in the post.

Yup, that’s right. Anabaptists.

You see, the paragraph before the one I quoted says this:

I am an ordained minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and a native evangelist and translator for the Anabaptist churches in Kenya. I am the official Swahili translator for the annual Anabaptists Conference held each year in Africa, working with the American bishops sitting upon the Continental Presbytery of the Anabaptists Churches of Africa. I am fluent in Swahili and in English. I am a former teacher in Kenya, and travel extensively in the ministries of the Anabaptists Churches of Africa throughout Kenya, Uganda and the Sudan.

I’ll indulge one comment: Interesting.

Oh, and a post from yesterday in the above blog has these tidbits I extracted:

How many readers are aware this has been going on behind the scenes?

Apparently the Obama team has been thrown a wrench that they thought they had put behind them. A solid date has finally been issued by the US. Supreme Court for Obama to prove his Birth Certificate.

The case is now quietly before the US Supreme Court and he has been ordered to provide proof by December 1, 2008. The Electoral College meets in December for the official election of our President.

The United States could be headed for a Constitutional crisis not provided for in the constitution. Meaning there is no precedent or constitutional instruct on how to proceed if Obama is found ineligible to serve.

I wonder if WorldNetDaily has anything to say about this. Lemme check….

Nope, not that I saw just now, anyway.

Yawn here. Thank you.

(Now I’d better get back to work!)

Hang on. Before I do that….

If the US Supreme Court were to de-elect President-elect Obama, who would be the new President-elect?

Senator Biden, since he’s the present Vice President-elect?
Senator McCain, since he’s the Presidential candidate with the second greatest amount of votes in Election 2008?
President Bush, since he’s the sitting President?
Vice President Cheney, since he’s the sitting Vice President?
Senator Clinton, since she would have been the Democrat nominee if Senator Obama hadn’t beat her in the primaries?

OK, that’s enough of that. The whole thing requires a willing suspension of disbelief. 😆

Recruiting Defiant Pastors

Late last night, I noticed WorldMagBlog was calling attention to this event:

Pulpit politics: Pastors to defy IRS

During sermons this Sunday, some 35 pastors across the country will tell their congregations which presidential candidate they should vote for, “according to the Scriptures.”

Their endorsements represent a direct challenge to federal tax law, which prohibits tax-exempt organizations from engaging in partisan political activity.

The clergy have embraced that risk, hoping their actions will trigger an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service, which would then enable a Christian legal advocacy group to take the IRS to court and challenge the constitutionality of the ban.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a conservative legal group based in Arizona, recruited the pastors for “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” to press their claim that the IRS tax code violates the free speech of religious leaders.

These pastors really were “recruited” for this purpose?

If that is the case, it seems the pastors are being moved by the wrong spirit, no? It certainly appears to me that whatever they “preach” would have more political and civic motivation than it would Spirit motivation.

Or am I missing something here?

(For a little more perspective on this: Church and State.)