Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Supreme Injustice

I intended to rant on this subject much earlier, but unfortunately have been incapacitated by severe burns, but now I’ll go ahead and finish it, as this still burns me up. . . .

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court issued yet another abortion of justice, striking down Texas’s state laws requiring abortion clinics to be subject to the same medical and sanitary restrictions as hospitals (and preventing the existence of Kermit Gosnell-style horror shows) in a 5-3 decision.  These laws had significantly lowered the rate of abortions in the Lone Star State.  This was a terrible loss, not just for the unborn of Texas, but for states’ rights and federalism.

This proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that for the political Left, and its judicial puppets, the “right” to kill unborn children is regarded as ultimate and supreme, trumping and triumphing over all else.

It, of course, builds on the unholy precedent of Roe v. Wade, which first enshrined baby-killing as a sacred and inviolable “right.”  But this decision takes this evil principle even further; not only is murder in the womb a “right,” but virtually no restrictions or regulations on the killing are to be allowed.

Of course, if the SCOTUS actually followed our Constitution (yeah, okay, you can stop laughing now), we would have neither Roe nor this decision, as nowhere in the Constitution is a right to abortion ever mentioned (all silly “emanations of the penumbra” bullcrap to the contrary).   Neither, of course, is the federal government given an enumerated power of deciding state abortion laws or regulations.  (In many places, taco shops and tattoo parlors are subject to more government regulation than abortion mills.)  Once again, the all-powerful Men in Black simply piss all over the laws of both God and man in service of the almighty leftist idol of “reproductive rights” (aka unrestricted baby-killing).

Ironically, many of the same liberals/leftists celebrating the SCOTUS’s striking down all restrictions on the “right” to abortion (nowhere mentioned in the Constitution) at the same time loudly demand all kinds of restrictions on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

And bizarrely, following the SCOTUS decision, I saw a number of self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” turn their righteous ire, not on the Supreme Court justices who made this abomination of a decision, but instead on the Texas state legislature which made the restrictions on abortion mills, decrying their “devious” and “underhanded” methods.  This was accompanied by much pious finger-wagging lecturing over how “the ends don’t justify the means.”  Thus, the SCOTUS was right to strike them down.  But this is just more nonsense.  There is certainly nothing inherently immoral about the means of toughening standards on abortion clinics to try to bypass pro-abortion court rulings.  Nor, contrary to their shrill accusations, is there any actual “deception” involved.

This seems part of a disturbing trend I’ve noticed within the pro-life movement.  It seems there are more and more people who proclaim themselves “pro-life” and opposed to abortion, yet appear obsessed with attacking other pro-lifers (especially those more politically conservative than themselves), while passively bowing to the pro-abortion left at every chance.

Even though this 5-3 decision would have stood even had Scalia remained alive or replaced by a similar constitutionalist, this should focus conservatives, particularly religious conservatives, on the absolute necessity of defeating Hillary.  Under a Supreme Court, and most federal courts, solidly dominated by leftist justices and judges, things will only get worse, much worse.  While I’m no fan of Mr. Trump, he’s at least provided a list of solid constitutionalist judges he promises to nominate from for Supreme Court Justices.  Can I trust him to keep his word?  I honestly don’t know.  But I know I absolutely can 100% trust Hillary Clinton to nominate leftist activists who will scrap what little’s left of constitutional rule of law, and destroy any semblance of religious liberty.

You’d think Catholics and pro-lifers would wake up and develop a sense of urgency about this.  Yet, instead we have holy folks such as popular “pro-life” left-wing apologist Mark Shea (oh, sorry, Mr. Shea prefers to call himself a “Catholic apologist”) urging Catholics in swing states to vote for Hillary Clinton.  (Ironic coming from a man who spent much his career denouncing voting for “the lesser evil.”)

Nor, I’m afraid, can we look to much in the way of leadership from the U.S. Bishops and their bureaucratic mouthpieces.  They continue to play the charade of rightly preaching against the evils of abortion and euthanasia, while at the same time proclaiming virtually every contentious political issue to be a “life issue,” and insist that we must take the left-wing stance on the rest of these issues (immigration, “gun control,” environmental regulation, etc.) in order to be “truly pro-life.”  This sends the courageous, clear-as-mud message to us saps in the pews to vote however the hell we want, especially if it’s for a left-winger.

Catholic pro-lifers can keep playing these stupid games and losing, or we can take a stand and fight.  Time’s running out.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Antonin Scalia, RIP, and the Fate of the Constitutional Republic (Or, What’s Really at Stake this Election)

Well. I’ve finally got back to ranting and raving (online, that is) with Silly Season 2016 already in full swing.

This month saw the unfortunate passing of the great Antonin Scalia, a judicial giant and true constitutionalist the like of which we may never see again in our lifetime.  May he rest in peace.

While we pray God may rest him in heaven, unfortunately his death leaves those of us Americans left here on earth in a truly perilous situation.  If the Republicans in Congress fail to block any Obama appointees, it may well put the final nail in the coffin of our constitutional republic.

Melodramatic?  Hyperbolic?  I don’t think so when you consider the facts.  There are now only two constitutionalists on the U.S. Supreme Court, Thomas and Alito (the Republican nominees Kennedy and Roberts have proven shameful traitors to our constitution).   And, of course, it’s a given that any and all Obama nominees will be left-wing activists who don’t give a rat’s ass about the Constitution or the intent of the framers.  With an Obama-appointed justice, the court will become nothing more than a rubber stamp for whatever pieces of unconstitutional Marxist despotism he or any future leftist president might cook up.  And no doubt such a court would take judicial activism to new heights (or, rather, depths) of “creative” judicial tyranny.

And this is in addition to Obama packing the federal courts with leftist activists.  (About 40% of current federal judges are Obama appointees.)

The nomination of Supreme Court justices and federal judges is probably the biggest reason this presidential election matters.  And it’s an issue much of the media would have us ignore, preferring to focus on trivialities and nonsense.

Obviously, it goes without saying that if either Hillary Rodham Clinton or Comrade Sanders wins the presidency, we’re all screwed royally.

But what about the Republican side?  Much as I dig his combative un-pc New York style, and even his goofy hair (toupee?), front-runner Donald Trump is no conservative.  Prior to deciding to run as a GOP candidate for Prez, he’s been liberal on neary every issue, and today is often vague on his actual positions.  When he does mention specifics, he too often takes a corporatist statist stance, as with his support of “eminent domain.”  His campaign reminds me of Obama ’08 in that they’re both mostly cult of personality coupled with incredibly vacuous but catchy slogans (“Hope and Change!” “Make America Great Again!”)   While breathing fire all over Ted Cruz and other conservatives, he’s quick to tout how eager he is to “get along” and “make deals” with the liberal Dems in Congress.  Sounds a bit too much like the Establishment Republicans he’s supposed to be against.

Trump has criticized Scalia, and once said his ultra-liberal judge sister would make an excellent Supreme Court justice.  Doesn’t sound like a guy it’s safe to gamble on this year.

No better is GOP Establishment puppet and two-faced weasel Marco Rubio.  This is the man who lied to voters that he would oppose amnesty for illegals, before authoring much of the notorious “Gang of 8” bill, and now lies about his past position, while having the audacity to call Ted Cruz a liar for pointing this out.  His record as a senator is otherwise thin and spotty.  Despite not being present at the voted to defund abortion giant Planned Parenthood, he’s apparently being hailed in certain Catholic circles as a political messiah of sorts.  I have even been accused by some pious souls of “putting my politics ahead of my faith” for supporting Cruz over Rubio.  (Sadly, for many Catholics, belief in an open-borders welfare state has become a chief article of faith, even the chief article of faith.  In NewChurch, things such as the infallibility of Scriptures or “traditional” sexual morality may be open to dispute, but question amnesty or our government’s spending on “social” programs, and it’s anathema sit!)

This leaves Ted Cruz –love him or hate him–as the only actual conservative in the race.  He’s also one of the few U.S. senators who actually kept his promises to voters after going to Washington, and who’s record has been consistently conservative.  No, this isn’t a campaign ad, and I’m not going to promote Cruz as some messiah.  (We should know better than to look for saviors in politicians or government, anyway.)  He’s just the guy running who’s least likely to screw over the country.   Any conservatives voting for Trump or Rubio will have only themselves to blame if we get the shaft.  Frankly, I think there’s way too much on the line this year to gamble here.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

(Another) Day that Will Live in Infamy

(Blogger’s note:  Originally I was going to write a rant this weekend concerning the politicization of the recent vile murder in Charleston, and the ensuing brouhaha over the Confederate flag.  But today’s news is of far more serious consequence to the country, so I’ll put that one off for now, and write on today’s travesty.)

Well, the U.S. Supreme Court did it again, and in a major way.  Once more, the Supreme Court made a ruling on the case Obergefell  v. Hodges, that not only spit in the face of Christians, natural law, and millennia of human tradition, but also was a blatant rape of the U.S. Constitution, whose job the Supreme Court justices is to uphold.  This decision to make homosexual “marriage” the law of the land was hot on the heels of another SCOTUS decision upholding the unlawful monstrosity of Obamacare (the majority opinion being written by that two-faced piece of filth John Roberts, who at least took the right side on the “gay marriage” case).

(But I must give credit to Alito and Thomas for fighting the good fight in their brilliant dissent.)

If the Supreme Court was actually doing its job of interpreting the Constitution, this case would be thrown out.  In the Constitution, the powers belonging to the federal government are limited and enumerated, and the power to define marriage is nowhere granted to federal courts.  Barring an amendment of the Constitution, such matters are left to the states and the people.

And before you bleeding hearts start lecturing me on “precedent,” I’m well aware that the SCOTUS now has a long history of rulings that rewrite the law to force a left-wing social or political agenda down the nation’s throat, rather than legitimately interpret what the Constitution actually says.

And that’s exactly the problem.  (I hold the old-fashioned, troglodytic view that the job of the Court is to uphold and interpret what the law actually says, rather than force a political agenda. And you can go shove your emanations up your penumbra.)

And any Christian who believes the line that today’s ruling will have no effect on religious liberty is deluding himself.  We’ll see more Christian bakers, florists, photographers, etc. being forced against their will to cater to homosexual “weddings” or lose their business.  And of course, kids in all public schools will be forced to learn about same-sex “marriage” as a legitimate option.  Churches that refuse to perform or lend facilities to “gay marriage” will likely face lawsuits and lose their tax-exempt status.  The goal of the militant homosexual lobby was never just tolerance, but elimination of any resistance.

This, of course, was immediately followed by jubilant celebration everywhere in the “mainstream media” (which I’ve made a point to largely avoid, though I do see the headlines), and by corporations, such as Google, Android, and others touting their support on Google’s Chrome homepage.

Our media and corporate elite apparently see sexual perversion, sodomy, and genital mutilation as unqualified goods to be universally celebrated; as if it were utterly unthinkable that any of us could possibly have any problem with it (except, of course, for us few right-wing bigoted troglodytes).  “Gay marriage” is to be universally celebrated like it’s the U.S. team winning an Olympic gold medal.  And Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner is an American hero!  (Or is that heroine?  But don’t call our troops “heroes,” because that can get politically complicated.  Don’t want to offend terrorists, do we?)

Hell, even flippin’ WordPress, which I’m publishing on, now has that goddamn rainbow flag at the top of their edit page.

While making a cash withdrawal at a Chase ATM, I was first greeted by a cheerful on-screen invitation from the good folks at Chase to join them in celebrating National GLBTQ-whatever-the-hell-the-current-alphabet-soup-is Month.  As if this was as nice and uncontroversial as, say, wishing customers a happy Father’s Day.  (Of course, for today’s left, I suppose the entire idea of fatherhood is indeed greatly problematic.  Not like, say, a man getting himself castrated and mutilated and calling himself a woman, which is happy and healthy, and worthy of universal celebration.)

But if a bank, or similar institution serving the public, wishes customers a “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Easter” during the appropriate seasons, that’s out-of-bounds, and calling for lawsuits, or at least major controversy.

Welcome to the twisted, through-the-looking-glass world of 21st century “progressive” America.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

More Rotten Business as Usual

More rotten business as usual in politics last week.  (Again, been busy,  my apologies for the lateness of this post.)

First, once more we see the noble bipartisan cooperation between the Jackasses and the GOP “leadership” as they both agree to raise the debt ceiling with no spending limitations, and accelerate our nation’s plunge into bankruptcy to the point of no return.

There should be no doubt left that there is no substantial difference whatever between the Democrats and the Washington establishment Republicans – they are simply two heads on the same insatiably ravenous statist beast, and both are equally contemptuous of true conservatism, and of true conservatives.

Every single Republican Congressman and Senator who did nothing to stand up for conservative principles and oppose the runaway growth of the Leviathan State needs to be tossed out.

Also, in federal tyranny rules, a federal judge ruled the Commonwealth of Virginia’s law (passed by popular vote) limiting legal marriage to a man and a woman “unconstitutional” – showing typical disregard for actual Constitution, which nowhere grants the federal government the power to define or redefine legal marriage.  (See the woefully neglected 10th Amendment.)   Once again, liberal activist twist the actual meaning of the law of the land beyond all recognition in order to advance a left-wing social agenda.  No doubt, this issue will head for the Supreme Court, though I’m not exactly optimistic about how that will turn out – especially given the record of the that traitorous weasel John Roberts as Chief Justice, who puts political game-playing above interpreting the Constitution, and thus gave a green light to the Obamanation of Obamacare.

Dr. Jeff Mirus writes of this issue in CatholicCulture.com, “One of the dangers of any constitution is that eventually it will be used to enforce policies which those who wrote the constitution never even dreamed would be desired in the first place.”

But the danger is not in the Constitution, but rather in the government – made up of power-mad men who are not ones to let a mere piece of paper stand in the way of their power or ideological agendas.  It is just as happy to ignore the Constitution altogether, as its judges are to radically “reinterpret” it.

Without virtue or morality to reign in ambition, the restraints of the Constitution are broken as easily, as our second president John Adams so memorably phrased it, “as a whale goes through a net.”

Given the active on-going onslaught of our courts and federal government against our deepest moral principles, you’d think it time more serious Catholics get behind efforts to reign in the Leviathan State, rather than support its expansion.  The hour draws late.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Day That Lives in Infamy

Tomorrow, as you’re probably aware, we commemorate the 41st anniversary of the abominable Supreme Court decision Roe vs. Wade which (absurdly) declared killing one’s unborn child a “Constitutional Right,” and in effect made abortion-on-demand the law of the land.   The Bishops have declared this a day of prayer and fasting.  (And no, again, the Pope has not told Catholics to shut up about abortion, all liberal lies to the contrary.)

People (including now , sadly, many “Catholics”) try to pigeonhole or dismiss the abortion issue and the right to life as simply another “rightwing” political issue, invented by conservative Republican politicians to divide the country – or something.  However, the right to life should not be a “conservative” or a “liberal” issue, but is in fact a fundamental human value, which should transcend politics.

The right to life is the most fundamental human right the law can guarantee; without the right to life, all other human rights are rendered void.  If the law does nothing to protect the lives of innocent human beings at their most vulnerable, it is worthless.

And, yes, unborn babies (or “fetuses” or “embryos,” or whatever you want to call them) are in fact human beings from conception.  From conception the human embryo/fetus/child is a living being, genetically and biologically distinct from both parents.  And it is human; it does not change at some point from a non-human species.  Yes, the human being in its very early stages of life is undeveloped compared to more mature stages, but so is a newborn infant, or a toddler, compared to an adult.

Growth and development is a continuous, gradual process from conception to adulthood.  This is confirmed by modern biology.  While pro-aborts love to accuse pro-lifers of wishing to impose unscientific religious dogmas on everyone, it is the idea that a human baby suddenly, magically, changes from dead to living, or from non-human to human at birth or some other point that is superstitious and unscientific.

It used to be that advocates of legal abortion typically denied that an unborn child is a human being, calling it a mere “clump of tissue” and such.  But ultrasounds and other modern technology are helping expose that lie.

However, there’s a truly disturbing trend of more and more people who are willing to admit that the unborn child is in fact a human being, but say that it’s okay to kill it anyway.

These folks, following the godless philosophies of Dr. Peter Singer and his ilk, seek to separate the concept of legal “personhood” from an individual being a human being.  According to Singer, not all human beings are “persons,” and “personhood” should be based on various extrinsic factors such as cognitive development and such.  (Using such standards, most liberals should be excluded from “personhood,” but I digress.)

Of course, once we base legal personhood and the right to life on anything other than the fact of being a human being, the standards of “personhood” become ultimately completely arbitrary.  Thus, Singer uses the fact that there is little real difference between an unborn fetus and a newborn infant, to argue not that abortion should be illegal, but for legalizing infanticide.  According to Singer, killing the severely disabled is also acceptable.  In this brave new world, courts and panels of “experts” determine who is and is not a legally-protected “person” – and there’s always room to move the lines.

Ultimately, the fight over abortion is between those who believe human life is itself intrinsically sacred, against those who see human life as in itself worth, and only given worth to others on subjective extrinsic criteria.

Some people (pro-abortion liberals, as well as some “conservatives”) accuse pro-life conservatives such as myself of hypocrisy.  How can we claim to be for small limited constitutional government, while at the same time support the power of the government to take away the individual’s choice to have an abortion?

The truth is that the Roe v. Wade decision was hardly a victory for limited, constitutional government, but trampled the rights of states and the peoples, granted god-like powers to the federal judiciary, and made hash of the Constitution.  Before Roe, per the Tenth Amendment, laws concerning abortion belonged to the individual states.  Roe v. Wade took this power from the respective states and granted it to the federal government, smashing any state restrictions on abortion.  The SCOTUS justices justified their decision by citing unstated “rights” supposedly hiding deep in the dark “emanations of the penumbra” (literally, “emissions from a shadow”) of the fourteenth and other amendments.

Thus, in one blow, on no solid basis in the Constitution whatever, killing the unborn child was declared a universal “constitutional right,” and the Supreme Court granted itself the power to declare which human beings are and are not legal “persons” having a right to live.

Legal protection of the life of all innocent human beings (including the unborn) is simple justice.  Every law puts some restriction on human choice (or rather puts legal consequences on certain choices).  No one talks about being “pro-choice” in matters such as theft or rape (or the murder of persons already born).  So unless you’re an absolute anarchist, “pro-choice” arguments are utterly bogus.

Ironically, many liberals and leftists arguing that an all-powerful “right to choose” trumps the baby’s right to life, oppose the right to choose in countless other areas.  I’ve argued with many a liberal who adamantly argues for the right to choose to kill an unborn child, while equally adamantly arguing against the right of individuals to choose certain health insurance plans, or weapons for personal defense (to use just two examples.)  For the liberal, many things in fact trump absolute human choice, but human life itself is not one of them.

“Pro-choice” was never anything more than a dishonest and sophistical propaganda slogan.

And speaking of abortion, Phil Lawler of Catholic Culture beat me to this one last week, but his piece, “Pope Decries Abortion; Sun Expected To Rise in East,” confirms some points I’ve been making here regarding the shallowness of the “mainstream” media in reporting on Pope Francis and abortion.  Apparently, according to the AP, the only reason the Vicar of Christ could possibly have for upholding the Church’s two-millennia-old teachings against abortion is to throw a bone to us disgruntled conservatives.  Sigh.

Yes kids, the Pope is Catholic, and abortion is still very, very bad.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Damn the Constitution, Full Speed Ahead!

I’m trying to finally get back into ranting on here after a long absence due to the intrusion of that thing called life, and recent (greatly appreciated) traveling and meeting with family and friends.  My apologies to my dear readers (not to be confused with Dear Leaders) for allowing Gregorian Rants to lie dormant for so long, as I’m sure you waited all those weeks in breathless anticipation for the publication of the next Rant.  (Hey, I’m kidding – take it easy, there.)

Since the SCOTUS ruling, led by “conservative” Chief Justice John Roberts, declaring Obama’s HHS Mandate to be a “tax,” and thus constitutional, Justice Roberts is now (as I predicted) being widely praised by the usual collection of left-leaning chatterboxes in the media for his alleged brilliant non-partisan magnanimity in pursuit of Constitutional justice, and sublime Solomon-like wisdom.  Those currently heaping accolades on Roberts no doubt include many who once condemned him as an unacceptable right-wing partisan “extremist” back when he was nominated by Bush II.   Now, such partisan animosities are tossed aside, as Roberts’ former lefty opponents hail him as pretty much the greatest man since . . . well, since Barrack Obama.  In the words of one Slate scribe, Roberts’ decision avoided an “ugly partisan victory” which would have resulted had he voted to reject Obamacare as unconstitutional.  (Of course, giving Dear Leader what he wants can be neither partisan nor ugly.)

Some on the right (as well as on the left and muddled middle) have praised Justice Roberts’ alleged bi-partisan tactical brilliance in granting Obama and the Dems a tactical victory in ruling the HHS Mandate constitutional by declaring it to be a tax (against the declarations of Team Obama that it is not), while (quite rightly) rejecting the arguments from the left that the mandate was allowable under the Commerce Clause, which was supposedly a strategic victory for conservatives.  Supposedly, this ruling would give greater leverage to Obama’s opponents by declaring the mandate a tax.

But isn’t that exactly the sort of partisan political game that those praising Roberts’ decision claimed he was so brilliantly avoiding?   The goal of a Supreme Court justice should be to correctly interpret the U.S. Constitution, not to find clever compromises between dueling partisan political interests.  Whether Democrats or Republicans are politically helped or hurt by the decision should be utterly irrelevant to the decision-making process.  The hard fact remains that this ruling, however you choose to spin it, grants the federal government unprecedented new power over the lives of citizens.  Calling the mandate a “tax” is quite a stretch, as no prior taxes have involved forcing citizens to purchase a particular product against their will.  It’s the same as if the government were to force every citizen to go buy a Ford vehicle under penalty of law.  Who needs convoluted Commerce Clause arguments when you can simply declare whatever the government forces citizens to do with their money a tax, and therefore constitutional?  Justice Roberts has betrayed not only conservative principle, but the Constitution he swore to uphold.

As we celebrated Independence Day yesterday, we recalled how our forefathers rose up against the British Crown, fought, bled and died, over unjust taxation and oppression that was utterly paltry in comparison to that exercised by our current government, which taxes and meddles in the private lives of its citizens on a scale and scope undreamt of King George and the British government of the 1770s.  Today, our government overlords and toadies in the courts busily seek ways to expand the definition of taxation to justify ever-greater government intrusion on our freedoms.  The Constitution was drafted to limit federal power, but today Supreme Court justices instead find ways to twist it in knots to declare any expansion of government power they like “constitutional.”

Our forefathers were willing to sacrifice everything for the cause of freedom.

Today, we’re willing to settle for free condoms instead.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Father of the Constitution on the Constitution

As we continue to sit around and wait for Justice Kennedy for make up his mind on Obamacare’s Individual Mandate, after Dear Leader has threatened the Supreme Court and accused any justices so foolish as to oppose his grand plan of “judicial activism,” I thought I’d take the time to post some typically unenlightened and primitive thoughts regarding the judicial activism, the Constitution, and the unevolved 18th-century knuckledraggers who framed it.

When debating with liberals and similarly highly-evolved progressive-minded folks on constitutional issues, including the HHS mandate I’ve been ranting about lately, I’m often told essentially that the federal government can do whatever the hell it wants in such matters because there is no right specifically written in the constitution (in the case of the HHS mandate) for religious employers to not pay insurance that covers their employee’s contraceptives/abortifacients.

While I actually do find this suddenly newfound concern for the letter of the U.S. Constitution by liberals touching, as usual, they have it back-asswards. (In constitutional law as practiced or understood by most liberals, nebulous and ethereal entities as the “Emanations of the Penumbra”- which means literally an “emission from a shadow” – take supreme precedence over that unimportant text that’s actually clearly written down in Constitution in black and white. A lot of the same bleeding hearts who insist that such unwritten Emanations hidden deep within the Penumbra as the absolute right to abortion or gay marriage are beyond any question or doubt will insist just as vehemently that such statements as “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” are some kind of arcane literary metaphors not to be taken literally, and which us rubes without advanced law degrees could never hope to understand. Of course, the rest of us unenlightened types smell the distinct emanation of bullshit.)

Today’s illiberal “liberals” regard the powers of the federal government as being virtually limitless, constrained constitutionally only where it is very explicitly spelled out that the federal government cannot do some very particular thing. Though, of course, in the vast majority of those cases, they can confidently trust that the SCOTUS justices will handily pull some Emanation out of the Penumbra granting the federal government some long-dormant power heretofore unrecognized to do whatever it is that “needs to be done.”

This is why liberals were aghast at the possibility that the Supreme Court might not in fact give a green card to Obamacare’s Individual Mandate. Suddenly, Obama and other government leftists are calling into question the rulings of the all-powerful Black-Robed Ones, of whose decisions, Nancy Pelosi once said were “almost as if God had spoken.”

On the other hand, for the “liberal” statist, the lowly citizenry of this land have no rights beyond those explicitly stated and spelled out (that is, again, unless an Emanation of the Penumbra is discovered nullifying it). Since the Constitution doesn’t spell out word-for-word the right of those who run Catholic institutions to choose health care plans which don’t violate their deeply-held moral beliefs, then it simply must not exist. Of course, if the proposed mandate in question involved a more politically correct religion – say, a mandate demanding that all Muslim institutions serve pork – no doubt the bleeding hearts would be singing a quite different tune.

However, James Madison, the man rightly regarded as “The Father of the Constitution,” saw things quite differently. A he wrote in The Federalist 45 (January 1788):

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; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

In The Federalist 39, he writes

In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.

This, of course, is the basis of the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution which states plainly: “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.”

Of course, this part of the Bill of Rights has been neglected for decades, if not centuries, and many liberals contend that successive amendments have somehow rendered this inconvenient amendment obsolete.

Of course, discussing the views of Madison or any of the other framers of the Constitution regarding their intent with “liberal” statists is usually a futile exercise, for typically at this point they will start driveling something about how the high-tech world today is so much more “complex” than those primitive knuckle-dragging apes in their powdered wigs could have conceived, and that therefore the constitutional principles of yore can no longer apply. As though the horseless carriage, YouTube, and Twitter somehow render the principles of freedom and limited government obsolete. Of course, this is nonsense. Freedom remains freedom and tyranny , tyranny, just as much in the 21st century as in the 18th.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,