RightWingRocker

Never mind the pajamas … We blog in the nude!

Archive for October, 2005

Justice Alito: This is Gonna PISS OFF the Left!

Posted by RightWingRocker on October 31, 2005

Samuel Alito has been nominated to the Supreme Court by President Bush.

Already, we have the liberal press trying to twist this into a bad thing. You gotta love those liberals. Their hate for the President is only matched by their hate for the Constitution itself and those who would support it and the Founders’ original intent.

This just in from Reuters (with my comments, of course):

Bush Nominates Alito to Supreme Court
By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President George W. Bush nominated conservative judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court on Monday in a move likely to set off a partisan battle with Democrats as he tries to right his struggling presidency.

Struggling presidency? Hardly. Sure there are things the President could be doing better with, but you loonies don’t even bother with those because you are so preoccupied with trying to make his successes look like failures. The War on Terror, including the portion of it being fought in Iraq, has been a great success, and would be even more successful if the President would just be more aggressive with it. Of course, the Left would hate him even more for doing that.

Bush acted quickly to find a replacement nominee for the lifetime appointment on the highest U.S. court after loyalist Harriet Miers withdrew from consideration on Thursday under fierce attack from conservatives within Bush’s Republican Party who questioned her credentials.

What credentials? I never saw any.

Bush, appearing with Alito in the White House, listed the judge’s lengthy resume and called Alito a “thoughtful judge who considers the legal merits carefully and applies the law in a principled fashion.”

A breath of fresh air if true. You could just never know which way O’Connor was going to go on anything, which is a very bad thing, given that the Constitution shouldn’t be that hard to understand.

“I’m confident that the United States Senate will be impressed by Judge Alito’s distinguished record, his measured judicial temperament, and his tremendous personal integrity,” Bush said.

The Senate will have its usual breakdown. The libs will hate him because he’s our guy, and the conservatives will consider his record carefully and honestly. The spineless morons“moderates” will go with whatever they figure will get them in the least amount of trouble with the two sides. My call: Alito will be confirmed.

He called on the Senate to act promptly and vote on him by the end of the year, a timetable that could prove difficult.

Give them all the time they need.

Alito, 55, is considered a conservative in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia. Alito is sometimes given the nickname “Scalito” — a comparison to Scalia, who shares his Italian heritage as well as his reputation for conservatism and a strong intellect. He is a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia.

NOW we’re talking! A conservative New Jerseyan working in Philadelphia is a pretty rare thing, but if he’s the kind of judge Scalia is, we’ve definitely got the right guy here. Someone who will READ the Constitution (has already, in this case) and IMPLEMENT it. THAT’S ALL. Issues, smissues. Issues aren’t a judge’s job. Reading and applying the Constitution is. If this is indeed who Alito is, confirm him ASAP.

The choice, which would replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, is bound to trigger a fight from Senate Democrats who want to see O’Connor replaced by a moderate justice like her.

“A moderate justice like her.” Yeah guys, that’s what we need. Someone who applies the Constitution when it’s convenient and pisses on it when it’s not. We elected President Bush because he promised us CONSTITUTIONALIST JUDGES. In case you’re wondering why Ms. Miers is no longer under consideration, it’s because we had NO IDEA where she stood on that and there wasn’t much to indicate we ever would. At this point, I’d say Alito is a WAY better choice.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said he was disappointed with the pick and that the Senate, which must confirm the pick, will now have to determine whether Alito is “too radical for the American people.”

Well Harry, I hate to tell you this, but a number of us have already determined that YOU and YOUR PARTY are “too radical for the American people.” That’s why you guys are out of power. If Alito is the constitutionalist we’re hearing he is, then he definitely isn’t too radical for Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin. I can understand why that would be too radical for you Donks, but for those of us who revere what the Constitution and the Founders’ philosophy stand for, I’d say we could do a whole lot worse.

“I look forward to meeting Judge Alito and learning why those who want to pack the court with judicial activists are so much more enthusiastic about him than they were about Harriet Miers,” Reid said.

Actually, Harry, it’s the other way around. We’re trying to RID the court of judicial activists. In case you may have forgotten, it was your old buddy FDR who decided it was OK to pack the court with judicial activists.

Bush is seeking to rebound from one of the toughest weeks of his presidency.

Note to the author, Mr. Holland – When you make bullshit statements like this, you undermine your credibility as a reporter. Nothing you cite in the following paragraph even comes close, in terms of tough weeks, than the weeks following September 11, 2001. This statement is more proof that you liberals really think Americans are stupid and short-sighted. Do you actually believe the majority of Americans have forgotten 9/11?? Puh-LEASE!

First Miers withdrew, then Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis Libby, was indicted by a federal grand jury in the investigation into who leaked a CIA agent’s name in 2003.

Miers withdrawing was a good thing. President Bush’s acceptance of her withdrawal will ultimately prove to be one of the best things he has done in his two terms. Libby’s woes stem from the fact that he had some problems with the truth in an investigation that’s not likely to have even been justified in the first place. Furthermore, Libby is currently still presumed innocent. If this is the toughest stuff you can come up with, guys, you’ve got worse problems than I thought. Besides, what the fuck does any of that have to do with Alito’s competence and appropriateness for the position to which he is appointed? I’m waiting …

Bush is looking for a fresh start, and aides were hoping the new Supreme Court nominee would help provide him one. He is also focusing on making progress in the Iraq war and trying to cut federal spending that has ballooned under his presidency.

Fresh start? Maybe with us constitutionalists that he dissed with the Miers nomination. I doubt there will be any serious repercussions for the President on this one. After all, he did the right thing in the end …

Now all you liberals repeat after me …

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito …

RWR

Advertisements

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

O’Reilly’s Poll Question

Posted by RightWingRocker on October 27, 2005

My Thursday blog-run always includes a stop by BillO’Reilly.com. While I was too early today to get to his current column, his current poll question, which I did not answer, begs some commentary (which is why I did not answer it). Today, Bill asks:

Do you believe President Bush will finally secure the border?

My answer, quite plainly, is “I don’t know.” I can, however, give you a pretty good idea of what I believe the ramifications of his decision will be.

If President bush ultimately chooses to secure the border, and does so in earnest (which may not happen even if he does pledge to secure the border), he must do the WHOLE job and send as many illegals home as possible. Failure to do so will minimize the effect of securing the borders, and may even defeat the purpose.

Of course, there will be MASSIVE whining and bitching and moaning from Vicente Farks and the rest of his goons in Mexico. This will be followed and/or accompanied by the United Socialist Nations engaging in the same, along with any other whiners in the “world community” that depend on illegal immigration of its citizens into the US for their livelihood. Oh, and from the whiners on the left and the ACLU, etc. President Bush would be wise to simply ignore all of this and do the right thing.

If President Bush ultimately chooses to ignore this very important constitutional duty, the States and the citizens of those states will be forced to take the law into their own hands and enforce the borders themselves. This will draw the same whining and bitching and moaning that would occur had President Bush taken care of it as he should. Until the President embarks on real border security in earnest, they will be wise to ignore the whiners.

This will be difficult for the States and citizens to manage, but they are, after all, doing the federal government’s job. They would be justified in complaining (and whining and bitching and moaning) that the federal government should be doing this, and they would be right to demand that the federal government pay for it. They would be right to file lawsuits against President Bush and the federal government for abdicating their responsibility under the constitution to secure the borders of the country. You can expect the illegal immigration problem to continue as well.

Our government has its priorities screwed up. Its constitutional duties are shirked and ignored, while it infringes upon the rights and responsibilities of the States and the people on a daily basis. Securing the borders SHOULD be the number one priority on the federal government’s domestic agenda. The fact that it isn’t should tell you something.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Maybe This Could be a Possible Solution

Posted by RightWingRocker on October 26, 2005

Liberals seem to want to turn the United States into a liberal Utopia.

They’ve tried and failed countless times to do it, both here and in other countries as well.

Why not help them find a place to go so that those of us who want to simply live the American Dream of freedom and prosperity as envisioned by the Founding Fathers can do so in peace?

Why not help them find a place where a pristine, undisturbed wilderness prevails? A place where there is no dirty air anywhere? A place where “global warming” can never be a serious issue? A place where they can start completely anew with whatever socialism they want, and spread it to all four corners of the globe without disturbing a single capitalist?

I believe there may be such a solution. It could be pretty costly to get them there initially, but the money everyone in the world would save would be well worth the investment …


MARS

This just makes sense. The perfect solution to our world’s single most annoyng and pressing problem.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

New Jersey Politics

Posted by RightWingRocker on October 25, 2005

I’ve avoided New Jersey politics for a few reasons, not the least of which is my home state’s stature as one of America’s honeypots of socialism (which makes it too much of a complaint to comment on too often), but I have intended for some time to weigh in on the current race for governor, and with the election only two short weeks away, this could very well be the right time.

Doug Forrester, whose Senate seat was stolen from him by the Democratic Party’s organized crime bosses who used our state’s liberal courts to change their candidate after the legal deadline to do so simply because they knew their candidate was toast, is now giving our other Senator, Jon “pass the pork” Corzine, a serious run for his money. They are vying for the governor’s position vacated by “Backdoor Jim” Florio McGreevey, who resigned in disgrace after it got out that he had placed a foreign national in a position that required a security clearance inappropriate for such a person (it was later discovered that the guy was McGreevey’s own butt-buddy from Israel).

The NJ Donk party’s ties with organized crime have long been known, but as long as they keep up with their signature “Rob from the Rich and Pretend to Give to the Poor” schemes, New Jerseyans will likely keep putting liberals into the Governor’s mansion. Even our last Republican governor was a liberal.

It seems that someone is planning some kind of “October surprise” that may put Forrester over the top. While Doug wasn’t the most conservative candidate we had to choose from, he would certainly be an improvement over all the liberal bullshit we’ve have to deal with. Whatever it is, I doubt it will be much of a surprise. Donks in New Jersey have a long history of corruption.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Covert Operations have Begun

Posted by RightWingRocker on October 23, 2005

In order to win any war, including the War on Terror and the War on Socialism, covert operations are an integral part of any success.

Such secret missions are used to gather information, or to keep sensitive information away from the enemy.

The RWRmy has embarked on such a covert mission. We will report back upon its completion.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Where We All Agree

Posted by RightWingRocker on October 20, 2005

A possible platform for the Federalist Coalition would need to emphasize those areas of common ground among the New Federalists, the Libertarians, and the Constitution Party. Because of this, certain issues would have to be left out, and the decision as to how to proceed would be left to any individual or candidate supported by the Coalition.

As I was trying to go through issue-by-issue through these platforms, I came to a very interesting realization. The Constitution itself should be the Coalition’s platform, with any and all proposals for Amendments and/or repeal of prior Amendments included.

The following Amendments should definitely be included:

Repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment – Direct taxation by the federal government has bee a huge blight on our freedoms and needs to be done away with. There are many alternatives, including a consumption tax, or taxes collected by the states on behalf of the federal government (and controlled by the states). It’s time to get the federal government out of our wallets.

Repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment – While this Amendment was passed ostensibly to give the people more control over Washington, the opposite effect has been realized. Returning the election of the Senate to the state legislatures will return this power to the States.

On these issues, I believe the New Federalists, Libertarians, and Constitutions would all be on the same page. I see nothing unhealthy in candidates or the various factions within the coalition having their own sub-platforms stating their own political goals.

How about it?

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Happy Blog-Day, Emperor!

Posted by RightWingRocker on October 20, 2005

Four years ago today, The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler hit the blogosphere.

The Emperor and his minions were a major influence on my decision to start blogging earlier this year, and I hope a similar celebration can happen to celebrate my own blog-day in a few months (Feb.1 – mark your calendars!).

Again, thanks Misha for all you do, and for taking the lead in keeping the asshats in line.

And Happy Blog-Day!

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Well, What Did You Expect?

Posted by RightWingRocker on October 19, 2005

Saddam Pleads Innocent to Murder, Torture

By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Writer
(Associated Press reporters Mariam Fam, Omar Sinan, Qassim Abdul-Zahra, Sameer N. Yacoub and Thomas Wagner contributed to this report.)

BAGHDAD, Iraq – Saddam Hussein pleaded innocent to charges of premeditated murder and torture Wednesday, arguing with judges and challenging the legitimacy of the court as his trial opened under heavy security in the former headquarters of his Baath Party.

Oh, really? Innocent? That’s a good one. Of course, no one should be surprised. What does ol’ Saddy have to lose? If he pleads guilty, he gets put to death. After all he’s pleading guilty to killing off 150 of his own people in that situation. Of course, the evidence is most likely overwhelming, and even if he’s found innocent, it’s highly unlikely the free people of Iraq will let him live, anyway. The guy’s a dead man no matter what he does.

Saddam and seven former members of his regime could face the death penalty if convicted over the 1982 massacre of nearly 150 Shiites in the town of Dujail.

Only seven? I think the court is going easy on them.

After presiding judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin read the defendants their rights and the charges against them – which also include forced expulsions and illegal imprisonment – he asked each for their plea. He started with the ousted dictator, saying “Mr. Saddam, go ahead. Are you guilty or innocent?”

Saddam could be seen saying something too quietly to be heard, and Amin read out the plea: “Innocent.”

Yeah, right. You’re innocent, and I’m the Michelin Man.

Earlier, at the opening of the trial, the 68-year-old ousted Iraqi leader – looking thin with a salt-and-pepper beard in a dark gray suit and open-collared white shirt – stood and asked the presiding judge: “Who are you? I want to know who you are.”

Such a nice thing to say to someone who holds your life in his hands, now isn’t it?

“I do not respond to this so-called court, with all due respect to its people, and I retain my constitutional right as the president of Iraq,” he said, brushing off the judge’s attempts to interrupt him. “Neither do I recognize the body that has designated and authorized you, nor the aggression because all that has been built on false basis is false.”

You WILL respond to this court, one way or the other. Somehow, I doubt your words about due respect to the people of Iraq involve much real respect, as evidenced by your comment about not recognizing the body that has designated and authorized the court, which happens to be those very same people. Oh, and in case you hadn’t noticed, you have no rights as the president of Iraq. Someone else is sitting in that office now. The aggression that took you out was nothing compared to what you are accused of. The people you killed never even got the courtesy of a trial like you are getting.

Amin, a Kurd, tried to get Saddam to formally identify himself but Saddam refused and finally sat. Amin read his name for him, calling him the “former president of Iraq,” bringing a protest from Saddam, who insisted he was still in the post.

Still in the post? Are there any doubts as to this man’s sanity now? Perhaps that’s going to be your defense?

The panel of five judges will both hear the case and render a verdict in what could be the first of several trials of Saddam for atrocities carried out during his 23-year-rule.

The defendants sat in three rows of black chairs, with Saddam in the first row, partitioned behind a low white metal barrier, in the center of the court directly in front of the judges bench.

A sweet scene. A career criminal gets his day in court.

Starting the session, Amin called the defendants into the room one by one. Saddam was the last to enter, escorted by two Iraqi guards in bulletproof vests who guided him by the elbow. He glanced at journalists watching through bulletproof glass from an adjoining room. He motioned for his escorts to slow down a little.

After sitting, he greeted his co-defendants, saying “Peace be upon you,” sitting next to co-defendant Awad Hamed al-Bandar, former head of Iraq’s Revolutionary Court.

PEACE be upon you? Is that what you said before you murdered all those people too? I’m looking forward to the day you find your eternal peace. Or damnation, whichever the case may be.

The other defendants include Saddam’s former intelligence chief Barazan Ibrahim, former vice president Taha Yassin Ramadan and other lower-level Baathist civil servants. Most were wearing traditional Arab robes and they complained that they were not allowed to have headdresses, so court officials brought out red headdresses for them. Many Sunni Arabs consider it shameful to appear in public without the checkered scarf, tied by a cord around the forehead.

I’m not a Sunni Arab, but I do find it shameful when people participate in the systematic attempt to eradicate innocent people from the world. If not for fair justice, that cord wouldn’t be around your forehead, Taha, it would be securely tied around your neck with the other end securely attached to the rear bumper of my Chevrolet.

Ramadan also refused to identify himself to the judge. “I repeat what President Saddam Hussein has said,” he added. The other defendants stood one by one and stated their names.

Yeah, yeah. Just parrot the ol’ talking points. You are such a good Democrat. Now go fuck yourself.

The trial is taking place in the marble building that once served as the National Command Headquarters of his feared Baath Party. The building in Baghdad’s Green Zone – the heavily fortified district where Iraq’s government, parliament and the U.S. Embassy are located – was ringed with 10-foot blast walls and U.S. and Iraqi troops, with several Humvees and at least one tank deployed outside. U.S. soldiers led sniffer dogs around the grounds, looking for explosives.

Kinda nice that US soldiers are working hard to preserve this asshole’s life now, isn’t it?

The identities of judges had been a tightly held secret to ensure their safety, though Amin’s name was revealed just before the trial began. The courtroom camera repeatedly focused on him.

The defendants are facing charges that they ordered the killings in 1982 of nearly 150 people in the mainly Shiite village of Dujail north of Baghdad after a failed attempt on the former dictator’s life.

THIS attempt will NOT fail.

In Wednesday’s session, the defense is expected to ask for a three-month adjournment. The court is expected to grant one, though for how long is not known.

It’s going to take a lot more than three months to find anything that will clear your client, dumbass. That which doesn’t exist isn’t easily found. Unless, of course, you make it up like the Left does every day.

The trial was aired with around a 20-minute delay on state-run Iraqi television and on satellite stations across Iraq and the Arab world, though it cut out occasionally and sound quality was often poor.

Many Iraqis were gathered around sets to watch. Salman Zaboun Shanan, a Shiite construction worker, sat with his family at home in Baghdad’s Shiite neighborhood of Kazimiyah, having taken the day off from work to watch the trial. When Saddam appeared on television, Shanan’s wife Sabiha Hassan spit.

Any doubts as to this man’s fate, regardless of the outcome of the trial?

“I hope he is executed, and that anyone who suffered can take a piece of his flesh,” said Shanan, who was imprisoned during Saddam’s rule, as was Sabiha and several of their sons.

Given this man’s record, I doubt there’s enough flesh to go around.

But across the Tigris River in the mainly Sunni Arab district of Azamiyah, some were embittered over the trial of Saddam, whose regime was dominated by Sunni Arabs who have now lost their power.

“Saddam is the lesser of evils,” said Sahab Awad Maaruf, an engineer, comparing Saddam to the current Shiite-Kurdish led government. “He’s the only legitimate leader for Iraqis.”

Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. The governed in Iraq don’t consent to his leadership. Now, bringing you back to reality, would you consent to being governed by a guy who has done these kinds of things? At some point you will have to face the truth, which is that as soon as this creep had finished doing away with the Kurds and the Shiites, you may very well have been next. Would you still be defending him as the “only legitimate leader for Iraqis” then? Oh, and on that same note, when you say that Saddam is “the lesser of evils”, you are saying that he is a lesser evil than yourself. Your new constitution gives YOU the ultimate power to govern yourself. Do you somehow have a problem with other Iraqis having the same power?

In particular, the Shiite Muslim majority and the Kurdish minority – the two communities most oppressed by Saddam’s regime – have eagerly awaited the chance to see the man who ruled Iraq with unquestioned and total power held to justice.

The world will be watching Saddam’s trial to see whether Iraq’s new Shiite and Kurdish leaders can rise above politics and prejudice and give the former dictator a fair hearing. Human rights group have criticized the government for trying to influence the trial and that considerable U.S. logistical and financial aid to the tribunal could lend credibility to charges that it will mete out “victors’ justice.”

Look, I want ol’ Saddy to have a fair trial as much as the next guy. However, let’s look at the reality here. None of the 150 people he killed got a trial at all, let alone a fair one. None of the hundreds of thousands of people who have been found in mass graves (reminiscent of Nazi Germany) got a trial. None of the many women raped in front of their husbands by goons in Saddy’s regime got a trial, nor did their husbands, who were subsequently tortured and/or murdered. It won’t be the end of the world if ol’ Saddy’s trial isn’t the most fair one in history.

The court is also operating not only under its own rules – laid out when the court was created in 2003 while Iraq was still run by American administrators – but also by a 1971 Saddam-era criminal law that some have criticized as not up to international standards.

Saddam being tried under an illegitimate law that he created? Tell me THAT isn’t poetic fuckin’ justice! Also, who gives a flying fuck about “international standards”? That’s like saying the US courts are beholden to the World Court or the United Nations, two organizations that have absolutly no real power to enforce anything, including “international standards”. Think about it. How many of its Security Council resolutions did it enforce with regard to Saddam himself? NONE. They left it up to the good ol’ USA. International standards, MY ASS.

That law says the judges can issue a guilty verdict if they are “satisfied” by the evidence – seen as lower standard of proof than “convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.”

DEFINITELY a lower standard of proof. And frankly, my dear Saddy, I don’t give a damn.

Saddam’s defense lawyer Khalil al-Dulaimi said Tuesday he would ask for the postponement so he can better prepare the case.

He will also challenge the special tribunal’s competence to try the case, arguing that Saddam remains the legitimate president and the court is illegal, because it was created under U.S. occupation.

You will lose on all counts, old man. Amin has his shi’ite together, and he’s quite competent. He’s been interviewed on television, and it is clear that he’s as competent as any constitutionalist judge in the United States. The Iraqis have already spoken as to your leadership, so you lose there, too. As for the US occupation, had you followed the rules you agreed to in your 1991 armistice, there would be no US occupation. When you agree not to fire on US planes, and then fire on US planes, the US will rain down fire and brimstone upon you. You have brought ALL of this upon yourself, so please shut the fuck up.

Saddam was ousted after U.S.-led forces swept into Iraq in March 2003 and marched in to Baghdad. He fled the capital and was on the run for nearly eight months, until American forces found in him hiding in a cellar in a rural area outside his hometown of Tikrit north of Baghdad on Dec. 13, 2003.

He has been held since in a U.S. detention facility at Baghdad International Airport.

He’s lucky he wasn’t just shot on the spot. That’s what he would have done. Of course, we Americans don’t work that way. Lucky for Saddam, we Americans have a sense of right and wrong.

Prosecutors are preparing other cases to bring to trial against Saddam and his officials – including for the Anfal Operation, a military crackdown on the Kurds in the late 1980s that killed some 180,000 people; the suppression of Kurdish and Shiite revolts in 1991; and the deaths of 5,000 Kurds in a 1988 poison gas attack on the village of Halabja.

No weapons of mass destruction? PLEASE!

If a death sentence is issued in the Dujail case, it is unclear whether it would be carried out regardless of whether Saddam is involved in other trials. He can appeal a Dujail verdict, but if a conviction and sentence are upheld, the sentence must be carried out within 30 days. A stay could be granted to allow other trials to proceed.

Said stay would make no sense whatsoever. How many death sentences would have to be issued before one is carried out? If ol’ Saddy has to stand trial for every crime brought against him, he’ll likely die of old age before any sentence is carried out at all. Try his sorry ass post mordem if you want some resolution. Maybe he’ll stand a better chance of experiencing some mercy when he meets his maker.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Words of Wisdom

Posted by RightWingRocker on October 18, 2005

Patriot Post Blog has this little ditty at the top of the page today …

To live in the presence of great truths and eternal laws, to be led by permanent ideals – that is what keeps a man patient when the world ignores him, and calm and unspoiled when the world praises him. – Honore De Balzac

This is the point of what I’ve been blogging about pretty religiously lately, namely honoring the great truths and laws in whose presence we live, and the PERMANENT ideals that we follow.

These truths and ideals are what keeps us humble as the greatest nation God ever gave mankind.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Hawkins on the Iraqi Elections

Posted by RightWingRocker on October 17, 2005

In honor of the great job Armybryan and his pals are doing in Iraq, I’m putting up a link to John Hawkins’ post regarding what has been accomplished in Iraq so far.

Of course, I’m waiting for Freder to comment on the situation. I cannot comment at RWN from where I sit during weekdays, but I can only imagine.

Bryan, keep up the great work!

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

For Once, Paul Jacob is Wrong

Posted by RightWingRocker on October 17, 2005

Yes, I have found a situation where I disagree with Paul Jacob, one of my favorite columnists.

He got the bat on the ball, but was thrown out trying to stretch a siingle into a double.

Paul is right about just about everything in his column, except for one key issue, aid to countries in Africa and Asia. Paul, the issue shouldn’t be whether we set money aside to send DDT to these countries. The issue should be whether we send them anything at all, at least from taxpayer funds.

If Americans want to send money to Africa and/or Asia, they should have every opportunity to do so, but the government does not have the constitutional authority to do any of this. No authority to conduct research on DDT, no authority to ban its use, no authority to provide or deny DDT or money to other countries.

Americans, in their incredible generosity, can and will do more to help these people than the government can or will, including seeing to it that any necessary DDT makes its way to where it’s needed. The truth about DDT itself was a nice hit, though.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

I Hope I Haven’t Been Boring You

Posted by RightWingRocker on October 16, 2005

I know these posts on the “New Federalism” have been long and drawn out. However, the longer posts have been necessary to emphasize the complete thoughts I have had about this concept.

In the spring, when I first envisioned the idea of a coalition of parties coming together to challenge the Republicans to act as the conservatives they claim to be, I suggested that such a coalition might form the basis of a new party that would replace the Republicans as the conservative political party in America. I came to this belief simply on the premise that there really is no party on the Left that could replace the Donks, and no coalition that could be formed to do so, since the Democratic Party has already incorporated all the other liberal factions into itself (heard anything from the “Green Party” lately? I didn’t think so). Therefore, once the Donks go down, there’s only one way to go – to the right.

With this in mind, and the extremely rapid rate at which the Democrats are coming apart at the seams, it is important that a viable conservative faction make its presence known in America so that the Republicans either move in the direction they say they want to go, or are replaced as the conservative party in America.

That is what the faction that I have called “The Federalist Party” (maybe a better name would be the “Federalist Coalition” for now) is all about. Forcing the Republicans to either move to the right where their voters come from, or be replaced as America’s conservative party and eventually face the current fate of the Democrats.

Anyway, while I am working on a possible platform for this faction (yes, someone’s gotta do it), I will be looking for other things to blog about, so that I’m not boring my readers who come here for other reasons (yes, Ol’ BC … I will try for a rant … in fact, it’ll be dedicated to you hahaha).

Thank God that the end is near for American Socialism.

RWR

Note:Here are links for the various posts on The New Federalism …
Part I: The Preamble
Part II: Honoring Our Founding
Part III: A More Perfect Union
Part IV: Establishing Justice
Part V: Ensuring Domestic Tranqulity
Part VI: The Common Defense
Part VII: The General Welfare
Part VIII: Secure the Blessings of Liberty

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

The Federalist Party: A New Conservative Coalition?

Posted by RightWingRocker on October 15, 2005

OK, OK.

I’ve gone on for eight very powerful posts on the platform of the New Federalists.

What other options are there? Well you have anarchism taken to the extreme in the Libertarians, and you have the kind of religious extremism President Bush is often falsely accused of coming from the Constitution Party. These parties are clearly to the right of the Republicans, who only provide lip service to the ideals that made America great, while actually enacting policies similar to those of the Democrats, albeit of lesser degree.

However, these parties have many strong points about them, and if their membership could be persuaded to accept a few minor adjustments to their platforms, teaming up with Federalists like myself could provide considerable advantages in both the long and the short run.

Here’s a little bit about each party:

The Constitution Party

This party is not appropriately named. While the Constitution does have strong ties to biblical philosophy, this party’s platform is based almost entirely upon what is right and wrong based on scripture, and not what actually appears in the Constitution. Calling it the “Biblical Law” party would be extreme, but in essence more accurate.

Here is a kep excerpt from their platform …

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

Notice the restoration to Biblical foundations listed first, and the limit to constitutional boundaries listed second. This ordering of the priorities would suggest that the Biblical implications of the party’s positions would take priority over their constitutional implications. While a good case can be made that the two go hand in hand, I would submit that a more successful philosophy would place the Constitution first for purposes of maintaining constitutional federalism in America. Religion is a very important part of American discourse, and the recognition of a higher power, whether that power is called God, Allah, Yahweh, Buddha, The Creator, Providence, or something else, is essential to maintaining the proper balance within the American federal system. However, as Americans, we simply recognize a higher power, and each American chooses how that power manifests itself. The common ground is the Constitution. The Constitution must come first, at least insofar as our earthly endeavors are concerned.

This being said, it is obviously important to the Constitution Party that religion should hold a high priority in any platform to which they would agree. Every position advocated by this party has as its source a deep reverence for God. I also see no reason why this cannot be accomodated to a reasonable degree.

The Libertarian Party

This party basically wants the government out of people’s lives and people out of other people’s lives. If it ain’t happenin’ in your house, it ain’t your business. This sounds pretty good on the surface.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

This is, of course, limited only to those people who have been born. Oh, and protecting those very rights from persons abroad that would harm us is off limits, too.

But the idea of personal autonomy is not at all inconsitent with the ideals of the Founding Fathers or, for that matter, the New Federalists or the Constitution Party. All three platforms emphasize federalism and the need to do away with big government. All three parties support economic freedom. All three parties support an emphasis on the Bill of Rights and strict construction when it comes to the Constitution. There is a lot of common ground here.

Bringing us all Together

In looking at the New Federalist platform and these two, the biggest chasm to bridge would likely be abortion. The New Federalists hold that killing the child is only justifiable if the mother did not consent to the sex act, or to save her life. The Constitution Party holds that in cases of rape and incest, the child should not be punished for the crimes of his father. The Libertarians hold that it isn’t anyone’s business if a parent wants to kill his/her child.

Does anyone agree that a woman should not be able to force a father to unwillingly provide for a child he does not want? This would be completely consitent with the idea that a woman should not be forced to have a baby she doesn’t want. The solution, IMHO, is that consent to a sex act should be considered consent to any resulting pregnancy. This position is both pro-life, in that it protects the lives of the unborn, and pro-choice, as it protects people from being forced to live with consequences of decisions they did not make for themselves. The safeguard against rape and incest is built right into it. In fact, the Libertarians might want the incest part taken out so that people who consent to incestuous relationships aren’t subject to it. I’ll bite, but the Constitution party is right to call unborn children human, and there is constitutional justification for that position (“for ourselves and our posterity”). Yes, do protect the unborn, but protect the victim of a crime as well. Perhaps these two parties would meet us in the middle at the place where we New Federalists stand?

The Constitution and Libertarian Parties are also pretty far apart when it comes to assisted suicide. I agree with the Libertarians that of someone wants to die, they should be able to do so. However, it makes no sense that it should be legal to allow or force a doctor to violate the Hippocratic Oath in aiding someone to commit suicide. If someone wants to off himself, I say let him. Perhaps allowing suicide to be legal, but assisted suicide to be illegal could be a fair meeting point. This way, people who want to commit suicide can do so, but we don’t have to pervert an entire profession so that they may do so. In other words, let them exercise their rights on their own.

Personally, as a Federalist, I will take the Constitution Party’s position on the military over that of the New Federalist platform. It is much more sensible in that regard. The Libertarians might want a more limited scope of the military, but all parties would certainly agree that the purpose of the military is to secure the rights of the people from foreign infractions.

The most important goal of all three of these parties should clearly be to roll back the socialist policies advocated by the major parties. If the Republicans really want to retain their power, they should consider the growing number of Americans who have had enough of the last hundred years’ worth of socialism. After all, they DO pay us lip-service. The number of people who support the socialist policies of the Democratic party is falling at an astounding rate, and to try to put a stop to it, the Donks float out loonies like John Kerry, Cindy Sheehag, Michael Moore-on, and my favorite, Weird Howard. These nutcases have become the voice of the American socialist movement, hastening the completion of the fall of the Democratic Party. The Republicans have no choice but to listen to and heed the Federalists, Constitutions, and Libertarians. America wants no part of big government, and if it takes the Federalists, et. al. going our own way, so be it.

Of course, the Republican Party still has a chance to make good on the lip service it pays to conservative ideas. With the Donks fading ever more quickly into obscurity, it will be very important that the Republicans do this, or they may suffer the same fate.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

The New Federalism Part VIII: Secure the Blessings of Liberty

Posted by RightWingRocker on October 13, 2005

Well, folks, here I am at the end. This commentary has been tedious, and at times frustrating (I don’t know why). I think the most frustrating thing is that most Americans, certainly most Republicans, know that this is what the Founders actually stood for and yet, those in Washington can’t seem to get a handle on it and let it be. So begins Part VIII: Secure the Blessings of Liberty

Secure Blessings of Liberty

Liberty is guaranteed not by government restrictions on citizens, but rather by restraints placed on government interference with citizens’ free exercise of rights and responsibilities. Casting a view around the landscape of debate and conflict in the United States, one commonality readily apparent is that this definition of liberty is not often understood or defended, even by those who claim it as their banner. As one example, the American Civil Liberties Union incorrectly calls censorship not those efforts of government bodies or agencies to restrict availability of materials but instead the actions of citizens to protect their children from exposure to harmful age-inappropriate pornography. We New Federalists urge, as the first defense of liberty, a return to this plain sense of the meaning of the concept: that liberty is the ability of citizens to freely act and freely exercise their choices within the limited constraints imposed by clear, constitutionally authorized laws applied equally to citizens. We further urge citizens to reclaim the responsibilities that should be theirs, but have irresponsibly been wrested from them by our current levels of overweening government.

We believe that the proposals advanced in this Platform will assist citizens in restoring their lost and rapidly eroding rights and liberties, by offering specific actions that citizens may support for ensuring that government restrain itself. But the only secure liberty is the one that citizens secure for themselves through their free exercise of self-government in actions and decisions.

This is the essence of the Founders’ philosophy, which is supposed to be the philosophy that governs our great nation. Government restrictions on citizens does not guarantee anyone’s rights. It is the citizens placing restrictions on their government that guarantees their rights.

This is what makes the ACLU and other left-wing extremist groups such a danger to America. They want the government to step in and force people to live in a place where God is relegated to mere private discussions, where people are forced to endure things they believe are harmful in their everyday lives, and where the laws that the people have decided they want can be trampled on by people who aren’t even citizens of the United States. These organizations and their goals are traitorous to this great nation. They stand for the civil liberties of derelicts whose purpose in life is bring an end to the things that have made America great, but not for the civil liberties of those who have worked hard towards this country’s greatness. In other words, the ACLU can go fuck themselves.

Government Actions

Integrity and Honorable Service in Leadership

Perhaps the most greatly needed government action for securing citizens’ liberties is restoration of the highest ethical standards in leaders. Too often these days, elected and appointed officials of government view themselves as rulers or caretakers of the public, rather than as citizens equal to all other citizens, but whose proper role is serving the public through restrained representative actions. Officers of government all must swear oaths prior to entering office to support the Constitution. The first guarantee of returning integrity and honorable service to government is demanding that these oaths of office be taken as seriously binding on all officers of government. As described elsewhere in this Platform, we New Federalists favor removal from office for any government official in violation of these oaths to the Constitution, and we propose specific measures to review officials’ records in office and any complaints of oath violations lodged against serving government officeholders.

But this is surely not enough to make certain that those putatively serving to represent the citizens do not then turn to serving their selfish interests, at the expense of the citizens and their liberties. We favor legislation prohibiting any past officer of government from subsequently representing any foreign government or other foreign interest, either public or private, with the aim of affecting America public opinion or public policy regarding foreign relations, diplomacy, or trade. Similarly, we encourage legislation containing specific restrictions on lobbying of government by former officials for extended periods subsequent to their service to the country.

Again, another major important point. I, for one, am fed up with these elected officials who think they are elected to take care of people. These people don’t care a whit that they have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution – they violate its limits every day.

Remove all elected officials who are found to have acted outside the boundaries of the Constitution. Do not allow former officials to work for foreign governments. Impose strict limitations on former officials’ ability to use their influence in ways that are detrimental to the Constitution.

Congressional Reforms

Another pressing need concerning integrity in government, to secure citizens their liberties, is ensuring that all government documents and records contain accurate, honest, faithful information. In particular, all records related to government revenue and spending must adhere to honest budgeting and reliable accounting methods.
Similarly, we favor legislation determining the rules of proceedings for both chambers of Congress to require that the Congressional Record present a completely accurate record of proceedings as they actually transpired, with no provisions that remarks be revised or extended, and allowing insertion into the Record of only those materials used as exhibits or references during floor speeches and debates.
Moreover, we New Federalists support a return to the model of citizen-legislators, instead of the professional class of lifetime politicians who know no other trade or business. To serve this objective, in defense of citizens’ liberties, we propose that all congressional pensions be eliminated, and that federal pay for Members of Congress be replaced by per diem allowances for only those days on which Congress is in session. (We also support similar changes in state legislators’ pay and benefits as well.)

Truth and honesty in government. Amen to that. The return to citizen legislators is a very important point in the platform. With this as the model, our legislators can stay home and keep their businesses running, and only go to Washington as necessary. They will be among the people all the time, and, in fact, will know exactly how their actions affect the citizens of the United States because they will be acting AS CITIZENS, and not as omniscient pseudo-representatives who spend all their time in Washington, DC and don’t have a clue how what they do could affect people. If the Mayor of Jerkwater, Mississippi has to hold down a full-time job, why shouldn’t his senator as well?

Election Reforms

As discussed more extensively elsewhere in this Platform, election reforms are also essential for restoring citizens’ confidence that they have been guaranteed representative republican elections, which form the bedrock for securing the blessings of liberty.

There has to be a readable paper trail. No “hanging chads”, “pregnant chads”, or voting by internet. Every vote must be clearly marked or printed out. This is the only way to do this that makes sense.

Restoring Accountability

Even more than this, though, the officers of government must return to a view that embraces accountability to the citizens whose liberties they are entrusted with guaranteeing. As discussed in multiple contexts throughout this Platform, evasion of accountability to the citizens has become the watchword of government careening purposely out of control. Two concrete lines of approach to restoring accountability in government involve withdrawing from entangling alliances that supplant representation of citizens with representation of foreign entities, and returning to an emphasis on government that serves to ensure citizens’ liberties.

This cannot be stressed enough. Exactly whom are these officials accountable to today? The President? The Supreme Court? The House? The Senate? They are clearly not accountable to the people, that’s for sure. Let’s take a look at the two lines of approach:

Withdrawal from Entangling Alliances

We New Federalists favor withdrawing from international institutions with overweening goals in direct conflict with citizens’ liberties, which purport to serve some kind of hazy global or international interests. For instance, the United States should withdraw immediately from any institution that proposes any form of taxation on U.S. citizens, or that proposes any restrictions on freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Recent actions and inactions of the United Nations are especially troubling in this regard, as the UN Security Council has attempted to delay or subvert the constitutionally specified duty of providing for the common defense against terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens. If the UN cannot, or will not, be reformed toward a more modest set of goals that return control of the representatives to their respective populaces, we favor the U.S. taking steps to curtail its participation in the UN.

Get the hell out of the UN. This was a bonehead idea in the first place. Our own federal government is supposed to be the weakest level of government. Our Constitution, when followed, provides for a federal government with virtually no power at all. What purpose would having something like the UN serve? Furthermore, the UN and the World Court seek to impose upon US citizens rules, regulations, and laws that those US citizens have had little or no say in creating. Furthermore, the UN has stood in the way of the US government when it actually looked at the Constitution and did its job. It’s long past time to ditch the United Nations.

Ensuring Citizens’ Rights and Freedoms

The basic requirement, in turning the emphasis of government toward a reassertion of appropriate defense of citizens’ rights, is for officers of government to view their role not as having first claim on citizens’ resources, but rather as seeing any intrusions on citizens as a last resort — and only for those limited functions attendant to exercise of explicitly assigned constitutional powers of government.
Major efforts of government are needed to restore individual citizens’ rights and freedoms in several areas. However, some of the most pressing topics of urgent concern involve privacy of information and asset forfeiture laws in conflict with the 4th Amendment’s guarantee of “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures….” Another set of subjects requiring quick responses of government involves property rights, regulatory takings and other matters relevant to the 5th Amendment’s guarantee that “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” And, in regard to the federal system of justice, citizen freedoms are at risk through current court practices at odds with the 5th Amendment’s guarantee that “nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”

Furthermore, in general all levels of government should be admonished by the 9th Amendment’s statement on the limitations of government concerning the defining of citizens’ rights: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Bottom line: Government action should be a last resort in ALL situations.

Citizen Actions

As noted above, the final security for individual citizens to enjoy the blessings of liberty arises from their own adamant assertions and free exercise of those freedoms that are rightly theirs. Because our current government seems ever ready to overstep the clear bounds set for it by the Constitution, the citizens must strengthen those other institutions of civil society that compete with the state as centers of influence and power. In particular, citizens should urge that government at all levels undertake actions that support rather than undermine natural families, and that encourage private, voluntary organizations to ameliorate problems in neighborhoods and communities.

Alexis de Tocqueville was perhaps the earliest commentator on America to recognize the efficacy in the United States of free exercise within voluntary institutions. He correctly identified these acts of freedom as the source of America’s goodness. This truth still endures, even as various incursions of government have damaged the capabilities of voluntary institutions to respond to the needs of citizens.

And this is probably the most important point of all. The citizens of the United States MUST take responsibility for the defense of their own rights against government usurpation. We must all rise and say NO when our elected officials encroach upon those rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Unless we take responsibility for this ourselves, the government will continue to usurp the Constitution and the rights that it guarantees.

Free Exercise of Faith

Apart from the right to life, no other right is more inherently intertwined with our national experiment in ordered liberties than the right of free exercise of religious faith. A citizen’s view of the world, human nature, and right conduct as applied to matters of appropriate concern to government, all derive from religious beliefs and principles. And while beliefs and principles cannot be forced or constrained by actions of government, the free exercise of acts of self-government can be improperly limited by government. Citizens must therefore be ever vigilant in asserting their rights to act on their faith in the public square, whenever and wherever any act of government threatens to impinge on the freedom of religion or of religious institutions and organizations. In particular, citizens must demand that government not intrude beyond its proper sphere in redefining moral questions, and that faith-based groups fight all forms of government interference with religious expression, when acting on commands of faith in public arenas.

Amen. All the more reason to ostracize the ACLU and all of its loony organizations. Stand up and defend your right to practice your religion. If you don’t, that right WILL be lost – surrendered to the onslaught of hatred courtesy of the ACLU.

Free Association

The most fundamental unit of society, based in our human nature, is the natural family consisting of the voluntary union of one man and one woman in a lifelong marriage covenant, for the purpose of commitment to each other and to their children. The relationships between marriage partners and between parents and children form the foundation upon which all other social forms and associations rest. Citizens bear the ultimate responsibility for creating strong and durable bonds in their marriages and family life, but the government bears a concomitant responsibility to support rather than discourage the formation of those natural familial bonds. For instance, institutions of government have no legitimate power to redefine marriage as anything beyond the natural covenant of man and woman, or to redefine families as any collection of persons whatsoever.

All other voluntary associations derive from the practices and lessons that come from family life. As the Constitution’s 1st Amendment makes plain, these free associations are guaranteed, as Congress is prohibited from “abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”

Yup. And if the ACLU doesn’t like it, they can kiss off.

Free Exchanges of Ideas and Commerce

The healthy exchange of ideas through debate and discourse enlivens our representative republic, strengthening citizens’ understanding of each other as equal participants in our common existence as a nation. The free exchange of ideas also stimulates the levels of creativity, invention, and entrepreneurship necessary for promoting the progress of science and the success of useful arts. Free exchanges in commerce and contracts between citizens are guaranteed as a consequence of the Constitution’s Article I, Sections 9 and 10, which provide that no preferences be given among states of the Republic, that states lay no duties or imposts on exports or imports between states, and that states make no laws “impairing the obligation of contracts.”

These areas of free exchange form the currency of liberty, in the decisions citizens freely reach to secure their material and political prosperity, as yet further blessings of liberty secured to our nation by adherence to the federalist principles of our nation’s Founding Documents.

So he ACLU and its loony losers’ brigade can say whatever they want. Of course, no one is obligated to buy into it. The government cannot interfere with anyone’s material prosperity. Nor can it tell you whom to have as friends or whom not to.

It’s high time the people of this country stood up to the government and forced it to exist within its limits. The Democrats will defintiely not do it. If the Republicans refuse, then I say it’s time for the New Federalists to break free of the Republicans and unite with other conservative factions, such as the Libertarian and Constitution Parties to form the American Federalist Party, which would recognize the above platform with a few changes to accomodate the positions of all involved.

Many of the fears of the eighteenth century Anti-Federalists have come to fruition. This is proof that the people of this country are intelligent enough to govern themselves, since they saw a potential problem, and those in government thought they had the answers. It turns out they didn’t, or that their answers were subsequently amended away. Thomas Paine once wrote, “Government in its best state is but a necessary evil, in its worst state an intolerable one.” We must refine our approach to government within the context of that quote. Every act of government is a potential violation of the very God-given rights the Constitution guarantees. These infringements upon our rights must be rolled back, and never again allowed to rear their ugly heads.

RWR

Posted in New FedeRWRalism | 1 Comment »

The New Federalism Part VII: The General Welfare

Posted by RightWingRocker on October 11, 2005

Part VII is upon us: The General Welfare. So many great articles have been written and so many things have happened while I’ve been doing this, and I have managed to maintain my focus here instead of commenting on these great articles or getting into one of my classic rants (hopefully HS Ol’ BC isn’t too disappointed in that).

The General WelfarePerhaps no phrase found in the Constitution has been more distorted in actual use and application than the provision that one broad purpose of our government is to promote the general welfare throughout the United States. The Constitution’s Article I, Section 8, assigns Congress the “power to lay and collect taxes … to pay the debts and provide for the … general welfare of the United States.” Certainly, if the Founders had meant this purpose to include any action that might possibly benefit citizens generally, the Constitution itself could have been limited to this solitary statement. Justice, defense, and liberty, after all, are of good effect on the general welfare of the nation as a whole.

The GENERAL welfare, not the welfare of a segment of people judged by the government to be in need of help. The government is only obligated to work with concepts that are good for everyone. That’s why the word GENERAL is in there.

But the Founders also ratified the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, affirming, “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.” Thus, the general welfare cannot reasonably be stretched to allow the national level of government to perform functions and exercise powers beyond those specifically and explicitly listed in the Constitution. As James Madison described the limitations on interpretation of the general welfare clause, “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….”

The point here is that the federal government cannot constitutionally do anything that the Constitution doesn’t specifically say it can. The quote from Madison is important. Madison was one of our Founding Fathers, and these words cannot go unheeded. Look at what happened when we started letting the federal government work outside its bounds in the interest of the “general welfare”.

As discussed elsewhere in this Platform in other contexts, when any branch or level of government fails to enact its constitutionally defined role, the damages are multiple, including that: the role is typically abrogated, with the legitimate function performed improperly (if at all), the constitutional patterns and processes of accountability are eroded, the government loses legitimacy in citizens’ eyes, and citizens’ liberties are diminished. In matters related to promoting the general welfare in the United States, the most egregious violations of federalist principles have arisen from the national level of government taking from citizens their proper role in exercising the free choices of self-government in regard to their personal, family, and community decisions. And when unlimited central government undertakes such roles and responsibilities as are constitutionally reserved to the states or the people themselves, the capabilities are destroyed of individuals, private organizations, and neighborhood, local and state governments to respond to real problems that require solutions. Members of Congress have incorrectly cited the general welfare clause as justification for legislation in matters concerning health care, education (including loans to students), agriculture, foreign aid, and domestic crimes, all of which are better left to those closest to the underlying problems.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

The Constitution makes clear, through the further explanation of specifically enumerated powers, what the Founders meant when referring to promoting the general welfare throughout the United States. The Founders meant by this defense of the nation, as discussed elsewhere in this Platform, and the preservation of the nation’s economic integrity. Thus, this provision of the Constitution authorizes Congress to take actions in matters that affect the economic prosperity of this country in relation to other nations, including encouraging creativity, invention, and entrepreneurial activities of citizens and setting uniform laws related to economic exchanges and transactions across the land.

Well, duh. I really seriously doubt any of them had in mind taking money from people just to give it to others in Ponzi schemes like welfare or Socialist Security. I also would question whether they would have considered Hillarycare or No Child Left Behind legitimate under the Constitution. Think about it. If they wanted these things, they would have put them into the Constitution themselves.

The Constitution’s Article I, Section 8, states that Congress shall have the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations,” and “to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries” for effective copyright and patent protections. As discussed elsewhere in this Platform, Congress may not permissibly reassign or transfer away these constitutionally specified powers, absent constitutional amendment. We New Federalists urge Congress to reassert its responsibilities for all policy-setting functions related to domestic and foreign trade and authority over copyright and patent policy. All matters involving the general welfare of U.S. citizens, measured in terms of their financial and economic well-being related to regulation of international commerce, commerce between the states, and copyright and patent protections, are the proper province of Congress rather than any executive branch department, agency, or international body or organization. Additionally, the Constitution provides that Congress has “power … to establish post offices and post roads,” which suggests that to serve the end of the general welfare, Congress may appropriately construct and maintain an interstate highway system as necessary infrastructure for communication and transportation within the United States.

Why is it that common citizens like myself can understand this, but those we have sent to Washington to represent us have so much trouble with it?

The general welfare of the American people, assessed in terms of their material prosperity, is also affected by governmental decisions related to money, trade, taxation, and national indebtedness. We New Federalists favor movements toward the maximum levels of freedom in economic exchanges, and concomitant noninterference by government, as is feasible under conditions in which government must extract fees to fund operations. The Constitution’s Article I, Section 8, specifies duties, imposts, and excises as legitimate revenue-raising levies Congress may lay and collect, in addition to taxes, to pay national debts and fund national operations. As described elsewhere in this Platform, we favor tax reforms in which revenues for the central government are collected and held in accounts by the states, as replacement for the national income tax; we also favor movement toward matching levels of taxation of cross-border transactions, in the form of duties and imposts. We support efforts to retire the national debt on an orderly and timely basis.

Freedom?? Retire the national debt?? Oh no. We can’t have THAT now, can we? As if these things were particularly evil.

As discussed in relation to providing for the common defense, we believe Congress has an essential duty to restrict defense-related exports that may endanger national security. Similarly, we support limited use by Congress of the power of embargo against other nations, when assessed as being in the interests of the general welfare of the United States as a whole. Nevertheless, we oppose the awarding of “most favored nation” or “normal trade relations” status, when utilized as a diplomatic tool in negotiations with tyrannical regimes that do not guarantee the rights of their citizens, and thus are not properly viewed as legitimate governments.

I can’t think of much that would make more sense.

Similarly, we oppose programs that expend national funds and use national resources on behalf of overseas financial endeavors and investments of specific industries and enterprises. In particular, we vigorously oppose use of U.S. military forces to protect financial interests of businesses abroad.

Again, the Constitution doesn’t say that the fed can do it. That means the FED CAN’T DO IT WITHOUT BREAKING THE LAW.

The New Federalist interpretation of the plain language of the Constitution is that those activities not explicitly authorized to the national government are prohibited to it, and are properly left for citizens to secure themselves, through private efforts or through programs at lower levels of government. We therefore favor elimination of congressional action in regard to all matters on which the Constitution is silent, including the following subjects not specifically mentioned in the Constitution: aid to specific industries such as agriculture, education (including student loans), energy (except insofar as related to the common defense), the environment, health care, and pensions. However, as the nation has extracted money from taxpayers in exchange for promises of health care (such as Medicare) and pension benefits (including Social Security programs), in the process preventing citizens from using those funds in accord with their own free decisions concerning their personal welfare, we strongly support continuing these programs for current recipients while gradually transferring responsibility for such programs back to the citizens themselves.

Eliminate everything the Constitution doesn’t say the fed can do – industrial aid, education, energy (except as related to the common defense), “the environment”, health care, and pensions – NOW.

Over time, we must also phase out the following – MediScare, Socialist Security and the like.

This only makes sense, since these programs have only had the effect of working to the detriment of the American people and their culture, not to mention their freedom. People have to stop thinking of the federal government as the provider of all that is good. It isn’t. In fact, many of these programs have worked more to create a class of people dependent on the government for their basic needs. This is an insult to these people’s character, and most of them don’t even realize it.

Hopefully, I can finish this up within the next couple of days.

RWR

Posted in New FedeRWRalism | 1 Comment »

The New Federalism Part VI: The Common Defense

Posted by RightWingRocker on October 10, 2005

Part V of this series is where you can expect to find me in disagreement with some of the New Federalist platform. No big deal. You will know the reasons for my disagreement by the time you finish reading this post. I do not believe that the disagreement I have with the New Federalist platform is a big enough deal to move me away from the concept. Furthermore, I recognize the validity of the New Federalist position where I disagree, and would support the position if I believed it could really work. Maybe some of my readers who would agree could pursuade me??

The Common Defense

We New Federalists believe that as citizens we all bear a more generally dispersed responsibility for the common defense than is today generally assumed in our country. We support a return to a less professionalized military, which today is often viewed and treated as a separate segment of United States society, in favor of the model of part-time but “well-regulated” citizen-soldiers clearly suggested by the Constitution. Of course, returning to the Constitution’s original formulation for coordinated participation in the common defense will necessitate coordination and cooperation from citizens, the military services, the states, Congress, and the President acting in the role of Commander in Chief.

While I am completely in favor of “well-regulated” armed citizens participating in the defense of our country, I still believe that the professional military we have today is more appropriate to the times, especially given the hi-tech weapons systems we posess, and the need to keep many of our military capabilities secret so that our enemies’ knowledge thereof can be appropriately limited.

The Role of Citizens in Defense

When volunteer forces in the United States military replaced conscription, many American citizens adopted the belief that they may adequately discharge their responsibilities to provide for the common defense of our nation, by paying their income taxes. Quite perniciously, though, these volunteer military forces have in recent years been treated as willing volunteers for any overseas assignment whatsoever in service to political or diplomatic maneuvers, instead of as a last resort in service of the nation’s security. This circumstance has been worsened by the fact that wealthier segments of American society have mostly disdained military service since World War II, so that our political leaders have often found participation in conflicts of dubious relevance to national security to be more acceptable than would have been the case, had the duties of military service been borne more generally throughout the nation.

Military forces organized around the model of citizen-soldiers, more akin to current National Guard forces, replacing the career-oriented, professionalized military, are the preference of New Federalists for these reasons. Of course, the transition back to more equitably distributed responsibilities for provision for our common defense is an undertaking of major proportions, especially in light of the technological advances that have modernized the arts of war and issues of national security. This long-term project must begin with a change of perspective about the fundamentals of defense at home and abroad, which has certainly been accelerated with the need to defend against further terrorist attacks as lethal as those of September 11. 2001.

OK, so everyone should have to serve in the military. Tell that to the nutjobs at moveon.org one of these days and see what you get. Pacifists are Americans, too, and though they are by nature pretty naive, they still have a right to that naivete. Yes, I do agree that the military has been overused, especially in conflicts that have had no bearing on our security. Just for the record, I will also mention that the War on Terror does NOT fall into this category. I’m just not seeing how this could really change any of that.

In other words, I agree in concept with the platform. This kind of change should not be gone about hastily, and whether or not it is implemented (I say amend the Constitution and keep the professional volunteer military), the “change of perspective about the fundamentals of defense at home and abroad” is a DEFINITE necessity. We must ALL participate in the defense of our great nation. That’s why the Minuteman Project was so strongly supported here.

Support for the 2nd AmendmentThe 2nd Amendment to the Constitution gives the clearest rationale for the position we New Federalists take in regard to issues of the common defense. As this amendment plainly states, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” As noted elsewhere in this Platform, the Declaration of Independence recognizes that the only legitimate purpose of government is to secure the rights of its individual citizens, and that the only legitimate government is one based in the free assent of its citizens. However, concomitantly the individual citizens bear responsibility for the defense of that government. Hence, the right to bear arms in defense of the government, which guarantees individual citizens’ rights, resides solely and in perpetuity with the citizens themselves. This right may not permissibly be reassigned to any other body or agency, as a government so constituted will inevitably embark on a train of decisions, proposals and abuses that will in the end render the state neither secure nor free. Infringements of the 2nd Amendment have already begun this process in the United States and must be rolled back.

When individual citizens knowledgeably and responsibly exercise the right to keep and bear arms, they may freely engage in acts of self-defense, defense of family, and defense of the nation itself against incipient tyranny from enemies both foreign and domestic. The evidence from multiple sources is overwhelming, indicating that an armed populace is both freer and safer than any group protected by a professionalized police or military force. Recognition and appreciation of this truth must be the cornerstone of any principled approach to matters regarding common defense.

We thus consider infringements on the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms through gun control measures to be impermissible constitutionally, and we therefore support programs that train children and youth with age-appropriate materials and procedures in the safe but effective handling and use of firearms, as preparation for assuming their proper roles, once adults, for bearing responsibility for the defense of this nation. Materials such as the Eddie Eagle series, which warn small children of the dangers of firearms, are an excellent starting point for a successful education in personal skills necessary for enacting the role of citizen-soldier. Similarly, firearms training by Boy Scouts troops and other private organizations can build on healthy attitudes toward the safe, appropriate use of weapons of defense. We urge parents to avail themselves of such materials and programs to teach their children, and we encourage parents to support introduction of these educational plans to the curricula in their children’s schools.

The Second Amendment is today one of the most trounced upon rights expressed in the Bill of Rights. The Brady Bill, the Assault Weapons Ban, state laws that infringe upon the people’s right to keep and bear arms … You name the gun law, I say it’s unconstitutional. A professional police force (or even the professional military that I advocate) cannot fully protect individual citizens or their families from those who would harm them. Each citizen MUST bear the ultimate responsibility for his own safety and that of his family and those dear to him. With the best and most affordable weapon available to him rendered illegal by an oppressive government, this is about as impossible a situation as you can get.

There are, as the platform mentions, many excellent curricula that schools could and should use to educate people about the safe use of these weapons. The training I got as a Boy Scout was excellent. The solution to gun crime problems is to put gun criminals in prison for life (or execute them in the case of murder), not to disarm those who are being responsible with guns.

VeteransAlthough we New Federalists prefer significant changes in the structure and composition of military forces serving the common defense, we nonetheless remain fervently committed to honoring the service to our country of veterans. Their contributions to the preservation of American freedom and to advancing the cause of liberty throughout the world are worthy of our deepest gratitude. We New Federalists thus support providing equitable pay and benefits to our service members on active duty, providing them with adequate tools and weapons during their terms of service, and maintaining generous health, education, and other benefits promised to veterans as compensation for their national service. We oppose efforts by agencies at any level of government to remove or reduce any promised benefits or compensation to veterans and their survivors, including pensions, educational benefits, and health care services.

Let’s not get too crazy here. Of course I support special treatment for those who have put their lives on the line to protect our freedom. However, once you start requiring everyone to serve in the military, piling up a bunch of special privileges might lead to the same kind of socialism we are now trying to dismantle. For those soldiers who serve in the PROFESSIONAL military, I would advocate a simple slate of special privileges such as educational opportunities for the soldier and his family, a generous health insurance plan, and a nice pension.

For those who simply do their duty at home, there should be no need for such privileges, as this duty is a basic responsibility of living in a free country.

The Role of Government in DefenseArticle I, Section 8, of the Constitution gives Congress the “power to lay and collect taxes … to … provide for the common defense … of the United States,” as one of the three specifically authorized broad purposes of congressional spending on behalf of the nation as a whole. The Constitution further specifies that Congress bears the power of decisions regarding national security matters, including the power to declare war, to raise and support armies for a period not to exceed two years, to provide and maintain a navy, to set rules for military forces and exercise authority over military bases, to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militias maintained by the states, and to call forth the militias when needed to serve in defense of the United States. The Constitution also assigns to the states the responsibility to appoint officers to their respective militias, as well as the authority for training each state’s militia “according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

Taken together, these constitutionally defined assignments of powers within our federal system of government suggest that, as with so much else in our present-day governing practices, our nation has strayed far from honoring the complementary roles that were set out for serving this legitimate purpose of government. We New Federalists believe that insufficient attention has been paid to the Constitution’s 3rd Amendment, which states, “No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” This amendment implies that the Founders desired conditions of peace with only minimal burdens on the citizenry to support the military. The language from the Constitution also indicates, though, that a national navy may properly be maintained for extended periods of service, while standing land-based forces forming an army should be raised for limited periods of service (not to exceed two years) and reauthorized for longer durations only after congressional consideration. Clearly, the Constitution places greater emphasis than seen today on armed forces trained and maintained within the states themselves as militias, then called into national service only under extraordinary circumstances decided by Congress. We New Federalists support efforts to return to this model of citizen-soldiers, while at the same time preserving our national security interests in the increasingly dangerous world of today’s rogue nations, international terrorist organizations, and spiraling proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Return to the model of citizen-soldiers while preserving national security interests, etc. etc. etc. Again, the platform is missing the point that a strong professional military is necessary to maintain the level of security required to deal with the kinds of threats we will be dealing with today and into the future. I do agree that citizen-soldiers should be a place of emphasis, with each citizen playing a more prominient role in the defense of the nation, but again, the professional military is essential to the security of these United States.

Congressional Oversight for Defense-Related ExportsThe Constitution provides that Congress assumes sole power in regulating commerce with foreign nations, and we believe that Congress should exercise that power with an eye to restricting exports on military-related technology that may endanger our national security. This is the only position consonant with serving to provide for the common defense. We New Federalists therefore support close cooperation between Congress and military experts on technology and products of defense-related significance in restricting such exports as necessary to protect the nation’s security. Nevertheless, as such restrictions on exports can also be viewed as “takings” of property belonging to United States citizens and business organizations, we simultaneously support following the guidelines of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, which declares that no “private property be taken for public use without just compensation,” and providing proper reimbursement in such cases.

I’d say, first of all, that the megabucks we pay to our military contractors is money well-spent. It is, furthermore, more than adequate reimbursement under the 5th Amendment. As far as selling current military equipment or technology to other countries is concerned, we definitely shouldn’t be doing that at all. Outdated military technology may be another matter entirely. If it’s something an ally of ours can use, but something that is clearly outdated to us, why not sell it and use the money towards further defensive weapons development? These are the things Congress should be focusing on in any such oversight.

Military Base ClosuresArticle I, Section 8, of the Constitution assigns to Congress power to exercise exclusive legislation and authority “over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other needful buildings.” This means that Congress alone is constitutionally permitted to reach decisions about those sites chosen and maintained as military bases for defense of the nation. Further, Congress may not properly pass this exclusive authority over to any other body, such as the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC), in order to avoid difficult decisions and evade direct accountability to voters for participation in such decisions.

I’m completely in agreement here. Why in the world does Congress busy itself with trying to build an unconstitutional socialist utopia while simultaneously shirking its legitimate responsibilities under the Constitution?

Ballistic Missile DefensesUnder current world conditions, perhaps the single most pressing need for the common defense of the American people is to complete an adequate system of protections to secure against ballistic missile attack. We New Federalists believe that the Constitution’s assignment to Congress to provide for the common defense now assuredly demands that Congress authorize all necessary expenditures to finish projects necessary to research, test and build such missile defenses as rapidly as possible. We support, for example, ongoing expansion of the sea-based Aegis systems for theater defenses, as well as continuing research, development and implementation for land-based and space-based adjuncts to this defensive shield. Moreover, because we do not believe that any treaty can permissibly override the Constitution’s assignment of duties and responsibilities, we applaud the negotiations in regard to rescinding the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (with the now-defunct Soviet Union) that removed dubious impediments to deployment of such defenses for United States citizens.

I agree wholeheartedly here. Enough said.

Defense Against Terrorist AttacksAnother pressing need in today’s security environment is for appropriate protections to avert terrorist attacks as deadly as — or possibly, even deadlier than — the coordinated assaults of September 11, 2001. We New Federalists support the doctrine of preemption of terrorist threats that can be credibly and prudently foreseen in the nexus between international terrorist organizations and states that sponsor terrorism while simultaneously pursuing acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. Where reasonable requests for alliance against terrorism are met with duplicity and deception, a military response may be our nation’s recourse of last resort for properly fulfilling the duties of common defense.

And how, may I ask, will those last-resort military attacks have any effect with mere “citizen-soldiers” who aren’t skilled and/or trained in special (classified for good reason) technologies? The idea is good, but my position is that the professional military is a necessity, especially in this very real-world instance.

Commander in ChiefThe President is Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, as well as of the militia when those forces raised by the states are serving the United States (Article II, Section 2). As noted elsewhere in other contexts in this Platform, the constitutional assignment of powers and responsibilities can in no way be shirked or surrendered, absent constitutional amendment. Because this role of Commander in Chief is defined under the Constitution, it is constitutionally impermissible for the President to change this role and definition, through arbitrary exercise of executive decision, by assigning troops to foreign commanders or to international operations not under his direct control. We New Federalists therefore believe that participation by service members of United States military branches in any international operations or functions can only be constitutionally proper when all existing chains of command within U.S. forces are completely preserved throughout the duration of the assignment. In particular, we hold that it is impermissible to order service members to swear allegiance to any body outside the jurisdiction of the Commander in Chief, or to wear any uniform or insignia not specifically authorized and under the control of the Congress. Further, we do not believe that the duty of “peacekeeping,” when undertaken in concert with international forces in foreign lands, can reasonably be extruded from the Constitution’s specification that military campaigns are for the common defense of the United States. — unless performed as a temporary mission following congressionally authorized military intervention serving to protect citizens.

I agree here, period.

Foreign RelationsArticle I, Section 8, of the Constitution states, “The Congress shall have power … to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations.” Article II, Section 2, assigns the President to “have power, by and with the consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” While acknowledging shared divisions of role in foreign dealings, these constitutional passages place greater responsibility for international relations with Congress, as closer republican representatives of the American people, than with the executive branch. Because efficacious diplomacy is certainly a necessary tool and adjunct of the common national defense, this is consistent with other passages from the Constitution. However, we New Federalists note that diplomacy, as currently practiced on behalf of the United States, is more often treated as the province of the State Department, operating under the jurisdiction of the executive branch, and decidedly at loggerheads with the Congress. We thus support a return to the Founders’ plan for a greater congressional role in international relations than is currently the case, in order to more closely follow the requirements of the Constitution.

In particular, we hold the view that Congress may not permissibly, absent constitutional amendment, transfer its responsibility for defining and punishing offenses against international law to any other body, including (but not limited to) any international tribunal or court. We further adhere to the view that, consistent with the belief that the Constitution is binding in perpetuity, treaties ratified by two-thirds of the Senate become domestic law, rather than superseding the Constitution. Treaties are therefore, under this understanding, revocable by a majority vote in Congress.

We are decidedly wary of the continuing usefulness of the United Nations under its existing forms of operation. In general, we favor replacing multilateral organizations and arrangements with a system of bilateral alliances, as only bilateral treaties and agreements remain under control of the two populaces represented. Multilateralism, almost by definition, transfers authority to an unaccountable agency or bureaucracy, and away from direct responsiveness to the consent of the governed. By contrast, bilateral compacts can be revised or revoked, should such demands arise from citizens of either nation party to the agreement.

Given the New Federalist principles about the proper purposes of government in guaranteeing individual citizens’ rights, we do not support direct foreign aid, and especially not direct government-to-government foreign aid spending. We New Federalists further believe that our alliances with other powers of the earth should always be predicated on the extent to which those powers support and defend the God-bestowed rights of individuals under their jurisdictions. We thus encourage that all such alliances be evaluated in regard to their ability for advancing the cause of freedom throughout the world, in order to increase the numbers of those who enjoy
the blessings of liberty.

No World Court, no irrevocable treaties, no United Nations, no government-to-government foreign aid. Amen to all of it.

It seems the main disageement I have with the New Federalists is the idea of disbanding our professional military. I do agree that the Constitution may need to be amended to accomodate this, but I do believe that in this day and age, with those who would harm us more determined than ever, that our current professional military is an absolute necessity.

The platform is right on in other ways here, as strongly evidenced by the last few paragraphs. Despite this disagreement, you will find, as shown in parts I-V, that this is by far the most reasonable political platform out there. Parts VII and VIII will offer further proof.

RWR

Posted in New FedeRWRalism | 1 Comment »

Part VI Tomorrow – I Hope

Posted by RightWingRocker on October 9, 2005

Just got back from a nice little one day tour in our Nation’s Capital. While I didn’t get to see much, I did finally finish my tenure with the old band, and will now be touring exclusively with the new. It was a sad day, and a very amiable parting. An interesting way to spend my birthday …

Anyway, I’ve been working on Part VI: The Common Defense where time has allowed. Hopefully I’ll have it up sometime tomorrow. This is a tough one because I do have a disagreement or two with the New Federalists on this part of the platform, and I am trying to choose my words carefully, so as to be clear on what I do agree with and on what I don’t. Hopefully I don’t get into too much of a rush knowing that I want to get the f-ing thing posted.

Rock on!
RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

The New Federalism Part V: Ensuring Domestic Tranquility

Posted by RightWingRocker on October 6, 2005

Well, we’ve finally passed the halfway point in this very important series. In today’s post, we’ll take a look at part five of the New Federalist platform, Ensuring Domestic Tranquility.

Ensuring Domestic Tranquility

In setting as a proper overall objective of government that of ensuring domestic tranquility, the Founders were referring to a general peaceable set of conditions of life in this country. Part of this involved the ability of citizens to live in circumstances that were settled and secure, with no domestic insurrections, and with their neighborhoods and communities adequately protected from predatory criminals abroad in the land. Yet another part of ensuring domestic tranquility involved Congress setting the relationships among the states, especially in regard to such issues as financial matters of commerce and interstate trade, and legal matters including extraditions between states, so that the states and their respective residents were treated uniformly and equally by the national level of government. That these concerns have little currency is a measure of how small the common understanding of federalist principles is today.

To say that Americans are today adequately protected from criminals in the land would be completely absurd.

Furthermore, it is the systematic efforts of the Left to dismantle the Constitution and/or render it irrelevant that has been a major cause of this problem and others. Unconstitutional gun control laws have taken away the American citizenry’s most effective line of defense against those who would undermine their safety and security from these criminals, and when the criminals from the very government that has usurped this right come knocking, there won’t be any way to defend against them, either. The liberal idea that violent criminals can be “rehabilitated” has brought about the need for notification laws that come into effect when a criminal is released into, or moves into, a particular community just to ensure that parents have the ability to protect their children. Of course, with no guns to use in protecting their children, what use are these laws to Americans?

Congressional ResponsibilitiesUnder Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, Congress is specifically assigned the power to regulate commerce among the several states, to coin money and regulate its value, to fix standards of weights and measures, to establish uniform rules of naturalization, to make uniform bankruptcy laws for the nation as a whole, to provide punishment of counterfeiting securities and coins, to establish post offices and post roads, and to provide for calling forth the militia to suppress insurrections and repel invasions.

There is no power vested in Congress to create the current “nanny state” that is draining our wallets.

As discussed elsewhere in this Platform, we New Federalists believe that Congress has reassigned these specific powers, duties and responsibilities to such an improper, constitutionally impermissible extent that the legislative role is no longer being sufficiently served as defined under our Constitution. We have thus urged Congress to reassert those powers by returning to direct congressional purview those agencies and organizations that now exert these powers independently of Congress. For example, New Federalism urges that all banking and money decisions be returned to Congress, including repeal of the Federal Reserve Act, restructuring of the Federal Reserve System, and bringing related monetary and valuation decisions back into compliance with the Mint Act of 1792.

Imagine that … an America with no Alan Greenspan trying to micromanage the economy.

As the Constitution specifically notes, Congress bears responsibility for matters related to national borders and immigration and naturalization, as part of ensuring domestic tranquility. We favor Congress exercising these powers and responsibilities, rather than executive branch agencies operating independently of Congress, except for occasional but ineffective hearings that cannot accurately be deemed “oversight.” The interdiction of illegal drugs and other contraband at the borders has relevance to matters of common defense and national security as well, given the possibility for large-scale terrorism from miniaturized weapons of mass destruction.

This is especially true given the current executive’s complete abdication of the obligation to secure the borders. The Minuteman Project did a great job, but not without major interference from the ACLU and other far-left anti-America organizations. Put this power back into Congress where it belongs, and we may see a change. I believe this change would come as a result of affected states, such as border states in the illegal immigration situation, bringing these problems to the fore and Congress appropriately addressing them. It should be much harder for a body, such as the Congress, to ignore this type of thing than it is for one person, such as a President. In the case of illegal immigration, if a border state’s representative ignores the problem, a neighboring state will wind up being affected by his ignorance, and that state’s representative could then bring the matter before the body … and so on until the matter is ultimately addressed.

Citizens’ ResponsibilitiesAnother necessary component of domestic tranquility throughout the United States involves citizens who freely exercise their responsibilities within their families, their neighborhoods, and their communities. The bedrock of peace and safety at home is peace and safety in the homes of families and individual citizens.

The people must be responsible for their families and those close to them. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to design programs, however good-intentioned, for the purpose of “helping people”. The philosophy of federalism holds that the government helps more by leaving its citizens alone than by by being involved in various ways of actively trying to help them. Government’s purpose is to secure the rights of the citizens – nothing more, nothing less.

RWR

Posted in New FedeRWRalism | 1 Comment »

The New Federalism Part IV: Establishing Justice

Posted by RightWingRocker on October 4, 2005

First, I want to thank everyone for your patience in waiting for this fourth post on the New Federalist platform. In this post, I will analyze the concepts set forth in part 4 of the platform, Establishing Justice.

Establishing Justice

A major cause the Founders cited as justification for declaring the American colonies independent was that the king had “obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers,” that he had “made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries,” that he had hewed to double standards in matters before the courts by protecting his soldiers through mock trials while denying trial by jury to colonists, that he had often transported colonials overseas for trial, and that he had pursued a course of treating the free system of laws so cavalierly that justice was no longer possible.

It is therefore unsurprising that of the 10 constitutional amendments composing the Bill of Rights, fully half deal with matters of citizen rights in courts of law. This demonstrates the great importance the Founders placed on citizens having recourse to just courts. The experiences of colonists in the courts established by the king had proven that fair, just laws could not be based in the interpretation of courts subject to a single dominion but that the only possibly just laws were necessarily treated as equally binding in application to all judges and parties standing in court disputes.

These laws are to be equally binding, yet the courts routinely rule against the rights of the people. Every one of the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights has been violated by the courts at one time or another – and with the blessings of the legislators who created the law and the executives who signed it.

As discussed elsewhere in this Platform, citizen rights are best guaranteed by courts that follow the constitutionally specified plans for their operations. A judiciary that stays within the narrow bounds laid out in the Constitution for this branch of government views its role as serving to guarantee individual citizens’ rights and states’ rights, as described plainly in the Constitution, in cases of dispute. As also discussed elsewhere in this Platform, however, the courts in our land today have lost sight of their proper constitutionally defined role. Our courts have substituted in its place usurpations of legislative powers and functions; and the courts have further failed to uphold the separation of powers as clearly set forth in the Constitution’s model for our government, by refusing to rein in an overreaching executive branch of government. We New Federalists believe the remedies described elsewhere in this Platform, including adopting the sense that judges engage in the “good behavior” required for retaining office only while honoring their sworn oaths to support the Constitution, will aid in rectifying this abandonment of principles restraining the judiciary to its constitutional bounds. Similarly, periodic review of judges’ records on these grounds, together with term-limited courts, should also assist in these efforts.

The courts don’t uphold the separation of powers because they are guilty of the same overreaching usurpations the executive and legislative branches of government are. Periodic review of their records and term limits may not completely solve the problem, but it will make these judges more accountable, which will help.

The effects of the American judicial system’s failure to enact the judiciary’s constitutionally defined role have been massive and monumental. Among the victims of this failure are individual citizens who no longer are accorded their just and fair rights, communities terrorized by criminals no longer restrained by appropriate punishments meted out by the courts, and the portion of the citizenry at large that has lost faith in our government’s ability to restrain itself.

All true. Add to this fact that criminals are no longer restrained by an armed populace thanks to the many violations of the Second Amendment, and it’s no wonder people have so lost faith.

Nevertheless, although the state of the courts is spiraling deterioration, as a result of taking on improper functions and powers while shirking specifically defined duties and responsibilities, we New Federalists can clearly set forth a few essential justifications and lines of reasoning that ought to restrain our courts. We therefore affirm our support for the following principles when at issue in United States courts, and we suggest that these principles be defended vigorously and argued robustly in our courts of law.Citizens’ Rights

The most fundamental right that courts should guarantee individual citizens is the right to life. The Constitution’s 5th Amendment states that no person shall be “deprived of life … without due process of law.” Currently the courts fail in upholding the right to life because of flawed assumptions on two grounds.

First, the courts have faultily arrogated to themselves the power to define which classes of humans are accorded the right to life, and which are not. As the Declaration of Independence so boldly and clearly affirms, God endows all humans equally with these rights, so that no court decision may permissibly define away these rights for any human, and certainly not en masse for any separate and defined classes of human beings. Second, the courts have faultily abandoned the principle of ensuring equality before the law when acceding to the view that certain different classes of individual humans bear rights that others do not.

These two entwined strands of deeply flawed assumptions, in contravention of the principles upon which this nation was founded, have produced bad judicial decisions in several areas. The consequences of these lines of faulty reasoning have been clear — and clearly devastating to the foundational principles of rights and equality. If the courts may properly define rights away for any group or class of citizens, then the courts may properly define away, and thus deny, rights for all citizens. If individual citizens’ rights are not treated as inhering in perpetuity in the individuals themselves, then no rights can truly be claimed to exist.

One major set of such faulty judicial decisions asserted a right to privacy that included a right to abortion. A similar set of improper court reasoning decided a right to euthanasia, or more aptly, the “right” to grant physicians permission to participate in killing.

Another set of flawed judiciary actions involved retreat from adherence to ensuring equal rights of citizens before the law, by settling on specific categories of classes and groups that would be recognized by courts in contradistinction to members of other groupings that would not be so recognized. But equality under the law demands no cognizance of group membership or characteristics in having access and recourse to courts. If such definitions are retained, there is no equality before the law. Hate crimes laws, for instance, have violated this principle of equality, as have general court-endorsed definitions of citizen classes on the basis of private sexual preferences or practices.

In a similar vein, an abandonment of seriousness regarding the rights to liberty and property has been manifest in United States courts. Arguably, excessive taxation, for instance, can be viewed as a denial of the rights to both liberty and property. Taxes higher than necessary for constitutionally specified purposes of government can be equated to involuntary servitude, as well as to “takings” of private property “for public use without just compensation” (5th Amendment).

However, we New Federalists support the death penalty, as implied by the constitutional provisions explicitly citing capital offenses, as well as the 5th Amendment’s indication that a person may properly be deprived of life after due process of law in the courts. But simultaneously, as noted elsewhere, we believe a principled position concerning the death penalty requires that it be treated with absolute equality on all sides. For example, we do not support reserving the death penalty only for capital crimes against certain classes of citizens but not other classes, as defined in terms of characteristics of victims. If punishment is held to have a deterrent effect, then reserving the death penalty for certain classes of citizens only, say, for federal officials and officers but not for private citizens, violates the principle of equality before the law, by failing to protect equally as a consequence of unequal application.

In general, we believe that the courts should be guided by the 9th Amendment’s statement, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” and the 10th Amendment’s provision that “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.”

States’ Rights

We New Federalists favor justice that adheres to a firm and clear understanding of federalist principles, defending such principles in every decision. We believe that in court decisions relevant to disputes about powers assigned to the levels of government, judges should be guided by the 10th Amendment’s statement, “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.”

New Federalists are indeed pro-life, and our position is clearly stated above. This portion of the platform seems to have been written more recently than its much earlier origin. In this platform, we learn that New Federalists would have been in favor of keeping Terri Schiavo alive, and that we would oppose the anti-property rights decision in the Kelo case (the platform predates both of these situations). We support the death penalty as punishment for certain capital offenses, as long as it is applied uniformly throughout the populace. Most importantly, if the Constitution does not specifically delegate a power or a right to the government, it is AUTOMATICALLY delegated to the states and the people, because the Constitution says so.

RWR

Posted in New FedeRWRalism | 1 Comment »

I May Need an Extra Day

Posted by RightWingRocker on October 3, 2005

The weekend tour was EXCRUCIATING.

I may need some extra time to work out Part IV of the series. I looked over that part of the platform today, and I’m excited about it.

I’m just exhausted from the weekend. I’m hoping to have it up sometime tomorrow.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »