Citizen Tom » Constitution

NY Times Says the Constitution is “Terse & Old”.

Citizen Tom — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:28:30 +0000

This article is from the NRA-ILA (National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action). Is it any wonder that the New York Times has seen a massive erosion of subscribers and advertisers and remains afloat because a benefactor gave it a bailout? “It is certainly no surprise for gun owners to see the New York Times run a story belittling the United States Constitution. After all, the Times has worked for decades to devalue our founding document. “[I]ts influence is waning,” opines the …

When our leaders do not respect the Law of the land, our rights must inevitably be at risk.

Filed under: Constitution, news media bias

WHO DO YOU WANT APPOINTING FEDERAL JUDGES?

Citizen Tom — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:37:28 +0000

On Friday, the following column by Rick Santorum appeared in the Washington Times. In this column, Santorum comments on Mitt Romney’s record of judicial appointments. Then he promises to fight for Conservative judges.

SANTORUM: Romney’s record of judicial capitulation

Name the last nominee to the Supreme Court by a Democratic president who turned out to be a judicial conservative. Maybe Justice Byron White, appointed by John F. Kennedy, who dissented from Roe v. Wade, but one largely draws a blank. Ask the converse, and the list is long and disheartening. Republican appointees formed the majority in Roe v. Wade (Harry Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Lewis F. Powell Jr., Potter Stewart and Warren E. Burger). Earl Warren was appointed by Dwight Eisenhower, John Paul Stephens by Gerald Ford. George H.W. Bush nominated David H. Souter, a blunder mitigated by the nomination of Clarence Thomas. Even conservative-by-instinct George W. Bush nominated Harriet Miers, who withdrew in the face of conservative indignation, in favor of Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. (continued here)

Filed under: 2012 Election, Constitution

2012 PRESIDENTIAL PROS AND CONS: MITT ROMNEY ON CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

Citizen Tom — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:06:42 +0000

This is the third post in a series on Mitt Romney. See 2012 PRESIDENTIAL PROS AND CONS: GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON MITT ROMNEY for the first post and links to the remaining posts in this series

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

Many accuse Romney of flip-flopping on social issues.

Consider this quote:

Q: Why such a dramatic and profound change after pledging never to waiver on a woman’s right to choose?

A: I was always personally opposed to abortion, as I think almost everyone in this nation is. And the question for me was, what is the role of government? And it was quite theoretical and philosophical to consider what the role of government should be in this regard, and I felt that the Supreme Court had spoken and that government shouldn’t be involved and let people make their own decision. That all made a lot of sense to me. Then I became governor and the theoretical became reality. A bill came to my desk which related to the preservation of life. I recognized that I simply could not be part of an effort that would cause the destruction of human lift. And I didn’t hide from that change of heart. I recognize it’s a change. Every piece of legislation which came to my desk in the coming years as the governor, I came down on the side of preserving the sanctity of life.

Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series Dec 16, 2007 (from here)

Is Romney’s change of heart real? Hard to tell, and the news media has had fun with Romney “evolving” position. For example, here the Washington Post notes an apparent contradiction.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said this week that as president he would allow individual states to keep abortion legal, two weeks after telling a national television audience that he supports a constitutional amendment to ban the procedure nationwide. (from here)

One explanation for this contradiction is the complexity of the issue. What should a constitutional amendment say about abortion? How would one enforce a law against abortion? How would you get a jury to convict? Without a good answer, it may be best to leave the issue to the states.

Here is a statement Romney included on the 2008 version of his website.

“I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.” (Governor Mitt Romney, Boston Globe, Op-Ed, 7/26/05) (from here)

Adding to the confusion is what Romney did when Massachusetts Supreme Court affirmed same-sex marriage. Romney insisted that Justices of the Peace comply. Why?

“As Popeye used to say, ‘I am what I am,’” Romney sighed. “I’m as clear as I can be to people as to what my views are. When I ran for office I indicated I did not favor same-sex marriage or civil unions and I have simply stood by that position. At the same time, I’ve indicated I’m a person who will follow the law. I respect the process of the law and if the legal processes result in a conclusion I disagree with, I will nonetheless follow the law. I swore to do that when I became governor. A lot of what is passed by the legislature is not as I would pass it, but I will implement it and enforce it.” (from here)

In addition, Romney has had a change of heart on campaign finance reform (from here and here). The scary thing is that Washington Post thinks that at one time Romney was right about campaign finance reform.

Filed under: 2012 Election, Constitution, Mitt Romney, Prolife

AN EXAMPLE OF HOW WE SHOOT OURSELVES IN THE FOOT UPDATED WITH OTHER VIEWS

Citizen Tom — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 19:50:22 +0000

Virginia Right’s Tom White has some good posts on Virginia’s presidential election debacle.

Gingrich Out in Virginia Primary – Only Romney and Paul on Va GOP Primary Ballot reports on the disaster.

Newt Gingrich was eliminated from the possibility of having his name on the Virginia Republican Presidential Primary ballot for 2012.

Virginia requires at least 10,000 signatures which must include 400 from each Congressional District.

Mitt Romney and Ron Paul remain as the only candidates whose name will appear on the ballot in the Republican Presidential Primary.

This news was released a few hours ago as State GOP workers counted well into the wee hours. (continued here)

Virginia May Have Improperly Excluded Signatures From Perry, Gingrich. a Recount May Be Needed! suggests possible legal challenges.

I’m no attorney but I do know how to find and read the laws of Virginia.

Various reports have stated that the signatures turned in by Newt Gingrich included at least 2,000 that were invalidated because there was no address given with the signature.

If this were a Virginia Statewide office, that would be correct. But this is a Presidential Primary. And while the rules are similar, they are actually addressed in two separate sections of the Virginia Code. (continued here)

The comments also focus on the legal issues. Some took issue with Tom White’s observation that Newt Gingrich (and perhaps Rick Perry as well) might have a case. In fact, they chose to blame the victims. Here is an example.

J.R. Hoeft · 16 hours ago

Great, so let’s gird our loins and lawyer up. That’ll make us all think more positively of Gingrich and Perry and their inept campaigns.

Such comments led me to offer one of my own.

Citizen Tom · 14 hours ago

Excuse me. I understand the legal niceties cannot be avoided. I understand we all have our favorite candidates, but would you all do me a favor? Just answer a straightforward question. This is Christmas Day in 2011. We are talking about a presidential election in November 2012. When it is so difficult to get a presidential campaign rolling, why are we requiring that the petitions be completed now? All this kind of crap does is make it almost impossible except for the richest candidates to run. I don’t care how organized you are. In Prince William County we just filled our seats in the General Assembly, the Sheriff’s office, the Commonwealth Attorney, the Board of County Supervisors, the School Board, and the Soil and Water Board. And now we are already being pestered by presidential candidates. My wife is so sick of telephone solicitations from politicians it is not funny. When voters refuse to pay any attention to another political race this soon, the news media is just not that interested.

I follow politics more carefully than most. Until after our elections in November 2011, I had no real interest in the 2012 elections. So the first I heard of that the petitions would be due before Christmas was when the press started saying Gingrich would not have time to get his petitions done. And I just shook my head. We are going to be stuck with a choice between RINO and a Libertarian? Oh SH–! Is it really any surprise the Liberal News media carried that story?

By requiring the primary and the petitions so early, we have unnecessarily eliminated perfectly good candidates (Compared to Obama, it is silly to say otherwise.). If one of us wants to call Gingrich’s and Perry’s campaigns inept, it’s our right, but we have no chance of getting on the ballot. Anyone who can even come close deserve some respect. What the fact only Romney and Paul qualified indicates is that we have set the bar absurdly high.

What we need to consider here is how the government of The Commonwealth of Virginia, led by incumbent politicians, has abused its authority. Instead of members of Republican Party deciding how they will choose their candidates, incumbent politicians have taken over the process. Thus, it now appears that Republicans in Virginia will have no real choice.

Consider how our electoral system has evolved. At first incumbent politicians rigged the system to exclude almost any possibility a third party candidate might win. Now the incumbents have succeeded in severely limiting who can qualify to run in a primary election. If this progression continues, we will eventually have one party elections with one candidate.

What this fiasco should help point out are the constitutional issues. When the incumbents control how political parties pick their candidates, the majority of voters lose any opportunity to select the candidate they might otherwise elect. That person may never even appear on the ballot.

What are the constitutional issues? In this post, REVIVING AN OLD POST=> ON POLITICAL PARTIES: WHY WE NEED CONVENTIONS, I review the constitutional issues in more detail.

Here are a couple of news articles on the subject.

Gingrich faces long odds to compete in Virginia presidential primary from the Washington Post
VA GOP Changed Ballot Access Rules Last Month from Big Government
Virginia Republican Presidential Primary from Real Clear Politics provides polling data. Can you guess which candidate was winning?

Other Views

Bearing Drift‘s Norm Leahy leads the criticism in Virginia stages the nation’s first presidential primary. Take note of the date of this first presidential primary. On November 6, 2012, we will elect our next president. Yet what Leahy calls the first presidential primary, December 22, 2011. That is the date the petitions were due to qualify for the Virginia’s March 6h presidential primary (see here). Yet because of the 2012 Republican Presidential Debates, candidates have been soaring and fizzling in the polls, and one has only recently been persuaded to enter the fray. Yet in Virginia the Republican nomination is for all practical purposes now a settled matter.

Therefore, Virginia Virtucon asks Is this any way to choose a Presidential Candidate?

SWAC Girl notes in Game changer for Newt? Name will not appear on Virginia ballot what the rest of us should be able to readily observe.

Sounding all too much like those Republicans happy with only Romney and Paul on the Virginia ballot, Democrat blogs offered their “bipartisan” opinions. DemRulz explains Getting on the Primary Ballot in Virginia. The Richmonder writes In defense of Virginia’s ballot petitions.

Filed under: 2012 Election, Constitution

JOHN BOEHNER: THE BOLD, THE BRAVE, AND THE STRONG

Citizen Tom — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:00:15 +0000

Let’s consider Speaker John Boehner’s last “success”. The Democrats offered up what they call a tax cut (see WHEN WILL WE TRY TO PUT AN END TO SUCH DECEIT?), and the Republicans in Congress said no. So Boehner sent his members home. Then with “unanimous consent” (not one of our spineless congressmen came back to object), Boehner passed this “tax cut” bill all by himself. Boehner took all the well-deserved criticism upon himself.

Think about it. All by himself, Speaker John Boehner represented all 435 members of the House of Representatives and passed a “tax cut” bill. Doesn’t that make Boehner bold, brave, and strong? Then why do we see stories like this?

Payroll tax deadlock ends as US House caves from a paper in the United Arab Emirates
The GOP’s slip is showing from our own Washington Post
Republicans Give In from the Atlanta Journal Constitution
Payroll tax deadlock ends as House caves from the Chicago Sun-Times
Payroll tax cut, a crucial victory for Obama from the Hindu (an Indian newspaper)

Obviously, some people just don’t know boldness, bravery, and strength when they see it. Boehner is bold, brave, and strong. What should concern us is the nature of Boehner convictions. Was that legislation good for our country? Does Boehner want to gather more power to himself or does he want to keep his oath?

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION: Article. VI., Clause 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Think about long and hard about this. Speaker John Boehner did not have the votes. The House of Representatives would not vote for this bill. So Boehner sent the House of Representatives home for Christmas. Then, by himself, he passed the same bill, and not one member returned to object — not one. Yet any one of them could have stopped Boehner. Any single one of them.

What is the problem with these people? What led Boehner to understand he could pass this reeking piece of legislation? Is it because he knows his members lack the conviction to stand up and fight? Have we — because we too lack core convictions — elected people whose only purpose is in the service of their ambitions?

Elections matter, but they matter only if each of us cares enough to stand up and fight for what we believe.

Filed under: Constitution, Republican Party