On Hollywood, the 4th of July, and Supreme Court Nominees
Last night I observed a truly appalling sight. Several prominent members of the Hollywood anti-America crowd were to be seen either hosting or sitting in the VIP areas of many of the nation's celebrations. The last time I checked, there were 365 days in an average year. I don't understand why these pretend patriots who spout anti-American rhetoric for 364 of them would be so honored by Americans. Is America really that enamored with "celebrities?" I'd like to see them put their money where their mouth is and get the heck out of this country. One of the great things about freedom is that you are free to leave.
On an entirely different subject, today we hear that the Senate is "gearing up for a fight" over potential nominees to replace Justice O'Conner. On the Sunday talk shows, many Senate 'Dems even went so far as to recall the "controversial" nomination of Bork so many years ago. Both sides are already leveling charges against as-yet-unnamed "presumptive" nominees.
I have a great idea: let's return to the Constitution and have an independent judiciary. There should be no talk of "originalist," "constructionist," or "progressive-ist" interpretations. There is only one legal interpretation of the Constitution, which is the Constitution itself. The Constitution is a law, not merely a framework for government. That is why it succeeded where the Articles of Confederation failed. The only test for a Supreme Court nominee should be whether previous rulings adhered strictly to the Constitution. That is what was intended by the Founding Fathers.
These men were very wise. They recognized that Congress may not agree with the Justices, so they provided a Constitutionally legal way for them to change the rulings: amendments. The requirement for Senate "advice and consent" was never meant to be a roadblock. Both parties have taken the limits of this duty too far.
It's not rocket science. The courts are supposed to determine if laws are allowed by the Constitution. That wonderful document even tells them how to make this determination. The Constitution boldly declares that Congress has the right to pass all laws "necessary and proper" to carry out the specific, enumerated powers. Anything that does not meet the test of "necessary and proper" and anything outside one of the designated powers is by definition, unconstitutional. The wording used was very precise. The requirement is "necessary," not "expedient" or "helpful" or even "desirable." The Founding Fathers in this manner ensured that politics were not involved. I'd like to offer some advice to the Senate: read the dang document!
On an entirely different subject, today we hear that the Senate is "gearing up for a fight" over potential nominees to replace Justice O'Conner. On the Sunday talk shows, many Senate 'Dems even went so far as to recall the "controversial" nomination of Bork so many years ago. Both sides are already leveling charges against as-yet-unnamed "presumptive" nominees.
I have a great idea: let's return to the Constitution and have an independent judiciary. There should be no talk of "originalist," "constructionist," or "progressive-ist" interpretations. There is only one legal interpretation of the Constitution, which is the Constitution itself. The Constitution is a law, not merely a framework for government. That is why it succeeded where the Articles of Confederation failed. The only test for a Supreme Court nominee should be whether previous rulings adhered strictly to the Constitution. That is what was intended by the Founding Fathers.
These men were very wise. They recognized that Congress may not agree with the Justices, so they provided a Constitutionally legal way for them to change the rulings: amendments. The requirement for Senate "advice and consent" was never meant to be a roadblock. Both parties have taken the limits of this duty too far.
It's not rocket science. The courts are supposed to determine if laws are allowed by the Constitution. That wonderful document even tells them how to make this determination. The Constitution boldly declares that Congress has the right to pass all laws "necessary and proper" to carry out the specific, enumerated powers. Anything that does not meet the test of "necessary and proper" and anything outside one of the designated powers is by definition, unconstitutional. The wording used was very precise. The requirement is "necessary," not "expedient" or "helpful" or even "desirable." The Founding Fathers in this manner ensured that politics were not involved. I'd like to offer some advice to the Senate: read the dang document!
posted by exsubdriver at 9:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home