“I do belong to the school of thought that interprets the constitution to mean that our government exists to serve the American people. That is it’s only reason for existence. The constitution fleshes out how it serves the people.”
In the discussion this person also implied that the phrase “to promote the general welfare” in the preamble allowed for exceeding the constraints of the Constitution if it was deemed (by who I wonder?) in the interest of the people. This person was also adamantly anti-tea party and had a pretty deep-seated disdain for Sarah Palin and was pro-Obama. Just to give you some context.
Government exists to serve the people.
I agree. The issue arises not from debate over that statement, but over the question of “how does government serve the people?”
The United States Constitution in clear English language and with both specific and some broader law sets out the rules regarding “how?”.
The term “Living Document” with the context of interpretation comes from the title of a book written in 1937 by Professor Howard McBain. The idea was one that has been supported by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Louis Brandeis, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Al Gore but never mentioned or alluded to by any of the founders. Generally most supporters of this concept were and are progressives. Some might even be categorized as socialists.
While some might think there is nothing wrong with socialism, I contend that socialism on a national scale is contrary to individual liberty and freedom, the founding principles of our nation.
If you’ll notice Holmes and Brandeis were Justices on the Supreme Court. Supporting the idea of interpretation allows the Supreme Court to Legislate from the bench rather than simply apply the Constitution, which was the original intent of the Court. So this concept is one that provides The Court with broader power than granted within the document.
The concept of being able to stretch, bend the language of the Constitution through interpretation is most desirable to those who wish to act outside of its constraints.
No one can legitimately argue that one of the primary purposes of the Constitution and intent of the founders was to prevent tyranny. That is why the document restrains the powers of Government over the individual and empowers the people to stand against the Government if it exceeds its mandated restraint.
Now the Document does allow for “life” in that it may be amended, but outside of that process I believe that it was meant to be strictly construed.
The idea that we needed to search for the meaning or interpret intent of the U.S. Constitution was not something that the founders factored into the document and the concept of interpretation did not rise until the dawn of progressivism.
The erroneous concept of interpretation and flexibility outside of the amendment process is the only way progressives can circumvent the Constitution, and effect change it outside the amendment process while still claiming to be defending and abiding by its laws.This “school of thought” is actually subverting and disregarding the primary function of the Constitution to preserve individual liberty and prevent tyranny.
Recently Janeane Garafolo, actress, political activist and now apparent expert neuroscientist revealed her findings in an interview with Eccorazzi.com
Ms. Garafolo said about Republicans and Conservatives:
“Their policies have destroyed us and most of the world – that’s a fact not an opinion. Their policies of deregulation, pre-emptive strikes, unmitigated support for Israel to the detriment of the Israelis, Palestinian’s, Americans, the British. Every single policy that “conservative republicans” have put forth since Reagan has destroyed us. And we affect most of the world, so why do they still get a say? That’s what blows my mind. It’s almost like self-flagellation or masochism in some way. We keep going to that portion. They are NEVER going to compromise. The thing is that the more you give in to something like that, the more they take advantage.
The reason a person is a conservative republican is because something is wrong with them. Again, that’s science – that’s neuroscience. You cannot be well adjusted, open-minded, pluralistic, enlightened and be a republican. It’s counter-intuitive. And they revel in their anti-intellectualism. They revel in their cruelty.
I don’t know if you heard me talking to Jenny a while ago, but I was saying that first you have to be an asshole and then comes the conservatism. You gotta be a dick to cleave onto their ideology.”
Come on, Janeane, tell us how you really feel! Did a conservative sodomize her at some point in her childhood? I have heard that she is a child of Conservative parents. Does Ms. Garafolo have transferred hatred for conservatives because she hates her parents? Maybe it’s a psychological issue she has never dealt with?
On Sarah Palin:
“Probably what most people think about Sarah Palin. She’s small-minded and mean-spirited. It has nothing to do with gender — I don’t give a shit about her gender — she is what the Republican Party has become: obstructionist, contrarians, small-minded, all of these things. She just happens to be attractive. There’s definitely something wrong with her. She’s lacking in so many areas. Of course she’s successful with a segment of the country because she represents that lesser segment of the country. It’s people’s lesser nature – their human frailty. You know whatever’s wrong with them is what she is about.”
So what’s wrong with Sarah Palin?
“It’s not even nutty. It really is neuroscience. I truly believe that it has something to do with their limbic brain. I really believe that some people’s limbic brain dominates more than others. Our limbic brain controls all our emotions and it causes us to be irrational. Our limbic brain goes into action when we’re ecstatic, frightened, when we’re having sex. I really believe that if a neuroscientist examined the brain of somebody who identified as a conservative, they would find it’s wired differently.”
It’s all clear now. Political views are caused by defective organic neurological disorder! Perhaps we should get the AMA to list conservatism as a mental illness. Wow, I never knew! According to her definition this is a disorder or disability; Ms. Garafolo should, as a good and proud Liberal, fight for government sponsored disability and treatment for Conservatism.
Well, if talking out of ones ass were an Olympic Sport, Ms.Garafolo would be the Michael Phelps of the sport.
Apparently Ms. Garafolo feels that anyone who differs from her political stance is mentally defective. Elitist, narcissistic, and ignorant, are the labels I would attach to the petite, troll like Ms. Garafolo. She fails to see that it was conservative values that kept her clothed fed and provided for in her childhood; yeah she’s “open-minded”, “pluralistic” and “well adjusted”.
Can anyone who spews this kind of vitriol be considered enlighten or intelligent?
Not in my book, and for me that’s the one that counts.
File Janeane Garafolo under “Just another ignorant left wing ideologue.” Neuroscience indeed.
It amazes me that there is so much litigation when the liberties and rights are spelled out so clearly in our Constitution. I am aware of people calling themselves atheists screaming about how they want “God” removed from our money etc. because it offends them. I’m sorry, as far as I can tell, no where is it written or implied that we have the right to be free from being offended or to be free from others exercising their religious beliefs. As an atheist I am of the opinion that these people are not atheists (someone who doesn’t believe in the existence of God or gods) but they are Anti-theists, they hate religion and have contempt for those who believe in God.
Under the Bill of Rights we are granted the right to free exercise of religion. More specifically we are granted the right that Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Looking at the first Amendment I wonder how a school allowing a moment or several minutes of reflection violates the principles of the First Amendment. The idea of separation of church and state, again as far as I can grasp, only applies to the making of laws regarding the establishment of, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; so how does a moment of quiet reflection in school, public or not, violate the spirit of the First Amendment?
Also, while we’re at it, the much debated 2nd Amendment states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Notice the words “a free State”? A disarmed people are subject to tyranny and are unprotected. Our forefathers understood this, why can’t the anti gunners? “The people” as intended in the constitution means individuals, not the Government as some would have you believe. Look at the Fourth Amendment which uses the same language “The right of the people to be secure…” the term “the people” means you and me as individuals. Ask yourself this: Is it better to endure the occasional misuse of a firearm by an individual or individuals and to punish those individuals who commit crimes with firearms; or is it better to subject an entire nation to the potential of tyranny and oppression? Since when has prohibition of anything ever stopped those who want to use the prohibited items for illegal purposes from getting those items? If anything it creates a criminal underground market and increases the danger to society. Think about that!
Let’s get back to basics and re-establish this country as a land of liberty!
After 47 years on this planet; after serving in the United States Marine Corps from 1979 to 1983; after joining because Iranian radicals held American citizens hostage; after spending a career in Law enforcement; I can say I am a true Liberal.
Allow me to explain: I believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I am an atheist but I respect the rights of others to believe and worship to whatever extent makes them better individuals and citizens. I support equal rights under the law for all Americans regardless of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or political opinion.
We do have, as citizens of this country responsibility for our part. We cannot expect the Federal Government to take care of us simply based on our existence. We are given opportunity; failing to act on that gift ought not to make us wards of the state. The government is not your parent. If you don’t save, or sacrifice, or work, why should you be given anything?
During the 2008 election cycle I found the voices of Sandra Bernhardt, Jenine Garafolo, Margaret Cho, Rossane Barr and Doug Stanhope ignorant, disgusting, unfunny, pitiful and reprobate. Not for their political views but because they lack the ability to express their politics without hatred and vulgarity. Sarah Palin offends them because she differs politically, and morally. Why not build up the candidate that you support rather than degrade a woman who chooses to do what she felt was right for her. That’s a display of strength, not weakness. These individuals so lacked the intellectual ability to articulate their point that they spewed nothing but vulgar hatred in response to someone who differed from their ideology.
“Pro choice” means supporting choice in determining reproductive decisions. To me this means supporting those who choose to bring pregnancies to full term as well as those who choose for personal or medical reasons to terminate the pregnancy. This doesn’t appear to be the case for “Liberals”. For “Liberals” it means only supporting those who choose to terminate pregnancy. For “Liberals” it seems that abortion is the only choice they support. Calling themselves “pro-choice” is intellectually dishonest; they ought to call themselves “pro-abortion” because that is the accurate label. As a point of interest “Liberals” are often anti-gun and pro-abortion and anti-death penalty.
Conservatives can be equally dichotomous, being pro-life and pro-gun and death penalty. How is that conservative? Well I’m ready for the change and I hope it’s good.
Intolerance is the enemy. The finest of the founding principles of America are based on tolerance. We have a “Bill of Rights” not a “Bill of Exclusions”.
It seems apparent that two of the driving forces behind violent conflict and oppression are the concepts of fundamentalist ideology and intolerance. When belief in a cause, movement, race or religion becomes so strong and focused that a group believes it is the only acceptable existence for all, that group becomes a dangerous entity. Anyone not adhering to the beliefs of such a group is viewed as a threat and they become an enemy, less than human; they become disposable. This is the psychological process that allows us to kill other human beings. Think about the people you marginalize because they are a threat to your way of life. I don’t know that there is or can be an answer to this problem.
On one side, as a benevolent society we don’t want to harm the civilian population of our political or ideological enemies. On the other hand it is from the civilian population that the military, political, and ideological support springs. How can you subdue an enemy if you don’t defeat the ideology that fuels its existence? It is the nature of some men to strike out at those they feel are responsible for their lack of self worth or anyone they perceive as a threat. This is visible in our own society when we see people burst from the confines of acceptable behavior and wipe out former spouses, co-workers or even a stranger in traffic. On an individual basis we view this as an aberration, but the feeling is much more prevalent than one might expect. Imagine if this happens in a group of people; imagine the harm they are able to justify, the ideology in the name of their oppression. We only have to look to Nazi Germany to see this on a national scale.
The fundamentalist Islamic world is intolerant of anything non-Muslim. This is of great concern because they believe that the supreme force of human existence, God, supports their cause. They believe that this divine support makes their cause righteous and it marginalizes all non-Muslims as infidels. While there are many moderate Muslims, it seems they are more than willing to turn a blind eye to atrocities committed by the fundamentalists against Infidels because the infidel is outside the grace of God; they are reprobate. As insane as this might sound we non-Muslims are viewed as a threat to all things sacred to fundamentalist Islam. So they have made us their enemy and we have only two choices, passively submit to their ideology or fight to defend ourselves from their attacks.
If we choose to defend ourselves, we must accept that in a war even the innocent may die and develop a stomach for doing what it takes to win a war. The idea that war can be waged without civilian casualties is a ridiculous notion. In World War II civilian members of my own family were killed in British and American bombings of Germany. The price for your government and or ideology and support of it is that you may be a casualty of a war against that ideology and or government. After all can any government or ideology exist without the support of its populace?
Unfortunately mankind is not ready to “Just get along.” And war is an unfortunate byproduct of ideology. As Sherman said before burning Atlanta, “…War is cruelty…” there is no way to make it pleasant; and the more unpleasant it is, the more likely a speedy resolution is.
Mike Lupica of the New York Daily News is another Palin hating, Obama loving Liberal masquerading as a journalist. His effort to turn the death of a New York City Narcotics Officer and National Guardsman Deon Taylor into an anti Palin political statement is another sickening example of the fecal smearing pro-Obama/Biden, anti-McCain/Palin propaganda perpetrated in the Liberal slanted press. Instead of reporting on the facts of Officer Taylor’s service and death as an American hero, Lupica instead used Taylor’s sacrifice to further his own political view by attempting to imply that Governor Palin fails to recognize that heroes exist in the City of New York because of her statements about small town patriotism and pro-American sentiment. He didn’t approach Governor Palin with a question, he simply sat down at his key board and wrote what he thought might be clever and critical of Governor Palin whom he obviously despises.
Based on Governor Palin’s comment “We believe the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all you hardworking, very patriotic, um, very pro-America areas of this great country … those who are protecting us in uniform. Those who are protecting the virtues of freedom.” Lupica asserts that Governor Palin somehow thinks that there aren’t any patriotic Americans in New York City. This implication is at best a stretch. One can believe those things about small town America and still believe that there are patriotic Americans in other areas of America both rural and metropolitan. She was simply speaking specifically to the sacrifices and patriotism of those small town people in a positive way and said nothing negative about New York or New Yorkers as one might infer from Lupica’s piece.
I must have missed Lupica’s criticism of Senator Obama when he said “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” when speaking of rural Pennsylvanians. Obama did say exactly that. Obama would later try to qualify these comments, perhaps because one of his handlers pointed out that he sounded like he was an elitist Liberal from Chicago. Perhaps the reason that I missed that criticism from Lupica is because it never happened.
Let me state for the record as a former police officer and United States Marine; I believe that heroes and patriots exist in every corner of America and I find it disgusting that a partisan filth mongers like Lupica used the death of Deon Taylor to try to make a political point!
Having written this, I suppose, according to the journalistic standards of New York Daily News I now qualify as journalist.
Mike Lupica, you and your “News” paper suck.