It’s Not Over Yet

Author: Aaron

Liberals all over the country are rejoicing, they are claiming the election has already been won and have begun to become even more ridiculous with their dream of a super liberal majority achieved. Even the left wing biased media is declaring Obama the winner, Just the other day the New Mexico Sun-News declared Barack Obama the winner, claiming the wanted to be the first paper in the country to have it in writing.  Cmon, haven’t they ever heard Yogi Berra say “it aint over till its over”!

The McCain campaign is hard at work enlisting undecided voters to vote for the McCain – Palin tickets, and polls are saying the effort is working.  We must tell our friends and family that the race is not over yet, and nothing will be decided before November 4th.  If you find yourself being hassled by Obama supporters just simply tell them were down, but were not out. If you have any friends that are undecided, I ask you to please inform them with three simple fact about electing Senator Obama.

1. As President of the United States, before you take office you must “preserve, protect and defend the constitution”.  Senator Obama made a remark in 2001 claiming that “[ The Supreme Court] didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. (Under Chief Justice Earl Warren)”.  How can Senator Obama take an oath to defend and protect something that he thinks is inherently wrong?

2. Barack Obama’s economic policy will cripple our nation.  During time of economic hardship The United States government must be encouraging large corporations and small business to hire more employees, not cut more employees because their taxes are too high.  Obama’s plan not only will cause more unemployment in the country but it will cause for a cessation of the middle class of America.  The middle class will no longer be able to afford the everyday necessities that are still affordable.  When Barack Obama say’s he is going to tax corporations that means Wal Mart, Target, Costco and any other place where you buy food, clothes or pretty much anything.  It won’t make a difference if Obama doesn’t raise your taxes because you will be paying off the new tax that is given to the companies.

3. Barack Obama want’s to spread the wealth.  He want’s to take the American taxpayers hard earned money and spread it as a government hand out.  This isn’t a tax cut or welfare, this is a check that will come from your pocket straight to the pocket of someone else.  Is that fair? Joe Biden said it was patriotic to pay taxes, really do you think so? Barack Obama has the nerve to tell Americans that they are too successful, how much of their hard earned money does he want to take away?

We are Americans we came to this country with the promise of “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” if that is taken away than we may as well not be called America.  If you think republicans have screwed stuff up over the last eight years and that is why your voting for Barack Obama, well forgive and forget.  OK, we made mistakes but everyone makes mistakes, I don’t want you, your children and grandchildren to suffer for years to come because of a grudge you have against republicans.  You think things are bad now? if Barack Obama is elected things will get worse, even Joe Biden said that if Obama is elected he will be tested just because he is elected.

I ask you, my fellow Americans to make the right decision and to persuade those undecided voters that are close to you.  Senator McCain said it best “Nothing is inevitable in America. We are the captains of our fate. We’re not a country that prefers nostalgia to optimism; a country that would rather go back than forward. We’re the world’s leader, and leaders don’t pine for the past and dread the future. We make the future better than the past. We don’t hide from history. We make history. That, my friends, is the essence of hope in America, hope built on courage, and faith in the values and principles that have made us great.”

And just remember, more than just an election is at stake this November.

Help Get Rob Andrews out of job he doesn’t want

Author: Rory B. Bellows

Republican Challenger Dale Glading has run a spirited campaign in New Jersey’s First Congressional District against Democrat Rob Andrews.  Andrews, if you remember, tried to challenge Frank Lautenberg in the Democratic Senate Primary and had old Frank smack him across the face with his depends.  Since then, Andrews was secretly put back on the ballot for Congress in a classic Democratic bait and switch after hiw wife had agreed to be the Democratic Nominee for Congress in the First District.

Today, Glading’s campaign issued two press releases.  The first describes how Andrews hasn’t even run a campaign and really doesn’t think he is the best man for the job anyway.  The second was an endorsement by a former MLB pitcher, Curt Schillin (Boo This Man!).  They list him as a Phillies great, but  he’ll always be a red sock, and I’m pretty sure he faked  bloody sock in the 2004 ALCS against the beloved Yankees.

Here are the texts of those press release’s:

To the constituents of District 1 in New Jersey,

 

 

It’s been 8 long years since I left Philadelphia but I can assure you I still have ties there, and New Jersey, and am rooting hard for the Phillies to seal the deal and win their first World Series in 28 years. I am writing this note for another reason though. I understand Dale Glading is in a tough fight as he tries to win election for the Congressional seat in District 1. I have not yet had the chance to meet Dale in person but I wanted to extend my support for Mr. Glading’s campaign in hopes, just like the Presidential election, the people voting on Tuesday will ‘look behind the rhetoric’ and see what the people involved are truly about. What does it say about us in this day and age when we have to look too long and too hard, and too far, to find people that are honest, have integrity, and are more interested in others well being than their own? Dale Glading is that man and that’s exactly the type of person we must have serving us for the next two years. I don’t care what the polls say, get out and vote. I firmly believe that if everyone that is registered takes a step back and looks past the ‘white noise’ our politics have become, they’ll see that Dale Glading is the kind of person who will change things that must be changed. We must take action, we must push our Government for more accountability, more honesty and most of all we must ensure that the tax dollars we are spending on our elected officials are being spent on people that will actually DO something while in office. People that will FORCE positive change and redirect the policies and legislation to benefit the voters first and foremost.

 

 

God Bless and Good Luck on Tuesday, “Congressman” Glading!

 

Curt Schilling

 

Rob Andrews Goes AWOL

 

Andrews refuses to actively campaign

while Glading breaks voter milestone

 

Barrington – Dale Glading, candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in New Jersey’s 1^st District, broke a key milestone in his campaign for Congress this week. Glading has met more than 25,000 targeted Democrats, independents, and uncommitted Republican voters since August 1.

 

In contrast, his opponent, U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews, an 18-year incumbent and member of the Washington elite, has held no known public campaign events, has not launched a campaign website, and has not made any effort to engage the voters.

 

When Andrews squirmed back into the race in September, his campaign manager claimed that Rob would take no votes for granted and would campaign vigorously. But, reminiscent of his wife’s non-existent, phantom campaign in the primary and summer months, Rob Andrews has done exactly the opposite.

 

To top it all off, Andrews has failed to appear at an astounding 40 percent of his agreed-to public appearances, including the Gloucester County Chamber of Commerce candidates’ forum and a digital town hall debate at Sterling High School.

 

“One has to ask the question: does Rob Andrews really want to be re-elected?” Glading inquired. “When he lost his Senate primary to Frank Lautenberg, he spent the next several months telling anyone who would ask that he wouldn’t return to Congress.”

 

“Rob Andrews even told an NJN reporter that he believed the best man for the job of representing the 1^st District was now someone other than him,” Glading continued. “And on that point, we are in total agreement.”

 

“Then Rob slid back into the race at the last minute, affirmed by voice vote in a closed-door session,” Glading added. “Since then, he has not campaigned and he has refused to appear at several scheduled forums and events.”

 

“Is Rob Andrews simply tired of being our congressman?” Glading asked. “It certainly seems so. Since 1997 he has done nothing but use his congressional seat to run for higher office, and it looks like this year his total lack of concern for his constituents has reached epidemic proportions.”

 

“By contrast, I have spent the past 10 months meeting voters and listening to their concerns,” Glading concluded. “If Rob Andrews’ real wish is to return to private life, the voters of the 1^st District and me are happy to oblige him this November 4^th.”

 

Biden lets the cat out of the bag on taxes

Author: Rory B. Bellows

this is going to end up as an across the board tax increase.  The looters are at the helm of the ship of state and the barbarians are at the gate.

Obama’s “Redistribution” Constitution

Taken from the Wall Street Journal

“One of the great unappreciated stories of the past eight years is how thoroughly Senate Democrats thwarted efforts by President Bush to appoint judges to the lower federal courts.

Consider the most important lower federal court in the country: the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In his two terms as president, Ronald Reagan appointed eight judges, an average of one a year, to this court. They included Robert Bork, Antonin Scalia, Kenneth Starr, Larry Silberman, Stephen Williams, James Buckley, Douglas Ginsburg and David Sentelle. In his two terms, George W. Bush was able to name only four: John Roberts, Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith and Brett Kavanaugh.

Although two seats on this court are vacant, Bush nominee Peter Keisler has been denied even a committee vote for two years. If Barack Obama wins the presidency, he will almost certainly fill those two vacant seats, the seats of two older Clinton appointees who will retire, and most likely the seats of four older Reagan and George H.W. Bush appointees who may retire as well.

The net result is that the legal left will once again have a majority on the nation’s most important regulatory court of appeals.

The balance will shift as well on almost all of the 12 other federal appeals courts. Nine of the 13 will probably swing to the left if Mr. Obama is elected (not counting the Ninth Circuit, which the left solidly controls today). Circuit majorities are likely at stake in this presidential election for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal. That includes the federal appeals courts for New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia and virtually every other major center of finance in the country.

On the Supreme Court, six of the current nine justices will be 70 years old or older on January 20, 2009. There is a widespread expectation that the next president could make four appointments in just his first term, with maybe two more in a second term. Here too we are poised for heavy change.

These numbers ought to raise serious concern because of Mr. Obama’s extreme left-wing views about the role of judges. He believes — and he is quite open about this — that judges ought to decide cases in light of the empathy they ought to feel for the little guy in any lawsuit.

Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: “[W]e need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

On this view, plaintiffs should usually win against defendants in civil cases; criminals in cases against the police; consumers, employees and stockholders in suits brought against corporations; and citizens in suits brought against the government. Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.

In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society,” and “to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”

He also noted that the Court “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.” That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government — and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.

This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a “tax cut” to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth? Perhaps the candidate ought to be asked to answer these questions before the election rather than after.

Every new federal judge has been required by federal law to take an oath of office in which he swears that he will “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” Mr. Obama’s emphasis on empathy in essence requires the appointment of judges committed in advance to violating this oath. To the traditional view of justice as a blindfolded person weighing legal claims fairly on a scale, he wants to tear the blindfold off, so the judge can rule for the party he empathizes with most.

The legal left wants Americans to imagine that the federal courts are very right-wing now, and that Mr. Obama will merely stem some great right-wing federal judicial tide. The reality is completely different. The federal courts hang in the balance, and it is the left which is poised to capture them.

A whole generation of Americans has come of age since the nation experienced the bad judicial appointments and foolish economic and regulatory policy of the Johnson and Carter administrations. If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food.

Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election. We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation’s courtrooms.”

Mr. Calabresi is a co-founder of the Federalist Society and a professor of law at Northwestern University.

CWA Claims Corzine E-mails May Indicate Illegal Actions

Author: Aaron

In the ongoing battle over email-gate between Jon Corzine and Karla Katz the CWA stepped in today and claimed that the governor may have performed illegal activity.  If Corzine and Katz worked on negotiations on behalf of the CWA than illegal action took place.

The following is from the New Jersey Republican State Committee:

“III.  It Would Have Been Unlawful for the Governor to Engage in Collective Negotiations with an Individual who was not Authorized to Negotiate on Behalf of CWA

If through an exchange of email correspondence Katz and the Governor engaged in collective negotiations, their conduct would have undermined the National Union’s status as the exclusive majority representative in violation of the ERRA” [Employer Employee Relations Act N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq.]  Appellate Division Brief on Behalf of The Communications Workers of America , AFL-CIO and CWA Local 1034, Page 13

New Jersey Republican State Chairman Tom Wilson issued the following statement today:

“For more than a year, Governor Corzine has refused to allow the people to decide for ourselves whether or not his backchannel communication with Carla Katz compromised his duty to represent only the interests of the taxpayers.

Yesterday, the Communications Workers of America national leadership raised the prospect that Corzine broke the law if he and Katz engaged in any kind of contact that amounts to negotiations. Carla Katz continues to maintain that she and Corzine were engaged in collective negotiations. Frankly, the Governor’s public assurances that ‘all bargaining was done at the bargaining table’ aren’t enough. The Governor needs to stop hiding behind lawyers and comply immediately with the court order directing him to disclose the communications with Katz. This is no longer simply a question of whether Corzine’s personal relationship with Katz compromised his duty to the citizens, it is now also a question of whether or not Corzine broke the law. That’s a very serious question and the public has a right to know whether or not Jon Corzine engaged in illegal conduct.”

CWA Brief

John Adler Trades Endorsements for Favors

Taken From NJGOP.ORG:

Excerpts from a taped phone conversation between New Jersey Outdoor Alliance (NJOA) Chairman, Anthony Mauro, and another individual who taped the conversation, expose the seedy, underside of New Jersey politics, and detail how Senator Adler and Trenton insiders like Speaker Joe Roberts and Senate President Dick Codey traded promises of legislative favors to secure Adler endorsements in the 3rd Congressional District race this year.

Job-creating businessman and decorated combat veteran Chris Myers says the recording “provides a glimpse into how Trenton works when you’re connected, and how the concerns of ordinary taxpayers and citizens get ignored.”

Myers said Adler’s endorsement by the NJOA was particularly puzzling because of Adler’s long history of being anti-hunting and anti-2nd Amendment in Trenton . Adler actually sponsored legislation to ban the black bear hunt, sponsored legislation to ban handgun ownership by everyone other than “authorized persons” like law enforcement and the military, or people who could prove a “justifiable need,” and received an “F” grade from the National Rifle Association in this congressional race. (see proof below)

“One listen to the tape, and it all becomes crystal clear,” said Myers, who pointed out he had publicly suspected Adler and other Trenton insiders of rigging endorsements, but lacked hard proof until now. “Adler and his Trenton pals traded legislative access and action for endorsements and it’s a disgrace. I wonder how the rank and file members of the New Jersey Outdoor Alliance feel knowing they were sold out, and told to vote for someone who has been historically opposed to the issues they hold most dear.”

“John Adler raised property taxes 88% in just one year, he raised state taxes 43 times since 2002, he wrecked the state’s economy, he directed tax dollars to the employers of his family and friends from a Trenton slush fund, and now we have proof that he’s trading promises of access and votes in Trenton for endorsements in his congressional race,” said Myers. “Voters needs to ask themselves one question before they vote on Election Day: If John Adler created the mess in Trenton – and what a mess it is – how can he be trusted to fix the mess in Washington .”

The most damning excerpt, spoken by NJOA Chairman Anthony Mauro to the individual who taped the conversation, is transcribed below. It speaks for itself.

Clip One (Click To Listen to Tape)

“The moment that we endorsed Senator Adler, the doors started opening in Trenton . We got meetings with Speaker Roberts. We got acknowledgment from Senate President Codey. Those are the two people that allow any bill that’s ever going to be considered in Trenton – it’s got to go through those two people. Automatically we get access to them, doors open…and things start to work behind the scenes.”

Clip Two (Click To Listen to Tape)
“If Senator Adler wins…he goes to Washington, DC and although now he has little to do with our issues, he is very influential to the people in Trenton who are going to turn to him to look for money from various different sources that the state needs…Senator Adler is grateful to us, so he is going to make sure that we are taken care of here in New Jersey, in Trenton. Whoever replaces Senator Adler is going to be told by Senator Adler and other politicians in South Jersey that the NJOA is your friend and you work with the NJOA. So now we have the Senator in New Jersey who will replace Senator Adler, who is for the lack of a better word, kind of in our pocket, OK? And that’s New Jersey politics. Now let’s say for a moment, Senator Adler loses this race. OK? Senator Adler stays in New Jersey, had the backing of the NJOA, the doors in Trenton are open to us, he’s grateful to us and so we have someone working on our behalf.”

1996-97 NJ Legislative Session:
Adler was the Prime sponsor of S-351, which would have restricted the sale, importation, possession and carrying of handguns except by certain “authorized persons” like law enforcement or members of the military, or those who could prove a “justifiable need.”

1998-99 NJ Legislative Session:
Adler was the Prime sponsor of S-514, which would have statutorily banned the hunting of black bears and overturned the judgment of the Fish and Game Council, which has the authority, subject to the oversight of the DEP Commissioner, to establish a black bear season.

National Rifle Association’s Endorsement of Chirs Myers

Barack Ochavez

Author: Rory B. Bellows

Here is Barack Ochavez, in all his Marxist glory, talking about the best ways to redistribute wealth.

This idea Palin is doing McCain harm by going “off message” is rich

Author: Rory B. Bellows

This is the latest excuse offered up by the dreadful McCain “aides”. Sure. That McCain “message” is going over about as well as a fart in church. McCain is on the verge of being blown out of the water by a Marxist who is friends with terrorists and deviating from a message that has the GOP on the verge of one of the great electoral embarrassments in history is somehow a bad thing?

If it never occurred to the folks running the McCain campaign, and I use the word campaign loosely, that the problem with the message of the McCain campaign is the candidate himself then I don’t know what to say. The message from McCain has been the political equivalent of a drunk trying to walk home after last call.

Palin rightly ses this for the disaster that it is and doesn’t want to pick up the stench of the John McCain GOP so she is well positioned for future elections. I say good for her.

Do Something!

Author: Rory B. Bellows

Get out to work in the fifth district.  Make sure Scott Garrett wins re-relection.

All Those Registered by ACORN Should be Forced to Re-register

Author:  Aaron

As if registering Mickey Mouse to vote 1,000 times wasn’t loony enough, the liberal left is now attacking the right wing for their outrage at the group ACORN.  The Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now may just be one of the ideological and socialist activist group in America.  On top of standing against every true American value, ACORN has been illegally registering people to vote, including a 7 year old girl from New York over 70 times.  Now, a normal person would say that you must look into the group and see if this is a recurring theme.  And authorities have been investigating and in every state where ACORN exists voter fraud has been found.  That is fact, there is absolutely no way of getting around it,  ACORN illegally registers people to vote end of discussion.

However to the liberal left, fact is not enough instead people like Rachel Maddow and groups like Move On.org have called the accusations against ACORN “a modern day witch hunt”  apparently the ultra left believes that ACORN is an amazing group that only tries to help those that are most in need.  The liberal left instead of acknowledging that a wrong has been done, tries to accuse the Republican party of trying to block people from voting.

Note to liberals: Conservatives in America usually believe in the constitution and would never try to thwart someone from voting.  However if voter fraud is omnipresent with thousands of  voter registration forms that a group filled out, that group should have their right of registering people to vote revoked and everyone that registered with ACORN should be forced to register again.  That would be the only true and fair way to assure the American pubic that every vote counts, and that no vote counts more than anyone other vote.  It should also be required that photo ID is shown when one goes to vote.  If you need a photo driver’s license why should voters be exempt from proving they are the person they claim to be?

The liberal left must understand that this is not an attempt to block people from voting, it is merely a procedure that is necessary in order to guarantee a fair election.

The Obama people rally for theft

Author: Rory B. Bellows

You can only shake your head and wonder what happened to America. Sarah Palin was right: There are real Americans and fake Americans. The attendees of this rally, and the man they came to see, fall into the latter category.

“After eight years of Bush and McCain economics, the pie is shrinking, and what’s left of the pie has been eaten by millionaires and billionaires,” he declared. “Everyone here wants some pie.”

To that, the crowd struck up the chant, “We want pie! We want pie!”

The moochers came out in full force to see the looter.

John Corzine is out of his mind

Author: Rory B. Bellows

Excuse me while I roll on the floor and laugh about John Corzine’s proposed rescue plan for New Jersey. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, when the government says they are going to rescure you, lie down because you need rescuing.

Governor Santa Claus wants to give every buisness that hires a worker and keeps them on for a year $3,000. Where is this money coming from? If you guessed the over taxed businesses in the state who beause of oppressive taxes, a hostile business climate and a legislature that seeks to strangle the life out of any successful business, who can’t afford to hire any new workers, you guessed correctly. Businesses that can’t afford to hire new workers are going to have their wealth spread around so Governor Corzine can give other businesses a freebie so if the make even more money, Corzine and his pals in the legislature can steal it. Some bonus.

A better idea woul be to just eliminate the corporate tax and stop social engineering disgused as regulation and eliminate paid family leave.

Corzine also wants to spend $45 million to keep families facing foreclosure in their homes. Not for nothing, isn’t people buying homes they can’t afford a big reason why we are in this mess? No, we want to reward stupidity via redistribution of wealth. And you wonder why people are fleeing this state.

Clarence Thomas on how to read the constitution

Author: Rory B. Bellows

Check it out.

The following is an excerpt from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s Wriston Lecture to the Manhattan Institute last Thursday:

When John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address, “Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country,” we heard his words with ears that had been conditioned to receive this message and hearts that did not resist it. We heard it surrounded by fellow citizens who had known lives of sacrifice and hardships from war, the Great Depression and segregation. All around us seemed to ingest and echo his sentiment and his words. Our country and our principles were more important than our individual wants, and by discharging our responsibilities as citizens, neighbors, and students we would make our country better. It all made sense.

Today, we live in a far different environment. My generation, the self-indulgent “me” generation, has had a profound effect on much around us. Rarely do we hear a message of sacrifice — unless it is a justification for more taxation and transfers of wealth to others. Nor do we hear from leaders or politicians the message that there is something larger and more important than the government providing for all of our needs and wants — large and small. The message today seems more like: Ask not what you can do for yourselves or your country, but what your country must do for you.

This brings to mind the question that seems more explicit in informed discussions about political theory and implicit in shallow political speeches. What is the role of government? Or more to the point, what is the role of our government? Interestingly, this is the question that our framers answered more than 200 years ago when they declared our independence and adopted our written Constitution. They established the form of government that they trusted would be best to preserve liberty and allow a free people to prosper. And that it has done for over two centuries. Of course, there were major flaws such as the issue of slavery, which would eventually lead to a civil war and casualties of fellow citizens that dwarf those of any of the wars that our country has since been involved in.

Though we have amended the Constitution, we have not changed its structure or the core of the document itself. So what has changed? That is the question that I have asked myself and my law clerks countless times during my 17 years on the court.

As I have traveled across the country, I have been astounded just how many of our fellow citizens feel strongly about their constitutional rights but have no idea what they are, or for that matter, what the Constitution says. I am not suggesting that they become Constitutional scholars — whatever that means. I am suggesting, however, that if one feels strongly about his or her rights, it does make sense to know generally what the Constitution says about them. It is at least as easy to understand as a cell phone contract — and vastly more important.

The Declaration of Independence sets out the basic underlying principle of our Constitution. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . .”

The framers structured the Constitution to assure that our national government be by the consent of the people. To do this, they limited its powers. The national government was to be strong enough to protect us from each other and from foreign enemies, but not so strong as to tyrannize us. So, the framers structured the Constitution to limit the powers of the national government. Its powers were specifically enumerated; it was divided into three co-equal branches; and the powers not given to the national government remained with the states and the people. The relationship between the two political branches (the executive and the legislative) was to be somewhat contentious providing checks and balances, while frequent elections would assure some measure of accountability. And, the often divergent interests of the states and the national government provided further protection of liberty behind the shield of federalism. The third branch, and least dangerous branch, was not similarly constrained or hobbled.

Since Marbury v. Madison the federal judiciary has assumed the role of the interpreter and, now, final arbiter of our Constitution. But, what rules must judges follow in doing so? What informs, guides and limits our interpretation of the admittedly broad provisions of the Constitution? And, more directly, what restrains us from imposing our personal views and policy preferences on our fellow citizens under the guise of Constitutional interpretation?

To assure the independence of federal judges, the framers provided us with life tenure and an irreducible salary — though inflation has found a way around the latter. This independence, in turn, was to assure our neutrality and impartiality, which are at the very core of judging — and being a judge. Yet, this independence can also insulate a judge from accountability for venturing beyond the proper role of a judge. But, what exactly is the proper role of a judge? We must understand that before we can praise or criticize a judge. In every endeavor from economics to games there is some way to measure performance.

As important as our Constitution is, there is no one accepted way of interpreting it. Indeed, for some commentators, it seems that if they like or prefer a particular policy or conduct, then it must be constitutional; while the policies that they do not prefer or like are unconstitutional. Obviously, this approach cannot be right. But, it certainly is at the center of the process of selecting judges. It goes something like this. If a judge does not think that abortion is best as a matter of policy or personal opinion, then the thought is that he or she will find it unconstitutional; while the judge who thinks it is good policy will find it constitutional. Those who think this way often seem to believe that since this is the way they themselves think, everyone must be doing the same thing. In this sense, legal realism morphs into legal cynicism. Certainly this is no way to run a railroad, not to mention interpret the Constitution. . . .

Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution — try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up. No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores. To be sure, even the most conscientious effort to adhere to the original intent of the framers of our Constitution is flawed, as all methodologies and human institutions are; but at least originalism has the advantage of being legitimate and, I might add, impartial.

Where Is Grandpa Frank?

Author: Aaron

So Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama

Author: Rory B. Bellows

Another real profile in courage for our former Secretary of State. Endorsing Obama 2.5 weeks out from an elections he leads by a decent margin is just another example of the spine of steel that led Powell to resign from the Bush Administration rather than be the public face of a war he opposed.

Oh, wait. Well, he will get a few favorable editorials from the liberal intelligencia labeling him as a man of character and integrity.