Constitutional Fundamentalists?

It seems that every time the press gets the Republican presidential candidates together they ask them if they believe every word in the Bible. I think that we need to ask the Democrat candidates if they believe every word in the Constitution.

Broken Promises

The Constitution is the document which created our federal government and supposedly empowers and constrains it. It is a covenant between the Government and the People. A fixed point of reference. Changes occur through the intentionally slow, difficult process of amendment. That is the only evolutionary process permitted. There are no penumbras or emanations. Announcements of the Supreme Court or legislation do not alter its fundamental fabric. Or at least, they are not supposed to. These bodies are creations of the Constitution and subordinate to it. That which is created is never greater than the creator. Everything the federal government does is supposed to be directly traceable to specific empowering language in Article 2, Section 8, or one of the amendments. Not some vague, ambiguous Supreme Court interpretation of the infamous Commerce Clause. Without a fixed point of reference we the People have no guarantee of our freedoms and liberties. If the federal government is not constrained by the Constitution then it is really constrained by nothing other than the capricious whims of maniacal politicians. That makes one shudder. Anarchy and tyranny by any other name would smell just as foul. I contend that the federal government has broken its covenant with the American People. It has jettisoned the Constitution and much of what it now engages in is de facto extra-constitutional; thus unauthorized and illegal. Sadly, anyone who points this out is laughed at and dismissed as a throw-back hick. I doubt the Framers what have appreciated such a label.
For example, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings was recently interviewed by Human Events reporter Terence Jeffrey, as reported in the November, 2007 edition of Imprimis. “ Mr. Jeffrey asked her is she could ‘point to language in the Constitution that authorized the federal government to have a Department of Education.’ Her reply shows that she knew the bearing of the inquiry: ‘I think we had come to an understanding, at least, of the reality of Washington and the flat world, if you will, that the Department of Education was not going to be abolished, and we were going to invest in our nation’s neediest students.’ Mr. Jeffrey persisted: ‘It is one thing to say that the political reality is we are not going to abolish the federal Department of Education, but can you seriously point to where the Framers actually intended the Constitution to authorize a Department of Education?’ The Secretary replied: ‘I can’t point to it one way or the other. I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I’ll look into it for you, Terry.’ Mr. Jeffrey reports that he did not get his answer. This is the Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, sworn to uphold the Constitution in the exercise of her office.”
Well, I’m no constitutional scholar either, but I can read it. The beauty of the document is that it is written so that nearly anyone can read and understand it. It means exactly what it says. Let me help you Madam Secretary, there is no authorizing language in the Constitution for a federal Department of Education, and thus your department is truly illegal, short of an amendment. And yes, it may some day be abolished, as it should. Education is truly a local function.
So, if the federal government is not required to abide by the letter of the Constitution are we the people required to abide by laws of the federal government when they exceed its constitutional authority? What power do we have to enforce the Constitution upon the federal government? All three branches are in it together. We can’t elect enough good people fast enough to make any substantive changes.
One if by land, two if by sea.

Follow the Yellow Brick Road

So the Aussies finally drank the kool-aid and took the hard-left turn. Frankly, I’m surprised it took them this long.
Taking the liberal tack is really the effortless, gutless choice. It requires no intellectual heavy lifting. As long as it feels right and you think that you are helping out the facts are irrelevant. Good intentions, not results are the yardstick for success. Just look at the War on Poverty beginning in the 1960's in the U.S.A. Before this war most black families were intact and pillars of family and faith. With progressive welfare policies and trillions of dollars we succeeded in decimating black society. Thousands of young black men have died in their youth, lying in pools of their own blood on inner-city streets. Millions of babies have been aborted and millions born into impoverished single-mother 'families.' Generations have been locked into this cycle of poverty, misery and death. But these facts don't sway the liberal mind. They meant to help and thought that they were, so they feel oh so good about themselves. The actual results be hanged. Maybe we just need more money and more time. Liberalism is so easy. As Ronald Reagan remarked, it's born of a good heart and a misguided mind. The liberal looks so glamorous in the beginning, but the conservative is not vindicated until the end when no one is watching and no one remembers the liberal way back at the start. The liberal has since moved on to the next popular issue.
So, signing the Kyoto Protocols on global warming and pulling out of Iraq are now the top issues defining the Australian political scene. Well, that puts them in line with all of the other clueless, non-productive countries of the West. If the United States takes that tack next year who will be left to pull our collective chestnuts out of the fire when the insane Muslim throat slashers start pouring over our non-existent borders? Stalin couldn’t have hoped to pull this off so well. Without a shot being fired we go out with a whimper not a bang. Something about giving us enough rope. Ah well, just listen to the wizard and everything will be OK.

I Spy

Illegal alien and spy Nada Prouty got 6-12 months for stealing FBI and CIA secrets and passing them on to God knows who. Don't we execute spies? Our Federal Government is going to get all of our throats sliced. We must secure our borders and kick out these illegal infiltrators. We must replace our elected representatives and judges with people who understand the threat that we face and are willing to deal harshly with it. It is not pretty work, but the consequences of doing virtually nothing are nothing short of national suicide.

Money for Nothin' and Chicks for Free

Liberals will always have an easier time garnering undecided and new voters because they offer something for nothing. Conservatives won't typically do that. This appeal is particularly seductive to the lower socio-economic classes and those with less education. Just look at the LOTTO mentality in this country. Lotteries are steep regressive taxes on the lower classes. The sad eventuality is that the siren song of the liberals actually turns out to be nothing for something.