Time for Thorns

After hearing Judge Andrew Napolitano on FOX,  I went looking for his Wall Street Journal article,   which is here.

Don’t let your eyes glaze over at the mention of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.    This is the money quote:    “Congress refuses to keep commerce regular when the commercial activity is the sale of insurance,  but claims it can regulate the removal of a person’s appendix because that constitutes interstate commerce.”

The Congressional attitude has long been to ignore the Constitution and let the courts deal with it,   but to my mind,  that is violating their oath of office.   Even worse,   many courts seem unwilling or unable to follow the Constitution,  which has led to some stupendously wrong rulings.    In particular I’m thinking of the eminent domain case,  Kelo v. City of New London,  though you could certainly add the displacement of secured creditors  in the recent GM and Chrysler bankruptcies.

Let this be one more arrow in your quiver of objections!

There are a number of things to concern  us about Obama’s nominee.  For starters, the New Haven firefighters case  which is now before the Supreme Court  is there because she and her panel  tried to bury the firefighters’ claims and to prevent en banc and Supreme Court review of them.    Judge Cabranes,  a fellow Clinton appointee,  is the one who called her on it,  and passed it up for review.   Considering that she has a  60% reversal rate,  it’s likely she’ll be reversed again.

Of special interest to me is her view that the Supreme Court ruled wrongly in the District of Columbia gun case.    She doesn’t believe the Second Amendment confers a right to be armed to any citizen and simply ignores the Supreme’s reasoning.   That’s  at odds with her  statement from a 1997 confirmation hearing:   “I don’t believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance.   It says what it says.   We should do honor to it.”

I imagine Obama would appoint  himself if he thought he could get away with it.    Sotomayor’s worldview is like his own.    They are both convinced they are far smarter than anyone else they deal with.  They both find the Constitution an inconvenient obstacle to organizing  society according to their vision.    They both claim to favor the rule of law,  while ignoring it whenever it suits them to do so.    Like Obama,   Sotomayor believes she is  simply better than  anyone else,  that her particular life story confirms this and should shield her from criticism   — a peculiar form of self-deception  liberals often engage in.

They believe the purpose of the judiciary should be redistributive and social justice,  and to achieve  those aims,  they feel it their right — indeed, their duty — to act accordingly.   As a result,  they have both violated every oath of office they have ever taken on a near daily basis.

She doesn’t believe that costs should be considered in environmental matters,  which matches Obama’s thinking.   She also wasn’t Bush 41’s  pick,  as explained at the top of the second page of this column from Politico.    The White House has posted her Princeton yearbook photo, complete with a quote from Norman Thomas,  the former Socialist-party presidential candidate.    Did they not know who Thomas was,  or just consider him mainstream?

If you’re wondering how we got from freedom to socialism,  Walter Williams has a grand column on ignoring the Constitution.

And James Lewis has a brain-rattling piece on the greed of socialism, here.

Meanwhile,  the House is debating a bill giving District of Columbia residents voting representation in Congress, d espite the fact that it isn’t a State,  and the Constitution clearly says “the several States”.   D.C.  residents already get back $5 for every $1 they pay in taxes,  so the Founders were perfectly correct in calculating that a “state” acting as the seat of government would have an inordinate amount of influence.    Which is exactly what Democrats want,  of course,  and a Republican is helping them.    Time to check in with Specter,  Collins and Snowe to see if they’ll continue their traitorous behavior.

It seems His Oneness couldn’t handle the bust of Winston Churchill overlooking his destruction of America.

I expect Obama would prefer Stalin,  or perhaps Uncle Fidel,  but will probably pick Lincoln,  since he views him as a great president,  not as the man responsible for the first gross breach of the Constitution.

Obama, probably unwittingly, gave us a warning by using the Lincoln Bible at his inauguration.  The Great Emancipator freed slaves only in those states which he had no jurisdiction over, and  simply ignored the Constitutuion when it suited him to do so.  His Oneness is certainly up to the task of shredding what remains of that venerable document.

Walter Williams tells us why modeling a presidency after Lincoln’s isn’t the best move:

http://wnd.com.nyud.net:8090/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86634

The Supremes have made it official.  You need no longer be a natural born citizen of the US to serve as President.  They were insufficiently interested to even look at the case.

Is it possible that none of them knew that FactCheck.org is run by Obama buddies, and that they, and only they have seen and handled the original certification of live birth which Obama’s campaign claimed was a birth certificate?  Is it possible they all think it perfectly normal for someone to spend thousands of dollars avoiding producing the one piece of paper which would have ended all the discussions and lawsuits?

As a friend says, I was born at night, but not last night.  We will probably never know the truth now, but there will be some very interesting lawsuits filed next year after Pres. Obama signs legislation into law.

http://www.chicagotribune.com.nyud.net:8090/news/nationworld/chi-obama-birth-certificate1dec08,0,7258812.story

How many times have you heard Obama use the word “win” in connection with Iraq, unaccompanied by “can’t”?

Have you ever heard Obama say judges should simply follow the law?  How many photos have you seen of him surrounded by police and members of the military?

How often have you heard him deny his position on Born-Alive legislation, even after National Right to Life published the Illinois Senate committee documents proving that he has lied?   How frequently has  he claimed to  support the individual right to own firearms, while also saying DC’s effective ban of guns is constitutional?

Does it strike you as dangerous that the Democratic ticket is composed of two men who both claim to have taught constitutional law, yet neither seems cognizant of the plain meaning of our Constitution, much less be inclined to abide by it?

How many of you are tired of being told that allowing the government to take more of your money is patriotic, and that wanting to keep more of what you have earned is selfish?

How many of you don’t care what religion someone is, but find it incomprehensible that a Christian could spend 20 years listening to gussied-up Marxist cant, since Marxism is the  antithesis  of  Christianity?

How many of you think Obama’s long and deep connections to ACORN and its associated groups is accidental?  How many of you think the sheer number of radicals Obama has associated with most of his life tells us nothing about his own views?

How many of you think the election is already being stolen?