Can The Tea Party Deliver On Election Day?

Joanne, I never questioned your education.  I'm not surprised to find that you're a law student, either.  Modern law students are not taught law the way that it was taught at our nation's founding (and the way that it was understood by our founders and drafters of the constitution). 

Prior to 1870, the cornerstone of American Law was William Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England".   I encourage you to pick it up from Amazon and give it a read.   Early American lawyers were taught the principles of Natural Law, which were absolute and unchanging. 

That all changed in 1870 with the introduction of the Case Study Method by Christopher Columbus Langdell at Harvard University.   An avid Darwinist, Langdell believed that there was no such thing as absolutes, and that the law should be constantly "evolving" with society, not based on fixed principles. 

Therefore, the only "absolute" was the precedent set by the last case decided on any given issue.  This gave constitutional interpretation and the law incredible fluidity.  No longer was the constitution to be considered set in stone (until amended by the people).  Now it could "evolve" as each judge saw fit - no vote of the people required. 

All you needed was to appoint judges who would pass down decisions which reinterpreted the constitution to "evolve" with modern times and circumstances, and all decisions from that point on would be based on that precedent.  Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives took this philosophy of a "living, breathing constitution" to the next level by taking the liberty of reinterpreting it in the other two branches. 

Our founders intended the constitution to be the basis of our laws.  Unfortunately, the Case Study Method has created a system in which the last decision of the last judge supercedes and overrides the constitution.   It has created an unaccountable oligarchy known as the Judiciary.   

Unfortunately, this will continue until American law students are actually taught to practice the law as it was intended by our founders.  Study the first century of American Supreme Court decisions, BEFORE Langdell, and I think you'll be surprised.

Rachel blogs at www.ThoughtsFromAConservativeMom.com ( http://www.ThoughtsFromAConservativeMom.com )

Tes they do -- it's called case law.

How you can make a blanket statement that progressives don't believe in the separation of powers is beyond me and it makes me sad that there are people who believe wholesale untruths like that.

And for what it's worth, I did just fine in my civics classes, my college courses in political science and my law school classes, thank you.  No need to insult my education.

Joanne, Judges don't MAKE laws.  That's not their role.  Again, their role is to INTERPRET the laws as they stand on the books.  Really, this isn't a very hard concept to understand! 

Every Judge who uses the Objectivist approach is, by definition, allowing his political leanings to influence his decisions, based on how he thinks the law needs to "evolve" to match current circumstances and issues.  THAT'S NOT HIS JOB!  That's the job of the LEGISLATURE.  Any high school senior in civics class should be able to understand this basic difference in the roles between the two branches.

Progressives honestly don't believe in the separation of powers.  They want judges to reinterpret the constitution so it can "evolve" into something the founders never intended, and current voters (and their representatives) haven't yet voted for.  They've turned the Supreme Court into an unaccountable oligarchy. 

And just because the House and Senate haven't USED the power of impeachment doesn't mean that it hasn't been warranted.  SCOTUS justices have been abusing the constitution for the better part of a century. 

Rachel blogs at www.ThoughtsFromAConservativeMom.com/ ( http://www.ThoughtsFromAConservativeMom.com/ )

Are you an attorney?  Because the Supreme Court IS the ultimate authority on the Constitution, though I must say in light of recent events I wish it wasn't.  Yes, SCOTUS justices can be impeached and convocted, but that doesn't change the law they make -- no lower court judges are the final interpreters of the Constitution and neither are the legislative or executive branches (no matter what George W. Bush and Dick Cheney believed).

And for reference, the one Supreme Court justice who was impeached?  The grounds were for allowing his political leanings to impact his court decisions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase

Sound like any other Justices we know?

Joanne Bambeger aka PunditMom ( http://www.punditmom.com )

Also at The Huffington Post ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joanne-bamberger )and MOMocrats ( http://momocrats.typepad.com )

I see you're forgetting who bequeathed Obama the massive debt in the first place.  Does anyone really think it could have been eliminated in a year?

Joanne Bamberger

aka PunditMom ( http://www.punditmom.com )

Also at The Huffington Post ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joanne-bamberger ), MOMocrats ( http://momocrats.typepad.com )

Shelley, the Supreme Court was not under a nefarious "conservative" monopoly during Roosevelt's term.  The Justices were interpreting the constitution the same way it had been interpreted since day one: by the principles of strict Constructivism.  Meaning it says what it means and means what it says, and judges aren't at liberty to "read into it". 

Roosevelts court-packing scheme was a controversy precisely because he wanted to change the way that the constitution was interpreted (as Woodrow Wilson endorsed), a new method called Objectivism.  This allowed Justices to re-interpret the laws in light of new, modern information or circumstances.  Sounds harmless, except that it is the job of the Legislative branch to rewrite the laws, not the Judiciary.  The Judiciary is to interpret the laws as they are on the books, nothing more.  If the people want to update or change the laws (or amend the constitution), they can do that through the Legislatiave branch.

In regards to the recent Supreme Court ruling, the 1st Amendment doesn't specify WHO gets freedom of speech (i.e. individuals, groups or corporations).  It merely says congress cannot pass laws abridging the freedom of speech- period.  So overturning an unconstitutional law was their job, and they did it.

You're right that only one Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached, but my point was that the Supreme Court was never meant to be the final word.  The PEOPLE are.

Rachel blogs at www.ThoughtsFromAConservativeMom.com/ ( http://www.ThoughtsFromAConservativeMom.com/ )

During the 80's the UK Conservatives decided that the state was not the best entity to regulate fairness and equality in society, and sold off many state funded programs such as the railways, telecoms, and utilities and threw them at the mercy of a free market. What happened? They were so costly to operate that they are nearly completley crippled and barely function. They became the most hated political party of the last 100 years in the UK. Today, the conservatives think that the Post Office could do with privatisation!

There is a reason we have a government. The free market is not the answer to everything - and certainly NOT to the healthcare question. The free market is what led to the banking crisis. Are we so shortsighted that we cannot learn a lesson that is barely in the history books??!!

You can learn how the recession in the UK is affecting my husband and I as we try to have a family in my blog: The American Baby Plan in London.

Leila Lacrosse http://leilalacrosse.livejournal.com/

"The Tea Partiers often dress in Revolutionary garb because they want to remind people what the American Revolution was all about..."

Smuggling?

Actually, the Supreme Court during Roosevelt, when the Social Security was first challenged, was conservative. That's why Roosevelt tried to redefine how Supreme Court justices were selected (biggest controversy during his tenure).

"Also, your statement that the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on the Constitution is incorrect.  The citizens of this nation are not subject to the tyranny of judges who redefine the constitution however they please.  Don't forget: we have a system of checks and balances.   The people's representatives in the House and the Senate have the power to impeach judges for abusing or incorrectly interpreting the constitution. "

There's only been one Supreme impeached (Chase), and this was when our country was young.

Judges are not impeached because some movement-of-the-moment gets all frothed and bothered. And they would never be impeached because they issued a judgment some folk disagree with. It is essential for the judiciary to be independent of both the legislative and executive branches. 

As for redefining the Constitution, I believe it was the conservative justices who recently defined Freedom of Speech to apply to corporations. 

Gena, it seems you are getting offended over statements that were never made.

I never said that "freedom" was "permitted".  You know as well as I that the Declaration of Independence embodied the truth that all men are created equal (and before we get our knickers in a twist over syntax, remember that "men", in literary tradition, refers to all of mankind, including women). 

The Founders understood the contradiction between slavery and the universal truths they were putting on paper.  Jefferson himself included a paragraph condemning slavery in the first paragraph, but it never got past the southern censors who refused to ratify it.  The trouble isn't that the Declaration and Constitution are flawed, but that corrupt men refused to live up to the universal truths which they themselves acknowledge were contained in them. 

It's been a long road, you're right.  And we are in a much better place now.  But it was a road to finally COMPLY with the truths the constitution and declaration embodied - not move AWAY from it. 

My statement regarding Marxism refers to the economic theories that Marx espoused, which are currently taught in universities: that capitalism is the source of inequality, and the solution is socialism (redistribution of wealth, Big Government programs, etc). 

Don't confuse economic theory with voting and women's rights.  They are separate issues.  Voting and women's rights were necessary movements to finally ensure that America lived up to the values espoused in the declaration and constitution.

Marxist economic theory is different.  It states that true "equality" means equal RESULTS, not equal OPPORTUNITY.   Therefore, if two people work hard and one has greater success than the other, it's "not fair", because the results aren't equal.  In this case, Marxism dictates that the state must MAKE things equal by taking from the one who has more and give it to the one who has less.  That's not "freedom".  It's state-sanctioned, legalized theft.  The "victim mentality" I refer to is one which says "I have a right to take from you (or have the government to do it on my behalf), because it's 'not fair' that you have more than me." 

True freedom means the liberty to succeed or fail on your own merits without government interference.  Nobody is guaranteed results, but they're free to try and follow their dreams, so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.   

Marxism, by it's very nature, infringes on the rights of others by confiscating their rightful property at the discretion of the state.  Any man or woman who is not permitted to keep what they have rightfully earned is not truly free.  They are enslaved to the state.

The same truth applies to dependence on the state.  Any man or woman who is permanently dependent on the state is no longer free. 

What proponents of the "Living Constitution" seek to do is empower the state to redistribute wealth along Marx's theory of economic equality, even though the constitution gives it no such power. 

Again, the reason the constitution restricts government in this area is for good reason: because it empowers government at the expense of individual liberty.

Charity is a wonderful thing.  Helping people get back on their feet is a noble enterprise.  But Socialism is not charity.  It is another form of slavery.  And slavery, as you expressed so well, completely contradicts both the letter and spirit of our founding documents. 

Rachel blogs at www.ThoughtsFromAConservativeMom.com/ ( http://www.ThoughtsFromAConservativeMom.com/ )

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.
William J. H. Boetcker, "Lincoln on Limitations", 1916

A 30-year-old man who lives in his mother's basement and depends on her to take care of him is not free.  He is still a dependent.  The same can be said for those living in dependence on government.   It's not always a bad thing, if it's merely a temporary setback on the way back to independence, but it's certainly wrong to make a lifestyle out of it, because one can never truly be free when one is dependent on others. 

Let’s look at the Socialist approach:  Instead of the 30-year-old living in Momma's basement, let's just take money from her check to pay his rent.  Then he can FEEL free and equal with his mom, but he truly isn't.  He's still dependent.  And now, she is no longer free, either.  Both are equally enslaved to government, just in different ways.  http://www.amazon.com/Uncle-Sams-Plantation-Govern... ( http://www.amazon.com/Uncle-Sams-Plantation-Govern... )

True freedom requires personal responsibility and the individual liberty to succeed or fail on your own merits. People should be free to work and live and create and earn a better standard of living for their families and keep what they earn, regardless sex or color. 

Rachel blogs at www.ThoughtsFromAConservativeMom.com/ ( http://www.ThoughtsFromAConservativeMom.com/ )

Well stated, Gena, as always.

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com ) and is the author of Off the Beaten (Subway) Track ( http://offthebeatensubwaytrack.com ).

You have gone one toke over the line. Freedom cannot be "Permitted" I am, by my existence, free. Governments, the American one included, can restrict who is and who is not a free person.

It took too damn long for awareness to come to America but it did happen. Counter to the intent of the founding fathers. We are better for that change. The Constitution is a living document, not dogma!

It is not a Marxists concept for a person not having to be sanctified by another person if you are worthy of being human and by what degree or measure.

It is not a Marxists concept for a woman, any woman to have a voice in her civic, political or private life.

Is America racists? Yes, parts of it is. Is there sexism? Yes, on both sides of the gender equation. Should we, for the sake of the Constitution, revoke and repeal all of the rights of non-white males in order to balance a budget?

You are not really saying this are you?

As to this victim mentality that you speak of, the words I want to use are so contrary to the spirit of BlogHer that I can't yet respond to that bit of hate bait.

If "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." does not include me then smoke this suck and let us be done with the pretense of a true representative government.

Oh, one more thing. Slavery in the past or today is bad. No matter what the reason or justification. Really, the justifiable oppression of people for political gain.

Sucky.

Gena Haskett is a BlogHer CE. Blogs:Out On The Stoop ( http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com ) and Create Video Notebook ( http://createvideonotebook.blogspot.com )

Karen, it might help to brush up on your history.  Many northern states permitted non-propertied whites and free blacks to vote, long before Lincoln.  Of course, the radical Marxists who teach in much of the university system (especially liberal arts) want to convince everyone that America is a racist, sexist, homophopic nation, because a victim mentality is a crucial element for motivating us humble "peasants" to demand Socialist reforms. http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34326

Secondly, the 3/5ths rule was designed to keep slave states from getting too much power and representation in the House of Representatives. 

If slaves were counted as a whole person for the purpose of representation in the House (adding more congressional districts and congressmen to represent them), all the slave states had to do was import more slaves in order to gain control of Congress (and hence, much of national policy).  

The founders didn't want slave states to have too much power.  I think that's a good thing, don't you?

The Tea Partiers often dress in Revolutionary garb because they want to remind people what the American Revolution was all about: declaring independence from intrusive government and over-taxation, the same things that they are protesting today. 

Rachel blogs at www.ThoughtsFromAConservativeMom.com/ ( http://www.ThoughtsFromAConservativeMom.com/ )

It’s not 1789. The country has evolved as has the original constitution which has been amended 24 times .
The original document referred to African- American slaves as 3/5 a person and was interpreted as granting political rights solely to white men of property.
When I see the Tea Party people dressed up in their revolutionary war costumes, I can’t help but wonder what message are they trying to send? Would they want to go back to the world of the founding fathers?
The good news is that most of the people are over 50, many in their 60’s and 70’s.  Younger people are so much less racist, sexist and homophobic than their grandparents’ generation. See my post It’s getting embarrassing to be an old white person ( http://www.the-next-stage.com/2009/10/its-getting-... )

at http://www.the-next-stage.com/2009/10/its-getting-...

Karen Bojar

http://www.the-next-stage.com/

The "General Welfare Clause", as it has often been called, has been use to excuse the unconstitutional expansion of federal powers for years.  But "general welfare" refers to equal benefits for all parties. 

For instance, when the federal government creates a branch of the military, everyone benefits equally from the protection provided by the Military.  Entitlement programs, however, benefit only one group of the population at the expense of another group.  This violates the "general welfare" requirement as it was originally written.

"[T]he Constitution gives the federal government few and closely proscribed powers.  Those powers not given to the federal government “shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” (the Ninth Amendment), and “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” (the Tenth Amendment).

The “general welfare,” then, refers only to those things the Constitution allows or requires the federal government to do (“the powers connected with them” under the Constitution).   Thus, the general welfare is advanced when the federal government does those things it is charged by the Constitution to do – nothing more, nothing less.

The “general welfare” clause is not an open-ended endorsement of whatever Congress deems in a given moment is in the public interest.  Were that the meaning of “general welfare,” no Constitution itself would even be necessary – Congress could simply do whatever it wants regardless of any constitutional limitations."

- Rob Schwarzwalder, "Health Care and the Constitution"

A Lesson on the General Welfare Clause ( http://www.thoughtsfromaconservativemom.com/?p=172... ): http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/11/19/rob...

Also, your statement that the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on the Constitution is incorrect.  The citizens of this nation are not subject to the tyranny of judges who redefine the constitution however they please.  Don't forget: we have a system of checks and balances.   The people's representatives in the House and the Senate have the power to impeach judges for abusing or incorrectly interpreting the constitution.  

The Progressive tradition of "redefining" the constitution to suit their agenda dates back to Woodrow Wilson. 

"Woodrow Wilson, in his 1912 "New Freedom" speeches, defined progressivism as the belief that the laws need to keep up with changes in economic circumstances; the progressive wants to adjust laws to "the facts of the case," because the law is ultimately an expression of the facts in legal relationships. The progressive believes in changing legal and political structures, but not merely for the sake of variety; he only supports changes that he considers "improvements"; he views the future, not the past, as the more glorious time toward which the present ought to aspire. Wilson applauds the "modern idea" of leaving the past and pressing on to something new-albeit very carefully so as to avoid the dangers which often accompany reform.

Wilson's progressivism challenged the very construction of the Constitution itself. Wilson considered the Constitution to be based on the old Newtonian scientific paradigm-whereby the Framers are alleged to have seen the government as "mechanical" and subjecting it to pre-planned checks and balances. But Wilson wished to base government on the principles of Darwin rather than those of Newton; he saw government as a "living thing" and believed that "no living thing can have its organs offset against each other as checks and live." He wanted to replace the system of checks and balances with a system of cooperation among the branches of government."

- Woodrow Wilson's Views on Progressivism
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/253009/wo...

Rachel blogs at www.ThoughtsFromAConservativeMom.com/ ( http://www.ThoughtsFromAConservativeMom.com/ )

Article 1, Section 8 which establishes Congresses power to collect taxes and provide for the general welfare of the United States. It says, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and General Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Now, I can respect that you _believe_ you're more learned on Constitutional Law then the sitting Supreme Court at the time, and ever since.  But Social Security and Medicare have been challenged in the Supreme Court, and upheld. And the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on the Constitution.

Have you ever read the constitution?  There are 17 specific enumerated powers given to the federal government.  The rest, per the 10th Amendment, are left with the States and the People, and for good reason: the closer to the people, the more power the people have to hold government accountable.

Social Security and Medicare are inefficient, bloated with bureacracy, unable to meet the needs they were intended for, and on the verge of bankruptcy.  They are also unconstitutional.   Each state has the right to try such programs according to their own constitution, but the NATIONAL constitution gives the federal government no such power.

Since national defense IS one of the 17 enumerated powers, offering a G.I. Bill is a constitutional way to encourage voluntary enlistment. 

Subsidized student loans are unconstitutional, and have been driving the price of education up for years.  Universities, knowing that government will subsidize whatever price they ask, keep driving it up.  If fewer people were going to college because of high prices, universities would be forced to lower their prices to entice more customers.  That's how the market works.  Subsidies only make it more unaffordable for everyone.  

There is no such thing as "free" education, even at the K-12 level.  You and I pay for it with our local and state taxex.  The average school gets only 9% of their funding from the federal government, yet the Department of Education uses this bait to control education at the local level in unconstitutional ways. 

The only people who should have ANY say in the content and methods of education their children receive should be the parents, teachers, and school boards.  NO ONE ELSE.  Again, it's the bloated, unconstitutional bureaucracy that has made education so expensive.  The average private school can educate a child BETTER than a public school at about $5000 a head, while some states pay up to $14,000 per student (most of which pays the bureaucracy) and still get terrible results. 

Power should stay as close to the people as possible.  It should not be concentrated in Washington.  Our founders knew that.  That's why the designed the constitution the way that they did.  We should heed their wisdom.

Rachel blogs at www.ThoughtsFromAConservativeMom.com/ ( http://www.ThoughtsFromAConservativeMom.com/ )

The "evil of statism" gave us social security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, the interstate highway system, the G. I. bill,  subsidized student loans, free primary and secondary education.

Rachel, which of those these would you like to dismantle?  

Karen Bojar

http://www.the-next-stage.com/

Obama's Budget and the $1 Trillion Mistake: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11182

How The Government Caused The Mortgage Crisis: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-government-...

Affordable Housing, Diversity Mandates Caused Mortgage Crisis: http://www.openmarket.org/2008/08/05/affordable-ho...

Video: Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Rachel blogs at www.ThoughtsFromAConservativeMom.com/ ( http://www.ThoughtsFromAConservativeMom.com/ )

What party allowed a war that ran that sucker up in the first place? And allowed systematic de-regulation and non-monitoring of existing laws that would have slowed down or possibly stopped the economic melt down?

Look, I for one would welcome the fiscal conservatives to return to government if it did not involve demonizing people of color and personal choice decisions. In all things there must be a balance.

But what is romping around as public "the republican party" is extremist, disenfranchising and damn proud of the hateful rhetoric that passes for commentary.

Show me examples of fiscal Centrist thinking from either side of the isle and I'll take a look. Show me a thought out plan that is responsible to citizen stake holders in the country; not just the ones that don't want pay taxes but do want me to fund their Medicare payments.

And when you come up with that alternative government what will you call it? And will you have to take a loyalty oath for membership?

Gena Haskett is a BlogHer CE. Blogs:Out On The Stoop ( http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com ) and Create Video Notebook ( http://createvideonotebook.blogspot.com )

I could not have said it better myself.  Now is the time to stand up and be the party of conservatives.  Even polls state that more people are conservative than liberal.  Our best bet is to offer an actual alternative to the Big Government/Over spending Democrats.

http://thefeministrepublican.blogspot.com

Reagan Democrats left the party approximately three decades ago when they voted for Reagan, then continued to vote for Republicans in subsequent elections.  I suppose they can re-affirm their decision from 1980 by continuing to do what they've done for the past 30 years, but it's a reach to claim that they are suddenly abandoning the Democratic party and that the Dems need to move to the center, aka the right.

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com ) and is the author of Off the Beaten (Subway) Track ( http://offthebeatensubwaytrack.com ).