WASHINGTON (AP) - The welfare state is bigger than ever despite a decade of policies designed to wean poor people from public aid. The number of families receiving cash benefits from welfare has plummeted since the government imposed time limits on the payments a decade ago. But other programs for the poor, including Medicaid, food stamps and disability benefits, are bursting with new enrollees.(associated press)
How long will this country continue to vote for the two major parties? There is very little difference between the two in practice. The democrats push social "justice" while the republicans enact it, all the while bickering over the details. We need to build the Constitution party as a viable alternative to the two party straglehold of lies over this country.
If you have not yet done so,please go to our state website and learn more about our party and help return america to its roots, a constitutional republic.
In Liberty,
Joe Murphy
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Quotes From Prominent People on money
VOLTAIRE (1694-1778)
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value ---- zero."
PRESIDENT JAMES A. GARFIELD
"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce."
HORACE GREELY
"While boasting of our noble deeds, we are careful to control the ugly fact that by an iniquitous money system, we have nationalized a system of oppression which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery."
SIR. REGINALD MCKENNA, former President of the Midland Bank of England
"Those who create and issue money and credit direct the policies of government and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people."
SIR JOSIAH STAMP, (President of the Bank of England in the 1920's, the second richest man in Britain)
"Banking was conceived in iniquity, and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen, they will create enough deposits, to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers, and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits."
ANSELM ROTHSCHILD
"Give me the power to issue a nation's money; then I do not care who makes the law."
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value ---- zero."
PRESIDENT JAMES A. GARFIELD
"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce."
HORACE GREELY
"While boasting of our noble deeds, we are careful to control the ugly fact that by an iniquitous money system, we have nationalized a system of oppression which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery."
SIR. REGINALD MCKENNA, former President of the Midland Bank of England
"Those who create and issue money and credit direct the policies of government and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people."
SIR JOSIAH STAMP, (President of the Bank of England in the 1920's, the second richest man in Britain)
"Banking was conceived in iniquity, and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen, they will create enough deposits, to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers, and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits."
ANSELM ROTHSCHILD
"Give me the power to issue a nation's money; then I do not care who makes the law."
Saturday, February 24, 2007
State Senate discusses constitutional convention
Friday, February 23, 2007
By Ann Belser, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Voters in Pennsylvania could have a new state constitution to ratify as soon as the next presidential election.
But there's a lot to do if that's going to happen.
The state Senate Government Committee, headed by Sen. Jeffrey E. Piccola, R-Dauphin, held its first in a series of hearings yesterday on convening a constitutional convention for the first time in 40 years.
Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park, was the first speaker on the proposal at the hearing held at Duquesne University Law School. Mr. Ferlo had proposed a bill calling for a constitutional convention during the last legislative session and has introduced his bill again.
Mr. Ferlo said a constitutional convention could address legislative salaries, the size of the Legislature, "procedural issues such as lame duck sessions and the process for the introduction, amending and adoption of bills."
"While I am a relatively new member of the Senate, I have been in public life long enough to have learned that the legislative and judicial process is replete with actual as well as perceived abuse," Mr. Ferlo said. "The 2005 pay grab is merely a microcosm of the problems that have grown in many state institutions over the years by exploiting loopholes in the state constitution modified in '68, the last time the public had their chance to discuss, debate and modify our state's most important document."
Bruce Ledewitz, a Duquesne Law School professor, said if the constitutional convention did nothing else, it should trim the powers the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has taken under Article V, which suggests that the court has authority that is superior to the Legislature's.
He said the court "has shown itself capable of interpretations of the text of the Pennsylvania Constitution that confound its plain meaning and the intentions of those who drafted it."
He said the best example of that is that the constitution states that no bill is to be "altered or amended on its passage through either House, as to change its original purpose."
Yet the court allowed the pay raise in 2005 in which 22 pages of legislation was substituted and adopted in the place of a one-page bill that said no members of the executive branch could be paid more than the governor. He said it didn't help the public's opinion of the court that by the time it reviewed the pay raise, and upheld it, the law had been repealed by the Legislature so that the court, essentially, was able to turn it into a pay raise for judges.
He said the same thing happened on the gambling legislation when a 145-page bill was substituted for a one-page bill calling for background checks on horse racing applicants. The 2004 gambling legislation was passed in three days after the substitution and upheld by the court.
He said the court's rule-making has led to secret meetings in which the court suddenly changes its rules to match legislation passed.
"There's a habit of meeting behind the scenes," Mr. Ledewitz said.
"I never have participated in secret meetings, but I know they have existed," Mr. Piccola said.
"I know senator," Mr. Ledewitz said. "No one ever participated in those meetings."
Joel Fishman, the co-director of Duquesne University's Pennsylvania Constitution Web Site, gave a possible time frame for a constitutional convention which called for the current hearings to wrap up in March; the general assembly to pass an act calling for a constitutional convention by June; the electorate to vote for the convention in November; a primary election for the delegates in April 2008; and the convention to run from May through August with the final step being the adoption of the new articles from the convention in November 2008.
By Ann Belser, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Voters in Pennsylvania could have a new state constitution to ratify as soon as the next presidential election.
But there's a lot to do if that's going to happen.
The state Senate Government Committee, headed by Sen. Jeffrey E. Piccola, R-Dauphin, held its first in a series of hearings yesterday on convening a constitutional convention for the first time in 40 years.
Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park, was the first speaker on the proposal at the hearing held at Duquesne University Law School. Mr. Ferlo had proposed a bill calling for a constitutional convention during the last legislative session and has introduced his bill again.
Mr. Ferlo said a constitutional convention could address legislative salaries, the size of the Legislature, "procedural issues such as lame duck sessions and the process for the introduction, amending and adoption of bills."
"While I am a relatively new member of the Senate, I have been in public life long enough to have learned that the legislative and judicial process is replete with actual as well as perceived abuse," Mr. Ferlo said. "The 2005 pay grab is merely a microcosm of the problems that have grown in many state institutions over the years by exploiting loopholes in the state constitution modified in '68, the last time the public had their chance to discuss, debate and modify our state's most important document."
Bruce Ledewitz, a Duquesne Law School professor, said if the constitutional convention did nothing else, it should trim the powers the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has taken under Article V, which suggests that the court has authority that is superior to the Legislature's.
He said the court "has shown itself capable of interpretations of the text of the Pennsylvania Constitution that confound its plain meaning and the intentions of those who drafted it."
He said the best example of that is that the constitution states that no bill is to be "altered or amended on its passage through either House, as to change its original purpose."
Yet the court allowed the pay raise in 2005 in which 22 pages of legislation was substituted and adopted in the place of a one-page bill that said no members of the executive branch could be paid more than the governor. He said it didn't help the public's opinion of the court that by the time it reviewed the pay raise, and upheld it, the law had been repealed by the Legislature so that the court, essentially, was able to turn it into a pay raise for judges.
He said the same thing happened on the gambling legislation when a 145-page bill was substituted for a one-page bill calling for background checks on horse racing applicants. The 2004 gambling legislation was passed in three days after the substitution and upheld by the court.
He said the court's rule-making has led to secret meetings in which the court suddenly changes its rules to match legislation passed.
"There's a habit of meeting behind the scenes," Mr. Ledewitz said.
"I never have participated in secret meetings, but I know they have existed," Mr. Piccola said.
"I know senator," Mr. Ledewitz said. "No one ever participated in those meetings."
Joel Fishman, the co-director of Duquesne University's Pennsylvania Constitution Web Site, gave a possible time frame for a constitutional convention which called for the current hearings to wrap up in March; the general assembly to pass an act calling for a constitutional convention by June; the electorate to vote for the convention in November; a primary election for the delegates in April 2008; and the convention to run from May through August with the final step being the adoption of the new articles from the convention in November 2008.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Sheriff's office referendum OK'd for May primary ballot
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Chief Executive Dan Onorato signed legislation yesterday that will put a referendum to make the sheriff an appointive rather than an elective position on the May 17 primary ballot.
The referendum will also call for the sheriff's office to be merged with the county police.
Chief Executive Dan Onorato signed legislation yesterday that will put a referendum to make the sheriff an appointive rather than an elective position on the May 17 primary ballot.
The referendum will also call for the sheriff's office to be merged with the county police.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Constitutional convention hearing at Duquesne university
Hearing may be major step toward state constitutional convention
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
By Tom Barnes, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau
HARRISBURG -- Pennsylvania hasn't held a constitutional convention for almost 40 years.
But amid continuing voter anger over legislative pay raises, bonuses and late-night mischief, many citizen groups and legislators are talking about a need to reform state government.
A major step in that process will be taken Thursday at Duquesne University Law School in Pittsburgh, as the state Senate's State Government Committee holds the first of three hearings into whether the first constitutional convention since 1968 is warranted.
"A constitutional convention could address issues Pennsylvanians have been talking about since the 2005 pay raise, such as changing the size of the Legislature, enacting term limits for legislators and setting new guidelines for redistricting" after the 2010 census, said Russ Diamond, founder of PA Clean Sweep and one of those who raised the ruckus about the 2005 pay raise measure that led to its repeal.
Sen. Jeffrey Piccola, R-Dauphin, chairman of the panel, said he is "leaning" toward introducing a bill that could lead to one sometime in 2008.
"A constitutional convention has relevance for state government in this age of reform," he said last week. But first he wants to hear from knowledgeable people from outside state government, like Duquesne law professor Bruce Ledewitz, an expert on the state judiciary and one of those who will testify Thursday.
The hearing, from 9:30 a.m. to 2 p.m., is open to the public, but only invited officials will testify. Other speakers will be Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park, who last year introduced a resolution calling for a convention; Jake Haulk of the Allegheny Institute, a conservative think tank; Sara Steelman of Common Cause Pennsylvania; plus representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Allegheny County Bar Association.
Two more hearings will be held this spring in Harrisburg and Philadelphia, Mr. Piccola said. Former Gov. Dick Thornburgh, who was a reform leader at the 1968 convention, is expected to speak at one of the hearings.
Mr. Piccola said that before he drafts a bill calling for a referendum on a constitutional convention, "I will wait to see what the hearings produce. There is some opposition [to a convention] among some legislators" who like things the way they are.
Mr. Piccola and other advocates think that to avoid an agenda that is too jumbled and chaotic, a constitutional convention should be limited to certain specific issues. These might include:
Reducing the size of the 203-member House and 50-member Senate. Opponents of that idea say residents of many rural areas will lose their legislators and thus suffer if the overall number goes down.
Limiting the number of two-year terms that a House member can serve, or the number of four-year terms a senator can have.
Changing the compensation for members of the legislative, judicial or executive branches.
Creating a nonpartisan citizens commission to redraw the lines for General Assembly and congressional districts after the next census, rather than having legislative leaders "gerrymander" districts into strange shapes to protect their political base.
Changing to "merit selection" of judges, where they are appointed by the governor rather than being elected by the people every 10 years.
Giving Pennsylvanians the power of "initiative and referendum," like California voters have, to gather signatures to initiate new laws rather than waiting for state legislators to act.
Mr. Piccola said he favors an agenda limited to sections of the constitution dealing with the legislative, judicial and executive branches of state government.
If things get too wide open -- for instance, changing gun control laws, or limiting gun purchases, or limiting legalized abortions, or imposing caps on damages in medical liability lawsuits -- discussions could easily bog down and necessary government reforms might not be discussed, he said.
Even after a bill is enacted for a convention, Pennsylvania residents would have to approve the idea, via a statewide referendum. That could be held in November, if legislators agree this spring, Mr. Piccola said.
If the idea is approved by voters, a convention wouldn't be held until 2008. It would probably last about three months and probably be in Harrisburg.
There were 150 elected delegates at the 1968 convention, meaning three from each of the 50 state Senate districts, plus 18 ex-officio members, mainly top legislative leaders.
Mr. Piccola said 150 seems like "a workable number. You want to have a broad spectrum of people." But he thinks the next constitutional gathering should be "a citizens convention," without powerful incumbents on hand to try to preserve the status quo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Bureau Chief Tom Barnes can be reached at tbarnes@post-gazette.com or 717-787-4254. )
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
By Tom Barnes, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau
HARRISBURG -- Pennsylvania hasn't held a constitutional convention for almost 40 years.
But amid continuing voter anger over legislative pay raises, bonuses and late-night mischief, many citizen groups and legislators are talking about a need to reform state government.
A major step in that process will be taken Thursday at Duquesne University Law School in Pittsburgh, as the state Senate's State Government Committee holds the first of three hearings into whether the first constitutional convention since 1968 is warranted.
"A constitutional convention could address issues Pennsylvanians have been talking about since the 2005 pay raise, such as changing the size of the Legislature, enacting term limits for legislators and setting new guidelines for redistricting" after the 2010 census, said Russ Diamond, founder of PA Clean Sweep and one of those who raised the ruckus about the 2005 pay raise measure that led to its repeal.
Sen. Jeffrey Piccola, R-Dauphin, chairman of the panel, said he is "leaning" toward introducing a bill that could lead to one sometime in 2008.
"A constitutional convention has relevance for state government in this age of reform," he said last week. But first he wants to hear from knowledgeable people from outside state government, like Duquesne law professor Bruce Ledewitz, an expert on the state judiciary and one of those who will testify Thursday.
The hearing, from 9:30 a.m. to 2 p.m., is open to the public, but only invited officials will testify. Other speakers will be Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park, who last year introduced a resolution calling for a convention; Jake Haulk of the Allegheny Institute, a conservative think tank; Sara Steelman of Common Cause Pennsylvania; plus representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Allegheny County Bar Association.
Two more hearings will be held this spring in Harrisburg and Philadelphia, Mr. Piccola said. Former Gov. Dick Thornburgh, who was a reform leader at the 1968 convention, is expected to speak at one of the hearings.
Mr. Piccola said that before he drafts a bill calling for a referendum on a constitutional convention, "I will wait to see what the hearings produce. There is some opposition [to a convention] among some legislators" who like things the way they are.
Mr. Piccola and other advocates think that to avoid an agenda that is too jumbled and chaotic, a constitutional convention should be limited to certain specific issues. These might include:
Reducing the size of the 203-member House and 50-member Senate. Opponents of that idea say residents of many rural areas will lose their legislators and thus suffer if the overall number goes down.
Limiting the number of two-year terms that a House member can serve, or the number of four-year terms a senator can have.
Changing the compensation for members of the legislative, judicial or executive branches.
Creating a nonpartisan citizens commission to redraw the lines for General Assembly and congressional districts after the next census, rather than having legislative leaders "gerrymander" districts into strange shapes to protect their political base.
Changing to "merit selection" of judges, where they are appointed by the governor rather than being elected by the people every 10 years.
Giving Pennsylvanians the power of "initiative and referendum," like California voters have, to gather signatures to initiate new laws rather than waiting for state legislators to act.
Mr. Piccola said he favors an agenda limited to sections of the constitution dealing with the legislative, judicial and executive branches of state government.
If things get too wide open -- for instance, changing gun control laws, or limiting gun purchases, or limiting legalized abortions, or imposing caps on damages in medical liability lawsuits -- discussions could easily bog down and necessary government reforms might not be discussed, he said.
Even after a bill is enacted for a convention, Pennsylvania residents would have to approve the idea, via a statewide referendum. That could be held in November, if legislators agree this spring, Mr. Piccola said.
If the idea is approved by voters, a convention wouldn't be held until 2008. It would probably last about three months and probably be in Harrisburg.
There were 150 elected delegates at the 1968 convention, meaning three from each of the 50 state Senate districts, plus 18 ex-officio members, mainly top legislative leaders.
Mr. Piccola said 150 seems like "a workable number. You want to have a broad spectrum of people." But he thinks the next constitutional gathering should be "a citizens convention," without powerful incumbents on hand to try to preserve the status quo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Bureau Chief Tom Barnes can be reached at tbarnes@post-gazette.com or 717-787-4254. )
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Questioning Judicial Nominees: An Obligation, Not An Option
by Virginia Armstrong, Ph.D.
National Chairman, Eagle Forum
Constitutionalist Americans, in the wake of the 2006 elections, find America in a worse condition than before and are often still casting about for a course of action. In the midst of this political fog, at least two facts clearly stand out. First, bad judging goes on continuously, but should not. Second, education does not go on continuously, but should. As President James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," declared: "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
When it seems that there is a "lull" in the Culture War, we should seize any opportunity to more fully "empower ourselves with knowledge." One crucial issue about which we clearly need more knowledge is that of selection of federal judges. Question: do we threaten the independence and proper functioning of the courts when we ask judicial nominees — at any level of government — about their philosophical views? Answer: Absolutely not.
Reconstructionist forces (i.e., liberal/activists) are approaching apoplectic fervor in their screams that such philosophical questions violate the Constitution’s prohibition on religious tests as a condition for national offices. But Article VI in no way prohibits us from asking "PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS" of nominees — questions about a nominee’s GENERAL philosophy, LEGAL philosophy, and/or CONSTITUTIONAL philosophy.
Right now is an excellent time for us Constitutionalists to understand this fact and prepare ourselves to raise questions of future judicial nominees. Arming ourselves with the right questions is a top priority of Court Watch in the immediate future.
The U. S. Supreme Court itself provided numerous arguments defending the questioning of judicial nominees in its 2002 decision in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (536 U.S. 756 [2002]). Admittedly, this case involved state judicial elections. But the Court noted that key points of its opinion applied to national, as well as state, judges. The Supremes pointed out that almost every legal or political issue (usually involving philosophy) is likely to come before today’s judges. No questions about legal or political issues/philosophy equals virtually no questions at all. Furthermore, a nominee with no preconceived values about the law virtually would be either impossible to find or unqualified if found. As then-Justice Rehnquist pointed out in 1972, judges must be learned in the law. And any nominee nowadays sufficiently learned in the law MUST have developed som e value notions about the law. Finally, American judges today are so deeply involved in value-setting/policy-making that we Americans must have a picture of their values to have a picture of their likely performance as a judge. This is ESSENTIAL to government by consent.
What ARE some of the key value questions we need to ask judicial nominees? Here are a few. Affirmative reactions to the following statements, all actually made by a court or "legal expert," reflect Reconstructionist positions.
QUESTIONS ON GENERAL PHILOSOPHY: "Nominee _____, do you agree:
- that "the word ’person’ as used in the 14th Amendment does not include the unborn"? (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 [1973])
- that "the government creates civil marriage, and civil marriage is a wholly secular institution"? (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 [2003])
- that "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, [and] of the universe?" (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 [1992])
QUESTIONS ON LEGAL PHILOSOPHY: "Nominee _____, do you agree that:
- that "It is from the American people, and not God, that the state draws its powers"? (Glassroth v. Moore, 229 F.Supp. 2d 1290 [2002])
- that "[Basing our law] on . . .Western civilization . . . and Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards does not [but should] take account of [foreign and international authorities]"? (Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 [2003], summary of majority point)
- that "The institute of rights against the government is not a gift of God, . . . [but] a complex, troublesome, and expensive Government job"? (Ronald Dworkin, TAKING RIGHTS SERIOUSLY [1977])
QUESTIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL PHILOSOPHY: "Nominee ____, do you agree that:
- that the Constitution is to promote "the living development of constitutional justice" and be interpreted to elaborate an idea of what is "human" and "being" (Tribe, supra) and to forge "a new moral order" (Michael Perry, THE COURTS, THE CONSTITUTION, AND HUMAN RIGHTS [1982])?
- that "[The Constitution] is made for a people of fundamentally differing views . . .?" (Roe, supra)
- that "The Constitution "reflects a set of conflicting ideals and notions . . . . " and "is an intentionally incomplete, often deliberately indeterminate structure for the participatory evolution of political ideals and governmental practices"? (Lawrence Tribe, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW [2d ed. 1988])
This Supreme Court has been likened to a "de facto Council of Elders . . . ." Furthermore, "the constitution is a theological document . . . . [A]nd the Justices are the High Priests who keep it current with each generation of Americans." (Arthur S. Miller, TOWARD INCREASED JUDICIAL ACTIVISM: THE POLITICAL ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT [1982]) This description is true (at least in the minds of Reconstructionist judges and their off-court allies), but deadly. Judges trump the Constitution. Court Watch hopes that you’ll join us in the months ahead as we work together to replace this "judicial supremacy" with the "constitutional supremacy" our nation must have to survive and thrive.
National Chairman: Virginia Armstrong, Ph.D. * 2438 Industrial Blvd. PMB 190 * Abilene, TX 79605 E-mail: CourtWatch@EagleForum.org
National Chairman, Eagle Forum
Constitutionalist Americans, in the wake of the 2006 elections, find America in a worse condition than before and are often still casting about for a course of action. In the midst of this political fog, at least two facts clearly stand out. First, bad judging goes on continuously, but should not. Second, education does not go on continuously, but should. As President James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," declared: "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
When it seems that there is a "lull" in the Culture War, we should seize any opportunity to more fully "empower ourselves with knowledge." One crucial issue about which we clearly need more knowledge is that of selection of federal judges. Question: do we threaten the independence and proper functioning of the courts when we ask judicial nominees — at any level of government — about their philosophical views? Answer: Absolutely not.
Reconstructionist forces (i.e., liberal/activists) are approaching apoplectic fervor in their screams that such philosophical questions violate the Constitution’s prohibition on religious tests as a condition for national offices. But Article VI in no way prohibits us from asking "PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS" of nominees — questions about a nominee’s GENERAL philosophy, LEGAL philosophy, and/or CONSTITUTIONAL philosophy.
Right now is an excellent time for us Constitutionalists to understand this fact and prepare ourselves to raise questions of future judicial nominees. Arming ourselves with the right questions is a top priority of Court Watch in the immediate future.
The U. S. Supreme Court itself provided numerous arguments defending the questioning of judicial nominees in its 2002 decision in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (536 U.S. 756 [2002]). Admittedly, this case involved state judicial elections. But the Court noted that key points of its opinion applied to national, as well as state, judges. The Supremes pointed out that almost every legal or political issue (usually involving philosophy) is likely to come before today’s judges. No questions about legal or political issues/philosophy equals virtually no questions at all. Furthermore, a nominee with no preconceived values about the law virtually would be either impossible to find or unqualified if found. As then-Justice Rehnquist pointed out in 1972, judges must be learned in the law. And any nominee nowadays sufficiently learned in the law MUST have developed som e value notions about the law. Finally, American judges today are so deeply involved in value-setting/policy-making that we Americans must have a picture of their values to have a picture of their likely performance as a judge. This is ESSENTIAL to government by consent.
What ARE some of the key value questions we need to ask judicial nominees? Here are a few. Affirmative reactions to the following statements, all actually made by a court or "legal expert," reflect Reconstructionist positions.
QUESTIONS ON GENERAL PHILOSOPHY: "Nominee _____, do you agree:
- that "the word ’person’ as used in the 14th Amendment does not include the unborn"? (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 [1973])
- that "the government creates civil marriage, and civil marriage is a wholly secular institution"? (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 [2003])
- that "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, [and] of the universe?" (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 [1992])
QUESTIONS ON LEGAL PHILOSOPHY: "Nominee _____, do you agree that:
- that "It is from the American people, and not God, that the state draws its powers"? (Glassroth v. Moore, 229 F.Supp. 2d 1290 [2002])
- that "[Basing our law] on . . .Western civilization . . . and Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards does not [but should] take account of [foreign and international authorities]"? (Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 [2003], summary of majority point)
- that "The institute of rights against the government is not a gift of God, . . . [but] a complex, troublesome, and expensive Government job"? (Ronald Dworkin, TAKING RIGHTS SERIOUSLY [1977])
QUESTIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL PHILOSOPHY: "Nominee ____, do you agree that:
- that the Constitution is to promote "the living development of constitutional justice" and be interpreted to elaborate an idea of what is "human" and "being" (Tribe, supra) and to forge "a new moral order" (Michael Perry, THE COURTS, THE CONSTITUTION, AND HUMAN RIGHTS [1982])?
- that "[The Constitution] is made for a people of fundamentally differing views . . .?" (Roe, supra)
- that "The Constitution "reflects a set of conflicting ideals and notions . . . . " and "is an intentionally incomplete, often deliberately indeterminate structure for the participatory evolution of political ideals and governmental practices"? (Lawrence Tribe, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW [2d ed. 1988])
This Supreme Court has been likened to a "de facto Council of Elders . . . ." Furthermore, "the constitution is a theological document . . . . [A]nd the Justices are the High Priests who keep it current with each generation of Americans." (Arthur S. Miller, TOWARD INCREASED JUDICIAL ACTIVISM: THE POLITICAL ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT [1982]) This description is true (at least in the minds of Reconstructionist judges and their off-court allies), but deadly. Judges trump the Constitution. Court Watch hopes that you’ll join us in the months ahead as we work together to replace this "judicial supremacy" with the "constitutional supremacy" our nation must have to survive and thrive.
National Chairman: Virginia Armstrong, Ph.D. * 2438 Industrial Blvd. PMB 190 * Abilene, TX 79605 E-mail: CourtWatch@EagleForum.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)