← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hilaire Belloc
Thread ID: 9445 | Posts: 12 | Started: 2003-09-01
2003-09-01 13:37 | User Profile
** [url=http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34358]http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34358[/url]
One nation under God? by Pat Buchanan
The granite monument of the Ten Commandments has been rolled out of the Alabama Supreme Court building in Montgomery. Chief Justice Roy Moore has been suspended. Yet, in his defeat there is victory.
For Judge Moore's defiance exposed to all Americans the naked hostility of the court to any official expression of belief that we are a nation under God. His defiance revealed how far America has traveled from the Constitution of our Founding Fathers.
We no longer see through a glass darkly. We can see clearly now.
Under the Ninth and 10th Amendments, our Constitution reserved to the states and the people all powers not specifically ceded to the national government. Can anyone believe the Constitution gave to federal judges, who did not even exist in 1789, power to order sovereign states to tear down monuments that had God's law, the Ten Commandments, engraved upon them? Does anyone believe the Constitution would have been ratified, had the free and independent states understood they were ceding such powers?
In the last 50 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has erected a judicial dictatorship over a nation of 280 million, usurping powers never granted to it by the Constitution. Possessed of a deeply anti-Christian bias, that court has progressively de-Christianized America and established state atheism as our national religion.
In every election, every poll, every survey, Americans decry it. Now Judge Moore has forced us to face up to it. Only by repeated acts of courageous defiance like his will we force President Bush and Congress to restore the republic that has been stolen from us.
Judge Moore's stand has separated the sheep from the goats among our brethren. Some Christians cast their lot with Caesar, as others scattered like the disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane when the Roman soldiers came for Christ, sword in hand.
Is it really right, our milquetoast brethren bleat, for us to defy lawful authority? Ought we not obey, as the Bible commands? But the question is: Whose law are we being ordered to obey?
Are the federal courts acting constitutionally? Are they acting in a way that commands obedience when they declare that no state may in any way acknowledge God, when our own coins say "In God We Trust"?
Just who and what is Judge Moore defying?
The First Amendment, declares U.S. Judge Myron Thomson. But that amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof."
Was Chief Justice Moore really trying to establish a Church of Alabama when he had placed in the rotunda of the courthouse that monument of the Decalogue? What church? The Ten Commandments are taken from the Old Testament sacred to Christians and the Torah sacred to Jews. Catholics number the commandments in a different order than does the monument.
Chief Justice Moore was only acknowledging that God Himself is the supreme lawgiver and we are subject to his law. This may be offensive to Judge Thompson and Justices Souter, Stevens, Breyer and Ginsberg, but it was not offensive to the Founding Fathers. Finally, Judge Moore is saying, enough is enough. It is time to defy tyranny because all other recourse has been exhausted.
A half-century ago, the Supreme Court purged prayer from the public schools, an exercise of raw judicial power uncountenanced by the Constitution. Congress did nothing. The court then declared abortion a constitutional right. Forty-two million babies have since passed under the knife. Now, the court has declared sodomy to be a constitutional right.
This renegade court is not following the Constitution; it is distorting the Constitution, perverting the Constitution to impose its ideology upon an unwilling nation, and relying upon the spirit of obedience of a law-abiding people to get away with it. What are we supposed to do?
If you don't like the decisions, they say, go pass a constitutional amendment. But that requires the approval of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states in seven years. And who decides what the amendment means when it is ratified? The same justices of the Supreme Court.
By usurping powers never granted to it, the Supreme Court has imposed a revolution upon our nation. Congress has refused to resist it. Presidents have refused. It is time for a counter-revolution to overthrow this rule of judges and restore our Constitution.
The Founding Fathers who overthrew a king, less odious and tyrannical, would have understood. **
Go Pat Go! :th:
2003-09-01 16:59 | User Profile
**In the last 50 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has erected a judicial dictatorship over a nation of 280 million, usurping powers never granted to it by the Constitution. Possessed of a deeply anti-Christian bias, that court has progressively de-Christianized America and established state atheism as our national religion. **
All well and good, but what is the anti-dote to all this? Elections don't work. Seccession didn't work. Amending the Constitution is too cumbersome. What about a national referendum as they have in some states (e.g. California)? Is anyone out there pushing for this?
Pat's talk is cheap. The question is how to break the grip the decadent liberal elite have over our system.
2003-09-01 17:25 | User Profile
Amending the Constitution is not too cumbersome to try. We have done it plenty of times before, after all.
The main thing, of course, it to elect enough right-wing politicians to the Presidency and Congress that they can pack the court with sane folk.
Finally, a note on secession: why move right to secession? What about nullification? Maybe it didn't work in the end. But it could work again.
See Union and Liberty: The Political Philosophy of John C. Calhoun for some early 19th C discussion of nullification.
2003-09-01 18:24 | User Profile
Pat's talk is cheap. The question is how to break the grip the decadent liberal elite have over our system.
Have you read his "Death of the West"? He gives advice on how to do that.
2003-09-01 19:39 | User Profile
Originally posted by iwannabeanarchy@Sep 1 2003, 11:25 * *Amending the Constitution is not too cumbersome to try. We have done it plenty of times before, after all.
The main thing, of course, is to elect enough right-wing politicians to the Presidency and Congress that they can pack the court with sane folk.
Finally, a note on secession: why move right to secession? What about nullification? Maybe it didn't work in the end. But it could work again.
See Union and Liberty: The Political Philosophy of John C. Calhoun for some early 19th C discussion of nullification.**
Packing the Court is already a failed strategy. Don't forget, several of our worst judges are Republican appointees.
The constitution was basically bastardized by the post civil war amendments (13-15) especially the 14th which eventaully gave federal courts sovereignty over state laws. It stood the original document on its head. I don't foresee any amendement doing any good unless, as I said, it leads to popular referendum.
Besides, as PJB points out, any amendment will be interepreted by the liberal legal establishment.
IMHO, if nullification couldn't work then, it can't today. I think the only "reform" to the established legal elitism is counterbalance--radical constitutional populism. All the meaningful debates in California start this way (immigration, quotas, term limits, taxes). Nothing gets done the conventional route.
BTW, I did read Pat's book and I do vaguely recall his raising this issue. Is anyone out there actually working on it?
2003-09-01 20:00 | User Profile
Re: populism
It works for mestizos, who vote as a block and have politicians who united behind "their people". If there were white politicians who appealed to white interests, and who wouldn't be shy about it, would it work? Why not, if it does for "minorities".
2003-09-01 20:12 | User Profile
*Originally posted by madrussian@Sep 1 2003, 14:00 * ** Re: populism
It works for mestizos, who vote as a block and have politicians who united behind "their people". If there were white politicians who appealed to white interests, and who wouldn't be shy about it, would it work? Why not, if it does for "minorities". **
Why not indeed MR? After all, nationalism is populist by its very nature!
2003-09-02 01:33 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Buster@Sep 1 2003, 13:39 * ** Besides, as PJB points out, any amendment will be interepreted by the liberal legal establishment.
IMHO, if nullification couldn't work then, it can't today. I think the only "reform" to the established legal elitism is counterbalance--radical constitutional populism. All the meaningful debates in California start this way (immigration, quotas, term limits, taxes). Nothing gets done the conventional route.
BTW, I did read Pat's book and I do vaguely recall his raising this issue. Is anyone out there actually working on it? **
You collapse 'right-wing' into 'Republican.' At the same time, you do not note that GOP appointments have had to pass often heavily-Democrat Congresses. Getting more conservatives in Congress would allow GOP Presidents to stop worrying about this difficulty, and appoint more solidly conservative justices.
Furthermore, just because the justice system has the power to interpret amendments, does not mean they can simply interpret these amendments as they please and get away with it. If their powers of intepretation were unlimited, we would not be able to have guns, accumulate large amounts of property, etc. Obviously, the Court's power is limited by political reality, and commitment to a legal tradition that still preserves a few elements of traditional American jurisprudence. In short, well-written amendments could do a good deal, indeed.
Finally, why is it that nullification can never again be made to work? You simply assert this. Moore made a good try at quasi-nullifcation, and if the rest of Alabama had been behind him, it would have worked. On an issue such as abortion, such an act of defiance by a Southern state might very work, a decade or two from now.
2003-09-02 03:41 | User Profile
[img]http://www.dixienet.org/rally1.gif[/img] [img]http://www.dixienet.org/rally2.gif[/img] [img]http://www.dixienet.org/rally3.gif[/img] [img]http://www.dixienet.org/rally4.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.dixienet.org/rallylast.gif[/img] "Every nation has the government it deserves." ~ Joseph de Maistre, 1811
2003-09-02 13:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE]You collapse 'right-wing' into 'Republican.' At the same time, you do not note that GOP appointments have had to pass often heavily-Democrat Congresses. Getting more conservatives in Congress would allow GOP Presidents to stop worrying about this difficulty, and appoint more solidly conservative justices.[/QUOTE]
How many "conservatives" do we expect to get? Especially given the power of media and money, which render elections well nigh meaningless anyway. This is the strategy that in 30 years has gotten us from a 7-2 majority for abortion all the way to a 6-3. One of the three is about to retire, and one of the 6 was appointed by Reagan.
[QUOTE]Furthermore, just because the justice system has the power to interpret amendments, does not mean they can simply interpret these amendments as they please and get away with it. If their powers of intepretation were unlimited, we would not be able to have guns, accumulate large amounts of property, etc.[/QUOTE]
If powers of interpretation were seriously limited, we would not have the government we have today. The federal government's powers are infinite under the commerce clause of the 14th amendment. I think one regulatory power was struck down several years ago, and that was the first such case in 60 years. Article 5 (enumerated powers) is a dead letter and a farce. This is not even to mention the "rights" of abortion, pornography, free speech, religion, etc, where the courts do nothing but impose the liberal agenda.
But the point is that the Federal Courts never had even the power of review over states until after the civil war.
And BTW, don't take your second amendment rights for granted. The court has never explicitly recognized a right for individuals, only militias. Keep your gun handy.
[/QUOTE]Obviously, the Court's power is limited by political reality, and commitment to a legal tradition that still preserves a few elements of traditional American jurisprudence. In short, well-written amendments could do a good deal, indeed.[/QUOTE]
Political reality is important. Courts do watch polls. I think a national referendum would make them even more sensitive.
[QUOTE]Finally, why is it that nullification can never again be made to work? You simply assert this. Moore made a good try at quasi-nullifcation, and if the rest of Alabama had been behind him, it would have worked. On an issue such as abortion, such an act of defiance by a Southern state might very work, a decade or two from now. [/QUOTE]
Please note the signature at the bottom of the page. Little acts of rebellion are important, so I give Moore credit. But I think he's probably really a political opportunist looking to use this issue as a stepping stone, much as George Wallace used segregation.
I'm not interested in what might work in decades or generations. Referendums allow you to act now. Gray Davis is on his way out less than a year after re-election. That's effectiveness.
2003-09-02 16:38 | User Profile
You admit that courts are limited in their power. Hence you in effect admit that amendments can work. You would prefer the use of national referendums. I have no objections here, but I think getting one of these going is likely to be more 'cumbersome' than amending the constitution.
In any case, none of this is going to happen without getting more conservative politicians in place. You assume this is just a 'more of the same strategy.' In fact, Regan is the only consevative President we have had in the past 40-50 years, with the 1st Bush perhaps in the ballpark. Almost all the time these Presidents were in office, Democrat/moderate Republic Congresses had to be contended with.
The fact is, we have seen a massive lurch to the left starting with the New Deal, and continuing anew in the 60's. Before that, there is of course the Civil War, another massive, massive lurch to the left. The currents have been very slowly turning the other way, since Nixon, as regards the 20th C currents. I have no idea where we stand with regard to the Lincoln-current, but there some signs that counterveiling movements began here as well, with the backlash against the Civil Rights movement that began in the 70's, and is still slowly going forth. But both counter-currents are very long term. It will take decades for them to reach a high point, and the second counter-current could last centuries.
If we have to pin all of our hopes on the short-term, I would suggest suicide as a moral reasonable alternative. So while I share some of your desire (and optimism?) concerning the possibility of near-term solutions in areas such as illegal immigration, affirmative action, and healthcare, I would generally argue that we have to look largely to non-governmental movements in the near-term (such as focusing attention on racial-outbreeding by white women, and co-operating to allow for larger white families), while pinning most of our hopes on long-term solutions. In particular, most of our energies, as far as reforming the government goes, have to be focus on central principles and long-term gains.
2003-09-03 14:42 | User Profile
Let me take your points out of order:
I would generally argue that we have to look largely to non-governmental movements in the near-term (such as focusing attention on racial-outbreeding by white women, and co-operating to allow for larger white familiesââ¬Â¦)
I agree. Referendums would be perfectly suited for such movements. Ward Connerly is not a politician, nor was Howard Jarvis, nor Ron Unz. Letââ¬â¢s give them the tools to act nationally.
The fact is, we have seen a massive lurch to the left starting with the New Dealââ¬Â¦. It will take decades for them to reach a high point, and the second counter-current could last centuries.
Hence my lack of interest in party politics. The deck of conventional politics is stacked. The vaunted ââ¬ÅRepublican Revolutionââ¬Â should have convinced any doubters.
The ââ¬Åcivil rightsââ¬Â tyrnanny you mention could be overthrown immediately if put to popular vote, as Californians showed in challenging quotas and bi-lingualism.
You admit that courts are limited in their power. Hence you in effect admit that amendments can work. You would prefer the use of national referendums. I have no objections here, but I think getting one of these going is likely to be more 'cumbersome' than amending the constitution.
Actually, I think I said the courts are NOT limited, at least not seriously. We have what has been called ââ¬Ågovernment by judiciaryââ¬Â or the ââ¬Åimperial judiciary.ââ¬Â
And what Iââ¬â¢m talking about would probably have to be a constitutional amendment.