Friday, February 10, 2006

HAPPY BLOGIVERSARY, PART II!

Gribbit is someone who I don't mention in my posts as often as I should. He has helped me out numerous times, when I didn't (and still don't sometimes) know what I was doing. His patience with me stands in stark contrast to his patience with moonbats. This particular post, or excerpts from it, became the subject of some debate on the STOP THE ACLU Blogiversary post comments section, and it deserves to be crossposted here as well:
In 1787, the Congress of the newly formed
United States met to discuss changes in the Articles of Confederation. What
resulted was a complete redrafting of the Constitution under a Federalist
system. The new document contained 7 Articles outlining the duties and
responsibilities of the federal government. It was written very specific on
certain issues to clearly define the duties and restrictions of the federal
government. It was written vague on other issues as to leave enough uncertainty
that the matter should be defined by the individual states.

Some of the original signers of the Constitution actually refused to sign it.
When a guarantee was made that if they would sign the document to be referred to
the people for ratification, the first order of business would be to write a
"Bill of Rights" defining individual rights of the people.

It then it became a responsibility of those who were stressing the federalist
government to sell the American people on the idea. From this came the
Federalist Papers which were written in order to be reassurances to the people
that they would have specific rights and the government would be limited in
scope.

Then as promised, the first Congress took up the matter of adopting a "Bill of
Rights". Ten Amendments were written into our founding document which outlined
specific rights and limitations on the government. The catch all of these
rights as defined by our first Congress was the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Amendment IX.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X.

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.


In opposition to this new "Bill of Rights" was our first Secretary of the
Treasury, author of several of the Federalist Papers, and member of the
Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton. He said in Federalist 84,

I...affirm that bills of rights...are not only unnecessary...but
would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers, which
are not granted; and on this very account, would afford colourable pretext to
claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done
which there is no power to do?


I doubt that Hamilton would fully understand exactly how prophetic this actually
was.

And everything was fine until the Civil War. In the wake of the war, while it
was still being fought as a matter of fact, several more Amendments were added
outlawing slavery within the Union and conferring the full rights and benefits
of citizenship to the newly freed slaves. The most prominent of which was the
14th.

Amendment XIV.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein
they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their
respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State,
excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the
choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States,
Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or
the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants
of such State, being twenty-one years of age,4 and citizens of the United
States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other
crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion
which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male
citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of
President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the
United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a
member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any
State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to
support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in
insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the
enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove
such disability.
Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,
including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in
suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the
United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred
in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for
the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and
claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the
provisions of this article.


Fast forward to the twentieth century and Justice Hugo Black and other liberal
activists on the court under the spell of the newly formed American Civil
Liberties Union. It then became fashionable to attempt to apply the
restrictions and requirements that the Bill of Rights holds the federal
government to on the states.

Robert S. Sargent, Jr wrote in his
es
say
about Hugo Black the following:

In 1868, in order to protect ex-slaves, the 14th Amendment did apply
certain rights that the states couldn't intrude upon: "Nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws." Somehow Hugo Black, in his dissent in Adamson v. California (1947) found
this to mean that all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights applied to the
states: "My study of the historical events that culminated in the Fourteenth
Amendment...persuades me that one of the chief objects that the provisions of
the Amendment's first section were intended to accomplish was to make the Bill
of Rights applicable to the states." One must ask, if this was one of the "chief
objects," why didn't they put it in the text? (For a scholarly, devastating
refutation of this interpretation of "the original purpose," see Raoul Berger's
book on the 14th Amendment, "Government by Judiciary.")

This concept of "Incorporation Theory" goes against the idea of federalism
envisioned in the Constitution. Now that Justice Black's dissent is accepted
jurisprudence, state laws can be reviewed in federal court, which means that the
Supreme Court now decides what our rights are. The 9th Amendment in its original
sense is now irrelevant.


And the culmination of this happens in 1973. In the Roe v Wade decision, the
court decided that a medical procedure regulated or banned under state law was
not valid because it did not protect a woman's right to privacy in what happens
to her body. In other words, the Warren court decided that a state law, in a
state matter, was invalid because it did not protect the privacy of the
individual.

Privacy - I can't find it in the Constitution anywhere. The ACLU claims that
it's there. Some liberal Senators would have you believe that it is there, but
I can't find it. The words right to privacy do not exist in any of the 7
Articles or 26 Amendments of the Constitution. Neither is federal regulation of
medical procedures. But under the Hugo Black mentality and approach to applying
the restrictions and powers of the federal government to the states and making
state laws subject to federal review, has now greatly expanded the reach of the
federal government.

And if we can expand the federal government to so that states laws are
reviewable in the federal judiciary, why not expand the reach of the
Establishment Clause. And as such, the ACLU in its arguments have consistently
tried to apply the restriction on the Congress of the United States to the
individual states and local governments.

Hamilton was right.




This was a production of Stop The
ACLU
Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at
Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our
mailing list and blogroll. Over 150 blogs already on-board.

Stop By Stop the ACLU and Wish Jay a
Happy 29th Birthday and Stop The ACLU a
Happy 1 year Anniversary


THOUGHT-INSPIRING STUFF

FROM GRIBBIT! LEAVWORLD SALUTES

YOU!

3 comments:

Meg said...

Oh No! You also don't understand what Hamilton was saying. This is really sad. Please please go and find an authority on what Hamilton was talking about. Are you close to some kind of University? Or maybe you have a friend with a PhD in political science (or maybe even early-American history)? You don't have to take my word for what Hamilton meant, just ask them to tell you.

Chris said...

Lady, why do you think I posted this here? To open it up for debate. Now why don't you just explain exactly how you see what Hamilton said? I said this is a thought-provoking piece, and I salute Gribbit for posting it. I'm going to work now, but hope you will explain your position here, instead of insulting me with your condescending comments about my intelligence.

Honestly, Meg, I didn't even say I agreed with him. You ought to watch how you insult people that you don't even take the time to read carefully. I hope to debate this fully with you, without anyone calling you a moonbat.

That is, unless you deserve to be called that.

Chris said...

Since Meg has not found the time to comment fiurther here, I will say that I find many interpretations of what Gribbit wrote, and the passages he cited. I respect the argument that the States have rights to restrict individual liberties to a greater degree than the federal government does. Local governments have freedom to restrict liberties even further, as anyone who has been prevented from posting a sign on their property can attest.

The ideal of the balance between federal and state power is truly a constitutional debate that needs to continue. Action on it is happening with the confirmation of Justice Alito, thanks to Meg's precious Liberal Senators.

I hate to break it to you, Meg, but there is an alternative way of thinking that is sweeping the land.

I can't speak for Hamilton, but I can speak for myself. I can also publish anyone else's writing that I like.

You show yourself to be a close-minded moonbat with your lack of willingness to follow up your ill-advised comments here at LEAVWORLD.