O’Donnell Clarifies First Amendment Remarks

[Monte_RCMS]

1. Why the “machismo” remark?
2. When you say, “was never intended,” you are implying that some particular interpretation was intended. What is intended is what the Supreme Court says is intended, and you are the one who uses “bind” twice. I, and others who hold to a “living” Constitution do not believe that we are bound the way the “originalists” want us to be bound - which is to a Conservative agenda…

Actually, I don’t want to change anything. I am satisfied with the way our Supreme Court, with its conservatives and liberals, has been operating. Furthermore, I do not believe that even with a more conservative court that things will change much if at all, given the dynamics of the Court.

Are you satisfied with the way our Supreme Court created “umbras and penumbras” that gave us Roe v. Wade and has resisted allowing the individual states to ban abortion based on their state voters and state legislatures and state courts votes and rulings?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Are you satisfied with the way our Supreme Court created “umbras and penumbras” that gave us Roe v. Wade and has resisted allowing the individual states to ban abortion based on their state voters and state legislatures and state courts votes and rulings?

No. One can be dissatisfied with a particular Court decision regardless on which side you stand regarding “originalist” or “living” interpretations.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/10/28/brass_oldies_part_iii/page/2

Thomas Sowell weighs in on Christine O’Donnell’s debate comments:

[excerpt]

For more than a century, no one thought that the First Amendment meant that religious symbols were forbidden on government property. Prayers were offered in Congress and in the Supreme Court. Chaplains served in the military and presidents took their oath of office on the Bible.

But, in our own times, judges have latched onto Jefferson’s phrase and run with it. It has been repeated so often in their decisions that it has become one of the brassiest of the brass oldies that get confused with golden oldies.

As fundamentally important as the First Amendment is, what is even more important is the question whether judges are to take it upon themselves to “interpret” the law to mean whatever they want it to mean, rather than what it plainly says.

This is part of a larger question, as to whether this country is to be a self-governing nation, controlled by “we the people,” as the Constitution put it, or whether arrogant elites shall take it upon themselves to find ways to impose what they want on the rest of us, by circumventing the Constitution.

Congress is already doing that by passing laws before anyone has time to read them and the White House is likewise circumventing the Constitution by appointing “czars” who have as much power as Cabinet members, without having to go through the confirmation process prescribed for Cabinet members by the Constitution.

Judges circumvent the Constitution by reading their own meaning into its words, regardless of how plain and unequivocal the words there are.

The Constitution cannot protect us and our freedoms as a self-governing people unless we protect the Constitution. That means zero tolerance at election time for people who circumvent the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. Freedom is too precious to give it up in exchange for brassy words from arrogant elites.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/10/28/brass_oldies_part_iii/page/2

Thomas Sowell weighs in on Christine O’Donnell’s debate comments:

Mr. Sowell is no neutral observer so his remarks need not be seen as any more than partisan - for his side.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/10/28/brass_oldies_part_iii/page/2

Thomas Sowell weighs in on Christine O’Donnell’s debate comments:

[excerpt]

For more than a century, no one thought that the First Amendment meant that religious symbols were forbidden on government property. Prayers were offered in Congress and in the Supreme Court. Chaplains served in the military and presidents took their oath of office on the Bible.

But, in our own times, judges have latched onto Jefferson’s phrase and run with it. It has been repeated so often in their decisions that it has become one of the brassiest of the brass oldies that get confused with golden oldies.

As fundamentally important as the First Amendment is, what is even more important is the question whether judges are to take it upon themselves to “interpret” the law to mean whatever they want it to mean, rather than what it plainly says.

This is part of a larger question, as to whether this country is to be a self-governing nation, controlled by “we the people,” as the Constitution put it, or whether arrogant elites shall take it upon themselves to find ways to impose what they want on the rest of us, by circumventing the Constitution.

Congress is already doing that by passing laws before anyone has time to read them and the White House is likewise circumventing the Constitution by appointing “czars” who have as much power as Cabinet members, without having to go through the confirmation process prescribed for Cabinet members by the Constitution.

Judges circumvent the Constitution by reading their own meaning into its words, regardless of how plain and unequivocal the words there are.

The Constitution cannot protect us and our freedoms as a self-governing people unless we protect the Constitution. That means zero tolerance at election time for people who circumvent the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. Freedom is too precious to give it up in exchange for brassy words from arrogant elites.

Thomas Sowell is one of the few who really gets it. Add him to Walter Williams and Andrew Napolitano and John Stossel and you have four commentators/analysts who really understand how and why this government was established.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Mr. Sowell is no neutral observer so his remarks need not be seen as any more than partisan - for his side.

Really, and what “part” is he partisan for? He is a freakin academic and a senior fellow of economics at Stanford University. Is it because he openly speaks out against the unconstitutional and statist policies of both parties?

You might want to read up on the guy before you go blathering out rather ignorant sounding comments which make him out to be some sort of partisan hack. The guy has more professional credentials and awards for economics and political analysis than anyone of us true hacks will ever have.

 

[TMC]

townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/10/28/brass_oldies_part_iii/page/2

Thomas Sowell weighs in on Christine O’Donnell’s debate comments:

[excerpt]

For more than a century, no one thought that the First Amendment meant that religious symbols were forbidden on government property. Prayers were offered in Congress and in the Supreme Court. Chaplains served in the military and presidents took their oath of office on the Bible.

But, in our own times, judges have latched onto Jefferson’s phrase and run with it. It has been repeated so often in their decisions that it has become one of the brassiest of the brass oldies that get confused with golden oldies.

As fundamentally important as the First Amendment is, what is even more important is the question whether judges are to take it upon themselves to “interpret” the law to mean whatever they want it to mean, rather than what it plainly says.

This is part of a larger question, as to whether this country is to be a self-governing nation, controlled by “we the people,” as the Constitution put it, or whether arrogant elites shall take it upon themselves to find ways to impose what they want on the rest of us, by circumventing the Constitution.

Congress is already doing that by passing laws before anyone has time to read them and the White House is likewise circumventing the Constitution by appointing “czars” who have as much power as Cabinet members, without having to go through the confirmation process prescribed for Cabinet members by the Constitution.

Judges circumvent the Constitution by reading their own meaning into its words, regardless of how plain and unequivocal the words there are.

The Constitution cannot protect us and our freedoms as a self-governing people unless we protect the Constitution. That means zero tolerance at election time for people who circumvent the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. Freedom is too precious to give it up in exchange for brassy words from arrogant elites.

I agree with a lot of the examples that Mr. Sowell gives of allowable religous activity in public life, except that he improperly suggests they are a thing of the past. For example Presidents still take the oath on the Bible, chaplins still serve in the military. And some religious displays are still allowed on public property. It may be true that there are more cases of courts ordering governments to stop endorsing particular religions, but that may be because some politicians are deliberately making improper endorsements to make a political point. But what he really gets wrong is (1) his implication that the courts’ interpretation of the 1st Amendment has radically changed recently and (2) his suggestion that the current courts should not be interpreting the Constitution. If a court today believes a past decision on a constitutional issue was in error, should that court ignore the error and lock in the mistake simply because it was made in the past? That is a form of ancientism that borders on ancestor worship. I think that the courts take a very careful and considered view of the constitution, and are cautious in changing past precedent. In most cases, they do a pretty good job. That some of the decisions run against Mr. Sowell’s political leanings doesn’t change that.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

You might want to read up on the guy before you go blathering out rather ignorant sounding comments which make him out to be some sort of partisan hack.

Did I call him a hack? Was I blathering? I said that he was no neutral observer. He is known to be a conservative, and writes as one.

The guy has more professional credentials and awards for economics and political analysis than anyone of us true hacks will ever have.

So what? Even Al Gore has a Nobel Prize. Do you really believe that the number of professional credentials and awards won are the criteria for being correct or being regarded seriously?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Did I call him a hack? Was I blathering? I said that he was no neutral observer. He is known to be a conservative, and writes as one.

So what? Even Al Gore has a Nobel Prize. Do you really believe that the number of professional credentials and awards won are the criteria for being correct or being regarded seriously?

There are significant numbers of people who don’t consider the Nobel Prise to be any sort of "credential. You do, I think it is just a body of socialists who give a ringing endorsement of other socialists. Yawn.

And Sowell is not a conservative. He is libertarian. Big difference.

Do I think the number of awards gives credibility? Yes, when they are diverse and consistent. It demonstrates the capacity to articulate constant, evidence-based, reasoned thought to a variety of audiences.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

There are significant numbers of people who don’t consider the Nobel Prise to be any sort of "credential. You do, I think it is just a body of socialists who give a ringing endorsement of other socialists. Yawn.

Do you know what sarcasm is? I name-dropped Gore as an example of a credential that, while prestigious, doesn’t mean anything a far as the veracity goes. Sorry you didn’t catch it.

And Sowell is not a conservative. He is libertarian. Big difference.

If it sounds like a duck…

Do I think the number of awards gives credibility? Yes, when they are diverse and consistent. It demonstrates the capacity to articulate constant, evidence-based, reasoned thought to a variety of audiences.

As a libertarian, you do paint a rosy picture of your hero. Which is okay.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Do you know what sarcasm is? I name-dropped Gore as an example of a credential that, while prestigious, doesn’t mean anything a far as the veracity goes. Sorry you didn’t catch it. .

Happens all the time.

If it sounds like a duck…

Libertarians are not the same thing as conservatives. In fact, libertarians have their roots in classical liberalism.

As a libertarian, you do paint a rosy picture of your hero. Which is okay.

Jesus is savior. St. Thomas Aquinas is my hero. Sowell is just a guy who’s work I respect and appreciate. The ironic thing is that Sowell just models his thinking on the work of the late scholastic economic work that came out of the University of Salamanca in the 1500s. (Catholics were the pioneer thinkers of free market economics). Adam Smith was a plagarist.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I think it is just a body of socialists who give a ringing endorsement of other socialists.

Mother Theresa? She might be seen as a socialist, but I doubt that she is.

The awardees in the Sciences?

Winners in the Sciences have a variety of political views.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Mother Theresa? She might be seen as a socialist, but I doubt that she is.

The awardees in the Sciences?

Winners in the Sciences have a variety of political views.

I should have been more clear. The Peace Prize (They love champions of economic or environmental justice - key components of socialism) Mother Teresa cold hardly be call anything but a saint. She truely lived the gospel, eschewing any and all attachment to political concerns and agendas. Almost universally the Prize for Economics goes to the worlds most outspoken Keynesian. (Although Ludwig von Mises did win it nearly 50 years ago, surprisingly)