Transterrestrial Musings

Defend Free Speech!

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay

Site designed by

Powered by
Movable Type 4.0
Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« Fool's Paradise | Main | Defending "Community Organizers" »

Another Electoral Concern

Obama's supporters don't seem to believe in the Constitution:

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama's supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge's sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

This by itself is reason to vote for McCain.


0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Another Electoral Concern.

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Jeff Medcalf wrote:

Arguable. What is the basis of common law, if not judges' interpretations of what is Right and Just? It's just that we've largely forgotten the terms under which our common law evolved, so that we are depending more and more on statute law, with the inevitable results we've seen.

Scott Noble wrote:

The Constitution controls the Federal Government. The 10th Amendment allows for common law in the States and the people. Federal justices are limited to interpreting the Constitution, the laws passed by Congress, and disputes between the states. Common law is therefore extremely limited in a Federal Court, and does not justify judicial activism.

Brock wrote:

Jeff, the Constitution is the highest law of the land. It supersedes the Common Law.

Common Law --> Statute --> Constitution.

That's how it works in this country.

But of course, the Constitution is only worth the sum of two things: (1) the paper it's written on, and (2) the value we place on it in our hearts. Apparently an Obama administration may rate value #1 as the greater of the two.

Edward Wright wrote:

82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution

I would be interested in knowing exactly how this was phrased. Did they ask whether Justices should "rule on what is in the Constitution" or "rule based on what is in the Constitution"?

Big difference. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Justices the power to decide what is or isn't Constitutional. That was an early power grab by the judiciary, which the President went along with because it was expedient at the time.

Although I doubt most people surveyed were even aware of that.

Brock wrote:

Edward Wright,

Most people have never even heard of Marbury vs Madison by name, let alone realize that judicial review is based on dicta from a case actually about whether a President has the authority to withhold delivery of a Congressional commission.

They further don't know that:

(1) The Supreme Court Chief Justice who wrote the decision (John Marshall) also was the signatory for the very same series of commissions whose validity were being challenged!; or

(2) John Marshall was a Federalist Party member just appointed to the bench the month before and was defending the appointments of other Federalist Parties to the Judiciary by a lame duck Federalist Congress facing their last days in office as the majority (never to be regained)!

Jeff Medcalf wrote:

Perhaps I was unclear. Read Amendment VII. Common law is explicitly included in the Constitution. No, common law does not trump the Constitution or statute law; that's not what I was saying. But it is reasonable to say that when the Constitution is not implicated and the statutes are unclear, common law is exactly what the judges should look to. Or, if you will, law drawn from the collected feelings about what is right and just by judges over the centuries, which is a synonym for common law, actually.

Martin wrote:

"This by itself is reason to vote for McCain."

There is no guarantee that John McCain would feel bound by such sentiments. He himself backed legislation to limit the first amendment (since passed, and ruled constitutional), so we know what he thinks about the constitution. Althouh, I agree that if Obama is elected, we're guaranteed lousy picks for the federal bench.

Steve wrote:

"Obama's supporters don't seem to believe in the Constitution"
Isn't it redundant to say this? His supporters are the liberals, liberals as a rule see wiggle room and penumbras in every part of the Constitution except the 2nd Amendment, and anything that has to do with free speech that they deem non-PC or mean and hurtful.

Which is why some of us continue to cling to our God and our guns.

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah Steve. And Palin's God would do this as her pastor says:

Kroon placed Zephaniah in a modern context, warning that the sinful habits of Americans would invite the wrath of God. “And if Zephaniah were here today,” Kroon bellowed, “he’d be saying, ‘Listen, [God] is gonna deal with all the inhabitants of the earth. He is gonna strike out His hand against, yes, Wasilla; and Alaska; and the United States of America. There’s no exceptions here — there’s none. It’s all.’”

Now if he were Black, then imagine the rage here .....

Such hypocrisy.

Anon. wrote:

I wonder sometimes if either tribe, when holding sure enough power, would give a damn for the rights of the other, Constitution or otherwise. We know the libs don't value the Constitution - we just haven't seen the modern conservatives fully enough in charge yet to see how they'll piss on it.

It might just come down to who controls enough of the guns in the end, and that might be what it always comes down to, especially when no respect obtains for fellow citizens as such.

Steve wrote:

there are many American Christians, as well as Christians from other countries, that read those passages that way. Their faith tells them that this is an age of wickedness and evil. It's THEIR faith, and I don't dally at that doorstep.
But I fail to see the hypocrisy?
'splain it to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Reading this, why do I think we maybe have our female Putin if McCain wins and conks out?

Seems to me Alaska is still the frontier where a governor can pretty much act like a petty dictator.

Don't be fooled by her looks. This woman will not defend the constitution. Is she really what you want in Washington?

Leland wrote:

Read the Politico story. I read it as, she cut a few unnecessary departments from the small city payroll. What exactly is suppose to bother me about that?

I also have no idea what firing government employees has to do with the Constitution, but then I doubt the person suggesting "she won't defend the Constitution" knows either.

Leave a comment

Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on September 5, 2008 5:19 PM.

Fool's Paradise was the previous entry in this blog.

Defending "Community Organizers" is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.1