Slaying the Goliath

Amen! Reading the Constitution is an enlightening experience. A moment of silence for optional prayer or meditation in school is a great blessing... but a teacher-led or mandatory Christian prayer is not, if one really reads these documents. For example, there is no reference in the Constitution whatsoever to this being a "Christian nation," and the writings of the Framers make it clear that they did not intend it to be so (with the possible exceptions of John Jay and Patrick Henry, who were outvoted on the issue).

Oh Justin. Where do I start? I guess I'll take it line by line.

First off, let me start by saying that I am not a "leftist" or a conservative. I am a reformist. I see abuses made by people to the system because of the holes INHERENT IN THAT SYSTEM. It doesn't mean the system (ie the government) is flawed, it just needs to be fixed to keep people (liberals AND conservatives) from abusing it.

And p.s.-"anonymous" didn't say anything important.

Now that that is out of the way, you start by saying that conservatives believe in the exact wording of the Constitution, but then you further state that there are ways to change it: the amendment process. If the conservatives went solely by the words of the constitution, there would be no amendment process. There would be no change. They would see the problems with the original document and, going off of the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law, would be left with no options to fix it. Instead, the conservatives that you so highly tout as being fixed to the real intent of the constitution recognized this problem and established the amendment process. Your argument here is basically contradicting itself. "Conservatives believe in the exact wording, but are able to change the exact wording when they realize something is wrong with the original wording?" Just doesn't make sense. At least not to me.

Moving on you say that judges apparently have their own agendas once they reach the supreme court. This is human error and nothing more. We all have our ideas and beliefs and someone will always be there to consider them wrong. Take abortion, for instance. It really shouldn't even be a constitutional matter which means the supreme court should have never seen the case. However, a few judges said it's ok, and a million PEOPLE said it's still wrong. So who is really right? What I'm getting at here is that even righty (your side) judges have ulterior motives and aim to push their own political agendas because in the end, NO ONE REALLY KNOWS WHAT'S RIGHT OR WRONG. The constitution, except for the ultimately black and white issues, such as due process and the fifth amendment, are OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. To me, that's what makes this country great. You have minds debating on what things really mean. The founding fathers aren't here to tell us EXACTLY what they meant with certain areas of the constitution. For instance, if you read my blog and I said, "I will run," you know I'm going to run. You DO NOT KNOW, however if I am going to run fast, run slow, run far or run short distances. Only I know the exact details and meaning of that sentence. Every one else will just argue as to what exactly I meant. In short, republicans interpret things the way they want to interpret them the same as liberals do. So blame everyone. Not just one group.

Your next statement is that only conservatives believe in all of the bill of rights, but you basically only use three of them to say that liberals don't believe in any of them. Where's the logic in that? Your main argument is that giving children the ability to pray in school without making them pray to a certain entity should be allowed in public schools. But the amendment itself says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Wouldn't granting that right to pray be respecting an establishment of A RELIGION? Not a CERTAIN one, but JUST RELIGION. Yes. It would. However, wouldn't NOT GRANTING THIS RIGHT be prohibiting the free exercise of A CERTAIN RELIGION? Clearly it would. So you see, what you have here is a difference in understanding. Not really a difference of what is right and wrong. You and the conservatives read the latter half of the amendment and the liberals focus on the first half of the amendment. This can be called "radical fundamentalism." Who are radical fundamentalists? Terrorists. And what are we arguing over? Religion. Why do radical muslims hate America? Because of our freedom of RELIGION. I know it's a stretch to call everyone terrorists, and that's not really what I'm doing. I'm just pointing out that we aren't that far off. All we're missing is the TNT strapped to our chests.

You go on to argue that liberals are basically hypocrites when it comes to the freedom of speech issue. They say burning a flag is ok (which as a soldier for the United States Army, I feel people have that right and I am helping to protect that right) but use the Fairness Doctrine to silence critics of liberals. Let me say that the fairness doctrine was dissolved in 1987, so what exactly are you doing other than beating a dead horse. The two fundamental ideas of the doctrine DID remain in effect until 2000, but who were those really hurting? It was a personal attack clause and political affiliation clause. The first one basically says that if a person or group is attacked on air, that person or group has the right to respond. If someone questioned your sexuality on air you WOULDN'T want the chance to respond? I think you would. The second says that if a station or person, such as Limbaugh and his people ALWAYS do, endorses a political party or candidate, the opposing candidate or party should get to respond. Once again, where's the harm? I think your argument from this one comes from the early lawsuits, but this isn't even an issue anymore. So what if liberals sent the guy a letter? How is that really going to silence the guy? Show me the text of the letter and we'll go from there. People always cry about what someone says about them. Yes. Conservatives, too.

You just mention the 2nd amendment, but make no argument. So moving on.

Next, you basically say how horribly unconstitutional the New Deal is and how it makes the Feds ever so powerful. Are you sure you know what the New Deal is, because there's some wonderful things in that you're probably using now, or will use in the future. Heard of FDIC? You know...that thing that insures all of your money in the bank? Wouldn't it be great if we didn't have that and the bank suddenly filed a phony bankruptcy and made off with your money. That would just be awesome. I wish we didn't have the FDIC. I want my money to be stolen! It also has this pretty dumb thing called the FHA, or Federal Housing Authority. But who wants a low interest rate on a house? I don't. Low down payment on a house? Psh. Not for me! By the way, FHA hasn't asked for public tax funding in 3 decades. That's 30 years. It finally asked for help in 2008. But, that's a pretty good run, I think. What the hell is the big deal about this programs that are working great? Checks and balances are still there, so there's no issue. Oh yeah...there's also social security. Sure...this one's debatable, but nothing a little overhaul wouldn't fix. Even your conservatives want to keep it. Just privatize it, but keep it, nonetheless. You say that he tried to pack the courts, but where in the constitution that you so strongly uphold does it state there must be a certain amount of justices? It doesn't. So much for believing in every word of it. But if you believe in the letter of the law, which you say you do, then you must not uphold anything that IS NOT included. So the next time you shoot a man and kill him and don't go to jail due to self defense, thank the spirit of the law which you so firmly oppose.

Roosevelt decried the conservative justices "reading into the Constitution words and implications which are not there, and which were never intended to be there." That shows you that conservatives are guilty of the same crimes you accuse liberals of committing: not following the TRUE LETTER OF THE LAW.

That's basically it for argumentative purposes, but your last argument made me laugh. Democrats = destruction. Heh. Basic logic class teaches you that slippery slope arguments are inherently flawed. But even so, Canada is socialist. I think they're doing just fine. Not saying that I want socialism, but it's crazy to think that a democrat will lead to that. But even so, your republican president who is now in office has created DEATH, DESTRUCTION AND SUBMISSION. But you probably think like him...it's ok as long as it's not us, right?

"Not saying that I want socialism, but it's crazy to think that a democrat will lead to that."

You are correct. Raising the minimum wage almost two whole dollars, intending to "protect" domestic american companies from internationally competitive threats, establishing government-run health care and curbing all independent drug company and health insurance profits is actually ardent communism (minus the independent corporations which I'm sure we would be subsidized). This is Obama's (a democrat) platform. The only reason people aren't screaming red is because he uses eloquent euphemisms like "hope" and "change" to mask his brand of European socialism.

Chris, what a lengthy response. Unfortunately, I fear mine will be as well.

The exact wording of the Constitution established the Amendment Process in Article V. Conservatives do believe in the exact wording of the Constitution. The Constitution is the word of the people, and if the people believe there is something wrong with it, they can change it through the Amendment process. No single faction of the community can or should be allowed to deem part of the Constitution wrong. Conservatives follow the exact word of the people (the Constitution) as it currently stands.

As to judges having their own agenda once they reach the Supreme Court, I agree with former Justice Oliver Wendell Homes and his concept of what became Legal Realism. As you say, we all have our individual beliefs and ideas and those undeniably will influence the decisions a judge makes on the court. My argument is that this should not happen whether the judge is Conservative, Liberal, or somewhere in between. I agree that abortion is an issue that the court should have never seen - as are many issues; however, some of the judges on the court wished to write their beliefs and opinions into law and Justice Blackmun gave us a Constitutionally protected right to abortion. If the people wanted this right to be constitutionally protected, they can amend the Constitution.

You further argue that the Constitution is open to interpretation. Indeed, much of the document consists of generalities – allowing it to apply to a wide area of issues and over an extended period of time. There is a large difference, however, between interpreting the First Amendment as granting an American the right to burn a flag under the Free Speech Clause (By the way, I agree with the ruling in Texas v. Johnson upholding that right. Although, I find it despicable that any American would wish to do so.), and creating a new Constitutional Right to Abortion based on a right to Privacy derived from the similar principals of liberty within the bill of rights – especially the 4th Amendment. Conservative judges, on the other hand, are not in the habit of creating completely new rights like that. Can you name me one “Constitutional right” created by a Conservative Justice? By the way, Republican appointed judges are not necessarily Conservative. The terms Republican and Conservative are not synonymous.

As to the Bill of Rights, I did not say that only Conservatives believe in them. Plenty of Americans believe in the entire Bill of Rights. I said that the Left does not believe in all of them. That is what I meant when I employed this statement: “Conservatives believe in the Bill of Rights. Unlike the Left, we believe in all of them.” I further explicitly stated that I was only going to discuss a few as an example. The purpose of that was to try to aid the length of the article – although that is irrelevant because my argument again was to display that the Left did not believe in them all. Just one would have been enough.

Regarding the First Amendment and the two religious clauses, No granting a right to pray to any deity one wishes would not be an establishment of religion. Passing a law mandating that students pay to one or any deity would be. Giving them the opportunity to do so if they wish is simply honoring their guaranteed free exercise thereof. The two clauses are not contradictory. We are far from the terrorists because we do not mandate, under penalty of death, that all citizens practice Christianity or some other certain religion. Our debate is about providing citizens with the opportunity to worship whomever they wish. Forbidding a student to pray is forbidding them to practice their religion – any religion.

Yes, the Fairness doctrine has been dissolved. I fear that I should have been more clear in my reasoning here. In the 109th Congress, Democratic House member Maurice Hinchey and 16 co-sponsors attempted to reintroduce the fairness doctrine in H.R. 3302. In 2004, Media Matters for America began a campaign to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine. It is still very much something that the Left wishes to be imposed on talk radio – their largest critics. The problem with it is that it requires broadcasters to present both sides of a “controversial” issue eating up their airtime. Because controversial issue is very vague, it can encompass almost any issue. Broadcasters then refrain from discussing those important issues to avoid lawsuits and wasting airtime. It is no coincidence that the Fairness Doctrine was dissolved in 1987, and Rush Limbaugh became a nationally syndicated talk show host in 1988; moreover, the old and newly opposed versions of the fairness doctrine only apply to talk radio. Why only apply it to one medium if the authors are actually concerned with fairness? Why does it not require presentation of the opposite side in newspaper editorials as well, or on television? If others want to present support for other candidates, then they are free to discuss those candidates and liberal issues on a radio show of their own.

The significance of the letter is that it was an official act of over 40 senators to silence the free speech of a talk show host. If you wish to see the letter, you can easily find it online. Just search for Harry Reid and Rush Limbaugh.

On to the New Deal: Of course, I know what it is. The new deal and its programs have been shoved down my throat in history and political science classes since 6th grade history. You said yourself that conservatives want to keep Social Security, but privatize it. The purpose of privatizing it is to take that money and power that comes with it out of the pockets of the government, which is what my argument was to begin with. The New Deal created the first Social Security program and we all see what the government, both Republicans and Democrats, has done with that money – blown it on everything but Social Security. It has been heavily abused, because as I said government cannot be trusted with that type of power.

I don’t understand were you get the idea that I believe there should be a certain number of Justices on the Supreme Court. I fully understand Article III says nothing about it. In fact, the first Supreme Court had only 6 justices. It was not unconstitutional for him to try and do so. My point was that the judges on the court saw the unconstitutionality of many of the programs he proposed, and he attempted to go around that by appointed activist judges of the type which I have discussed above. Roosevelt also complained of their “horse and buggy” mentality – implying they were apply the word of the law, which he saw as out of date. Roosevelt’s vacant criticisms of the judges he tried to go around with court packing are hardly an argument displaying conservative activism. As far as self-defense laws go, those are laws passed by the individual state, and the Constitution reserves the right of the states to do so in the Tenth Amendment.

As far as President Bush is concerned I have my share of criticism for him as well, but that is slightly beyond the scope of our current debate. On an important side note, thank you for your service Chris, and let us please refrain from allowing this debate to damage our long friendship.

yo chris rodriguez...
I do appreciate your time and articulate critique of "Slaying the Goliath". I mostly agree with what you are pointing out. However...
...one thing: THAT we don't have TNT strapped to our chest is no small difference. maybe when you re-read that line you will take it back.
You must first agree that the term "radical fundamentalist" is beginning to be watered down as it is thrown as mud across the political aisles.
Secondly, two opposing radical fundamentalists are still fair and right in this society, and they have every right to be radical in their views as someone who is completely apathetic towards all things political. -Pathetically apathetic - but it's their choice.
TO BE MILITANT is a whole different game.
you are starting to blur the lines when you declare (against your own claiming of no right or wrong) that a radical fundamentalist is, in fact, a terrorist.
It sounds to me you have a plenty of strong personal beliefs or you would not be here in the comments column putting a correction down on the radical fundamentalist who wrote this article.
I am pretty convinced that anyone who sticks their neck out there these days knows they are entering an all out rugby match, yourself included.
And all of us are, in fact, radical fundamentalists in doing so.
later dude.