Monday, January 23, 2006
To the Editor of The New York Times
Dear Editor:
Your editorial "Judge Alito's radical view" describes Samuel Alito as a "conservative" supported by a "vocal group of hard-core conservatives. " You say that he has "a radically broad view of the president's power, and a radically narrow view of Congress's power" and that he "wants to reduce the rights and liberties of ordinary Americans, and has a history of tilting the scales of justice against the little guy."
If these are Alito's views, these are not the views of a conservative. True conservatives are dedicated to upholding the Constitution, which supports the God-given rights of "the little guy" and a balance of power, that, if anything gives greater power to Congress than the executive.
The following paragraph doesn't describe a conservative, but rather someone who would destroy the foundations upon which our Republic was built.
"Alito would no doubt try to change the court's approach. He has supported the fringe 'unitary executive' theory, which would give the president greater power to detain Americans and would throw off the checks and balances built into the Constitution. He has also put forth the outlandish idea that if the president makes a statement when he signs a bill into law, a court interpreting the law should give his intent the same weight it gives to Congress's intent in writing and approving the law."
So, dear Editor, get your terms right. If what you say is true, this man has a liberal interpretation of the Constitution. What we need is a true conservative on the high court - one who will take us back to the original interpretations of the Constitution, found, for example, in the Federalist Papers.
I read the New York Times editorial in an online verson of the International Herald Tribune found at http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/23/opinion/edalito.php.
Your editorial "Judge Alito's radical view" describes Samuel Alito as a "conservative" supported by a "vocal group of hard-core conservatives. " You say that he has "a radically broad view of the president's power, and a radically narrow view of Congress's power" and that he "wants to reduce the rights and liberties of ordinary Americans, and has a history of tilting the scales of justice against the little guy."
If these are Alito's views, these are not the views of a conservative. True conservatives are dedicated to upholding the Constitution, which supports the God-given rights of "the little guy" and a balance of power, that, if anything gives greater power to Congress than the executive.
The following paragraph doesn't describe a conservative, but rather someone who would destroy the foundations upon which our Republic was built.
"Alito would no doubt try to change the court's approach. He has supported the fringe 'unitary executive' theory, which would give the president greater power to detain Americans and would throw off the checks and balances built into the Constitution. He has also put forth the outlandish idea that if the president makes a statement when he signs a bill into law, a court interpreting the law should give his intent the same weight it gives to Congress's intent in writing and approving the law."
So, dear Editor, get your terms right. If what you say is true, this man has a liberal interpretation of the Constitution. What we need is a true conservative on the high court - one who will take us back to the original interpretations of the Constitution, found, for example, in the Federalist Papers.
I read the New York Times editorial in an online verson of the International Herald Tribune found at http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/23/opinion/edalito.php.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Lament at the death of a great patriot
This week Clean Skousen died, just short of 93 years old. A prolific author, he courageously fought against the Communist threat in America when it was unpopular to do so. As a young boy, I remember his book "So you want to raise a boy" on my father's shelves. My father who is now 87 read most of what Cleon wrote and shared much of it with me. I naturally became an avid reader of his works. (See nephew Mark Skousen's tribute at http://www.mskousen.com/index.html.
With the fall of Communism in eastern Europe, these countries were finally open to western thought and influences. I visited recently with a good friend and his wife who returned from the Ukraine where they served as a missionary couple. They reported that the vestiges of communism still exist in those countries. It may be another generation before these people are free of the attitudes and habits of that tyrannical system. Most noticeable is the lack of trust for one another. People don't say hello to each other nor do they visit with each other. Neighbors don't know neighbors; nor do they help one another.
Even though communism may not be the threat it once was, we still need to be vigilant. The enemies of freedom and agency are not so obvious, but they are there, both internationally and at home. Enemy number one may be ourselves. As Pogo said, "we have met the enemy and it is us."
Our stature and reputation as a nation have never been so low. We have become the new colonialists, secretly and openly forcing our will on other nations. And at home we face our own crises. In America our constitution is in a shambles from unchecked executive power, courts that legislate, and a Congress that is corrupted by special interests. Are we doomed like the Roman Republic before us to become the slaves to an oligarchy and the ideology of an elite.
With the fall of Communism in eastern Europe, these countries were finally open to western thought and influences. I visited recently with a good friend and his wife who returned from the Ukraine where they served as a missionary couple. They reported that the vestiges of communism still exist in those countries. It may be another generation before these people are free of the attitudes and habits of that tyrannical system. Most noticeable is the lack of trust for one another. People don't say hello to each other nor do they visit with each other. Neighbors don't know neighbors; nor do they help one another.
Even though communism may not be the threat it once was, we still need to be vigilant. The enemies of freedom and agency are not so obvious, but they are there, both internationally and at home. Enemy number one may be ourselves. As Pogo said, "we have met the enemy and it is us."
Our stature and reputation as a nation have never been so low. We have become the new colonialists, secretly and openly forcing our will on other nations. And at home we face our own crises. In America our constitution is in a shambles from unchecked executive power, courts that legislate, and a Congress that is corrupted by special interests. Are we doomed like the Roman Republic before us to become the slaves to an oligarchy and the ideology of an elite.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Traditional Conservative agenda now in the hands of Liberals
The Samuel Alito hearings confirm again that the liberals have taken over the conservative agenda and made it their own. Checks and balances were incorporated into the Constitution that limited the power of the executive. Since Roosevelt, the American president has become more and more powerful at the expense of the Congress. Many Conservatives feel this balance needs to be restored. Yet, it is the liberals on the Senate Judicial Committee that seem to be concerned about the increased powers of the Presidency. (See NYTimes article.)
Other areas where the liberals seem to be following a conservative agenda are in budget restraint and foreign affairs. Conservatives have traditionally been fiscally responsible, but not this president. Also, conservatives have tended to be more isolationist, following Washington's wisdom to avoid "foreign entanglements." But this president took us to war in Iraq. (The liberals want us out.) And this president also supports involvement in the WTO and free trade agreements. These initiatives support multi-national corporations and the military industrial complex and not the American people.
Other areas where the liberals seem to be following a conservative agenda are in budget restraint and foreign affairs. Conservatives have traditionally been fiscally responsible, but not this president. Also, conservatives have tended to be more isolationist, following Washington's wisdom to avoid "foreign entanglements." But this president took us to war in Iraq. (The liberals want us out.) And this president also supports involvement in the WTO and free trade agreements. These initiatives support multi-national corporations and the military industrial complex and not the American people.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
