Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Radical Change

We really are at a cross-roads in this nation. The change Obama offers is a radical change to the left in many ways. I have blogged before on two fundamental issues - the far left's plans for criminalizing political differences should they get their hands on the reigns of power in America and that Supreme Court activism is a is drastically degrading our written Constitution. Both issues are in the news today.

As I've written previously:

There are many things deeply troubling about the far left in America. Their disdain for democracy and utter refusal to contenance dissenting speech are at the top of the list. But, now on the verge of actually taking control of the police power of the U.S. in the November elections, the far left are going beyond intolerance and into a realm of existential threat to America and democracy. It is the talk - from Obama through his potential advisors and numerous others - to criminalize policy differnces and dissent. This is a giant step beyond mere partisan politics in a competitive democracy.

If you go to that post, you will see the numerous examples I've included of this rising call on the far left to prosecute the Bush administration, including for war crimes. The talk goes from Obama and Biden on down. And today, the NRO weighs in on this very troubling issue:

So now we have Barack Obama’s plan for bringing the nation together after the election: If he gets his hands on the Department of Justice, Obama will use that power to prosecute his political opponents.

. . . across the political divide, there is a broad understanding among Americans that these disputes are political differences, not legal ones. They are the stuff of elections, not indictments. It is tyrannies and banana republics, not mature democracies, that criminalize policy disputes.

Read the entire article. That this is even an issue appearing on the radar screen in America is a measure of just how radical a change from our Western, capitalist democracy that an Obama victory portends to make.

And equally troubling is the left's attitudes towards the Constitution and the Supreme Court. As I've written previously:

There are two broad schools of Constitutional interpretation today – originalism and the "living constitution" theory. The latter is pure judicial activism dressed in a bare patina of Constitutional justification. In the last week, we have been treated to the best – an originalist Second Amendment decision - and worst – an activist habeas corpus decision - of the Supreme Court by Judges applying those two schools of thought.

Originalists attempt to interpret the Constitution by determining what the people who drafted it and voted for it understood it to mean at the time. An intellectually honest originalist does not announce new policy, he or she interprets history and precedent. That is a bit oversimplified - originalism is certainly not always that clean and can become muddled as precedent builds (and see the discussion here). But because there is always a strong bias to stay limited to what the Constitution says and what the drafters meant, it provides a carefully circumscribed role for unelected judges, thus paying the maximum deference to democracy.

When a Court stops interpreting the meaning of the Constitution and starts to impose its own policy views under the color of a "living constitution," it transforms into a Politburo legislating by fiat. Judicial activists and the left who champions them are the people who see an activist Court as a way around democracy and an irreplacable tool to remake society.

That post gives numerous examples of how this has played out as a fundamental threat to the fabric of our nation. I do not believe that an overstatement. You are welcome to visit the post and decide for yourself.

That said, Rasmussen did a recent survey on attitudes toward the Supreme Court and the basis for their jurisprudence. What he found is that well over half the left want to jettison the Constitution as the basis for decision making by our courts and near a majority want to replace it with "fairness." This is an incredible indictment of our educational system and a truly frightening look into the views of the left:

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.

Read the entire article.

Obama has promised change. God help the nation if he delivers.

1 comment:

suek said...

You might find this an interesting perspective: