In My Right Mind

"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain

My Photo
Name:
Location: Universal City, Texas, United States

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson

Friday, July 08, 2005

It's The Constitution, Stupid

Unlike the democrats, President Bush won’t use a litmus test to determine who his selection is to fill vacant Supreme Court Justice positions. And, unlike the democrats, Bush’s priority will be to ensure that his nominee will respect the Constitution and it’s intent rather than ignore the Constitution and legislate from the bench.

Here is Bush’s position quoted from an AP story:

Bush has said there would be no litmus test for his nominee on issues such as abortion or gay rights.

"I'll pick people who, one, can do the job, people who are honest, people who are bright and people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not use the bench to legislate from," the president said earlier this week.

Good for him! This is yet another reason that I am so glad that we have Bush for president. He understands what is at stake here. While democrats and republicans, (conservative and liberals), are jockeying for their side’s position to fill the vacancy in the form of a justice who echoes their viewpoints, their ideology – Bush has seen past all of that nonsense.

The whole purpose of having checks and balances built into our form of government, is to ensure no one person (i.e. dictator) or that no one ideological group (oligarchy) overpowers another and forces its viewpoints upon everyone else.

Obviously, two of the three branches of government are politically motivated. Both Congress and the President have political party ties, as well they should. They are elected officials. Supreme Court Justices, however, are not elected officials.

The Supreme Court, being the third branch of the government, has an a-partisan role to fulfill. By "a-partisan" I mean to suggest that political party affiliation should have no meaning or application to a Supreme Court Justice’s role. The Supreme Court’s role is to ensure that the Constitution is being followed.

The Supreme Court ensures that the Constitution is the litmus test that approves or denies the validity of the output from the other two branches of government: the Executive Branch, and the Legislative Branch.

This citizen definitely falls into the conservative camp of politics. As such, I am obviously interested in seeing conservative concerns triumph in the characterization of the American landscape. I also want conservative ideology to inform the way America conducts its business and lives. But, I will be the first to tell you that I’m glad that all views must pass the Constitution litmus test. If any conservative viewpoint conflicts with our Constitution then it has got to go!

The Constitution is the ultimate authority that defines American government. Period. Not the Republican Party. Not the Democrat Party. Not the liberal agenda. Not the conservative agenda. Not the Moral Majority. Not the Christian Right. Not the ACLU. Not Moveon.org.

To the extent that these viewpoints, or any other for that matter, agree with the Constitution’s dictations, fine. Any point(s) where these viewpoints digress from the Constitution’s view, they must be abandoned in favor of the Constitution.

Bush apparently has confidence in the Constitution. Liberals have demonstrated that they don’t. Hence the actions of their activist justices. Let’s not forget Roe Vs. Wade, and more recently Kelo Vs. New London.

2 Comments:

Anonymous Phil in Florida said...

A couple of weeks ago I was listening to a local radio broadcast which was a talk show using local input and I was at first amused and then suddenly astounded by what a seemingly common man who didn't sound highly educated at all had to say about the US Supreme Court. He first asked the hosts if it weren't true that the justices represent the real "legal brain-trust" of the United States. They all agreed. Then he went on to ask them "well then why is it that we seem to have so many 5 to 4 decisions?" BINGO!!! That really stikes you as bordering on profound. Now, the good part, he went on to state his opinion that "since that seems to be the case, why don't we just flip a coin!" I agree with him 100%

6:31 PM  
Anonymous Alonso Hossain said...

Quite agreed.

11:04 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home