Why yes. Yes I must.
My Don’t Obamize the Tea Party post went up a couple weeks ago. A couple days ago, commenter ‘Doc’ found it and left a comment. That’s what commenters do.
I appreciate comments. So I’ll be gentle. Here we go.
“As a wildly conservative Christian ‘evangelical’ (a term that is about ready for the dumper, just like ‘born-again’, as far as having any usefulness in actually describing a ‘branch’ of Christianity), I basically agree with you. My emphasis would be: the Constitution. We need to rediscover it, like Josiah rediscovered the Book of the Law.”
I neither understand nor care about the differences among various ‘branches’ of Christianity. You all look alike to me. [In a good way, honest.] Also, I don’t know who Josiah is. However I applaud your loyalty to the Constitution, and am mildly amused at the juxtaposition of ‘wildly’ and ‘conservative’.
“We need legislators, executives, and judges willing to admit that, e.g., Social Security is grossly unConstitutional, and we need to be arguing over exactly how to end it, not how to ‘fix’ it.”
Ending is fixing, in it’s own way, right? So is privatizing. No real disagreement here, although that particular battle needs to wait a while. I have some thoughts on how to work up to it (coming soon). Also, from our Department of Picking the Nits, slight misuse of the term ‘e.g.’ there.
“If we actually followed the Constitution, the ‘social’ issues would be much easier to deal with because, e.g., we would also acknowledge that the Federal Gov’t has exactly zero power to force states to make abortion legal.”
Or force them to make it illegal, either.
“Likewise there would be no Federal judicial actions regarding, e.g., the military’s policy re homosexuals, or homosexual ‘marriage’.”
Misfire. And everything was going so well!
The Constitution provides for Congress (federal legislative branch) to raise and fund a military force, and for the President (federal executive branch) to be Commander in Chief of the military. Seems like, under the concept of checks and balances, the federal judiciary branch might just have a role in there somewhere.
Regarding ‘marriage’, though, I’m with you. In fact, I see no reason for ‘federal judicial actions’ regarding (e.g.) heterosexual ‘marriage’ either.
[Do you always put ‘it’ in quotes like that?]
“Good grief, per the Constitution, if a state wanted to make the Presbyterian Church of America (not the Bible-less PCUSA, mind you) the state religion, it should be allowed to; it’s only the Federal gov’t that can’t establish a ‘religion’ (which word, to the Founders in the 1780’s, referred to any of the denominations of Christianity, not to Islam/Buddhism/Wicca/etc).”
And ‘good grief’, we’re off the reservation. You display not just pro-Christian bias, but pro-your-kind-of-Christian bias. Per the Constitution, the First Amendment does not apply to religions other than yours, to include forms of Christianity of which you disapprove? That’s what you just said.
On the plus side, I mentioned Wicca in my post, you mentioned Wicca in your comment. So either you really did read the whole thing, or you think that Wicca is a real religion. Either way, good on ya. Mate.
And by the way, suppose a state decided to make Wicca, or Judaism, or even the “Bible-less PCUSA” the state religion? You’d be cool with that, right? Or, when you say you want states to be able to do such things, do you assume the religion involved will be yours and only yours?
“We ‘So-Cons’ could fight at the state level for whatever ‘intrusive’ policies our little hearts desired, while the economic engine of the nation would run unfettered by ludicrous interpretations of the Commerce Clause.”
Combining this with the previous quote, what you’re saying is that the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to the governments of the various states. Okay. States have their own constitutions that could include such provisions*. But what if a particular state didn’t? Up to them, right?
If the various states are not bound by the Bill of Rights, then a state government could shut down a local newspaper for criticizing the governor; it could allow the state patrol to come into your house for a search without cause; it could imprison you for refusing to give testimony against yourself, if such protections didn’t exist within it’s own constitution. See my point? You need some quiet time to think about this.
Thanks for the comment! I hope you leave some more. I got a whole post out of this one – it wasn’t as funny as I hoped (it rarely is), but maybe next time.
*Wisconsin’s constitution has a declaration of rights (Article 1) that is both more clear and more robust than the Bill of Rights.