A Pre-emptive Strike Against the Constitution

Email Print posted by Cenk 12/01/2006 02:11:10 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
Newt Gingrich started the attack against the US constitution in the beginning of the week. He launched operation shock and awe by striking against one of the most cherished principles of this country - the freedom of speech. It worked, because after all we've been through in the last six years, I was still shocked by this. The first amendment! I am not sure I can name something more sacred to the principles of America.

Then Dennis Prager came in and delivered the second blow to the first amendment (if you don't know him, don't worry, you're not alone; he is a buffoonish conservative talk show host who has made a cheap living desperately trying to copy Rush Limbaugh his whole life). Prager went after the establishment clause. He argued that every member of Congress should show their allegiance to the Bible in order to be allowed into Congress. The first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." How much clearer did they have to be?

But in case, you're as dense as Prager, the framers did make it clearer! Here is Article VI of the United States Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The problem with these conservatives is that they truly don't understand the idea of America. They have no idea what this country stands for. If all we stand for is the religious views of the majority, then we are no different than any country in the Middle East. If we strike out against our enemies by trying to shut down their right to speak, then we are no better than communist China or the Islamic Republic of Iran.

These conservatives missed the whole point of the country. We are not just some slab of land between Canada and Mexico. Nebraska or Rhode Island or Hawaii is not the chosen land of any deity. The people that live here hold no special claim to privilege based on race, nationality or a favored religion. What makes us the greatest country on earth is that we are open and free. That we are willing to die to protect that freedom, and not just for us. We are the guardians of freedom. We are the ones who believe in liberty and champion it throughout the world.

And these clowns want to take that away because they are afraid? Perhaps Gingrich should have looked up the motto of the state he was speaking in. New Hampshire is the place of patriots - American patriots who lived and died for freedom. Not the place of moral and ideological cowards. In New Hampshire, they believe you "live free or die!"

That's the America I know and love.

Not the scared, shut-down society afraid of dissent that Newt Gingrich envisions. Not the exclusive, fundamentalist Judeo-Christian stronghold of America that Dennis Prager dreams of. I know an America that is open and free - and proud.

Don't tell me our boys died in Iwo Jima and Bunker Hill and Gettysburg and Normandy, so a bunch of cheap-suited Republican cowards can give away our freedoms without a fight in the middle of the night.

Newt Gingrich said that we should empanel people to impose a level of supervision on speech that we would normally never dream of. Why? Because he's afraid of the big, bad Osama. If your beloved Republican leader had caught him, maybe you wouldn't be wetting your pants worried about him. We beat the Nazis so that Gingrich could give our rights away to a bunch of ragtag terrorists?

This is the white flag of surrender. Gingrich is saying that we cannot defeat the terrorists with our rules. In case, you think that's an exaggeration, he literally said we need a "different set of rules" to limit speech and the internet. He is saying the American system that was good enough to win World War I, World War II and the Cold War is not good enough to beat Al Qaeda.

If I was less polite man, I would call little Newt a pussy. But I'm far too polite. Besides I don't want him putting this website on his list of dangerous websites that need to be banned. Oh, did I not tell you about that part?  

"This is a serious long term war and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, it will lead us to close down every website that is dangerous."

This man wants to be President. If this is the kind of pre-emptive strike he has in mind against our constitution, imagine what he would do if he actually seized power. Remember, the last time Gingrich was in the government, he shut it down. Does he believe in the US system at all?

Can Newt Gingrich fairly be called an American anymore? He might have been born here and he currently resides here, but is he really an American? In order to be truly American, don't you have to believe in America?

If these Republicans don't believe they can defeat the terrorists without giving up our unalienable rights and our system of government, maybe they should step aside and let some real men of honor guide this country back to the path of righteousness and strength.

The Young Turks

< Class Warrior vs Class Clown | Mexico's Calderon sneaks into office, is jeered >
 Display:
A Pre-emptive Strike Against the Constitution | 8 comments (8 topical, 0 hidden)
Real Americans respect religious freedom (none / 0)

 

I was upset when I heard about the Anti-American suggestion that Congressmen should be required to swear an oath of allegiance on the Bible. Article VI of the Constitution should resolve the issue, at least for actual Americans.  For those whose political loyalty is to some wished-for theocracy, the Constitution will always be meaningless. 
 

Besides, the purpose of putting one's hand on a Holy Book is to bind the one doing the swearing.  A non-Muslim would consider an oath on the Quran no more binding than an oath on the telephone book.  While Muslims have a degree of respect for the Bible, it is not as great as their respect for the Quran.  If what we want is to drive home the obligation of the Muslim swearer, he should swear in whatever way brings the seriousness of the oath home to him. 

The Constitution does not permit anyone, even a majority, to require that any religious book be used at all.
 

 

Gerry

by Gerrysch on 12/01/2006 03:52:52 PM EST

Constitution (none / 0)
"The Constitution does not permit anyone, even a majority, to require that any religious book be used at all."


Well the states certainly can establish religion

The first amendment

"The First Amendment to the Constitution plainly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..." "

So since there can be no federal law on the subject...the courts probably shouldn't be weighing in either.

The 10th amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So since the Federal government is prohibited from establishing a religion, that right by default according to the constitution is reserved for the states.

So the states should be able to establish their respected religions.

by acroso on 12/03/2006 01:20:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
14th Amendment (none / 0)
The 1st applies to the states through the 14th so, no, the states can't establish a religion.

by nfc on 12/03/2006 06:51:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
sense (none / 0)
Your post made no sense. Please clarify.

by acroso on 12/03/2006 09:49:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Some clarity (none / 0)
The Supreme Court has held that the 1st amendment applies to the states through the 14th amendment.  Most of the Bill of Rights is applied to the states by "incorporation" through the 14th amendment.  Notably, the 2nd amendment has never been held to apply to the states through the 14th so a state could, if it doesn't violate the state's own constitution, ban all guns.  Also the 5ths requirement that criminal trials may only follow a grand jury indictment and the 7th do not apply to the states through the 14th. 

by nfc on 12/04/2006 12:37:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
1st amendment (none / 0)
Well if that is true then yes,
I wonder what the basis was of applying the 1st amendment to states rights though.

by acroso on 12/04/2006 01:27:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It's shocking that its not shocking (none / 0)
I'm surprised at the lack of outrage . Americans have rolled over and played dead when it comes to thier rights. illegal wiretapping, the new revelation about the airport screening, The Patriot Act stripping us of rights on and on.

For Gingrich to say something like that casually and thinks it will play is to be expected I guess.

These people need to get out of the way and we need to put in people that actually believe in the constitution.

by HungryJack on 12/03/2006 11:28:22 AM EST

hmmm (none / 0)
looks like the frog is getting a nice warm bath right now.  2008 will be the year that determines just how cooked the frog gets.

hint:  if you drop a frog in boiling water, it will jump out.  if you drop it in room tempature water and turn the heat up, it will sit there until its cooked.  that there is no outrage is an indication of how the past six years of neocon terrorism has worn us down.

by thbbbt on 12/04/2006 07:35:06 AM EST

A Pre-emptive Strike Against the Constitution | 8 comments (8 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: