 |
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif?v=92.1) conservatism
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1) typewriterking | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Something libertarians and conservatives online like to tag-team on is mockery of the politicians that declare wars on domestic ills, such as the war on drugs, and especially the war on poverty. The later is mathematically impossible to irradiate so long as we define those living in poverty as those belonging to the bottom quintile in household income. One long forgotten is Richard Nixon's War on Cancer, declared December 23, 1971, with the National Cancer Act. In his address, Nixon announced his intent to defeat this deadly foe: - "More people each year die of cancer in the United States than all the Americans who lost their lives in World War II. This shows us what is at stake. It tells us why I sent a message to the Congress the first of this year, which provided for a national commitment for the conquest of cancer, to attempt to find a cure."
It seems the whole journalistic profession, and Official Washington, must have forgotten this bold declaration to eradicate the scourge of cancer. The nation must have amnesia! How thoroughly have we forgotten Nixon's War on Cancer? Barack Obama, June 3rd, 2009: - "We know this fight will not be easy, but we have gone far too long without necessary reforms to our health-care system. Now is the time to commit ourselves to waging a war against cancer as aggressive as the war cancer wages against us."
George Santayana sure was right about us repeating the history that we forget! :D And you know what? For forgot Nixon did it. I bet you forgot Obama did it. And I bet in thirty years you'll hear a new president, in the most pompous bold language, declare a fresh new war on this old indomitable foe. And you'll probably be inspired by this bold visionary. Come to think of it. I swear I remember television's President Bartlet debated whether to declare war on cancer! I remember he had a speech written up by Sam Seaborn: - "Over the past half century, we've split the atom, we've spliced the gene and we've roamed Tranquility Base. We've reached for the stars and never have we been closer to having them in our grasp. New science, new technology is making the difference between life and death, and so we need a national commitment equal to this unparalleled moment of possibility. And so I announce to you tonight that I will bring the full resources of the Federal Government and the full reach of my office to this fundamental goal: We will cure cancer by the end of this decade."
It's laughable, really. In the show, Rob Lowe decides that no president could really afford to deliver such an inspiring declaration. Martin Sheen doesn't read this passage. And Aaron Sorkin knows far less about American politics than he realizes. Current Mood:  amused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
conservatism
typewriterking | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dharun Ravi, the hate criminal without malice, got his sentence in New Jersey today. You may recall the gay Rutgers student, Tyler Clementi, committing suicide in 2010. He posthumously became a martyr for the anti-bullying crusade that shot up after his death. Bullying is bad, m'kay, but the whole narrative about the supposed bullying incident, we've slowly learned, was yet another fabrication from the usual crowd. What were we told that wasn't true? Lots of things. It was true that Ravi had a webcam running in his dorm and that he did watch it remotely. But, it wasn't true that Ravi "broadcast" online Clementi having sex. It wasn't true that he recorded it. It wasn't true that he showed the video feed with other folks. It wasn't true that Clementi was closeted, or that Ravi "outed" him. It doesn't appear that Ravi did anything that Stiffler wouldn't have done to his buddies in the American Pie films. In other words, he picked on Clementi like he would have any heterosexual roommate. Based on the texts and tweets I've seen, Ravi seems to have had a pretty nonchalant frat boy kind of attitude, the sort that seems too immature to process that real-world consequences exist. He seems hardly the sort to build a movement against, nor the sort to lock away for a decade. The face of hatred in America? Dharun Ravi came perilously close to spending his twenties in prison over tweeting about two dudes having sex in his dorm. I don't want to set up my own duelistic narrative here; Ravi was a douche. He was something of a voyeuristic pig, perhaps. He certainly violated the guy's privacy, and deserved sentencing on those grounds. But he wasn't what our twisted establishment made him out to be. Good on him for not accepting that f- messed up plea bargain that demanded that he admit to a hatred that he doesn't feel. Though he's a jerk in his own way, I hope to one day see Dharun Ravi's reputation restored from the last two years of smears.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
conservatism
typewriterking | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conservatives of most stripes are skeptical or hostile to the United Nations. This is surely true especially of American conservatives, who view the UN as a threat to national sovereignty. The UN is premised on values contra to the philosophy of our national founding. Their 1948 document on human rights isn't based on a natural rights doctrine, and finds itself in conflict with our founding views in many passages.
But since 1948, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration has been widely interpreted as a protection against the desecration of religious sites. You can find it sited repeatedly whenever in war, terror, or hooliganism, some religious artifact is destroyed or damaged. It can be a mosque, synagogue, a Buddha dynamited by the Taliban, or a cemetery or memorial.
You see Article 18 and cemeteries come up a lot with Israeli settlements. Seems like someone was buried there no matter where you take a step.
A place you never see this come up is America, a land where you pretty regularly hear about a memorial on public land being "removed" (destroyed, desecrated) by the government by court order. In the name of religious tolerance, insanely enough. Under the 1st Amendment protection of religion, no less. Because Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists. Because our judicial system is an insane asylum.
Some legal defense funds have done admirable work in trying to protect memorials from be desecrated for the crime of having granite crosses, or the Star of David, or whatever. But to my knowledge, no one has appealed to the Universal Declaration the way folks in the Middle East have. I know of no one approaching an international court.
Maybe it's fear of setting more bad precedent. We don't want to be at fault for international law superseding domestic law. But I personally find a legal status quo where memorials are desecrated by fiat to be too abhorrent to defend. When it's come to this, we ought to entertain the idea of some outside intervention. What say you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
conservatism
merig00 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barak Obama finally endorsed gay marriage. The world press and political leaders, shaken by the political courage and uncompromising step, said that this is the dawn of the new historic era. Well, not everyone, but those who are worthy of attention. My comments are as follows: 1. Obama had to gather all his glorious courage into a fist, all his qualities of a leader and to finally join Dick Cheney on this topic. 2. A spokesman for Vice President Biden announced that Obama was leading on this issue from day one. That's after Biden apologized for forcing Obama to announce his decision before Obama was ready. 3. This incredibly bold decision might cost him at least a dozen votes. 4. But this is unlikely, given that Obama has just explained that he would not insist that the party should do something about it. Obama is now in a position where he is struggling to avoid things like the pre-election debates on the state of the economy. And he frantically throws into the furnace any topic that he can hang on to. Free condoms for women! Burned. Romney does not like dogs! Oops. Julie's Life! Mega-ups. Well ... Well ... Oh! I support gay marriage! I think there are enough distraction topics to last for a month at most. And then what? Tags: gay marriage, obama
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
conservatism
typewriterking | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That doesn't necessarily mean that François Hollande is yet the winner- exit polls in Ohio had Kerry beating Bush- but we may have an official victory for a Socialist President in France since 1988.
I remember in 2007 how Sarkozy was supposed to be the French Giuliani, the guy that cleaned up all the violence. I suppose in some ways he fulfilled that. The cars stopped burning eventually, after all. But whatever peace existed in his term was marred by the actions of men like Mohamed Merah, the latest jihadist to terrorize the city of Toulouse. I think it was in a Mark Steyn column that I read that already the Jewish children in French schools are required to conceal their religion/ethnicity as a matter of safety. Obviously the promised Giuliani-like reforms never materialized, or they couldn't pacify the French situation.
As for Monsieur Hollande, I hear he promises to relieve the hard-working French citizen from the intolerable burden of working until age 62.
And at last, the would be Socialist Party nominee Dominique Strauss-Kahn lives on as the John Edwards of French politics.
I liked Sarkozy whenever he showed panache. In the last week of campaigning, he decided to attempt circumventing French election law, which inexplicably limits the number of televised presidential debates to one, by challenging Hollande to an additional radio debate. For that one moment, I saw "Sarkozy L'Americain" as we were promised so many years ago.
Closing question: Was Marine Le Pen as bad as the mainstream papers said? There seemed to be some controversy about whether she had genuinely cleaned up nastier elements of her father's party, or whether she merely concealed them and was something of a crypto-fascist that would have brought in the second-coming of the Vichy government. As American Republicans are routinely savaged as the same, I genuinely wonder if claims about Le Pen are equally absurd. On the other hand, no longer how often the press cries wolf, there's got to be a genuine wolf somewhere. So is or isn't she?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
conservatism
typewriterking | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remember that story from a few years ago? Leigh Anne and Sean Tuohy, the white Christian Conservative couple from Tennessee adopted a homeless teenage boy (c'mon, it's OK to call a teenager a 'boy') named Michael Oher. He ended up being a standout Left Tackle, got an athletic scholarship, and had a movie made out of the story. It's too long ago to remember where, but I do recall vicious critics savaging the movie and saying hateful things about the Tuohys adopting Oher as a "pet." Well, Nancy and David French, also of Tennessee, have adopted a child from Ethiopia, and apparently they've been getting the same kind of treatment. I say "apparently" only because lots of the evidence appears to have been deleted by moderators. But I don't disbelieve Nancy French's story because I remember seeing very similar things directed toward the Tuohys, and I did see that evidence back in the day. (Nancy French and kids with Governor Romney) Anyway, Nancy French, like a good Mama Grizzly, put up a post in defense of her family: - You can’t limit or dictate her political options or her cultural values just because of her skin color, and your constant criticism shows that you are less concerned about the truly poor and more concerned about propagating your narrow and destructive identity politics.
- So, yes, I’m a white Christian conservative Republican raising a black child whom I love with my whole heart.
- Deal with it.
I've found in response some stuff about how Mrs French us supposedly "self-congratulatory" and afflicted with something called "White Savior Complex." I saw nothing about the Frenches using Naomi as a prop, but it must be somewhere. ( h/t & Thanks to Bristol)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
conservatism
typewriterking | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is something I think you more often see in an exclusively libertarian community. I'm not really sure why, but the larger center/right to far-right spectrum doesn't really seem in need of soliciting lists of essential books, blogs, et cetera. But in asking for podcast suggestions, I'm not really asking for more talk radio as we understand it, but for slightly less explicitly political podcasts that are "conservative-friendly", meaning either sympathetic or ones that refrain from what John Nolte calls a suckerpunch. Have you listened to the Ricochet Podcast? My favorite moments are when Rob Long and James Lileks are just talking about stuff in their lives, making casual observations about where they live. And the best part of it is that you and I aren't going to be their punching bag. And the worst parts of the show are when they sound like television pundits talking about the presidential race. Blah blah. So I've been looking around. I discovered that Nick DiPaolo, who I first discovered on Colin Quinn's old 'Tough Crowd' now co-hosts a show with long-time Howard Stern sidekick Artie Lange. It's online, as well as on Sirius and a terrestrial station in Tampa. I don't yet have an opinion of it, but it's cool that they have one. In Adam Carolla's list of fellow podcasters, I saw that Penn Jillette has a show again. I haven't yet listened, but assume it's like Penn's old terrestrial show with some FCC-unfriendly words. And I don't know how to explain it, but Breitbart TV editor Larry O'Connor's podcast has been a lot better since he came out in his real identity. That show sucked balls under a pseudonym. So what out there do you like? And at last, I want to bring up something unrelated. For a while, I've thought about adopting a stretch of highway in memory of Andrew Breitbart. You know the adopt-a-highway program. You adopt a two-mile stretch and pledge to clean it four days a year, and in exchange you get the little sign. The stretch I have in mind is right beside a tribal casino and resort, which sounds just perfect. Maybe my stretch would start a trend, and there will be Andrew Breitbart Memorial Highways all over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
conservatism
dark_weezing | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(X-posted from the rightfangirl comm.) A month ago, Tamara Shayne Kagel, a liberal Jewish Democrat, wrote a blog entry titled, "I Don't Want to Date a Republican." In the piece, she details her relationship with her beau, who is apparently a Republican, much to her dismay, along with her general opinions about both the Left and the Right. (For the latter, it should be noted she is clearly channeling her inner Pauline Kael. Thus, "Your Mileage May Vary," etc.) In turn, Dennis Prager, conservative Jewish Republican, discussed the matter on his April 5th radio show, complete with a corresponding written reply in his weekly Jewish Journal column. Additionally, Kagel, on her Twitter feed, stated she would like to debate Prager further about the issue, so time will tell on what happens next. Link: http://www.jewishjournal.com/tattletales/item/i_dont_want_to_date_a_republican_20120323/Link: http://www.jewishjournal.com/dennis_prager/article/opinion_tamara_doesnt_want_to_date_a_republican_20120404/The underlying thesis is "can a modern-day liberal and a conservative maintain a long-term romantic relationship, or not?" The stakes are becoming higher, because the country is becoming more and more polarized. (If the country isn't polarized already, then the upcoming 2012 election will ensure it.) The entry is an open discussion to both Kagel's thesis and Prager's response, and whether fellow members had been or currently are in a similar situation. Perhaps, the love advice, if any, can either assist in present or future liberal/conservative relationships or confirm what may be a rather harsh reality. Current Mood:  curious
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
conservatism
typewriterking | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since the American President among others have brought up social Darwinism as an alleged right-wing philosophy (based, I reckon, on Herbert Spencer, something of a proto anarcho-capitalist, coining the phrase), I think this is a good time to share some damning selections from a Woodrow Wilson speech titled 'What Is Progress?' Ahem: - "The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live. On the contrary, its life is dependent upon their quick cooperation, their ready response to the commands of instinct or intelligence, their amicable community of purpose. Government is not a body of blind forces; it is a body of men, with highly differentiated functions, no doubt, in our modern day, of specialization, with a common task and purpose. Their cooperation is indispensable, their warfare fatal. There can be no successful government without the intimate, instinctive coordination of the organs of life and action. This is not theory, but fact, and displays its force as fact, whatever theories may be thrown across its track. Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop."
And the very next line reads: - "All that progressives ask or desire is permission—in an era when "development" "evolution," is the scientific word—to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine."
( Read more... )So, directly from Woodrow Wilson's mouth, we hear that Progressives are shaped by Darwinian principles, and the Founder's by Newtonian science. I have to say, despite it being an intelligent (and honest!) speech by the standards of today's politics, I still consider the ideas conveyed somewhat sloppy. It is a logical fallacy to suggest that Newton's science is wrong because it's old. I understand that his three laws of physics still apply. It's clear to me that Wilson was the sort to latch onto any intellectual fad, much like the critics that still attribute Freudian motives to their targets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
conservatism
kharmii | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just a bit of local news from my area. Plans are in progress to build a new Illiana highway connecting Illinois and Indiana in an area quite a bit south from the city of Chicago. Since it's pretty much the middle of nowhere, I'm guessing it has something to do with the airport they want to build nearby, also in the middle of Farmburbia. Anxiety is high because Democratic Senator Toi Hutchinson sponsored Quick Take legislation, which passed in the senate 44-8 but still has to go through the house. It enables the government to take someones land, bypassing eminent domain, so that a project can move forward more quickly. People have to go later to negotiate the value of their property. This, some believe, makes it easier for the government to pay them much less. Here's the (link) to the story. In other news, the state of Illinois lost population during the last census, so we lost a seat in the house. We went through some gerrymandering, which favored Democrats because they are most in control here. Here in Kankakee County, we used to have a Republican Representative for our district: Adam Kinzinger. His district was pushed even further south, putting him against another Republican. Now I'm stuck with Jesse Jackson Jr., who has Cook County with the city of Chicago and now dips way down south in a most ridiculous arrangement. Many people believe he wanted that to happen because he now has the area in Peotone where the airport nobody wants is still fighting to go through. Jesse Jackson Jr. owns a lot of land around the proposed site. I actually know a guy who is right on the edge of the proposed airport. He has a beautiful home on a farm that he spent 30 years remodeling, and now he's worried it might be in danger. There's going to be a big protest on Earth Day against the airport. I'm still wondering why they can't build it closer the other airports and actual city of Chicago? Look up Peotone, Illinois on maps google and you'll see what I'm talking about. Current Mood:  wry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
conservatism
typewriterking | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not long ago, I encountered the website known as Udemy, a website that allows users to build online courses, and I've mused about creating a curriculum for an actual non-satirical Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies (with talent on loan from God).
In order to check my own biases about what conservatism is, I figured it would be best to adopt a composite from the curricula the various other "Conservatism 101" coursework that has been put together online in the past, such as the American Conservative Union's 'self-study' page, the related FirstPrinciples.us, and other compilations any sincere individual is willing to recommend.
I also hope to organize a few online symposiums around the topic.
After participating through six weeks within Hillsdale College's Constitution 101 course, I have a general idea of how the course should work, but I'm making this post as an open-ended bleg for input.
Anyway, just as think tanks fashioned themselves as "universities without students", I hope this marks the beginning of a "classes without schools" movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
conservatism
typewriterking | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the year 2000, the United Kingdom's Labour party wrote and circulated within their upper tier a document that outlined their goals to change the country's cultural makeup via mass immigration. When the document leaked ten years later, it caused quite a stir. But in America, our capital-t Traditionalists are no doubt very different from British Tories. While Michael Savage's tripartite reads "Borders, Language, Culture", and Pat Buchanan cares very much about ethnicity and the like, the bulk of America's orthodox religious set that makes up what we call the "religious right" emphasize a small set of related sexual mores above other cultural priorities. For proof that Traditionalists are accepting of a multi-ethnic society, one shouldn't have to look further than the elections of Governors Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Nikki Haley of South Carolina. While Haley, we remember, experienced some notable ugliness in her primary campaign, Jindal's ethnicity made no issue whatsoever. If being of white European heritage is today unimportant even in the Deep South, as Jindal proves, today we are seeing that social conservatives are also excepting of religious sects once deemed heresy. As today's presidential primary shows us, social conservatives that once would only accept Protestants are voting of Mormons and Catholics without any reservation. The selection of Joe Strauss as the Texas Speaker of the House shows that one can even prescribe to a religion that rejects the divinity of Christ and still be accepted into the fold. Given their capacity to embrace a Catholic Indian for governor, I wonder why no values voter coalition has formed to enthusiastically embrace open immigration to America from the most culturally conservative points of the globe. But with the exception of Dinesh D'souza, I could never find a soul that had considered, never mind championed, this proposition. What's the deal? And on a related topic: I've noticed more conservative commentators pointing out that blacks who have migrated to America as free men have notably higher test scores, are convicted of crime less, and in other significant ways enjoy very different outcomes from the descendents of slaves. Why is it that conservative activists are not approaching this demographic, that, for lack of a more refined expression, "acts white"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
conservatism
typewriterking | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Halito, chim achukma? To liven up the community, I'd like to open the topic of something talk radio's most cerebral host has asserted repeatedly on his show, columns, and perhaps his book (haven't read, but on my wishlist); that unhappy people dominate the political ideologies that butcher people, and that therefore for humanity's sake, if you truly care about humanity, you have a duty to be happy. I think intuitively we just know that unhappy people become misanthropes, and that misanthropes by their very definition don't value human life, so to a certain degree, Prager's thesis seems self-evident. Now, it has been a while since I last heard a "human happiness hour," I mostly hear Prager briefly on the Weekend Journal program Salem puts out, but I recall Prager somewhere arguing that we can actually deplete membership rolls of dangerous ideologies just by making the people around us happy. So is happiness a moral obligation and civic duty? Current Mood: happy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
conservatism
typewriterking | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A long time ago, when news/political programs were still explaining the term "blog", Al Gore coined "Digital Brownshirts" to characterize what Bill Quick called the blogosphere. Around that time, David Brock, lustful for weirder pr0n, trawled 4/chan and witnessed how trolls... Ahem. Since then, online activism and "hackivism" has begun operating in a manner that Gore would have been more accurate in describing in that way, and today they seem determined in proving that Chomsky's Propaganda Model outlined in Manufacturing Consent can actually produce the inverse of the result Chomsky insisted was inevitable.
Chomsky argued that ad-supported models would inevitably have right-wing sensibilities. I disagreed with his thesis, and perhaps the pressure groups that exist today disagree, because they apparently believe they can collect "hate radio" scalps by cold-calling advertisers and the like (never mind that their "successes", Imus and Beck, still have their syndicated radio shows).
Let us for a moment surrender the premise that activists cold-calls and petitions alone can drive away advertisers. I want to entertain an alternative support model. But first it's important to recognize just how barter syndication works.
You're a radio host going national. You aren't going to belong to a network the way TV works. Instead it works like first-run syndication, where individual stations are shopped a show. In barter syndication, you give away the show to a station for free. In exchange, you reserve for yourself the rights to small ad spots. Your syndicator, EIB, gives the show away to 600 stations, and is confident that you can sell your ads for enough to pay for your satellite uplink and golden microphone.
Now, radio talkers are notoriously good salesmen. They're often hired to read the ad spots themselves, and they're already very good at selling listeners on promo codes. Well, here's my simple question: if talk radio is already pitching referral codes, why couldn't they just collect referral fees if all advertising retreated?
I like the idea of free over-the-air talk radio, and I'd love to build a show that doesn't accept donations, paid sponsorships, or subscription fees. I'd like to pitch such a show to a syndicator. I could take on the weekends and make it work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
conservatism
typewriterking | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whereas plenty of good obits have already been written about the late Mr Breitbart, and whereas many ( see Zombie's Million Breitbart Project) have concluded that they want to move forward by in some way emulating his brand of networked advocacy journalism, I'd like to proceed by asking a very basic non-rhetorical question: Has anyone read and reviewed Jeremiah Wright's books? This is not rhetorical or gotcha. I'm asking because this is some easy citizen journalism to do. To a blogger, this should be the easiest link-bait. It appears that Reverend Wright's earliest book is ' Africans Who Shaped Our Faith', published on May 1st, 1995. The cheapest used copy is one cent, plus shipping. I have little idea of what the content is. Reader reviews don't even exist on this book. I only know it's based on 12 Wright sermons. It was published by Urban Ministries Inc, an outfit, based on the looks of their website, looks fairly mainstream. I'm about to go through some of the pages indexed by Google Books. So far, in my limited reading, he's written a crackpot idea that Greek scholars stole all their innovations from an Egyptian mystery cult. Scratch that, the passage appears to have been written by Colleen Birchett, the book's editor. So far, I have the impression that the book is loaded with Afrocentric pseudo-scholarship. Well, that's Birchett's preface, anyway. I by no means hold a monopoly over reading Jeremiah Wright on Google Books, and I have to catch up on a non-credit class that I could totally bail on with no consequences but won't because that's not who I am and I usually don't write stringy run-on sentences either but I'm in a worry so bye for now. Now what are you going to do? Current Mood: nerdy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
conservatism
typewriterking | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hola, amigos, So in recent times, the conservative movement in the USA has largely become about restoring some of neglected amendments in the Bill of Rights. We've changed public attitudes on the 2ed greatly, and lately a lot of work has been done on restoring the 10th by asserting; - It's written in the Constitution. Really, it isn't that neo-Confederate cranks imagined it. Madison penned it for real.
- The 14th doesn't completely supersede the 10th.
Besides the 2ed and 10th, there's one more of the ten that has gone completely ignored. There is the Ninth Amendment, which reads in it's entirety:- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
And that's all of it. To my mind, this is the "Natural Law" amendment, and perhaps also the "strict constructionist" amendment. If only we could get our jurists to acknowledge that it means anything, the results would be revolutionary. I am wondering if anyone knows of any attempts to establish a "Ninther" movement, or how one would go about it? Perhaps start with a symposium at the Federalist Society?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
