A Right to Other People’s Money
Mar 4th, 2010 by David Anderson
Madison would roll over in his grave if he saw President Obama nominate a judge who believes in a Constitutional right to welfare. Goodwin H. Liu was nominated on Feb. 24 for the 9th U.S. Circus Court of Appeals.
From the Wahington Times
Now, let’s move beyond theory. For what practical purpose was Mr. Liu laying out his complicated and risky scheme of judging? Here’s where things get even worse. As repeated many times in his essay, Mr. Liu’s goal was to create a judicially enforceable, constitutional right to welfare. He hastened to add that such a revolution would only be pushed in an “evolutionary” way – not immediately – by “cue[ing] the policymaking process toward greater deliberation and rationality.”
This is a dangerous mentality to future of the nation. Why? While it is a matter of debate, it has been settled public policy that we have a right to give charity through our taxes to those we decide are in need. Jefferson’s and Madison’s point of view that charity and welfare is not the purview of the federal government which held sway the first 120 years of America has long ago become a minority opinion. However, we have the right to budget the amount that we feel is good policy. We have the right to set eligibility. We have the right to make certain requirements such as disability, attending school, or trying to find work. We have a right to kick drug dealers out of housing that we pay for.
If the so called entitlement becomes a constitutional right, then we lose the ability to determine what limitations exist through the representative process. The right of property becomes flipped upside down. The taxpayer no longer has a right to her property, rather the tax receiver has the right to determine what the taxpayer has left.
Don’t believe it. New Jersey and Missouri have in their state constitutions that children have a right to a free and appropriate education. That sounded good to say. However when children’s advocates where unhappy with certain budget issues they found friendly courts which demanded that taxpayers pay more. In Kansas City, the court actually raised taxes in defiance of the the people’s wishes. In New Jersey, the court reserves the right to approve funding formulas for schools that the legislature passes. Budget considerations were already difficult without unelected judges stepping in.
The Saul Alinsky doctrine of trying to overwhelm the system with demands so that it collapses can not take place as long as the taxpayers control the budget. If radicals like this get into place, we will never be able to address entitlement reform and will bankrupt the nation. One of Saul Alinsky’s students will have done from inside what the man who wrote Rules for Radicals could only dream of doing from the outside.
This inexperienced 30 something nominee to the appeals court must be opposed. The very heart of our rights of property and self governance depend upon it.
Obama’s administration is becoming an endless cavalcade of untested inexperienced hothouse minds sheltered from all reality and bred from youth to believe power is theirs to advance their ideology on all of us with religious level fervor.
Their certitude of their own righteousness is so absolute and impervious to facts, logic, reason and reality that nothing that gets in their way can be legitimate much less abided.
Because Obama is such a preening hipster narcissist with no patience for the slightest of challenge to his superior intellect and messianic place amongst the humans we should expect a legion of like minded minions sent forth to corrupt any sources or foundations for unbelief.
Always remember and never forget the constitution is what Barry says it is or says it isn’t as the case may be. He was a con law professor dont ya know?
As the great George Carlin once said…America has the following mentality: “GIMME IT, IT’S MINE!!!!!!”
Madison was pretty clear I think…
“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce.”
“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?”
“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress… Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” Who doubts, after reading this, that Madison would vomit today
“There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong.” Here, Madison is discussing the exact view that think123 professes…no wonder think123 doesn’t understand the founders.
” In a 2008 Stanford Law Review article, Mr. Liu wrote that judges should engage in “socially situated modes of reasoning that appeal … to the culturally and historically contingent meanings of particular social goods in our own society” and to “determine, at the moment of decision, whether our collective values on a given issue have converged to a degree that they can be persuasively crystallized and credibly absorbed into legal doctrine.” ”
Uhm…wow…How many founding fathers must I show quoting the exact opposite of this Marxist?
The Constitution is a self-contained document by design. It deliberately doesn’t contain any references to any other documents.
There are no footnotes that say “For more information, see… ”
There are no external references to God, the Bible, Madison, Jefferson, or Rush Limbaugh. That is on purpose.
If Madison wants to repeal Social Security, let him come back to life and run for office on that platform. That’s how his system works.
Anon – I don’t agree…the Constitution does not contain direct references to source documents, of that there is no doubt but COUNTLESS numbers of the founders cite the Federalist Papers, Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence and even such documents as the English Bill of Rights (where we got the idea for ours) as souce documents.
The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.
James Wilson
Give it over, I need it more. The nice judge said so.
No way this little Commie maggot gets through the nomination process; he is fit only for a Red Chinese kangaroo court. Of course, what type of nominee would you expect from a ‘Rules for Radicals,’ Marxist president?
Robert Creamer told him to do this.