“Badges? We don’t need no steenkin’ badges!”

Treasure of the Sierra Madre

There was a time in this country when the United States Constitution was actually considered to be the bedrock and final arbiter on the legal limitations of the powers and authority of the government. The ultimate rulebook. It wasn’t a “living” document subject to the whims, fancies and political fads of the times. It didn’t have hidden meaning waiting to be divined by bright legal lights. It meant exactly what it said, in clear and unequivocal language, and was to be interpreted strictly, to its simplest and clearest meaning.

In the 19^th Century, there were Presidents who proposed pensions for war widows, funds for roads, disaster relief for communities, and all were turned down because Congress could find no Constitutional authority to accede to such requests.

My, how times have changed!

The watershed events occurred in the 1930s. FDR was trying to institute his New Deal -- with massive increases in government spending passed by an overwhelmingly Democrat-controlled Congress -- and was in a battle royal with the Supreme Court which had ruled some of his programs unconstitutional. The Supreme Court at that time was composed primarily of Republican appointees. As the Constitution is silent on the numerical makeup of the Court, Roosevelt threatened to “pack” the Court by increasing the number of Justices beyond the customary nine serving, which would afford him the opportunity to appoint as many Democrat Justices as he felt he needed to get his proposed programs approved. This led to a fierce Congressional debate on the nature of the Court’s powers, and the Court itself, perhaps feeling the pressure of the threat, began to rule more favorably on Roosevelt’s programs.

Thus, by altering its own perception of what would henceforth be deemed constitutional, the Court sowed the seeds for future judicial activism and much broader and more liberal and interpretive adjudications of the meaning of constitutionality. Once a dam is cracked, the trickle will inevitably become a flood.

The dam fully breached and the valley of constitutionalism started flooding with 1973’s decision in Roe v. Wade, in which the Court invented the new “Right of Privacy” not mentioned in the Constitution and to that point undiscovered, couching its justification in astronomical terms such as “penumbra” and “emanations”, a ruling more fitting for a palm reader’s tent than the “Court of Last Resort”. Roe set new lows for the standards to be applied to constitutional interpretation. No longer would Original Intent be the standard, as “rights” could be read into the document, and Supreme Court arguments and political discourse would now revolve not around what is actually written in the document itself, but on how words are defined.

Thus, in Kelo v. New London, a case centered on the eminent domain confiscation of private homes, the “public use” phrase in the Public Takings clause of the Fifth Amendment has now been redefined to include an increase in revenues from property taxation, instead of the traditional meaning of the creation of public infrastructure such as roads, bridges or schools.

Under McCain-Feingold as upheld by the Court, paid political advertising is no longer considered “speech” and thus is subject to restriction and censorship, with penalties provided by law. This, of course, flies in the very face of, and undermines the absolute core value -- that of political expression and criticism of government -- recognized by, the First Amendment. No longer of any matter.

“Hate crime” laws are passed, which punish thought and opinion – as opposed to actions – and create special favored classes of people. Crimes committed against members of these classes are punished more harshly than those committed against people not in the favored classes, thereby creating inequality in the application of law. No longer are all equal in the eyes of the law; some are more equal than others.

The Second Amendment right of private gun ownership is besieged, with public figures from both parties – including Presidential candidates – claiming to “support the Second Amendment” while at the same time supporting restrictive measures that directly contravene the Amendment. There is proposed legislation that would make ineligible for gun ownership people whose names are merely on a list of those with suspected terrorist ties, effectively denying them rights based on unsubstantiated accusation without having actually been proven to have committed any wrongdoing at all. HR 1022 would reinstate a vastly enlarged version of the “assault weapon” ban, restricting ownership based purely on cosmetics and the appearance of a firearm.

The so-called “Fairness Doctrine” has once again reared its ugly head, a measure that would be narrowly targeted at one segment of the media -- talk radio -- without even a nudge and wink about forcing television and newspapers to comply to the same standard, let alone the fact that it’s another direct violation of the First Amendment right to free speech and is a form of government censorship.

Examples abound. Our Constitution is being turned into a quaint document whose meaning has been twisted out of all recognition, something of almost archeological interest, with no more relevance to life today than Tut’s sarcophagus. Unless this situation is turned around, America is it has traditionally existed is doomed, and our rights along with her.

There is no God-given mandate nor guarantee to our existence. Upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, Franklin was asked what they had made. “A republic, madam. If you can keep it”, he replied.

If we can keep it.

Si, Yo hablo Espanol
(signage in many retail establishments in Los Angeles)

Presidents are ever-mindful of their legacy, as they well should be. Hopefully, it’s one of the things that keeps them responsive to the electorate – the citizens who put them in office and for whom they work, at least putatively – and this is especially important in the case of a Lame Duck President who won’t again face the public at the polls.

Think of Reagan and you remember a resurgence of conservative values and a sunny optimism pervading the land. Carter and his “malaise”; Clinton and “bimbo eruptions” among many other scandals, along with impeachment for perjury; Eisenhower linked with the “Father Knows Best” lifestyle of the 50s; Kennedy’s “New Frontiers” and the Bay of Pigs; Johnson’s presiding over America’s first military defeat and the awful specter of the creation of a welfare-dependant underclass; Bush Pere’s failure to “finish the job” during Desert Storm; the “bully pulpit” of Teddy Roosevelt; the buck stopping at Truman’s desk.

How can we anticipate history treating the current President George Bush? I think it would be constructive to take a look.

In 2000 nominee Bush labeled himself a “compassionate conservative” with exciting ideas about how to save Social Security from collapse, cutting taxes to stimulate the economy while also increasing government revenues, lowering capital gains penalties and rolling back the “death tax”, freeing the marketplace from governmental interference, limiting liability lawsuits, strong support for the Second Amendment, and putting people more in control of their own financial future, all sound conservative values.

During his administration, he’s enjoyed some successes – on issues such as taxes, guns, and tort reform – and some failures, primarily on Social Security reform. He also gave us some very expensive entitlements programs, such as Drugs for Seniors and No Child Left Behind, and signed McCain-Feingold into law. This was the first hint – a big one – of trouble ahead. But, he was on his way to a somewhat successful, if certainly not Reaganesque, place in history.

Then came 9/11/01 and Bush found himself becoming a War President, an automatic legacy-definer. Barring some radical and unforeseen change in the tides of the war, I don’t think history is going to treat Bush well on this part of his legacy. His first, and biggest, mistake is that Bush has just never really tried to “sell” this war to the American people. FDR knew war with Japan and Germany was inevitable, but knowing it was an impossible “sell” to the American people he was forced to wait for the attack or some other overt action to justify entering America into that war. Even with very valid justification – violation of terms of surrender, firing on our aircraft, actual discovery of WMDs – Bush has still never made the effort to try to effectively rally support for the war. This has been compounded by ineffective management, poor strategy, unrealistic goals, and no definition of victory. Consequently, he’s lost virtually all support for his conduct of the war from both sides, supporters AND opponents of the idea itself.

The second issue that will define Bush’s legacy is his adamant support for amnesty for illegal aliens. Yesterday a bill emerged from the Senate committee on this issue that would effectively grant amnesty to the millions of illegals in the country. Hopefully, it won’t have enough support in the Senate to move forward, and if it does it will die in the House if things go well. This bill would grant a “Z” (for “si, I now legal!”) visa to every illegal alien now in the country, and normalize them on a path to permanent residence and/or citizenship, along with their families and relatives not in the country yet. This bill opens the floodgates. When Simpson-Mazzoli became law in 1986 we were promised it was a one-time permanent solution to the problem of illegals, and the number at that time was 3 million. Over twenty years later we have 4 to 8 times as many illegals, none of Simpson-Mazzoli’s enforcement provisions have ever been put into effect, and we’re now told that this will be the last time, it’s a one-time deal, with plenty of enforcement provisions that will trigger further blah, blah, blah….

In other words, it’s déjà vu all over again.

Bush, McCain et al try to pass off the idea this isn’t amnesty, as there are fines, forms, etc. That pig’s just got on lipstick, that’s all. This bill, if it becomes law, has the potential of being the biggest disaster for this country in history, bar none, far worse than anything the Islamic terrorists can do. With a price tag in the trillions, activists already marching in the streets demanding non-existent “rights”, our infrastructure overwhelmed, and this amnesty acting as a magnet for future border-jumpers who know they only have to wait for the next round, what can we expect for the future? I’ve read that worldwide over a billion people would willingly come to the US illegally and take their chances.

Whether he likes it or not, his support for this idea – which he didn’t mention until after winning his second term – in the face of overwhelming public opposition is also an indelible part of his legacy, hopefully as another failed idea, because its success is a terrible thought to contemplate.

Thus I predict Bush’s legacy will be a so-far-failing war and an amnesty plan that has the potential to overwhelm and destroy this country and its culture.

There’s also an instructive point to consider as we look ahead to the next election. Remember that Bush painted himself as a “compassionate conservative”, which should have given us a clue as to his proclivities. There are GOP candidates right now trying to paint themselves as something other than what they are – liberals – hoping we won’t pay attention because there’s a war on. But if we forget Bush’s legacy, in the future we’ll again find ourselves battling other “Republicans” over issues of abortion, gay marriage, gun control, more amnesty, entitlement programs, out of control spending, and all the other problems we’ve been facing during the Bush administration.

As Santayana noted, “Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it”.

Those familiar with this blog know that I usually post one essay per week. There are several reasons for this: I like my essays to be of quality rather than necessarily quantity and a week gives me time to think of a topic, an approach, and write and refine the product; having done all that, I don’t want to dilute my own effort by having more than one active essay going for people to read and comment upon; lastly it leaves me time to actually have a life outside the blogosphere.

However, an event that I consider of huge significance has just taken place, one that not only bears directly on an issue of intense debate here on the Townhall site, but that has potential ramifications for the very future of the GOP and consequently our country as a whole. With that in mind, I’m breaking my own rule, though I’ll take this opportunity to urge you to also read my immediately previous essay on the MPAA if you haven’t already done so.

On Friday 11 May 2007, at a speech at the Houston Baptist College, Rudolph Giuliani flatly stated his support for abortion rights, gun control, and gay rights, asserting this should not bar him from being selected as the GOP candidate for President. You can read the full LA Daily News/New York Times article here.

The debate between Republicans and conservatives over Giuliani’s candidacy has been over the issue of his liberalism, with Republicans taking the position that it was merely expedient for his tenure as mayor of NYC, that he wasn’t really as liberal as conservatives were warning, that he was better than anyone the Democrats were offering; and conservatives saying he was a wolf in sheep’s clothing, that he was philosophically and ideologically identical to the Democrats, and a threat to GOP values.

On Friday, Giuliani himself removed all doubt. In doing so, he has thrown down the gauntlet to the Republican Party: what value do you place on your principles?

This will shift the thrust of the debate away from a question of Giuliani’s position on core GOP values and toward the more important discussion that will determine the entire future of the GOP, which is: will the GOP completely abandon its principles and party planks to accommodate the candidacy of a self-professed liberal, and what will that mean for the tenability of the party as a viable political entity going into the future?

On this blog, since last year I have been warning of the dangers inherent in a Giuliani candidacy, as have some (but not very many) others in columns and comments. It will be interesting to see if this story even gets much traction and notice. If it doesn’t, that will be a clear signal that party regulars are simply hoping it will go away unnoticed so the boat doesn’t start rocking.

Further, after this bombshell pronouncement, what can we expect from a Giuliani presidency? Obviously, no support for Second Amendment rights to private gun ownership. Giuliani will act on his already acknowledged support for taxpayer funding of abortions. But most important, in the past he’s stated he would appoint constructionist judges. Even putting aside his own record of appointing very liberal municipal judges as mayor of NYC, how can anyone, in light of his stated position on these issues, believe for one New York Minute (how fitting!) that he’ll do anything of the kind? To do so would be to work against the very issues for which he just expressed his support.

Let’s also contemplate the effect on the GOP. To nominate Giuliani would be to disavow the traditional Republican positions and planks on the very issues that define the GOP, and especially conservatism. These are key issues distinguishing the GOP from Democrats. That distinction would be completely erased with a Giuliani nomination.

Finally, as a practical matter of winning elections, Giuliani and the GOP will be able to expect absolutely no support from conservatives. The party will have consigned itself to minority status, as it can’t win without the conservatives. It will also have sacrificed its soul on the altar of expediency.

I would urge all conservatives to make sure the word of this speech spreads as far and wide as possible. I would also urge all Republicans to rethink any support for Giuliani they’ve been contemplating. Finally, I would urge the GOP to throw this poseur out on his ear.

The Motion Picture Alliance of America (MPAA) is the organization that brings us the familiar rating system for the movies and TV programming we watch – “G’, “PG”,”PG-13”, “R”, “NC-17”, and “X” – as well as the code that lets us know why a particular show has earned its rating – “S” for sexual content, “V” for violence, “N” for nudity, “L” for bad language.

In a stunningly hilarious show of Political Correctness run amok, the MPAA has announced that from now on, it will give shows with too much smoking in them an “R” rating!

It’s not yet clear how they’ll implement the coding, as the “S” is already taken by sexual content.

You can read the complete story here.

"By placing smoking on a par with considerations of violence and sex, the rating board has acknowledged the public-health dangers to children associated with glamorized images of a toxic and lethal addiction to tobacco," Barry Bloom, dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, said in one of the statements released by the MPAA.

Or maybe more accurately, the MPAA is proving itself to be increasingly irrelevant and foolish, if smoking is to be rated “on a par with considerations of violence and sex”.

Just think of it: no more scene of Tyrone Power lighting a ciggie for Betty Grable and passing it to her in “A Yank in the RAF”. James Dean without the trademark coffin nail hanging insouciantly from his lips. Historical dramas with all the characters abstaining from their nicotine fix. Eastwood’s Man With No Name waltzing through all those Leone spaghetti westerns without the trademark cigar. GROUCHO without the cigar!

I think these folks simply have WAAAAAAAY too much time on their hands. Someone needs to find honest jobs for them to do.

By the way, wondering why my blog is rated “R”?

I smoked several cigarettes during the writing of this little gem.

Enjoy!

A Special Edition essay on the Island

Interesting debate among the GOP Presidential candidates last night, especially the performance by Giuliani. When asked about his position on abortion, he reaffirmed his support of a woman’s right to “choose”, and said he’d have no problem if a “constructionist justice” found to uphold Roe v. Wade.

How very Kerryesque, reminiscent of the “voted for before voted against” wriggle, which almost swept the nation as a new dance craze.

In his contorted efforts to be all things to all people, Giuliani managed to avoid giving himself a hernia as he tried to straddle both sides of the issue.

How a “constructionist justice” can find to uphold Roe, which is not founded in any concept of a constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, and still be “constructionist” was left unexplained by the befuddled and flustered candidate.

But then, Giuliani’s from New York City, a venue where the rumors of an actual conservative being in residence have recently been shown to be unfounded.

This has been a Special Edition essay on The View from the Island.