*A Related Side Note: at Breitbart, read How Saul Alinsky Taught Obama to Say One Thing and Do the Opposite.
For example, Mitt Romney's Mormonism has already been brought up dozens of times by liberal agencies such as the New York Times and MSNBC (far more than the right has), bringing back to the surface some issues that died away long ago like blacks and the priesthood and baptisms for the dead. Polls show that evangelical voters have less of a problem with Mormons than secular voters do. Yet the liberal media continues to insist by virtue of their self-proclaimed conventional wisdom that the GOP has all the bigoted voters in the country. It will get worse, just watch and see. But pay close attention: the liberal media will be the people writing these articles about the Mormons, but they'll also be the same people who are saying that bigotry doesn't exist on the left. As they already are on both counts. On the other hand and to their credit, Romney's opponents have not once directly brought up his religion. Only a few pastors supporting Rick Perry or Rick Santorum have thus far, and that was very early in the election season and without the blessing of the candidates themselves.
Another big issue are the things Obama is saying about the Supreme Court all the while he knows that what he is saying is a lie. Is he setting up the people to get behind the impeachment of Chief Justices or the effectual loss of power to the judiciary branch should Obamacare be struck down? Rush Limbaugh thinks that is a real possibility.
Meanwhile, the news media are taking Obama's lies at face value and running with them. Who are they trying to appeal to? The ignorant, or in other words those who have been brainwashed into liberal thinking in places such as public schools, which are controlled by liberal unions. Ann Coulter had some words about this blatant disregard for the Constitution.
... Barack Obama, alleging that a "good example" of judicial activism would be the Supreme Court (in his words, "a group of people") overturning "a duly constituted and passed law."Precisely. Judicial activism is when the court upholds something that isn't constitutional. Likewise, judicial activism is when the court overturns something that is constitutional. Conservatives support the rule of law as laid out under the Constitution. Obamacare by this rule of law should be completely overturned because of no severability clause within it. On to her explanation of judicial activism:
I don't know how a court could overturn a law that hasn't been "passed." Otherwise, it wouldn't be a law, it would be a bill. If it hasn't even been "constituted," it wouldn't be anything at all.
The judicial branch isn't above the other two branches -- much less the states or the people. It is (one of my favorite words) "co-equal" to the other branches. Indeed, the judiciary was laughably described by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers as the "least dangerous" branch.
Anticipating nearly every form of government corruption, our framers specifically designed the Constitution to prevent tyranny. But they never imagined the perfidy of 20th-century liberals. (Probably because the framers didn't have NBC.)
What liberals figured out -- and were mendacious enough to exploit -- is that there is no obvious recourse for the other branches if the Supreme Court issues an insane ruling. So, beginning in the 1960s, liberals on the court started issuing insane rulings on a regular basis. Rather than referring to the Constitution, some of their opinions were apparently based on the dream journal of Andrea Dworkin.
Soon every law student could recite in his sleep Chief Justice John Marshall's line in Marbury: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is." So shut up and go home.
To take one example of a ludicrous ruling, at random, off the top of my head: In 1973, the Supreme Court announced that the Constitution mandates a right to abortion.
The Constitution says nothing about reproduction, contraception, fetuses, pregnancy, premenstrual syndrome, morning sickness -- much less abortion. (As the tea partiers say: Read the Constitution!)
It does, however, expressly grant to the states those powers not reserved to the people (such as the right to bear arms) or explicitly given to Congress (such as the right to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states and with the Indian tribes).
Obviously, therefore, the Constitution implicitly entrusted abortion laws to the states.
One hint that a "constitutional" right to abortion is not based on anything in the Constitution is that during oral argument, as the lawyer arguing for this apocryphal right ticked off the constitutional provisions allegedly supporting it -- the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the Ninth Amendment, "and a variety of others" -- the entire courtroom burst into laughter.Thanks for the history lesson, Ann Coulter. Liberals generally don't refer to historical accounts because they don't suit their purposes. And if they do, it is by leaving out key details like states' rights or balance of power. For example, they would never include quotations from the Constitution themselves to write about this topic. They wouldn't even summarize it. Instead, they would lie about it, as our own president did this week, with the media echoing.
The ruling in Roe, incidentally, struck down the duly constituted and passed laws of all 50 states. (But that is soooo 53 million abortions ago ...)
When conservatives complain about "judicial activism," this is what they're talking about: Decisions not plausibly based on anything in the Constitution.
The prime example they give for the need for a 'fluid' or 'living' Constitution is in the end of slavery. That is a just and equitable amendment. It upholds the principles the original Founders intended though their hands were tied by the southern states at the time. To assume that each and every amendment liberals want is as just and equitable is ignorant. They have actively sought the destruction of the Constitution, beginning with shifting power away from the states and individuals and growing government beyond the original intent. Did you know individual taxes are illegal under the original Constitution? Only goods and services may have taxes placed upon them there. To consider how absurd our tax law is, look no further than the requirement that teenagers pay FICA when they are too young to vote. What happened to "No taxation without representation?"
Another media lie: Consider how the media would be talking about George Bush right now were he still president with these numbers. He would continually be harangued on the deficit, spending, wars, energy prices, unemployment, the weak economy. What does Obama get instead of harangues? Excuses from the media, propping him up. If these things are bad for the country (and they are) under Bush, they are bad under Obama. We can't afford more of Obama and his lies or the media's lies.
I, for one, think it appropriate that we reign in our bloated, runaway deficit and spending by voting out each and every representative not committed to preserving the Constitution and saving our country by serious and much needed reforms.