In Alito's wake
With the advent of Judge Alito’s elevation to the Supreme Court we may take stock of the effect this can have on 2008 presidential politics. I for one feel the new and improved Robert’s court will redound to the benefit of certain Republican presidential aspirants heretofore deemed very electable but unable to win the GOP nomination. I have Rudy Giuliani in mind.
As “Americas Mayor” in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11, he won praise that crossed party and ideological lines. But outside his careful ministrations and leadership in this most horrendous of situations, Mr. Giuliani also governed as a tough street crime fighter that underscored his ability to address problems that others thought intractable. He showed in practical terms that personal security is the most fundamental civil liberty. He made New York livable again and would have easily won reelection had he not been term limited out.
Nevertheless, the good Mayor does have some soft spots relative to the conservative platform. What makes him unable to win a GOP nomination in 2008, it is thought, is his liberal stance on social issues; with abortion rights in particular. But, here is where the Alito nomination may recast the national political dynamic.
Issues like abortion rights have been thrust onto the national stage precisely because the SC has taken these issues away from the states’ democratic processes. Why the paleo-press insists on amplifying a right to privacy “litmus tests” protecting abortion rights is precisely so states’ legislative majorities cannot pass on them. It is because the Court should not be here, as a matter of law that makes keeping the Court in the hands of substantive due process judges so important to the left. Now comes Sam Alito.
By all reports, when Justice Alito joins the Court the concept of substantive due process is in for some serious pairing down. And the effect of overturning a constitutionally protected right to abortion, or any other substantive due process creations, will be to cast these nationalized issues back to the states where they should have been all along. Politically, this will have the effect of neutralizing the issue nationally. Politicians like Giuliani can now safely take a position on the abortion issue and be insulated from the proposition that their opinions will translate into pro-abortion statutes in the states. The abortion issue will no longer be a federal issue, but a state issue. This same analysis will hold for gay marriage et. al.
What Rudy Giuliani needs to make clear, and from all reports he has already done so, is that he is strong on national security, proactive on the War on Terror, strong on immigration/securing the boarder policy and will nominate originalists to the Court.
Newspeak/Newsweek
"But when antique media reporters describe the world, they all too often describe what they wish for, not what they see." HT powerlineblog
A line by line devestating refutation of Newsweek's fantasist story on NSA electronic surviallance. How long can the ancient regime withstand the uncomprimising truth!!!
Flailing times
I've just ventured to read the NYT latest editorial on the Bush "imperial presidency". Aside from the issues raised, what strikes me is the juvenile manner of their discussion. It's like what might be expected from a mass email between college freshmen. It discloses an incoherent grasp of constitutional principles and a lack of competence in laying bare the important issues attending this debate. Whom do the pubescent Times' editors believe their audience is? Midway through the piece I thought they would announce a keg party at KDR house. What a disgrace.
What seems lost on these prepubescent exhibitionalists is that the Constitution of the United States is fundamental law, and any law enacted through its procedures cannot add to or take from its principal. This concept of an ultimate sovereignty residing in the Constitution is the principle underlying the authority to determine inferior laws unconstitutional. It is the only rational that explains the authority to displace democratic majorities based on the natural equality of all men.
What the president is stating is that he derives his Art. II powers from the Constitution and no court can take that away from him. This is a very important question, and requires serious discussion by serious individuals. You'll not find any at the Times.
Omnipresent National Security
Literally, the security “dimension” of national security is an elastic term that can describe those vital interests that our nation depends on to perpetuate our way of life. It does not follow that Art. II powers are enhanced by mere generalizations, that is not the point here. What is at issue is developing a theme or platform akin to the 1990s "contract with America" that has as its centerpiece a dedication to secure our future. The summoning words of the Constitution’s preamble come to mind with its reference to securing the blessings of liberty for us and our posterity.
Education policy IS national security. Succeeding generations must be able, not just to compete, but defeat our economic competitors. Instilling children with a sense of American exceptionalism provides a sense of purpose and critical thinking. What is exceptional about America is its prioritization of reason. It is reason that controls government and government that controls the passions. These ideas must be wrestled with and learned.
Economic policy IS national security. Appropriate tax and trade policies which complemnt and support our dedication to reason and property must be advanced. Flat tax, free trade, tight illegal immigration, but generous legal immigration are all reasonable policy measures. Particularly, with regard to the latter, an English only language requirement encourages assimilation. This is just common sense.
The requirements for a society, and ultimately a government, with the capacity to secure our rights, is on balance more important than a simple enumeratiotion of rights. The Federalist papers, woefully addressed in our schools, teaches the subtle but ever so important approach to mixing a government with the power to defend us collectively, with the mechanisms that protect us individually. ACLU types and other diaphanous moral exhibitionalists have no intellectual moderation on theses points. And moderation is key, Goldwater notwithstanding.
National security is the theme for 2006 and 2008, and there is no evidence that the Dems are aware how quickly the American people are becoming aware of the need for vigorous government rather that political maneuvering. Bring it on!!!!!
