Legislating from the Throne

I've often heard some political activists talk about candidates for the Supreme Court or even an occasional member of the current court. They'd say: "We need someone who won't legislate from the bench!" At first I wondered what they were talking about. "Why would a supreme court justice be legislating" and "what is a bench?" Though I'm just a Basicguy, it still didn't take me long to figure out what they were trying to say. The bench is that stand that the justices sit on when they hear and respond to cases brought before them. And the legislating thing? Well, that's how laws are made, usually by the legislature, and should not be by a supreme court with a political agenda.

Well, all this got me thinking the other day. I was reading some of the transcript from the most recent debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Each candidate was warned that they would be pressed by constitutional matters, but it didn't take long to leave the Constitution and see the bickering back and forth over the candidates favorite issues. As I read, I began to wonder how many of the things they were promising to do for America actually related to the duties of a president as dictated by the Constitution. Well, not much.

It seems that most of the things presidential candidates talk about (and that goes for both parties) fall within the duties of the legislative branch, not the executive. Well, if that's the case, would it be fair to say: "We need someone who won't legislate from the throne?" Now, I voted for President Bush, but looking at his politics from this perspective, I wondered how many of the initiatives he instigated really didn't belong to the executive office of government? Here are some to think about: The Iraq war; Prescription drug benefits; NAFTA; CAFTA; No child Left Behind; etc., etc., etc.

Well, I imagine this line of discussion could spark some debate. So be it. There's nothing wrong with a healthy constitutional conversation. All I'd ask first is that you pull out your old pamphlet of the Constitution and review articles I and II of the Constitution. Article I deals with the Legislative Branch and Article II deals with the Executive. Put the current president and the candidates on trial.

Basically speaking, whenever you hear any politician put forth some fascinating plan for the country, ask yourself if the Constitution really allows them to do that. If it does, then maybe that person is a good choice. However, if it doesn't, it ought to worry us that such important people do not know the very Constitution they promise to protect and uphold on a stack of bibles. If we're not more vigilant on these constitutional issues, we may find that "legislating from the throne" is far worse than legislating from the bench. Keep your constitutional eyes open America.

Change the Climate on Climate Change

Was I just seeing things? I'm sure my eyes were playing tricks with me, but I thought that was Newt Gingrich sitting with Nancy Pelosi on TV. As I sat recently watching a program on TV, Newt and Nancy appeared on a commercial together. Nancy admitted that the to of them hadn't agreed on much over the years (to which Newt nodded his head in approval), she said there was one thing they both did agree on. Newt then announced that they both agreed on doing something about Global Climate Change. I about died.

You already know how I feel about climate change or global warming (see my blog entry titled: "The Spectacle of Daily Spectacle" on March 20, 2008). It's a scam. Current "real" science does not support such a claim. But the green movement in America, who blame man for all the ills on earth, would have us stall our economy and further indebt our nation to escape the coming climate crisis. Don't buy it. And there he was, Newt Gingrich alongside Nancy, having bought the green line hook, line, and sinker. He had swallowed the whole line and the rod and the reel. Newt, hurry to YouTube and watch The Great Global Warming Swindle before its too late!

If that wasn't enough, the Deseret News reported this morning that Gordon Brown called on the US and Europe "to lead a new era of global 'interdependence' aimed at solving international problems such as terrorism, poverty and climate change" (see Deseret News, Saturday, April 19, 2008, A12). There it was again... climate change. And you can bet that climate change is on his mind because he's bought into the assumption that man is the major contributor of climate change. We are in real trouble when the heads of state start pushing agendas based on fear instead of fact.

Now I know I'm just a Basicguy. I don't have a science degree. But as I listen to other sources besides the mainline media (that do not have an obvious liberal agenda), I'm convinced that the scientific community is not in agreement on this issue. Many do believe that there is evidence of climate change, but there is no evidence that pins it on man. Other natural forces are at work such as, the earth's ecosystem, changes in activity on the sun, and the CO2 created by domestic animals. Even a Basicguy can read. Gore is, and always has been, wrong. There is no scientific consensus on global warming. Basically speaking, we need to change the climate on the climate change discussion.

What We Do in the Name of Religion

I'm often surprised by what people will do to each other in the name of religion. Just this past presidential season displayed the widespread bias of evangelicals against Mormons. Though he tried to hide his disdain, Mr. Huckabee probably smiled when Mitt Romney opted to drop out of the race. Those Mormons are a cult you know and the nation has been spared being seized upon by this stray evil. Well, I suppose I shouldn't be a sore loser... but its tough for us Basicguy's to accept defeat or disappointment with the needed grace.

As interesting as I find this particular issue, there is a far bigger picture that I'd like to address in relation to religious abuse. I came across an interesting article today written by Ken Timmerman. He writes a column often dealing with the Middle East and the challenges this country faces there. He often has insights from well-placed connections. In this article he covered the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Notice this:

“The Kurdish regional government in Northern Iraq is providing a safe haven to several thousand Iraqi Christians who have fled persecution in other parts of the country, government officials and local pastors told Newsmax.

“Unlike refugee camps set up for some 100,000 Shia Muslims fleeing attacks from Sunnis, which are closely monitored by Kurdish security forces, Christians have been encouraged to live anywhere.

“‘Christians in Iraq need special attention, because they’ve been suffering because they are Christians,’ Deputy Prime Minister Omar Fattah told Newsmax in an exclusive interview in Erbil. ‘Maybe we give some instructions to others where they can go, but to Christians, never, because we are not afraid they will be terrorists.’”

Did you catch that? The Kurd’s welcome Iraqi Christians and allow them to live anywhere “because we are not afraid they will be terrorists.” They can’t do the same with sunni or shia Muslim’s because there is no telling what you’ll get. And yet the Christians flee Bagdad and other cities in their homeland because of the abuse they suffer… even unto death.

Now I know that there have been years of darkness even among Christianity. But that was ages ago. Christians have matured and come of age. Christianity led the world into an age of progress and civility. Then radical Islam showed up on stage and has violently imposed its archaic beliefs upon the world.

It’s sad isn’t it? A people who once offered the world so much in all the educational disciplines has fallen pray to a religion and a movement that seeks to plunge the world back into the dark ages or Old Testament times. All the progress and good that God has wrought through His children over the years is threatened by this growing threat.

So basically speaking, it is surprising what people are willing to do to each other in the name of religion. I’m glad to be part of a people that others “are not afraid they will be terrorists.” Now, if only Mr. Huckabee would let me be a Christian.