Wednesday, March 06, 2013

Sen. Mike Delph's Poignant Thoughts On The Rule Of Law

I've not taken the occasion before now to discuss Sen. David Long's SJR-18, which petitions Congress under Article V of the U.S. Constitution to convene a constitutional convention for the purpose of considering limits on the power of Congress to tax and regulate interstate commerce. The day after it passed the Indiana Senate on a 32-18 vote, I ran into one of my neighbors, who can't seem to resist the opportunity every time he sees me to poke fun of me for being a Tea Party type. The guy doesn't really bother me because he's a pathetic drunk who when he isn't scheming with members of the downtown mafia to tap public funds for private development purposes he's beating up the latest unfortunate woman to date his sorry ass, but I digress. Anyway, this poor soul started making fun of what he called Sen. David Long's obligatory appeal to Tea Party extremists like me by the sponsorship of his call for a constitutional convention. He looked at me cross-eyed when I told him that I didn't support Sen. Long's resolution and that some of the Senate's most thoughtful conservatives opposed it, along with some of that body's most liberal members. I'm not sure if it was the alcohol or his genuine surprise that drew his confused look.

When I came across this YouTube video of Sen. Delph's speech in opposition to SJR-18, I just had to share it with you because he hits the nail so squarely on the head why Sen. Long's constitutional convention is so unnecessary. There's nothing wrong with the U.S. Constitution; the problem is with an elitist attitude among some members of the judicial branch that they have the power to interpret the Constitution and written statutory laws of our nation to mean what they believe they should mean as opposed to the plain meaning of the words contained therein, worsened by derelict members of the legislative and executive branch who seem to think it's only the role of the judicial branch to understand the meaning of the written laws that govern our country.  

Those of you who read my blog regularly know my deep reservations and grave concerns about the greatest threat posed to our liberties is what our federal government does in carrying out its constitutional role in providing for the national defense and the creeping use of that authority in the name of national security. The late Sen. Patrick Moynihan, a thoughtful liberal from New York, authored a book entitled "Secrecy" in which he made the case to end the excesses of government secrecy and begin sharing far more information about our government with the people. His book was written prior to 9/11 and should have been a compulsory read from cover to cover for every member of Congress, along with the taking of their oath. If they understood and took these matters seriously, Congress may not have been lured into the enactment of the far-reaching and unconstitutional Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act and other statutory overreaches that have been used to subvert virtually every basic right set forth in our Constitution's Bill of Rights. In the video below, former CIA agent Robert D. Steele, while addressing a group of bloggers, makes the case better than anyone I've heard for why we've got to end the practice of sacrificing every one's privacy and fundamental rights for the sake of national security at unimaginable costs to this country and with horrible outcomes and consequences.

No comments: