Journal pudge's Journal: Democrats and the Rule of Law 13
The Democrats put Lilly Ledbetter on the dais tonight. She is complaining because the Supreme Court ruled according to the law.
A very brief synopsis, because that's all that's required: the law says you must file your complaint within six months of the discriminatory act. Ledbetter's complaint did not include any allegation of discriminatory acts in the prior six months. Therefore, there is no valid legal complaint. Period, end of story.
Ledbetter says she supports Obama because he would appoint judges who would have ruled in her favor, that is, in violation of the law. And she is getting applauded for it.
Not that this should surprise anyone at all, because we all know the Democratic Party doesn't care about what the law actually says. The do not believe in the rule of law, but the rule of men.
Oh, and then she complained that the Democratic-controlled Senate wouldn't rewrite the law.
Now, I may be in favor of the law change she wants. I don't know, I'd need to look at it more closely. But there's no possible way I could ever be on her side on the legal issue, because this would require me to abandon my belief, the American belief, in the rule of law.
And if you don't know why the rule of law is important, I won't explain it all here, except to say that adherence to the law is all that's protecting our rights from being completely ignored by any government that simply wishes to abridge them. Rule of law is required in any democratic republic as the primary means of protecting our rights.
That so many Democrats, including Obama, don't believe in this is reason enough to oppose him and his party. No issue is more fundamental to liberty.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Re: Democrats and the Rule of Law (Score:2)
I too heard Ledbetter speak, and see your point about the technical points an
Dems haven't cared fig #1 for law (Score:2)
The individualism upon which these United States were founded (modulo the slavery wart) runs contrary to the socialist ant colony that the Dems favor.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, the Dems breakdown in caring for the law occurred on Woodrow Wilson's watch.
Wilson was America's first Fascist President, FDR was the second.
Re: (Score:2)
So the question becomes whether we still care about individual liberty or are we after a socialist nanny state?
Re: (Score:1)
Good definition of the current two parties. Even if the Republicans are not pushing individual liberty as much as I'd like them to.
Re: (Score:2)
The republicans aren't any better.
Frankly it comes down to what you are willing to throw under the bus so to speak.
Also at any given moment in time one party is usually a little bit worse about how much liberty they want you to give up.
Re: (Score:2)
The republicans aren't any better.
On the issue of rule of law, they certainly are. If nothing else, at least Republicans favor Supreme Court justices who believe it is important to follow what the Constitution says, whereas Democrats, including Obama, favor justices like Stephen Breyer, who wrote a book explaining why he does not follow the Constitution.
Obviously the Republicans are not perfect. Duh. But the Democrats -- the ruling class of the party, anyway -- come fundamentally from the position that the rule of law, what the Constitut
No, guns (Score:2)
Rule of law is an important safeguard, I suppose, but I wouldn't call it the primary means of protecting rights. That designation belongs to an armed citizenry, or, as the founders called it "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."
My understanding of rule of law has changed significantly. The change was set in concrete when I read Whatever Happened to Justice? by Richard Maybury, although my thinking was already on the way there. I don't believe in the right of human b
Re: (Score:2)
Rule of law is an important safeguard, I suppose, but I wouldn't call it the primary means of protecting rights.
From within our government system, it is.
Guns are a means to fight against that system, when the rule of law fails.
I don't believe in the right of human beings to make law, just the obligation of human beings to discover it and live by it.
It's not about a right do it. It's about the notion that laws are a contract between a government and its people, and that if the law is not followed, that contract completely breaks down, which is what we have today. The rule of law is necessary for a government that respects rights to exist. And that's where guns come in.
I believe Law is either intrinsic to the universe or created by the Creator and cannot be altered by men. I believe in the rule of that Law, not slavishly adhering to legislative law that can actually be changed.
Slavish adherence is necessary to uphold that contract. If we do not
Re: (Score:2)
It's about the notion that laws are a contract between a government and its people
I fundamentally disagree with that notion. According to the Declaration of Independence, men are endowed by their Creator with rights, and governments exist not to make contracts with their subjects but to protect the rights of the people who created them. The governments enforce those rights against citizens and non-citizens (people who never agreed to the contract). The only real laws which can be morally enforced are those rights which every person possesses.
Re: (Score:2)
It's about the notion that laws are a contract between a government and its people
I fundamentally disagree with that notion.
I don't see how anyone could, not while still believing in liberty.
According to the Declaration of Independence, men are endowed by their Creator with rights, and governments exist not to make contracts with their subjects but to protect the rights of the people who created them.
The way those rights are protected is THROUGH the contract with the people. How else could it POSSIBLY happen? Anything else is rule of men, which is fundamentally incompatible with liberty.
The governments enforce those rights against citizens and non-citizens (people who never agreed to the contract).
Yes, I know, you hold to the absurd proposition that you should be able to secede your piece of property into its own little nation. But it doesn't affect anything I said, which is that laws are the mechanism by which governments fulfill their purpose
Re: (Score:2)
The law against murder still exists if the "contract" a government offers does not make a law against it. The laws against theft and enslavement also still exist. Sometimes the "contract" permits a government to commit these acts. They are still unlawful in such a situation.
That's why I say the "contract" is not equal to "law." The "laws" of our nation specify stealing from some people to give to others. I don't believe in that kind of rule of law. I believe that's wrong, and the founders of this nati
Re: (Score:2)
None of what you are saying applies to what I am saying.