|
For the record, Dick Gephardt said an enormously stupid thing:
When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day.
Well, no. That's not how it works, and Gephardt should know better. I do find the hand wringing on the right over this a bit funny, though. He said something stupid trying to make a point. It happens, its good for a few laughs, but its no more meaningful than Bush saying "There should be limits on freedom" in a moment of anger.
The fact that the right wing can get so worked up about statements like this, but shows no real anger at the Padilla case (not all, I will admit) or no sense of anger over being misled, or no sense of shame that Bush has not publicly corrected his claim that "We have found the WMDS" is a bit puzzling.
But that is just me.
In a larger sense, I think it is possible to distinguish between misstatements and truly inappropriate comments. There is a difference between Lott and Santorum, for example, and the comments Bush and Gephardt made. In the first two cases, the men either had a history of making those comments in the past or for working towards ends that were supported by those comments. Further, there was no possible interpretation that was not inappropriate.
Neither Gephradt or Bush had a history of making comments of that nature or of acting towards those ends. Before he was President, Bush had no history of trying to limit freedom of expression, and Gephardt has no history of trying to overturn court rulings by Executive fiat, or even of supporting such actions. Bush was trying to say that libel should be punished and people should not be able to appropriate his name for their use without his permission, Gephardt was trying to say that he would use the power of the Executive to foster affirmative action, such as Truman did with the Army.
Considering that Lott had a history of associating with racist organizations, and considering that the only thing that separated Thurman's Dixiecrat campaign from the other two major parties was its support for segregation, the reasonable conclusion was reached. Since Santorum had a history of opposing gay rights, and since the comment mirrored the standard "gays = child abuse" rhetoric of gay haters, the reasonable conclusion was reached.
Basically, context matters. I am much more worried now, because of the PATRIOT Act and other attacks on the constitution, when Bush says things that suggest limits on openness or freedom. But that is, as I have said, because of the context of his assaults on Constitutional freedoms since 9/11. If Gephardt does not apologize for these remarks, or continues to make them, then I will be concerned.
Politicians or human, and, as Bush is certainly proof of, they are occasionally going to say stupid things that they do not mean. Intellectually honest people will call them on those remarks, but also admit that context matters. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a misstatement is just a misstatement.
Gephardt and bush have a history of subverting the constitution (as do all politicians).
The difference between santorum and gephardt is that santorum just disagreed with a ruling. Gephardt advocated subverting the constitution.
You decide which is more scary :)
Posted by: SayUncleSU
First, Santorum also said a lot of truly bigoted things in that interview. It wasn't just about the court rulings.
Second, if you are going to say that "Gephardt and bush have a history of subverting the constitution (as do all politicians", then I guess eveything any politician says would offend you. :)
Seriously, in the two cases I cited,I just don't see any context that would support any interpretation other than misstatement. At some point, we have to allow for the fact that politicians are actual human beings.
Posted by: kevinthen I guess eveything any politician says would offend you. :)
Indeed.
But seriously: By your rationale, Lott may have said bigotted things but it is arguable that he was just catering to an aging thurmond and didn't realize the context his comments would be taken in.
Posted by: SayUncle"Lott may have said bigotted things but it is arguable that he was just catering to an aging thurmond and didn't realize the context his comments would be taken in. "
No, I think you misunderstand the argument. Becasue of history of association with racist groups, Lott's statements could only reasonably be seen as racist. That is the context I am talking about.
Posted by: kevinAnd gephardt has a history of subverting the consitution and as such could only reasonably be seen as trying to subvert the constitution.
I love this circular arguments :)
Posted by: SayUncleNo, its not a circular argument.
Sorry to break this to you, but your idea of what constitutes subverting the constititution is not really widely held :). Frnakly, what you are advocating is simply inhuman. You don't like government, so you think all politicians are subvertting the constitution, so every comment is a deep portent of hidden desires to destroy the Constitution. People say dumb things - even politicians.
Lott has a history of association with racist organizations, Thruman's platform was explicitly racist, and, therefor, the majority of the US and his own party correctly deemed his comments to be racists.
There is no such context here - unless one accepts your rather odd notion that every politician is subverting the Constitution.
Posted by: kevinI’ve never stated that I don’t like government. But I think that there are limits on it for a reason. Who watches the the watchmen and all of that.
As for Dick subverting the constitution:
Didn't
bother to show up to vote against this stupid law
And he won't
issue statements about his positions
So, yes he has history of subverting the constitution. Except that last one there, I just thought it spoke of his integrity.
I give pretty everyone a pass on the PATRIOT Act. yeah, it was wrong, but people were scared, and scared people do dumb things.
That was the only thing on your list that is clearly subverting the Constitutution. I hold no water for Gephardt, and would rather vote for a Martian than that little weasel, but difference of interpretation do not equate to subveritng the constitution. Republicans are wrong that regulation - taking under the Constitituion, for example, but they are not subverting it. I think that there is an important distinction between that and subverting the constitution.
Posted by: kevinVoting for the aw ban was unconstitutional - period.
Not doing his duty and failing to show for a vote on a stupid flag burning law is deriliction of duty and perhaps not unconstituional. I'll give you that one.
And if you're not faulting anyone for the patriot act's passage, it would be hypocritical to fault Bush/Ashcroft for enforcing it.
So, we disagree again. No big deal.
Posted by: SayUncle"Voting for the aw ban was unconstitutional - period."
See, this is what I am talking about. I think the 2nd clearly allows regulations like this. That is a matter of interpretation, not subversion.
Enemy combatants, since it disregards so many basic freedoms, and so many of the checks and balances built into the the Constitution, constitutues subversion.
Yes, this is all subjective, but I thik the word subversion should be used very, very carefully, as it implies a level of malice not appropriate for all discussions. Consider it the nuclear weapon of constitutional debate.
I wasn't clear enough about Ashcroft - I don't fault him for enforcing it, I fault him for writing it an arguing that he needed it to fight terrorism.
Posted by: kevinSee, this is what I am talking about. I think the 2nd clearly allows regulations like this
I know that it clearly doesn't. It specifically protects weapons used to maintain the preservation and efficacy of a well regulated militia. See US v Miller. It does allow some regulations but not these.
That is a matter of interpretation, not subversion.
No, it's not of interpretation. See above.
At least we agree on the enemy combatant stuff.
I can't fault ashcroft more than legislators. People write stupid laws all the time but when they're passed, that is when it is an issue. Ashcroft couldn't be abusing his power if it wasn't granted to him.
Posted by: SayUncleAnd there is not a word in Miller about assualt rifles. You merely interpret the ruling to protect assualt rifles. It is not a universal opinion - as witnessed by the fact that it has not been struck down, despite the length of time it has been in effect.
I see your point on Ashcroft, but, again, context matters. people were scared, and Ashcrift took advantage of that fear. I am actually willing to even forgive him, a bit, if he was working for its repeal. But he is not. That last bit goes towards every politiican, BTW.
Posted by: kevinIn miller, the justices essentially said that because a sawn off shotgun had not been proven to be part of the normal use of the militia, it wasn't protected. As such, if said arm were standard military issue of the day (i.e., an assault rifle circa 1939) the justices would have had to have found another excuse.
And if the fact laws haven't been struck down is validity that they are constitutional, that is extremely flawed. For example, the patriot act hasn't been struck down either.
Posted by: SayUncleSU
PATRIOT hasn't been challenged yet, as far as I know. It is my understanding that the W ban had been, at least in lower courts. Correct me if I am wrong.
Also, you are assuming that AW fit the definiton in Miller, which is certainly a matter of interpretation.
The thing is, this is not the real point. The real point is that it is possible for intelligent people to differ on what the COnstitution prohibits and allows. But saying that someone is subverting the Constitution implies that they are trying to destroy it. It is a harsh charge, and one that I think both sides toss around much, much too lightly.
Posted by: kevin
