|
Wednesday, 03 March 2010 19:30 |
|
The filibuster gained much negative attention in 2003 when a group of Senators prevented confirmation votes on appointed judicial nominees by using the filibuster. This sparked much outcry about the proper use of the filibuster, since this small group of minority Senators blocked the confirmation votes because they feared the nominees, when judges, would not uphold a political agenda which aligned with their own. Not only did this bring into question the appropriate use of the filibuster in this specific situation, it also attached an overall negative connotation and prompted strong doubts about the very existence, sense, and even integrity of the tactic of filibuster. In fact, for most of the Senate’s history, the filibuster could not be used to prolong debate on judicial nominees. It was not until 1949 that a change in language allowed (or perhaps merely was not precise enough in forbidding) a filibuster during judicial confirmation votes. Now, since Republican Senator Scott Brown won the Senate seat in Massachusetts and broke the Democrats’ sixty vote, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, outcries about the integrity and sense of the filibuster are again being heard. However, the real worth and original purpose have been almost entirely overlooked in the lasting bad taste of its misuse in 2003. Though it is purported as a tactic of “obstruction,” and sometimes even as display of bratty behavior, the filibuster actually has an ingenious design and reason for existence. The filibuster provides a way to extend debate on every piece of legislation in the Senate, to make sure each potential law is absolutely necessary, not just passable. In essence, part of the purpose of the filibuster is intentionally to make it more difficult to pass legislation. This is important for several reasons. First, it creates a safeguard to protect the People from their legislators and our government from itself. For example, our representatives in the Senate constantly try to create legacies for themselves by passing “historic” legislation that will always be attached to their names. Most times this is done without proper, thorough regard (or any regard at all) to the necessity of creating more laws and placing more restrictions on the People. The filibuster gives any Senator the right to extend debate, bringing light to the proposed law, not only in the Senate, but also to the American people. Furthermore, the more difficult to pass a law for any reason, the less our society would rely on the government to solve their problems. This would benefit our country greatly, since individual citizens would add further protection to their liberties by taking individual responsibility and not looking to the government to solve everything for them. Most importantly, the filibuster is the one safeguard against the extermination of minority dissent in our federal government. The Senate is the only body of our government that provides for this balance of power – allowing the minority their voice – which in itself is one of the principles on which our country was built. The filibuster protects these rights, for as Lyndon Johnson said: “In this country, a majority may govern but it does not rule.” |
|
|
Thursday, 28 January 2010 13:42 |
|
Ten Simple Words by Liz Wheeler The Freedom of Speech is one of the most precious freedoms we enjoy as American citizens. Our government may not limit the number of words we use, restrict the nature of conversations we have, or censor the type of information we hear. Perhaps of even greater importance, our Freedom of Speech ensures that as citizens of the United States, we need have no fear that criticism of our government will result in fines or penalty. However, the First Amendment does not guarantee us this privilege – it acknowledges this as an inherent and existing Right, and then provides protection for the People from any assault on this Right by their government. Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech. Ten simple words. And on Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled to uphold them, rightly overturning laws which prohibited corporations and labor unions from using money from their general treasuries to pay for ads, commercials, etc. that referred to a particular political candidate in any way that could be construed as either advocating for or against his election. These laws previously in place were billed as a protection of the individual citizen against big corporations having the monetary ability to distribute information that pertained solely to the political interest of that particular organization. Allegedly, this prevented the spread of mass “misinformation” (meaning any information not officially endorsed by a candidate) that would leave private citizens confused and in the dust. Essentially, however, these laws merely dictated who was allowed to speak, based on whether the person chose to speak independently or chose to collaborate and voice their opinion through an association of citizens with similar beliefs and objectives. Masked as protection, the government was telling the People what information was “correct” and what was not, instead of leaving it to the people to judge the facts for themselves, through whatever media or information source each person chose for himself. Clearly, this is a violation of the Right to Free Speech, as well as simply illogical. After all, if a candidate for elected office holds a position or supports a policy that would be damaging to the jobs of labor union members or would negatively affect a corporation, why shouldn’t either of these be allowed to independently choose to speak out against this? Opinions are essential to any working democracy, and just because a certain angle of an issue is not the platform a candidate chooses to run with, that does not automatically make it a less than legitimate reason to take into account, and certainly does not warrant laws prohibiting such speech. In the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court overturned these laws that restricted speech based on the speaker, and ruled in favor of Free Speech, upholding these principles: “[The Amendment]…offers no foothold for excluding any category of speakers, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associates of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals…” (Justice Antonin Scalia). And also, as Justice Kennedy so aptly put it: “The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.” What a victory for those ten simple words. |
|
Saturday, 26 December 2009 16:39 |
|
Liz Wheeler writes a monthly column for CiDaily. This is December's edition. President Obama accepted his Nobel Peace Prize last week. In a speech careful to touch on his views on the necessity of nuclear disarmament, his action against advanced interrogation of our country’s violent enemy, and his philosophy on the importance of using “painstaking diplomacy” before force when handling threatening nations, there were several other statements that were surprisingly attention-grabbing. First item of interest: A shout-out to the truth that war is sometimes necessary. |
|
|
Monday, 18 January 2010 17:40 |
|
The media constantly push their agenda of “save the Earth” and “stop global warming before it’s too late,” but why? They’re just good people trying to do the right thing, right? Wrong! Global warming is a farce created by environmentalist and the liberal media to get your money, by take advantage of the fact that the average American doesn’t know all the facts. The biggest bit of info that blows global warming out of the water is that the Earth goes through things called cooling cycles. Gradually the Earth gets colder, get hotter, and gets colder again. It’s that simple. The ironic thing is that right now we’re actually in a cooling cycle! North America and a lot of Siberia, Mongolia, and Chine have had more snow cover then anytime 1966. That’s not just a concentrated area, that’s two places on opposite sides of the world. The other observation I’d like to bring up is that the media goes through the trouble to cover up thing that would exposed global warming. The UN IPCC’s (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 2007 predicted an increase in Atlantic Ocean level increase of about 15 inches. As you can imagine this report, high-profile as it may be, didn’t exactly get wide publicity from the media, but guess who’s did. That’s right Al Gore’s. His prediction that he made in “An Inconvenient Truth” predicted an increase of 240 inches! That’s over 15 times the UN’s report, and over 10 times their worst case scenario prediction! But in the end this exaggerated number got unimaginably more publicized then any official report, and one last thing. Don’t get me wrong, I’m for recycling and not littering. I thinks we should take care of the world God has blessed us with, but at the same time we have to keep this thing in perspective, and not let it get out of control. |
|
Sunday, 10 May 2009 22:44 |
By Wendy Cole - May 2009
So many times during the presidential election there was much talk about what were the priorities when selecting the next president. For many, the bottom line was how the next president would view and act on the issue of abortion.
Many would disagree that it wasn't the most urgent priority. But if they investigated further, they might come to understand that if our president had compassion on the least and the most vulnerable citizens of the United States, he would have compassion and mercy in all areas. And wisdom.
You see, abortion is a foundational issue. If the foundation is good, the whole building will be good. But if the foundation is faulty, the building will be unstable.
Many loved President Bush for his uncompromising stand for the rights and concerns of unborn citizens. He protected a whole generation from the ravages of embryonic stem cell research, saving literally millions of lives through refusing to federally fund this abomination. He helped strengthen legislation protecting them and upheld the state's rights to impose legislation regarding them. He also was concerned for those in the medical field who by conscience and religious beliefs must refuse to participate in abortion and signed executive orders protecting them as well from being coerced in any way into participating in what they regard as murder of innocents. Under President Bush, the abomination of partial birth abortion was outlawed.
President Bush loved children and feared God so much that he took it a step further. He led the way in providing for the needs of third world children affected by AIDS through funding research and providing the drugs needed to these children's families to help combat this deadly disease on every level.
The present administration has made children a priority too. But it is exactly in reverse of the agenda of life of President Bush. President Obama has in 100 days done so much damage to the cause of life that one wonders at the "audacity of hope" that this president makes such lofty claims to. Where is the hope when a president seeks to coerce God-fearing men and women in the medical field into participating in abortion or else lose their jobs? Where is the hope when a president seeks to reinstate the abomination of partial birth abortion? Where is the much touted hope in a president that decides to let loose the horrific practice of creating and then destroying life in the name of saving the lives of others, which is embryonic stem cell "research". A research that because of the attention given to adult stem cell research, isn't needed or even desired? Where is the hope of such a president that would nullify the Mexico City Policy reinstated by President Bush in 2001? This policy prohibits non-governmental organizations that perform and promote elective abortions from receiving federal tax subsidies for overseas family planning programs. Instead of focusing on providing a safe haven for children to be born into, President Obama seems only concerned that any who would be born into less then perfect circumstances are better off not being born at all. This puts the lie to President Obama's own life, ironically. He was born to an unmarried minor. Would he apply his own standard to himself?
There is overwhelming sadness now because of something that could have so easily have been prevented. So many in the believing community now profess that they didn't know that Obama was anti-life. Why didn't they know? Why weren't they warned? Why was there such silence in the believing community? Were our spiritual leaders too concerned about personal privacy regarding voting to the exclusion of concern for the outcome? There was no need to mention names or party affiliation, indeed that would have been inappropriate. Now it is too late as many voted for Obama and, now, the damage may now be irreversible. Supreme Court Justice David Souter will be retiring soon. If a pro-life president were in the White House we would be witnessing the historical overturning of Roe V Wade very soon. Instead, we will have another anti-life justice and our poor children will pay the ultimate price.
President Bush was indeed hated by the left, he was reviled every single day of his presidency. There was never a "honey-moon" period for President Bush. The hatred was systemic throughout the left. Why? What had he done upon taking the oath of office other than win? It is clear that the hatred came from his uncompromising stand for the unborn. Not from the war, not from the economy. From this one issue that isn't high enough on people's priorities. But this issue is of the utmost importance in God's sight. It is the issue that determines whether or not a people is merciful and generous or cruel and selfish.
And so now we all mourn for what has been lost and for an opportunity missed. The left's unrelenting character assassination of President Bush infected even the believing community and gave the enemy the foothold he desired by silencing the voices of leaders that could have made a difference. Do elections matter? Does what I believe really matter? Will my life and actions affect others? Yes, yes and yes. May God have mercy on us all and may we repent and help others to see the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
