Obama and the law: about that little thing called “procedure”
Ann Althouse, blogger and law professor who voted for Obama, has this to say about his pooh-poohing of procedural rules during his Bret Baier interview yesterday:
As if procedure is a frivolous sidetrack that only trivial or devious people care about. Barack Obama was a constitutional law professor. Much of constitutional law is about procedural rights and structural safeguards that check power. Justice Felix Frankfurter famously wrote: “The history of American freedom is, in no small measure, the history of procedure.” Law professors are seriously engaging with the constitutionality of the “deem and pass,” and our erstwhile law professor Barack Obama would imperiously wave procedure aside as a distraction not worthy of his time. Let’s concentrate on the end and pay no attention to the means. When the most powerful man in the world says that, we should feel revulsion and alarm.
Hear, hear!
I wonder what Hugo Chavez things about procedure? 😉
Baklava: he’s in favor of it, when he can invent it. As was Obama’s buddy Zelaya.
Having just sacrificed some of my time, and likely, some much-needed brain cells, watching Baier gamely trying to nail Jello to the wall, I agree wholeheartedly with Althouse. My conclusions:
(1) Barack Obama is not, in fact, history’s greatest orator. He stumbles, fumbles, obfuscates, erects straw men, relies on anecdotal evidence–which is no evidence at all–to the exclusion of all other evidence, and never, ever answers a direct question or even addresses the substance of any question whose substance is not “why are you so wonderful?”
(2) All politicians dissemble a bit, avoiding talking about their own contradictions, but Obama is the most unashamed liar I’ve ever seen, and I’m comparing him to the Clintons. Day is night, up is down, Obamacare will create jobs, save the environment, clear up acne, cure cancer, you’ll get a 3000% decrease in insurance premiums and your boss will give you a raise (he actually said that one two days ago). We have to pass Obamacare to deal with an earthquake in Hawaii?! I must have missed that one. We have to give medical help to Louisiana because of Hurricane Katrina?! One would think the medical issues relating to Katrina would be, more or less, resolved years after the fact, no? As I recall it, more than a few federal dollars have been funneled to Louisiana, and continue to be spent there. They need more? Under the guise of healthcare? We can take half of Medicare funding while simultaneously dealing with a multi-trillion dollar Medicare shortfall?!
(3) There is always, boiling just under the surface, undisguised contempt, even hatred of the little people who dare to question Obama’s majesty. That was very evident in this interview in Obama’s expressions, tone of voice, body language and condescension.
(4) Perhaps the biggest lie is Obama’s claiming to care nothing for, and being uninformed about process. All of his socialist/communist mentors, all of his life-long influences, have been about little else but process (Ainsky’s Rules For Radicals is the bible of communist process for undermining democracy and gaining power). His work–if one can call what he did work–as a community organizer was all about process. Obama’s ascent to the presidency was a textbook in cynical, craven, thuggish Chicago political process. Absent process, Obama’s suit is even more empty than usual.
(5) If anyone needed evidence that Obama is an empty suit, this interview supplies it. This is a man devoid of substance, substituting rhetoric and hype instead. He speaks much but says nothing at all. All of his rhetorical energies are devoted to avoiding answering substantive questions. Any honest speech teacher would fail a student who spoke as Obama does every day.
(6) Whenever a politician claims to be doing something for the children, or claims great concern for the common man, it’s time to check your wallet, for his hand is surely already in it, appropriating its contents. Obama cares nothing for individuals other than their momentarily usefulness as heart-tugging rhetorical constructs. No socialist can care about individuals; it’s the opposite of their core beliefs.
(7) Anyone who believes that Obama is one of history’s greatest intellects should be required to watch this interview and then test that belief under polygraph examination.
We’ve put, God help us, a cheap con man in the White House.
With every passing month Obama looks more and more alike Salvador Allende. The problem is, if among US top military commanders there are those that have guts to appoint somebody like Pinochet?
“we should feel revulsion and alarm”
Those are the two feelings Obama provokes in me regulalry.
I also appreciated her reference to ends and means. As someone who has looked at his political career, Neo, I’m sure you’ll agree, Barack Obama has always pursued ends at the sacrifice of means to achieve every office he’s held.
Which begs the question why hasn’t he prompted revulsion and alarm in the press. He has shamelessly bullied (campaigning holdouts) and bribed congressman (judgeships for family members) in broad daylight, all the while hypocritically splitting hairs over provisions in the bill itself, like the Cornhusker Kickback. And in the end he just dismisses it as part of the ugly process. I think the word is corruption but I don’t suppose that’s a word that is too palatable for a man who did a big photo op surrounded by banners that read “Honest Government.”
That’s the second time I saw a wish for a Pinochet on this blog. This is not a good sign.
mikemcdaniel I agree with the cheap con man remark. Note O’s pretentious tone of voice reveals someone who is trying create an aura of leadership, he downs down rather than to someone, ie he is insecure about his real self.
But he wasn’t a “constitutional law professor”? How can Althouse — an actual law professor — say that?
Barack Obama was a visting part-time lecturer. A cursory look into the matter tells you — or at very least, strongly suggests — that Obama’s allies in Chicago finagled him the job for purely political reasons.
Professor Althouse has her stuff together in calling Obama out on this. The doubletalk from the President is obvious, and when members of the academic profession start calling someone out, you know that someone’s creating an unbound hypocrisy.
This is the consequence of voting for the Empty Suit. I really wish more people would’ve realized this ahead of time.
Obama the distinquished “constitutional law professor”, the unpublished president of the Harvard Law Review, the Harvard student, the Senator, and now president of the United States is a text book example of affirmative action. But for the coincidence of race Barack would have accomplished none of those things.
Sad and yet comical, asthey are plowing ahead I just saw this in an AP article:
Leaving nothing to chance, the White House announced that Obama has put off a trip to Asia for a second time, delaying it until June. Obama was to have left Sunday – when the House is planning to vote.
Said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “He wants to be here for the history.”
Funny, they throw the word history around as though it had an assumed positive connotation. Pearl Harbor and the Rise of the Third Reich were also history.
What I can’t understand is how many people like Ann Althouse (bright, educated, professional) could have been so fooled by this guy. For a class of people who judge people by their vita and life accomplishments, it’s hard to understand how they gave him a pass time and time again. The college kids and welfare types, I can understand.
This article draws attention to another disturbing anything to win tactic that Obama was directly involved in:
http://bigjournalism.com/richmondsexton/2010/03/18/president-obama-promotes-ofa-astroturf-campaign-with-bonus-plagiarism/
JR Dogman: Ann Althouse often writes ironically and tongue-in-cheek. So perhaps when she says he was a law professor she means it a bit sarcastically; she may be aware he was not a full tenure-track professor. But it is also my contention that, since the U. of Chicago issued a statement that they consider him as having been a professor, I think it’s okay to refer to him that way.
Somebody is needed to slaughter revolutionaries in order to save the country. A messy job, I know, but necessary to prevent much, much uglier outcomes.
Mr. Frank,
I have a hard time reading Ann though I do.
She CONTINUES to not get it sometimes.
See – http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/03/rush-limbaugh-still-pissed-about.html
We know what Limbaugh was talking about. I heard him at the time as I was traveling in my car and had the AM radio on.
People seem to feel that the free market should conform to them and they should just be able to freely exist and earn a living doing “whatever”.
Being a nurse, doctor, teacher, firefighter, construction worker, professional of any trade is hard work.
If somebody feels in the the free market they can EARN THEIR WAY and PAY FOR HEALTH CARE at the same time doing WHAT THEY LOVE. Then so be it.
But Ann – puhlease – save your sanctimony about the arts and get off of conservative’s cases.
There was NOTHING wrong with what Rush was saying within the norms of speaking.
She says this at the end, “I’d say the 60s left quite a mark on Rush Limbaugh. They left a mark on me too – quite a different mark though (and I was born on the same day in 1951 as Rush). ”
All I can say is – I’m more with Rush – who is more entertaining and artistic anyways than Ann.
If she can’t understand that we need to encourage the people of this nation to be personally responsible within the free market system then she will CONTINUE to vote for the likes of ∅bama.
I believe there is room for the arts in a free market. I don’t believe we need to take from one group of people by government to give to others (subsidize) people who choose arts.
Sergey said:
No, count me out on that. I am for doing all within reason to fight the Obama’s agenda and the expansion of government power. But what you are sugesting is a military coup. Unless you are suggesting this in a tongue in cheek manner, which I don’t believe you are, I just can’t agree that were that far gone.
We dealt with Nixon’s illegal actions without a military coup, and we can deal with Obama’s outages that way too. A military coup would be like throwing away our constitution to supposedly save it.
Nevertheless, let me add to what Neo’s post states. My outrage against Obama has increased gradually, but surely. By early this year, the insistance of Obama, Pelosi, Reid and company to keep pushing Obamacare against the rising opposition of the American public had me outraged enough. But then, just when I thought there wasn’t any more insult that they could throw at us, theres this unbelievable suggestion of passing such an enormous expansion of government… one strongly oppossed by the majority of the American people… without even following the rules of procedure. This is truly outrageous.
I’m for doing everything the constitution allows to prevent this from occurring. If theres a way to initiate impeachment proceedings against Pelosi and Slaughter, I would favor it. The Slaughter plan is an affront to our constitution and an insult to the American public.
But if a military coup is all weve got, then were far worst off than I would ever want to imagine.
J.L. We are in terrible shape. If this bill passes, the republic also passes.
This seems especially apropos this week.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqReTJkjjg
A Man For All Seasons – Clip “Give The Devil Benefit Of Law”
Neo,
Maybe she was being ironic, but I don’t think so — I think it is rather as you suggest, i.e., she’s merely going along with the U of Chicago statement. But as a blogger, as part of the so-called New Media vanguard, the whole idea is she’s not supposed to just “go with” anything. And as I mentioned above, a quick look around the Internet reveals the dubiousness of the assertion that Obama was ever a “constitutional law professor”.
And this is important.
Why? Because a great part of Obama success has been due to the MSM’s going along with whatever he or his supporters put out about him to create a human narrative: he’s a centrist, he’s got a great temperament, he’s a different kind of politician, and, my good men and women, the man is a constitutional law professor!
The title that carries with it an aura not just of intellectual chops but ethics — after all, what kind of a constitutional law professor would do anything to undermine the Constitution?
I have had the “constitutional law professor” title flung at me in arguments with left-wingers many, many times, because that is the prevailing belief. Well, I think the prevailing belief is wrong, and its propagation destructive. I think the statement offered by the University of Chicago was politically-motivated — what are they going to do, call out the president, their hometown guy, as a liar? Please. Even if they all hated the guy, he’s still the president, and his administration has shown quite a vindictive streak.
As a REAL law professor and as a popular blogger, I assume Ann Althouse is plenty enough plugged-in to be able to find out whether or not Obama *deserves* to be referred to as a constitutional law professor.
Obama *depends* on lies — but he can only do so if people help him by repeating, not questioning, his neverending flow of b.s.
I am listening to Fox reporting that 38 states are planning to sue the fed gov if Obamacare becomes law. The rebellion grows.
Ahem wrote:If this bill passes, the republic also passes.
I agree half-way with your statement, the Dems are either passing our death warrant or their own. Recall that quote from Nietzsche (or was Conan the Barbarian) that which does not kill us makes stronger.
If there is no backlash in Nov. and 2012 then I agree the republic as know it will be finished, and the American people will have earned the consequences.
J.L.,
I lived through all the Nixon years, paying close attention the while, and was fairly liberal during that time–Hippie Chick! I used to come home from work each day and watch what I called “The Truth with Walter Cronkite,” Star Trek (in syndication at the time), and the Senate Select Committee Watergate Hearings. Nixon was what he was. But I wouldn’t even begin to compare what he was to what we’re seeing now. Nixon’s offenses were far more self-contained and self-focused. The original offenses were relatively minor, and when he got into the more serious stuff it was almost all focused on self-protection. This is different. There’s no cover-up going on here, no attempt at stonewalling any investigation, no attempts to manipulate the governance and control of the country towards ideological ends. In fact, one of the most striking things about what we’re seeing now is its glaring, open brazenness. Nixon wasn’t interested in revolution. Obama and the Congressional Democrat leaders, on the other hand, are interested little else.
I don’t think there’s any way to initiate impeachment proceedings against any of these guys. First of all, any such move would have to originate in legislative bodies they, themselves, control. For all high elected officials’ impeachment, this would be the House of Representatives. That just ain’t gonna happen. The Founders don’t seem to have contemplated any possibility that domestic enemies might operate from within, as a “fifth column,” using our own system against us the way these guys are doing. Removal is going to have to come from elsewhere, somewhere extra-constitutional (I’m no expert on the Constitution, and am ready to have someone show me that I’m wrong about this). I’m not advocating a military coup, but I don’t think we should rule anything out, either. I’m curious–given that impeachment proceedings are not a present possibility politically, what do you suggest? I know the popular option will be to “vote the bahstuhds out,” and it may work out that way, but I don’t know. Once this thing is passed, there will be hell rolling it back. I think anyone paying much attention is bound to be stunned by how hard they’re fighting to ram through a health-care reform bill, which should be a clue that it’s about a whole helluva lot more than health-care reform. I still have this uneasy, sinking feeling that they have considered this possibility, and have some thoughts as to how to prevent it. Some think that is crazy, and in ordinary times they might well be right. But one of the first things I think we should posit is that these are not ordinary times. “These are the times that try men’s souls,” Thomas Paine said, back during the Founding. And shortly thereafter, we were in full-blown–and yes, military–revolution against the existing order.
I have a lot of faith in our Constitution. But if push comes to shove, it’s nothing but a document. It means nothing if those entrusted with observing it agree not to observe it. And they are showing just about every possible sign that they’re agreed not to observe it. We like to trust to American exceptionalism, and assure ourselves that the awful things that have happened in other places, in other times, cannot happen here. But as I and others have been warning for some time, “Never THINK it can’t happen here.”
Drudge is linking to a CNS story states that Obama is saying he won’t rule out using “Slaughter” on other bills. It must be attracting some attention–the link is timing out.
So. Does anyone still think these wizards aren’t trying to take over the government? Again–shoot, they’re not even bothering to try to hide it or tell us otherwise.
Pfui.
I’m sitting here amazed that some of you are actually recommending a military coup to fight Obama. And, if I understand some of you correctly, that is what you are suggesting.
To wit:
Sergey: “With every passing month Obama looks more and more alike Salvador Allende. The problem is, if among US top military commanders there are those that have guts to appoint somebody like Pinochet?”
Sergey:“Somebody is needed to slaughter revolutionaries in order to save the country. A messy job, I know, but necessary to prevent much, much uglier outcomes.”
ahem(in response to my prior comment): “J.L. We are in terrible shape. If this bill passes, the republic also passes.”
betsybounds: “I’m not advocating a military coup, but I don’t think we should rule anything out, either. . . have a lot of faith in our Constitution. But if push comes to shove, it’s nothing but a document. “
Ironically, it was not too long ago that I took Huxley to task for supposedly being hyperbolic for suggesting that another commenter believed that Democrats were about to have their opponents “jailed, their communication networks squelched or outlawed, and even mysterious deaths and assassinations.” Well, if your posts are to be believed, Huxley wasnt too far from the truth in decifering the views of others here.
The constitution is “nothing but a document?” betsybounds? The Obama-Pelosi-Reid bunch scare me with their naked grab for power, but that statement scares me almost as much. Of course, the difference being that Obama-Pelosi-Reid are in positions of power… which I acknowldge is no small thing. But, nevertheless, I honestly hope thats not what most of those on the right actually think. If we are not for the constitution, and some of us actually propose that a military coup is an option, then how exactly are we different from the Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate?
It’s important to note that attached to the health care bill is a complete federal takeover of the student loan program. Student loans are increasingly the life blood of universities so the potential for government interference in higher education is great. Also, many federal workers will have to be hired to administer the program, and these workers will have a vested interest in the growth of government and voting Democrat.
Sorry, J.L. The Constitution is, finally, nothing but a document–and I say that as someone who grew up in a time when the Constitution was studied, and memorized in part, and respected as something nearly sacred. I think, if my statement scares you, then you are too easily scared. The Constitution’s power, like that of any other compact among men (including paper money, I might add), depends upon agreement to respect its constraints. Like Supreme Court rulings, or Papal pronouncements, or any other authority’s statements, the only actual power it has is at bottom our agreement to accede to it. It’s true that we love the government and the society the Constitution has enabled, and that is not nothing. But the unhappy truth is that governing compacts have been shredded before by people intent on seizing power unto themselves. I don’t think your horror at my statement is mock horror, but I think you need to consider the history of treaty abrogation and the will to power. You seem to be saying that the Constitution is self-enforcing and self-sustaining. It is not.
I’m not saying I’m not for the Constitution–do not mistake me. I’m saying that if it is not to be shredded out of all meaning and become in the process a mere piece of paper behind double panes of glass, we may have to fight for it.
It strikes me that you are ruling some means out. And this, in a time when we are under serious, determined, and active efforts to throw the Constitution out. I do not say these things because I think the Constitution is worthless. I say them, rather, because I think we may have to consider extraordinary means to restore it.
I remember watching, years ago, Apocalypse Now, and thinking that the lesson from it is that, if you adopt the Devil’s means, you become like him. I no longer think that. Instead, I think that if you eschew some weapons in the face of an evil which eschews none, you will lose. And you will lose at a time when the only thing that matters is victory.
Sorry. I know this will offend some. I don’t mean it to. But I do think we’d better be awake to the fight we may–may–have at hand.
And I will be proud to fight beside you, on whatever field, for the restoration of our Constitutional Republic.
betsy,
I am taking in what you are saying. I do not doubt your staunch defense of this country, and that your strong comments are the result of your concern about what is happening at the present time, and the danger that a government headed by Obama and his allies are now engineering a power-grab that may require drastic measures. I do not doubt that many other commenters on this blog feel that we are in such danger that even a military coup or a revolt of some type is what is needed.
Let me acknowledge that I may have a difference of perception with you as to the nature of the danger involved. I stand with you, and most others who comment on this blog, in in standing in opposition to the power grab by Obama and his allies. I do not want them to succeed in such a blatant socialization of the health care industry, which would result in effects that would extend government power way beyond just that sector of the economy. It would be even worse if such a power grab were effectuated by such an outrageous scheme as this “Slaughter” scenario where it is enacted without a vote. But I think I would stop short of saying, as some have, that it would result in the passing of the republic.
My parents are Cuban exiles, refugees from the Castro dictatorship which took over that country in 1959, and which imposed its own ruthless Communist rule that year. My parents escaped to this country in 1961-62, painfully leaving behind so much of their lives. The experience of my parents has given me much insight as to the evil of Communism, the preciousness of liberty, and the importance of reading and understanding history.
As the child of Cuban exiles, I am almost emotional in my defense of liberty. I am staunchy opposed and deeply concerned over the rise of these populist, socialist, Marxist-influenced regimes that have arisen in Latin America in the wake of Chavez in Veneuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, and others. It also enrages me that Castro and his ilk remain in power after all these years.
But it is also a mistake to fail to make distinctions where they exist. For example, suppose despite all our best efforts, the Dems do manage to pass this Obamacare monstrosity. Will that make the U.S. just like Chavez’s Venezuela? Although I am adamantly opposed to Obamacare, I am not ready to make that leap. Canada has so-called “universal health care”, and whatever its faults, Canada isn’t Cuba.
Indeed, there is an election coming up in November of this year, which is a sure sign that the republic lives on. (Compare with Cuba, where the only so-called elections feature only Communist Party candidates.) I very much hope that an awakened American people throw the Dems out of Congress in droves this November… a hope that people in Cuba cannot have. Maybe I am not so much ruling some means out, but rather, I am aware of just how many means we actually have.
I am not ignoring the possibility of creeping socialization of this society… again, I didnt vote for Obama-Pelosi-Reid, and I strongly oppose what they are proposing to do… nor am I ignoring the possibilty of tyranny slowly accumulating power… but to recognize these things doesnt call for just overturning it all.
But there is something else I am thinking of, and which I have been turning around in my head since my last comment . . . I will submit this and then tell you what it is.
Here is what I’ve been thinking of…
Most people in the U.S., when they think of Cuba at all, tend to think of Cuban history as a question of Fulgencio Battista versus his successor, the Communist dictator Fidel Castro. (Now, supposedly, Fidel’s brother Raul Castro is in power. But its more a like the same name and the same policy and the same old shit as before…pardon my language. As the Who once wrote, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”)
Fulgencio Battista is often presented as a foil to Fidel Castro. Some fools on the left often portray Battista as a decrepit corrupt military dictator who was overthrown by Casro’s supposedly librating “revolution” in 1959. Of course, there was nothing “liberating” about Castro’s assumption of power in 1959… it was just the beginning of years of misery for the Cuban people.
Then there is a contrasting view, the view that says that at least Battista, who took power in a military coup in 1952, wasn’t Castro, and that, even though he was a dictator too, that his was at least only authoritarian and not totalitarian, like Castro’s… and thus not as oppressive. Actually, I tend to agree… I would take Battista, with all his faults, over Castro any day.
But, amidst this contrast, something very precious is lost: the reality that both of these men, both Castro and Battista, were dictators, however much one may have been better than the other. And that Cuba deserved, and almost had, so much better.
You see, Cuba’s history since independnce from Spain was a wavering journey between dictatorships of various kinds, mixed with occasional attempts at a democratic republic form of government… a free, elected government where people have rights and freedom and liberty. Perhaps the most celebrated effort to do this in Cuba was the Constitution of 1940, which was thought at the time to be quite impressive in its dedication to rights and liberty. Frankly, it also included some progressive ideas that some on this blog would find objectionable, but suffice it to say, it was noble efort to instill a democratic republic in Cuba. It provied for individual liberty and for separation of power between elected branches of government.
But the constitution of 1940 was ill-fated. Fulgecio Battista seized power in a military coup in 1952, and suspended this contitution. From then on, the Cuban constitution of 1940 would serve among Cubans and Cuban exiles as a symbol of what might have been. What if. What if liberty, and individual freedom, and electoral democracy, and a republican form of govenrmnet had taken root in Cuba? What if.
Castro’s revolution contained, as one of its tenets, the restoration of the Constitution of 1940. But of course, Castro reneged on this immediately upon taking power, and instead installed a hard-line Communist Marxist-Leninist regime with no liberty, no free elections, no freedom of speech, and all power in the hands of the Communist party.
And so, even today, the Cuban Constitution of 1940 is spoken of among exiles as an example of what may have been. Many of the groups seeking to liberate Cuba from Castro use the Constitution of 1940 as an example fo what should happen after castro is removed. It still serves as an example of the possibility of future liberty in Cuba… the sense that it could be again… as it once, briefly, was.
I did a little research. It turns out that the last living signer of Cuba’s Constitution of 1940, Emilio Ochoa died a few years ago, in 2007. Here’s an overview of his life from Wikipedia :
Here is my point: Ochoa was a man who history has forgotten. All the while both the evil dictator, Castro, and the less-bad dictator, Battista are remembered. Battista, the anti-communist who took power in a military coup and who suspended the 1940 constitution, was better than the terrible Castro. Sure. Yet, the reality is that this is a paltry choice.
For me, I would rather stand beside a man like Ochoa, who fought for something much better for Cuba and its people, and who has largely been forgotten, along with his ideals, in the subsequent coups and revolutions that followed.
The moral: be careful before you throw away your freedom, as it may be very hard to get back. Dont assume that once its gone, you can easily recover it.
So after he confesses to a murderous act of war we give KSM our vaunted civilian trial criminal process to “protect our values”, then we allow a disasterous, fetishized Healthcare Bill to proceed in Congress “by any means necessary”?
Gag me.
“What I can’t understand is how many people like Ann Althouse (bright, educated, professional) could have been so fooled by this guy.”
I understand it completely. The smarter a person is the more likely they are going to be able to construct a “reality” (so to speak) that is internally consistent. They are also more likely to be able to fill in gaps they have with, again, things that are internally consistent which will hold strong until something proves it wrong (and make no mistake – the smarter the person the greater the amount of proof is going to have to be). Add in the normal human response to want to believe something and you have a near perfect definition of rationalization.
There is a “sweet spot”, so to speak, of where people in general are smart enough to understand the issues yet not smart enough to work out some internally consistent fake idea. You will find individuals that are all over the place, but this is in general.
One has to realize that “smart” does not mean “perceptive” – academics have little to no need to be perceptive. I’ve spent a large part of my life in Academics and there are few perceptive ones in there. Of those that are they tend to be so narrowly focused that you wouldn’t see them talking about politics (well, unless they were a poli-sci prof). Your smart perceptive types tend more towards business or quickly work up in ranks to be administrators (who then become so jaded that they become ones that seek to manipulate the system – they look similar from the outside but in reality know they are gaming the system).
Althouse is one of those really smart well educated people with little perceptive abilities. As long as something is internally consistent then it is Gold, further if it already fits what she wants to believe then it is Platinum. Real true cognitive dissonance happens when something breaks it. She says the right thing when she talks about living through the 60’s and it leaving a VERY different mark on her than Limbaugh. She wants to believe in that idea to a greater extent than she is perceptive and is smart enough to reconcile those differences. Limbaugh is perfect example of a perceptive intelligent individual and I’ll say he is the right side’s version of the leftist academic administrator that is jaded and games the system.
What makes you think there WILL be elections in November? If the Slaughterhouse Rules survive, what exactly would stop Obama & Pelosi & Reid (who is losing badly in the polls right now) from “deeming” the election to have been held and all democrats have won, all republicans have lost?
After all, the democrats in this congress have gone from not reading bills before they vote on them, to not voting on bills but just enacting them.
The rule of law is all about process. Process isn’t some arcane code written on stone tablets somewhere, laws are all about process, period.
If we don’t all agree on following the laws, and then make good on that by actually following the laws, then we will have anarchy and chaos.
I happen to have a thing for local news, which is pretty much crime and political corruption. The amount of violent crime that occurs right now, WITH our system of laws, is astonishing. Most of it is in “bad” neighborhoods, which are domestic war zones truth be told. That thin blue line of cops cannot possibly protect us if the rules of law become meaningless. That is why what the democrats are doing right now has me so worried.
I knew Obama would be a disaster. I just didn’t know how bad it would be.
Betsyhounds, many commenters here have gone thru a great deal of trouble to avoid stating plainly that violence maybe an unavoidable option. Today I learned the 38 states are planning lawsuits against Obamacare, as is Mark Levin. Its anyone’s guess how any others are going to do the same. The Teapartiers, Oathtakers Howard Stern and red/purple states want nothing to do with Obamas path to dictatorship. Even 46% of New Englands doctors would consider leaving their practice under Obamacare. So I am curiously how they plan to enforce a law that better than half the country makes no bones about not wanting and would feel morally obligated to break. And note the pain that Obamacare would cause has not even started! They are trying to seduce a free people into subservience. Want to guess how well that is going to work out?
Point, the Constitution does not make us free, our refusal to submit to laws we had no hand in making makes us free. If Obamacare becomes law how many Americans do you think will feel morally obligated to violate it at every opportunity?
Armed resistance, well if necessary, but who would we fight, everyone is our side or will be once the effects of this bill are observed. Not much of a need for violence, at least not yet.
I really have two concerns, one is that the public will forget all about this by November, and two that another anti-Obama party will split the anti-Obama vote.
Here is some good news about my worries, I knew Obama was going to be the worse president in US history but I was afraid no one would notice (yes I know it says something about my powers of perception). Likewise I can probably be sure my two concerns mentioned above will come to naught.
I do have third concern, that the Democratic will not be marginalized, like the Communist or Nazis, because of this. I would like some input about that concern.
> Funny, they throw the word history around as though it had an assumed positive connotation. Pearl Harbor and the Rise of the Third Reich were also history.
Let us pray, then, that Sunday is not “A Day That Will Live In Infamy”
Of course, if it does not, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid will Carry On, and cry infamy: “Infamy, Infamy!! They’ve all got it in for me!”
As far as I know, founding documents include right of people to armed rebellion against tyranny, as an ultimate check against government overreach. The second amendment implies this. Military coup is far less radical solution than armed rebellion or civil war, it can save from these more drastic moves. Obama turned to be extremely polarizing figure, and still by his intransigence doubles down stakes to even higher level. If he will not be stopped now, the situation can rapidly spiral out of control by legitimate, non-violent means. Vigilance is the order of the day, and it includes preparedness for the worst course of events. This vigilance itself can prevent further deterioration.
> But it is also my contention that, since the U. of Chicago issued a statement that they consider him as having been a professor, I think it’s okay to refer to him that way.
I think the term “Nutty Professor” is more appropriate, but you may be of a different opinion…
:oD
=============
JL, I, too, am reluctant to write off the existing government, but am coming increasingly to the opinion that there is little choice. We are all too well on our way to screwing up everything we have, and if we do not put a foot down soon it will only be that much more difficult to do it later.
With this “healthcare” bill they are literally thumbing their noses at us to try and pass it at all — when fully 70% of the populous is against a bill, but they pass it anyway, it has STOPPED being a democracy in anything but name.
The chicanery they are attempting to pull with this “deem and pass” crap, says they believe they can actually “pass” a bill without even bothering to vote on it. Again — democracy in name only.
I’m not ready to shoot — yet — but I can see that on the horizon fast approaching.
I don’t believe we need to toss the Constitution by any means — but I am coming to the conclusion that those “in office” have already done so in their minds. We may well need to remind them what the Tea Party WAS all about, and that may involve some violent action by the people to make them realize they are in control only by following the rules that are set forth for them in that document.
We shall see. There are ample signs that it is too late to fix things and too early to shoot the bastards.
> The Founders don’t seem to have contemplated any possibility that domestic enemies might operate from within, as a “fifth column,” using our own system against us the way these guys are doing.
On the contrary, Betsy, they did, indeed, presume exactly that. That is one of the clear reasons stated in the Federalist papers #46 for the militia and the Right to Bear Arms. They believed an armed citizenry was the equal of any standing army. I hope we do not have to test that, but it may well come to a show of force, even if it’s only a show of intent and determination on the part of the populace leading to some deaths on both sides as opposed to an out and out civil war.
As suggested, the results of the next two major elections will reveal how much force is called for, as well as the determination of the people themselves to reassert control over their wayward government.
> If we are not for the Constitution, and some of us actually propose that a military coup is an option, then how exactly are we different from the Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate?
I don’t think a “military coup” is an option in the same sense you do. I do believe we may be approaching a crux point where a show of force might be needed. That’s not the same as a military coup, because it’s not us ignoring The Law, IT’S THEM.
The next couple years are going to show what happens — do they ignore their Constitutional duty to vote on bills? Do they pass laws to extend, indefinitely, by whatever means, their power and control? I see much to be concerned with here.
With this bill they ALREADY are saying they don’t care what SEVENTY PERCENT of the population wants.
They are ALREADY attempting to ignore the direct specifications of the Constitution as to how they are to conduct their business.
If they don’t “vote” for a bill, then how, exactly, does one even KNOW how many votes there are FOR that bill?
If they do this on health care — particularly if they do it MORE than once to pass other bills — how does the Constitution represent anything but a piece of toilet paper to be used up and thrown away — not for US, but for THEM, the ones it restrains?
Because the Constitution is a contract, and when one side of a contract expresses an open intention to abrogate that contract, it’s NOT A CONTRACT ANY MORE. It’s “old news”.
A long-term danger posed by the “let’s pretend we can pass a bill we didn’t vote on” tactic is, if they get away with it, they’ll try to do it again, over, and over, and over………..
> The moral: be careful before you throw away your freedom, as it may be very hard to get back. Dont assume that once its gone, you can easily recover it.
JL, the concern goes the other way — be careful that your freedom doesn’t, like the Cheshire Cat, “fade softly and slowly away”, under the creeping mantle of “reasonableness”.
They keep asking for step after step, and we yield, because we want to “be reasonable”. Again and again — we yield to reasonableness.
Pretty soon, we find that we’re in a very different place than the one we were standing in some time ago.
> What makes you think there WILL be elections in November?
Sorry, Boots, that’s not my concern at this point. I think they’re a lot more likely to continue gaming the system than an outright violation of it. They’re a little more clued in that they need to keep the illusion going for longer so they can keep people like JL reluctant to go up against them.
So — if anything — they’ll do something which allows them to lie about the results — after all, how do you know what the results of any election are? How do you know that the counts are what they say they were? They’ve already played with the process, they’ll just play with it more. You’ll doubt it and suspect it’s not right, but it’ll be enough that “reasonable people” won’t want to resort to violence.
Jonah is right on point.
JL –
Thank you for your post. It’s appreciated.
I’m sitting here after listening to Pres. Obama speak at George Mason University with tears in my eyes. I’m so afraid for my country. There are days, even now, when I still can’t believe this guy got elected.
I HEAR you when you say we need to be careful of throwing away our freedoms. Those freedoms and privileges are rarely retrieved.
I look at other countries around the world, Cuba being one of them, and I know in my heart that America is not somehow magically exempt from the consequences of terrible, terrible leadership. But I can’t shake the feeling that somehow, we asked for this.
Anyway, thanks for your post. I feel sorry that your family had to flee your homeland, only to come to another country who can’t seem to give away our freedom fast enough.
Deana
J.L.: you said it for me, and said it beautifully.
The country I left behind – USSR – had to deal with the question of trading freedom too, with the most devastating results.
There was a famous episode in Soviet history, in January 1918, when an anarchist sailor Zheleznyak, supported by a background of armed men, dispersed the newly elected Constitutional Assembly (a pre-parliamental body of voters who were supposed to turn the country from Monarchy to a Democratic Republic), with the words “The guards are tired. Everybody – leave the premises”. That’s how the Civil War started – and resulted in 80 years of marxist state. Nobody can predict the result of Civil War, if it happens.
And I think the person who introduced this idea to this thread is doing it for provocation. More, I think it’s his job.
Some necessary historical elaborations to the urban legend about sailor Zheleznyak and dissolution of Russian Constitutional Assambley. Tatyana retold it exactly as it was written in Soviet school textbooks. Reality is, as usual, more complicated and more ugly. This dissolution was carefully prepared operation of Cheka, and “anarchist” Zheleznyak was Cheka operative. Election of delegates to Assambley was the first in Russia free and fair election, and the results were devastating: 3/4 of votes were won by openly TERRORIST parties – Socialist Revolutionaries and Social Democrates (not Bolsheviks, but their rivals Mensheviks). The only moderate, liberal party of Constitutional Democrats came as distant third, and Lenin’s thugs boycotted election altogether, but had full control of the country after their military coup. So, this Constitutional Assambley and its fate has nothing to do with Civil War and political reality, the war was between White Guard (a voluntary regiments of Army officers) and Bolshevik Red Guard. Whites hated the majority of Assambley even more, than Bolsheviks. In any case, the country which elected in free and fair elections TERRORISTS, is doomed. (Just as Palestinians voting for HAMAS.)
Soviet textbooks told the story in completely different key from the way I told it, Tovaricsh Colonel.
The dissolution of the Assembly was interpreted as “the will of the masses” against “bourgeois counter-revolutionaries”, and the blame for the ensuing war was laid on the remnants of the parties represented at Assembly.
The delegates to the Assembly were elected officials voted in in first – and for over 80 years last – free election. The composition of the parties may be was far from ideal, but it was representative. The dissolution of Assembly by brutal force put an end to even theoretical possibility of normal democratic process in Russia. Of course, the Civil War sides came to be White and Red Armies: it was the result of polarizing forces in society. You wouldn’t expect the party of Constitutional Democrats to fight with arms in their hands against the Reds, would you? And those you call Terrorists, as it turned out, were doves compared to Bolsheviks who won over them.
Which, actually, confirms my point: Civil Wars are unpredictable; be careful what you wish for – you might not like the side that wins the armed struggle.
Amused Observer March 18th, 2010 at 3:47 pm said
“… But for the coincidence of race Barack would have accomplished none of those things.”
========
In a sane world, the antics of our Whatchamacallit-In-Chief would destroy forevermore the concept of Affirmative Action.
But, I’m bewildered to say, our world no longer seems sane. To put it Ebonically, “We’s be screwed.”
Deana,
One of our problems in this country is that we are too often seduced into thinking that we deserve what we’re getting–i.e., we asked for it. The Left pushed that notion awfully hard after September 11, 2001. I deny that we have asked for this. To the extent that we voted it in in November 2008, we allowed ourselves to be deceived. But we didn’t ask for it. I said at the time, before the election, that after we see what Obama’s election will mean, we will have the cold comfort of knowing that we voted for it. But that’s a far cry from deserving it, or having asked for it. Now we’re going to have to fight it.
Tatyana,
It’s true that we might not like the side that wins a possible armed struggle. I don’t regard that as a reason not to fight. Because one thing is for sure: We damned well don’t like the side that won the peaceful election. Not fighting would be a form of submission. Do you think we’ll like that?
What makes anyone think that fighting these guys is tantamount to throwing our freedoms away? Will someone please tell me that? I don’t want my freedoms to be gone. There must be some kind of a semantic misunderstanding somewhere, here.
“normal democratic process in Russia”? What the hell are you talking about? Such thing was impossible, just as it is impossible now, both theoretically and practically. Even if it were possible, the rusults would be ugly, just as they were in Iran and Gaza. Democratic process in pre-enlightenment society inevitably produces the worst kind of tyranny: tyranny of the fanatical mob (what Plato named “ochlocracy”). So, modernisation first, enlightenment second, and only the final step of this historical development – democratic process. The first two stages can be accomplished with acceptable price only by enlightened absolutism.
Enlightened absolutism
Ah, so he’s also a monarchist! No wonder the raging against atheists who supposedly destroyed Russia (conveniently forgetting the state-sanctioned Christian Orthodox reality of today’s regime) seemed familiar. “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationalism“. But of course.
Funny, how calls to population for armed self-defense of freedom inevitably get connected with notion of a Strong Man. Or primitive arithmetics of “killing few to save the majority of worse faith”. Or vulgarized version of Pinochet years in Chile – is that the way they taught you in FSB school, Sergey?
Civil war is the worst thing possible – well, after slavery. Military coup without bloodshed is much preferable, and political assassination is even better: why move tanks if the problem can be solved by one bullet? Even better, of course, are strictly legal procedures, like impeachment or massive victory in elections. Is it possible in deeply polarized society split half by half? This is a really serious question.
BetsyB:
Fighting is of course preferable to submission.
I, too, have been increasingly uneasy of the state of our step-by tiny step yielding to aggressive leftists, biting off our freedoms.
But armed fighting, as someone said above already, is a last resort. And I would hesitate of waving this possibility in front of the leftists’ noses. That’s what they would want, for pretext of more outrageous scenario, maybe even South-American-style coup.
See, I consider them fundamentally, by definition, dishonest, indecent, vicious and ruthless. Thugs.
The rules of self-defense against thugs normally say: don’t show your weapon until you’re ready to use it. Until it’s absolutely inevitable, all other possible measures failed. Don’t try to scare them by display (the cornered rat might prove more difficult to subdue), but once showed, use it.
J.L. in his comment of 12.10pm described the mechanism of losing freedom. Cuba or Russia, or US – the mechanism is the same. In our quest for freedom, once we resort to violence, we have to be prepared for the rise of a dictator – no matter under what flag.
Mr. Frank March 18th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
“What I can’t understand is how many people like Ann Althouse (bright, educated, professional) could have been so fooled by this guy. For a class of people who judge people by their vita and life accomplishments, it’s hard to understand how they gave him a pass time and time again…”
=======================
But that’s just IT: he DOES have the proper “curriculum vitae”. He went to Hahvaad. He was editor of the Law Review. He was elected Senator in Illinois, then advanced to the US Senate. His life-arc DEMONSTRATES that he is a Refined and Sensitive and Compassionate Intellectual. He is obviously one of the Elites Who Really Understand How Things Should Be. He DESERVES to be Our Leader. Aren’t you “nuanced” enough to get it?
Drop these stupid insults, Tatyana. I never belonged to KGB, FSB, whatever. Several of my immediate relatives perished in Gulag. In 1980 I helped to disseminate Soljenitsyn’s book “Archipelag Gulag” – not very safe occupation. I know this favorite sport of Russian expatriots – gossip who of their company is or was KGB agent, and find it awfully stupid. This kind of paranoia is the best demonstration of inherent racial inferiority of majority of Russians, as well of deforming consequencies of living under Soviet rule.
It’s not YOUR question, “Sergey”. You don’t live in this country, you’re not an American. Keep your provocations within your jurisdiction.
You are not of “our company”. I am not gossiping I say it to your face.
You “helped disseminate” AG! – oh, my, you must be a dissident yourself. You must take us for complete idiots.
Every family in ex-SU has a relative who perished in Gulag. In the 80s everyone had an acquaintance who could supply them with samizdat ; also – KGB was known to “disseminate” (what a tell-tale word!) these books as a bait to fill their arrest quota.
Besides – I’m not a “Russian expatriot”. I’m an American citizen of Russian-Jewish origin. Just like there are other Americans here, or Chinese, Polish and Israeli origins. My only difference with them is that I didn’t choose to emigrate. I ran for my and my son’s life from your lovely state.
Thanks for that last nugget about racial inferiority of Russians. You must be really full of self-hate, if you address this to a Jew.
Well, luckily, I’m far away from your paws, pal.
“You can take a girl from Russia, but you can not take Russia from a girl”. I do not address to any specific person, but to everybody who can read and understand. And as a specialist in population genetics, I know quite well what ten generations of rampant alcoholism can do to susceptible population. As for Uvarov’s triad “ПравоÑлавие, Самодержавие, ÐародноÑÑ‚ÑŒ” – “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationalism” it is a poor translation: “ÐародноÑÑ‚ÑŒ” means “Democratism”, or “Populism”, but not “Nationalism”.
BetsyB: I just happened across this post by Dale Amon at Samizdata:
Let us pray that the second Revolution (or Civil War as the case may be) remains one fought out in legislatures and courts. Let us also pray that our side wins, because if it does not, the US is finished as a free and prosperous country.
A heartily agree.
A Nonny Mouse: as best I can recall from my memory of what Althouse wrote prior to the election, she never really drank the Obama KoolAid. It was more that she gave him the benefit of the doubt (much too much benefit of the doubt, IMHO) and believed his moderate, pragmatic stance. She also didn’t like McCain. In recent months she’s been quite critical of Obama.
Tatyana Says:
March 19th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
BetsyB:
Well said.
Once again, there have been lots of good comments on this thread. Too many to address individually. Tatyana, Sergey, J.L., betsybounds, and others have all made good points.
I hope Obamacare is defeated, but I’m not very hopeful that it will be. I have been saying for many months that when Congress passes 1000 page bills that they haven’t read, then we no longer have representative government. If they take it to the next level and “pass” a bill without even voting on it, then we will see the face of raw, naked tyranny. That cannot be allowed to stand under any circumstances.
Ultimately, when push comes to shove, the only rational way to deal with tyrants is to kill them.
I’ve been predicting civil war ever since Election Night 2008. But a military coup is preferable to civil war. I think most soldiers take their oath to the Constitution more seriously than most elected officials do. Count me among those who are hoping for an American Pinochet. There needs to be a national cleansing of leftists. They must be removed from any position of power and influence in society, and at this point I don’t care how it is done. If they have to be “disappeared” then so be it. It really is that serious. Either they are forcibly removed or else they will come after us. 20th Century history is crystal clear on that point.
Having said that, I do appreciate the fact that once a civil war or military coup begins, there is no way to tell how it will end. The country could fracture and be fought over by gangs and groups of warlords. We very well may end up with a Robespierre or a Napoleon.
“Interesting times”, indeed.
If there is one thing I will have a hard time forgiving Obama and his allies for, its this:
They have so divided the country with their leftist policies, their blind grab for power, their arrogance, and their deciet.
Part of our country is blindly following these people as they implement policies that the majority of the country adamantly opposes.
Another part is in such a state of despair that they are contemplating the need for very drastic action. Action more drastic than I would have imagined.
And some, like me, are honestly praying that we’re not so bad off as that. God help us if we really are.
rickl Says:
March 19th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
“…when Congress passes 1000 page bills that they haven’t read, then we no longer have representative government. If they … “pass” a bill without even voting on it, then we will see the face of raw, naked tyranny.”
=======================
Yup.
And if this “deem-and-pass” works and is not struck down by some court, we’ll have 12 million illegals “deemed” citizens and we’ll have CO2 “deemed” a hazardous gas and we’ll have so-called endangered species “deemed” more important than nasty polluting humans. We’ll be back to the 17th century in no time….
I wouldn’t worry about it. Once the bill deems or passes or ukases or whatever, the issue will be closed. Althouse will return to congratulating herself on her insight and wisdom in voting for Obama.
According to document linked by Tatyana, Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Tennessee, Utah, Alabama, South Carolina and now Wyoming legislatures passed resolutions asserting states rights against federal overreach. In effect, such declarations made federal government mandates violating states rights void and not enforceable on their territories.
I had deja vu experience reading this. In summer 1991 almost all legislatures of Soviet Republics passed so-called “declarations of sovereignity”, an event called “parade of sovereignitets”. This practically made USSR government helpless without technically declaring secession. Dissolution of USSR followed only several months later.
These 11 states could do the next logical step, creating non-formal Confederation, a parallell center of power to regulate interstate trade and cooperation. This will suspend Washington in vacuum without formally violating Constitution. Since Dems have no figure comparable to Linkoln, they can’t do a thing to counter such development. Most Blue states are on the verge of bankruptcy, and if Confederates would refuse to pay federal taxes to pay for programs they see being illegal, Washington and its allies are finished.