canada pharmacy fast delivery for sale uk for sale without prescription from canada from england from usa lowest price mail order mexico obtain fast delivery uk on the internet online ordering canada purchasing shipped to australia without prescription uk for sale buy from canada buy legal online buy online in britain buy without prescription buying cheap rx without a prescreption cheaper price for how can i obtain legal uk mexican pharmacy no prescription no fees refill your rx net shopping online pharmacy uk toronto rx meds pill were can i buy in england canada pharmacy fast delivery for sale uk for sale without prescription from canada from england from usa lowest price mail order mexico obtain fast delivery uk on the internet online ordering canada purchasing shipped to australia without prescription uk for sale buy from canada buy legal online buy online in britain buy without prescription buying cheap rx without a prescreption cheaper price for how can i obtain legal uk mexican pharmacy no prescription no fees refill your rx net shopping online pharmacy uk toronto rx meds pill were can i buy in england canada pharmacy fast delivery for sale uk for sale without prescription from canada from england from usa lowest price mail order mexico obtain fast delivery uk on the internet online ordering canada purchasing shipped to australia without prescription uk for sale buy from canada buy legal online buy online in britain buy without prescription buying cheap rx without a prescreption cheaper price for how can i obtain legal uk mexican pharmacy no prescription no fees refill your rx net shopping online pharmacy uk toronto rx meds pill were can i buy in england


Levitra instead of such famous love-drug Viagra?canadarxgeneric.com

Tag Archive for 'constitutional-amendment'

The Young Republicans: Follow the Leader?

Jason Shepherd and I checked each other out on the internet before this interview, and fearlessly went ahead with it. My worst fears were realized: The YRs don’t sound so bad! Damn, reality is a difficult pill sometime!

Since Jason is the State Chairman of the Young Republicans, I mainly wanted to find out if the future leaders of the Georgia Republican Party (ages 18 to 40) are going to be as arrogant as their current ones. I think not, I hope not and my conversation with Jason gives me great expectations that a new breed of Republican leader is coming of age, either in spite of or as a result of the gridlock and polarization of politics. Now, if I just live long enough to see it happen!

I have been reading “Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That Is Destroying America” by Cal Thomas (conservative) and Bob Beckel (liberal) and am very conscious of the polarization of the electorate. (There are times when I wonder if this radio show is perceived as polarizing.) With our Congress wasting time debating and resolving about the quality of newspaper ads, talk show hosts, and little boys, there is enough shame to go around. (They all need a good spanking, even if some of them think they would enjoy it.) I was encouraged by the fact that Jason and I could have a decent discussion and I am convinced that if the people in the middle of both parties would ignore the extremes, we could either solve some real problems or have a viable new party.

I have never been active in a political organization and have very little understanding of how they work. I was surprised to hear Jason differentiate the Young Republicans from the College Republicans. As best I can tell, the difference is one of maturity, although I am sure that will offend someone. My impression is that the Young Republicans are not as focused on specific issues as the college guys. Now, that may also account for why Jason and I got along.

It appears that the YRs don’t see themselves as a monolithic creature that spits out the party line on command, but that may be because they avoid taking public positions on issues. They are a “get out the vote” organization. However, there are times when they do pass a resolution taking a position on some proposal. For example, when a Republican introduced a bill in the 2007 legislature to require girls to be vaccinated by the sixth grade for the virus that causes cervical cancer, the YRs passed a resolution opposing the bill.

According to Jason, while the YRs support the party, there are YRs that are gay, that favor abortion, that have no problem with gay rights (of some kind), and that probably hold positions similar to Democrats like me on various issues. As I always say (and believe), everyone is really a Democrat at heart.

We did mix it up a little bit when Jason told me the YRs were going to be involved in supporting and campaigning for the passage of a constitutional amendment that will “define life.” Now, I have a problem with that. Frankly, if people don’t know what life is, I don’t think defining it in the costitutiion is going to help any of us. But of course, the purpose for this kind of amendment in 2008 is to get out the base, the right-wingers, the polarizers, the preachers, the pulpits, all the people for whom the immoral game of politics is a moral war of good versus evil. Someone needs to read the verse that says don’t associate with evil doers! Back in the day, most of those “evil doers” were the politicians.

If Jason and the YRs really think that polarization is a bad thing, it seems contradictory to support and work to pass a constitutional amendment which is nothing but polarizing. So why the conflict? In this respect the YRs are just like everyone else with a sense of ambition. If any YR wants to be a future leader, he/she better obey the current crop, no matter how bad they are, or the YR won’t be around to be a future leader.

This dilemma certainly infects more than the YRs. Can you change the organization of which you are apart by opposing it? I don’t think so, unless you are part of the power structure and you win a battle between factions. I don’t think the up-and-coming can do it, although I wish they could. So, we will just have to wait until Jason and his peers get their shot at power and judge them by their actions. I just hope it won’t be too late!

With important issues like water, tax reform, education, etc. that need to be dealt with in 2008, I hope the Old Rs, waste a lot of time on a constitutional amendment to define life. I hope the people of this state wake up and realize cheap manipulation and make the politicians of polarization pay dearly when they seek re-election in 2008. Here, have some more rope! Go hang yourselves! Excuse me, if that is a little polarizing.

 
 Jason Shepherd, Young Republicans [28:25m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (412)

Judge Charles W. Pickering: “A Price Too High”

You may remember Judge Charles W. Pickering, whose recess appointment by President Bush to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals infuriated liberals, since the Senate had already rejected his nomination. He wrote a book about his experience in the nomination process, “A Price Too High,” which I heard him discussing on C-SPAN a few weeks ago. While he was accusing his opponents of distorting his record on civil rights etc., I was intrigued by his opinions about liberal activist judges and their failure to properly interpret the Constitution according to its true meaning. My goal in interviewing Judge Pickering was to try to understand exactly how conservative judges achieve this ability of interpretation and liberal judges don’t or can’t or won’t.

Unfortunately, I do not think I accomplished my goal. I simply could not follow Judge Pickering’s logic. This is about all I could discern from his argument: If conservatives agree with a court’s decision, then the interpretation is in accordance with the true meaning of the Constitution. If they don’t agree, then an activist liberal judge has hijacked the Constitution and legislated a liberal philosophy. He did admit that conservative judges made bad decisions in 1857 (Dred Scott on slavery) and 1896 (Plessy v Ferguson on separate but equal).

This interview convinces me that Kipling was right: “Oh East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet…” Even though I am a lawyer, I will be the first to admit that I am very naive when it comes to the judicial system. When I went to law school I was impressed with the wisdom of the Warran Court when it made controversial decisions back in the ’60s. I, like a lot of people, thought that at some point the Supreme Court went a little too far in protecting the criminal from being convicted, but that is why I thought over a period of time the Court would swing like a pendulum, back to the middle. I am sure, just like Judge Pickering, I am a product of my upbringing. Liberal or conservative, I always thought that judges could or should transcend their personal views and rule based on the idea that the law is the law. Even though Judge Pickering espouses the same belief, I don’t think he and I are talking about the same thing.

Judge Pickering and I did agree that the mistake America made as a result of Roe v. Wade was to politicize the nomination of judges, to establish abortion as a litmus test for judges. Over the years the litmus test has been expanded to include gay marriage, prayer in schools, the pledge of allegiance and a few other things. However, Supreme Court appointments were, at times, controversial even before Rowe.

Judge Pickering does have a solution to this problem and I agree with him for the most part. The solution: amend the Constitution! Truthfully, that is exactly what the Constitution provides. If you don’t like Rowe v Wade, don’t politicize the judiciary, get your supporters together and pass a constitutional amendment to overrule the Supreme Court. Congress has passed many laws to overrule Supreme Court decisions; it is just that abortion would require a constitutional amendment.

Judge Pickering points out that until the 1970s the US averaged passing one amendment to the Constitution every 11 years. He also said that there had been no amendments since 1971 (26th Amendment, Voting Age 18), but the 27th Amendment passed in 1992 restricting pay raises for Congress. I am sure we all remember the Equal Rights Amendment that was submitted to the states for ratification and failed. Funny, but that was a liberal proposal.

It all makes me wonder why in all these years since Rowe, the Congress has not submitted to the states a constitutional amendment on abortion. I am sure there may be many reasons, but I think there is a good chance that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want this issue resolved. Just keeping the controversy stirred up and focused on judges and the courts insures that certain segments of the voting population will be lined up on one side or another.

Can you imagine the important things we could focus on in this country if the abortion issue went away?

 
 Judge Charles W. Pickering, Author [30:39m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (558)