Democrat Says Right to Life NOT “Absolute”

Here’s the story:

‘No Amendment is Absolute’: Chuck Schumer Complains About the First Amendment on Senate Floor

SEN. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on the DISCLOSE Act: “I believe there ought to be limits because the First Amendment is not absolute. No amendment is absolute. You can’t scream ‘fire’ falsely in a crowded theater. We have libel laws. We have anti-pornography laws. All of those are limits on the First Amendment. Well, what could be more important than the wellspring of our democracy? And certain limits on First Amendment rights that if left unfettered, destroy the equality — any semblance of equality in our democracy — of course would be allowed by the Constitution.”

“And the new theorists on the Supreme Court who don’t believe that, I am not sure where their motivation comes from, but they are just so wrong. They are just so wrong.”

Now, I understand what his words mean on the surface, and I might even be willing to accept them on face value because he is advocating the founders’ understanding of the 1st Amendment.  However, there’s a big problem: his reasoning limits your right to your own life.

How do I get “right to life not absolute” from that quote?  Simple: your right to your life is NOT in the Constitution.  You will NOT find it specifically protected anywhere in the Constitution OR Bill of Rights, but it is there – in the 10th Amendment.  So, by logical extension, if no right protected by amendment is “absolute,” then your right to your life is not absolute, either – and this follows his reasoning about the first amendment perfectly.

Now, I am well aware that there will be people who will read this and the first impulse they will have is to tell you I am being hysterical again,; that I am just trying to scare you.  They will tell you that no one in govt. wants to restrict or take away your rights.  But do me a favor before you accept their objections.  Read and look into the following:

SUPPORTING THE CONSTITUTION

It is my belief that there are “absolutes” in our Bill of Rights, and that they were put there on purpose by men who knew what the words meant and meant their prohibitions to be “absolutes.”

–Justice Hugo Black

“The Bill of Rights is a literal and absolute document. The First Amendment doesn’t say you have a right to speak out unless the government has a ‘compelling interest’ in censoring the Internet. The Second Amendment doesn’t say you have the right to keep and bear arms until some madman plants a bomb. The Fourth Amendment doesn’t say you have the right to be secure from search and seizure unless some FBI agent thinks you fit the profile of a terrorist. The government has no right to interfere with any of these freedoms under any circumstances.”

–Harry Browne

SUPPORTING THE GOVERNMENT

“It will be necessary for us to be a nation of men, and not laws.”

–VP Dick Cheney,reacting to the 9-11 attack as reported on PBS “Frontline” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/view/

“I don’t give a goddamn. I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way. … Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

–President George W Bush, White House cabinet meeting to discuss the renewal of the Patriot Act, in response to GOP leaders presenting a valid case that the Patriot Act undermined the Constitution. Doug Thompson, Capital Hill Blue, Dec 5, 2005 http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans…”

–President Bill Clinton,March 1, 1993, during a press conference in Piscataway , NJ. USA Today, March 11, 1993, “NRA change: `Omnipotent to powerful’ “

“You know the one thing that’s wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say.”

–President Bill Clinton,May 29, 1993, The White House

“If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government’s ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.”

–President Bill Clinton,August 12, 1993

“Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.”

–Attorney General Janet Reno,

It is past time that the average American learn and accept the fact that the people running our govt. and, in many cases, our social institutions do not believe in individual rights and liberty.  They are collectivist and self-appointed elitists who believe they are superior to us and, therefore, have a moral imperative to save us from ourselves, and the world from us by any means necessary.  And I will say this again: this is not my opinion, this is what they have said – you just have to start reading what they have written to prove it to yourself.

Humbly submitted for your consideration and in sincere hope that you will give some thought to my words.  Thanks for reading and God bless.

 

34 thoughts on “Democrat Says Right to Life NOT “Absolute”

  1. Well said, B. The ‘right to life’ part is probably more than Schumer meant, but once Pandora’s box is open, out come the unforeseen consequences.

      • Uuuuuuuggggggghhhh.

        That men don’t understand what they do, or that they do understand what they do.

        • Oh, they know: trust me, they know.

          But that doesn’t mean the people trying to rule over you can’t be decent to you – when they want to be. How many times have you heard people on the right say Obama is a nice guy — someone you could share a beer with — but he has bad policies? Well, why should Bush be any different, or anyone on the right for that matter?

          • The reason matters not, why, men do what they do.
            Violating our Constitution, when you cannot begin to understand the genius contained it, or do not care for the genius contained in it.

            See any parallels here with other great “books” ?

              • 1776 until 1789.

                13 years of writing, arguing, thinking, constructing.

                These were mere mortals, inspired to devise our Constitution, in hopes of ensuring the spirit of our Declaration would forever continue.

      • “let’s on” was a poor choice of phrase on my part, as it implies you were concealing something. I should have said ‘even worse than B says”. Sorry, I am suffering from sleep deprivation and am not at my best today

    • “I don’t give a goddamn. I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way. … Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

      Now, I have some doubts that GWB ever said this. Especially to how vague the information is in the article, the writer (which I don’t know why B trusts this one), and from what I read in GWB’s book. Of course I wouldn’t expect him to admit that in his book, but he seems to describe a different scenario of when his cabinet was going to walk on him over the constitutionality of the Patriot Act. The writer never named sources nor who the GOP leaders were.

      The obviously “not real” journalist has actually retracted the story in one case:

      “Update, Feb. 21, 2011: The author of the Capitol Hill Blue story has now withdrawn it. Doug Thompson messaged us to say:

      Doug Thompson: This is to let you know that the piece on Bush and the Constitution has been changed and reads:

      “This article was based on sources that we thought, at the time, were reliable. We have since discovered reasons to doubt their veracity. For that reason, this article has been removed from our database.”

      I no longer stand behind that article or its conclusions and have said so in answers to several recent queries. In addition, I have asked that it be removed from a documentary film.”

      Then he decides the story is true based on his “gut”:

      “Thompson told us he based the story on e-mail messages from three persons he knows, all of whom claim to have been present at a White House meeting and to have heard Bush make the statement. He said he finds their account credible: “Sometimes I just have to go with my gut, and my gut tells me he did say this.”

      http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/

      Now, of course, it’s up to you guys if you want to use Annenburg as a credible source. But from what I’ve gather about Walter Annenburg and his wife (the founders), I would consider them honorable people with integrity. I understand he wasn’t around when this article was written, so I won’t say that factcheck can’t be wrong. Even if he were, they could be wrong.

      But for arguments sake, I’m going to have to roll with the one I consider the more credible source and proclaim that the article claiming that GWB made that statement is bullshit.

      • If the author won’t stand behind the story, what choice do we have? As little love as I have for Bush, it did seem a bit over the top.

        • GWB was a pretty religious man after he got off the sauce. Now I’m not saying he’s beyond using a few expletives, we know he can, but I doubt he’d use the Lord’s name in vain as the article stated. He was admittedly a “my way or the highway” kind of president so in some ways I could see him skirting the constitution, but saying it in such a manner, I can’t. But I could be wrong. I guess only he and the unidentified GOP leaders know.

        • Pressure can be brought to bare on anyone. If he did not say it, then why didn’t his assumed “love and support” for the Constitution not shine through when the PATRIOT Act was rammed down our throats?

          Objections to this one quote are noted, but it is ONE of the many I posted and – even if proven false – my argument is NOT refuted (all that happens is Bush is defended).

            • I just hope people see I was shooting at BOTH sides in this post because BOTH “sides” are EQUALLY guilty.

              Frankly, even if Quigley was wrong and we DO have 2 Parties, they protect each other now because, if either one were actually weakened and taken over by say OWS or the TEA Party, then BOTH sides would lose their positions of wealth, power and privilege.

          • I think we understand that one false quote, if it is false, does not discredit the entire article.

            “If he did not say it, then why didn’t his assumed “love and support” for the Constitution not shine through when the PATRIOT Act was rammed down our throats?”

            That could be circumstantial ad hominem right there couldn’t it?

            • It could be, if he hadn’t pushed the bill – which he did.

              But then, I’ll give you this: a good deal of America was begging for it…at the time.

              Which brings to mind this little quote about never letting a good crisis go to waste… 😦

              See how I keep coming back to the same place? You and I know they are mostly all like-minded, no matter what letter is behind their name.

              • That we do know….You also know I was never impressed by Bush and will point out his faults. I still say this is his 3rd term. I still agree that he is progressive. Those the don’t see it is because the -R the he puts behind his name blinds them. That’s the ultimate diversion. I know others here see it, they have to if they claim to be able to spot progressives a mile away. They also just don’t want to call them out on it.

                I could say that I’m Tiger Woods, but when I’m on the golf course my actions will prove whether I’m him or not. Or I could say that I’m a conservative politician. Again, when I get in office, my actions prove whether I am or whether I just say that I am.

                “But then, I’ll give you this: a good deal of America was begging for it…at the time.”

                Yes, but not a good deal of employers. He pissed off the cell phone companies and he admittedly called them unpatriotic for them not agreeing to his requests concerning customers cell phone records and tower usage. He said he regretted it. As well he should have. Most people just didn’t know the intricate details, and if they did, I don’t know if they would have begged so much for it.

      • I understand the objections, and I accept that they are based on sound reasoning. HOWEVER, this does not mean the sentiment is not held by Bush.

        To the best of my knowledge, the statement by Cheney has never been disputed, and Cheney is Bush’s VP…

        Also, I may post what I am thinking about right now in a later essay, but there are reasons to believe that this is also the sentiment that Bush Sr. holds, as well (reasons that come from several public sources from the Left AND right). So, right or wrong, I am actually practicing what I preach here: if I am going to accept that Obama is a Marxist because of his actions and associations, I am going to allow that the same evidence must apply to those on the other side of the isle equally. and, in the case of the Bush family, I have good reason to believe it does.

  2. The Constitution is a LIMITED GRANT POWERS folks. Our Government was only GRANTED those powers enumerated in the Constitution adopted in 1789. That is, if the proposed action ain’t in there, it is ILLEGAL for the Government to do it.

    Everyone has been taught to look at everything BACKWARDS.

    Our natural rights as humans, are GIVEN by G-d. They pre-exist the Constitution and our Government. Our NATURAL RIGHTS as HUMANS stand above our Constitution and the Government. If the Federal Government attempts to do acts which violate our Natural Rights, those acts are illegal.

    Our founders understood common men, would be corrupted by power, or potential power.

    This is why we have the JURY SYSTEM. So wrongfully accused men would have an opportunity to plead their case to common men who hopefully held liberty in their hearts and minds.

  3. You know what bothers me about this discussion? With the exception of Greg, all anyone seems to want to focus on is defending Bush. Well, didn’t anyone read what Clinton said? Or, better yet, doesn’t anyone care what the guy who prompted my post in the first place had to say?

    I hear people tell me that I am making things up when I point out that the people running their lives are out in the open about what they believe. Well, HERE is why you think I make it up: you do not pay attention to the central issue. Now, mind you, I am aware that the media has trained us to chase squirrels, so we are easily distracted, but really? Are we so weak-minded as a nation that even we – those who are most awake – so easily fall prey to their manipulation?

    God, I pray not – else we are truly lost.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.