« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Our Constitution is not Irrelevant, Justice Ginsburg

If you walk by the National Archives on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington D.C. you will most likely see a line of people waiting to get just a glimpse of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. These two aged documents are browned with time and sealed under layers of a secure glass enclosure in the domed lobby of the Archives. But they still manage to impress their visitors. The inked words of the Constitution, many of them carefully penned by Gouverneur Morris over 200 years ago, are now barely visible. While some foreign visitors may struggle to make them out, we Americans know them by heart. “We the people in order to form a more perfect union…” the Constitution starts, and what follows is one of the most awe inspiring and heartfelt treatises to freedom in the history of man. After all, this one document founded the most successful country the world has ever known.

Unfortunately, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg doesn’t believe in the importance of the U.S. Constitution. Ironically, though her job is to “support the Constitution” (Article 6, U.S. Constitution) she instead did everything but uphold it last Wednesday. During an interview with Egyptian television network Al Hayat in Cairo, she was asked to give her opinion regarding the type of government Egypt should adopt as they try to rebuild their country following the Arab Spring. Her response?  “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” Though she extolled certain parts of the U.S. Constitution, she went on to propose Egypt instead use South Africa’s Constitution as a basis for their new government.

I am deeply saddened and disappointed in Justice Ginsburg’s answer. As a Supreme Court Justice who daily delves into the U.S. Constitution looking for answers to the nation’s top cases, I would hope she would have developed a love for this crucial founding document. Yet instead, she implied its irrelevancy! Why would our Constitution not be just as good a foundation for a nation’s government today as it was in 1788?

The answer is that it is, and always will be, an excellent foundation for the government of any nation. It was and still is the clearest legal protection of man’s freedoms on earth. Since our founding, our country’s unparalleled success and majestic display of human freedom has been a beacon of hope to the peoples of other nations. For years, immigrants from other countries have fled their oppressive or failing governments to come to our shores because they too sensed the meaning behind the words of our Constitution. I cannot think of another document I would more highly recommend to a country looking to make a fresh start.

I would ask Justice Ginsburg to rethink her answer and reconsider her position as a “supporter of the Constitution.” Better yet, I would encourage her to consider why people from all around the world line up to see the distinctly American documents of freedom every day at the National Archives. I hope that one day she will come to understand what the patriotic Americans in line at the Archives understand: the protection and freedom the founding documents offered to the American people over 200 years ago is just the sort of protection every country in the world needs.

COMMENTS

  • westcoastpatriette

    I think convincing Justice Ginsberg of the beauty of the U.S. Constitution is a lost cause. I am afraid she is too liberal in all of her views to appreciate the perfect balance between strong government versus personal freedom that the document seeks to embody. Shame on her for failing to grasp this while sitting on the highest court in the land.

    • http://www.nonstopca.blogspot.com nonstopca

      I don’t blame her, after all she’s a liberal (stupidity is mandated). WHO I blame is the “people” who got her to the highest court in the land……

  • streiff

    Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    Our Constitution was written for a a people with over 150 years of self government and a people with a strong and abiding Christian faith. I don’t think concepts rooted in Christianity and the rights of Englishmen is all that appropriate for a benighted, third world crap hole like Egypt.

    • westcoastpatriette

      And well said. And why so many of our efforts in the middle east are so futile.

      • jakeofalltrades

        :twisted:

        Caution – touching this fence will virginize you.

    • burke

      I’m not a fan of Ginsburg at all, but it seems like she’s right here.

      You don’t have to think our Constitution is bad (and I think it’s pretty much the best thing ever, personally) to think it might not be appropriate for a context and a culture very different from ours.

      First off, South Africa’s constitution actually borrows several important features of the US Constitution. My friend actually was doing a some research on the South African constitution at one point a couple years ago — it apparently incorporates a lot of the stuff we think is most important. But South Africa’s constitution also adds more controls to help assure they have a peaceful democracy, and is longer because it has more specifics to make it easier to rely on the text of the constittuion. I think Egypt’s current situation is more like South Africa at the time of the ratification of its constitution than the US in the late 1700s. They probably can’t afford to have a vague document that can be subject to a good amount of interpretation. Also, some countries have more limited free speech because, given bad blood between ethnicities, it’s not just mean to have hate speech, it’s downright destabilizing to the country. So that might be another difference that might make sense for another country.

      So, the modified version of the principles in our Constitution that the South African constitution embodies probably does make more sense for Egypt (as a starting point anyway — ultimately they need to constitute themselves as is best for their country)

      • deVere

        I happen to like the Swiss constitution, for both them and potentialy us. It is easy to overturn federal laws with a referendum,, and elections to their plural executive are normally boring nonevents. Wouldn’t it be nice just to collect several million signatures and put Obamacare on the ballot? And also not be preocupied with a political revolution every four years? Our single executive works best if you have a George Washington or Ronald Reagan available, but how often do men like that come along?

        • http://punditpawn.wordpress.com punditpawn

          That’s what is happening in Wisconsin, and it is anarchy. Citizens speak their will through a legal election, then outside groups organize referendums and recalls against the lawfully elected representatives.

          No thanks.

          • deVere

            If you think our federal legislature is currently functioning well you are in a distinct minority. Myself I’d like the opportunity to vote “no” on Obamacare and overrule Congress.

      • red_refugee

        The old troll didn’t tell Egyptians to ignore our Constitution because it wouldn’t work well in Egypt. She told them to ignore our Constitution because she thinks that “boldly dynamic interpretation departing radically from the original understanding” of the Constitution is sometimes necessary. That is, she has no respect for the Founders’ Intent.

        Bachmann hit the nail on the head… Ginsberg has no respect for our Constitution and should find another line of work or just retire.

        • snowshooze

          I fear it COULD get worse… possibly a 25 year old communist.

          • JSobieski

            The U.S. Constitution is quite constraining on government, and Ginsberg is smart enough to know that.

            Ginsberg isn’t dumb, she just doesn’t like America as we know it. It is only in that sense that she is dumb—-in a lot of countries (Egypt included), Ginsberg would be literally slaughtered. Another Trotskyite.

          • snowshooze

            Ha.

          • demsaresatanic

            “Ginsberg isn?t dumb, she just doesn?t like America as we know it.”
            And in my view, that is too kind, I think that she hates America as we know it. If you could see her entire life as a movie, I believe you would see a series of assaults on traditional American and Christian values at each and every opportunity, all done with a smug smile. And these radicals are winning, destroying the America we knew piece by piece.

            Just one recent example, the Federal 9th Circuit ruling that the California constitutional amendment that defined marriage as one man one woman (which was duly passed by the people, and which was passed in an attempt to overrule a California Supreme Court ruling defining homosexual marriage as a constitutional right) was itself ruled unconstitutional. In other words, when the people try through democratic means to take back their right to define marriage, the democratic process itself is ruled to be unconstitutional. And such breathtaking arrogance passes with barely a blip on the media radar.

            These radicals are termites, eating away at America one bite at a time, and that comes from a deep-seated hatred of traditional American values. They will keep eating away at our foundations until the whole structure collapses, that is what termites do.

          • jlsankot

            uses the Constitution when they want it to benefit their agenda.

            i.e. 0care mandate is constitutional; marriage between one man and one woman is unconstitutional.

            They use it for their convenience. And there are too many people who don’t really know what is in the Constitution, so they just follow along like the sheeple they are.

          • runner12

            These ridiculous posters who claim that Ginsburg was simply saying that a culture like Egypt’s could not adopt a US-type Constitution because of our “differences” in idealogy is patently absurd.

            As you stated, they are either moby’s or trolls. Either way they are supremely ignorant. Ginsburg said what she did because she despises the US Constitution and, as you stated, she feels it is “too constraining.”

            I honestly cannot believe that people are defending her statements. How can we go about removing judges who show such aversion to the very document that they are sworn to uphold and protect?

          • streiff

            Let me introduce myself. I’ve been a member of RedState since July 2004. I’ve been a moderator since January 2005. I’m not a moby. I’m not a troll.

            If you don’t agree with me that’s fine. Don’t call me names.

          • deVere

            If the editors and moderators here at redstate.com provide a superior example in avoiding insults, I’m sure it will have a salutary effect on the overall quality of the discussion.

            ?Example is leadership.?
            ?Do something wonderful, people may imitate it.?
            ?Example is not the main thing in influencing others, it’s the only thing?
            Dr Albert Schweitzer

          • streiff

            I’ve found banning to work just as well.

          • deVere

            nt

          • streiff

            nt

          • jakeofalltrades

            :twisted:

          • runner12

            I know you are a moderator and have read your diaries. I know that if you have a different view, which I read, it was well thought out.

            I was referring to the people who have appeared on this thread who have seldom nor never posted before, yet all of the sudden show up to defend Ginsburg.

          • JSobieski

            (1) the implied representation of being a republican/conservative
            (2) the stated preference to live under the S African Constitution over the US Constitution

            Nobody to the right of center-left America would say that they would prefer the S African constitution over ours

          • deVere

            Google is so useful. You’ll be happier once you learn to use it.

            Ruth Ginsburg is a close personal friend of Antonin Scalia.
            http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-12-25-ginsburg-scalia_N.htm

            “And do as adversaries do in law, strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.”
            Shakespeare (The Taming of the Shrew, 1.2.280), Tranio

            Interesting how such an intelligent woman can hold mistaken political and judicial views for her entire life,

          • snowshooze

            Contempt.

          • JSobieski

            nt

        • streiff

          look at the amendments to the constitution. It is a radically different document today from that signed in 1787.

      • scesnar

        But I actually watched the entire interview (it’s on Youtube) AND read the South African constitution, and I tend to agree with Justice Ginsberg. (Gosh that hurts to type) for all the reasons the poster above cites.

        At first I was ready to jump on the bandwagon with everyone else, but while RBG is probably the worst justice we have, she’s right on this one.

        • JSobieski

          There is a reason why Freedom of Speech under the US Constitution means a right not to have the government shut you up (a negative right) rather than an affirmative right to have a printing press, your own radio station, etc.

          The Souh African Constitution provides “rights” to things that require the efforts of other people to provide.

          How can a government provide a “right” to healthcare without making doctors do things against their will? Or in otherwise making the health care system barely worth anything at all?

          How about you provide my right to shelter by building me a house for free?

          How about you provide my right to healthcare by you studying to be doctor and then providing me services for free?

          Whatever profession/occupation you have, I hope you move to some third world country where that country makes your services a constitutional right. That would be justice for you… and them.

      • dave148

        The concept of limited powers is simple, and the
        only reason for the “good amount of interpretation”
        it has been subject to, is some people’s desire for
        power.

        • streiff

          putting aside the amendments, the Supreme Court is kept busy resolving constitutional questions.

          The virtue of our Constitution is that is was deliberately crafted to be vague… it had to be to get all the original states on board… and the vagueness has enabled it to be applicable to a modern society as an 18th century agrarian one.

    • aesthete

      Indeed, Ginsburg contradicts you by suggesting that the Constitution’s age is what precludes it from being a good model, seeing as how the Constitution+BoR were themselves rooted in even older principles (the rights of Englishmen and common law, respectively).

      • streiff

        a more extended quote is here. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/ginsburg-likes-s-africa-as-model-for-egypt/

        Personally, I think our Constitution is good for us because of our history and traditions. I don’t think it is necessarily a good model, outside the Bill of Rights, for another culture. The conflating of head of government and head of state, unless accompanied by a respect for the rule of law and a sense of personal honor, has invariably led to really bad things.

        I’m not an authority on various Constitutions and have no interest in becoming one, I only say that I agree with John Adams that our form of government is not necessarily transferable.

        • aesthete

          I’m just not sure that’s what Ginsburg’s point was, given her commentary.

    • Adjoran

      A respect for the rule of law and not of men, the concept of an independent judiciary, the right to private property and to private contract for lawful ends, both protected by law.

      Without those things, no system remotely like ours can work.

      • guidvce

        that there needs to be that respect for the rule of law and not of men, etc. for our system to work.
        All of which have been marginalized by the left(on both sides of the aisle), and continues to be by the current administration.
        The government of this country needs to return to governance as stated in the Constitution and the other founding documents.
        Liberalism is a mental disorder. Irregardless of party affiliation.

      • streiff

        by 1787 America had a defined culture and way of doing things. The elites who led the Revolution and framed first the Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution read the same books and shared the same religion, language, and general sense of community though there were obviously cultural differences between the States.

        This does not exist in Egypt where property rights, religious freedom, and the rule of law are unknown.

    • snowshooze

      I couldn’t put it any better myself.

    • funwithknives

      come to this site regularly. It and it’s participants make me Think, and this Diarist is no exception.
      It is certainly sad that our Constitution might be lost on certain others,and their governments, especially after Barry’s apology tour {No exceptionalism, Rememember?}

      But it still galls me to think Justice Ginsberg is even a little correct. This might lead me to read ever-more of her opining, and ‘ holding it down ‘ could be problematic .

  • calivancouver

    The constitution was not handed down on high. Nor is it entirely precise. Nor is it a tome to liberty, although the Declaration of Independence is. Much like how the founding fathers did not passionately fight to end slavery, this simply isn’t true. That being said, wouldn’t you like to amend the constitution in certain ways? I’m sure you would. I would find most of them abominable, but nonetheless, even you would agree that the Constitution is imperfect like all human creations.

    So you might be pleased to know that in foreign countries, statesmen have taken inspiration from the US Constitution, added the lessons of experience, or tailored it to local conditions, and written new ones in the last 200 years, which are more directly relevant to present situations.

    Cheers!

  • falconflight

    Thank you for running for that elected position that reeks with the odor of pig sweat. Thank you for invoking the Constitution during your campaign. I only wish a few more of your fellow members would have followed your lead. Maybe they will yet.

  • jamesm

    Very respectfull article Rep Bachmann or should i say Michelle. More respect than Justice Ginsberg gave to our constitution. Justice Ginsberg through her many unwise positiions may have been given up to a reprobate mind. Consistently her words and positions appear as such. Appreciate your post.

  • snowshooze

    Thank you soo much for visiting our community.
    We are deeply honored.
    Maybe you and Perry should circle up the wagons.
    If nothing else, it would make them all go completely crazy.
    It could be a lot of fun.
    Thanks again,
    Mark

    • streiff

      for one of the most silly and contemptible attacks of the primary season.

  • thephoenix13

    Probably the main issue with using the U.S. Constitution as a model for modern nations is the strong executive. The events in Egypt in the past months have proven that military is probably the #1 player in the country, and is only allowing democracy to proceed as they see fit. Giving commander-in-chief status to one person in a militarized – and somewhat divided – country is very dangerous. There has been a lot of talk about the Muslim Brotherhood on this site; keep in mind that it is very likely an MB candidate would win the presidency if their constitution created such a strong position.

    • streiff

      in most countries where our Constitution has been a model the logical outcome has been a military dictatorship. The Philippines under Marcos is prime example. Any number of South American countries have copied ours with the same effect.

      We had our own run-in with a potential military dictatorship and had a lesser man than Washington been involved… say an Aaron Burr… it might have succeeded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newburgh_Conspiracy

      When George III heard that Washington intended to resign his commission and return to Mount Vernon after the US won independence said it best

      “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”

      http://www.gvsu.edu/hauenstein/george-washington-the-greatest-man-377.htm

  • Leon H. Wolf

    at least while you’re posting here you can’t be busy threatening the public health and safety. So, welcome.

  • iunderstand

    Justice Ginsberg did not say the Constitution is irrelevant. Making, in my eyes at least, your premise and so entire diary irrelevant.

    Sorry.

  • jimmyneutron

    Go onto any college campus in the US and you will find nothing but people with exactly the same attitude as Ginsburg. My wife just finished her teaching degree and had anyone at her school held a different point of view they would have been forced out. Sound extreme? Well, until you see the intolerance of the ‘tolerant’ left you have seen nothing.

    I knew exactly what Ginsburg meant as soon as I heard her comments the other day. She doesn’t respect the US constitution and she certaintly has no respect for original intent or the ideas of the men who created that document. For people like her the model was the old Soviet or similar constitutions. These documents, unlike ours, could run to many, many pages and had promises of all sorts and guarantees of rights galore. Unfortunately, those meant nothing because all of those promises led to an all powerful state unlike ours which created a fairly weak central government and left the state governments alone in most things.

    I also strongly disagree with all on here who say our constitution is not a model for other nations. Ours is the perfect model for any other nation that wishes for individual freedom and responsibility such that a strong federal governent is not required to run everything and everyone. Ignorance, superstitions and a lack of Christian morals may doom societies to living in a state of dictatorship and tyranny, but that doesn’t mean that we have to tell those people that this is their natural state and ultimate lot in life. We can’t impose values such as a love of freedom, individualism and Christian morality on other societies or backward cultures via force of arms, but we can and should encourage such things in our writings. People do have the right to be free, but it is also something they have to earn, respect, cherish, work for and protect at all times.

    One final thought – quit attacking Rep. Bachmann and echoing the MSMs criticisms of her! She is one of the few Reps we have who has consistantly criticized congresses’, Bushes’ and Obama’s love of big government and spending and is one of the few people up there who is actually trying to reduce spending. Don’t magnify her mistakes and minimize her accomplishments – the libs wll do that anyway.

    • streiff

      What our Constitution produces is a beacon for the world. As a document it has guided us from agrarian States to a world power without stripping us of our rights as free men and women.

      What our Constitution is not is a workable model for any society without a strong history of the rule of law and the primacy of tradition over immediate passions. We could probably transplant our Constitution to Great Britain or Germany. I doubt seriously that it could work in any third world country that doesn’t have a broadly literate population and a culture tolerant of dissent and personal freedom.

      • jimmyneutron

        The Dems can do that so much better.

        And no, I am not a Tardasil victim and that is not funny, witty or called for.

        I understand perfectly that our constitution was designed for a ‘moral and religious people and will not work for any other’ to paraphrase Adams I believe and I was not claiming that we could just apply it to any group of people anywhere in the world in their current state and it would work just fine. It hardly works for us anymore because roughly half of our population is immoral and has no respect for individual liberty.

        My other points were that conservatives need to quit attacking:
        A. Each other
        B. Those conservative leaders like Michelle who are actually doing conservative work in DC and trying to drain that swamp.
        C. and Quit echoing MSM talking points about conservatives which are of course not designed to help conservatism but to destroy it.

      • jimmyneutron

        The Dems can do that so much better.

        And no, I am not a Tardasil victim and that is not funny, witty or called for.

        I understand perfectly that our constitution was designed for a ‘moral and religious people and will not work for any other’ to paraphrase Adams I believe and I was not claiming that we could just apply it to any group of people anywhere in the world in their current state and it would work just fine. It hardly works for us anymore because roughly half of our population is immoral and has no respect for individual liberty.

        My other points were that conservatives need to quit attacking:
        A. Each other
        B. Those conservative leaders like Michelle who are actually doing conservative work in DC and trying to drain that swamp.
        C. and Quit echoing MSM talking points about conservatives which are of course not designed to help conservatism but to destroy it.

  • jdbixii

    In countries where the religious heritage is different from that of Judeo-Christianity, there is little reason to expect that representative democracy with equality of all is a concept that will be accepted and practiced. The U.S. Constitution was representative of the wishes of the vast majority of English-Americans, a commonality factor which has not existed in well over 125 years. As the diversity of the people increased, the aspirations of the few have been diminished in importance by the complexity of issues which have plagued minority groups. Inspite of the civil rights act and the war on poverty of the 1960s, the push for some kind of equality that is not gotten by hard work and rugged individualism has placed a financial burden on the few whose success has made them “unequal.” A constitution is only as good as the people who honor its provisions as the law of the land and the basic criterion with which all laws are determined to be constitutional or not. The provisions of the American Constitution have been maintained by the sacrifices of several million citizen-soldiers in times of war. We have learned in the 20th century that there is no longer a belief in the common obligation to sacrifice for the country. It is a free-will choice to serve or not to serve in the armed forces. We have also learned that even personal choice is something which, at the whim of a president or the congress, can be changed at the stroke of a pen to be what it was or was not previously.
    Since what happens in a country during and after revolution is frequently determined by the rule of martial law or the gun, the equality of citizens and a consensus on governance, as we have seen in Iraq, are elusive foreign ideas that may never take root until a commonality unites the surviving majority. English Americans might wish for the same, but the representation of the diverse is what has changed America forever. Whereas her strength was commonality, her weakness is diversity and the justice expressed that fact.

    • runner12

      this is a point Ginsburg did NOT make. You are projecting her motives as to why she made the statement she did. If she felt the way you claim she did, she could have easily made this comparison. But she did not.

      Her comments were not based off of veneration and respect for the Constitution or a mourning that a dysfunctional Egypt was too much in chaos too adopt such a noble document.

      Her comments were based off of the typical Progressive judge’s view that the Constitution puts too much contraint on government and that it is an outdated document. Period.

      The spin some posters are placing on her comments reflect a complete lack of knowledge of Ginsberg and her judicial philosophy.

      • streiff

        and come to that conclusion. But you’re welcome to do so.

        • runner12

          agree with the conclusions that Rep. Bachman stated in her diary, I find it troubling that Supreme Court Justice suggested that a country not look to the US Constitution at all. It seemed she was throwing our Constitution “under the bus,” so to speak.

          Perhaps I am viewing her statements through the lense of knowing that she views the Consitution as an old, outdated document. Her view is the typical Progressive view of the Constitution, so her statements were more troubling to me than if I had heard it from another Justice.

  • ss396

    She could have easily answered along the lines of “Create a form of government that all people can respect. Create one that respects property rights because that will also protect human rights. Guarantee those human rights. Create a government of laws, not of men. Create a government whose institutions are worthy and responsible to all citizens. Create a government of fairness, of propriety, and always remember that government is a burden on its citizens – a necessary burden, but a burden all the same. Therefore, burden them equitably.”

    She did not have to trash the US Constitution. But she did – that speaks a lot to premises she holds and from which she launches here every thought and argument.

    • renny

      Of course, she does not like the Constitution she took an oath to uphold.

  • mkozikowski

    that as a supporter of any Constitution other than the U.S. Constitution, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg could be removed from her position.
    After all, her position and the work she performs is directly tied to her fidelity to that single document that describes the workings of our Government and the Rights of the people it governs.
    That document describes, in a broad and yet very clear way, the LIMITS of powers bestowed upon the Government by The People who created it for The People who came after and must live with it.

    If SHE no longer believes in it’s value as THE defining text that gives life to The Government, how, in Heaven’s name, can SHE rule in it’s behalf?

    I would like to believe that if a judge shows as little respect for The Constitution as SHE does, reflecting contempt for The People it protects, then The People should have the power to remove her, or any judge that shows the same contempt.

    And if they do have this power, it should be exercised immediately

    • streiff

      both in terms of your critique of what she said and the inference you take from that.

      The Constitution that you claim to be so fond of does not allow The People, whoever the hell they are, to remove judges. The House presents a bill of impeachment. The Senate tries the case.

      • mkozikowski

        The People are the house.
        Why isn’t the house making any movement in this regard

        • streiff

          I don’t hold Ginsberg in very high regard but what Bachm ann has done here is jump on an issue she obviously doesn’t understand and tries to demagogue it. It is exactly the same stunt she has pulled time and again that resulted in so many walk backs from her that it would have saved time for her just to wear her shoes backwards. The last and most visible of these was her Tardasil debacle.

          At no point does Ginsberg say she won’t support and defend the Constitution of the United States. She makes a valid point that there may be better models for Egypt to follow than ours. I agree with her.

          Why anyone would advocate the House take up valuable time even thinking about this rather than real problems beats me.

  • johnt

    caution is urged in agreeing with her on her comments to foreign entities. To Ginsburg the Constitution is a springboard for reform, not a guide or body of law to be referred to as well as deferred to. The political program is paramount, as it was to Warren and others before him. A living document as with any other living thing is constant change, great for the birds & the bees, less so for laws and nations.

    • streiff

      and it is the source of disagreement between the two political parties. Having said that doesn’t make her outside the mainstream of American political philosophy, it simply makes her a liberal democrat.

  • pbeck

    Was she possibly thinking this whole constitution recommendation through? Maybe she’s aware of what the two Adams POTUS said regarding “our” Constitution:

    John Adams: [I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.

    John Quincy Adams: The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws. There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy.[The quote by John Adams is particularly strong—”Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

    I see what she may have (accidently?) done there in Egypt. Just trying to put the best light on an otherwise disgusting and anti-American comment by the SCOTUS nominated by the impeached president.

  • lizzie

    The Founders wanted a weak Executive. Had any Enlightenment-era nation thrown off monarchy and instituted a parliamentary system that gives political factions a different way to shape the majority, our US Constitution would have been very different.

    Much ado and a manufactured outrage.
    Especially over Egypt which is about to retreat into the 14th century with ‘modified’ Sharia law embedded in whatever new government takes hold this year, until the next military coup, which is inevitable for a nation with >40 million people below the poverty line requiring food imports for which there is no longer any foreign exchange reserves.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      Egypt will probably lose 10-20% of its population to famine, pestilence, and emmigration over te next decade. The story that hasn’t been told in the New York Times is that most of Egypt’s capital has fled the country and that it is not self-sufficient in food or energy.

      To paraphrase Dean Wormer From Animal House. ” No money, no food and no combustible fuel is a bad way to go through life, Ma’am.”

      • lizzie

        unless Egypt’s military decides seizing East Libya’s oilfields makes more sense than murdering eight million Christian Copts, who deserve a homeland in the Sinai, centered on St. Catherine’s monastery.

        At least during the pre-Bubonic Plague 14th century, Egypt did have a functional state that was thriving…

        yeah, you got to read AsiaTimesonline, and/or Spengler, to get an idea of how really bad it is in Egypt. I was expecting food riots by now. I wonder who is paying for the wheat to keep the bread baking…

        Best news I have read all week was at ATimes, on China’s proposal to build a rail/highway infrastructure from Eilat to Haifa, 100% inside Israel, to bypass the Suez Canal. 100% supported by Israel, well, maybe not the bedouin, but the oil-rich Islamic states bend to China’s will, and so is a bypass to Egypt’s remaining relevance: the Suez Canal.

        As for a new Constitution for Egypt? I am a fan of constitutional monarchies for any nation who has never gone through any kind of intellectual Enlightenment.. Islam is inherently in contradiction with the rights of the individual. The failure of one hundred years of experiments in Egypt’s government makes me guess that far more than 20% of the population will die in far less than ten years.

        and no one will absorb eight million Copts – those who had the assets have already emigrated. They need their own homeland, centered around St. Catherine’s in the eastern Sinai. (I have elsewhere coined the term Occupy Sinai) St. Catherine’s is a still a protected jewel, but for how long?

        In fact, I am surprised Rep. Bachmann did not write about the threats facing all the remaining Christians in muslim-majority nations.

        I am also puzzled why Rep. Bachmann cites “…The inked words of the Constitution, many of them carefully penned by Gouverneur Morris over 200 years ago, …”
        Is it Morris’ calligraphy that should be remembered? Or that New York abstained from adoption of that U.S. Constitution, mostly written by James Madison, built upon the work of John Adams.

        Could we get some diaries from Bachmann about an issue that really matters, instead of a cheap shot at Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who, btw, is very close friend of Scalia…

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          to know that their armed forces will have AH-64 helicopters to play with once this stuff starts to get interesting.

          • streiff

            is that with the much vaunted Arab talent for maintaining complex equipment in a desert environment none of the Apaches will be flying after a couple of weeks.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            Like the Stinger Missiles everyone on Slate.com hoped AQ would fire at the Army in Afghanistan.

          • funwithknives

            the 125 -odd M1-A1 tanks and numerous F-16′s, all purchased courtesy of You-N-Me. Repair/replacement parts , by Turkey, Inc.
            What we will most likely witness is Creative Destruction, but the really frightful sort. A second Iran then, is most likely.

  • renny

    And we should stop giving it $1.5 billion for being an ally. And prob. close the embassy and get out of there before we have another Tehran 1979.

    • streiff

      it is a very populous country with the ability to attack an ally — Israel — and which controls the Suez Canal.

      I think we need to revisit the money we send it to keep it at peace with Israel but pulling out doesn’ t make a lot of sense to me.

      • lizzie

        where trans-border tribal affiliations are very much real.

        Libya has too much oil for too little population. There were one million Egyptians working in mostly eastern Libya before the ‘not-war’.

        Last thing the Egyptian military can afford is to lose another war with Israel, but the Egyptians could roll those tanks east to secure the Libyan oilfields.

        Meanwhile, I assume Maureen Dowd is re-designing her biquini-burka for the New Egypt’s tourism industry. ok, you had to read her bizarre piece about being a tourist in Saudi Arabia to know what a biquini-burka looks like :)

        Egypt’s former toruism had two legs: 1) antiquities, but why not visit Greece or Italy instead?, and 2) the resorts on the Red Sea, especially the Sinai side aound Sharm-el-Sheik. Which is very close to St. Catherine’s Monastery, also a huge tourism site. At least the Copts have no problem with one-piece bathing suits or serving beer to the tourists at those resorts.

        The other source of foreign income is Egypt’s natural gas exports to Israel and Jordan, but I stopped keeping track after the tenth explosion by the Sinai Bedouin…

        The USA has spent thirty years training and working with the Egyptian military. Not something the Egyptians can throw off so easy.
        But all that depends on what the Saudis and UAE say – they are the only ones keeping Egypt afloat financially.

        • acat

          any more than we had when Iran and Iraq – both oil exporters – were bludgeoning one another.

          Mew

  • robertd

    The South African Constitution was the first constitution to guarantee rights and protections specifically to homosexuals. One not need to look any deeper into Justice Ginsburg’s love of that constitution other than that reason. It’s really quite and that simple.

  • Grant

    Maybe I’m being pedantic here, but immediately after Rep. Bachmann said of the Constitution’s wording, “we Americans know it by heart”, she misquoted it. The correct beginning is “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…” The Congresswoman left out “of the United States”. A glaring omission when context is considered. Evidently not all Americans know it by heart. That mistake aside, I did enjoy the article.

    • funwithknives

      note many self-proclaimed Constitutionalists making incorrect statements fairly regularly. Attempting to even slightly correct them rarely turns out well.

      My favorite and most common note is when the comment is made that “… The Constitution Gives Us Our Rights…” {or variations similar} The returning rage is most telling. Normally followed by having your e-mail submissions to them blocked, forever.
      Touchy-Touchy…

  • Pingback: gsdfghsdkflhgksdfl

  • Pingback: Ezra Sliman

  • Pingback: Lavelle Gilomen

  • Pingback: electronic cigarette

  • Pingback: professional maid service

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: additional hints

  • Pingback: zakopane noclegi

  • Pingback: Investment House

  • Pingback: street magic

  • Pingback: Zierfischfutter

  • Pingback: skype

  • Pingback: home distillers for sale

  • Pingback: Melatrol reviews

  • Pingback: Zakochaj sie

  • Pingback: Egal Gabbay California

  • Pingback: http://dunderhill.dk/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Cv

  • Pingback: Wedding planning

  • Pingback: ropa para bebes ibague

  • Pingback: แทงบอล

  • Pingback: sbobet

  • Pingback: distilling alcohol

  • Pingback: What is Venapro

  • Pingback: Αιολικός ρυθμός

  • Pingback: εξοπλισμός σπιτιού

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: Links Eintragen

  • Pingback: descargar musica gratis joe arroyo

  • Pingback: gameplay

  • Pingback: Law Jobs

  • Pingback: BBCAT

  • Pingback: Free live TV streaming

  • Pingback: florida foreclosure attorney

  • Pingback: home water distillers

  • Pingback: Koi

  • Pingback: getwhgdrthfyjfygujfuyg

  • Pingback: description

  • Pingback: desconocido

  • Pingback: finish touchup

  • Pingback: portal randkowy

  • Pingback: หอพักเอแบค

  • Pingback: buy inexpensive wow gold

  • Pingback: what do you consider

  • Pingback: darmowa strona randki

  • Pingback: florida no fault insurance company

  • Pingback: Adria Ralphs

  • Pingback: serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: darmowa strona randki

  • Pingback: strona z randkami

  • Pingback: umow sie na randke

  • Pingback: rewelacyjny portla randkowy

  • Pingback: PPT

  • Pingback: criminal law lawyers Scottsdale

  • Pingback: payday loans online

  • Pingback: toothbrush sanitizer for men

  • Pingback: olive oil extra virgin

  • Pingback: san diego diamond rings

  • Pingback: weight loss colon cleanser

  • Pingback: senior retirement homes

  • Pingback: link

  • Pingback: randka przez internet

  • Pingback: ezinearticles

  • Pingback: darmowa strona z randkami

  • Pingback: rewelacyjny portla randkowy

  • Pingback: Arkadaslik

  • Pingback: overseas

  • Pingback: download Naruto episodes

  • Pingback: znajdz milosc

  • Pingback: payday loans

  • Pingback: trust

  • Pingback: test

  • Pingback: casino gaming

  • Pingback: Lucille McKenzie

  • Pingback: cleaners

  • Pingback: internet marketing methods revealed

  • Pingback: pmu resultat du quinte plus

  • Pingback: weddings in italy

  • Pingback: some knockout offered

  • Pingback: ipl Laser Hair Removal marrickville

  • Pingback: Epping

  • Pingback: a few other resources

  • Pingback: Best of Twitter

  • Pingback: Javier

  • Pingback: Donatien

  • Pingback: Audric

  • Pingback: Dallas Cowboys

  • Pingback: Randolph Lechman

  • Pingback: Information

  • Pingback: Justa Andrews

  • Pingback: Rayna Milosevic

  • Pingback: alfileres de boda

  • Pingback: noclegi roztocze

  • Pingback: Remote Control

  • Pingback: lecteur datamatrix

  • Pingback: Diseño web barato

  • Pingback: www.loansandbadcredit.org

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: Sidney Trundy

  • Pingback: Barrie Gilford

  • Pingback: Sidney Chandsawangbh

  • Pingback: growing aloe vera

  • Pingback: buy active instagram followers

  • Pingback: "?????"

  • Pingback: black mold removal

  • Pingback: Allevamento Rottweiler

  • Pingback: ps3

  • Pingback: abc blinds

  • Pingback: Tyree Pascal

  • Pingback: Coretta Barlow

  • Pingback: weight loss diet

  • Pingback: Cruz Mestanza

  • Pingback: find a date

  • Pingback: free annual credit report gov

  • Pingback: increases energy

  • Pingback: Youtube Make Money

  • Pingback: logos quiz answers

  • Pingback: Tyree Pascal

  • Pingback: married one night stands

  • Pingback: Organo Gold Scam

  • Pingback: Delmar

  • Pingback: Cyprien

  • Pingback: aqui

  • Pingback: cheap car insurance

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: honda 2000 generator

  • Pingback: auto accident boardman

  • Pingback: Payday Lender

  • Pingback: how to find phone numbers

  • Pingback: las vegas chapter 11 bankruptcy

  • Pingback: video games

  • Pingback: hair loss stress treatment

  • Pingback: http://ldlhdlcholesterollevels.org/

  • Pingback: texas driver education

  • Pingback: Medical Marketing

  • Pingback: Web designing in delhi

  • Pingback: becuri xenon

  • Pingback: gigi spice

  • Pingback: texas driver education

  • Pingback: lida ile zayiflama

  • Pingback: Chancellor

  • Pingback: Lacy

  • Pingback: Donatien

  • Pingback: click this

  • Pingback: I was reading this

  • Pingback: arts and crafts

  • Pingback: Karl Galvin

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: buy exclusive beats