Krauthammer on Gingrich: This is a capital offense against the 11th Commandment

posted at 8:38 pm on May 16, 2011 by Allahpundit

Via Fox News Insider, I’m posting this mainly to give the Palin, O’Donnell, and Rush fans in the comments a chance to say “look who’s talking.”

How much longer can the beatings of Gingrich go on? Judging from this, at least another couple of days, I’d guess:

Republicans say they were largely blindsided by the comment, which came on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday. But some in Congress said they’ve heard Gingrich say this before. Campbell, a staunch conservative, said that the Georgian told a group of Republicans in a closed meeting earlier this year that they shouldn’t “be messing with entitlements.”

“I’m not inclined to support somebody that makes our jobs harder rather than easier, personally,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a member of the Budget Committee and former Republican National Committee chief of staff who considers Gingrich a serious candidate. “I don’t know what other people think.”…

“It’s typical of Newt to be whimsical,” [former Gingrich rival Dick] Armey said in a phone interview with POLITICO on Monday. “We always say: Newt always has so many great ideas. Well yeah, but then he shifts between them at such a rate it’s pretty hard to track it let alone keep up with it.”…

“My view right now is he has joined the ‘don’t care’ crowd, “Armey said. “It isn’t about the nation’s health care — the nation’s fiscal health care — it’s about [Newt’s] presidential race.”

So there’s his campaign slogan in the making. “Newt 2012: Don’t Be Messing With Entitlements.” A surefire winner with 80-85 percent of the 65-and-over vote.

Two clips for you here, first Krauthammer and then Brit Hume. If you thought the Foxies might go easy on one of their own (former) contributors, think again.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I guess that’s true, I have a hard time considering Rove a pundit but I suppose that is what he is now.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 10:37 AM

And that’s what bothers me about giving pundits a pass cause “it’s just their opinion.” All too often, they work behind the scenes as campaign strategists and partisan political advisers. God knows Rove does.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 10:40 AM

Why would it not?

HondaV65 on May 17, 2011 at 10:39 AM

I’m with you, Honda. I believe it does. But as long as the only price for breaking Reagan’s eleventh commandment is an election cycle or two’s exile in the electoral desert, I don’t think the Republican party will ever coalesce enough to win consistently let alone find its conservative roots again.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 10:42 AM

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 10:40 AM

If he is available to be hired by a candidate, I don’t think he should be a pundit. O/T I saw in two places that Cindy Crawford is working for Mitt Romney this time around.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 10:42 AM

Newt’s done.

kingsjester on May 17, 2011 at 10:45 AM

If he is available to be hired by a candidate, I don’t think he should be a pundit. O/T I saw in two places that Cindy Crawford is working for Mitt Romney this time around.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 10:42 AM

Well all I know is that Rove was a “Fox News contributor” the whole time he was attempting to work his magic up in Delaware last year. And we all know how that turned out.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 10:45 AM

Many people are forgetting that Krauthammer is a pundit and not a Republican politician so there are no 11th commandments for him.

Gingrich is a vile pussbag and needs to go back to the couch with Pelosi.

Hilts on May 17, 2011 at 10:38 AM

Okay – well – no eleventh commandment for him. But you can’t deny the fellow is a SLANTED pundit who leans heavily toward the cocktail crowd. He won’t slam anyone in that crowd and often goes after grassroots folks because he thinks they are inferior to him. Yet – how much of the freakin’ world has Charles K-hammer seen of this world from his wheelchair?

I’m serious – I’m not trying to slam his disability here – but there is a very real fact here that his mobility and ability to go anywhere outside the beltway and experience things that other folks experience on a daily basis is highly impaired.

I really don’t think he does much shopping at Walmart. I really don’t think the guy has been on the ground running around with troops in Iraq. I really don’t think the guy has looked at poverty first hand in Africa. I really don’t think the guy has spoken to the man on the street in Bahrain – or eaten ice cream at the Baskin and Robbins there with other Arabs – or visited the gold sook there and had coffee with the natives.

I’ve done all those things – many people have done things like this – but Charles hasn’t. There’s a reason he hasn’t – and it’s valid for him – and I’m sorry for it – but that’s not going to cause me overlook the fact that he’s missing a lot of life experience that most of us have out here.

Intellect can only get you so far.

I would think he would know – and agree – with what I’ve posted above and make an effort to become enlightened about people he doesn’t know – and doesn’t see at beltway cocktail parties.

Then again – part of being an “elitist” is being blind to your weaknesses that everyone else can see.

Disclaimer – I hate Newt Gingrich – and would love to see him drop this race. So that’s one good thing about the spat I suppose.

HondaV65 on May 17, 2011 at 10:47 AM

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 10:32 AM

Et tu, Brute?

I have nothing against any Jews or Christians, but this country was and will always be, until it’s full descent into a completely socialized country, founded on Judeao Christian values and morality.

But then again, being a Romney man, you’d like that wouldn’t you?

MadDogF on May 17, 2011 at 10:48 AM

And that’s what bothers me about giving pundits a pass cause “it’s just their opinion.”

The problem is that, it’s not just pundits’ right to their “opinion” but it is the manipulation of information that feeds into the decisions of the voting populace. I suspect that under the constitution the pundit class enjoys the exact same press freedoms to lie, deceive and to manipulate as does the NYT or the other “Alphabet” Marxist Press.

I do so long for the nation to recognize and terminate that evil.

Don L on May 17, 2011 at 10:48 AM

By allowing his arrogance to override his requisite for political expediency, we all witnessed Newt’s stupidity lurching forward and crashing into his fellow Republicans. The 11th commandment is certainly important, but the vital instruction that he disregarded was “Be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth into gear.”

Bootleghooch on May 17, 2011 at 8:07 AM

Newt’s blunder probably came from his own arrogance. In 1994 Newt was the man with the “big bold ideas” who rose to be Speaker of the House, and in 2011 Ryan has stolen his thunder, so Newt felt the need to blast Ryan to re-assert his own lost importance.

Meanwhile, Ryan realizes that he is more effective in the House than in the Senate, and has deliberately passed up a chance at a winnable Senate seat to be a “team player”.

It’s already too late for Newt, but another GOP candidate could probably win the nomination simply by stating “If elected President, I will sign the Ryan plan into law”, then campaign WITH Ryan to explain it to the voters.

A vain man (like Newt) will bash the inventor a great idea because HE didn’t think of it. A true leader will give credit where it’s due, and ride the idea to victory.

Steve Z on May 17, 2011 at 10:55 AM

Let me clarify: the media (like the citizenry -2cd Amendment)needs to be protected from the govenrment -not lawsuits from the people for outright fraud. Free speech ought not to protect deliberate fraud – ie. Dan Rather pushing Bush’s faked papers after they were exposed as fakes and the largest travesty in press history -Walter Cronkite’s lie about the Tet offensive. Those folks should have been sued along with their parent company.
A court would decide the culpability -but -the very act would have caused the practice to change.

Don L on May 17, 2011 at 10:58 AM

A lot of right wing punditry, including Dr. K, Mr. Will and Mr. Brooks did much to convince that Obama would make a fine president.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 11:04 AM

A lot of right wing punditry, including Dr. K, Mr. Will and Mr. Brooks did much to convince some Republicans that Obama would make a fine president.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 11:04 AM

By way of clarification there, Cindy. Otherwise spot-on.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 11:07 AM

A lot of right wing punditry, including Dr. K, Mr. Will and Mr. Brooks did much to convince that Obama would make a fine president.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 11:04 AM

Will, Krauthammer, Brooks, Frum, Noonan, & Parker apologists probably still agree with that sentiment.

Kataklysmic on May 17, 2011 at 11:10 AM

Et tu, Brute?

I have nothing against any Jews or Christians, but this country was and will always be, until it’s full descent into a completely socialized country, founded on Judeao Christian values and morality.

The meaning of that “founded on” bit can be argued a long time and is mostly OT to this thread.

But then again, being a Romney man, you’d like that wouldn’t you?

MadDogF on May 17, 2011 at 10:48 AM

Romney? Uh no. If he runs, I’m for Daniels. If not, T-Paw is my distant 2nd. There is no 3rd choice for me in this field.

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Kataklysmic on May 17, 2011 at 11:10 AM

Interesting question. Would the current state of the country outweigh the very human desire to rationalize? Were they fooled or did they willing ignore that Obama was the very antithesis of their own supposed ideology? Does temperament, unproven intelligence and pants creases trump ideals? I guess we will never know.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Does temperament, unproven intelligence and pants creases trump ideals? I guess we will never know.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 11:19 AM

*shakes his magic 8 ball*

Signs point to “yes”

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 11:21 AM

The meaning of that “founded on” bit can be argued a long time and is mostly OT to this thread.

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Yeah, you could argue about it until you turn blue. But, you would still be wrong. This country was founded on tenents inspired by a Judeo-Christian belief system. It can be seen throughout the founding documents, speeches and personal papers left behind.

Newt’s toast and Daniels is America’s Blind Date, being presented by the GOP Elite.

Now, please continue playing the role of a Moderate Elitist.

kingsjester on May 17, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Interesting question. Would the current state of the country outweigh the very human desire to rationalize? Were they fooled or did they willing ignore that Obama was the very antithesis of their own supposed ideology? Does temperament, unproven intelligence and pants creases trump ideals? I guess we will never know.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 11:19 AM

It is an interesting question. How many of our opinions are really based on a dispassionate analysis of the facts? I think that most of the time we decide what we want to believe based on our own selfish rationale and then deem the evidence that supports our side to be more compelling. My own long time pet theory is that at their core, Liberalism is the quest for an existence without guilt, and Conservatism is the quest for an existence without fear.

As far as what percentage of people who voted for Obama are going to die on that hill vs. those who would rather have food on their table than be right, the 2012 election returns are going to be very interesting.

Kataklysmic on May 17, 2011 at 11:30 AM

kingsjester on May 17, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Funny thing, but I seem to recall the Pilgrims and a great many other immigrants coming here to escape Christian government. I seem to recall our revolution being against Christian government. I seem to recall the very first words of our Bill of Rights declaring that we won’t allow a Christian government here. I seem to recall our founders ensuring that most of the Judeo Christian commandments could never become the law in this country and those that were being ones that any society would Christian or otherwise would need to maintain public order.

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Kataklysmic on May 17, 2011 at 11:30 AM

The Won better have some serious tricks up his sleeve because I think there is a lot of hunger out in the country. I don’t think of Americans being willing to just get by for any extended period of time. At least I hope the desire to excel and prosper is still around.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 11:41 AM

There’s nothing in the 11th Commandment which prevents debating ideas and policies.

What the 11th Commandment means (IMO, at least) is Republicans don’t engage in the kind of grandstanding Gingrich did on MTP.

Debate policy – great. Debate personalities? No.

BD57 on May 17, 2011 at 11:48 AM

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 11:40 AM

You certainly have a faulty recall.

kingsjester on May 17, 2011 at 11:48 AM

From americanthinker.com:

Judeo-Christian Values in America have a basis in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…”

Since the pursuit of happiness, as Sigmund Freud surmised, is tied to human love and to creative work and play, the principles of American Judeo-Christian Values can rightly be summarized as the honoring of God-given Life, Liberty and Creativity. This seed of American social justice was then fleshed out in the U.S. Constitution through reason and common sense, unencumbered by the dysfunctional religious and secular traditions, and laws of Old Europe.

kingsjester on May 17, 2011 at 11:52 AM

While we’re arguing about the principles on which our country was founded, let me point out two salient facts:

The “pilgrims,” as we understand the term, were a full four generations removed from the founding fathers that signed the Declaration of Independence and wrote The Constitution.

While freedom of conscience is a uniquely Judeo-Christian value, it is freedom first-and-foremost that characterizes the American way of life. It is freedom that allows Christians to stand alongside our non-Christian brothers and sisters, and freedom requires moral questions to be handled as close to locally as possible.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 11:53 AM

You certainly have a faulty recall.

kingsjester on May 17, 2011 at 11:48 AM

Typical KJ answer. You’re wrong, neener, neener.

kingsjester on May 17, 2011 at 11:52 AM

LMFAO! Freud? Freud is your go to guy for this? This Sigmund Frued:

Religion, Freud believed, was an expression of underlying psychological neuroses and distress. At various points in his writings, he suggested that religion was an attempt to control the Oedipal complex, a means of giving structure to social groups, wish fulfillment, an infantile delusion, and an attempt to control the outside world.

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 11:56 AM

While we’re arguing about the principles on which our country was founded, let me point out two salient facts:

The “pilgrims,” as we understand the term, were a full four generations removed from the founding fathers that signed the Declaration of Independence and wrote The Constitution.

Quite true. However, our founders did not forget them or all the other religious refugees who founded this nation. That is vividly clear in their writings.

While freedom of conscience is a uniquely Judeo-Christian value, it is freedom first-and-foremost that characterizes the American way of life. It is freedom that allows Christians to stand alongside our non-Christian brothers and sisters, and freedom requires moral questions to be handled as close to locally as possible.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Well said!

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Well said!

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Thank you. I’m thinking of tossing my hat in the ring for the 2012 presidential race. My campaign motto is going to be, “Gryph ’12 — For local virtue and national freedom.”

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 12:02 PM

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 11:56 AM

Just getting started.

Samuel Adams
Father of the American Revolution, Signer of the Declaration of Independence

I . . . recommend my Soul to that Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.

Patrick Henry
Governor of Virginia, Patriot

This is all the inheritance I can give to my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.

Will of Patrick Henry
John Jay
First Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court

Unto Him who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by His beloved son. He has been pleased to bless me with excellent parents, with a virtuous wife, and with worthy children. His protection has companied me through many eventful years, faithfully employed in the service of my country; His providence has not only conducted me to this tranquil situation but also given me abundant reason to be contented and thankful. Blessed be His holy name!

kingsjester on May 17, 2011 at 12:03 PM

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Interesting interpretation you have there.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Every politician has the inalienable right to say whatever they want, no matter how offensive or stupid it may be. The key is to voice your displeasure through withholding your support and/or vote rather than just whine about it. Gingrich is an extremely smart man who could whoop anyone he runs against in a debate, to include the President. (While we know Newt TAUGHT college courses, we don’t even know what Obama’s grades are since he’s sealed his records.) Newt’s achilles heel is not his past marital indiscretion but the fact that he opens his mouth from time to time and drops these ‘bombs’ that alienate and anger those who would LIKE to count on him as a strong candidate.

It’s really sad that as bad as things are and how volnerable the Prsident is right now that the GOP can’t find any stronger / better choices than Mitt Romney and Gnewt Gingrich….seriously?!

easyt65 on May 17, 2011 at 12:08 PM

kingsjester on May 17, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Oh please. This is why didn’t want to see this thread hijacked with garbage like that. We can cut and paste all freaking day. I can swamp your ass with stuff that you won’t bother to read from Jefferson, Madison, Paine and others. You have no answer for the points I made and all the cut and pasting in the world won’t change that.

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Interesting interpretation you have there.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Interesting indeed. Those two yahoos are fighting over a paradox that the founding fathers (from the Pilgrims right up to the framers) struggled with for generations: Freedom to not be a Christian is a Christian value(!). Yeah, I know. It hardly makes sense to me either.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Thanks kingsjester, I needed to hear that – it’s so lacking in the leader of today. Perhaps that is why they so casually are willing to deceive, take property, and destroy life, bowing to the earth and money gods all the while.

Don L on May 17, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Which means no Christian (or Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, &c) government.

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 12:11 PM

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Sure. Kleenex?

kingsjester on May 17, 2011 at 12:12 PM

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 12:10 PM

The right not to be a Christian is certainly an American value. But, because, someone chooses not to believe does not give that person the right to rewrite American History.

kingsjester on May 17, 2011 at 12:16 PM

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Freedom is the God given right of all people. I guess if someone wants to interpret “their Creator” as their parents, so be it. But I think to suggest that the Founders were anti-religion because they didn’t want it wrapped up with the government, especially a specific one, is more than a bit of a stretch.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 12:17 PM

The right not to be a Christian is certainly an American value. But, because, someone chooses not to believe does not give that person the right to rewrite American History.

kingsjester on May 17, 2011 at 12:16 PM

I think you’re both cherry-picking blowhards. But whatevs. That’s just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Freedom is the God given right of all people. I guess if someone wants to interpret “their Creator” as their parents, so be it. But I think to suggest that the Founders were anti-religion because they didn’t want it wrapped up with the government, especially a specific one, is more than a bit of a stretch.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 12:17 PM

The founders were a diverse lot. Though most of them did believe in “God” after some fashion, that’s largely where the agreement ended. I prefer not to think of them so much as anti-religion as pro-freedom. I’m all for moral questions being handled by states and municipalities as much as possible.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 12:21 PM

Sure. Kleenex?

kingsjester on May 17, 2011 at 12:12 PM

No thanks. I’ll console myself by making graven images of your god, communing with other gods, taking your god’s name in vein, trashing the sabbath, committing adultery, coveting and all the other things that are legal in this country. You know, all of those things that I’m free to do because our founders did not design this to be a Christian nation.

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 12:23 PM

No thanks. I’ll console myself by making graven images of your god, communing with other gods, taking your god’s name in vein, trashing the sabbath, committing adultery, coveting and all the other things that are legal in this country. You know, all of those things that I’m free to do because our founders did not design this to be a Christian nation.

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 12:23 PM

Committing adultery and trashing the sabbath are illegal in some jurisdictions. Ain’t local virtue and national freedom grand? ;-)

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 12:24 PM

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Excuse me? Did I demean you in some way by defending my faith and quoting the Founding Fathers? If I did, I certainly apologize.

kingsjester on May 17, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 12:17 PM

Oh, I’m quite certain that Jefferson meant a Christian god when he wrote the DoI. I think that he was wrong on that score and I think he could have lived quite happily knowing I did if we were contemproaries :-)

I don’t say that the founders were anti-religions. To the contrary, they considered religious freedom to be so important that the very first right they specified was that government must stay the hell out of it!

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 12:26 PM

Excuse me? Did I demean you in some way by defending my faith and quoting the Founding Fathers? If I did, I certainly apologize.

kingsjester on May 17, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Not at all. I share your Christian faith, in fact. I don’t engage in convenience logic.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 12:26 PM

Not at all. I share your Christian faith, in fact. I don’t engage in convenience logic.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 12:26 PM

What convenience logic?

kingsjester on May 17, 2011 at 12:28 PM

I don’t say that the founders were anti-religions. To the contrary, they considered religious freedom to be so important that the very first right they specified was that government congress at the federal level must stay the hell out of it!

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 12:26 PM

By way of clarification there, MJ. The 1st amendment did not (and does not) preclude government intervention of any sort at the state level, though all 50 states have religious freedom clauses of some sort in their respective constitutions as well, now. It wasn’t always so.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 12:28 PM

What convenience logic?

kingsjester on May 17, 2011 at 12:28 PM

Convenience logic = it’s easy for me to tear down Christians because I am not one.

But I am a Christian. Oh gawd…I’m losing my train of thought here. It’s still too early in the day for this.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 12:30 PM

No, I wasn’t accusing anyone else of convenience logic. I just meant that I don’t want people to think that I engage in it, myself.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 12:30 PM

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 12:28 PM

That changed with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The 14th gave us the legal doctrine of incorporation. It made explicit what was already in effect (IMHO), that the BoR applied to the states. That is why, for example, state police need a warrant to search your home. In fact, that is the basis for the Heller decision which struck down the state and local laws against gun ownership.

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 12:32 PM

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Oh, okay. When you get a chance, allow me to recommend wallbuilders.com. There is a lot of interesting information there.

kingsjester on May 17, 2011 at 12:33 PM

That changed with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The 14th gave us the legal doctrine of incorporation. It made explicit what was already in effect (IMHO), that the BoR applied to the states. That is why, for example, state police need a warrant to search your home. In fact, that is the basis for the Heller decision which struck down the state and local laws against gun ownership.

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Not only does the 14th amendment say nothing explicit about “incorporation,” but I believe the plain text of the 14th directly violates the intend of the founding fathers in drawing up the Bill of Rights in the first place. But please don’t make me explain myself. It will take too long, and I have to go in a few minutes.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 12:35 PM

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 12:35 PM

The doctrine is derived from the language in the 14th. Read Heller for a good discussion.

That said, can state cops search your home without a warrant? If not, please explain why the 5th applies to the state but not the 1st.

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 12:41 PM

The doctrine is derived from the language in the 14th. Read Heller for a good discussion.

That said, can state cops search your home without a warrant? If not, please explain why the 5th applies to the state but not the 1st.

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Derived from = an interpretation legislated by the courts

The fifth amendment says nothing about “congress.” The first amendment specifically does. There ya go. Gotta jet.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 12:45 PM

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 12:45 PM

LMFAO! So, in your mind since the 1st doesn’t apply to the states, the state can deny you the right to assemble, petition, and speak freely?

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 12:48 PM

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 12:45 PM

And here is a little background for ya:

Incorporation doctrine

Definition: The precedent, first clearly articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad v. Chicago (1897) and firmly established in Gitlow v. New York (1925), that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Bill of Rights applicable to state law as well as federal law.

Until the incorporation doctrine was adopted, the Bill of Rights applied only to federal law. State law was regulated by the individual state bills of rights, found in each state constitution, but the federal court system’s power to strike down oppressive state laws was almost nonexistent.

It is beyond me how anyone in this country with a GED or better couldn’t know this. So much for our schools.

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 12:52 PM

I don’t say that the founders were anti-religions. To the contrary, they considered religious freedom to be so important that the very first right they specified was that government must stay the hell out of it!

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 12:26 PM

See, you are capable of making your point without insulting others. As gryphon202 pointed out, in the early days, some states did have a particular religion that they considered the established state religion. I don’t know enough about the individual states’ history to know if they in any way discriminated against those not of the established denomination. I believe that was the subject of Jefferson’s letter to the Baptists when the infamous “separation of church and state” remark was made to forever be used out of context.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 1:05 PM

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Yes, it is amazing that a country where a good portion of the students don’t know that George Washington was our first president wouldn’t be aware of Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad v. Chicago (1897)and Gitlow v. New York (1925). Besides, regardless of these rulings (and I’m taking your word for them) it doesn’t erase early history.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Using tax dollars to fund a church or other religious purpose is a form of discrimination. While Jefferson used the “separation” phrase in that letter, the concept was widely accepted among our founders.

I just looked it up and saw that TJ’s letter was written in 1801. So almost a century prior to the “doctrine of incorporation” was formulated by the SCOTUS, and over 50 years prior to the 14th Amendment being ratified, President TJ insisted that the 1st Amendment be applied to the state of CT.

The BoR does not contain the phrase “separation of church and state” but the doctrine was firmly established from our founding.

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Very good. I was referring, of course to the lack of knowledge about the doctrine of incorporation and not the legal precedents which brought it about.

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 1:31 PM

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 1:30 PM

It’s not that I don’t agree with you about the established policy but your assertion that the Founders were not Christians or religious. Everything these men wrote and did would indicate that they were both. And on top of that, I think you say these things just to be annoy people. Which is fine, whatever floats your boat, but it detracts from the rest of your valid points. Oh, and I don’t even think churches should get tax exemptions unless they can prove an offsetting use of funds to help people off of the government dole.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 1:36 PM

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Again, people who read at a third grade level and can’t balance a check book and don’t contribute to the tax base……. It has more to do with our current state then almost any other problems.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 1:38 PM

It’s not that I don’t agree with you about the established policy but your assertion that the Founders were not Christians or religious. Everything these men wrote and did would indicate that they were both. And on top of that, I think you say these things just to be annoy people. Which is fine, whatever floats your boat, but it detracts from the rest of your valid points. Oh, and I don’t even think churches should get tax exemptions unless they can prove an offsetting use of funds to help people off of the government dole.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Our founders (mostly) were Christians and religious! I never said otherwise. Sorry, but you’re making that stuff up about me. But hey, if that floats your boat …

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 1:39 PM

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 1:39 PM

I’m not making things up. I am going from “MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 11:40 AM”. I may be misunderstanding you, that’s always a possibility on blogs but I am not intentionally misrepresenting you.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 1:45 PM

TJ and Doctrines? My that sounds so like…well,..yep, church talk.

Don L on May 17, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Nothing I said there implies that they were not religious or Christian. Can you read? I said that they were wise enough to not allow their’s or anyone else’s religion to be the law in our country.

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 1:53 PM

This is the part that I found perplexing.
I seem to recall our founders ensuring that most of the Judeo Christian commandments could never become the law in this country and those that were being ones that any society would Christian or otherwise would need to maintain public order.

So many of our laws (not the Bill of Rights) are based on the commandments that it is hard to square this statement. Can I read? Sure. Can I misunderstand? Yes I can. Are you rude? Absolutely. The whole tenor of your remarks indicate that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is a stupid moron. Excellent way to be ignored.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Well those quotes didn’t work out.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 2:11 PM

So let’s review this little tiff.

1. I make some remarks about how our founders wanted to ensure that their religion or anyone else’s should be prevented from becoming law.
2. You tell me that I claimed they were not Christian or religious.

And presto, Brutus is a bad guy for asking if you can read. Fine with me.

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 2:16 PM

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Oh, stop being a victim.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Yes, heaven forbid Krauthammer live in the fantasy world with those who don’t laugh when talking about Palin, Bachmann, or O’Donnell as serious politicians.

TheBlueSite on May 17, 2011 at 1:41 AM

SO! I guess you were ABSENT when all of the votes were counted from the 2010 elections, and you thus missed ALL of the reports ecplaining about how Sarah Palin had created so many wins in those races, eh? I’ll bet you also do NOT know that 2010 was a HISTORIC WIN for We The People when the 0bama candidates were ‘shellacked’.

IMHO, that is about as serious a person can be, politically. ;o)

DannoJyd on May 17, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Via Fox News Insider, I’m posting this mainly to give the Palin, O’Donnell, and Rush fans in the comments a chance to say “look who’s talking.”

OK. I’ll play:

Krauthammer on Palin: This is a capital offense against the 11th Commandment

Now, would anyone like to give us a list of the ‘talking heads’ that would NOT jump on the bandwagon if given a chance to skewer Sarah? IMHO, there isn’t one that is conservative enough to give such a chance a pass. :o)

DannoJyd on May 17, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Funny thing, but I seem to recall the Pilgrims and a great many other immigrants coming here to escape Christian government.

Your recollection is faulty. Pilgrims were Puritan Christians who left Europe after being persecuted by the ruling class because they wouldn’t give up their pure doctrine for a secularized version of the Christian faith.

Thanksgiving was to God for the providence he showed them (read the accounts of Squanto and the declarations of William Bradford).

I seem to recall our revolution being against Christian government. I seem to recall the very first words of our Bill of Rights declaring that we won’t allow a Christian government here. I seem to recall our founders ensuring that most of the Judeo Christian commandments could never become the law in this country and those that were being ones that any society would Christian or otherwise would need to maintain public order.

The Puritan faith, practiced by the Pilgrims, became engrained in American society through private property law. After attempting a socialized society (and nearly starving to death in winter), the community switched to private property and succeeded beyond their dreams. After that year of harvest, Thanksgiving was given to God.

Private property rights are based on Commandments #8 (Shall not steal) and #10 (Shall not covet).

In addition, I’m pretty sure we have laws dealing with murder (#6), adultery/divorce (#7) and giving false testimony (#9).

Exodus 20

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 11:40 AM

“It’s not that liberals don’t know much… its just that so much of what they ‘know’ isn’t true.”

dominigan on May 17, 2011 at 3:47 PM

kingsjester on May 17, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Oh please. This is why didn’t want to see this thread hijacked with garbage like that.

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 12:10 PM

I think this speaks volumes of where you stand on issues, your view of the founding of our country, and your integrity (lacking).

If you don’t want your errant views corrected by factual historic quotes, stop threadjacking topics by posting them. You might try learning from others, instead of discounting historical facts as “garbage”.

dominigan on May 17, 2011 at 4:00 PM

dominigan on May 17, 2011 at 3:47 PM

A cornucopia of fallacies. You seem to believe that any more that is consistent with modern day Christianity must be the result of Christianity. Consider your property rights example. Under the Christian rule, prior to King John, property rights were not what they came to be. The King ruled and people held property at his pleasure. It was after his lords revolted and forced Magna Carta on him that for the privileged lords property rights came in to being. Christianity was a hindrance, not a motivator for these rights you boast of.

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 4:40 PM

It is beyond me how anyone in this country with a GED or better couldn’t know this. So much for our schools.

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 12:52 PM

“The incorporation doctrine” is based on a court ruling, not a constitutional amendment. Just like “judicial review” comes from a court ruling, and has little to nothing to do with the text of the actual constitution. Anyhow, I think we’re just arguing minutiae. Understanding the constitution should require one to read the constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 4:53 PM

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 4:53 PM

I am a strict constructionist. However, it cannot be denied that the language of the Constitution is often vague and open to interpretation. I’m not going to argue Madison v Marbury with you aside form simply stating that over 200 years of tradition have established it as the law of our land. The doctrine of incorporation is an example of such interpretation.

But I put it to you, is a state allowed to search your home without a warrant (assuming the state Constitution lacks the 5th Amendment provisions)? If not, why not?

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 5:02 PM

5th 4th Amendment provisions protections

Fixed.

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 5:33 PM

But I put it to you, is a state allowed to search your home without a warrant (assuming the state Constitution lacks the 5th Amendment provisions)? If not, why not?

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 5:02 PM

The fifth amendment reads:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Now where in that wording, being the strict constructionist that you are, does it suggest that those restrictions apply only to the federal government?

As opposed to:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Which does not mention “the people,” but specifically restrains congress from certain courses of action.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 6:46 PM

Or even if you want to talk about the fourth:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It is not a reference to “Congress,” but to “the people.” That is the distinction I would draw in litigating these matters were I a lawyer.

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 6:48 PM

gryphon202 on May 17, 2011 at 6:48 PM

Oy vey. OK, have it your way. What protection do you have from a state deciding that you cannot peaceably assemble?

MJBrutus on May 17, 2011 at 7:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3