Questions for Lindsey Graham
I have some questions for Senator Graham. When he explained his vote to confirm Elena Kagan, he again invoked the phrase that 'elections have consequences.' Question: Should those consequences include the annulment of the Constitution?
I know I haven't been the only one reminding Republicans not to go wobbly on the Kagan nomination, to no avail. The South Carolina Senator justified his shrug of the shoulders approach to Constitutional fidelity, saying:
[T]he Constitution, in my view, puts an obligation on me not to replace my judgment for [Obama's]...I view my duty as to protect the Judiciary and to ensure that hard-fought elections have meaning in our system.
Another question, Senator: When you ran for office, did you make speeches promising the good citizens of South Carolina that if elected, you would, "protect the Judiciary," and ensure that, "elections have meaning"?
When you took your oath of office, did you solemnly swear to uphold the meaning of elections? You see, Senator, your oath to uphold the Constitution trumps these other issues. Why, you ask?
In this instance, the president has nominated a person who can't even identify the unconstitutionality of Congress forcing American citizens to consume certain food products each day. It is therefore certain that she will rubber stamp ObamaCare, which will eventually lead to federal micro-management of the lives and deaths of our children and their children.
These people are waging a war on the very foundation of American jurisprudence. They take our earnings, they take our property, and now they propose to take over our bodies. Do you understand your oath to uphold the Constitution as one that renders you defenseless when it is under attack?
Senator, you say that you are not under an obligation to substitute your judgment for the president's. Why not? As a member of the JAG corps, your military oath of office requires you to obey the "lawful orders" of your superiors. This oath presupposes a level of discernment on your part to know the difference between a lawful and unlawful order. Why wouldn't your Senatorial oath presuppose a fidelity to the Constitution that would supersede blatantly unconstitutional acts of the president?
If Barack Obama and Elena Kagan have their way, future elections will have no meaning because enough permanent damage will have been done to render the Constitution meaningless. What will you say then, to the people who ask why, oh why, did you vote to send us down this awful road? Is this really the measure of your dedication to the principles of limited government and fidelity to Constitutional law? If so, wouldn't you agree with me that the people of South Carolina could do much better?
- Comment (4)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Questions for Lindsey Graham
Funny how all those Democrats didn't subscribe to the "elections have consequences" inanity when they did their best to destroy Robert Bork, a great man and a great scholar.
Re: Questions for Lindsey Graham
Perhaps one silver lining to Senator Graham's poor display of judgment, from the NYT:
Jun '10
Re: Questions for Lindsey Graham
Diane Ellis, Ed.: Perhaps one silver lining to Senator Graham's poor display of judgment, from the NYT:
Jul 22 at 12:51pm
Diane: If Durbin really means it, then he'll need to convince his former Illinois colleague to nominate Mr. Estrada again. I don't see that happening. If he doesn't, then Durbin's words represent little but smoke and mirrors.
May '10
Re: Questions for Lindsey Graham
Well said Dave. I agree completely!
Diane, if anyone believes little Dick Durbin or any Dem is going to act any differently towards the next Republican nominee they should learn the Charlie Brown/ Lucie lesson. They will pull the football away they always do!