Red/Blue Talkfest

Hugh Hewitt was at a symposium today, held at the Museum of Television and Radio Media Center in New York City. Hugh was invited to participate in this roundtable of MSM "heavyweights," and it's subject was simple on the outside:

The Increasing Blending of News and Views.

There were a number of topics discussed, including bloggers and the blogosphere (a likely reason why both Hugh and Jeff Jarvis were invited to participate). But tomorrow, Hugh is going to join the following people at the Bradley Foundation for a roundtable entitled: "What's The Big Idea? True Blue vs. Deep Red: The Ideas That Move American Politics."

Michael Barone, U.S. News and World Report
David Brooks, The New York Times
Tammy Bruce, "Tammy Bruce Show"
Francis Fukuyama, The Johns Hopkins University
Robert George, Princeton
Tamar Jacoby, Manhattan Institute
William Kristol, Weekly Standard
Charles Murray, American Enterprise Institute
Shelby Steele, Hoover Institution

Like today, he will be on a panel of heavy-hitters; for those unfamiliar with a couple names on that list, trust me when I say that these people are amongst the elite when it comes to "ideas that move American politics." Hugh points out that, overall, the get-together will probably have question sessions much like today's symposium he attended. But, he offers this as the underlying theme for this discussion:

I think this question will come down to the war and the Constitution: Should the former be won and should the later operate as it was intended to.

If I may begin to answer those important questions ....

Question #1: Should the war be won? Of course. We have committed troops to battle an enemy who is dead-set on killing us. To think that we can negotiate such a bloodthirsty, cruel, and calculating enemy is a fool's notion, at this point. (For an example of a "fool," see this post, and read what John Kerry thinks we need to do in Iraq.) To walk away from the enemy we're fighting--to call no-joy--and walk away from the responsibility at this point in history is not simply detrimental. It's assured suicide. The ultimate form of dhimmitude. We already have enough people screaming that we should do exactly that; they are the people who want the power back. Can we trust them, when they preach their mantras, to maintain the same sort of effort that we have undertaken? Think about that.

--NSA surveillance has been a tool in the efforts of the war on terror, and it's been successful. If it weren't, we would've been hit again, already. But we haven't. The same peopl I'm referring to have thrown the biggest hissy fit over this program.

--Mainstream people in their party--John Kerry, John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, and even "Slow" Joe Biden--hav called for a "redeployment" of our troops. In other words, retreat back to Kuwait, and watch as Iraq caves in on itself between terrorists running rampant, and a civil war erupting. Three free and fair elections; a full, recognized, and working parliament; a rapidly growing--active and participating--military. These are seen as failures in the war on terror. Our side looks at this as success, and we're preparing to begin a draw down of troops (right on time, I might add). We know the job is almost down, and their side is screaming it's still a quagmire.

--Guantanomo Bay has become a pawn in this game being played, and it shouldn't be. Nor should it be closed down. I'd rather have the worst of the lot down there than in the United States. (We should remember that they did attempt to ambush and kill soldiers guarding them at Gitmo; they haven't given up their jihad.) Do those who are seeing this war as a failure, and calling for Gitmo's closure, really think that mom-and-pop America want to hear that those people are being transferred up here? Or, are they advocating that we simply release these people so they can join the free-for-all in Iraq that will occur if they gain power back?

That's just the tip of the iceberg regarding whether we should win this war, and which side has the better view as to what has to be done. But to answer that first question, again, yes we should win this war. But to those in charge, I'm calling for more effort to curtail some of the insane things that have happened. The leaks coming from within our intelligence agencies is a problem that must be dealt with, and very quickly.

Question #2: Should the Constitution operate as it was intended to do? LOL. As a "lay scholar" in the Constitution, our readers know that I'm not happy with the way the federal courts and the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution. One of my biggest gripes lies not in its interpretation, but what is outright ignored. That would be the Tenth Amendment, which allows the states to make laws to govern their citizens provided it is not covered in the Constitution. (That means if Uncle Sam has his hands on the issue already, the states can't make a law that trumps that issue. Case in point Gonzales v. Raich). It is one of the most important amendments in the Constitution. Roe, Griswold, and Lawrence, all dealt with whether a state could make laws to govern their citizens. They created laws to deal with abortion, contraceptives, and sodomy (respectively), and those laws were struck down by the Supreme Court for being "unconstitutional;" a series of mental gymnastics located such issues within the confines of the Constitution.

(In all my years of direct study of the Constitution, and the precedent created through the courts surrounding it, I have yet to locate ANY of those issues there, or in any other reference source that I use. It's not in any personal papers I've read from among the Framers. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist don't speak of them. So, I have to question whether or not the justices on the court were wearing their glasses correctly that day.)

But the Tenth Amendment isn't our only problem within the interpretations of the Constitution. In McConnell v. FCC, the Supreme Court chiseled away at our free speech rights by not striking down the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform legislation. They refused to rule on the Pledge issue, instead choosing to dismiss the case on a technicality (Michael Newdow can't represent his daughter in court because he's not the custodial guardian). Stenberg gave people fits when the Supreme Court ruled that partial-birth abortion was "constitutionally protected." (And believe me, if you don't call it murder, don't e-mail me; the procedure is disgusting, and I do call it murder. The technicality of a "first breath" is irrelevant. The child is alive, and can feel the pain of the procedure.) In Atkins v. Virginia the court ruled on a death penalty case solely on their personal preferences rather than jurisprudence.

You ask me if the Constitution should operate as it was intended to be, and I answer with a loud and resounding HELL YES! Part of the problems with the courts' interprestations of the cases before them comes from not understanding the Constitution as it was written, but rather as today's society wished it were written. That isn't an option when a case lands in a judge's lap. If it's not there, if no precedent supports the challenge, then the answer is clear. But to many judges on the federal bench, they feel like it falls to them to correct "perceived" mistakes and "injustices."

That's not how it works. And the jurists should know better. I'm not a lawyer, by trade. I have had little legal training at all. But for twenty years I have studied the Constitution, and there are times where I think I can interpret the Constitution better than a couple justices on the Supreme Court. (Want a dark horse, Mr. President? I'm available ... just kidding.)

Both of these issues are "heavy," and will likely drive an interesting debate for anyone there. Sure Hugh knows these people, and they all know one another. But this get-together tomorrow (Thursday, 24 May) would almost be like watching a think-tank session of some of the best and brightest amongst commentators and analysts in the political field.

Makes me jealous that I won't be there to see it.

Publius II