A "Fuming" John Kerry

Folks, I am missing something here.

This is the quote of Tom DeLay's words, given us by Joe Nation, which Foxfyre claims is misleading.

Quote:

When Tom DeLay was asked in a recent interview in the Washington Times who is to blame for "activist judges" he replied

"I blame Congress over the last fifty years to a hundred years for not standing up and taking it's responsiblity given to it by the Constitution. The reason the judiciary has been able to impose a separation of church and state is the Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had judical review is because Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them."

[/b] [/color]

Here is the version that Foxfyre says changes things:

Quote:

DeLay: Look, I'm for an independent judiciary. I don't know where they get this. When you attack the left's legislative body, they get really upset. But I'm for an independent judiciary. I'm for an independent Congress. I'm for an independent executive. But the Constitution of the United States gives us responsibility for oversight and checks and balances over the executive as well as the judiciary. And we all know that this judiciary is extremely active. I have asked the Judiciary Committee to look at it and give recommendations as to what we ought to do. Read the book Men in Black.
Mr. Dinan: You've been talking about going after activist judges since at least 1997. The [Terri] Schiavo case gives you a chance to do that, but you've recently said you blame Congress for not being zealous in oversight.
Mr. DeLay: Not zealous. I blame Congress over the last 50 to 100 years for not standing up and taking its responsibility given to it by the Constitution. The reason the judiciary has been able to impose a separation of church and state that's nowhere in the Constitution is that Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had judicial review is because Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them. [/color]

Does anyone see where Joe Nation misquoted DeLay? Does anyone see where the black printed words changes what is printed in blue?

I don't. If anyone does, please explain.

0 Replies

The phrase "that's nowhere in the Constiution' was omitted from the version Joe posted, and it is a key phrase and is critical to the meaning of Delay's remarks. If he intended that phrase to apply to all three statements, it completely changes the way he is being characterized by the leftish media. Conclusion re his probable intent also have to include the previous related comments.

You still could very well disagree with him. But he is being hung for the wrong crime.

0 Replies

Okay, Joe ommitted the prase "that's nowhere in the Constitution" while getting the rest of the quote correct.

I'm sure it was an accident, but whatever.

I don't see how that materially changes the meaning of DeLay's remarks.

I do not recall anyone saying that the "separation of church and state" is actually written in the Constitution.

However, a strong case can be made that it clearly is implied in the Consititution. And that is where the debate is.

If you don't think that implication is important, consider the following situation.

You are the supervisor of a department in a company. You made a promise to another supervisor that you would lend him two employees to help him on a project.

You come back from lunch at 1:00 to see the following memo from the company president:

Due to unforeseen circumstances, all departments are to undertake an inventory of stock this afternoon and have the results on my desk by 5:00."

You know that if the inventory goes smoothly, and if all your department's employees participate and get it right, it takes 3 hours. That is is if everything goes smoothly.

Suddenly, the supervisor from the other department shows up and wants the two employees you promised him. His department has little stock, so the inventory only takes 45 minutes, which leaves plenty of time to resume the project he needed your employees for.

You mention that now the two employees are required to complete the inventory, but he insists that you are breaking your promise.

You correctly reply that you have the directive from the company president, and a realistic effort to comply with that memo requires the two employees in question to start inventory immediately.

Nowhere in the memo does it say for you to NOT send the employees over to the other department for the afternoon. But to properly make an effort to comply with the directive, that is what you have to do-not send them over.

So I think it is fair to say, and indeed most people would say, that the president's memo essentially means you cannot send over the employees, even if you want to. Despite your previous promise.

So for DeLay to say that the wall of separation of church and state is "nowhere in the Constitution" is merely Mr DeLay's opinion. If he wishes to say that "nowhere is it specifically written in the Constitution" then he wouald be accurate. However, something can be in the Consititution if it is strongly implied, just as the order from the company president essentially said that you cannot send over the two employees to the other department.

As I stated previously, no less a figure than Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration Of Independence, (surely to be considered a precursor to the Constitituiton), opined that the wall of separation of church and state clearly IS implied in the Constitution.

And with all respect, I would certainly take his word over DeLay's on the matter. Very Happy

Thomas Jefferson on Jan 1, 1801, (boldface mine):
"..... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

0 Replies

Jefferson used the phrase 'Wall of Separation" one time in one letter to the Danbury Baptists and used it as assurance to THEM that that Constitution assured THEM that the Constitution forbade the government to interfere with them, their faith, or their practices.

The term 'wall of separation' did not become a matter of controversy or an ideological 'club' until Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black used it in his opinion in Everson v Board of Education (1947) which was a school transportation case. The phrase has been utilized in recent years in a way that seems to provide freedom from religion while restricting freedom of religion.

Now this has been debated ad nauseum in other forums on A2K and it is a reasonable topic for debate and there can be reasonable differences of opinion. But if you cannot see my point re tarring Delay with certainty based on a few phrases that are not supported by the rest of his commentary and are not supported by other comments he has made, then I have to believe you just don't want to.

0 Replies

Update: Yeah, when I typed the quote of the interview from the New Yorker , I goofed, I missed the Constituiton phrase. Unintentional.

But for you folks who are wondering if anyone can infer anything:
Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:

Just so we are clear: we poor souls cannot infer anything in particular about what he is saying without knowing everything he has had to say about the subject, Foxfyre, however, is able to suspect where and how Mr. Delay will add a phrase and carry on from there.

So, we, unable to know, she, able to suspect, infer, swing, swirl, dodge until we exhaust ourselves.

Cheers.

Joe(I suspect she will say I refuse to understand, but she is pointing at a mirror.)Nation

0 Replies

So Joe, all seeing and wise one, our fearless leader, please elaborate on your rationale for how my 'suspicion' is 'inferring, swinging, swirling, dodging, etc.' while you seemingly have such profound absolute certainty of Mr. Delay's intent?

0 Replies

Did I say that? I was inferring that one may infer what the meaning, motive and various other subtexts are in a statement without making sure that the tees are crossed at exactly ninety degree angles, rather like a suspicion but more like a speculation. Or, as in the case of Mr. DeLay's utterance quoted above, neither suspicion nor speculation is necessary, his intent is patently clear.

Isn't it?

Joe( I sure he wanted it to be clear, I think he succeeded.)Nation

0 Replies

BM

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Jefferson used the phrase 'Wall of Separation" one time in one letter to the Danbury Baptists and used it as assurance to THEM that that Constitution assured THEM that the Constitution forbade the government to interfere with them, their faith, or their practices.

Err, are you trying to say that Jefferson felt there was a wall of separation only between the Baptist church and state, but not other churches? If not, why do you empahsize that Jeffrson's letter was to the Baptists, as if they are different from Methodists, Episcopalians, or anyone else? I fail to see your point in saying that Jefferson meant the wall existed only to THEM-clearly, Jefferson felt the wall applied to all churches.

Foxfyre wrote:

Jefferson used the phrase 'Wall of Separation" one time in one letter to the Danbury Baptists....

So what? He used it, didn't he?

Whether Jefferson said it one time or a hundred times, it does not matter. Jefferson said it, and he clearly meant it. And since Jefferson is considered the author of the Declaration of Independence-certainly to be considered a precursor the the Constitution-that means a great deal indeed.

Foxfyre wrote:

The term 'wall of separation' did not become a matter of controversy or an ideological 'club' until Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black used it in his opinion in Everson v Board of Education (1947) which was a school transportation case.

Once again, so what? Justice Black decided the case a certain way, and he used Jefferson's phrase, with all the weight such a source deserves. What is so bad about that?

Foxfyre wrote:

The phrase has been utilized in recent years in a way that seems to provide freedom from religion while restricting freedom of religion.

So now we come down to the nitty-gritty. You don't like the way Everson was decided in 1947, so you have to invent some way that Jefferson's phrase is being misused. Well, I don't see any evidence on your part that the phrase is being misused, other than the fact it was used in a Supreme Court opinion which gave a result opposite to what you would have wished.

Jefferson said it, there is no evidence he did not mean it, and Black was right to quote it.

Foxfyre wrote:

But if you cannot see my point re tarring Delay with certainty based on a few phrases that are not supported by the rest of his commentary and are not supported by other comments he has made, then I have to believe you just don't want to.

Other comments such as what?

Nobody has argued that the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" is actually written in the Consititution-so why does Joe's accidental ommission of DeLay saying that it "was nowhere in the Constitution" change DeLay's main thrust-that we should totally revamp the way we do things in the US governemnt going back to 1803. 1803!!!

And exactly how do those phrases DeLay muttered about believing in an independent legislature and an independent judiciary change the fact that DeLay has openly called for rearranging the way the American government has functioned since 1803?

As I stated in a previous post, including the whole quote does not change a single thing from the partial quote Joe gave. If you think it does, please show me where. Very Happy

0 Replies

Joe writes

Quote:

Or, as in the case of Mr. DeLay's utterance quoted above, neither suspicion nor speculation is necessary, his intent is patently clear.

Isn't it?

Not to me. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

0 Replies

Joe writes

Joe Nation wrote:

Or, as in the case of Mr. DeLay's utterance quoted above, neither suspicion nor speculation is necessary, his intent is patently clear.

Isn't it?

Foxfyre wrote:

Not to me. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

Well, it is clear to me that Tom DeLay thinks Congress should have prevented the "wall of separation of church and state", and that Congress should have prevented judicial review, (which dates from 1803). And since he is the second in command in Congress, Those statements certainly raise the issue about whether he intends to get congress to reverse those things. If he does intend to do so, DeLay is proposing a radical restructuring in the way the three branches work since 1803.

That's radical!

0 Replies

KW writes

Quote:

Err, are you trying to say that Jefferson felt there was a wall of separation only between the Baptist church and state, but not other churches? If not, why do you empahsize that Jeffrson's letter was to the Baptists, as if they are different from Methodists, Episcopalians, or anyone else? I fail to see your point in saying that Jefferson meant the wall existed only to THEM-clearly, Jefferson felt the wall applied to all churches.

No, no. I think his letter was a personal letter to the Danbury Baptists prompted by a query from them. But that is where the much touted "wall of separation" appears in Jefferson's papers and it is the only place in which that phrase appears. There is no reason to think that Jefferson did not apply that same principle to everybody however.

Quote:

Whether Jefferson said it one time or a hundred times, it does not matter. Jefferson said it, and he clearly meant it. And since Jefferson is considered the author of the Declaration of Independence-certainly to be considered a precursor the the Constitution-that means a great deal indeed.

Jefferson used the phrase to assure the Danbury Baptists that the federal government would do nothing to interfere with them or their beliefs. In my opinion, the phrase has been taken out of context and used by anti-religionists as a club in the debate over the proper place of religious symbols and expression in the public life.

Quote:

Justice Black decided the case a certain way, and he used Jefferson's phrase, with all the weight such a source deserves. What is so bad about that?

There is nothing bad about it necessarily, though it was one of the earliest examples of judicial activism in matters of religion. It is how some use the phrase dishonestly to further their own agenda is what is bad.

Quote:

So now we come down to the nitty-gritty. You don't like the way Everson was decided in 1947, so you have to invent some way that Jefferson's phrase is being misused. Well, I don't see any evidence on your part that the phrase is being misused, other than the fact it was used in a Supreme Court opinion which gave a result opposite to what you would have wished.

Jefferson said it, there is no evidence he did not mean it, and Black was right to quote it.

I believe Black used it in a way entirely different from the way Jefferson meant it. And I believe many since then have quoted it in tbe way Black meant it but attribute the intent to Jefferson. There is plenty of room to honestly debate the proper role of government in respect to religion, but it would be more constructive if honest criteria was used

Quote:

Other comments such as what?

The comments I have made to illustrate the uncertainty of Delay's intent when he made his comments.

Quote:

Nobody has argued that the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" is actually written in the Consititution-so why does Joe's accidental ommission of DeLay saying that it "was nowhere in the Constitution" change DeLay's main thrust-that we should totally revamp the way we do things in the US governemnt going back to 1803. 1803!!!

And exactly how do those phrases DeLay muttered about believing in an independent legislature and an independent judiciary change the fact that DeLay has openly called for rearranging the way the American government has functioned since 1803?

Do you cut the people you support this little slack? I have to wonder how one can be so certain of the intent of a couple of short phrases inserted into a lengthy discussion unless those phrases are considered within the entire scope of the person's whole discussion, and evermoreso within the context of the person's consistent statements on a subject. I don't know for sure what he meant, given the context, and I think anybody not rushing to judgment might easily be able to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Quote:

As I stated in a previous post, including the whole quote does not change a single thing from the partial quote Joe gave. If you think it does, please show me where.

And having heard Delay argue these points in detail on more than one occasion, I think it makes a huge difference because I know he is a strict constructionist and I think that was the whole point of the omitted phrase.

Again I am no apologist for Tom Delay. He almost certainly is guilty of some ethics violations though the jury is still out on whether his infractions are any worse than anybody else's. I disagree with him on a number of points. But I am firmly convinced he has no intent to strip anyone of their rights and zero intent to overturn one word of the Constitution, and zero intent to install any kind of theocracy.

Again if you intend to hang him, at least hang him for a crime he commits.

0 Replies

Quote:

But I am firmly convinced he has no intent to strip anyone of their rights and zero intent to overturn one word of the Constitution, and zero intent to install any kind of theocracy.

Then you haven't been watching very closely. The rest of us are watching our right to privacy, (hey, that's not in the Constitution.), the respect of the independent judiciary,(You know what? It doesn't say "independent judiciary" anywhere in the Constitution.) and the efforts on the part of the Republican right wing (is there a center of that party anymore?) to dismantle the government machinery which provides the people with some protection from the powerful.

Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, Welfare (Well, it does say 'provide for the general welfare' but maybe that was a mis-print.), Public Broadcasting, support for the Arts, protection of the environment, health and safety rules in the workplace, Voting rights, even the First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly (you shoulda been in New York for the convention or tried to get near a Bush speech with a Kerry bumper sticker on your car.) all of these are under attack.

Don't kid yourself. It is the intention of people like George W. Bush and Tom DeLay to remove the impediments to power imposed by the Federal Government leaving the people to fend for themselves. To strip out every last program passed in the past seventy five years and return to the days in America when a man with enough money could do as he damned well pleased while the rest of us had to make do.

Compassionate Conservatism is an oxymoron of the nth degree. Passionate is more like it.

Joe(If I believed unAmerican was a word, they would define it.)Nation.

0 Replies

Foxfyre:

If you can dig up some quotes from DeLay that ameliorates the thrust of what he said in Joe's quote, I would be grateful. The additional material you included from that interview won't do it-it just doesn't change the gist of what Joe originally quoted.

Until then, I have to go with DeLay's statements quoted by Joe.

I will say this-some people on the Right, (everybody agrees DeLay is on the Right), go into great detail about how they feel Congress allowed the Supreme Court to institute judicial review. And also how the Bill Of Rights only applies to acts of Congress, not the state and local governments, (which might have been true up until the Fourteenth Amendment-not true since then).

If DeLay is going to make statements that agree with the political goals of people that want to wipe out judicial review, then he is going to be judged by those statements. He's politician enough to know the noises his own side is making in the political arena, and if he wants to go into some detail, as Joe quoted DeLay doing, about how Congress "let" the Supreme Court force judicial review on the nation, then we have to assume this powerful Congressman wouldn't mind reversing this-something he is in position to possibly bring about.

If DeLay is against the idea of judicial review, which this quote would certainly indicate he is, then he is against the way the Federal Government has fundamentally done things for all but the first 22 years of the Republic.

That is definitely a radical position.

0 Replies

By the way, Foxfyre,the only evidence you give that Jefferson's quote was misused seems to be citing a decision with which you disagree. That hardly cuts it as proof.

Nobody has argued that the "wall of separation" phrase is written in the consititution. However, Jefferson felt it was obvious that it was implied in the Constitition, and since Jefferson wrote the Consititution's precursor, the Declaration of Indepedence, and was involved in all these things in the early days of the Republic, that certainly is powerful evidence the "wall of separation" is implied by the Constitution.

0 Replies

Joe writes

Quote:

Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, Welfare (Well, it does say 'provide for the general welfare' but maybe that was a mis-print.),

Well if your copy of the Constitution says 'provide for the general welfare', it is definitely a misprint. Everybody else's copy of the Constititon says 'promote the common welfare'. Some of us can see how those two phrases are fundamentally different.

Quote:

It doesn't say "independent judiciary" anywhere in the Constitution.

I don't think it does in those specific words, but Article III does spell out the independence of the courts. And the Constitution does spell out Congress's responsibility to establish those courts along with a responsibility not for supervision but for oversight.

Quote:

Don't kid yourself. It is the intention of people like George W. Bush and Tom DeLay to remove the impediments to power imposed by the Federal Government leaving the people to fend for themselves. To strip out every last program passed in the past seventy five years and return to the days in America when a man with enough money could do as he damned well pleased while the rest of us had to make do.

Considering the president's bold efforts to redirect and secure social security before we are in the otherwise, inevitable crisis there, his medicare prescription drug plan, his faith based initiatives that give the government a much much better bang for its buck, etc., and the really conservative Republicans griping about the president's socialist tendencies, of course Joe wouldn't exaggerate in the least as to his intent even based on the facts that exist.

Okay Joe and KW, I will accept that you are firmly convinced of the rightness of your convictions and, if you are like most liberal types, once you decide to pass judgment on somebody, I could provide a hundred pages of quotes, comments, writings, etc. and it would not change your mind in the least. So I won't even try. Further I think it would be a futile exercise based on my personal belief that no mortal has power to look into the heart and soul of another person and devine the motive or intent of another person especially based on a couple of phrases in a lengthy interview. I will accept that you believe you do have such power. Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre:

It is clear to everyone, except maybe you, that DeLay wants to eliminate the wall that separates church and state. DeLay wants to eliminate judicial review. Delay wants to eliminate the right to privacy.

Why does he want to eliminate these fundamental concepts?

He wants the religious or moral right to have unlimited power to impose their views on others through the power of the state. He wants a pure democracy wherein the MOB rules and there is no rule of law to stop them from discriminating against and oppressing others. He advocates the TYRANNY OF THE MANY.

The only thing that stands in the way of the TYRANNY OF THE MANY is the wall that separates church and state, judicial review, and the right to privacy that is implicit in our notions of liberty.

DeLay justifies what he wants by claiming that the fundamental concepts that stand in his way cannot be found "word for word" in the Constitution . . . therefore these things do not exist.

In other words, he wants the people to believe that the Constitution is merely a collection of amorphous words without any substance. God forbid that the Constitution should stand in the way of the Tyranny of the Many. We can't have that!

Your argument that people are condemning DeLay without giving his comments the proper context is simply a red herring. We all KNOW what DeLay's agenda encompasses. His agenda is unacceptable regardless of how he expresses it.

You are mincing words, just like DeLay minces words, without looking at the substance of the position he is advocating.

0 Replies

Well if you say so Debra, it must be true. I am apparently the only person on the face of the earth unable to read minds and thus be certain of motive and intent. And as for the substance of his words, I'm just not hearing what some of the rest of you are hearing from him.

0 Replies

None of us are required to read DeLay's mind to understand his words.

You somehow think his words are given new meaning and dimension if we add the phrase "no where to be found in the Constitution" to all the things he advocates against. His illusory justifications for his agenda in no way changes his agenda.

0 Replies

He gave a fairly lengthy interview saying some very informative and reasonable things throughout. Then near the end, he utters three sentences, each with various possibilities of interpretation, and that seem to put the anti-Delay troops into apoplexic glee - he is nailed! Exposed! Condemned!

It is my opinion that the entire lot of the anti-Delay people have no clue what he actually meant any more than I do, but will read into the remarks the intent they wish for him to have.

I won't do that on purpose. Generally. At least most of the time. To anybody.

0 Replies

A "Fuming" John Kerry

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know