George Will tells us that candidate nobody is not to be underestimated in this year’s election. The article is a profile of a candidate who may unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, but the point to take from it is that this is the time for “candidate nobody.” Or as I might call it, “candidate zero.”
With the growth of the Tea Party and disarray of the established parties, along with the promotion and communication advantages of the internet, this is the time for grassroot candidates who understand that deficit spending, bailouts, and the erosion (or the jackhammering, bulldozing, and wrecking-balling from the last couple of years) of individual rights and representative government need to stop.
I guess I was on to something when I announced my campaign:
Much has been said about experience this election season. But aren’t you sick of experienced politicians? I am. I am tired of people who have been bought and sold, who owe favors for favors received, who have been sullied by the process of rising through the political ranks, and who have compromised their values while violating individual rights at every turn. I don’t want leaders with a lot of political experience. I’ll trust an honest person with an honest job before an “experienced politician” any day of the week.
So here I am, an absolutely inexperienced politician, starting his campaign and public life at zero; zero political experience, zero financial backing, zero recognition…This will be an internet experiment to see if an honest and intelligent person can come out of nowhere and compete with established politicians on the national stage.
Unalienable, Take Two
I previously posted about something Charles Johnson said that had me worrying that he thought individual rights are granted by government, rather than being unalienable. Unfortunately, a recent post of his about the Kagan hearings exacerbates that concern.
Let’s watch the subject of his post first, shall we, before looking at Johnson’s comments.
The video starts with a question by Sen. Grassley where he asks, “do you believe the 2nd Amendment codified a pre-existing right, or was it a right created by the constitution?” This is an excellent question to ask a nominee to the Supreme Court to see what they think about natural rights versus legal positivism. Does Kagan think we have unalienable natural rights, or do we have them at the discretion of the Constitution and the majority? Is the Declaration of Independence the founding document of the country that the Constitution relies on for moral support, or, being the law of the land, does the Constitution render the Declaration irrelevant?
What does Johnson have to say?
In his haste to disparage the right for it’s history with the religious right, Charles really misses the mark with this one. The point of the line of questioning eludes him and he ends up looking like the one who is confused.
Senator Grassley never confuses the Declaration with the Constitution at all in the video. He may not quote the Declaration very well (it’s “unalienable rights” not “individual rights”), but there is no mix up. In fact, Grassley takes the time to distinguish between the two.
Also, Grassely doesn’t say that the right to bear arms comes directly from God, nor is that the point of his questioning. Given the language of his first question, a direct quote from the Declaration is entirely appropriate to back it up, and it is clearly used to see what Kagan’s views on natural rights are. Does quoting from the deistic words of our Founding Fathers in the Declaration Independence, with its intentionally nebulous “Nature’s God / Creator,” make you a theocrat these days?
Grassley could have worded his question differently, as the natural right we have is to self-preservation in general, not to arms specifically. A better question would have been “do you believe we have a natural right to self-defense, or is it a legal right granted by the Constitution, and how does the 2nd Amendment relate?” The correct answer is yes, we do have a natural, pre-existing, and unalienable right to self-defense and the 2nd Amendment restricts our government from banning the common weapons we use to protect ourselves from others that wish to infringe upon our rights.
So what are Kagan’s views on natural rights? Tony Blankley has the answer at RealClearPolitics with a telling contrast of Abraham Lincoln’s thoughts on the matter.
Actually, to be picky, the enforcement of the Constitution and the laws is the job of the Executive Branch. Your job as a justice, Ms. Kagan, would be to determine if the laws of the land and the actions of its people are constitutional, based on your interpretation of the Constitution. And what better way to inform your interpretation of the Constitution than by studying it along side of the ideas and philosophy that made its possible and necessary?
Let’s go back to Blankley’s article for more on that philosophy (read the whole thing).
THIS!