Comments on: Chuck Baldwin: ‘Best’ candidate for ‘pro-traditional marriage’ voters; at odds with constitutional experts

By: G.E.

G.E. — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 03:27:43 +0000

So yeah, I’ll have to pass on Baldwin. He’s just too liberal for me!

By: G.E.

G.E. — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 03:26:38 +0000

Uh, the 5th amendment in no way applies to the states, Fred. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were to limit the FEDERAL government. You’re using a post-Lincoln constitutional argument. You’re already ceding to judicial and federal tyranny if you’re going to make a Bill of Rights argument for the federal government against the states.

By: Fred Church Ortiz

Fred Church Ortiz — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 03:23:50 +0000

Most who take the view that the Bill of Rights actually has rights in it would point to the 5th amendment’s due process clause. It’s also been put forward that the constitution’s use of terms like “citizen,” “inhabitant,” “persons,” create the practical necessity to define those terms. I remember the idea of simply removing the authority of the judiciary to judge abortion law was interesting, wasn’t that RP’s act (the one he wrote, not the one you mention)?

I don’t think I’ve ever seen an explicitly originalist argument for any of the above.

By: G.E.

G.E. — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 03:23:25 +0000

So the Constitution only matters to Rev. Baldwin when it’s convenient, then?

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 03:19:50 +0000

GE,

To be fair–your question is obvious. Baldwin is not a STRICT Constitutionalist. But one whose Christian and fundamentalist leanings obviously obscure his understanding of Constitutionalism on some key issues.

By: G.E.

G.E. — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:41:20 +0000

I accept the criticism and public rebuke of fellow senior correspondent, Trent Hill, for the way I wrote the article.

However, the question remains: Is Chuck Baldwin a constitutionalist?

Does he really believe that abortion can be regulated under the Commerce Clause, or is the Constitution irrelevent in the pro-life struggle?

By: G.E.

G.E. — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:17:52 +0000

Fair enough. I shall endeavor to do better.

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:13:04 +0000

GE,

Of course there is editorializing in asking such a loaded question. You could say, “Baldwin’s understanding of the constitution differs from Lew Rockwell’s in that…” but to state it the way you did obviously obscures the nuetrality of the article.

By: G.E.

G.E. — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:51:08 +0000

I think areas where candidates deviate from party platforms and/or the general philosophies they proport to espouse are relevant and newsworthy.

By: G.E.

G.E. — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:49:41 +0000

You mean the last paragraph of one sentence?

“Does Chuck Baldwin really believe that the Commerce Clause enables the federal government to regulate abortion?”

You really think that’s inappropriate?

Or the paragraph before it, where I point out the differences between actual constitutionalists and Chuck Baldwin’s positions… That’s not appropriate, Trent? I’m confused. I don’t think there’s any editorializing in asking a question.

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:29:11 +0000

GE is free to ask them,or even to ediatorilize them–but to mix them with a news post is yellow journalism.

By: Mike Theodore

Mike Theodore — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:55:52 +0000

GE regards those as questions asked to the candidates, which he would like answered.

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:50:34 +0000

GE,

Could we leave the editorializing to the comments section? The whole last paragraph doesnt belong in the NEWS post.

By: G.E.

G.E. — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:15:33 +0000

“Somebody correct me if Iâ€™m wrong, but I heard that Chuck Baldwin opposed amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage and believes that it should be left to the states.”

You are right, but you wouldn’t know it from this statement — which says nothing but simply appeals to uneducated people’s bigotry.

By: Mike Theodore

Mike Theodore — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 01:22:20 +0000

You can have the states right argument, but if the federal government continues to stoke the flames, what progress can be made? We’ve had states rights, and only 2 states have gay marriage. But if we had President Baldwin looking down his nose at gay’s, how can we expect any change from anyone?

By: TheOriginalAndy

TheOriginalAndy — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 01:07:50 +0000

Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but I heard that Chuck Baldwin opposed amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage and believes that it should be left to the states.

By: MattSwartz

MattSwartz — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:37:56 +0000

I also wonder where Baldwin stands on slavery, wife beating, marrying your cousin, etc. Also all very traditional and Biblical.

Biblical, perhaps, but certainly not Christian, and certainly not in tune with the Western Civilization that Christianity helped create.

Christians were the first people in the world to abolish slavery. It took them a long time, but first is still first. The Bible is a VERY anti domestic-violence document. Were you aware that John Calvin, protestant and Christian was the first guy ever to write a prohibition of domestic violence into civil law? He did this in Geneva.

I’m not even going to address the marrying your cousin thing. Once people got enough science in them to realize that that was a way to get cross-eyed dimwits as children, the practice died out.

By: Lance Brown

Lance Brown — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:08:25 +0000

“I really hope my vote for Charles Jay can be counted.”

It will be counted by Charles Jay…I would imagine he’d like to break 1000 this time.

By: Mike Theodore

Mike Theodore — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:10:02 +0000

You take me too seriously, Peter.

By: Peter Orvetti

Peter Orvetti — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:55:27 +0000

Mike,

I said traditional — I didn’t say WHICH tradition.

Polygamy’s traditional, too.