Comments on: Chuck Baldwin: ‘Selective Constitutionalism’

By: johncjackson

johncjackson — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:00:18 +0000

This is probably the BEST thing I have read from Baldwin.

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:01:25 +0000

LJ,

what part of this makes Baldwin look like he’s having a temper tantrum? He’s chastising the Republicans who’re concerned about Obama’s eligibility while ignoring all of Bush’s Constitutional issues. Did you even READ it?

By: Libertarian Joseph

Libertarian Joseph — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:54:19 +0000

Give it up, Chuck. You lost. Don’t have a temper tantrum over it. You couldn’t even top Bob Barr

By: Chris Cole

Chris Cole — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:20:37 +0000

When I first saw the headline, I thought that this was going to be another conspiratorianist diatribe, something I find Constitution Party folks overly fond of. However, he is spot on about too many folks turning to the constitution for their own benefit, but ignoring it when it suits them. When was the last time any of us heard any member of Congress, regardless of party or ideology (other than Ron Paul), say something like, “This situation breaks my heart, but the Constitution gives me no authority to apply government money to it.” The most interesting thing about McCain’s eligibility issue was that the reasoning used to defend it, i.e., that the Canal Zone was a leased US territory, is the EXACT argument rejected by Bush in maintaining that Guantanamo prisioners AREN’T eligible for judicial review.

By: Libertarian Joseph

Libertarian Joseph — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:42:32 +0000

Bill Lussenheide,

you imply that direct democracy and anarchy ae the same things. Are you THAT stupid? wow. I’m dumbfounded

By: Bill Lussenheide

Bill Lussenheide — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:24:13 +0000

Chuck Baldwin makes several excellent points. Without the â€œStandard Bearerâ€ of the Constitution, we are nothing more than a mob ruled, relativistic, anarchy.

In the song â€œAmerica the Beautifulâ€ in its second stanza, speaks of â€œTHY LIBERTY IN LAWâ€. Without the anchor of the Constitution our very liberty is terminally doomed.

O, beautiful for pilgrim feet,
Whose stern impassioned stress,
A thoroughfare for freedom beat,
Across the wilderness!
America! America! God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!

By: RedPhillips

RedPhillips — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:58:45 +0000

Trent, it is not a trivial issue if “natural born” actually does mean born on US soil. I don’t think it does, (I think it means not naturalized) and the fact that so many conservatives have accepted that explanation at face value is evidence that politics is tribal and people believe what they want to believe when it suits them. (How many of these folks complained about McCain being born in Panama. At least Baldwin is consistent here.)

There are other issues with Obama’s citizenship (Indonesia, dual citizenship, perhaps his mother’s age, etc.) besides whether he was born on US soil.

An originalist constitutional scholar needs to look into the original meaning of “natural born.”

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:31:39 +0000

GE,

Perhaps—but you must admit, Baldwin’s is a pretty hardcore rebuke against the WorldNetDaily crowd who is now up in arms because Obama might not have been born on US Soil,a truly trivial issue, but they didnt care at all whern Bush was overturning Posse Comitatus, when the Patriot Act passed, When FISA passed, etc.

By: G.E.

G.E. — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:26:49 +0000

This is a case of the pot calling the kettle an illegal immigrant.