Home / Is Giuliani a One Trick Pony?

Is Giuliani a One Trick Pony?

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Rudy Giuliani has a huge following across the country as he works to gain the Republican nomination for the presidency of the United States. Giuliani is running as a Republican and touts his “conservative” views but his major claim for qualification is how he handled the events of 9/11. He uses the events of 9/11 as his credentials to lead America in the war on terror and his views are conservative in that light. However, Giuliani has other views and when we examine the total package one can only draw the conclusion that he is a RINO because he has mostly liberal views. Perhaps this is why he polls so well as liberals are looking for a candidate that well suits their beliefs without forcing them to vote for the hugely polarizing Hillary Rodham.

Giuliani’s credentials with regard to 9/11 are a mixed bag with people saying he responded brilliantly and others saying he was not that great, especially in the aftermath. However one views him with regard to 9/11, that day and its events are not his only defining moment and his lifetime of service paints a different picture than the man who handled 9/11.

Giuliani is pro-abortion and this is certainly not a conservative view. He made New York City into a sanctuary city and allowed millions of illegals to flock there without fear of legal action. One can argue (and he has) that his motives were pure and that they were designed to bring the illegals out of the shadows and take away their fear of reporting crimes but this position is a liberal one and not one that belongs on a conservative’s resume. The idea that the rule of law should be ignored for political expediency is preposterous. What percentage of the illegals in New York, or any sanctuary city, actually come out of the shadows or report crime because they are “safe” and how does that compare to the number that live lives unobstructed by silly things like the law but who never come out of the shadows or report crimes?

One of the big items on the Giuliani check list is his stance on the Second Amendment. Rudy has had a transformation with regard to this very important piece of our Constitution. Rudy was all for gun control when he was the mayor of New York City and he pursued gun manufacturers for the crimes that criminals committed with guns. Perhaps those very criminals looked at New York as a sanctuary city for them as well. In any event, the criminals are the problems and the guns are just the tools that they used to commit their crimes. Once has to wonder how many of the illegals he invited to his city committed the very crimes he wanted to stop.

Rudy Giuliani is not a fan of the Second Amendment and the individual right to keep and bear arms. He made a career out of going after guns and legal gun owners (by taking away their rights) while opening his city to law breakers. These opposing positions are interesting indeed and begs the question; “Was he really tough on crime?” Rudy’s appearance before the NRA certainly could not have allayed any of the fears gun owners have about his past position and his supposed transformation, especially when he did not know the words to the Second Amendment. It would appear as if Rudy has changed his position as a matter of political expediency, despite his claims that he changed his mind after 9/11:

“Sept. 11 casts somewhat of a different light on Second Amendment rights; it maybe highlights the necessity for them more.” My Way News

It seems that a leader would know what the Second Amendment means and that a 9/11 would not be necessary to bring enlightenment with regard to that part of the Constitution. He expects that conservatives and those who believe in the individual right to keep and bear arms, as outlined in the Constitution, will accept his transformation and new found understanding as some sort of epiphany.

I wonder how he would expect people to react if he determined, after 9/11, that the press was too free and that the Constitution did not intend for them to have such freedom in light of their reporting of the incident? How would people react if he decided that there really were no Fourth Amendment rights because he needed to be able to break down doors without probable cause? They would view his new outlook as wrong and while he has suddenly gotten the Second Amendment correct, one needs to ask if he really believes this or if he is saying it as a matter of political expediency.

The Bill of Rights clearly enumerates the rights that are endowed upon us by our Creator and those rights cannot be removed by government. Unlike free health care or welfare, the right to keep and bear arms is clearly expressed by the document and this right, as well as the others, are not subject to the whims of politicians, regardless of party affiliation. If Giuliani is elected as president and has a Democratic majority, will he go along with their efforts to restrict the rights of gun owners? Will he have another 9/11 epiphany that says gun ownership is a bad thing that was never part of our Constitution.

Giuliani wraps up all his qualifications in the blanket of his leadership on 9/11. He justifies his actions and his qualification to lead based on the terrible events of that fateful day. Take away that day and Rudy Giuliani is nothing more than a man whose political ideologies align with the left in America and could easily put him on a ballot with a Capital D after his name.

One must ask, if 9/11 had never happened would Giuliani be a viable candidate and, if so, would it be as a Republican. The answer to that question unravels the mystery because if you take away 9/11 all you have is another (liberal) pony.

Powered by

About Big Dog

  • Ringo

    With all due respect, please address what Giuliani says all the time about illegal immigrants in NYC when he was mayor. There were 400,000 illegals. The Federal govt deported an avg of 2,000 a year. No one else has the authority to remove them. What would be better to do than what he actually did? Please be specific.

  • Cindy D

    “The Bill of Rights clearly enumerates the rights that are endowed upon us by our Creator…”

    Are you sure this is something you meant to say? Are you talking about the 10 amendments or 10 commandments?

  • Just because the federal government does not do its job does not mean Giuliani should invite the ILLEGALS there. Come to New York we want you. He could prosecute them or turn them over to ICE when they are captured. I get tired of people saying that we should ignore the laws because there is nothing we can do. Imagine how that would play if we said that child molesters cannot be cured and we cannot catch them all so let’s just invite them to live near schools.

    As for the Bill of Rights and the Creator, I wrote what I meant. The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable tights. Those rights are enumerated in the Constitution. Remember, the Constitution does not give us any rights, it merely tells us those things the government may not interfere with.

    The 10 Commandments are laws of a religious tradition that involves the Christians and Jews. However, those Commandments are the basis for our LAWS. The Bill of Rights is actually a listing of things that the government cannot mess with. Hope that clears it up.

  • john cosentino

    With all due respect, you & many others critical of Giuliani are missing the point- HE IS A LEADER- how else could NYC have been turned around?????

    Forget 911-!!!!

    The American people see this, the pundits don’t.

  • RJ

    Good article.

    Unfortunately, Rudy is the most-electable candidate the GOP has right now. I prefer Romney, but he trails badly in all head-to-head matchups with Hillary, whereas Rudy is neck-and-neck with the Hildabeast.

    So, if the GOP wants to have a decent shot of holding on to the White House in 2008, Rudy is the best bet. He’s not a SURE bet, but at least he offers a realistic chance of preventing the Clintons from reoccupying the WH after the next election.

  • cxb

    Thank god some people realize Rudy is a charlatan (while others believe every lie he told as mayor, such as “I lowered crime 70%! I’m the hero / leader of 9/11! Hooray for me!”)

    Rudy is neither a liberal or a conservative.

    He is the biggest flip-flopping two-face in electoral history, having flip-flopped on just about every issue and topic in his life, and his total spin on gun control should end his run right there, b/c no one respects a stoopid liar.

    But, Rudy is still going to win b/c he’s the new Reagan: teflon to the core. This is why Rudy gave over $8 billion in corporate welfare (which ain’t far from Stalin’s subsidization of business) to THE MEDIA COMPANIES.

    They know he’s a crook and the king of flip-flops, but they want HIM for president and the voters will never know what hit them.

    Any Republican who votes for Rudy is the biggest fool I’ve ever seen. (Plenty of dumb Democrats will vote for him too! Sheesh.)

    giulianiscandals dot blogspot dot com

  • Cindy D

    Oh, I see, big dog, you were engaging in rhetoric.

  • gonzo marx

    two things…first one is when you say…
    “The 10 Commandments are laws of a religious tradition that involves the Christians and Jews. However, those Commandments are the basis for our LAWS.”

    i call bullshit..

    besides murder and perjury and stealing…which of the other seven are laws?

    go on..i’ll wait…you won’t find them, so trying to conflate the commandments to our rule of law is both fallacious and hypocritical for this discussion..see 1st Amendment

    slight correction on the Second Amendment, since the Article claims that the right to bear arms is an Individual right…and that Rudy didn’t know the words to the amendment..let’s quote it…

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    note the words, “well regulated militia” and “people” (plural)

    while i agree we have the right to firearms in private ownership..until one establishes what constitutes a “well regulated militia” you cannot claim an Individual right, but rather a general right of the people as a whole…

    just a Thought to share


  • Dr Dreadful

    The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable tights.

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Merry Men are created with substandard Legs[…] That to secure these Tights, Hosiers are instituted among Men, deriving their self-supporting Legwear from the consent of the Garter Belt Manufacturers…”

    …I just couldn’t let that one pass!

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    I don’t really give a damn which shmo wants to be delude himself that he is the world’s emperor. That’s your problem, and you are welcome to it.

    As to Giuliani, I’ll say this much for the guy. After some folks got killed in a terror attack in downtown Jerusalem in 2001, he, Mike Bloomberg and then New York governor Pataki, came here to dedicate a huge stone in memory to those who died in that terror attack.

    That is more than all the other shits in your country running for the delusionary post of world emperor ever did. At least he appeared to give a damn.

  • Clavos

    “The 10 Commandments are laws of a religious tradition that involves the Christians and Jews. However, those Commandments are the basis for our LAWS.”


    The basis for our laws are the Magna Carta and English Common Law.

    Read your history.

  • Baronius

    “Unfortunately, Rudy is the most-electable candidate the GOP has right now.”

    That’s true, right now. A year from now, when it’s a pro-life, 2nd Amendment, low-tax R against a pro-choice, gun control, high-tax D, the polling will be different.

    “Rudy is neither a liberal or a conservative.”

    Also true. He’s instinctive. That can be a great thing in a mayor, and he was a great mayor. But it doesn’t work well in leading a national government, or a party.

  • Well, I guess I should read my history. In so doing, I would imagine that it would be helpful to read the words of the people who founded this country. As to the Ten Commandments:

    “The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code… laws essential to the existence of men in society and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws.”
    -John Quincy Adams

    “If ‘Thou shalt not covet,’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal,’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”
    -John Adams

    While one can argue the relevance or practicality, the fact is they were viewed as a basis for law.

    As for the Second Amendment, there are two separate and distinct clauses. The Constitution and all of our founding documents used “the people “as the phrase to represent the sum of individuals. They could easily read “the right of each of us.” The Bill of Rights constitute individual rights. However, in keeping with my assertion that one must read the words of the people who wrote the thing, let us examine what they had to say. At this link is a list of quotes of the founders as they debated the amendment. You will note that George Mason said; “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” so that answers what the militia part was however, US Code describes the militia as all men between 17 and 45 and all women who serve in the National Guard. Under that description, if one were to assert that only the militia could bear arms, all people who are in these demographics should be legally carrying firearms.

    However, the founders made it clear that the right belonged to the people, not just the militia (though Mason asserted that all people were the militia anyway). Zacharia Johnson said; “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”

    James Madison stated the amendment as it applies when he said; “The right of the people to keep and bear … arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country …” In other words, people may have guns and if we need a militia we will gather it from the body of people with the guns.

    It is quite clear that the founders meant all people as individuals. It is important, when deciding these things, to read what the founders wanted. This is why there is such a problem with the 14th Amendment. The authors clearly indicated that people born to aliens (any non citizen) would not be citizens of this country. We just fail to recognize that fact.

  • On Sept. 10, 2001, R. Giuliani was a much-despised has-been, a lame-duck of a mayor who had pissed off much of the population of NYC. He took questionable credit for turning the crime rate and economy of the city around. He has a grandiose, I’m-right-you’re-wrong-screw-you attitude. He’s a loser and a genuinely unpleasant human being. I have nightmares that he might be elected.

    I hope Iraq is an non-removable albatross around his, Romney’s, Thompson’s and McCain’s necks. I hope to see the looks on the faces of several of the more obnoxious posters on this site when a Democrat is elected next year.

    But this election is far from over, and loudmouth predictions about who the nominees will be, months before a single vote has been cast, are just games-playing at this point.

    It is amusing to watch the wingnuts argue over who is a ‘real’ conservative. Amusing, but not instructive.

  • Clavos

    “While one can argue the relevance or practicality, the fact is they were viewed as a basis for law.”

    “Viewed” by the FFs, certainly.

    Nevertheless, the law is grounded in English Common Law, which, in turn, is grounded in the Magna Carta.

    It is a secular, not religious, body of laws.

    The FFs were also careful to ensure that religion not be allowed to participate in the management of the federation, and that it in fact, would have no place in its government.

    And they were wise to do so.

  • gonzo marx

    my big Question with that theoretical “R” would be if they would curtail spending to go along with those low taxes…the current Administration did not do so with a GOP congress

    do note that suddenly the Admin is making fiscally responsible noises, yet still keeps the two wars off budget..

    but i digress…


  • But therein lies the rub, The FF made no attempt to keep religion from management, they ensured that no one particular religion was given government sanction. Except they were Christians so they based their work on Christianity.

    What they did was give us freedom of, not freedom from religion.

  • gonzo marx

    “Except they were Christians so they based their work on Christianity.”

    incorrect..read your Jefferson, especially the infamous letter to the Danbury congregation

    many were Deists, a lot of Masons in there too…while all went through the motions of being “good Christians” if they sought public office, there were many, like Franklin, who were definitely NOT what most would call “Christian”

    “What they did was give us freedom of, not freedom from religion.”


    freedom of is also freedom FROM, by definition…it’s up to the Individual, which is how they wrote as well as intended it

    you will find more influence form Locke than you will from Christianity, imo

    note what Commandments have no place in our Laws, the majority of them in fact, and do note what they have to do with…religion

    we can go through them one by one if you like, or you can just look at things like the bit about honoring your parents…not a law

    “no god before me” – not a Law…one can be a polytheist, or an atheist under our Constitution and it’s all good

    do i need to go on?


  • The history of this country is replete with Christian influence.

    As for Jefferson, his letter was to inform them that their religion will not be the national religion. It has been misinterpreted to indicate that there is a separation of church and state. His wall was between selecting a particular church (or religion) and the state (or government).

    The First Amendment says that they will not make a law establishing a particular religion and they will not prohibit the free exercise thereof. It does not say that people (of any religion) may not worship or display religious items where they want. The government and all its property belongs to those very people.

    You can choose not to be religious. Freedom of not from indicates that government may not tell you how or when to worship. You are correct, it is up to the individual (which is what I said) because government does not belong recognizing or forcing a particular religion but it is also not supposed to prohibit any religion (or any desire to not be religious). Though, the SCOTUS has ruled that Atheism is equal to a religion for purposes of the Amendment.

  • Dr Dreadful

    And for those of you who may have been under the impression that the Founding Documents in any way represented original ideas, take a gander at the Bill of Rights passed by the English Parliament after the Orange Revolution of 1688.

    Does it perchance look a wee bit familiar?

  • Clavos

    Exactly what I’ve been trying to point out to BD for two days now; our legal system was taken almost in toto from English Common Law, and NOT from religious precepts, christian or otherwise.

    gonzo affirms the whole question well in #19.

    And yes, BD. Freedom OF religion mostly definitely does give us freedom FROM religion.

  • I never said that it did not give the individual freedom from. It means the government cannot deny it.

    As individuals we have a right to worship as we see fit or not to worship. The GOVERNMENT has not right or say either way thus they have no right to impose any law that takes religion away, that is solely up to the individual.

    Why do you suppose the Ten Commandments are on the doors to the SCOTUS and engraved in the walls of that building? Certainly our laws had roots in English Common law but we did not do things exactly as they did or we would have a king and a state religion. Of course, our laws had to have basis in English Law because we were its subjects.

  • those were engraved on the doors because of the sculptor, or the person who commissioned the sculpture..nothing more

    you miss the point that the government, in order to uphold said First Amendment’s principles must itself be free from any religion, since it cannot establish any…including Christianity

    therefor, the government, by the very founding documents you cite, must be the epitome of a secular institution, Q.E.D.

    anything else violates the establishment clause since it can be shown to be a promotion of one religion higher than another

    so you cannot have those Ten Commandments, because it violates the Individual rights of the atheists, or Buddhists, or Native Americans or followers of JuJu the elephant god, or even Scientologists

    in order to treat all sects equally, the government itself must remain completely secular, by definition…the Founders knew that when they palmed so much from the English and French to shape our Laws

    get used to it


  • Dr Dreadful

    The Ten Commandments, along with the Code of Hammurabi, the Magna Carta and numerous other historical legal documents, are represented in the Supreme Court building because it is a house of law and therefore appropriate decoration. They are not given any particular prominence.

  • Sorry Gonzo, but in any of these cases, Congress is making no law establishing religion. Having a religious symbol in a government building (a building of the people) is not Congress making a law. However, removing said item is prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This means any religious item. We cannot discriminate in what is displayed (we cannot go overboard. It should be a recognized religion).

    Certainly, if religion was a problem those items would never have been sculpted. It amazes me that some wacko group like the ACLU has not fought to have them removed.

    In God we trust seems to be on a lot of things…Is that Government establishing a religion or recognizing the existence of a supreme being, as is well documented in our founding papers?

  • I never claimed they were given prominence. You made my point, they are there because they are a basis for our law. I never said other documents did not play into what we did, just that they were a basis for our law (though when I said the basis it might have given the impression that I was saying the only one. My poor choice of words).

  • Dr Dreadful

    I’ll accept your argument if you can show me how the Code of Hammurabi is also a basis for our law.

  • This means any religious item. We cannot discriminate in what is displayed (we cannot go overboard. It should be a recognized religion).”

    then by your reasoning, placing ONE up there means one must have ALL religious symbols up there…

    all of them…NO exceptions

    so Satanists, Wiccans and Scientologists (all recognized as legal Churches) have the SAME right to have their holy symbols on public property as the Catholic church…that’s equal protection under the law, yes?

    so are we to assume then, by your own words…that you would staunchly defend both Pentacle and Pentagram being placed up with that Nativity this holiday season? how about the Buddhists?

    as for the Pledge of Allegience and the “in God we trust” on our money…those were implemented in the 1950s in response to those “godless communists”…

    from 1782-1956 the unofficial motto of the nation was “E Pluribus Unum”…never voted on or ratified

    it was a McCarthy-esqe political move in the 1950s that placed all that shit into our national language…and we should toss it away quickly since it appears many zealots don’t bother to read all of their history and somehow have the idea that this purely secular nation is somehow “christian”

    oh yes, BD sez… – “Of course, our laws had to have basis in English Law because we were its subjects.”

    “had to”???

    our Laws were established AFTER the revolution…yes?

    do you see where logic fails you here and makes that statement i quoted absolutely ludicrous?


  • Dr Dreadful

    And BTW, how did we get from the 2nd Amendment to the 1st?

    Would it have anything to do with those inalienable tights?

  • Dr. D,
    We have agreed that English Common Law was what we derived our laws from. The Code of Hammurabi was part of the basis for ECL.

    The tights, it must be the tights.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Only several times removed via the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans and the Catholic Church, BD. And more to do with the Babylonians’ love of good business practices than with religious piety.

    Gonzo has demonstrated a much more immediate correlation between English common law and the US Constitution.

    Take a look at the Book of the Dead some time, and see how closely Egyptian notions of right behavior correlated with the Hebrews’. There are similarities between legal codes throughout space and time. They do more to illustrate the basic tenets of how a civilization works than they show any kind of divine sanction.

  • not to mention, Doc that the English HAD a state church..and therefore had an established religion

    we don’t

    nuff said…


  • bliffle

    Righto, DD.

    Also, if one actually reads the 10 commandments (after deciding which ones to enumerate out of at least 38 discernable in the bible) we only observe two of them (don’t kill and don’t steal) and even the religious ignore or alibi the rest.

    Besides that, the constitution is not about personal behaviour, it’s about government behaviour on the way to passing laws regarding personal behaviour.

    The constitution is about process: how to make laws, how the legislature and executive and court go about making and enforcing and judging laws, and what the government can’t do. The constitution doesn’t even say “don’t kill, don’t steal”, it tells HOW to pass and enforce such laws.

    The constitution is about meta-laws, i.e., laws about laws and lawmaking.

  • Sources reveal it as a basis for ECL and all the stuff on the walls as influences on our law.

    The Constitution is what? The first 10 amendments are the bill of rights. They do not tell anyone how to make laws. They clearly indicate what rights we have that cannot be taken from us by government. The founders discerned that these rights came from higher than man so man could not take them away. None of these 10 are about making laws though many laws reflect them because laws may not infringe upon them.

    Yes, the 10 are not about personal behavior, they are about absolute rights.

    We also go by not lying. There are not 38 Commandments in the Bible and to make it clear, it is “not murder.” Killing is not a crime.

    Don’t forget, these itmes (all mentioned) are a basis for laws. We took the ones we liked.

    Hoe did we get here?

  • STM

    OK, let’s get one thing straight here: the Constitution of the United States is actually based on English common law and the rights either regarded as “natural” to an Englishman (or Briton) or written down by kings or enacted as legislation by parliaments. Much of it too comes from Blackstone’s treatises (on English common law), the book used by ther American colonies as the basis of law under Britain.

    As one of the founding fathers said, or words to this effect: “We’re not doing anything new here, we’re just writing it down so that everyone knows”.

    It WAS groundbreaking stuff. But it’s interesting that the unwritten constitution of Britain, and the legal and governmental systems and constitutions of its former colonies, bestow similar rights on their citizens. That includes such things as due process at law, first enunciated in the 14th century by Edward III. His due process addition to the Magna Carta served as the basis for the IV and V amendments to the constitution, and the wording is near identical.

    The place we’ve all reached too is almost identical (right down even to the application of criminal law, adversarial trial, Habeus Corpus, trial by a jury of 12 peers, and Miranda-style rights), but the roads taken have been different.

    Not that different, though. And that’s the key. It’s also why I believe the 9th Amendment to the Constitition of the United States might be the most important of all, but always fail to understand why it is almost entirely misunderstood or not known of at all in the United States.

    You see, the key to our collective success as stable representative democracies (in the modern sense, not the Greek) is down to rule of law and evolution of thought.

    It is not just constitutions and acts of parliament or congress that make our continued viability possible. They simply form the basis of free and just socities, but to continue to be free and just, we must continue to evolve along the lines of rule of law.

  • STM

    Of course, there was one big difference between the US Bill of Rights and the English Bill of Rights – the religion aspect.

    I say this is understandable, however, given that much blood had been spilled in the attempt by Rome to bring England back into its sphere of influence.

    That is why the right in regard to the carrying of guns was not extended to Catholics in England under the English Bill of Rights – because they’d been plotting to undo the Crown and replace the monarch with a Catholic.

    So in effect, in England, having no separation of Chruch and State in that period was the thing that actually kept it free. Like I say, times change – which is why we must all be willing to evolve with the times.

  • STM

    And I’ll add this. An American, now a friend, who came to live here in the 1980s and stayed, was arguing one night about how the right to free speech is not enunciated.

    I must admit that I’d never thought about it at all, because I’d always believed – and indeed, had seen it in action – that speech was free anyway, and that I was free to speak my mind on any issue I chose, contentious or not (within reason, and having regard to criminal and civil laws the same as in the US).

    So not knowing anything about these things, I started to read up and do a bit of digging. Under our constitution, and that of Britain (and which is our important inheritance), there is isn’t talk of free speech rights. That’s because, under our law, it is taken to exist and has been regarded thus for 1000 years.

    It is just there, a natural right, nevertheless enshrined in law by myriad rulings at law, both under Australian common law and English common law, from which the other is derived. And it can no more be taken away from me – and won’t be – than it can from a citizen of the US. And I have never felt any fear in relation to that.

  • Baronius

    STM, I don’t know if this was covered upthread, so I’m sorry if I’m repeating things.

    The Bill of Rights was a last-minute backrooom deal. The authors could probably have found the votes to get the Constitution approved, but there were plenty of people who wanted their rights enumerated. So none of the rights is new or shocking. They were all implied in the idea of limited government.

    I think history has vindicated the anti-federalists, the people who opposed the Constitution. They were the ones who argued for a Bill of Rights at minimum. Sure enough, government has encroached on those rights repeatedly, and the non-enumerated rights have been trampled.

    But part of the problem arose from listing the rights. It’s all well and good to write up a code, but to steal a line from E.B. White, that which is not forbidden is required. There’s a kind of legalism in the US that I bet can’t develop in a common law country.

  • STM

    Baronious: Thanks for replying. The one big thing in all this, and I believe that it was the anti-federalists who asked for the 9th amendment, is that that amendment specifically allows for America to continue along the road as a common law country. (Indeed, America IS a common-law country.)

    It’s really an instruction on how to read the constitution (ie, don’t regard it as the whole law of the land, ever).

    Why it is largely ignored, when it is of such importance, is beyond me. Indeed, it was the masterstroke IMO in terms of the writing of the Bill of Rights, because as in any common law country, it allows for evolution and new wellsprings of thought along the common thread of improving a democratic society. I think people will get sick of me trumpeting this, but I reckon any American could challenge all kinds of stuff under the 9th amendment.

  • Legal scholars have indicated that the 9th is not actually a right. It is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution.

    But there are many opinions about what it actually means. If I get some time I might look and see what the author had to say about it.

  • Zedd

    I don’t understand religious SYMBOLS. If religion happens within the individual, why do they need symbols? Certainly why do they need their symbols to be on other peoples properly or on public property? What do the symbols do?

    I’m so sick of the ten commandments thing. All the Southern wackos weeping about not wanting those words removed from their court houses when the same nut cases spat at “NEGRAS” as they requested to be treated like their neighbors.