The Transforming of America

Source

By: Wayne Brown


Last week’s attempt by President Obama to decree that the Catholic Church would participate in the distribution of products and medications was a frontal attack on the Constitution by this administration. I never cease to be amazed how a man who claims to have graduated Magna Cum Laude from Columbia Law School could be so ignorant of constitutional law. Actually I am even more baffled that he considers the American public to be that stupid that he would be willing to give it a go.


The insanity of it all is that his fallback “compromise” on the situation is yet another attack on the Constitution conceding his first position yet acting as if he has the power to decree the second one. This is nothing more than a conscious act to challenge the system of checks and balances defined within our government and to see if he can indeed define some precedence in the powers of his office to use further down the road in undermining constitution governance.


Unfortunately, the outcry was more about depriving the poor of their “right” to birth control than it was about the Constitution which suited Obama just fine. If we go back in history, we will see that arguments such as this have taken place with regard to “state’s rights” since the creation of this country. The subject matter changes, but the backdrop is the same. Obama is doing the same thing here, using the volatility of the subject matter to mask the infringement on the Constitution. In some sectors, that has worked with the public taking the bait hook, line, and sinker.


In effect, the president has said to the Catholics, “it is time that you joined the rest of us and started doing something about birth control…never mind your religious position, this is about granting the desires of people to have those things they want…religion cannot stand in the way of a women’s right to choose!” By throwing the woman’s perspective into the mix, the mask becomes even thicker in that the same argument which fueled and still fuels Roe vs. Wade is thrown into the mix in an attempt to deprive organized religion of its rights under the Constitution. When the mosque controversy was taking place at Ground Zero, the president made it clear that he had no power to intervene nor any desire yet he is quite certain that he has the power to tell the Catholics how to run their religious efforts…I smell a hypocrite here who only uses the Constitution when it suits his needs.


The president’s “compromise” was not a “compromise” at all but simply another blow at the Constitution which suggested that he held the powers to decree that a particular business sector must provide particular goods and services all without any due process or ruling by the courts. To hell with the Constitution and any rights associated with our liberty and pursuit of happiness; to hell with the “Commerce Clause”. If indeed the president can compel the insurance companies to provide these services to the public, then we certainly have precedence in place to say that he can compel American citizens to buy insurance at his decree. There is more to all of this than might meet the eye in terms of a president simply wanting to address a woman’s right to choice.


If the president’s decree were to stand without challenge, where does all this lead in the future. One could only guess for a successful attack on religious freedom under the Constitution spells trouble for almost any other aspect of the document. We might recall that religious freedom was the driving force for the founding of this country. It was not just important, it was passionately important to those who came here and wanted to find a new land where they could exercise their religious beliefs without fear of penalty from higher authority.


The Constitution is an irritating and persistent encumbrance for a president like Obama who holds nothing about it dear to his heart. Personally, I have never known an attorney who abhorred the Constitution. In fact, the reverse is true in my life experience. How can one study the law in this country and not come away from that study in awe of the central document to our society, the Constitution. Yet Obama describes it as an old and outmoded document. He sees no practical use for it in today’s world as it would be much easier to govern the country if he could just do what he wanted when he wanted. We even have some in the public who might agree with him and would actually help him carry the document to the trash can and burn it. Ignorance is truly bliss.


As a country, we are already being financially undermined and we are in very serious trouble ever so close to facing a similar fate as Greece. Do we wait until people are in the streets in violent confrontations with authority before we take action to fix the source of our problems? If we listen to Washington, that seems to be the case as our elected officials continue on the same path with few voices raised in opposition for very long. Could it be that Obama is willing to challenge the Constitution so openly to measure the amount of resistance he will encounter as future events unfold on our road to socialism? Could it be that this president sees no place for the Constitution in the future of this country?


We have a healthcare initiative which will eventually go before the Supreme Court in a test of its constitutionality. This is an initiative which takes healthcare choices out of the hands of the public and the businesses of the private sector which offer them and make those choices a government function. The ability to choose is taken away from the public. The decision to “offer” services is taken away from the private sector business that either must comply with the demands of a government or walk away from the business.


For those who think this is a good idea, remember those who populate Washington are part of the same crowd that has destroyed the revenue base of Social Security basically bankrupting it when it could easily have been a solvent and functional program for many decades to come if the assets of that program had not been legislatively robbed and squandered by those we elected to office. The same can be said of Medi-Care which our officials tell us has become too large to manage thus fraud and theft rule the day. These problems will go away with Obama-Care is the unspoken promise and with them will go the right to choice and the election to serve on the part of the provider. While retirement and medicine have issues and problems, the government is not the entity to fix it…the government has never fixed anything that was not a disaster in the end. The answer will always lay in true capitalism…a free market system with the right of choice and competition.


Obama’s attempt to usurp the authority of the Constitution and the protection it affords the American people is outrageous to say the least. Elected officials populating Washington with any sense of patriotism, ethics, morality, or dedication should be up at arms and on notice that this is just the first of many attempts of this type that will be made by this administration and those who make it up. Much like their approach to finances, their approach to rights and governance will be the same…they will make it up as the go always thinking of the “little man” whose best interest is always on their hearts and minds. That approach to democratic government can be dispensed with in November or it can continue at an even more intense level for another four years…if we have four years left as a result of this upcoming election.


As a nation, let us have our differences of opinion and let us debate them with the spirit of our beliefs. At the same time, let not one of us ever forget the importance of the Constitution and the protections it affords to our way of life. When we forget, we pay a dear price which in all likelihood will either severely diminish or destroy our freedom and liberty which the Founding Fathers knew only too well that God could only take away. Our point of agreement as a people must be rooted in the Constitution and the government that it affords us and, as a nation, we should turn away any who come before us with the suggestion that there is a better way.



©Copyright WBrown2012. All Rights Reserved.

13 February 2012

More by this Author


Comments 28 comments

Don Bobbitt profile image

Don Bobbitt 4 years ago from Ruskin Florida

Great article, Wayne, yet again, by the way.

I try not to believe that we have a president that is set on such devious and destructive goals, but it is things like this that drive me back to the opinion that he really is a person that was selected and trained early in life to be a tool used to diminish the status and power of our great nation.

Thanks for a great read.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana

You know as I thought about it, they should NOT be able to force ANYONE to pay for ANYTHIHG FREE to ANYBODY even if they are NOT a religious organization.

What gall our gov has in declaring that a business MUST supply FREE birth control! Nothing is FREE....it costs someone.

excellent hub Wayne....


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 4 years ago from Arlington, TX

Wayne - Oh boy! The US Constitution has been under assault by Obama and his tribe since day one. When Obamacare was passed it should have dawned on people that anything that is rammed through in secret, as that law was, can't be beneficial to anyone.

The idea that the HHS Secretary has the power now to mandate to the American people matters pertaining to our health care I believe is unconstitutional in itself. That person isn't elected by the people. It's a bureaucratic position and anyone with a lick of sense knows that bureaucracies are dangerous. There are tons of them in Washington DC and over 50% of them need to be eliminated.

This whole business is what it is - an attempt by the likes of Obama to seize power over the people. Did I miss something? Isn't there something about "We, the People..." mentioned in our founding documents? Time to regain control of what they are screwing up on Capitol Hill.

Remember in November!

The Frog


dahoglund profile image

dahoglund 4 years ago from Wisconsin Rapids

I read somewhere that the big time law schools do not teach the constitution, but rather concentrate on "case law" Not sure what it all means but it indicates that one can easily get a law degree without ever having read the constitution.


joe scalise 4 years ago

Question: Were you this vocal when Bush suspened Habeous Corpus? This was gross infringement on our rights. The government is not forcing anyone to practice birth control. They are making it available to those who don't have a moral problem with the practice and providing all people the right to make that choice irregardless of their religion. After all a good percentage practice birth control and this may bother you but also enjoy oral sex. The Catholic church is trying to remove the tree of knowledge from the garden of eden. God didn't make the world free of temptation he just expects people to use their free wills and make choices. Paradise had temptaion so why wouldn't the rest of the world. For what reason I don't know but if you happen to be a beleiver of any specific religion you must be aware of their dictates and if any Catholic decides to practice birth control it could mean that it is an unrealistic mandate or they have made a choice not to obey their church hierarchy. Maybe the hierarchy is not couching their position properly to their followres or the flock may see this mandate as an idea of some other human and not neccesarily supernatural demand. It is not the job of the government to remove what is perceived as a temptation by a segment of the public based on a religious views. I have heard so many complaints about Constitutionslity but haven't heard a good argument about the infringement. The constitution allows for the freedom of worship but has no obligation to legislate any churches moral values. Most christians don't want to hear this but although God is mentioned in government documents, currecy and other government amenities there is no where that you can find the mention of Jesus. That is because America recognnizes all religions and favors none and is not compelled to consider the beliefs of any religion in formulating public policy. As for ground zero, I was really turned off by the idea but had to questiion whether any other religion would have been demonized that had the same aspirations.

Religions are protected and have a right to have expectations of their followers but can't expect the government to enforce their mandates. You must realize that all religions preach that they are the only path to heaven which means that only one can be right. Personally I believe that none of them are right, But that is just my opinion. Yes the government does give credibility to God but does not and should not consult the bible anymore than they should consult the koran in setting policy. It's just that simple


Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 4 years ago from Texas Author

@Don Bobbitt...I tried the same thing as well, Don but over time those fish I kept smelling were really dead. Thanks much! WB

@CMerritt...Absoluted true, Chris. A dollar can only be in one pocket at a time but sooner or later someone has to pull it out and pay for those free lunches. Thanks much. WB

@The Frog Prince...There is no respect for the Constitution in this administration...hell, there is no respect for budget or the legislative process...all they understand is mandate and decree just like the rulers they want to be. Thanks much. WB

@dahoglund...You know, now that you mention that, I can envision it and it makes perfect sense. Why would any good liberal college professor want to teach the Constitution as it pertains to law...that just gums up the works. Thanks much, DA. WB

@joe scalise...I was not writing at that time, Joe. At the same time, if my memory serves me correctly the "writ of habeus corpus" was suspended for those found to be an enemy of our country...not our citizens...a position I would have tended to agree with given the background of those in Gitmo. I am not sure which side of the point you are taking here on religion...seems like the same one that I am on. I don't care how Obama hands out his condoms but he has not right nor power under the Constitution to require a church or religion to do it if it conflicts with their belief system. We do have freedom of religion and they all feel their beliefs are the right ones. That's not for me to determine nor is it the job of any president. If Catholics want birth control, then they can either go down the street and get it from some other source provide by the government or they can campaign their own church to change their belief structure. They certainly should not be dependent on the government, in violation of the Constitution, to get their beliefs changed. I fail to see what is so, so important from Obama's perspective with regard to birth control that he feels he must compel the Catholics on the issue by infringing on their religious freedom. By religious freedom, I mean to right to define and implement their beliefs and values as it applies to religion not just to hold services on Sunday. Surely you must believe the framers had at least that intent in their use of the term. Thanks much for the comments. WB


drbj profile image

drbj 4 years ago from south Florida

Very literate. Very appropriate. And very powerful. Don't stop, Wayne, people need to be kept mindful of what our misguided leader is attempting to do if the nation does not wake up before November.


joe scalise 4 years ago

Wayne let me clarify something about the writ of habeous corpus. It did not exclude Americans. Anyone accused of helping a terrorist could be taken from his home without explaination without an arrest warrent without the right to an attorney and could be held without a trial and the people who are upset about a policy that doesn't threaten anybodys' civil rights act like we are on the brink of communism. Suspending the writ of habeous corpus is the edge of Communism and Naziism. Nobody is guilty of being an enemy of the state without a fair trial.

Obama nor any other president cannot interfere with any churches beliefs or practices that fall within the law and stem from the church itself. When the church enters the business world it loses its right to dictate to people (employees in this instance). As a business man I couldn't exclude anyone from any aspect of company policy or government mandates based on their religion. That is called discrimination. The church has no right to be in business if its going to try to bind its employees or customers to its beliefs. When I am in a Catholic hospital they come into my room and make communion available to me but don't force me to partake of it. The government is making something available but doesn't require anyone to partake. When the first Catholic hospitals sprang up they refused treatment to perceived heritics or people who appeared to be possessed. When they opened universities they banished, censored and murdered people who taught or published information contrary to church belief. If we allowed the church to be the only hospitals or universities we would not be able to seek treatment if we were of a different belief or if we were deemed to be possessed and we would still believe that stars were a hole in the floor of heaven. We cannot allow the church to run businesses, that all people need, based on their religious beliefs. Birth control pills are a medication and hospitals cannot refuse meds to patients or employees. The church must teach by example and axposure but they have no right to be involved in the most intimate processes of peoples lives. Their comes a point where the church has to return the faith that their people so readily place in them. They can tell people what thier particular God expects but they caan't camp out in their bedrooms.


Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 4 years ago from Texas Author

@joe scalise...If I remember correctly habeus corpus was the basis on which so many wanted to rush the prisoner held at Gitmo into the court system under the guise of the rights of citzens when that was not the case. I certainly understand the implications of suspending that writ relative to to legal citizens of the country. I hardly believe that was the intent nor do I believe such an action would sustained in our system of checks and balances.

With regard to the Catholic church, I don't believe they are looked upon as a business...a none profit at best. Churches are religious institutions and the fact that they have employees does not make them a business as such. If the government wants to pass out "free birth control" that is one thing but to compel a religious organization to do it because the government requires it is quite another. Whether the Catholics want to have hospitals or not is up to them. If they elect to treat the public in general, then they certainly must adhere to the regulations involved. If those services are extended only to Catholics, then the scenario takes on a different tilt. In terms of loyalty to and from the church, that becomes an individual decision based on what one believes or does not believe. I am not Catholic thus I do not have a desire to participate in their faith nor do I desire to interfere with the practice of it as long as it does not threaten public welfare or break established laws. My read on the president's decree did not include a reference to the actions of Catholic hospitals and compliance with public requirements. It looked more like a wholesale action on the Catholic faith. Maybe there needs to be a bit more clarity in the statements.

I don't disagree with you on the hospital aspect if indeed the Catholic church intends to operate a hospital to provide services to the general public. If that is the case, then the staff of the hospital is bound to dispense all medications prescribed to the patient by a doctor. Religion cannot take predence in that case as it could endanger lives. At the same time, I see the conflict of religious belief and birth control colliding here though birth control is not an endangerment to life in the vast majority of cases. The other extreme would be a religion which does not believe in prescription medication at all attempting to operate a hospital for the public...again the conflict is too great. I certainly find agreement there but the way in which it has been approached leaves a very different impression with regard to religious rights and the Constitution. Maybe it is time for Eric Holder to file another of his lawsuits and let the Supreme Court decide...otherwise, the entire subject could have been approach in an entirely less controversial manner by the President. Thanks much. WB


Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 4 years ago from Texas Author

@drbj...I hope that we can keep raising questions and interest levels along with it. The Constitution is our first and last hope as citizens of the USA. Once it has been walked on enough, it will be totally ignored leaving the rules to be made up as we go along. One of my readers here suggests that possibly the reverse is happening with the Catholic church in that it is hiding behind the curtain of the Constitution to engage in business with the public yet refusing to comply with the requirements pertaining to the functionality of those services. If that is indeed the case, then it certainly needs to be addressed but not through a conduit that is comes across as a direct attack on the Constitution. If legal regulation of the public hospital industry is in conflict with the Catholic doctrine, then maybe the church needs to rethink its venture into that sector in terms of humanitarian outreach. If that is the case, then it comes down plain and simply to compliance with the laws and regulations regarding the particular industry and the provisions of religious freedom within the Constitution are being miscontrued by the church for its own rationale. It cannot be both ways. Thanks much. WB


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 4 years ago from Michigan

First of all Joe S.- you really don't have your facts straight. While GW Bush suspended the writ of habeas corpus (and he wasn't the only President to do so BTW), which is The Military Commissions Act of 2006 by name - it applied specifically to ALIEN terrorists: "No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an ALIEN detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination." Emphasis mine.

So this did not include American citizens and therefore there would be no need for citizens or Wayne to make an outcry about anything unconstitutional when GW did this. The Supreme Court was wrong - as they were wrong with Roe V. Wade - in their ruling against the Bush administration on that matter but that's another discussion. You were wrong in your description of this act.

Secondly - if you can't support your argument, don't throw a straw man in there like a whiny child, "WHAT ABOUT BUSH WHAT ABOUT BUSH?!" Your attempt wasn't even factual to begin with. Your problem is - he's not President any more. If you bought the "We inherited this mess" idiotic rhetoric from Obama, then my sympathies to you as you are hopelessly brainwashed.

Your argument was a rambling mess about Catholic Church religious beliefs and never really seemed to make a point.

Here are the facts - the Obama administration INITIALLY demanded that ANY business was FORCED to provide birth control/abortions for their employees and the tax payer is going to pay for it. Period. This included religious organizations. All part of his Obamanationcare.

When there was an outcry they did a bait and switch and said OK - religious businesses don't have to do it but now INSURANCE businesses MUST DO THIS. And did I note - this includes abortions?

Facts - THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Nowhere in the constitution does it say we leave our religious freedoms at the door when we own a business and therefore must comply by every whim the Federal Government monster says I must comply with. This demand is outrageous ESPECIALLY given the fact Obama and his minions PROMISED us his Obamacare did not include tax-payer funded abortions. He lied and he did it maniacally and deliberately. Oh that’s right – they needed to pass the bill to know what was in it first…I forgot.

Now it really doesn't matter what your personal thoughts about the Catholic Church are. That silly quip you made about people having sex was…well…thoughtless. Duh. People have sex. Catholics choose to use or choose not to use birth control according to their conscience. So do Evangelicals, Muslims, Jews etc. And your point?! Choosing to use or not to use birth control is a PRIVATE decision made by PRIVATE citizens with their doctor’s advice. It’s NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S BUSINESS TO COMPEL ME AS A BUSINESS OWNER TO PROVIDE THAT SERVICE. That’s the point!

You can "suppose" until the cows come home which was what your first comment was filled with. Your musings in that respect are totally irrelevant. The RELEVANT discussion is - should the Obama administration COMPEL any business to provide ANY medical services or otherwise - against the stated organization's religious beliefs - to their employees. Birth control, abortions, a colonoscopy, wart removal OR ANY MEDICAL PROCEDURE is not something any business owner should be FORCED to provide in PARTICULAR if the procedure goes against the business owners constitutionally protected beliefs.

It doesn't matter if you agree or not with Catholic Church dogma. That's not the issue. The issue is federal government overreach and the constitutionality of the federal government's demands upon any business with religious beliefs that are contrary to the federal government's demands upon that business. Stick to the point.


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 4 years ago from Michigan

{Lord please give me more patience...}Wayne!!! Fantastic writing - so clear and insightful. You wrote this beautifully - and even your answers to the person I had ZERO patience with (you should have seen what I edited OUT of that comment to him...). My hat is off to you sir!!


Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 4 years ago from Texas Author

@cjv123...Thanks much Carol...you say it so well yourself. I truly believe this was deliberate frontal attack on the Constitution by the President and his fallback position was simply a test to see if we would concede him that level of power...neither of which he as under the Constitution as you know. All of this leads somewhere...I am convinced of that fact and I think it will all surface before November. If not, it will only because Obama is so sure that he has re-election in the bag. Thanks very much for your input on this one! Good to see you as well! WB


joe scalise 4 years ago

You are the one who needs to do some more research. Bush not only suspended habeous corpus, which was struck down by the supreme court but he also took our protection against search and siezure and wiretapping. It wasn't just aimed at aliens. It gave him the power to use executive power to use these against anyone that he determined to be a terrorist and a supporter of terrorism. Way too much power for any president. The suspension of these rights were only allowed to be suspended in case of rebellion or invasion. Neither of which describe 911 and that is why the the supreme court reversed him. Because this thread is not about all the ills of our country I won't expound on all the travesties of the Bush/Cheney/Roe regime.

Now the bottom line with the Catholic church and all other churches... they are protected at the pulpit and are free to spread there doctrine but in the piblic domain they are just like the rest of society regardless of their beliefs. I don't know what religion you practice but I hope for your sake they don't deem valium sinful because you sound like you need a steady diet of them. You are much to emotional for debate. It clouds your thinking. The church does not have the right to withhold medication from their employees or their customers or from their followers. The mormons learned that when letting children die because they don't believe in certain medical procedures and medication. The church assumes too much from the protection provided by the Constitution. There is no provisions for legislating their beliefs. The goverment does have a right to compel medical facilities to dispense medications approved by a patients doctor. As far as forcing people to have health insurance I am opposed to that but I am also opposed to the Republican intitative to force people to buy car insurance. I am sorry if my words have raised your blood pressure but they have pills for that too and I am certain that the church hasn't ruled them out because they have nothing to do with sexual activity, which the church wants to curtail except went its betwen a victimized child and a consenting priest. Sorry if this post seems a bit harsh but you should consult Wayne on how to conduct a debate. If you noticed he provided his opinions in an civil and gentlemanly manner in spite of our differences. And Wayne I thank you and respect you for that.


breakfastpop profile image

breakfastpop 4 years ago

This president and his administration are trying to destroy the Constitution and make it a totally out of date irrelevant piece of worthless paper. What I find so disturbing is the growing number of people who agree. Things are spiraling out of control and we have lost our way. Up and awesome.


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 4 years ago from Michigan

OMGOSH! SCALISE You simply don't get it. You must prove that Bush was able to extend the suspension to the powers you claim he wanted to use i.e. - the writ was suspended even for U.S. citizens. I quoted what the bill said -- it said ALIEN detainees. Now the burden is upon you to PROVE that a) the law was intended for American citizens and b) that it WAS USED THAT WAY. You can't just make a claim and say it's so without proof. Who the heck are you? A primary source? Not.

I PROVED you wrong, now the burden is on you to PROVE that what I wrote was wrong by using the wording from the act itself and/or by citing actual occurrences where this bill/act was used wrong by Bush or others in the Bush administration extending powers far beyond what the bill said or intended. Your just saying so doesn't make it so.

And as far as my need for medication - cute. But it won't fly. You were caught in an embarrassing mistake and now you're just using personal attacks to cover your own inability to research your own mythical assumptions. Obviously I'm stable enough to make a fool out of fools like you. That's why you're mad at me and resorted to personally attacking me.

I'm also unemotional enough to write at a level above grade school. "there doctrine" is "their doctrine" and "piblic domain" should have been "public". Either you aren't smart enough to catch these blunders or you're the one who needs medication because you're too emotional to catch them. So make a note to self - get a spell checker and a book something along the lines of "Grammar For Dummies" before trying to make snarky personal attacks.

You at least tried to get to the basic point this time around despite the horrible writing - I will give you good grades for that however.

While you actually managed to make somewhat of a point - you are still stretching the actual basic premise here.

We the People comes first. According to the constitution, as already mentioned - a person does not lose their constitutional rights simply because they own and operate a medical facility. The Catholic Church runs not-for-profit hospitals. They can ban chocolate milk if they want. It's their BUSINESS. I don't have to go to their hospitals.

You might have a point if I as a citizen had no other choice in this country but to take my sick self to a Catholic Hospital. Then if that facility said aspirin was a sin - your argument would hold water. This isn't Cuba with state-run hospitals. This is America where I can take my sorry butt anywhere to receive medical attention. Therefore, the federal government has ZERO right to compel any medical facility - unless it is federally run, to tell any hospital they MUST provide medication or any medical procedure that it deems "sinful." They have a RIGHT to practice their religion even though they are running a business - because it's a constitutionally protected right.

Nothing in the constitution says the federal government has the right to tell any religious organization what is and is not sinful. The rights of We the People and the right to practice our religious faith trumps anything the Federal Government does.

If you don't like it - boycott Catholic hospitals. But if their faith says it's not good to drink chocolate milk then that church-run facility has the right not to serve chocolate milk. As long as no laws are broken, We the People have the right to practice our faith even if YOU - poor writer - don't like the tenets of my faith.

Nice try though.


Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 4 years ago from Texas Author

@breakfastpop...Unfortunately those sad old drunks working on our behalf (supposedly) in Congress do not see it that way. I think it is because they have so many other problems trying to come the spring from coming unwound. They have cooked the books for too many years and now there is no where to go but back to the liar's well for some new excuses about how it is someone else's fault. Meanwhile, the socialist ilk in the White House use the time to trash the Constitution and generally dis-assemble the country as we once knew it. Thanks much! WB


joe scalise 4 years ago

123 You are so typical of right wing religious fanatics who search for any typo or error that is not related to an issue because they fail the capabilities of intelligent debate.. So I guess I will have to beg your indulgence and hope that your gramatical proficiency will get you through my text while attempting to absorb its content.

First I will show an attempt by Bush to suapend the right of habeous corpus from an American citizen, which by the way was ruled on in court.

Summary: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

Yaser Hamdi, a Saudi national, was also captured in Afghanistan and brought to

Guantanamo. During his interrogation at Guantanamo, the government learned that he

was born in the U.S. and was thus an American citizen. He was immediately transferred

to a military brig in the U.S. and held incommunicado without charges or a hearing.

Hamdi’s father challenged his son’s detention in a habeas petition in federal court. After

protracted litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Hamdi

was entitled to bring a habeas action, but that, because he was captured on the battlefield,

the federal courts should give total deference to the government’s decision to hold him

incommunicado in military custody.4

In the Supreme Court, only Justice Thomas accepted the government’s position

that it could hold Hamdi indefinitely as an enemy combatant with no evidentiary hearing.

Four Justices (Rehnquist, O’Connor, Kennedy and Breyer) concluded in an opinion by

Justice O’Connor that, by enacting the authorization for the use of military force in

Afghanistan, Congress had authorized Hamdi’s detention as an enemy combatant, but

that he must be given a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate, with the assistance of

counsel, that he was in fact an innocent civilian. Justice O’Connor’s plurality opinion left

open the possibility that the required evidentiary hearing could be held in “an

appropriately authorized and properly constituted military tribunal” rather than a federal

court. Two Justices (Souter and Ginsburg) concluded that Hamdi’s detention was barred

by the Non-Detention Act, 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a), which provides that “No citizen shall be

imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of

Congress.” They nevertheless concurred in the result of the plurality opinion to provide

the basis for a majority decision. Two Justices (Scalia and Stevens) concluded that, as an

American citizen, Hamdi could not constitutionally be detained without criminal charges

because Congress had not suspended the writ of habeas corpus.

Next let me show you where over half of the funding for your non-profit catholic hospitals get their funding.

Summary: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

Yaser Hamdi, a Saudi national, was also captured in Afghanistan and brought to

Guantanamo. During his interrogation at Guantanamo, the government learned that he

was born in the U.S. and was thus an American citizen. He was immediately transferred

to a military brig in the U.S. and held incommunicado without charges or a hearing.

Hamdi’s father challenged his son’s detention in a habeas petition in federal court. After

protracted litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Hamdi

was entitled to bring a habeas action, but that, because he was captured on the battlefield,

the federal courts should give total deference to the government’s decision to hold him

incommunicado in military custody.4

In the Supreme Court, only Justice Thomas accepted the government’s position

that it could hold Hamdi indefinitely as an enemy combatant with no evidentiary hearing.

Four Justices (Rehnquist, O’Connor, Kennedy and Breyer) concluded in an opinion by

Justice O’Connor that, by enacting the authorization for the use of military force in

Afghanistan, Congress had authorized Hamdi’s detention as an enemy combatant, but

that he must be given a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate, with the assistance of

counsel, that he was in fact an innocent civilian. Justice O’Connor’s plurality opinion left

open the possibility that the required evidentiary hearing could be held in “an

appropriately authorized and properly constituted military tribunal” rather than a federal

court. Two Justices (Souter and Ginsburg) concluded that Hamdi’s detention was barred

by the Non-Detention Act, 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a), which provides that “No citizen shall be

imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of

Congress.” They nevertheless concurred in the result of the plurality opinion to provide

the basis for a majority decision. Two Justices (Scalia and Stevens) concluded that, as an

American citizen, Hamdi could not constitutionally be detained without criminal charges

because Congress had not suspended the writ of habeas corpus.

I rest that case.

Bow let me tekk you were half of the funding for your non-proft catholic hospitals get half of their fundind. The are the largest recipients of medicare abd medicaid moneys. They participate in federal and state grants. And they enjoy municiple bonding and abatements. Not to mention the abusive tax exemtions that the overall church holdings get Such as the profitable Chrystler building built on church property which was tax exempt while being paid an enormous yearly lease.

You belong to the wealthiest most mercenary church in the country who sends its halfbaked gullible minions out to cry for the catholic dynasty YOU WEAR YOUR IGNORANCE AND INABILITY TO CARRY ON AN ITELLIGENT DEBATE WITH THE DIGNITY OF ONE WHO WEARS VESTMENTS TO CAMOFLOUGE HIS PEDOPHILIA. GOD PLEASE SAVE US ALL FROM YOUR FOLLOWERS. I will apologies for ant grammer an/or spelling errors but not for my honest appraisal of who and what you are. You are aprime example of why conservative women who enter politics don'tread and haven't even got a clues where Russia is.


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 4 years ago from Michigan

First of all I'm not Catholic. So your assumptions are absolutely incorrect. As is your knuckle dragging ignorance I'm sure with regard to race, color, creed and religious preference.

I am defending ANY religion as it is a constitutional RIGHT. It is irrelevant whether or not I'm Catholic - but the fact is - I'm not. I'd defend a Jew AND YES even a Muslim in this manner. Islam does not believe in abortion either - a Muslim hospital also should have the right never to perform baby slaughter of the pre-born.

This would apply to everyone who claims a religious faith.

Secondly, YOU were the one who OPENED the discussion with your snarky, snide insult to Wayne. You thought you were sounding so superior. You simply sounded like a jerk - it was YOU who started this.

Shall I quote you? Something worthy of a Shakespearean award:

"After all a good percentage practice birth control and this may bother you but also enjoy oral sex."

Wow - how relevant to the discussion! What a way to start out your debate with something so adorable, so cerebral, so glib, so...so...top notch! Seriously - what a class act you are! High, high points for that one yesiree!!

You needed to be put in your place for being so crass and classless. Do you see anyone else writing like that here in this forum? What in the world gave you any idea that that was appropriate to write? Rhetorical (look it up).

Re: Catholic Church run hospitals receive federal funds therefore should be subject to federal rules and regulations. Now that was a shockingly good point however - it won't fly. I do not lose my constitutional rights because I accept a federal pay check. My constitutional rights should always remain protected. So again - the Catholic Church believes birth control is sinful and since it is their business, and their religious right to practice their religion (as long as they do not break laws) any way they please, they should never be forced to provide any service that is against their religious tenets. The federal government can not constitutionally FORCE someone to do something that is against their religious beliefs. Using your backward argument - there is no constitutional RIGHT to birth control. It's not the law of the land - even abortion can't be forced upon anyone. It's not a right. The Supreme Court ruled (wrongly) that a woman has a right to CHOOSE abortion if she wants to have one, however, that ruling didn't include that every medical institution must be forced to provide birth control and abortions. It is not a RIGHT to refuse to dispense birth control and baby slaughter. Therefore, the government can not FORCE anyone to violate their religious beliefs even if the institution is federally/state or otherwise funded. That's irrelevant. Accepting federal funds does not mean I lose my constitutional rights to practice my religion.

As far as what you cited re: Bush and writ of habeas corpus: Well done. You made a solid good point for a change that is - when I was able to decipher your typos and grammatical errors. It took me awhile but I slogged through it.

The act -- The Military Commissions Act of 2006 - is clear. It was never intended for U.S. citizens. The specific case you cited doesn't prove your point. The act also states IF THE PERSON IS A TERRORIST or enemy combatant then they can be tried by a military tribune and the writ can be suspended. While obviously your position is stronger because the Supreme Court ruled for the terrorist - I absolutely and totally disagree with the ruling. In a time of war it is absurd to give the enemy "rights." The Supreme Court isn't always right - as Roe V. Wade is further proof.

BUT - I will grant you, at least you made a good argument this time without having to become crass. But you were unable to maintain any decorum for very long, weren't you?

I wasn't able to really get through that last part that turned into a mess of a rant, too many typos etc. -- but were you calling me a pedophile????

Dude. To insult me - you'd have to move a tad higher on the food chain and I'd have to give a fig about what you think of me. I give far less than a fig and you've got a lot of work ahead of you and some serious crawling before I'd care.

Since wasting my time is something I abhor, it's time to move on. We are SO done here.


joe scalise 4 years ago

I will make this short without an insult. When any evidence is contrary to your belief (e.g Supreme court rulings Roe vs Wade) you think that your opinion supercedes their decision. That invalidates your entire position


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

This is a created 'crisis'. No one is talking about banning birth control, but Obama needs an issue, so this is it, true or not!

He deliberately provoked Catholics in order to make this an issue, and now, he will run on the phony claim that Repubicans want to ban birth control!

This is typical Chicago politics.


Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 4 years ago from Texas Author

@WillStarr...Absolutely...I believe that is exactly the case. It creates another area where something must be done and right now! It also creates a distraction in the form of arguments which detract from a focus the primary subject...Obama's lousy performance as a president. Thanks, Will.


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 4 years ago from Michigan

joe scalise - I never said MY opinion supersedes everything nor did I say my opinion supersedes all Supreme Court decisions. I'm not that important. There is a higher law though - more important than anything and that's God's law. The constitution took Godly/Biblical principles and we built a nation based on these principles. The Supreme Court isn't divine. They can make wrong decisions - this is a fluid process. The Constitution is a set of static rules for our country. Some of the Supreme Court decisions have actually gone against these guidelines/rules. I happen to disagree with two moral decisions/rulings they made. That's all I was saying about those two specific rulings. Slaughtering the defenseless unborn is not a woman's "right". The Constitution never says this anywhere at any time or place or even infers it.

Let's get back to the matter at hand. You can't merely dismiss the facts here because you don't like that they prove you wrong. You can't dismiss FACTS because you don't like me. Well - you could - but that's silly. Facts are facts despite all of that.

Let's get back to the facts and what this discussion was originally about. Your original premise was - George Bush took away the writ of habeas corpus from U.S. citizens. Why wasn't everyone upset (in this forum) then you asked. This in your mind is a gross infringements on our rights as U.S. citizens.

He did not take away the right of U.S. citizens with the act he enacted (as stated above) in 2006. It wasn't written that way nor is it written where it was ever intended to take away a U.S. Citizen's rights as you wrongly claim. I've proven that by quoting from the act itself. Your false claim was that Bush DID INTEND this and I've proven you wrong. You tried to counter that with a Supreme Court ruling but that ruling was specifically for that one individual - the ruling did not prove Bush tried to take away the rights of all U.S. Citizens by the act of 2006. Reread what the act says as quoted above (see above).

The contents of the act is factual information not my opinion. With that factual information I've proven you wrong. You persisted in trying to prove your point by going into the Supreme Court decision but the ruling was with regard to only one specific terrorist and how the Bush administration tried to treat this terrorist. It wasn't a denouncement (at least according to you) of the act itself. It was against the way the Bush administration wished to try this ONE terrorist because he was both a U.S. citizen and a terrorist.

All that ruling proved was that terrorist can't be treated like an ALIEN or enemy combatant or ALIEN terrorist as the ACT ORIGINALLY STATED. Follow the logic here.

It's like John Gotti for example. He murdered how many people? But what finally landed him in jail? Something like tax evasion. That's what the Bush administration attempted to do. Once they found out this terrorist was actually a U.S. Citizen they attempted to try other legal maneuvers to detain him. The supreme court said they couldn't do that. This ruling in no way proves your point that suspending the writ in and of itself was taking away U.S. citizen rights. I've proven that.

The guy was/is a terrorist and the Bush admin. wanted to treat him (as I agree he should be treated) as any enemy combatant in time of war. The Supreme Court said with this ONE PERSON, that the Bush administration couldn't do this.

This did not throw out the writ suspension altogether or prove the Bush administration is out to destroy the rights of U.S. Citizens. Not even CLOSE. Reread everything you yourself posted. It was a ruling based on how that one specific terrorist had to be tried. Period.

Let me refresh your memory, first you said: "Were you this vocal when Bush suspened Habeous Corpus? This was gross infringement on our rights."

I proved you wrong as President Bush was not the only President to do this - unless of course you believe Lincoln was wrong when he used this same suspension during the Civil War? Are you a racist and believe that Lincoln was wrong when he did exactly the same thing as Bush did?

Then you said: "Wayne let me clarify something about the writ of habeous corpus. It did not exclude Americans."

Ahhh...yes it did. Reread the act as I quoted above.

Carrying on with more of what you wrote: "Anyone accused of helping a terrorist could be taken from his home without explaination without an arrest warrent without the right to an attorney and could be held without a trial and the people who are upset about a policy that doesn't threaten anybodys' civil rights act like we are on the brink of communism."

As stated, I proved you wrong by quoting the act (see above). You are wrong that the suspension was also aimed at U.S. Citizens. The act refers ONLY TO ALIENS WHO ARE TERRORISTS AND ENEMY COMBATANTS. Period. U.S. Citizen's rights are not compromised by the Act of 2006. Unless of course you happen to be a terrorist or enemy combatant caught on the battlefield.

Then you said: "Bush not only suspended habeous corpus, which was struck down by the supreme court but he also took our protection against search and siezure and wiretapping. It wasn't just aimed at aliens. It gave him the power to use executive power to use these against anyone that he determined to be a terrorist and a supporter of terrorism."

Again - it is not unconstitutional to suspend the writ of habeas corpus (in and of itself). Again -- see Lincoln. The Supreme Court decision was strictly ruled with regard to that ONE terrorist. Not a sweeping ruling (according to your own information about the ruling above) with regard to the 2006 Act. So you're wrong about that too.

And while I didn't specifically prove that you were wrong about Bush taking away even more rights with regard to search and seizure - you're way wrong about that one also (surprise, surprise!) If you want to find a President who did that - see your buddy Billy Clinton and his feds when they entered a private residence in Florida unlawfully and took a child so they could send him back to his communist buddy in Cuba. Even though A COURT RULED that the child was to remain in the U.S. with that family until a hearing.

Ole Janet and Billy are the ones who illegally did a search and seizure regularly - think Waco for more proof.

Bush never did this or enacted anything like it. That's a lefty rumor you're repeating. The entire wiretapping thing the left went insane over is a bunch of lies - that's the Bush Derangement syndrome in full bloom.

If it's so horrible and our rights were so diminished, then why does the Obama administration DEFEND this practice?

http://www.pcworld.com/article/168502/obama_admini...

It is only used on U.S. Citizens when that U.S. Citizen is communicating with KNOWN TERRORISTS or TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS overseas. You may be idiotic enough not to care if someone is sending emails and in chat rooms with terrorists but I for one am quite interested in knowing what that is all about. Your rights will be protected. If you as a U.S. Citizen aren't big buds with overseas terrorists you have nothing to worry about. If you're worried, stop talking to al-Qaeda on your cell.

There is zero proof that Bush abused his powers like Clinton did and Obama is constantly doing even as I write this.

Your Bush derangement syndrome isn't an excuse to ignore the facts in this matter. You take the facts and try to bend them to your opinion. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 4 years ago from Michigan

OH -- and another thing - how in the world could I have forgotten this? No matter how you try and twist the facts about Bush and try to make him out to a President snooping - Obama wins the prize hands down. How can we forget the official request by the White House to send any "fishy" emails about the administration?? Then there is the “civilian national security force,” - Obama's band of thugs to do what a citizen has to wonder?? And how can we forget the constant Dem/Obama attempt to own the Internet with proposed legislation that will spy on anyone using the Internet? The Lord knows Google - the Obama administration's spying-on-u.s.-citizens right arm has already been doing it secretly for a few years now!

It's laughable that you're so worried about a President who isn't President any longer and won't stop carping about Bush but you ignore all the constitutional violations of the Obama administration!


joe scalise 4 years ago

123 You can't let the recogniton of God and the few principles that match the ten commandments give credence to any religion.

Oh and nothing in this world is divine...not the Supreme Court, not the Pope and not one priest or evangelist. And the Pope id not infallible. So, live with it. And I agree that the Supreme Court may make mistakes. They aren't infallible either, But I can't allow you to cherry pick Supreme Court decison to bolster your frail debating skills.

I haven;'t dismissed your facts because you have presented none. Nothing in the bible has been verified as fact. You have no solid proof that God even exists let alone that there were men inspired by God to write a bible. So I won't allow you to establish anything based on biblical teachings.

Next, it doesn't matter whether or not the people on this forum are upset with Bushs' assault on our rights by suspending habeous corpus, abridging our protection from illegal search and siezure and warrentless wiretaps. Bush was wrong and this forum can't make him right by their will. Have you noticed that not one person on this thread has tried to rescue you from your ill fated arguments. It is because you are a loose cannon and no one is willing to link up with your assininity.

The fact that the Alien Act that you quoted did nothing more than prove me right has negated your argument as well as proved my point. An American was illegally detained inspite of your explaination of the particular Act. He was denied due process in an effort to state his case. But in your mind he was guilty merely because he was snatched up and detained without the presentation of evidence....very, very dangerous presedence set by you. It's people like you who are willing to give up our rights. Sorry this is America and no one is guilty without a fair trial, even if a radical, religious rightwing nut like you says so. In your comprehensive, half-witted rants you proved nothing. Your knowledge of the law is warped and is unrelated to actual cognitive activity.

For the record, I am not happy with the Obama regime but I will never forgive the Bush/Cheney wholesale robbery of this nation.

Now, this debate has come to the end of the twelfth round and you have not scored in any round. I declare myself the winner. No big achievement because I would assume from what I have read here that you would have also lost a gradeschool debate. I will give you the last word because you only serve to enhance my argument.

By the way reread your last post and notice your errors but not to worry I am capable of deciphering typos.


I Saw Marty profile image

I Saw Marty 4 years ago

Wonder what Joe S. thinks about Obama signing NDAA into law, or is a law giving the president the right to indefinitely detain American citizens of no concern to him?

As for the hub, it's fabulous and very to the point. The Sandra Fluke controversy started when she, by her own admission, picked a private Catholic university to attend for the very purpose of forcing them to go against centuries-old teaching (no, the Catholic church did not just start saying contraception is wrong last week to hurt American women's feelings).

Excellent hub, "up" vote from me.


Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 4 years ago from Texas Author

@I Saw Marty...I would guess he would have some reason that it was a rational move. As for the whole birth control thing, it is simply a distraction purposely created by Obama and his lot to burn up the clock. He wants to make sure no one has time to discuss and dwell on his first term in office for very long lest he be turned out in November. The sad state of it all is that the Republicans cannot get themselves together enough to create and focus that message...they are their own worst enemy. Thanks for the good words. WB


joe scalise 4 years ago

@ I Saw Marty, I am just as opposed to the NDAA now as I was when Bush signed it in 2001. Before Obama signed it it was approved by 190 repubs and 93 dems it was opposed by 93 dems and 43 repubs. It looks pretty much like a republican Bill. But nevertheless Obama signed it and as I said earlier I am not happy with Obama. Having said that their is no way I would vote to replace him with what has been offered by the repubs. I want to go a step further by letting you know that I believe that the repubs and the dems are actually one in the same with their intent to enslave the American public. So please don't paint me as a dem. Dems and Repubs only differ on the social issues that they keep us arguing about so that we don't act together to disband their elite club that services the ultra-wealthy and keeps the rest of us tethered to the grinding wheel. Don't you see that the control over this nation is in the hands of a very few. And the Amrican public is so ignorant that we allow both parties to offer bottom of the barrel candidates that are suriptitiously funded by the wealthy and when elected to the office of president or Congress do little else than service the needs and desires of the most wealthy. No legislation finds its way thru Congress without lobbyists support. As a matter of fact lobbyists money determines the yea or nay on all legislation. And if it too controversial of a bill that they can't defeat they will ensure that it is watered down and committeed to death to have no teeth. You guys can continue to push for your repubs but remember one thing. The repubs had the wherewithall to reverse Roe vs Wade (conservatives dream) and under Reagan and both Bushs' didn't even make an attempt. That is one of those wedge issues they can keep you fired up over in each election but will never go to bat for. Doesn't that make you feel used. Kinda like I feel used when the likes Of Obama promise me that he will undo what Bush has done. These people are on the same page and you will see it soon enuf because you and I could end up in the same holding cell regardless of who is in the White House when the American public finally rises up.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working