Why Won’t Frank Wolf Debate Before The June 10 Primary?
May 27th, 2008 by joe
This Friday, candidates for Virginia’s 10th District U.S. Congressional seat will debate on WAMU radio’s Politics Hour.
Well, most of the candidates. GOP primary candidate Vern McKinley will be there. Democratic candidates Judy Feder and Mike Turner will be there. But Congressman Frank Wolf thus far is not planning to participate.
Here is last week’s press release from the McKinley campaign:
Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia’s Tenth Congressional District has not faced a Republican primary challenge since he first won his seat as part of the “Reagan Wave” in 1980. Today, he faces strong criticism from many conservatives for turning from the “Reagan Values” that he once campaigned on. Vern McKinley, Republican challenger in the 10th district, is running a campaign on these issues. McKinley is an experienced policy expert who would bring vast federal government, international and private sector experience to Congress, along with a vision of limited government.
At least four independent efforts have been made over the past few weeks to organize a debate of the issues between Congressman Wolf and McKinley: the Politics Hour on WAMU with Kojo Nnamdi; the “Road to…” show on FCAC Channel 10; the Sterling Foundation; and the Loudoun County High School Young Republicans, all of which were turned down by the Congressman. The 10th Congressional District has a long-standing history of political debates. During Congressman Wolf’s early campaigns in the 1970s then-Congressman Fisher made himself available for debates several times against then-challenger Frank Wolf. Next week McKinley will debate the two Democratic Candidates in the 10th Congressional district to get out his message. This week he also debated the Libertarian Party candidates for President, including Bob Barr and Mike Gravel.
The two Republican candidates appeared at this past weekend’s 10th Congressional District Republican Convention, but were only given two minutes each to speak. “Two minutes is not enough to inform the Republican faithful on where we stand on the issues. I hereby challenge Congressman Wolf to have a debate on the direction of the Republican Party. There are stark contrasts between Congressman Wolf and the limited government base of the party, of which I am a member. Republican voters have sent Congressman Wolf back to Washington time and again over the past three decades. Yet he doesn’t think they deserve to hear him explain his transformation into a big government Republican. We need to talk about his stance on spending and entitlements, on the proper role of government, the 2nd amendment, life and foreign policy matters,” noted McKinley.
“The Congressman’s supporters are spreading misinformation and distortions about my work in emerging market economies, such as Sudan and Libya, where I have advised on the transition to more open, free-market based, financial systems. What we need is an open debate about the issues and our years in public service. Otherwise conclusions will be based on rumor and innuendo,” McKinley concluded.
To learn more about the McKinley for Congress campaign, please visit www.McKinleyforCongress.com.
I suppose Wolf feels he has nothing to gain from the debate - no reason to submit to attacks from three sides. But he has in the past articulated his positions well, so he should have no worries about being “out-debated.” His refusal to participate conveys a sense of fear, as though he does not want to have to defend his record in the Congress.
UPDATE: Read the comments - some good discussion!
This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 27th, 2008 at 11:05 pm and is filed under Campaign 2008. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
[…] Read the full article at NOVA Townhall. […]
May 28th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Joe, Believe you are correct in assuming that Wolf has nothing to gain from a debate. As you say, we know Frank’s positions well.
A debate would be little more than free press for McKinley. Would you debate McKinley if you were in Wolf’s shoes, as the clear front runner ?
May 28th, 2008 at 12:22 am
I don’t know if it’s just an issue of “free press” for McKinley. McKinley’s going to get some press anyway by appearing in the debate. The risk for Wolf is he has to account for some votes - against reforming DC gun ban and some spending issues come to mind - and he does not wish to submit to the questioning.
If Wolf believes he can state his case, he should debate.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:32 am
I would tend to believe that the coverage would be much more significant if Wolf were there.
Didn’t Wolf sign the SCOTUS Amicus Brief in opposition to the DC ban ?
May 28th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Yes, he did sign the Amicus brief. It was the 2006 vote against Virgil Goode’s bill that got him in hot water with the 2nd Amendment people.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:43 am
Yes, I know. Is this a federal issue or a local issue ? While I do believe it was the wrong vote on the basis of the 2A, I think it was the right vote on the basis of local sovereignty.
I am one who does not believe in congressional intrusion in local matters. Congress did give DC home rule didn’t they ? Wasn’t the Goode bill a nibble at this ?
May 28th, 2008 at 12:53 am
It’s a legitimate argument but I happen to disagree with it - Vern’s statement that “home rule does not trump the 2nd Amendment” strikes me as about right.
You probably know people who commute into DC and sometimes have to work late and return to deserted Metro stations. If the person was a young woman who you would like to furnish with a pistol, it is more than an objective debate over local authority.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:02 am
If you knew a young women who worked in MD, would you also want Congress to overrule there as well ? NY ? MA ? CA ? Why stop with DC ? This would have been a very bad precedent imho.
I believe I am correct in saying that Metro does not allow carry anyway, but I do get your point.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Guess it’s a visceral thing, I’ve always been steamed about DC ….
May 28th, 2008 at 5:32 am
Sorry, Dan, but “home rule” itself is unconstitutional. Article I, Section 8 says, “The Congress shall have Power… To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over [DC].”
“Exclusive” means no-one else can do it. Congress cannot abrogate that Power, as it has usurped so many others that it does not have.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:15 am
Why should Wolf debate McKinley? Lets see McKinley has not appeared prepared at convention and party events, not raised any money, and not looked like a serious candidate to the public. After McKinley’s appearance at the 10th convention, Wolf should not debate this guy when he cannot prepare for a simple 2 minute speech. Other than getting the required signatures McKinley does not seem to have met the minumum standards for a legitimate campaign. Certainly no offense to McKinley but this campaign never seems to have got past the beginning stages of a campaign.
What is this misinformation campaign McKinley speak of? The guy seems to have worked for these two bad countries. Reading the above press statement is the first I have seen this. When you work with Sudan and Libya you can probably expect some incoming flak.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:43 am
[…] NOVA Townhall Blog […]
May 28th, 2008 at 8:14 am
Congressman Wolf, like many others swallowed the bait hook line and sinker from those who believe guns rights are to be restricted based on ones geographic or political local. This is the same mistake Rudy G. makes all of the time. In other words the 2nd amendment is different in NY v. lets say Utah or Virginia. In their minds rural v. urban, political bounders or population densities get to decide what level of gun ownership can prevail.
The rights under the second amendment are the same whether you live in DC, NY, Utah or Texas.
Rights do not fluctuate based longitude and latitude. They are the same. Nowhere in the constitution does it say you have the right to keep and bare arms up until another political body, in this case the DC City council decides you don’t.
Vern Mckinley has it right, DC law does not trump the constitution.
Congressman Wolf is the kind of Conservative who wants to be liked at polite political gatherings. Being liked and admired by those to his left has trumped his conservatism. I have spent my entire adult life in Virginia watching Sen. John Warner suffer from this same disease, Likamoderatitis.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:39 am
I can’t remember a time that Frank Wolf DID debate! He has “townhall meetings” where people can conference in over the phone OR does speaking engagements where he has question/answer sessions. This, by far, is a much more comfortable and CONTROLLED venue then, say, a debate. Yes, Frank has veered and Stone is correct about Wolf and Liz’s ex-husband. They have left the old Republican mindset behind (once they got elected, of course) and although Wolf has always been the better of the 2, they are POLITICIANS-not civil servants. I think that is what we need. I don’t care how well anyone speaks as long as what is said is what best serves the people. Type it, mumble it, sign it, Braile it write it. Just make “it” be of substance and constitutionality-not Clintonesque!
May 28th, 2008 at 9:07 am
An incumbent frontrunner rarely debates in a Primary debate. I don’t know what Wolf’s record is on debates in the general election, but that he is not debating Friday is by no means shocking.
I saw Vern McKiney last night at the LCRC meeting. I agree with and admire his positions on the issues, however he is a poor public speaker.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Did McKinley sign an Amicus Brief against DC’s gun laws ? If not, why not ? If I were supporting him I would surely like to know the answer to these questions.
Jack - Congress did exercise their power over the District, and gave them the freedom of self determination. Exclusive does not mean you cannot delegate.
G- Yes, SCOTUS is currently reviewing DC’s gun laws against the 2A yardstick. This is the course that should have been taken, not Congress stepping in. Give the system that is outlined in the Constitution that you so regularly quote a chance to work.
I thought conservatives were against government intrusion on local sovereignty ? Guess the Reagan candle is not flickering very brightly in your hearts is it ?
May 28th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Dan :
I am against federal intrusion. Except for when states or localities try to infringe of my constitutional rights based on political borders. I do not believe local governments have the power to trump basic rights, such as the second amendment, no matter what. I am and will always be an advocate of states rights as laid out in the founding documents. The separation of powers does not give the states the rights to pick and choose those constitutional amendments they find tolerable.
The framers intended for the powers of the federal government to be few and well defined. The fact that we have allowed congress and the various administrations to twist and torture the commerce clause into a massive expansion of federal power does not mean that those few powers intended for the feds should not remain theirs.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:17 am
G- We agree on these points. The answer to the localities problems lies in the locality. This is why we need strong, well supported grassroots groups such as VCDL.
The main reason I am opposed to Congress stepping in, is that Congress does not have the power to give,or take, 2A rights. If Goode’s bill had passed, this paradigm has now been changed. We would now have a precedent where Congress is seen as legislating a fundamental right that it has no control over.
Whatever Congress can giveth, Congress can taketh away.
Please, someone here query McKinley if he did or did not sign onto or otherwise file an Amicus Brief on DC v. Heller.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:33 am
“Exclusive does not mean you cannot delegate.”
Yes, it does. “Exclusive” means it excludes any others from having that power.
“I thought conservatives were against government intrusion on local sovereignty ?”
What nonsense — DC _is_ the federal government.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Hey Republicanvoter,
I have been reading your posts over the last several weeks and have become quite annoyed with you.
You are judgemental, ungracious, and certainly unknowledgable about the issues.
You don’t seem informed enough to judge people on their professional experience. In regards to McKinley, do you even know where Libya and Sudan are located on a map?
McKinley’s website clearly states that he worked in South Sudan, the Christian region. He was there with the US Government. Your comments were incorrect.
Have you thought about researching the issues, or even talking to the candidate himself? Or do you merely make rash assumptions that result in meaningless babble?
May 28th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Jack, may I ever so humbly disagree…
May 28th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
There is no reasonable basis for refusing to participate in a public forum. These forums, which a debate is a key element of, are essential for voters to be able to make an informed decision.
If any candidate is unable to perform well in a forum such as a debate, then his opponent should be anxiously awaiting the opportunity to prove himself the better candidate before voters. Wolf is not. - Why?
Wolf does not want to participate in these forums because he is hiding from the issues. Wolf does have a poor voting record, though it still remains hidden to some conservatives. Any public forum would give McKinley the opportunity to expose him.
Wolf’s refusal to debate McKinley in a public forum is evidence of poor statesmanship and political gain over truth and values. - Hopefully truth will prevail despite the suppression.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Well, Dan, if you’re going to disagree, then support your argument. Start here, with the definitions for “exclusive.” Tell me which one of those definitions fits your reading of Article 1, Section 8.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I put up signs for McKinley at the 10th District Convention, long before the Frank Wolf staffers arrived to do likewise. I left plenty of space between ours for theirs. So what did Frank Wolf staffer Daniel Scandling do when he arrived?
Daniel Scandling used Wolf signs to block the view from the street of the McKinley signs. I gently explained to him that I’d been there far earlier and could have left him no room, but instead did the opposite. His smug response? “Hey, I’m just putting up signs!”
I’m sorry, but it has to be said. That guy is a petty jerk.
Somehow, I don’t think that arrogant attitude starts with Dan Scandling. If Frank Wolf was truly a fair-minded guy, his staffer Scandling wouldn’t have behaved that way.
Frank Wolf refuses to discuss the issues, he trains his staffers to hide his opponent’s signs, and he supports Jim Rich’s thuggery.
Frank Wolf supported term limits, until he was an incumbent. In his first term, he supported the Brady Bill. At the 10th District convention, he listed creation of a new Federal land grab over much of Virginia ( http://blueridgeforum.com/?p=8 ) among his proudest accomplishments.
Wolf was rated 44% (a C-) by National Taxpayers Union ( http://blueridgeforum.com/?p=60 ) . That’s no surprise to me or others who have had or know someone whose had the experience of Frank Wolf asking how he “can help” (ie dish out Federal pork) to them. He even supported McCain-Feingold, for crying out loud!
Frank Wolf has become arrogant, due to too many years on the Hill. He needs to come home permanently. I’m glad he’s for freedom in Darfur. Right now, we could use more here as well, and he’s not delivering.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Annoyed,
I certainly don’t have a problem with anyone running but you folks could at least come up with a legitimate candidate who can actually debate Republican issues NOT libertarian issues. It would also be nice if McKinley could actually come to an event prepared to give a speech but that is another story. Why should Wolf debate a guy who is NOT a legitimate candidate? He can raise absolutely NO money, he has NO backing from elected officials and is essentially a libertarian candate joining Bob Barr.
At least find a candidate who has NOT done work for Communist China, that persecutes and kills Christians of all faiths, and works for Sudan, and the evil rogue terrorist state of Libya directly responsible for American deaths.
That would be reason enough for a candidate of either party NOT to share the platform.
Lets see, McKinley cannot raise any money, has no support from within leadership of Republican committees, and works with countries with evil terrorist and communist regimes. I will not and cannot blame Wolf for NOT debating this particular candidate. Republicans of all stripes ranging from the most conservative like Ken Cuccinelli to the more moderate-liberal types support Wolf. What does Wolf have to gain? Absolutely nothing. I believe he is one of the few that posts his voting record for all to see. At least I have heard that before. I may not agree with Wolf on all issues but I don’t blame him for not debating this guy.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Jack, If this is the legs of your argument, suggest you get it a walker…
I rest my argument on The Home Rule Act being constitutional simply because it has not been found to be otherwise.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Republicanvoter,
You keep regurgitating the same talking points straight from Wolf’s lackeys that spend two or three nights on a visit to Darfur and they suddenly think they are experts in foreign policy.
You continue to babble on about Sudan but as I noted before McKinley’s work was funded by the US government and has nothing to do with the deaths of those in Darfur as you imply.
As for fundraising issues the only other candidate in Virginia with the balls to challenge an incumbent Congressman is Matt Famiglietti who is taking on Jim Moran within the Democratic Party. He has raised $2,000. Check back with us and let us know your fundraising totals when you ever have enough guts to challenge an incumbent like McKinley or Famigletti is doing.
I completely understand why you find such affinity with Wolf. You both hide behind excuses and pseudonyms and are afraid to come out of your rat holes to debate openly the issues of the day.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Dan: I’m no Constitutional scholar, but doesn’t the 10th Amendment have any bearing against a state/district rendering the 2nd amendment meaningless?
May 28th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Johnny Law,
I am not either, hopefully SCOTUS will answer these questions for us. My personal belief is that a state, or other municipality may not gut the 2A.
Experiences have shown it to be an impractical solution anyway. Look at DC, rampant growth in homicide, Ramsey gets canned and goes to Philly, where they are clamoring for more gun control, because of their rampant increase in homicide on Ramsey’s watch.. Seems like a pattern of failure to me..
May 28th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
If I were a Republican, I’d vote for Vern McKinley because limited government advocates generally shy away from the “panty politics”* that conservative Christian politicians obsess over.
Also, Vern cites Ronald Reagan who catapulted the gay-rights movement into the national spotlight when as governor of California, he opposed the Briggs Initiative which would have barred gays and lesbians from employment as public school teachers, and would also have led to the dismissal of those straight teachers who spoke out (even outside the classroom) in favor of gay rights.
* his ill advised belief that human life begins at conception rather than implantation aside.
May 29th, 2008 at 5:12 am
Annoyed,
I actually found McKinley’s website, exlored the site a little and went to his campaign kickoff announcement, it says the following:
“Over the past eight years he has worked as a legal and policy advisor on financial and fiscal matters to domestic and foreign governments, including in the U.S., China, Nigeria, the Philippines, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Kenya, the Sudan, Libya, Armenia, Yugoslavia (now Montenegro), Serbia, Kosovo and Tajikistan.”
I don’t care the candidates last name or party affiliation is, if he or she has worked for(with) brutal Communist regimes and rogue terrorist states like China, Libya and Sudan I don’t want them representing me in Congress. Nowhere does it say he works for the U.S. government. Funny, it also does not say Southern Sudan either.
I’ll take Frank Wolf any day of the week, he at least works against these brutal, dictatorial regimes, NOT for them. We need a champion for human rights like Reagan who works against terrorist states and communists not for them. I would not consider voting for a candidate of either party who does business with rogue regimes. Maybe I am close minded, but that is how I feel.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:17 am
“I rest my argument on The Home Rule Act being constitutional simply because it has not been found to be otherwise.”
Cite the court case.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:23 am
Republicanvoter,
You are close minded, but I would emphasize your STUPIDITY much more. Here is the page where it shows up and because I doubt you could find it, I have pasted the description below the link:
http://www.mckinleyforcongress.com/background.html
Legal and Policy Advisor
Over the past eight years, Vern has worked as a legal and policy advisor on financial/fiscal matters to domestic and foreign governments. His primary focus has been to advise foreign governments transitioning to more open and free-market based economic systems, often funded by the US government, consistent with US policy, in China, Nigeria, the Philippines, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Kenya, South Sudan, Libya, Armenia, Yugoslavia (now Montenegro), Serbia, Kosovo and Tajikistan. His primary policy focus during these years has been research on the issue of how central banks around the world undertake their responsibilities.
It is time for you to stop wasting your time on blogs and get back to school to learn your geography of where these countries are, what is and is not being done in interests of the US. Wolf spends a few days in these countries and he thinks he has all the answers. Obviously you have fallen for his liberal-minded ideas on sanctions and divestment that he gets from high-minded types like Angelina Jolie and George Clooney. These prescriptions hurt the people in those countries more than they help which Wolf would understand if he spent more than a few days there.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Actually, one should be merely “SMARTER THAN A FIFTH GRADER ” to understand that U.S. government does lots of business in third world countries, and, yes, including Libya abd Sudan, via AID which stands for Agency for International Development… It is unethincal if not damn, to merely conclude that if one traveled or worked in Libya or Sudan or China, then he spies for them. After all, the whole corporate America does business with China. And you buy stuff made it China. Does it mean that you support Communist regime?
Unfortunately, it looks like Republican Voters like the one on this forum support this unpopular administration and helped them to stay there as long as possible.
And by the way, the same Frank Wolf was doing poorely in high school, didn’t go to college for a few years, then barely got into college. This helps me understand why some people find affinity with him.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Jack, precisely my point.
Actually jack, it was your wild-eyed allegation that Home Rule is unconstitutional. The burden of proof is on you to defend this ludicrous statement.
Don’t be a puss, get some facts to back up your myth. As things stand right now, forget the walker, your argument is DOA.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:36 am
I have defended my statement, Dan, by quoting the Constitution. You can find neither a court ruling, nor a definition of “exclusive,” that supports your position.
Your “reasoning” is simply that anything that a court has not ruled to be unconstitutional is constitutional. That logic is absurd. Was “separate but equal” constitutional until the Supremes ruled that was not, or was it unconstitutional the whole time?
The Supremes do not make things constitutional or unconstitutional. They decide whether something is constitutional. They may even be wrong, which is why the Supremes have overturned their own rulings.
Can you imagine the lawyers for DC claiming that their gun ban is Constitutional because it hasn’t been ruled unconstitutional?
You’re arguing like a liberal.
May 29th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
The Constitution determines what is Constitutional. That is why ‘Constitutional’ is called Constitutional. It means that something is based off of of the Constitution or in accordance with the Constitution.
The Second Amendment is in the Constitution, so it must be Constitutional. Income tax, as we know it, is not in the Constitution and is thus not Constitutional. In fact, the current income tax laws are completely prohibited within the Constitution.
Remember, the Constitution, as it applies to the government, states only what the government can do. The Constitution is there to instruct and restrain government, protecting the Rights of the people. If it is not in the Constitution, the government cannot do it.
The problem has never been proving what is or is not Constitutional, that is fairly simple. The problem is politicians and judges themselves who refuse to follow their oath and adhere to the Constitution.
It is not just about being liberal, conservative, or libertarian. It is about following the Constitution. Politicians like Frank Wolf, whose vote for the DC Gun Ban is now under Supreme Court consideration for removal on Constitutional grounds, must be thrown head first out of office.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
“The problem is politicians and judges themselves who refuse to follow their oath and adhere to the Constitution.”
That has always been the problem.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
I completely get it. Instead of trying to actually excuse or explain McKinley’s service to these rogue nations, I get called stupid and closed minded and a 5th grader and even worse our sitting Congressmen’s intelligence is questioned. Real mature, McKinley supporters, yes indeed real mature. Keep telling yourselves this guy is Congressional material when he comes to a convention completely unprepared to deliver a simple campaign speech.
As for myself, I simply don’t want a policy advisor to Communist China or rogue terrorist state like Libya or maybe even the Sudan that has been responsible for the deaths of many Americans as my Congressman.
I would rather keep Wolf in office who has fought against human rights abuses and taken a hard line stance against these countries that McKinley advises.
May 30th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Hello, Republicanvoter,
If you think that the last paragraph in #34 challenges the intelligence of your Congressman, well, then he himself questions it as it was a direct quote from his interview. Here is the link to youtube, listen to it.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pSbbPQVhd8s
Best Regards…
May 30th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Dan,
A little history primer. The District of Columbia IS FEDERAL territory. The whole home rule nonsense started in the 60’s and is the brainchild of liberal hippie fruitloops.
A little English primer.
Main Entry:
1 ex·clu·sive
Pronunciation: \iks-ˈklü-siv, -ziv\
Function: adjective
Date: 1515
1 a: excluding or having power to exclude b: limiting or limited to possession, control, or use by a single individual or group
2 a: excluding others from participation b: snobbishly aloof
3 a: accepting or soliciting only a socially restricted patronage (as of the upper class) b: stylish, fashionable c: restricted in distribution, use, or appeal because of expense
4 a: single, sole b: whole, undivided
— ex·clu·sive·ly adverb
— ex·clu·sive·ness noun
Which supports Jack’s argument.
May 30th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Last R,
“ncome tax, as we know it, is not in the Constitution and is thus not Constitutional. In fact, the current income tax laws are completely prohibited within the Constitution.”
unfortunately incorrect. They (the grasping politicians) amended:
Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The 17 amendment was even worse
May 30th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Jacob,
Please cite the court ruling that supports jack’s assertion that home rule is unconstitutional.
I did not realize that home rule was the result of a vast left wing conspiracy. I thought the city received a municipal charter in 1802, and then elected a mayor and city council. We had hippies back then ?
May 30th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Dan,
What part of ‘read the constitution’ don’t you get? Jack addressed this above in comment # 36. Just because the supremes have not ruled that a ham sandwich IS in fact a ham sandwich it does not mean you or I are excluded from calling it a ham sandwich.
May 30th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Dan,
Home rule is in reference to the desire to turn DC into a state. This was a 60’s idea, you know it, or you should know it.
May 30th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Dan, did you even read my previous comment (#36)?
The Supremes do not MAKE something constitutional or unconstitutional, they examine it in the light of the Constitution, and decide whether it is or is not constitutional.
Furthermore, they do not decide upon the constitutionality of an issue until someone brings a lawsuit. No-one outside of DC would have standing to do so, and few in DC dislike Home Rule. Neither of those facts go to the constitutionality of Home Rule, but only point out why it has not gone to the Supremes.
May 30th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Hippie fruitloops and left wingers. They are NOT the same. And why must you keep picking on my hippie brethern! What did they ever do to you? What? Didn’t get enough love or drugs in the 60’s? Too bad! Get over it! Remember, we still had commies (in plentiful supply), liberals, anti-americans, left wingers, John Birchers, KKKers and a host of others in the 60’s. Leave the longhairs alone, will ya?
May 30th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Jack,
I thought home rule was given by the congress to D.C.. If so, don’t they have the right to take it back? And if it ever comes to a point of statehood, don’t the individual states get to vote on that ratification? I don’t know. Just asking.
May 30th, 2008 at 10:21 am
You are correct, ACTivist. My contention is that it was unconstitutional for Congress to do so. Just as it is unconstitutional for Congress to usurp power not granted to it by the Constitution, it is also unconstitutional for Congress to abrogate a responsibility that the Constitution puts “exclusively” on Congress.
I do not think I understand your question about statehood. Could you rephrase it, please?
May 30th, 2008 at 10:32 am
“I do not think I understand your question about statehood. Could you rephrase it, please?”
I will try. I’m a white male conservative christian red-blooded American gunowner so you can already see that I am severely handicapped!
When a territory or protectorate (Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands) do their votes for wanting/not wanting statehood; if it is determined thru votes that the citizens of that (we’ll say) territory WANTS statehood, doesn’t it go for a vote amongst the individual states of the U.S. for the privelage of becoming a NEW state? Or is this process done thru Congress WITHOUT consent or will of the PEOPLE? In other words, what is the process and how much, if any, involvement do U.S. citizens have in this process?
Is that understandable to you?
May 30th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Yes. I was unsure whether you were talking specifically about DC statehood, which would require a Constitutional Amendment, which would require ratification by the states.
“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union….” (Article IV, Sec 3, Clause 1.)
No vote by the states is required.
May 30th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Ya ! Jonathan comes running in flying the rainbow flag ! We almost made it through an entire conversation without injecting the Homosexual agenda.
Talk about being stuck on ” Panty politics “
May 30th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
G.
We ignored him the whole time until you gave him recognition. I now feel obliged to give him comment. Jonathan, once N.Y. recognizes all the homosexual marraige licsences from Ca. and Mass., we want you to go there for the other “if I were a republican girl” (you know, Bloomers-burg) and get a date with him. Oh, yes. He is flakey just like you. Then you both can get married and live abominated ever after.
May 30th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Jack, jacob,
Yes, I did read Jack’s post, but it smacked of “it’s unconstitutional because I believe the Constitution says it is.
I am talking about home rule, established by an act of Congress, not “ham sandwiches”, or not just “anything”. I am talking about LAW.
As the Home Rule Act, which is LAW, has not been overturned, (or challenged for that matter), it remains with the assumption of constitutionality until a court rules otherwise. Another example, the Safe Schools Act of 1990. It stood as law until parts of it were challenged and struck down by the courts. If what you say is true, Heller would not be in front of SCOTUS would it ? And yes, sometimes the court does overturn a prior court ruling.
Again jacob, jack, stop wandering off into the weeds, and answer my prior question “When and where was home rule found to be unconstitutional?”.
May 30th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Dan, no lawyer would go into a court and argue that a law is constitutional because no court has said it is not. That is circular logic, and utterly ridiculous.
You mention the Safe Schools Act. Were the parts struck down by the courts constitutional BEFORE they were struck down? Of course not. The court did not CAUSE them to be unconstitutional.
Similarly, a lack of a ruling on Home Rule does not make it constitutional, either. I have stated my position, which is that the word “exclusive” precludes Congress’ abrogating that power.
Now, using the Constitution, and your (admittedly limited) knowledge of English, and your (even more limited) logical faculties, tell me how you would argue, as a lawyer before the Supremes, that Home Rule is constitutional.
May 30th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
ACTivist,
I’m already married, thanks. I Did not understand your “abominated” comment. I think you meant to say that we will live “Obamanated” for eight years after Barack wins in November.
G. Stone,
Thanks for noticing. Did I ever tell you that I think you’re a swell guy!
May 30th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Not in this state, you aren’t.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:35 pm
“Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
Matt 19:6 KJV
May 31st, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Typical liberal, taking things out of context. Here’s the context:
“And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” (Matt 19:4-5)
So, which of you is the female? Which of you is the wife?
May 31st, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Jack,
I am debating your assertion that home rule is unconstitutional. You continue to try to put the onus on me, rather than accept responsibility for your own ludicrous declaration.
The ball remains in your court to back up your incredible statement. In light of your abject failure to do so, I would suggest that you tuck your tail between your legs, and quietly go away.
June 1st, 2008 at 5:52 am
Of course Jack, no conservative would ever take this:
“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.”
and think it means that:
“The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Anyways, back to the topic of Vern McKinley, if he claims to be a Christian, he surely knows that Jesus’ feminist teachings departed radically from the understanding of the institution of traditional marriage of the day.
“And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;
And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?”
Matt 19:1-3 KJV
June 1st, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Dan, I have defended my argument by quoting the constitution and a dictionary. You have not countered my argument, nor have you come up with anything but circular reasoning that leads nowhere.
Jonathan, the first phrase of the Second Amendment is merely the justification for the second phrase.
I entirely agree with your reading of the Bible that Jesus forbade divorce.