Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Is Hugh Hewitt Really A Conservative

Talk show host Hugh Hewitt, usually one of the talk show circuits best interviewers, or at least has the best guests, like Mark Stein and some great reporters on the war issue, appears to be going soft. Also, usually tough on the culture war issues, and a defender of Christianity, he appears to be succumbing to political correctness on the homosexual issue. He recently had his fellow Chapman University Law School colleague Katherine Darmer, a radical homosexual activist. During the broadcast, the two repeatedly referred to each other as friends, but a little farther into the show, which was a debate between Darmer and Austin Nimocks, a supporter of Proposition 8, she said that all who supported Proposition 8 were homophobes, directing it against Nimocks. And Hewitt just let that slide. He did not challenge her. No wonder the left is winning, if talk radio hosts like Hewitt won't stand up to homosexual thugs like Darmer, we are lost. Half of winning is standing up to thugs. Hewitt even let the issue of homosexual terrorism slide with only a slight reference, not holding Darmer's feet to the fire and again letting her radicalism slide with no challenge.

Like Hewitt's support for amnesty and his multiple failures, especially for an attorney, on the nomination of Clinton to the Secretary of State position that is clearly prohibited by the Constitution and the issue of Obama's place of birth. His response to that issue was the State of Hawaii has "certified" Obama's as yet unreleased original birth certificate. Well, since the State of Hawaii issues birth certificates to person's not born in Hawaii, how does the State of Hawaii's "certification" of the birth certificate close the issue of Obama's birth overseas?

One would think an attorney would be a little more discerning. But, then his colleague Michael Medved is on an ant-Rush crusade and a fanatic on giving amnesty to the next generation of radical leftwing voting Hispanics, who voted over 60% against the Republican who supported amnesty. Oh, and by the way, lost the election. I am wondering as to what Hewitt really is. And who Medved really is.


Ted said...

Each and every member of Congress should be notified that he or she is personally liable (can be sued) for his or her own failure, or the same in conspiracy with other members, to perform what is a ministerial and constitutional duty, that is, to require and/or insist that Presidential electoral votes only be counted for candidates who are “natural born citizens” under Article II of the United States Constitution, the failure of which creates a cause of action for deprivation of claimants’ constitutional rights (as allowed under the Bivens case) against employees of the Federal Government, in this case, to a lawful President and Commander in Chief, and therefore, for deprivation of adequate continuation of the United States as a Constitutional Republic. The constitutionally tortious conduct is not subject to congressional immunity and would be the jettison of Article II of the Constitution by failure to stop and/or object to the counting of electoral votes for Barack H. Obama who has admitted that at the time of his birth his father was a Kenyan/British citizen and not a citizen of the United States of America.

Federale said...


Excellent work on Bivens. It certainly opens up an avenue that SCOTUS must eventually confront. It might apply to the emoluments clause and Hillary as well.

However, first, they most certainly reject it on standing as an excuse, just as Hewitt doesn't want SCOTUS blocking election results, but then, what is the problem with blocking an election when the Constitution is at stake.

However, any action by Obama, such when an executive order is issued, anyone in violation of that order can then have standing to challenge his lawful authority. The same with Hillary, who, as head of an agency, will have many more opportunities to have her authority challenged by someone with standing, such as a Department of State employee who challenges a personnel action, a designated foreign terrorist entity that challenges said designation by SECSTATE, or DOS restriction of importation of firearms. Many are expecting Obama to terminate importation of firearms and parts.

I think in the end that there will be many opportunities to challenge Obama and Clinton by persons with standing, whether it be a terrorist, a DOS employee, or a firearms importer.

However, I fundamentally disagree with Bivens; Like virtually all of the Warren and Burger court decisions, they are of doubtful constitutional standing. Bivens was like Miranda, Roe, and Gideon; having no basis in the Constitution or American history. It was just Justices making things up out of whole cloth to fit their ideology. It was well established before Bivens that no civil action could be taken against the United States, unless provided for by law. Interestingly though, States, who created the United States, and were sovereign, had been prevented by the Constitution from repudiating their debts, which is a sovereign action. The was no similar repudiation clause pertaining to the United States.

But, if we follow the logic of Bivens, which was to create a right of action where there was none before, ostensibly to seek a remedy for some damage done but in reality to further a radical agenda, there is nothing stopping the court from either creating a right to enforce any provision of the constitution, or, more specifically, to seek remedy for damages done to Americans by the sovereign, the United States government and its agents. Now we have to establish the damage done to us by Obama.

Now liberals tell us that anytime the Constitution is violated we all suffer. We can conclude from that that we all have standing whenever there is a violation of the Constitution.