Vander Plaats Endorsed by Iowa/Nebraska NAACP President
- Tuesday, October 13, 2009, 4:14
- Iowa, News Center
- 1,980 views
- 162 comments
Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats received the endorsement of Rev. Keith Ratliff yesterday morning. Supporting Vander Plaats might seem like natural fit for Rev. Ratliff, a strong proponent of traditional marriage, but this is the first time Rev. Ratliff will vote for a Republican in his life. In 2006, Rev. Ratliff voted for Governor Chet Culver.
In addition to being the pastor of the Maple Street Baptist Church in Des Moines, Ratliff is also the President of the Iowa/Nebraska Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). While Rev. Ratliff stated that his support of traditional marriage played a role in his decision to support Vander Plaats, he also mentioned a number of issues that Governor Culver has failed to adequately address in his first term in office.
One of the main areas where Ratliff has been disappointed in Governor Culver is the state’s hiring practices. Ratliff stated that, besides Governor Culver’s signing of Executive Order Four, which he admits has no teeth, the Culver administration has done very little to create a diverse workforce. Ratliff expressed displeasure that recommendations made by the NAACP and unanimously approved by a special governor’s task force have not been implemented.
Vander Plaats has not addressed state government hiring practices until yesterday. Vander Plaats pledged that as governor, he would apply the “three C’s” to the state’s hiring practices – character, competence, and chemistry. When asked about whether or not a Vander Plaats’ administration would support quotas or affirmative action hiring practices to create a diverse workforce, Vander Plaats told TheIowaRepublican.com that his administration would be fair to all people, but he does not support affirmative action initiatives. He also pointed out that in his eleven years in education and his seven years in the health services industry, he has always endeavored to give all people opportunity.
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 700 stories on this site.
Craig Robinson serves as the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheIowaRepublican.com. Prior to founding Iowa's largest conservative news site, Robinson served as the Political Director of the Republican Party of Iowa during the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. In that capacity, Robinson planned and organized the largest political event in 2007, the Iowa Straw Poll, in Ames, Iowa. Robinson also organized the 2008 Republican caucuses in Iowa, and was later dispatched to Nevada to help with the caucuses there. Robinson cut his teeth in Iowa politics during the 2000 caucus campaign of businessman Steve Forbes and has been involved with most major campaigns in the state since then. His extensive political background and rolodex give him a unique perspective from which to monitor the political pulse of Iowa.
162 Comments on “Vander Plaats Endorsed by Iowa/Nebraska NAACP President”
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I must say, I have never been a fan of hanging one’s political hat on endorsments, but this one is rather interesting. Its interesting to me in the aspect of watching an influential black leader stand up and say that maybe its time to be honest about things and admit that the Democratic party has done very little for the black community while the black communtiy continues to support, almost in lock step, the Democratic party
You’re still going to lose (again), Bob.
I wonder…
If Bob were to win the Republican primary, would fiscal conservatives view him as their 80% friend and vote for (in their minds) the lesser of two evils? Or would they rather just abandon the party and vote Democrat or third party?
Be interesting to find out wont it CT?
The “fiscal conservatives” aren’t any more fiscally conservative than they are socially conservative. It’s all about the money and power. If they don’t get to steal from the state treasury, they will walk away from the party in a heartbeat.
I learned years ago that fiscal cons are just as selfish at dipping into the govt till as are the ‘welfare queens’. Dangle a fed subsidy of some sort in front of a supposedly conservative businessman and he’ll step all over his fellow lunch clubbers to get to it first.
The welfare queens are just more honest about it.
This just proves that if you stand strong on your convictions and do not waver, you will appeal to the other side without moving too far to the center. This is a huge endorsement; however, I think it would help Bob out better in the general than in the primary. Ratliff endorsed and will vote for a Republican for the first time in his life. That is amazing. I don’t care if you don’t like Bob or if you will note vote for him. You can applaud Ratliff’s conviction. I am sure he is taking some heat from local NAACP chapters.
From Think Progress –
– Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) opposed the stimulus and attacked it as a bloated government giveaway. However, both senators recently asked Gates to steer $50 million in stimulus money for a bio-energy project. Visiting a food bank aided by money from the stimulus, Chambliss exclaimed last week, “I’m very pleased that the government continues to play a key role, here, from the standpoint of providing food.”
– Rep. Mary Fallin (R-OK) — who called the stimulus a “Big Brother spending program” — asked Army Secretary Pete Geren to use $8.4 million in stimulus money for repairs to buildings at two Oklahoma National Guard sites.
– Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) told CNS News last month, “I don’t think it [failed] – I know it. I said at the time, there’s no stimulus in the stimulus bill.” He also called the Recovery Act simply “welfare.” However, a recent press release from Inhofe hails $1.9 million in funding for a Claremore regional railroad-based trans-modal facility, noting the investment will “help spur additional economic growth” and that the senator is “happy” about the way the money is being used. Inhofe, of course, makes no mention that the money is authorized by the Recovery Act
I guess these are just some of the examples of our conservatism in action today. A result, you might say, of continually voting for moderates and incumbants alike
That’s a tough one. The “stimulus” was already passed and money was going to be given to someone. In a way, I can understand a legislator wanting their constituents to get at least some of the benefit their tax dollars are paying for.
I’m glad they opposed the bill and voted against it. But after it passed anyway, I’m not sure I hold it against them for trying to get some of their people’s money back to their people.
I guess it depends on your definition of “principle”. I would ask why these people opposed the stimulus package in the first place. Do they believe in the words that are coming out of their mouths, or do they not?
I mean, if you think the stimulus is a bad idea and you don’t want anything to do with it, isn’t that what you mean? Or do you mean, “I want to say this now to get my name in the paper and look good to my base, but don’t worry I’ll take that money when it comes around” ?
” I don’t care if you don’t like Bob or if you will note vote for him. You can applaud Ratliff’s conviction. ”
- Yeah, um, no. How is it “conviction” to vote and campaign for D’s for 40 years and then switch up this one time? Also, has anyone (including Deace) asked him if he’d vote for whoever the R nominee is? I suspect that they won’t ask him this, because the answer would reveal the shallowness of this “conviction”.
Whoa Hawk, what happened to becoming a “A big tent“? I thought we were supposed to be welcoming? I guess that only applies to those that support people with Doug Gross’s opinions.
I have a feeling that Rev. Ratliff won’t be the Iowa/Nebraska NAACP President for much longer…I doubt that the national NAACP would be very enthusiastic about this endorsement…and wouldn’t be shocked if it was in the works to find a new President for the Iowa/Nebraska NAACP chapter….
Mr. Hawk does make a very salient point…Rev. Ratliff has campaigned and endorsed Democratic Party candidates in the past….Democratic Party candidates who were pro-choice, pro-gay rights supporting candidates. Where were those convictions then?
Deace is also a close friend of Ratliff’s…so is it really a surprise to see this “endorsement”..
I agree with HawkCR1. The national NAACP is not going to be happy at all, because unlike Ratliff, many of them remember when a governor unlawfully used executive powers to defy a Supreme Court ruling protecting minority rights. No matter what you think about gay marriage, anyone affiliated with the NAACP should understand that governors don’t pick and choose which court rulings to respect.
Fortunately, when it comes to one branch of government telling another what to do, the Governor absolutely has the right and the duty to execute the office as he or she understands it, not as an unelected body understands it.
Sorry, no. When the Supreme Court strikes down a law as unconstitutional, the executive branch cannot simply continue to enforce that law.
Or do you think Washington, DC authorities should continue to enforce the gun ban the U.S. Supreme Court struck down last year?
You are absolutely right, when the court says a law is unconstitutional thats it, that law is no longer in effect. Absolutely…what they don’t get to do, is write whole new law based on that decision. I realize the distinction is a fine one, but it is one of utmost importance. The Supreme Court doesn’t have the authority to draft and pass legislation.
So, for example…the Legislature passed laws with the consent of the people defining marriage and language of marriage certificates which are now in the code of iowa. (Code 1999 Section 595.2) The supreme court ruled that that language is unconstitutional. So what does that mean? Well it means that language defining a marriage license in the Code of Iowa is no longer valid. It does NOT mean that that language is somehow automatically re-written to the court’s opinion. It is the Legislature and the Legislature alone that can re-write the Code of Iowa
The Supreme Court cannot “strike down” law. They issue Judicial Opinions about the law, then they issue judicial instructions on how to apply their opinion. It is up to the Legislative and Executive branches to apply the Judicial Opinion. The Judicial Branch in and of itself has absolutely NO power.
Actually you may be right on that be, thank you for the clarification
To follow that up be, in all honesty, the Code of Iowa is still the Code of Iowa. It has not been changed by legislature as it pertains to marriage. Until such time, the Law is still the Law and gay marriage is nowhere in the code and is invalid and illegal.
Is anything OK so long as there is absence of law forbidding it?
or
Is anything illegal so long as there is absence of law legalizing it?
Well I believe that prevailing knowlege would say, anything Government can do (ie: issue marriage licenses) must be clearly defined in the code of iowa. Ie. the state auditor cannot go out in the street and start issueing speeding tickets. It’s not within the auditors authority to do so as defined in the Code of Iowa
The fact that you must get a Marriage License (a legal document giving official permission to do something) says that it is illegal to get married, and that the State must extend to you exceptional permission to do so.
This endorsement is a big deal. Is there anyone out there that doesn’t think this will help Bob in the general election? Ratliff will get people to vote for Bob that voted for Culver in ‘06. So those out there that are only concerned about winning should like Bob more now because his chances of winning just increased. Right?
This is the kind of big tent I can live with. The “moderates” that are really liberals will not vote Republican period, unless their wallets are going to get fatter somehow. We need to stop wasting time trying to get them under the tent.
This is nothing but a shot in the arm for Bob. Ratliff isn’t supporting the Republican party. If Bob loses, he and all the other people he represents are gone because the others are not strong on the issues that are the most important to them. They’d rather have the Dems.
Anyone who thinks that Ratliff is simply another robot of Deace’s is a fool. I don’t think there are a lot people that question Ratliff’s integrity. So if Deace did have even a even a little influence on him, could it be that what Deace is saying makes some sense?
Tyler….This endorsement isn’t going to matter a hill of beans. Besides…Tyler.. why dont you answer the question I put forth.. Where were Rev. Ratliff’s “convictions” in the past… Here’s some info you probably don’t know.
Rev. Ratliff has endorsed and campaigned for countless Democratic Party candidates in the past. In fact, he endorsed then candidate Obama in 2007 when he was running for President in Iowa. A press release dated Sept 24, 2007 from the Obama campaign listed him as a member of the “Polk County Leadership Committee” for his campaign.
So..now BVP has the “endorsement” of an individual who supported not more two years ago, was backing and campaigning for Barack Obama. As you should know..Obama has stated he would sign the so called “Freedom of Choice Act”..a bill that would eliminate all abortion restrictions nationwide…
As for the gay marriage issue, Obama has flip-flopped his position so many times..its not even funny. Obama has stated that supposedly he supports traditional marriage, but on August 17th 2009, the Obama Justice Dept filed court documents moving to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act–claiming that it was “discriminatory against homosexuals”.
So again..is Rev. Ratliff someone who you REALLY want endorsing BVP’s campaign? This is a guy that if Steve Deace had any integrity whatsoever…he’d tear him a new one for supporting the “pro-baby killing, pro-sodomy marriage” (to use Deace’s words) Obama.
So yes..that’s why this endorsement is quite frankly…is more about fluff..than it is substance.
Hawk, if anything your examples of Rev. Ratliff’s past convictions make Tyler’s comments. BVP has been a strong voice for social, economic, and governmental conservatism. BVP has real convictions, and offers real hope based on actions. In that way BVP IS what Obama claimed to be. BVP is a conservative delivering on the promise of Hope and Change. BVP is the only candidate running for the Republican Gubernatorial Nomination that has held passionate, consistent convictions, and demonstrated that with action. Sounds like Rev. Ratliff is starting to be honest with himself, and is actually questioning why he votes the way he does.
LOL Bunce..I think that was the funniest bit of BS i’ve read in quite sometime. First off…Obama NEVER campaigned as a conservative….
Second…someone who’s running for Governor, claiming to be a “strong voice for social, economic and governmental conservatism” as you put it…probably shouldn’t be trumpeting the endorsement of someone who not more than two years ago endorsed and campaigned for the most radical pro-choice , pro gay-marriage candidate that’s ever run for President.
Again I ask you..where were Rev. Ratliff’s convictions then? If he was perfectly ok with campaigning for and agreeing to serve in a leadership capacity for someone like Barack Obama…then what does that say about people like BVP and Deace who hold up Rev. Ratliff as a virtuous character who supports their “ideals”.?
I never stated, nor inferred that Obama ran as a conservative. I said he ran on a platform on Hope and Change.
Additionally, I was not arguing that Rev. Ratliff’s endorsement was of particularly good repute. Matter of fact I said almost the exact opposite. “Sounds like Rev. Ratliff is starting to be honest with himself, and is actually questioning why he votes the way he does.”
Hawk – with most of your responses I question whether you actually read the comment. At the very least it appears you started formulating a rebuttal immediately without thinking about the comment. You pick a single idea and single it out for attack. You never respond to the overall statement. And normally you make false assumptions about the comment you are responding to.
HCR1 sez: “then what does that say about people like BVP and Deace who hold up Rev. Ratliff as a virtuous character who supports their “ideals”.?”
The diametric question to that might also be asked; What the hell is wrong with the Rev Ratliff that he’s taken that stand? Did he somehow get off his meds?
” If Bob loses, he and all the other people he represents are gone because the others are not strong on the issues that are the most important to them. They’d rather have the Dems.”
- then he’s not a man of principal, but rather just another political hack.
correction: principle
“…just another political hack.” — Mr. Hawk
Seems we have an overabundance of those.
So, does anybody know where Branstad stands on the same sex marriage issue? Did anybody bother to ask before cutting him a check?
Bunce..you said Obama “claimed” to be a conservative…but guess what..he didn’t campaign as that at all! There is miles of evidence that clearly demonstrates that Obama is a far left radical and always has been.
What “false” assumptions am I making here? BVP has chosen to associate himself with an individual who has campaigned for individuals who are diametrically opposite to the “convictions” that BVP tells everyone he has.
If Bob is such a staunch pro life, pro traditional marriage conservative…why put forth someone who supported the most radical pro-choice candidate to ever run for President as a leader in your campaign? Why put someone who supported a candidate with a radical agenda for America as someone you’re associating yourself with?
I mean, its common sense here, Bunce. If you’re want to court the pro-life, conservative vote…surround yourself with actual conservative leaders. Not people who were on Barack Obama’s “Polk County Leadership Committee”.
Hawk – Paragraph 1. Where did I say “Obama ‘claimed’ to be a conservative”?
The rest. I have no idea why Bob is trumpeting this endorsement, or even if he is. It certainly isn’t something I would be trumpeting at this point in the primary race. This is a general election advantage. There are definately hard questions to be asked of Rev. Ratliff, and if I was Bob, I would be asking them before I endorse his endorsement, but I’m not Bob.
HawkCR1,
It’s quite possible that Ratliff has ’seen the light.’ Who are you to determine what’s in the man’s heart?
Ratliff took a lot of heat from his libdem friends for speaking out on the same sex marriage but he held his ground. Maybe he’s been ostracized to the point of jumping ship, seeing that his friends weren’t friends after all.
“The Supreme Court cannot “strike down” law. They issue Judicial Opinions about the law, then they issue judicial instructions on how to apply their opinion. It is up to the Legislative and Executive branches to apply the Judicial Opinion. The Judicial Branch in and of itself has absolutely NO power.”
@belikebunce
Again you are 100% completely wrong on this point. I know I have pointed out to you before that the state constitution expressly states that if the Supreme Court determines that a law passed by the legislature is unconstitutional, then the law is void.
I’m just happy that the national NAACP organization is willing to stand up for my right to be treated as a human being.
I wish the NAACP would do the same for smokers. They have been segregated and ostracized by society. Who said discrimination was dead?
VastVariety – Please provide citation (Article and Section) for your statement. If you want to debate constitutional law, Game On.
VastVariety -
If what you assert were true, then the supreme court of iowa would then just edit the Code of Iowa themselves after issueing an opinion. Why bother with advising the legislature to change it?
It comes down to this question. Do you really believe the founding fathers would pledge their lives, liberties, and personal wealth on the idea that the people of their new nation would be ruled by those that were not elected or accountable in any way to the people??
Also, just in case it became lost in the shuffle, according to the existing Code of Iowa, gay marriage is invalid and illegal.
Article 5, Sec 4 and Article 12 Section 1.
The Court at both the state and federal levels is designed to be a check against the legislative and executive branches to ensure that laws that are passed do not violate the constitution.
Our founding fathers understood that legislative bodies could be just as tyrannical as a king if they were not kept in check by the other two branches of our government. When a law is deemed unconstitutional by the courts it can not be enforced and reverts to what ever laws were in place prior to its passage. Thus why Homosexuals like my self can now legally wed in Iowa.
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
Thomas Jefferson
Vast,
The state supreme court didn’t grant you a civil right you were being denied. It invented out of thin air something that never existed.
Regardless of your SSA, you were never denied access to marriage. You were however denied the power to re-define what marriage is to suit your personal desires.
Is it also a civil right for a man to be a mother?
Article 4 Section 4 – “The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction only in cases of chancery and shall constitute a court for the correction of errors at law, under such restrictions as the General Assembly may, by law, prescribe…”
While I do know what “cases of chancery” means and would be glad to discuss it, in this case it is irrelevant because it is a dependent clause, as is the clause starting with “and” and ending with “law,” and therefor these clauses do not change the meaning of the sentence if eliminated. Therefore a simple restatement of the segment is “The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction… under such restrictions as the General Assembly may, by law, prescribe…” It sounds to me like the General Assembly reigns Supreme over the Supreme Court, as does active legislation.
Article 12 is a false argument. The Article is titled Schedule. It was written to define how the the State Government would function during the transition to Constitutional Government. If you continue to read the article (interpret based on context) it talks about the First legislative session, first elections, offices not vacated during the transition, etc. The language of this article obviously only applies to existing laws in force at the time of ratification of this Constitution.
As to the rest of your arguments, the Judicial Branch is not a check on the tyrannical actions of the legislature. That is why the legislature is an ELECTED position. They are subject to the check of The People. Your quote of Jefferson is also a false argument. Nobody discussed Democracy, we were discussing rule of the Current Code Of Iowa. I think a much more fitting quote from Jefferson for this contest would be…
… there is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless, and therefore unalarming, instrumentality of the Supreme Court. — Letter to William Johnson, Mar. 1823
or
If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law … — Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819
Peggy
It didn’t create a right out of thin air. My civil rights have been stated within the US and state constitutions since they were written. Neither constitution actually discusses marriage at all. What those constitutions do say however is that all laws have to treat everyone as equal. Before the state passed DOMA, it was technically legal for me to marry another man as the law before DOMA was gender neutral when it came to marriage. DOMA added the language that defined marriage as between a man and woman, as it had never been defined as such before with in state law. What DOMA did was create a subclass of people, like myself, who were suddenly prevented from legally marrying the person they loved and thus the state marriage laws no longer treated everyone equally. That is why DOMA is unconstitutional and thus struck down by Supreme Court under it’s constitutional authority. There are really only two options available for marriage laws to be constitutional. They either have to treat everyone equally by allowing them to marry the person they love, or all laws dealing with marriage have to be repealed, thus taking government out of the marriage business all together. Through out human history, marriage has had many definitions, both legally and socially.
This is no limitation within Article 12 that limits section 1 to only apply to laws created prior to the establishment of the state constitution. Thus it is still just as valid today as it was at the time it was written and grants the court the authority to void unconstitutional laws that are created even after the ratification of the constitution.
Even an elected body can by Tyrannical.
I would argue that neither constitution discusses marriage because marriage is not a state established, and therefor should not be, a state governed relationship. It is a church sanctioned and therefore church governed relationship. The correct thing to do would be to stop legally recognizing marriage as a unique civil contract.
How does it grant the Court any authority at all? It doesn’t even reference the court!
Peggy, the word Mother is simply a human term. A man can indeed be Motherly even if he can not biologically give birth to a child.
Marriage isn’t a Church Governed relationship. It is a societal governed relationship. It was solely church governed, then atheists couldn’t marry, but you wouldn’t prevent two atheists from getting married if they were man and woman would you?
That is why we vote them out!
I would be in favor of the government getting out of the marriage business all together and leaving it to the individual.
Yes, and two people of the same sex can not biologically consummate a ‘marriage.’
We can vote all we want, but we haven’t had a government that worked for the benefit of people instead of the benefit of the their reelection in nearly 100 years.
Vast – Who established the marriage covenant? Who sanctioned marriage? I assure you, the State of Iowa was not the first one to do it!
“I would be in favor of the government getting out of the marriage business all together and leaving it to the individual.”
I Second the Motion!
“I would be in favor of the government getting out of the marriage business all together and leaving it to the individual.”
Isn’t that what you had before the state supreme court’s decision???
I may be mistaken but I always thought that to consummate a marriage means that you have sex. Are you implying that the only way to consummate a marriage is by having children? If that is so, then how do couples that are infertile consummate a marriage?
vv sez: I would be in favor of the government getting out of the marriage business all together and leaving it to the individual.
I’d think we’re beyond that being a practical option because there are legalities in marriage contracts which must be dealt with. Property, insurances, surviorship, sharing of debt, etc are all matters requiring definition and regulation by the states.
Variety, I would ask you this question. How does the Code of Iowa define marriage right now? Because I read it as follows: “595.2 Gender–age.
1. Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid” It seems to me, no matter what the Court’s opinion was, the Code did not change, nor is it changed.
No Peggy, it is not. Before the Supreme Court got involved we still had government in the marriage business. The simple act of filing a joint tax return and getting a large tax credit than a single person is an act of the government getting involved in the marriage business.
belikebunce, Your right, the state of Iowa wasn’t the first, but neither was the church. Marriage existed before civilization did.
CT, while the law may be technically still on the books, it is unenforceable. And unfortunately your probably right that at this day in age we are beyond the practicality of getting the government out of marriage. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible or is something that should be ignored.
“I may be mistaken but I always thought that to consummate a marriage means that you have sex. ” — Vast
You are correct! I said nothing about conceiving children. Again, two persons of the same sex are physically incapable of consummating a ‘marriage.’
CT, only the marriage laws that existed prior to the passing of DOMA which edited 595.2 are valid. Which means that the law is once again gender neutral.
CD – Everyone of those legalities is governed in other relationships by other sections of the law. In a completely secular government, marriage should be looked at as just another civil contract. It is not special.
Peggy, while I’m not going to go into the details of my sex life, I have definitely had sex, which is my understanding of requirements of consummating a marriage.
Variety,
If the governor says, County Recorders shall issue marriage certificates as defined by the Code of Iowa, what exactly can the court do? When you start talking about enforcement, it is the Legislative and Executive that have ALL the power, with respect to the three branches.
By the way, it was never my intention to take this conversation so far off topic.
The three branches have equal power.
Also, by admitting that the law is still the law, you prove my point. It is only the Legislative branch that can change the law. The court can issue any opinion whatsoever, thats all it will ever be, an opinion.
CT, I think your misunderstanding the constitution and the authority of the three branches.
VV – I think YOU are misunderstanding the constitution and the authority of the three branches.
Vast,
Sex is something you do WITH someone, not TO someone.
Along with marriage, you also don’t get to change the design of the human body.
Further more, we absolutely do NOT have 3 co-equal branches of government. As taken from Federalist 78 by Alexander Hamilton:
“Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.“
For more information of the powers of the Supreme Court I people looking into Judaical Review and the 1803 case of Maybury v Madison.
I’m not sure what your getting at Peggy.
Re: Maybury Vs Madison – An honest look at the presumption that only the US S CT has the power to interpret federal encroachments on State sovereignty will reveal that the states have more power than what has been admitted ever since Marshall took the position of chief justice of the US S CT. For as Marshall admits in Marbury v. Madison, “questions [that are] in their nature political . . . CAN NEVER BE MADE IN THIS COURT.” (Emphasis added.) By definition, issues of State sovereignty are in their nature political, just as a treaty between the USA and foreign countries regards the matter of political sovereignty. Therefore, when our states begin to assert their natural and sovereign right of self-defense against federal tyranny, each State will answer to their sovereign–the people–and NOT to the United States Supreme Court. – Timothy Baldwin – http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090901.html
Don’t play dumb, Vast.
A radio host doesn’t have the weight of law.
I’m seriously not trying to play dumb Peggy. I don’t understand what your trying to get at.
Vast,
Let’s have an exchange concerning the various parts and functions of the digestive tract.
First, the food goes into the mouth, gets chewed up and swallowed. Your turn…
Peggy, Sex isn’t 100% about biology or procreation.
merriam webster.com consummate – 2 : to make (marital union) complete by sexual intercourse
merriam webster.com – sexual intercourse – 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus
Also, Anal sex isn’t something that is solely performed by homosexuals.
belikebunce, your forgetting line #2 from that definition.
I can get the 1816 version of websters if you like. It does not include line 2. That is sodomy.
Just because society has corrupted the meaning of the word does not mean “new definition” is accurate.
Language evolves and changes over time. For example, the word Gay used mean happy.
And technically sodomy is a form of sexual intercourse.
Wow, this conversation has gone way off topic now.
It still does in every English speaking society except the US.
Or the United Kingdom.
“Peggy, Sex isn’t 100% about biology or procreation.” — Vast
If that’s true, we can legalize ‘marriage’ for anybody to anyone or anything.
Face it. You have not thought this through and neither has anybody else on your side.
Another opinion on the power of a Supreme Court Decision on Constitutionality by former President Andrew Jackson:
“If the opinion of the Supreme court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the co-ordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the executive and the court, must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer, who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others.“
“For example, the word Gay used mean happy.”
And now, among many teenagers, the word gay means stupid. But guess whose militant lobby is being allowed into public schools to give workshops to teachers on why they shouldn’t let kids say, “That’s so gay!”?
All together now: Double standard! Double standard! Double standard!…
The UK still uses the word with its original intent. However, they do recognize the distorted meaning given to it by Americans and will, if necessary, interpret that way, but it is uncommon.
“If that’s true, we can legalize ‘marriage’ for anybody to anyone or anything.” – Peggy
No, we can’t open marriage to include animals and children, which is what I believe your suggesting, and yes I have thought this completely through.
Are children not guaranteed the same representation under the law that you are VV?
Your right, generally they call homosexuals puffs.
Another word whose definition has changed over the ages is heterosexual. It at one time referred to people who today we call bisexual.
Peggy, I don’t personally have a big issue with the use of Gay to refer to something as bad. It’s just a word and doesn’t cause me any harm. However bullying in schools regardless of the cause is a serious issue.
Who said anything about bullying? When most teenagers use the word gay, it has nothing to do with what someone has sex with. It means stupid.
Double standard! Double standard! Double standard!
VV – heterosexual never has, nor could it mean bisexual. That makes no etymological sense. Hetero-: Combining form from the Greek “heteros” meaning “different.” The opposite is “homo-” from the Greek “homos” meaning “same.”
“No, we can’t open marriage to include animals and children, which is what I believe your suggesting…”
Not at all. How about allowing you to marry a Campbell’s soup can?
belikebunce, you should look into the history of psychological research on sexuality.
Peggy, how would a Campbell’s soup can make a rational decision be become involved with me in a way that would include sex?
It’s not about biology and procreation, remember?
You managed to convince people of the veracity of that so who says you won’t be able to marry a child one day?
It’s amazing what can be accomplished with Tim Gill’s money. Really.
No thanks – doesn’t really matter how the word was misused or misinterpreted, what matters is what it means. Its definition.
BTW – You have been ignoring the responses that were posted about your Maybury vs Madison assertion.
belikebunce – I didn’t ignore them, I all ready responded to your remarks written by a radio host who had a failed presidential bid as a candidate from a third party that advocates turning America into a Constitutional Theocracy.
Peggy – If anyone try’s to change marriage laws to allow marriage with children that is something I would fight against.
The weight was not the commentary of the talkshow host it was the quote from Marshall. For as Marshall admits in Marbury v. Madison, “questions [that are] in their nature political . . . CAN NEVER BE MADE IN THIS COURT.” Do you dispute that the interpretation of the Constitution in and of itself is political? And BTW Tim is not a talkshow host. “He is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former felony prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney’s Office and now owns his own private law practice.”
The link you posted is from a radio talk show host.
How is interpretation of the constitution political?
And just because you have a law degree doesn’t mean you understand the constitution. Orly Taitz is a good example of that.
How is it not? You and I disagree on its interpretation based on our political views. We can look at the exact same argument and have differing opinions based on our political views. You cannot INTERPRET anything objectively. It is always a subjective process. Therefore it is always distorted by political views. Right?
I’ll grant you that interpretation by it’s nature and the nature of human intelligence can be biased. Which is why the courts exist. That doesn’t however delegitimatize the authority of the courts as determined by the constitution and the Maybury v Madison decision.
Interpretation is also probably why entities like the Supreme Court consist of more than 1 person.
V V. I thank you on being willing to discuss this issue and actually carrying on an intelligent debate. Unfortunately, it is obvious that you accept the idea of precedential law. I do not. In my opinion, and I am not the only one who holds this opinion, there is no legal basis for it. Because that is the case, we will never agree on this issue. I believe that when a Court rules that they pass judgment, or issue an opinion only for the case they are ruling on. In this case the 2 couples suing for the right to get a marriage license should get one, but until the legislature changes the law, every couple that wants a license has to sue for it. Additionally the Legislature can (at least federally, not sure on a state level) can remove a topic from the courts jurisdiction. Dr. Paul discusses this in depth in numerous books and articles.
Yes I do.
And I believe that it’s both at the Federal and state levels. I can’t for the life of me think of any instance however where the legislature has specifically taken a topic out of the jurisdiction of the courts.
be –
What do you say to Federalist 78 which reads, in part, “If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.“
I haven’t had time to read more than a few posts since I left my message the other day about BVP and Ratliff.
I thought this was only about winning? That is what most of you care about and now you all of the sudden are concerned about principles. Ratliff gives Bob a better chance of winning. Period. Is that the only thing that is important to me? No. But I don’t have time to go into that right now.
But for many of you, winning is all that matters. Now that Bob has increased his chances, you get all principled. Please. This is about not wanting an outspoken Christian in power. Plain and simple.
Tyler…How does someone who endorsed a radical pro choice, pro-gay marriage Presidential candidate give BVP a better chance of winning?
I’ll say it again, “Defense.” Who are you to judge Ratliff’s heart? Maybe he’s seen the light.
Perhaps there are SOME men in this state who are willing to go to the mat to defend the institution of marriage and protect children. Gotta love it!
Ratliff has influence especially in the urban areas of Des Moines. Areas that are heavily populated with black people that have never voted Republican. This is mostly because they don’t feel Republicans care about black people, not because they are in favor of abortion and gay marriage. You win elections by getting more people to vote for you. And if you can get people to come over to your side without giving up what you believe, that’s they way to build a big tent.
Democrat voters out number Republicans. So how can R’s possibly win?
Bob’s base will stick with him. He already appealed to the so called social conservatives. Now he should be more appealing to the “just win, baby” crowd also. I love how this crowd is now screaming about convictions. Ratliff says he’s never voted for a Republican in 40 some years! You might not like those convictions, but he is a convicted man nonetheless. Now Bob Vander Plaats has convinced him to not only vote for him, but help him run his campaign. Ratliff even said that he’d consider switching parties completely. He was talking about conservative issues on Deace’s show the other night. These are issues very few black leaders ever talk about. And Bob has got him talking this way. Bob wasn’t talking about liberal issues. It was the other way around!
Take off the “I don’t like BVP and his Christian supporters” blinders off for a minute and think about that for a few minutes.
Tyler…
Like I said, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you REALLY think this endorsement is going to bring hordes of urban Democratic Party voters to BVP’s side.
I love how NO ONE in the BVP camp can answer the very basic question of HOW someone who endorsed Barack Obama gives him a better chance at winning? Does Rev. Ratliff’s endorsement of Barack Obama somehow not count now?
But hey…who cares if Rev. Ratliff campaigned and was on the leadership team for Obama..he’s got “convictions” now..and is supporting BVP..so all is forgiven!
Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that if some other candidate had received this endorsement..Deace and the BVP crowd would be screaming “Operation Extinction” at the top of their lungs….
Hawk,
Were you a fan of Romney?
Nope..I was not a fan of Romney..and I really don’t see who my preference for President has to do with BVP trumpeting the endorsement of an individual who campaigned and worked for a radical pro choice, pro-gay marriage advocate like Barack Obama.
We hear over from BVP and the Deace crowd about how it needs to be about “convictions not positions”…yet, all I’ve heard from the pro BVP crowd is how this endorsement is so great because its going to pull all these new people into the party to vote for BVP, etc..
So..its looks like BVP is willing to say–Rev. Ratliff–no big deal if you supported and worked for Obama. I’ll look the other way about that one… So..where are these so-called convictions?
Plenty of politicians throughout history have done a one-eighty on one issue or another. Romney became pro-life before he ran for prez: many people weren’t convinced but I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
Bill Clinton and Al Gore were pro-life before they were pro-abort. When one’s stance goes from good to bad, that is cause for worry.
I think you’re beating a dead horse in your attempt to downplay this but this endorsement is significant in two ways: 1. Ratliff is a leader in the black community (Democrat voters) and, 2. He has swung from bad ideas to good ideas (at least from a Republican’s perspective).
great post, HawkCR1.
“He has swung from bad ideas to good ideas (at least from a Republican’s perspective).”
- That’s only true if he’ll vote for any Republican who doesn’t support gay marriage. As he won’t (and you, me and Deace all know it) then he’s really not doing this on “conviction” at all.
I’m not really getting what you’re saying. Do we have some Republicans who support gay marriage? If so, why?
Ratliff’s move to our side could be the start of a major transformation. I think you need to give the guy a chance and welcome him into your big tent rather than assume that he’s not sincere.
correction: major *personal* transformation
And again [read this slowly] if he’s “convicted” on the issue, the he should be voting for any Republican who opposes gay marriage.
If he’s going to vote for all ‘pro-marriage’ Republicans (i.e., not just BVP), and is done voting for Democrats, then I’ll happily welcome him. On the other hand, if he’s back to voting for Democrats if and when BVP doesn’t get the nomination, then he really wasn’t “convicted” at all.
Peggy..
When Rev. Ratliff not more than 2 years ago was listed on the Obama “Polk County Leadership Committee”..yeah..I’m going to question his sincerity.
I mean..how can one be pro-family if they support a radical pro-choice candidate, Peggy?
“On the other hand, if he’s back to voting for Democrats if and when BVP doesn’t get the nomination, then he really wasn’t “convicted” at all.” — Mr. Hawk
Read this slowly: There’s no way for you to know until well after the primary.
“Read this slowly: There’s no way for you to know until well after the primary.”
- Of course there is. It just takes the application of common sense and reason. Deace tells you this is a huge deal for BVP and you lap it up. It’s okay to do that, just expect it to be pointed out. Sadly (yet predictably), Deace won’t hold Ratliff to the same standard he holds people like Mitt Romney and Michael Reagan to. It would be funny were it not so sad.
If Ratliff comes out in favor of the non-BVP nominee, then I’ll be proven wrong, and I’ll happily admit it.
Mr. Hawk,
I’ll bet you a beer that you listen to Deace more than I do.
What would be the point of any Republican ridiculing this endorsement? What’s really eating at you?
Peglet, you’re wondering the correct things there, what _is_ behind the ridicule?
“If Ratliff comes out in favor of the non-BVP nominee, then I’ll be proven wrong…” — Mr. Hawk
This statement makes no sense since Ratliff makes no bones about being focused on the same sex marriage issue. Maybe BVP’s approach appeals to him whereas the other candidates’ doesn’t. Ratliff hasn’t said that he embraces every plank of the platform, has he? How can you hold him to a standard that you don’t hold yourself to?
You’ve got no room to talk, Con Dem. Your side blasted Ratliff for being vociferous on the same sex ‘marriage’ issue as well.
Liberal Dems are the QUEENS of voting based on NOTHING.
“This statement makes no sense since Ratliff makes no bones about being focused on the same sex marriage issue. Maybe BVP’s approach appeals to him whereas the other candidates’ doesn’t. Ratliff hasn’t said that he embraces every plank of the platform, has he?”
- Nice try, but any Republican candidate, TEB included, will be to the right of Chet Culver on gay marriage. When TEB wins the nomination, and Ratliff goes back to the Dems, Deace will issue the talking points that mirror your argument. But most people will laugh at it, because it’s such a ridiculous one. That’s only confirmed by the fact that Ratliff has been supporting “pro sodomy marriage” candidates for DECADES.
“… any Republican candidate, TEB included, will be to the right of Chet Culver on gay marriage. ” — Mr. Hawk
In theory that may be true but do they have the cojones to act on it?
How many Republican legislators voted for the anti-bullying legislation? They obviously weren’t intelligent enough to see the writing on the wall but I’m sure they’d all still tell us that they’re against same sex ‘marriage.’
We need more than warm-fuzzy intentions – we need vigilance and intestinal fortitude.
Peggy..
Again..you refuse to answer the question… How can one call themselves “pro-family” and “pro-traditional” marriage..if they supported a radical candidate like Obama not more than 2 years ago? If Rev. Ratliff supposedly has had “long standing convictions” as you guys put it on these issues….why would he be in the camp of someone who was the antithesis of conservative positions on these issues? It simply doesn’t make sense.
Again, HawkCR, you refuse to listen. It’s entirely possible that Rev. Ratliff is willing to go to the mat to defeat same sex ‘marriage’ in Iowa. Call him a single issue voter if it makes you feel better. What does it matter?
Mr. Hawk and HawkCR1,
Will you work to support BVP if he’s the Republican nominee?
” It’s entirely possible that Rev. Ratliff is willing to go to the mat to defeat same sex ‘marriage’ in Iowa. Call him a single issue voter if it makes you feel better. What does it matter?”
- It matters because if true, he’s not really a “man of conviction” on being “pro-family”. It also matters because he’s been supporting and voting for “pro-sodomy marriages” and “pro-aborts” for decades, including as recently as last year.
You’re still making a mountain out of a mole hill. Is it now treasonous for a Republican pol to get an endorsement from a Democrat?
Will you support and vote for BVP if he gets the nomination?
” Is it now treasonous for a Republican pol to get an endorsement from a Democrat?”
- Well, I can guarantee you that if it were Mitt Romney getting an endorsement from a Democrat, it probably would be. Must be different.
Hey, just so you know, I’m not Steve Deace, okay? I voted for Romney.
Now that you’re back from lunch, would you please answer my question: Will you vote for BVP if he gets the nomination?
Yes, I would.
And why not now?
Bob Vander Plaats = Jim Ross Lightfoot. Oops, I forgot. Lightfoot actually WON an election!!!(just not for Governor)
Anyone that thinks Rev. Ratliff will convince his NAACP “constituents” to vote for BVP has got to be higher than a kite!!! I’m sure it’ll keep him in deace’s good graces, but his endorsement carries about as much weight as mine!
Maybe the Ratliff endorsement won’t do any good. But if you really believed that, you wouldn’t be so uptight about it. It’s like Sarah Palin all over again, only it was the radical left doing all the whining then.
Peggy, I’m not “uptight” about it at all – in fact I commend Rev. Ratliff for taking a stand! However his endorsement isn’t going to mean much to anyone else, especially those in the African-American community.
Like I said, if it’s a worthless endorsement as you and several others here contend, why bother commenting on it at all.
If Sarah Palin was such a loser, why can’t the Left quit bashing her?
It’s the anti-social conservatives who operate a scorched earth policy, not the other way around.
Peggy, for one you haven’t seen me dumping on Sarah Palin here or anywhere else even though I think she was in way over her head running for VP. As far as commenting, since when is it more important what you or the BVP supporters(note: I’m not implying you are supporting BVP!!!) have to say you and less important for me to say what I want? I have to get on with my day, later.
I never said you were bashing Sarah Palin but I am comparing the reaction by TB supporters to the Ratliff endorsement to the Palinizing behavior – the words and actions don’t jibe.
Timmy, if you and those who think like you don’t give a rip about abortion or same sex ‘marriage,’ I’d like to hear you articulate why. Convince me that same sex marriage is glorious and good for the state or country; convince me that killing unborn babies is helping Iowa. You “moderate conservatives” are worse than liberal Democrats in two ways. One, you don’t have the guts to admit that you don’t even care about these issues and, two, the Left is at least willing to fight for their so-called right to kill a baby and have sex with someone of the same gender; they don’t shy away from the debate.
Peggy, I hate to break it to you, but I have been pro-life and I believe in traditional family values but I’m not willing to lose an election to liberal dems simply because I let the socon issues trump the economy, personal freedom, constitutionally limited gov’t, etc. The GOP isn’t “God’s Own Party” and anyone that wants it to be is delusional.
The only way ANY of these issues have a chance is for the GOP to appeal beyond it’s base and win over independents, etc. It’s not a hard concept to grasp if you really try hard enough.
There you go, bringing up religion again.