Archive for the ‘The Constitution’ Category

California State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore’s U.S. Senate campaign announcement Sacramento, California, November 12, 2008

Wednesday, November 12th, 2008


I am a candidate for the United States Senate in 2010. California deserves strong, active, and conservative representation in Washington, D.C. By 2010, an entire generation of Californians will have been born and grown to voting age, never having known a principled conservative — to say nothing of a Republican — representing them in the United States Senate. In 2010, we will change that.

 

I am a candidate for the United States Senate because I love America and its founding principles.  My politics and my public career testify to my belief in those principles. 

 

  • I believe our natural rights are inherent to our humanity, not a grant from government.

 

  • I believe the role of government is limited to securing our rights from external danger and internal lawlessness. 

 

  • I believe that when government exceeds this mandate, our liberty is at risk.  As George Washington said, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquent; it is force.  Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

 

  • I believe that for too long now, our elected representatives have softly encouraged us to give up our independence to government.  Year after year, we see government’s responsibilities grow while our personal liberty shrinks. 

 

This terrible progression of state power at the expense of our natural liberties is not purely the fault of Democrats. There are plenty of Republicans who bear blame as well — as we have seen here in California, and in Washington, D.C., over the past decade.

 

But only the Republicans can turn the tide.

 

  • Only the Republicans have the bedrock foundation of dedication to a proper Constitutional order.

 

  • Only the Republicans have a record of fiscal responsibility.

 

  • Only the Republicans have a sound commitment to national defense.

 

  • Only the Republicans have an understanding of what business and entrepreneurs need to create jobs for working Californians.

 

  • And only the Republicans have a conservative tradition that calls us back — however far we have strayed — however tattered our banner — to the principles that made California the greatest state in the Union.

 

I am proud to say that I have been true to those principles and that conservative tradition over my 22 years of public service.

 

It’s a long way from here to the general election in 24 months. We have a primary to win, and then a fight against Barbara Boxer and her far-left friends that will demand everything we’ve got.

 

I am confident we will win that fight. I am confident that when Californians have a real choice between me and Barbara Boxer — it will be an easy choice for them.

 

  • You see, I want Californians to keep their hard-earned money.

 

  • I want to lower fuel and energy costs by producing more of America’s oil, and building modern, safe and reliable nuclear power plants.

 

  • I want to rein in runaway Federal spending.

 

  • I want to bring a conservative leadership to Washington, D.C., that actually works.

 

And what does Barbara Boxer want?

 

  • She wants more of the same from Washington, D.C.

 

  • She wants to take more of your money for her own plans.

 

  • She wants to forfeit your children’s future to enlarge an over $6 trillion national debt.

 

  • She has no plan to make good on an unsustainable $86 trillion entitlements system that puts our children’s future at risk.

 

  • She wants to keep fuel prices high, with no oil drilling, and no new nuclear power plants.

 

I will put my record against hers any day. And when we do, in November 2010 — I know the people of California will make the right decision.

 

California is my home, and I love it second only to my God and my family. Like so many, I came here as a child, when my family decided to earn their piece of the California dream. I worked my way through that dream, paying for my own college as a union carpenter, and serving in the United States Army. That dream has been good to us, and I am a candidate for the United States Senate because I want to restore it and defend it.

 

We have a long road ahead. But I know that with the grace of God, the courage of our convictions, and the blessings of the good people of California, our best days are yet to come.

 

Thank you, and may God bless our great state.

Should judges be guided by the Constitution or compassion and empathy? Obama says the latter!

Monday, October 6th, 2008

The two presidential candidates commented Monday about the kind of Supreme Court justice they might nominate during their term in office.

Sen. McCain said he’d nominate someone who would follow a, “…strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States.” That is to be expected in a democratic republic such as the U.S., where both rule of law and separation of powers (the checking of one branch of the government by the other two so one branch does not become all-powerful) are important in keeping the Constitution intact and our liberties secure.

Sen. Obama, on the other hand, said he’d seek justices possessing “compassion” and “empathy.”  Compassion and empathy?  Sounds like Obama intends to nominate his good friend Oprah to the highest court in the land.  This is the most disturbing utterance to date to escape the voluble lips  of Obama.

Compassion and empathy are fine human traits, but they should not be the foremost attributes for a Supreme Court justice who must impartially interpret the Constitution to maintain rule of law.

If compassion and empathy are to reign supreme over rule of law, then our courts must ignore the law so as to dispense their own vision of moral compassion and warm empathy.  Of course, this path has already been well worn in many Asian societies where Confucianism places the highest primacy on social order and harmony at the expense of consistently applied law.  Such an emphasis, lacking a foundation in the bedrock of law with its Constitutional protections of individual liberty, soon leads to tyranny, judicial or otherwise.

Judges guided by compassion and empathy will soon find themselves creating “rights” for some that others will be forced to fund out of their own pockets – all without the benefit of a bill being passed by the people’s representatives, then signed into law by the president.