I was sitting here puttering at my computer a little while ago, and trying to force myself to get up and grade some papers, so I turned the TV to C-Span, figuring there wouldn't be anything there with a plot that would suck my attention away from my duties.
A few minutes after I tuned in, they started showing McCain's speech at Wake Forest University last week, which I figured was suitably boring, and had the advantage of being too annoying for me to watch or listen to very intently; after several months of Obama's speeches, I can barely tolerate McCain speaking.
But since it was on a subject that I'm familiar with and somewhat interested in, I kept one ear tuned in. One ear was just barely enough; if I'd been paying any less attention, I might have missed John's Big Boo-Boo -- and it really is a big one. Follow below the fold for the latest reason this man should not be elected president.
- NWTerriD's diary :: ::
I smirked but didn't get too excited when he said he was glad to be at "West Virginia," rather than Wake Forest, when he pronounced the word "relevance" as though it was spelled "revelance," when he talked about the people in "Warshington," or even when he laid this little gem on the Wake Forest students:
I'm the living proof that an undistinguished academic record can be overcome in life -- or at least that's the hope that has long, long sustained me.
But then he started getting into the substance of his speech -- basically that judges have become too activist. A few minutes into his discussion of this topic, this is what I thought I heard:
The year 2005 also brought the case of Susette Kelo before the Supreme Court. Here was a woman whose home was taken from her because the local government and a few big corporations had designs of their own on the land, and she was getting in the way. There is hardly a clearer principle in all the Constitution than the right of private property. There is a very clear standard in the Constitution requiring not only just compensation in the use of eminent domain, but also that private property may NOT be taken for "public use." But apparently that standard has been "evolving" too.
My head whipped around, and I thought, "HUH?????" Granted, it's been 25 years since my Constitutional Law class, but . . . isn't the whole point of eminent domain that the government CAN take private property for public use, as long as the owner is fairly compensated for the taking?
Quickly went to Wikipedia to make sure that I hadn't lost my own bearings and misremembered some relevant nuance of the Fifth Amendment. Nope, there it is,
. . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
OK, I must have mis-heard what he said. So, off I went to McCain's website, figuring I would watch it there. Ah, yes, there it is, right on the front page -- a button that says "Qualified Judges." I clicked, and it took me to a page where I found both the written text of the speech and a video. Oh, happy day.
But wait -- transcript says,
The year 2005 also brought the case of Susette Kelo before the Supreme Court. Here was a woman whose home was taken from her because the local government and a few big corporations had designs of their own on the land, and she was getting in the way. There is hardly a clearer principle in all the Constitution than the right of private property. There is a very clear standard in the Constitution requiring not only just compensation in the use of eminent domain, but also that private property may be taken only for "public use." But apparently that standard has been "evolving" too.
Hmmm. Maybe I really did mis-hear. Check out the video. (Twiddle thumbs, waiting for it to get to the right part.) Ahh, here we go:
The year 2005 also brought the case of Susette Kelo before the Supreme Court. Here was a woman whose home was taken from her because the local government and a few big corporations had designs of their own on the land, and she was getting in the way. There is hardly a clearer principle in all the Constitution than the right of private property.
Then there was the case of the man in California who filed a suit against the entire United States Congress, which I guess made me a defendant too. This man insisted that the words "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violated his rights under the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
Wait -- WTF? Back the video up, listen again, watch carefully. Oh, how interesting. Right before the sentence I'm listening for, there's this white line across the screen showing that they're skipping forward to the next segment of the speech. I guess maybe I DID hear it right; someone in the campaign who knows more about the Constitution than McCain apparently cleaned up his video for him.
So off to YouTube to review me some video. Unfortunately, there were only three videos of the speech there. Two of them were short clips that didn't contain the portion I was interested in. The third was the official video from the McCain website.
Tapping foot . . . . OK, how about C-Span? Yep, there it is on C-Span.org.. What? I need a newer version of RealPlayer. Sigh. OK. I'm a concerned American citizen; I will put off grading my papers even longer to get to the bottom of this. Downloaded the new version, FINALLY got to watch a real video of what I had seen on my teevee (he starts talking about the Kelo case at 11:53). Sure enough, there is McCain, using very emphatic, manly hand motions as he practically shouts,
There is a very clear standard in the Constitution requiring not only just compensation in the use of eminent domain, but also that private property may NOT be taken for "public use."
Vindication. But surely, I thought, others also noticed this? A little googling turned up this article in Washington Wire, which mentioned but didn't seem to think it was a big deal.
I think it's a big deal when a candidate for the Presidency of this country, who starts a speech talking about how the President must swear an oath to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution [insert emphatic hand motions here], just a few minutes later erroneously alters his scripted speech to completely change the meaning of a phrase describing what he says is one of the clearest principles enunciated in the Constitution.
Yes, there is a clear principle in the Consitution, but it is not what he said it is. Does he really not understand what eminent domain is? Did he forget, because he is tired from his hard work on the campaign trail? Who knows?
To those who have been saying that bringing up McCain's age is "ageism," or that it is beneath us as the supporters of a man who is seeking to avoid the politics of personal attack, I say, res ipsa loquitor -- one of those fancy Latin legal phrases meaning, "The thing speaks for itself." His age is a legitimate issue.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment