BREAKING: McCain Loses Bearings in Speech on Constitution; Campaign Covers
Up Error
by NWTerriD
Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:44:21 PM PDT
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.
a.. NWTerriD's diary :: ::
b..
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
"War****ngton," 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 cor****ations 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 cor****ations 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 cor****ations 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 ****tion 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 Wa****ngton 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 sup****ters 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.
--
Pucker your lips for the Apocalypse!
Johnny Asia, Guitarist from the Future
http://music.download.com/johnnyasia
|
