Sitting Down with a Democrat, Occupy Movement, Member

By Douglas V. Gibbs

I sat down for coffee with a gentleman who listened to my Constitution Radio program, and read much of my writings (including the 25 Myths of the Constitution).  He determined from his research that though I am a "Conservative Republican," I view things from a more objective manner. For example, though I am pro-life, I view Roe v. Wade from a legal perspective, setting aside my personal moral abhorrence of abortion to explain the case from a constitutional point of view.  He had a document he wanted me to review, which I am going to spend time analyzing this weekend, should I find the time, which is essentially an "Occupy" angle in regards to changes to the California State Constitution.

The fascinating thing about the discussion was that when I opened the Constitution, and used the words of our Founding Fathers to respond to his questions, he was taken aback. Many of his beliefs were challenged, and things he thought were in the Constitution aren't.  He asked me, at one point, about presidential powers, challenging my assessment that, as per Article I, Section 1, all legislative powers belong solely to Congress.  To his amazement, no power to modify law is afforded to the President, nor is the creation of law through his regulatory agencies.  In fact, the President's only powers regarding law is to execute law, and not only to execute law, but to only execute law that is actually on the books.  Then, when going through other parts of the Constitution, such as Article VI, Clause 2, it turns out that the federal laws can only be made pursuance of the Constitution.

We discussed primaries, as well. He voiced his approval of open primaries, telling me it solved a number of problems in regards to enabling independents to participate. However, I suggested one of the dangers of open primaries was that, as in Michigan, Republicans will vote in the Democrat Primary, and Democrat voters will vote in the Republican Primary, for the weakest candidates in an attempt to sabotage the opposing party. What Michigan winds up with is a battle between the two weakest candidates. How can that be a good thing? He conceded that he had never thought about it that way before.

Another concern of his were the judges. Panels made up largely of liberal judges, and conservative judges, create an ideological pattern in the courts. In California, for example, he felt the judges should be, by law, split evenly between conservatives and liberals, with the apolitical chief justice breaking ties when the judges can't agree. But if you do that, aren't you putting all of the power into the hands of the chief justice? Conservative judges will always vote one way, and liberal judges always the other, giving ultimate power to the chief justice. The solution is not an even split, but making it easier to get rid of judges for ruling ideologically, rather than only according to the law.

In the end, what my friend found out, is when the Constitution, and common sense, is applied, party affiliation means little. The Constitution is the solution, if only we learn what it means, and apply it as originally intended.

I will update you as this conversation continues . . .

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary