Strict construction?

In an interview with Beliefnet.com, Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for President, was asked the following question:

“A recent poll found that 55 percent of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. What do you think?”

The Senator responded as follows:

“I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, ‘I only welcome Christians.’ We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.”

This Sen. McCain is the same candidate who has promised that, if elected, he will appoint “strict constructionist” judges to the U.S. Supreme Court. “Strict construction,” according to Black’s Law Dictionary, “recognizes nothing that is not expressed.” Can anybody out there point out to me where in the U.S. Constitution it is written that we were established as a Christian nation? I’ve looked and looked, but I can’t find it. A strict constructionist judge couldn’t find it either because it's not there.

What is obviously disturbing about Sen. McCain’s answer is that he either (1) hasn’t read the Constitution (like 55 percent of Americans?) or (2) knows better but is playing up to the Religious Right to win their votes in November. Either way, I don’t want him as President.

Frankly, as a Christian, I’m offended that 55 percent of Americans, including Sen. McCain, think that Christianity is so weak that it needs constitutional establishment. As Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1780, “When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig’d to call for the help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”

McGraw

Surely you’ve heard this comment: “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.” Or, maybe it was phrased like this: “There’s only one political party in this country, the Money Party, and it has two branches, the Democratic branch and the Republican branch.” If you labor under the illusion that there’s little or no difference between the two major political parties, come to West Virginia, and we’ll enlighten you.

The Attorney General of West Virginia, Democrat Darrell McGraw, is seeking a fifth term this year, having been elected in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004. Two Republicans, including Hiram Lewis, who was defeated by McGraw in the 2004 General Election, are also running for Attorney General this year.

I heard Hiram Lewis on the radio today, ranting about how “bad for business” Darrell McGraw is. Lewis pointed out that McGraw sues companies that sell defective merchandise, rip off consumers and take other harmful actions. Can you imagine that? McGraw actually believes that he should defend the citizens of our state against fraud!

Lewis, however, says that he’ll emphasize “crime prevention.” Presumably, Lewis would have us believe that criminal activity by corporations is not really crime, that stopping unscrupulous businesses from cheating hard-working, law-abiding West Virginians is “bad for business.”

No difference between Democrats and Republicans? I don’t think so! Democrats believe in the words of the Preamble to the West Virginia Constitution, which inspire us to “seek diligently to promote, preserve and perpetuate good government in the State of West Virginia for the common welfare….” Republicans (or at least Republicans like Hiram Lewis) apparently believe that protecting the common welfare of our citizens is “bad for business.”

For his whole adult life, Attorney General Darrell McGraw has stood up against those who, for almost 145 years, have been cheating us; polluting our air, land and water; and stealing from us. He’s not “bad for business”; he’s bad for cheaters, polluters and thieves. Count me on the side of McGraw and against the cheaters, polluters and thieves.

A victory for democracy

The word filtering out of California is that the leaders of the California Teachers Association (CTA), the 295,000-member affiliate of the National Education Association (NEA), were stymied January 26th in their attempt to endorse presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton before the upcoming “Super Tuesday” primary election, February 5th.

January 24th, the CTA Endorsement Committee voted unanimously to recommend the endorsement of the New York Senator, but, when the committee presented its recommendation to the CTA State Council two days later, the 800-member council voted to postpone any presidential endorsement until April.

Theories abound concerning exactly what took place. Some say that the CTA leaders are out of touch with the rank and file members, many of whom favor Sen. Barack Obama for President. Some say that the council members from Los Angeles blocked the endorsement in retaliation for the CTA’s action of January 19th in preventing an endorsement of Sen. Obama by the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA), the CTA’s largest and most powerful local affiliate.

That the short-term winner is Sen. Obama, and the short-term loser is Sen. Clinton is obvious because the latter does not have the CTA endorsement going into “Super Tuesday.” However, the long-term winner is representative democracy. The people--in this situation, the people are the CTA members--have spoken. Whether you are for Sen. Clinton or for Sen. Obama, you have to agree that that is a good thing.