Michael Gaynor
Senate candidate Wendy Long, best on constitutional issues AND economic issues
By Michael Gaynor
Senator Gillibrand can't match Long's legal acumen and advocatory ability, but she is a lawyer and did clerk for a federal appellate judge, so we need the best available candidate to carry the banner of constitutional fidelity and rule of law.
This month President Obama will receive bad news from the United States Supreme Court and constitutional fidelity and judicial activism will take center stage.
Contrary to the disinformation passing as common knowledge, Obama was never a law school professor. He was a lecturer and a senior lecturer at the leftist University of Chicago Law School, but not even that school made him a professor.
Who should be making the case for constitutional fidelity and the rule of law and against political demagoguery and judicial activism in the United States Senate race in New York?
It's no contest.
The answer is constitutional scholar Wendy Long, already the New York Conservative Party nominee to contest New York's junior United States Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, and the winner of a near majority at the New York Republican Party Convention last March against two men.
Congressman Bob Turner and Nassau County Comptroller George Maragos are on the right side, but they are not lawyers, much less former law clerks to a federal appellate court judge and a United States Supreme Court Justice and former counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network (now the Judicial Crisis Network).
Senator Gillibrand can't match Long's legal acumen and advocatory ability, but she is a lawyer and did clerk for a federal appellate judge, so we need the best available candidate to carry the banner of constitutional fidelity and rule of law.
That's Long.
On April 3, 2012, Long promptly responded to President Obama's preemptive attack on the United States Supreme Court in anticipation of Obamacare being ruled unconstitutional.
Long was blunt:
"If a first-year law student said on a test what President Obama said yesterday in the Rose Garden, she would flunk Constitutional Law. President Obama said that it would be 'judicial activism' if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down his unconstitutional Obamacare law. This is a blatantly false. Here is how it works: the U.S. Supreme Court reviews laws passed by Congress (all of which, by definition are passed by a majority, although Obamacare was passed by a very slim, partisan Democrat majority). The Court is duty-bound to strike down laws that exceed the powers that the Constitutiongives to the federal government. Obamacare is such a law. For the first time in history, it would force Americans to purchase a product that they may not wish to buy. This would establish a precedent that the government can continue to do so in many other contexts, and Obamacare is a blatant violation of Congress's Article I power under the Constitution. When the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare, therefore, it will simply be upholding the Constitution.
"On the other hand, 'judicial activism' is when the Court simply makes up some law that is not actually in the Constitution at all, or when it ignores clear language in the Constitution giving certain rights and protections to the people or the states. New Yorkers would expect Senator Gillibrand to understand the basic principles of our Constitutiion and that what the President has said is wrong. But New Yorkers hear nothing but dead silence from her on this."
New York urgently needs Wendy Long and chauvenistic men and Republican primary voters (June 26) need to know that letting Gillibrand win a three-way race would be utterly foolish and terribly wrong.
© Michael Gaynor
June 5, 2012
Senator Gillibrand can't match Long's legal acumen and advocatory ability, but she is a lawyer and did clerk for a federal appellate judge, so we need the best available candidate to carry the banner of constitutional fidelity and rule of law.
This month President Obama will receive bad news from the United States Supreme Court and constitutional fidelity and judicial activism will take center stage.
Contrary to the disinformation passing as common knowledge, Obama was never a law school professor. He was a lecturer and a senior lecturer at the leftist University of Chicago Law School, but not even that school made him a professor.
Who should be making the case for constitutional fidelity and the rule of law and against political demagoguery and judicial activism in the United States Senate race in New York?
It's no contest.
The answer is constitutional scholar Wendy Long, already the New York Conservative Party nominee to contest New York's junior United States Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, and the winner of a near majority at the New York Republican Party Convention last March against two men.
Congressman Bob Turner and Nassau County Comptroller George Maragos are on the right side, but they are not lawyers, much less former law clerks to a federal appellate court judge and a United States Supreme Court Justice and former counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network (now the Judicial Crisis Network).
Senator Gillibrand can't match Long's legal acumen and advocatory ability, but she is a lawyer and did clerk for a federal appellate judge, so we need the best available candidate to carry the banner of constitutional fidelity and rule of law.
That's Long.
On April 3, 2012, Long promptly responded to President Obama's preemptive attack on the United States Supreme Court in anticipation of Obamacare being ruled unconstitutional.
Long was blunt:
"If a first-year law student said on a test what President Obama said yesterday in the Rose Garden, she would flunk Constitutional Law. President Obama said that it would be 'judicial activism' if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down his unconstitutional Obamacare law. This is a blatantly false. Here is how it works: the U.S. Supreme Court reviews laws passed by Congress (all of which, by definition are passed by a majority, although Obamacare was passed by a very slim, partisan Democrat majority). The Court is duty-bound to strike down laws that exceed the powers that the Constitutiongives to the federal government. Obamacare is such a law. For the first time in history, it would force Americans to purchase a product that they may not wish to buy. This would establish a precedent that the government can continue to do so in many other contexts, and Obamacare is a blatant violation of Congress's Article I power under the Constitution. When the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare, therefore, it will simply be upholding the Constitution.
"On the other hand, 'judicial activism' is when the Court simply makes up some law that is not actually in the Constitution at all, or when it ignores clear language in the Constitution giving certain rights and protections to the people or the states. New Yorkers would expect Senator Gillibrand to understand the basic principles of our Constitutiion and that what the President has said is wrong. But New Yorkers hear nothing but dead silence from her on this."
New York urgently needs Wendy Long and chauvenistic men and Republican primary voters (June 26) need to know that letting Gillibrand win a three-way race would be utterly foolish and terribly wrong.
© Michael Gaynor
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
