Monday, November 12, 2007
Glenn Greenwald fact checks Dave Neiwert on Ron Paul
Glenn Greenwald, a constitutional lawyer who has probably written the most insightful and well commented (850 comments at last glance) article on Ron Paul thus far, fact checks Dave Neiwert on Ron Paul's stances regarding flag burning. Good stuff. Read it. Check out the comments. Try also Paul's speech on the topic, talking about all the time wasted on this issue.Dave Neiwert is probably the most organized and fact driven anti-Paul journalist out there, he uses links back to source materials, we have exchanged a civil email, he's written some great stuff about hate groups, and for these four characteristics I give him a bit of respect.
He does see Paul through a progressive's lens, and definately Paul is no progressive.
I read through the piece in question, and started with the last bill mentioned, H.R. 7955. (I figured everybody else would be dissecting from the top down, so I started working from the bottom up)
Read the text for yourself - and then read how Neiwert described it.
One thing I really like about Greenwald's postings, is that he goes back and updates them when in error, so the facts are all laid out on one page.
I would hope that Neiwert would do the same.
Labels: Dave Neiwert, election 2008, Glenn Greenwald, Ron Paul
¶ 4:26 PM
Comments:
<< Home
Fact-checking is fun, cause it allows you to rule out candidates without relying on someone else's opinions.
For example, here's a missive from Paul on religion in our country: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst122903.htm
Note the para:
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life."
"Replete with references to God"? I think there's exactly one in the Constitution:
"Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present, the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our names."
You'd think a so-called strict constructionist would know the text better.
This, among other reasons, is why Ron Paul's in my presidential bozo bin.
For example, here's a missive from Paul on religion in our country: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst122903.htm
Note the para:
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life."
"Replete with references to God"? I think there's exactly one in the Constitution:
"Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present, the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our names."
You'd think a so-called strict constructionist would know the text better.
This, among other reasons, is why Ron Paul's in my presidential bozo bin.
Nice to see you Chris.
I agree that the use of the word "replete" is over the top, and incorrect. However, how do you feel about the accuracy of the statement:
"The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life."
I don't know myself, I'm not the pre 1800s history buff you and Willard are.
Post a Comment
I agree that the use of the word "replete" is over the top, and incorrect. However, how do you feel about the accuracy of the statement:
"The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life."
I don't know myself, I'm not the pre 1800s history buff you and Willard are.
<< Home
