U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) David Seligman
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(R) H. Scheppelman
(D) Alex Kelloff
70%
30%
10%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Shannon Bird
45%↓
30%
30%
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 06, 2010 09:36 PM UTC
47 Comments
This is wonderful. I really appreciate Ross bringing us this interview as it sheds a lot of light on the logic upon which we may now assume will guide Ms. Norton should she be elected.
Here are some issues that I would appreciate Ms. Norton to expound upon, given her now stated belief that when an issue or subject is not explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution that the Federal government has no legitimate jurisdiction.
Does Ms. Norton oppose a Federally recognized right to privacy for American citizens?
The word “God” appears nowhere in the Constitution. May we presume that Ms. Norton opposes any role for God, Christianity, or The Ten Commandments in the Federal Government? Specifically, does she support removing “In God We Trust” from the Constitution? Does Ms. Norton oppose the tradition of Congressional Invocations?
As Justice Scalia noted in Bush v. Gore, there is no explicit right to vote in the Constitution. What is Ms. Norton’s position on the right of citizens to vote for candidates for Federal office?
Immigration is not mentioned in the Constitution. Does Ms. Norton believe that the Federal government has no proper role in immigration?
The concept of judicial review is not found within the Constitution. Does Ms. Norton oppose the concept of Judicial Review? If she does, what does she believe is the correct role for Federal Courts, including The Supreme Court? What specific rulings by The Supreme Court should be discarded?
Marriage is not discussed in the Constitution, should the Defense of Marriage Act be repealed and The Supreme Court be barred from ruling on issues of marriage?
Paper money is not referenced in the Constitution, only coins. Should the Treasury be prohibited from issuing paper money?
Transportation and travel are not discussed. Should we eliminate the Department of Transportation? Federal highway funds? May states bar their citizens from interstate travel? May Congress?
Does Ms. Norton oppose the existence of the United States Air Force? How about the United States Marine Corps? Neither are mentioned in the Constitution.
Ms. Norton is running for the United States Senate from the great state of Colorado. The territory that we now refer to as Colorado was largely acquired from the French via the Louisiana Purchase by President Jefferson in 1803. The Constitution does not grant the President the right to purchase lands or otherwise expand the territories of the United States. Does Ms. Norton believe that the Louisiana Purchase was un-Constitutional? Should the territory now consisting of everything east of the continental divide be returned to France? Will Ms. Norton accept the votes of those Coloradans who live east of the Colorado divide or does she hold the text of the Constitution supreme?
I anxiously await Ms. Norton’s responses to these pressing issues. If she truly believes that the powers of The Federal government are bound by the explicit terms and conditions of the United States Constitution then the answers to these questions should come rather easily to her.
…take two of your weak arguments apart, just so people can put this drivel into perspective.
1) Pretty sure this:
…is in the Constitution. So yeah, I think the right to vote is in there.
2) You say a right to privacy isn’t mentioned, so we have no right to it? That’s backward logic. She says education isn’t mentioned, and therefore the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has no right to meddle in it. But do you remember this:
Yeah, that’s in there too. Nowhere does it say that rights not outlined in the Constitution are reserved to the Feds. So, basically…you’re an idiot.
1. Detailing reasons why people cannot be denied the vote is not the same as explicitly guaranteeing a right to vote, such as an explicit guarantee of a right to free speech etc. The standard that Ms. Norton has proferred is one where the Federal government cannot act unless the Constitution explicitly grants the power to do so. You are applying a different standard, one that is malleable – a Living Constitution approach.
In Bush v. Gore the Majority Opinion (not Scalia’s concurrence as I misstated earlier) states,
2.
Please read again, I clearly reference Federal jurisdiction in the privacy question.
But I’m glad you answered, it is your stated belief that citizens of this nation have no reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to the Federal government. That’s a unique opinion but I’m glad that someone here is willing to fully embrace the logic conclusions of a strict constructionist philosophy. I wish you luck conveying that message to voters.
Now though you’re invocation of 9th Amendment is certainly interesting. Given your liberal construction of that Amendment I see no reason why there should not be a Federal right to privacy. This is of course the same logic that the Warren Court applied in Griswold v. Connecticut. That case, I’m sure you are aware, established the concept of Federal right to privacy and led to the Supreme Court’s holding in Roe v. Wade.
Your arguments on privacy are in conflict with each other. You’ll need to resolve your argument that States are not barred from establishing a right to privacy, which implies that the Federal Constitution fails to provide such a right, and your belief that a right to privacy may be implied via the 9th Amendment.
Of course we do. Just like the 1st amendment doesn’t grant the Federal government any rights. ALL of the amendments in the Bill of Rights were put in place to LIMIT the powers of the Federal government.
The Preamble of the Constitution creates a framework for the role of the Federal Government. Where it says, “promote the general Welfare”, it provides great flexibility in the Federal Government to “meddle” in things not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
I think you can make a pretty compelling argument that a Department focused on furthering the education of the public “promotes the general welfare”
…the Constitution was to accomplish said goals. The Preamble doesn’t grant the Federal government any rights.
The ENTIRE clause in which it is actually referred to within the Constitution, even with your loose interpretation of the term “General Welfare,” makes it clear that the Federal government only has the ability to lay taxes in order to pay for things that “promote the general welfare.” They have no power to create health care programs or regulate education.
….would be rather pointless if there were no programs, departments, etc. that promote the general welfare.
I understand what you are saying.
OTOH, 240-ish years of earmarks, subsidies, programs, departments since 1789 makes it all de facto. or in French, I guess, a fait accompli.
The “General Welfare” language has been used to justify many programs sponsored by the Federal Government. I’d hardly consider it a “loose interpretation”.
The Department of Education as well as national health care programs are simply Congressionally authorized taxes and appropriated funds coupled with regulatory administration. It is completely within the Federal Legislature’s authority to establish such policies.
As you mentioned in an earlier post, the Bill of Rights says what the government can’t do. The Articles are essentially ground rules for the different functions of government. It has long been understood that unless the Constitution says you can’t do it, it is fair game.
…inserting incredibly broad and vague language restricting the Federal government? The 9th and 10th amendment have absolutely ZERO specifics and grant broad rights to the states and to the people. What rights would these be if, in fact, as you say, “unless the Constitution says you can’t do it, it is fair game?”
I’m confused.
“The word “God” appears nowhere in the Constitution… does she support removing “In God We Trust” from the Constitution? ”
I agree with pretty much everything else you said though.
I’ll assume you meant “currency” instead the the second “constitution”
That makes a lot more sense.
You Dhimmicrats say that like it’s a bad thing? You don’t know how many take it as a compliment. You’re blinded by your biases, Colorado Pols.
I am going to LOVE this blog when it’s Senator Jane Norton. Can I cut and paste this post back to you over and over again?
But not until then.
Because I find it fascinating that you haven’t been run over crossing the street yet.
Are they unconstitutional too?
It actually says “provide for the common defense,” which a nuclear bomb certainly falls under considering they worked pretty well to defend us in WWII, and are a strong preventative measure against nations that have considered attacking us (see: Cold War, etc…).
when you don’t call people names. I don’t know why you keep doing that. It makes you look silly.
No need to name call. I have made no value judgments whatsoever regarding a strict constructionist view point. There are legitimate reasons to believe in such an interpretation.
At the same time though if you are a candudidate for public office and express a philosophy of Constitutional interpretation as a guiding force when you’re speaking to voters then it is perfectly reasonable to be asked to discuss the application of that philosophy.
The standard of interpretation at issue here though is one of explicit powers granted by the Constitution.
The clause that you cite as allowing for the nuclear weapons reads in full,
Just as, in your opinion, the power of the Federal government to invest in nuclear armament flows naturally from the common defense clause one could argue that the power to create the Department of Education flows naturally from the general welfare clause.
This is actually a very interesting area of discussion and debate. Ms. Norton though has taken a different standard of interpretation than the one that you have applied.
Ms. Norton has adopted a very strict interpretation of Federal powers. I am merely asking her to clarify if she applies that strict standard across the board or if she picks and chooses which issues are subject to this interpretation. If she picks and chooses I’d like to some clarification on what principles she applies when choosing the issues subject to strict construction and those that are not.
But Republicans argue that reading anything into that phrase is not strict constructionism.
That must be what Jane Norton meant when she said:
What a Dire Gnosis.
“Well a blast of confusion coupled with delusion
Makes the best made plans sometimes fail” -Dixie Chicks
I’m more concerned with Low Information Candidates, like Jane Norton.
If anyone needs to pass a civics literacy test (or better, a math test), I’d suggest starting with her.
It will be the return of the KKK to power in a Colorado statewide race
This isn’t an exxageration.
George W.bush will look liberal.
Some people find this exciting.
That’s just beyond the pail. I know most CP-ers aren’t quite that zealous.
Play hard to get, females get jealous.
Personally, I’ve never been bothered about anything I’ve seen on the other side of the bucket!
everyone else will find it seriously scary. The KKK is not actually ‘real’ America but it is an organization that can cause a lot of grief. They should be watched carefully and taken seriously.
I don’t know anybody (in real life) who’s crazy enough to say that electing Jane Norton is the equivalent to the “return of the KKK to power.” And I’ve lived in Boulder for 20+ years.
She’d simply be an empty suit with an empty head. Unfortunately, any leg she would introduce would be written by Charlie Black.
I agree and disagree to a certain extent, but to say that it’s the return of the KKK to power is ridiculous, and hopefully everyone here knows that.
I’m sick of all the BS tactics whereby Democrats/Liberals/Progressives call their political opponents racists rather than debate on the issues.
But will you at least acknowledge these kind of over-the-top comparisons are a lot easier to make after a year of hearing Obama compared to Stalin, Mao and Hitler? And that wasn’t from random bloggers.
Some of it was from more prominent lefties, and some was from a very small assortment of citizens. The occasional local politician also made dumbass comments, but there are a lot of local politicians.
I also don’t see what this has to do with race? And even so, the comparison was applied even more strongly and even more widely to this guy. Don’t you remember?
And yet I don’t remember George Bush ever stonewalling or deliberately attacking a cable news channel, even the one that had prominent hosts using the aforementioned imagery against him.
As for what you choose not to remember, um, here you go.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/…
The worst thing you can find from actual prominent lefties (i.e., not some shirtless dude with rainbow hair in the back of a protest march) is Olbermann replying to a fascism accusation with “No, you.”
Hmmm…
The worst I can find from the most prominent Republican in America is “Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate.” http://www.salon.com/opinion/g…
…”toward the end, we didn’t do a lot with MSNBC?”
Really? Yeah, that’s almost the same thing as freezing them out entirely and having virtually every top-level aid and communications personnel say that they were “a wing of the Republican Party” and that we “shouldn’t pretend they’re a news network.”
Lyndon LaRouche was who I was referring to. And I suppose the people actually photographed holding the posters (which LaRouche’s PAC designed) were simply his supporters. My main point here is that they weren’t coming from the right. I think we can agree that that’s the case.
I was never trying to make the case that racism or extremism was a major part of the “Progressive” movement. Although I could. And I could find more prominent examples of hate and extremism. For example:
How about CNN’s Susan Roesgen calling a person wearing a big Bush mask with a Hitler mustache and devil horns a “Bush look-alike.”
Or how about a Democratic congressman comparing Bush to Hitler and suggesting he might be responsible for 9/11.
I could go absolutely ON, and ON, and ON, and ON with examples. But perhaps the best is when John Kerry, no less high-profile a Democrat than the party’s nominee for President in 2004, joked about killing the sitting president on national television.
…I’m having too much fun with this late-night history lesson to let this one slip through the cracks:
How about a statewide elected Democrat praising another statewide elected Democrat, at a college graduation ceremony, no less, for his apparent willingness to “put a bullet between the President’s eyes,” assuming he “could get away with it?”
Yeah, that would be pretty messed up, wouldn’t it?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
…in favor of posting a video that shows they collapsed under the stupidity of their previous strategy of ignoring Fox entirely? Because, as I recall, that was less than one month after this.
And btw, that link goes to HuffPo. A source you can trust…
Huffington Post is a blog whose opinion section is generally rather liberal-leaning.
However when they post an article stating that Obama gave an interview to Fox News, I think we can agree that happened. The fact that HuffPost claims a fact is true doesn’t make it false. Wouldn’t that be a crazy world to live in? It was just the first link I found.
Jesus Christ, this is a stupid debate.
MYYYYYYYYYY link was to HuffPo. Just so you couldn’t call it an unreliable source.
And again, you ignore the violent comments about Bush. Please…continue to do so. It’s rather entertaining at this point.
but you keep bringing him up in the context of racist and extremely offensive comments about Obama.
Whatever. Threats of violence are odious. Calling the President Hitler is not good, whether it’s some guy nobody’s ever heard of, or the most famous and influential Republicans in America.
But Christ on a bike, you keep wanting to veer off into silly irrelevant things because you think you’re winning points on some grand scoreboard. And you keep insulting people and acting childish, when it’s really not necessary.
More like cologeek and Laughing Boy, less like Libertad and Michael Dorsett please. I know you can do it.
I checked every link you provided, and man, you were reaching so far, you now got one arm two inches longer than the other!
First, not one of your examples happened in the first six months of Bush’s first term.
Second, the most egregious of your examples happened after we started bombing the hell out of Iraq, killing children and raping women.
Third, did you think no one would follow your links, and thus miss this:
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/node/72…
…as far as I can tell. He said:
Rumsfeld said the world faces “a new type of fascism.” And he warned against repeating the pre-World War II mistake of appeasement.
Bear in mind, by “a new type of fascism,” he was referring to radical Islam. And also, nobody ever said that any of those things about Bush had to be said in the first six months of his term. Who set that bar?
And sxp, I see that you’re pretty much done trying to debate me (granted, it was a fairly weak attempt from the start). But I can’t begin to see how it’s not relevant for me to point out that 1) you’re wrong and 2) you’re the world’s biggest hypocrite. You and others began by calling conservatives racist and extremist in their attitude toward Obama, and yet that’s…well, a baseless claim. But it was true of Democrats–from top to bottom–during Bush’s term.
…this:
Not the Grand dragon , Governor of Colordo, Fov.Stapleton
It’s happended ee
TEbaggers hate immigrnts. They hate affirmative action, they hate taxes, and don’t undrstand eficits.
They have a dangerous agenda
Type likes these have beenseen before: John Birch Socirty, minuteman, posse comatotis…erc….