Worse than ObamaCare
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Wednesday, April 11, 2012
The U.S. Constitution is, in my opinion, one of the most amazing and important documents ever written. It describes the organization of a federal government with clarity and brevity.
With the inclusion of the 13th and 14th amendments, it is practically perfect. Because of its checks and balances on the powers of the government and the freedoms it identifies, it is the primary cause for the greatness that is our country.
In the Whispers column " Portrait of concern " (March 25 and TribLIVE.com), much is made of a painting by Provo, Utah-based artist Jon McNaughton, "One Nation Under Socialism," which portrays President Obama holding a burning copy of the U.S. Constitution.
Like other people, I find it difficult to believe that President Obama has been referred to, in his days as a lawyer, as a constitutional scholar or expert. His comments after the Supreme Court ruled in the Citizens United case made me wonder if he had ever even heard of the First Amendment .
Still, it should be remembered that the single most offensive attack on freedom and the U.S. Constitution, the "Patriot" Act, was a bipartisan affair led by Republican President George W. Bush. This cowardly and despicable assault on human dignity and freedom continues to be viewed as a necessary tool of government by people who feel free to wrap themselves in an American flag while they ignore and disdain the principles and freedoms that are the birthright of every American.
When the Patriot Act is burned to oblivion, then I will worry about President Obama's health-care legislation and the individual goals of other small-minded politicians.
Andrew N. Mewbourn
The writer is currently living and working in Ulan Baatar, Mongolia.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Islam & women
- Corbett’s choice
- Invest in pre-K
- ‘We the people’ are veterans
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Medicaid’s future
- Slots & property taxes
- Springdale’s dysfunction