Comments for Families for James Lankford

Comment on Thoughts on Health Care and the “Summit” by John

John — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:22:07 +0000

I note that a fundamental element of your campaign focuses on supporting and abiding by the Constitution. Of course, to do that, you need to know what it says. In this blog post, you write “since the Constitution is the one that gives the 60 vote requirement to close debate in the Senate. ”

This is not true. The Constitution does not provide for the 60% vote requirement. This is a Senate procedural rule, one that members of both parties have proposed changing when they have been in power.

You then note that, in considering using reconciliation (ie, a simple majority vote) for the Senate to approve the health care reform bill that “I know that pesky Constitution gets in the way of so many good arguments for Democrats. ”

If that’s the case, it likely got in the way of Republicans as well on the approximately 21 instances where they have used reconciliation to force a “simple up or down vote” in the past 30 years.

Comment on Second Amendment by Steve Schmidt

Steve Schmidt — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:25:38 +0000

Hey all,
I hear what you’re saying. And I am not against owning firearms. I own 4 myself. I was saying that stating “conservatives stand with the constitution while liberals stand with their preferences” was overly simplistic and biased. It’s one thing to have honest disagreements about how to interpret the constitution; it’s quite another to just throw out bumper-sticker slogans that inaccurately divide people in an attempt to score brownie points with a base constituency.

Comment on Chris Tomlin, Jami Smith and Tommy Woodard Benefit Concert by Mr. SR22 Auto Insurance

Mr. SR22 Auto Insurance — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 22:33:32 +0000

God works in myterious ways. I do not believe it was an accident that I found this website. Thanks so much.

Comment on Second Amendment by will williamson

will williamson — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:13:33 +0000

The Second Amendment is truly a statement of one of our individual, inalienable rights–the right of self-preservation, whether from an individual or a government. Our Founders debated it and passed it with the conclusion that the wording of it, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, was that what was protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

Comment on Spending by Dylan Edwards

Dylan Edwards — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:07:47 +0000

While we spend more we borrow more. We borrow from countries that are not friendlies, like China. I don’t see how borrowing from a possible foe is a good idea because then we hold a liability to that country and they now have power over us. Proverbs 22:7

Comment on Second Amendment by cbalthrop

cbalthrop — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:35:24 +0000

I agree, James. It’s not misleading to say the Constitution protects an individuals right for gun ownership.

In the First Amendment we see a list of protected rights that are related, but separate. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The establishment of religion and the freedom of speech are related topically, but separate in significance and application. The spirit of our day seems to want to limit freedom of speech as it relates to the practice of religion by individuals within our government. These are rights established within the same amendment but have different applications.

In the same way the Second Amendment creates a similar list of related, but separate rights. It lists a well regulated militia as a right of the State. And then follows with a related, but separate right, the right of individuals to own and use firearms.

With a full-time professional standing military the need for a state run militia may no longer exist but that neither negates the rights of a State to establish a militia nor negates an individuals right to own and use firearms.

Media outlets in our country are well established and very successful. They report on whichever stories they find significant and they do so unhindered under the protection of the First Amendment. Does the existence of a professional standing Press Corp. eliminate the right of an individual to practice freedom of speech? Certainly not.

Conservatives aren’t ignoring the first clause of the Second Amendment, rather we recognize that the entire amendment is significant. Regardless of how one feels about guns, the people who own them or the affect a professional standing military has on the necessity of individuals to bear arms it would require a new amendment to change the current right itself. We can’t simply legislate away or ignore the freedoms expressly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights because we don’t like or don’t find necessary anymore one of the phrases contained within.

The Second Amendment isn’t a statement of what’s needed. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, it’s a statement of individual and state rights.

Comment on Second Amendment by jlankford

jlankford — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 04:54:29 +0000

Your statement is a common arguement to limit gun ownership. But, I do not agree. The problem is determining if the Constitution provides only for the military or if it provides for citizens to protect themselves in danger. Here is my thought, it is impossible to have a prepared militia if individuals do not have weapons ready. I cannot understand how private citizens owning a gun violates the Constitution. It seems obvious that the intent of the document was to restrict the government from limiting gun ownership not to restrict individuals.

Comment on Illegal Immigration by Kathy

Kathy — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 01:31:18 +0000

James, what is this “free college education” program for illegal aliens?

Comment on Second Amendment by Steve Schmidt

Steve Schmidt — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:20:30 +0000

This is a bit misleading. The second amendment states “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Liberals merely argue (from the constitution itself) that the right to bear arms is contingent on the need for a militia. With a full-time professional standing military, this need no longer exists; hence, a person’s right to own weapons is no longer a necessity. Conservatives prefer to skip the first clause entirely and focus on the second. Let’s not be simplistic.

Comment on Chris Tomlin, Jami Smith and Tommy Woodard Benefit Concert by cbalthrop

cbalthrop — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:16:33 +0000

Hey Devorah,

You’ll pick up your tickets at the door! It’s going to be a great night. We look forward to seeing you there!

God Bless,
Families for James Lankford