Can someone tell me what the hell Keyes is talking about?

[chelsea0011]

I understand his anti-choice and bigotry towards gays, but I have no idea what he is talking about when he brings up Federalism and U.S. History. Does he know what he is talking about or is the media as dumb as me and can't question him on any of his points?

[sui generis]

1. What are his points on Federalism?

I think he's probably alluding to "states rights" to discriminate and pollute. I can't imagine he's really pro-Federalist as a republicrap.

[underpants]

2. Keyes is of the belief that the Declaration of Independence

is the most important document not the Constitution. There are many that believe that because GOD and the Creator play a much more significant role in the Declaration of Independence. In fact the word "God" is not in the Constitution even once.

http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

Moreover this "federalist" argument has two objectives:
1.Change the subject to something that most people (myself included I am ashamed to say) are not that aware of so Keyes appears to be more informed and can completely steer the conversation. No one wants to say "I am not really familiar with the Federalist papers" as Keyes would jump all over them and again look more intelligent and better informed (which he probably is on that ONE subject).

2.I have always thought that this is Keyes part in furthering the Federalist Societies point of view and name. I believe he is a member of this society with their very pointed and out of the mainstream opinions.


http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/

[Walt Starr]

12. Shutting down that argument is the simplest of things

While the DoI may be the founding document of what was later to become the United States, the Constitution is the DEFINING document of the United States. It is the law of the land. The DoI IS NOT!

[lil-petunia]

3. I once had a property law prof from harvard

the man could not speak without putting together 15 concrete, separate, disconneccted ideas in each sentence. The whole class was clueless the entire semester. I aced the course (open book exam) by seeing what words I recognized in his exam question, then, turning to an index in the back of the text, taking some of the words out of context and spewing 15 concrete separate, disconnected ideas back. Still never figured out what he was trying to teach. Heck, not only did I not understand the exam questions, I didn't understand my own answers. Still, got the only A.

Keyes uses constitutional law shorthand. His ideas of federalism started off with the writings of 7th Circ. Court Justice Posner, a onetime kind of radical who once believed that economic theory could solve everything. Posner's since mellowed with age and experience, but Keyes has taken it a step further.

If you read Bork's fascinating writings on the constitution and federalism, you get a clue, but again, Keyes takes it a lot further, and in my mind, into the realm of almost mystic insanity.

It is possible to understand his points, but you have to do some background reading, you have to wait until his emotional and (he hopes, economic) and caffeine induced manic state subsides. Just wait, though, just give him time. At first he sounds so brilliant that he speaks way above you, but once you break the code, his ideas are like jello on a hot spit.

[underpants]

8. I just did a google search on Posner

Too much for my little brain right now.

That does clue me into where Keyes gets some of his material.

See my post above.

[hatrack]

4. What, is Alan Keyes Not Making Sense?

Maybe he rented a Talking Heads concert video and took their advice to heart . . .

[edbermac]

5. Hey, I'm still trying to figure out what the hell BUSH is talking about!

:silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:
:silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:

[dedhed]

6. "Federalism" is quickly becoming a GOP buzzword...

... for those who accuse Democrats of liking big government, more taxes, etc.

Federalism, in a nutshell, is government "by the people, for the people," which is what America still is. It is the polar opposite of totalitarianism or a dictatorships.

It's actually a pretty complicated principle, and I think that's why Keyes likes to use it. He sounds good talking about it, even though he's really not saying anything new, and it would take someone with more then a casual interest in Political Science and current events to challenge any point he makes.

Temple University has a pretty good study of it here...

http://www.temple.edu/federalism/

:bounce:

[gratuitous]

7. No idea whatsoever

And I don't think asking Crazy Keyes would help, either.

[Dying Eagle]

9. I am not Black

Be if I was I wouldn't have bigotry towards anyone (note: I'm white and I am not a bigot). I think If his ancestors could look at how far he has come but then saw that he was a bigot towards a group of people they would kick his ass. God I hate Keyes, what a asshole.

P.S Hey Keyes noticed that they ask 4 white guys to run before you, You have no self esteem.

[mumon]

10. No. He's merely babbling inchoherently.

One example of his is here, in which he atavistically advocates in favor of state sponsored churches, of all things:

http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/commentary/a0027492.cfm

Someone who simply read the text of the Constitution of the United States would be thoroughly surprised to learn that a federal judge claims the right to act in this manner. The First Amendment to the Constitution plainly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Since there can be no federal law on the subject, there appears to be no lawful basis for any element of the federal government, including the courts, to act in this area. Moreover, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution plainly states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."...

We have already seen that the actual language of the Constitution does not forbid an establishment of religion. Rather it forbids Congress to legislate on the subject at all, reserving it entirely to the states. No language in the 14th Amendment deals with this power of government. Portions of that amendment do indeed restrict the legislative powers of the states, but they refer only to actions that affect the privileges, immunities, legal rights and equal legal status of individual citizens and persons.

Court decisions going decades back (to the begining of the 20th Century or earlier) have extended the first ammendment to other branches of government as well.

Oddly enough for Keyes, an African American, (http://1stam.umn.edu/archive/historic/pdf/Incorporation%20Chart.pdf) it is the 14th Amendment that acutally binds the first amendment obligations to the states:

In 1868, however, the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the
Constitution, and it is aimed at the States. Section 1 of that Amendment provides, in part, “No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” In filling out the
meaning of these limitations on State action, the Supreme Court has drawn on provisions of the Bill of
Rights. The practical effect has been that most of the governmental restrictions articulated in the Bill
of Rights — including all clauses in the First Amendment — now bind the States as well as the Federal
Government.

Keyes is nothing but a demagogue, but an entertaining one, because he is so wrong.

[lil-petunia]

13. nice post.

Mr. Keyes does not yet know that several writers in Chicago have honed their milk teeth on stone, and their fangs on corrupt corpulent Chicago politicians. they will actually take the time to READ the constitution, his writings, and the Federalist Papers. once they start digging, he may find the going a lot less pleasant than he once thought. What he came here to do is to make a stink, raise a fuss, complain louder than Jesse Jackson, and ignore the facts when it suits him. Little does he know.

The national notional press is much less prepared, more easily swayed. But even they sense an aura of showmanship and games coming up the next two months, the only two things that keyes seeks. (oh, and money to pay off his debt)

So, how does Obama play it? Cool. prepared, but cool. A nice way would be to take any argument from Keyes (well, they are all the same argument) and take it to its logical conclusion. A few examples would make Keyes appear even less capable than our fearful leader in the White House.

[Zynx]

11. Keyes is one of those people who pretends to be an intellectual.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. He Has A PHD From Harvard....

I think federalism is a defensible concept but I also think the Constitution is a living document which should be interpreted within the light of of our times...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

16. And Bush has an MBA from Harvard Business School.

I have no doubt that I, an un-college-educated computer programmer, could debate rings around either of them.

[chelsea0011]

14. Thanks for the replies

Keyes just cracks me up. He said this morning on CNN that slavery is not related to race. Problem is that the discussion was about his Obama comments about slavery and thus about slavery in this country. When people talk about slavery they are usually only talking about this countries history so to use the idea that slavery has no race connotation is insane.