-For that, we'll have to wait 'til Tuesday.-

No need to wait. I will tell you the winner of Laugheys sociopathic campaign-HARRY REID. Bought and paid for by the Club For Growth (Of A Democrat Majority).

Anybody that votes for Laffey is stupid! Your voting for a Democratic majority in the Senate. We already have a Democrat in Chafee already. hehe.

"We already have a Democrat in Chafee already."

Yeah, and I don't vote for Dems. I'd rather my vote go towards giving the Dems control than go towards supporting the perversion of our party's principles by hacks like Chafee.

If control of the Senate boils down to who wins the RI Senate election, then the only way for the GOP to remain in control of the Senate is for Steve Laffey to win. If Lincoln Chafee is the 50th Republican in the Senate, he will surely switch to the Democrats in return for a chairmanship. The ranking Democrat on Environment and Public Works, Jumpin' Jim Jeffords, is retiring, and the Democrats would be able to gain an illegitimate Senate majority twice in 6 years by dangling the same second-tier chairmanship before a RINO.

But it would be extremely unlikely for the Democrats to draw the inside straight they need to get to 50 Senators, and the most likely result of a Chafee reelection is that he will be the 53rd Republican in the Senate, and that his presence with an R next to his name on committees and subcommittees will actually give voting control of such committees and subcommittees to the Democrats.

It would be self-defeating for Republicans to vote for Lincoln Chafee in Tuesday's primary.

I wonder if Linc would vote to give the President the authority he needs for the war tribunals. And more importantly, would he tell us before the primary what he's going to do or will he again be the 99th senator to make up his mind and once again make himself irrelevant.

Anybody gotten a polling call from an outfit called Common Sense 2006 about the Senate race today?

Once again I wish to speak for Senator Chafee as a principled Senator who tries to do what is right for the state and country, even at some risk to his career as it not always appreciated by party loyalists.
As for being a "Republican," as I see it, Linc Chafee is very much a traditional Republican, with a strong interest in ethics in government, civility, conservation (not only going back to Teddy Roosevelt, but also the tradition of RI Republicans to be cautious about pell-mell development while the Dems generally support construction jobs at any price) fiscal responsibility (as opposed to tax cuts that leave a huge deficit for future generations to pay off), avoidance of unnecessary foreign entanglements, support for public higher education (from Abraham Lincoln who signed the original land grant act to Rockefeller who built the state university of NY, to John Chafee who helped make URI, RIC truly professional schools as opposed to patronage backwaters), minimal government intrusion in science and in our bedrooms. While those that want to simply cut taxes regardless of what happens to the homeless, education, national parks, science, health care etc have a right to make over the Republican party to do that, it doesn't mean those (like Linc Chafee) who see the tradition differently are not "true Republicans."
I for one am less interested in tax cuts than in seeing government programs run more efficiently and effectively, rather than with the widespread cronyism, insider deals, giveaways, and lack of incentives for excellence that the RI Democratic has generally given us.

Thank you Barry for that lovely transcription of the "Save Chafee" mailer.

Barry -

How about "traditional Republican values" as expressed by the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution?

It is not generally known - for the lefties running the schools have succeeded in re-writing history (the victor gets to write the history) - but FDR conducted a de facto coup against the U.S. Constitution, and thus against the United States. (While this may well strike you as hyperbole or the ranting of a “right wing nut” – read the history on this – and the text of the Constitution - then decide for yourself.)

After losing a couple of big cases declaring “New Deal” programs as unconstitutional (exceeding the federal branches authority under the Constitution), FDR attempted to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court ("packing the Court") so that he could appoint a majority that would rule his way.

This attempt at packing was too much even for FDR’s own Democratic Party. But thus threatened, the Supreme Court reversed itself and began to accede to absurdly expansive readings of the (interstate) Commerce Clause – totally at variance with how the Constitution was interpreted in its first 150-ish years - effectively creating a loophole for FDR to impose the New Deal. Since then, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution has been ignored (for most of the New Deal / Great Society would not pass Constitutional muster if the Tenth Amendment was enforced).

Funny, the First Amendment is deemed that it should be construed expansively – protecting pornography and such; and post-FDR the Commerce Clause (authorizing Congress to regulate “commerce between the states”) has been interpreted so expansively that Congress can enact myriad welfare programs under the guise of “regulating interstate commerce” … yet the Second Amendment enumerated right “to keep and bear arms” is interpreted very restrictively, and the Tenth Amendment reserving to the States all powers not specifically granted the federal government is ignored.

This is why the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court is so critical. The Constitution is essentially nothing more or less than a contract – one between the citizens and the federal government. Basic contract law is that a contract is to be construed to enforce the original intent of its makers – first by looking at the plain language on the “four corners” of the document itself, and if there is some ambiguity, then (as best as possible) gleaning the original intent of those who made it.

Thus we can have a Court that interprets the Constitution the way it is plainly written (or applying the spirit and intent of it by consulting the writings of the Founding Fathers that drafted it). Or we can have a “liberal” FDR Court that does not see it as the contract it is, but as a “living document” that means nothing but what they say it does at that moment, thus providing cover for imposing whatever liberal cause du jour is before it.

This is why having a Senate made up of true Republicans – those who will support judges who in turn will support the U.S. Constitution – is so critical and comports with “traditional Republican values.” Lincoln Chafee does not qualify as a “traditional Republican” in any sense of the phrase.

To the RINO's and Chafee apologists, I have some news: Chafee's loss, even (eventually) to Whitehouse, will not mean that Harry Reid will be the winner. Even the liberal MSM is predicting the Senate will stay Republican, at least by the majority of a few.

No, it will be good to say farewell to this guy, who even today, screwed up the Bolton nomination.

What's worse, a Republican that embarrasses his own and ends up voting with the Dems, or an outright Dem? I think the former is worse.

But no need to fear, Laffey will win next Tuesday. And will likely beat Whitehouse.

Dear Tom W,

Madison constructed the 9th Amendment purposely to captures Rights that may not make it into the "Bill of Rights". Therefore, the number one author of the document you so obviously misunderstand wanted it to be living and breathing.

By the way, am I the representative of the Illuminati or the Council on Foriegn Relations? Maybe, just maybe, I'm a Bilderberger or, even worse, a Tri-Lat.

Actually, if the Senate does go Democratic, it probably won't be by one vote! We'll probably stay just about the same, or lose a ton of seats in November. A lot can change in two months. I don't think there is likely to be a lot of room in between. Chafee has made himself worth losing. Keep Chafee? More like Keep Chafee Far Away. Lose Chafee. Bye, bye.

PS I don't consider what effect this may or may not have on Sen. Reid from Nevada. Actually, I think that there is a very strong chance that Hillary Clinton will run and become Majority Leader, if the Democrats take control of the Senate (and maybe Minority Leader, if they don't). Chafee is just so bad for our party, that even that prospect won't scare me into voting for him! In the paraphrased words from Apollo 13: "Chafee, we've got a problem!" It's time to jetison this one into deep space.

>>Madison constructed the 9th Amendment purposely to captures Rights that may not make it into the "Bill of Rights". Therefore, the number one author of the document you so obviously misunderstand wanted it to be living and breathing.

"Living and breathing" is why they included an AMENDMENT process - think about it, if it was intended to be "living and breathing" based upon the then-current ideological composition of the Supreme Court, we'd effectively have founded a government of nine kings! The Founders knew better than to do that ...

The philosophical basis of the Constitution is the EACH human being (not a "collective") has inalienable rights - and that the presumption is that any "right" is presumed to be held by that individual.

The Constitution ("contract" between the governed and its government) is that certain of those rights are delegated to the government in order to promote a civil society. Similar to the 10th Amendment in regard to States, all rights not specifically granted the federal government are reserved to each individual.

The 9th Amendment merely makes that concept clear, should there be any misunderstanding by "living document" proponents who believe (or want to believe) that rights are granted by the government to the people.

Dear Tom W,

Your analysis has one small problem: Madison disagrees with it. I suppose it's one thing if I disagree with you; however, it is quite another with the author disagrees with you.

Nothing in the Federalist papers, or any other Madison writing , supports your positio. I'm not surprised. You gave up the genesis of your positions when you told us about FDR.

>> Your analysis has one small problem: Madison disagrees with it. I suppose it's one thing if I disagree with you; however, it is quite another with the author disagrees with you. Nothing in the Federalist papers, or any other Madison writing , supports your positio. I'm not surprised. You gave up the genesis of your positions when you told us about FDR.

Bobby, I hate to burst the bubble of your liberal religion with FACTS, but such is life here in the real world - try this for a quick little intro on Madison, the Bill of Rights, and the 9th:

"It has been said that in the federal government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained: that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and therefore a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation; but they are not conclusive to the extent which has been supposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse to a certain extent … It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution." James Madison Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

And as for FDR packing the courts, try these for a quick intro:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Reorganization_Bill_of_1937

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_in_Exile

Bobby, you are dead wrong about the 9th Amendment. Madison did not write it to allow the Supreme Court to add "rights" to the Constitution, he wrote it so that the Bill of Rights were not interpreted following the hermeneutical maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," which would have, for example, meant that since the 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches of persons, houses, papers and effects but does not specifically mention offices or vehicles that it wouldn't apply to searches of offices or vehicles. Liberals and conservatives alike agree with this interpretation of the history of the 9th Amendment:

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stated as follows in Gibson v. Matthews, 926 F.2d 532, 537 (6th Cir. 1991):

"[T]he ninth amendment does not confer substantive rights in addition to those conferred by other portions of our governing law. The ninth amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to ensure that the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius would not be used at a later time to deny fundamental rights merely because they were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution."

The U.S. Supreme Court has explained as follows, in United Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947):

"If granted power is found, necessarily the objection of invasion of those rights, reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, must fail."

As Justice Douglas once put it, "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights." See Doe v. Bolton (1973). And Justice Scalia expressed the same view, in Troxel v. Granville (2000):

"The Declaration of Independence...is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution’s refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people."

Professor Laurence Tribe shares this view: "It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of 'ninth amendment rights.' The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution." See Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 776 n. 14 (2nd ed. 1998).

This is similar to the view of Justice Goldberg (joined by Chief Justice Warren and Justice Brennan), in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), although Goldberg viewed the Ninth Amendment as relevant to the scope of Fourteenth Amendment rights:

"[T]he Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights.... I do not mean to imply that the .... Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government....While the Ninth Amendment - and indeed the entire Bill of Rights - originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Dear Republican,

First and foremost, thank you for taking the time to do some research. I realy appreciate your effort.

However, your comments do not address any of Madison's writings or speeches before the Congress. I can also quote just as many cases, or sections of opinions from the same cases, which would illustrate the opposite point.

Before I do that, I would like to know what the Blog thinks. Technically, this dicussion was never supposed to be about interpretations of the 9th Amendment, and thereby requires a small discussion of the role of the 10th, and I'd hate to move that far away from the original topic without some consensus or a blog moderator introducing the 9th/10th discussion as an entirely new topic.

I would argue at this point that the vaugeness of the 9th, and to some point the 2nd, somewhat makes my point. Therefore, if the moderators or the consumers of the Blog would like to see this progress, they should make it known.

Fellow bloggers and moderators, what say ye??