Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Sen. Tim Kaine’

The Mark of Kaine: How a Senator’s Remarks Border on Constitutional Blasphemy


By: Jonathan Turley | September 8, 2025

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2025/09/08/the-mark-of-kaine-how-a-senators-remarks-borders-on-constitutional-blasphemy/#more-235451

Below is my column in The Hill on the controversial remarks of Sen. Tim Kaine (D. Va.) denouncing a nominee who believed in natural law and the concept of God-given rights. By the end of the hearing, Kaine effectively lumped Alexander Hamilton with Ayatollah Khomeini in his statement at the committee hearing.

Here is the column:

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) this week warned the American people that a Trump nominee for a State Department position was an extremist, cut from the same cloth as the Iranian mullahs and religious extremists.

Riley Barnes, nominated to serve as assistant secretary of State for democracy, human rights and labor, revealed his dangerous proclivities to Kaine in his opening statement when he said that “all men are created equal because our rights come from God, our creator; not from our laws, not from our governments.”

It was a line that should be familiar to any citizen — virtually ripped from the Declaration of Independence, our founding document that is about to celebrate its 250th anniversary. Yet Kaine offered a very surprising response in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

“The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government but come from the Creator — that’s what the Iranian government believes,” he said. “It’s a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Shia (sic) law and targets Sunnis, Bahá’ís, Jews, Christians, and other religious minorities. They do it because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their Creator. So, the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling.”

The idea that laws “come from the government” is the basis of what is called “legal positivism,” which holds that the legitimacy and authority of laws are not based on God or natural law but rather legislation and court decisions.

In my forthcoming book celebrating the 250th anniversary, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, I detail how the Declaration of Independence (and our nation as a whole) was founded on a deep belief in natural laws coming from our Creator, not government. That view is captured in the Declaration, which states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Kaine represents Virginia, the state that played such a critical role in those very principles that he now associates with religious fanatics and terrorists. In fact, Kaine’s view did exist at the founding — and it was rejected. Alexander Hamilton wrote that “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”

Although the Framers were clear, Kaine seemed hopelessly confused. He later insisted that “I’m a strong believer in natural rights, but I have a feeling if we were to have a debate about natural rights in the room and put people around the table with different religious traditions, there would be some significant differences in the definitions of those natural rights.”

This country was founded on core, shared principles of natural law, including a deep commitment to individual rights against the government. The government was not the source but the scourge of individual rights. This belief in preexisting rights was based on such Enlightenment philosophers as John Locke who believed that, even at the beginning when no society existed, there was law, “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone,” he wrote. “And reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind.”

Note that a natural law can also be based on a view of the inherent rights of human beings — a view of those rights needed to be fully human. Like divinely ordained rights, these are rights (such as free speech) that belong to all humans, regardless of the whim or want of a given government. They are still not “rights [that] come from our laws or our governments.”

The danger of legal positivism is that what government giveth, government can take away. Our prized unalienable rights become entirely alienable if they are merely the product of legislatures and courts.

It also means that constitutional protections or even the constitutional system itself is discardable, like out-of-fashion tricorn hats. As discussed in the book, a new generation of Jacobins is rising on the American left, challenging our constitutional traditions. Commentator Jennifer Szalai has denounced what she called “Constitution worship” and argued that “Americans have long assumed that the Constitution could save us. A growing chorus now wonders whether we need to be saved from it.”

That chorus includes establishment figures such as Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the Berkeley Law School and author of “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States.”

Other law professors, such as Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale, have called for the nation to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”

That “reclamation” is easier if our rights are based not in natural law, but rather in the evolving priorities of lawmakers like Kaine. Protections then become not the manifestations of human rights, but of rights invented by humans. Kaine’s view — that advocates of natural law are no different from mullahs applying Sharia law — is not just ill-informed but would have been considered by the founders as constitutionally blasphemous.

He is, regrettably, the embodiment of a new crisis of faith in the foundations of our republic on the very eve of its 250th anniversary. This is a crisis of faith not just in our Constitution, but in each other as human beings “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and a best-selling author whose forthcoming“Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution” explores the foundations and the future of American democracy.

CNN Poll: Pence Wins VP Debate, 29 Percent Move Toward Voting for Trump


waving flagby Michelle Moons, 5 Oct 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/05/cnn-poll-pence-wins-vp-debate-29-percent-move-toward-voting-trump/

The CNN/ORG instant poll of vice presidential primarily Democrat debate watchers, shows Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana topped Democratic candidate Sen. Tim Kaine (VA). Some 29 percent said they moved toward voting for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump after the exchange.

Despite the Democrat-heavy audience displayed in the new poll, 48 percent said Pence won the debate over Kaine. Only 42 percent of those debate watchers said Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s running mate won.

Two-fifths of those registered voters surveyed said they were Democrats, 30 percent Republican and 29 percent unaffiliated or part of another party.

Almost 30 percent of respondents said they were more likely to vote for Trump after watching the debate, while just 18 percent said they moved toward Clinton. An original image broadcast by CNN of the numbers of debate watchers that moved toward voting for Clinton or Trump after watching the vice presidential candidates were reversed, showing more moving toward Clinton; however, a CNN reporter corrected the numbers after they had been posted to the screen and revealed that the true result. More than half of debate watchers surveyed said “neither” when asked who the debate made them likely to vote for.

Kaine was aggressive in the exchange, and it may have cost him. He jumped from 28 percent “unfavorable” before the debate to 40 percent after. While 16 percent of those asked weren’t sure if they saw Kaine as favorable or unfavorable before the debate, only 4 percent were unsure after.

Some 43 percent of respondents said Kaine did worse than expected compared to 38 percent that he did better and 15 that said he did the same as expected. 

Pence was seen as doing better than expected by two-thirds of those polled while only 14 percent said worse and 15 percent said he performed the same as expected. 

It wasn’t clear just by what margin the poll leaned Democrat, but 58 percent said they thought Kaine better defended Clinton while 35 percent said Pence defended Trump better. 48 percent said that Kaine had a better understanding of issues while 41 percent said Pence was the candidate that better understands issues.

Kaine was seen by 76 percent as more on the attack of Pence while just 14 percent said Pence attacked Kaine more.

Even greater numbers of respondents found Pence likable than said he won the debate. 53 percent said Pence was more likable while only 37 percent said Kaine was.

Pence’s favorability jumped seven points after the debate. 57 percent of survey respondents said thay had a favorable opinion after the debate compared to 50 percent favorable before. His unfavorable rating also increased a small amount, from 36 percent to 40. Those unsure dropped from 15 percent before the debate to 3 percent after.

Pence was seen as more broadly qualified to take over as president if needed according to CNN. 77 percent said Pence was qualified compared to 70 percent that said Kaine was.

The poll had a sampling error of +/- 4.5 percent according to CNN broadcast reporting on the poll. 

CNN reported its polling methodology:

The CNN/ORC post-debate poll includes interviews with 472 registered voters who watched the October 4 vice presidential debate. Results among debate-watchers have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. Respondents were originally interviewed as part of a September 28-October 2 telephone survey of a random sample of Americans, and indicated they planned to watch the debate and would be willing to be re-interviewed when it was over.

Follow Michelle Moons on Twitter @MichelleDiana 

Tag Cloud