|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3022 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A gang of outlaws at the helms | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3022 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
Alexander's Essay — October 29, 2009
'Nobody Questions That'? "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson Never before has there been more evidence of outright contempt for our Constitution than under the current liberal hegemony presiding over the executive and legislative branches of our federal government. The protagonist of this Leftist regime is, of course, Barack Hussein Obama, who promised his constituents, "This is our moment, this is our time to turn the page on the policies of the past, to offer a new direction. We are fundamentally transforming the United States of America. And generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was our time" [emphasis added]. Obama proclaimed, "Everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act -- to lay a new foundation for growth." In his inaugural speech, Obama declared, "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works," signaling his rejection of the old paradigm, which pitted the conservative position, "government is the problem," against the liberal position, "government is the solution." Thus, by virtue of his election to the presidency nearly one year ago, he believes he has the authority to establish a new paradigm to "fundamentally transform" our nation by creating "a new foundation." However, if we are a nation of laws with a national government limited by our Constitution, and, indeed, we are, then Obama has no legal authority to "transform" our government. Those who laid our constitutional foundation were very clear about its limits on government. Our Constitution's principle author, James Madison, wrote, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce." Concerning the legislature's authority, Thomas Jefferson asserted: "[G]iving [Congress] a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole [Constitution] to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. Certainly, no such universal power was meant to be given them. [The Constitution] was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." Madison added, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." But too many among us have become so fixated on the superficial parameters of today's political debates rather than demand an answer to that most essential question: What is the constitutional authority for Obama's proposals now being debated in Congress? For example, amid all the acrimony over Obama's transformation of health care, the debate should not be centered on which plan is better, but whether constitutional authority exists for any of the plans under consideration. Unfortunately, such inquiry is scarce, and hardly noted. Last week, however, three leading Democrats in Congress were asked during news conferences to cite the constitutional authority for their healthcare proposals. To a one, they responded with answers that betrayed unmitigated arrogance and a disdain for our Constitution second to none in our nation's noble history. "Are you serious? Are you serious?" replied House Speaker Nancy Pelosi when asked specifically about the constitutional authority for Obama's health care proposal. Pelosi's spokesman later clarified, "You can put this on the record: That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question." (Apparently, there was an echo in the chamber.) Democrat House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer attempted to answer the question by demonstrating his illimitable ignorance on the subject: "Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect [a mandate that individuals must buy health insurance]. The end that we're trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility." Perhaps Hoyer should take a basic civics course on the "General Welfare" clause in Article 1, Section 8, as written by James Madison. On the limitations of the Constitution, Madison wrote: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents..." Finally, Democrat Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (where Rule of Law once prevailed), responded to the question of constitutional authority by insisting, "We have plenty of authority. ... I mean, there's no question there's authority. Nobody questions that. Where do we have the authority to set speed limits on an interstate highway? The federal government does that on federal highways." (No, actually, the states set speed limits, and only misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause by judicial activists could be construed to give the federal government such authority.) As for Obama, his publicist, Robert Gibbs, claimed, "I won't be confused as a constitutional scholar, but I don't believe there's a lot of -- I don't believe there's a lot of case law that would demonstrate the veracity of [questions about constitutional authority]." For sure, nobody will confuse Gibbs with a scholar of any stripe. And, we would remind Gibbs that when the Clintonistas attempted to nationalize healthcare (18 percent of the U.S. economy) back in 1994, the bi-partisan Congressional Budget Office issued this piece of analysis: "The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate ... would impose a duty on individuals as members of society [and] require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government." Remarkably, neither Obama's bte noire, Fox News, nor any nationally syndicated conservative column, devoted air time or print to these egregiously errant responses. To be sure, there are a few Republicans who have questioned Obama's authority. Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch proposed an amendment requiring swift judicial review of the health care folly if it is ultimately passed into law. Not surprisingly, Democrat Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, refused to take up Hatch's amendment, insisting that it was a matter for the Judiciary Committee -- the very committee chaired by the aforementioned Senator Patrick "We have plenty of authority" Leahy. In order to divine the real source the Left claims as its authority for "fundamentally transforming the United States of America," consider this congressional inquiry from last March. Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann dared ask Obama's tax cheat Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, "What provision in the Constitution could you point to gives authority for the actions that have been taken by the Treasury since March of '08?" Geithner responded, "Oh, well, the -- the Congress legislated in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act a range of very important new authorities." Bachmann tried again: "Sir, in the Constitution. What in the Constitution could you point to gives authority to the Treasury for the extraordinary actions that have been taken?" Geithner's response: "Every action that the Treasury and the Fed and the FDIC is -- is -- has been using authority granted by this body -- by this body, the Congress." The "authority granted by this body, the Congress." In every successive Congress since 1995, conservative Arizona Republican Rep. John Shadegg has sponsored the Enumerated Powers Act (HR 1359), which requires that "Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act." The measure continues to fail, however, because of a dirty little secret: There is no legitimate constitutional authority for almost 70 percent of current federal government programs, and, thus, no authority for the collection of taxes to fund such activities. Though Obama swore to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," and every member of Congress has pledged "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," and "bear true faith and allegiance to the same," Democrats, and too many Republicans, have forsaken their sacred oaths. In doing so, they have inflicted grievous injury upon our Constitution, thereby placing our Essential Liberty in eminent peril. In May 1775, at the onset of the hostilities that gave rise to our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, the Second Continental Congress adopted a resolution calling on the states to prepare for rebellion. In its preamble, John Adams advised his countrymen to sever all oaths of allegiance to the Crown. Since that time, generations of American Patriots have honored their oaths, shed their blood, given their lives -- but not to the crown of any man or a partisan sect. Instead, these sacrifices have been made to support and defend our Constitution and the Rule of Law it established.
quote: Edited by AdminModulous, : content hidden, source url corrected.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CosmicChimp Member Posts: 311 From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland Joined:
|
Your url link is messed up.
Mark Alexander: 'Nobody Questions That'? | The Patriot Post Maybe that one functions...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 7.7
|
I find it remarkably amusing that, in an essay that purports to take the Obama administration to task for supposed violations of the Constitution...
...it doesn;t once quote the Constitution itself. This is nothing more than the usual tea-party lunatic rightwing nonsense. If you want to call Obama out for violating the Constitution, then focus on the right to a speedy trial by a jury of your peers. That right continues to be violated for the Gitmo detainees. Oh, wait - rightwing nutjobs won't criticize that, because Bush started it. The comments in this "essay" (a more accurate term would be "raving lunatic rant") carried to full effect would abolish the FBI, CIA, FDA, FCC, and basically every other Federal agency, since they're not included in the Constitution either. Clearly, making national laws regarding the regulation of food and medicine is an abuse of Federal power.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
So, John 10:10, is your real name Mark Alexander or are you simply lifting a huge cut 'n' paste and posting it without offering us a clue as to your own opinion of it?
Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined:
|
This isn't an aggregation service. Please don't simply post copy/pasted editorials of this length. Better would be to summarize the argument in your own words, lifted important quotes from the editorial and then asked for discussion about it.
I've hidden the contents so that you could go back and do that very thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Mark M. Alexander is editor and publisher of the Patriot Post, described by itself as "The Web's Conservative Journal of Record". These are highly selected excerpts from the Patriot Post's webpage about Mark Alexander (The Patriot Post: America's News Digest):
Patriot Post writes: Mark Alexander is a graduate of the National Defense University and a regular national security forum participant at the Air and Naval War Colleges. He has been an observer for Operation Red Flag and on the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN76) in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. He is a Life Member of the Air Force Association, Naval Institute and Navy League, and their academic foundations. He is a Life Member of the National Rifle Association and a professional member of other military, intelligence and law enforcement associations. His favorite hobbies are shooting and flying...He and his family reside in the mountains of the Great State of Tennessee. I'd never heard of National Defense University before, so looking it up it turns out to be a graduate-level university. They do not offer undergraduate degrees, and Alexander doesn't mention any undergraduate university. Mr. Alexander's skills seem to run to using innocent remarks to throw mud at things he doesn't like. I would feel dirty and sleezy if I tried to use Alexander's column as a basis for criticizing Obama. He's as much from Ann Colter territory as from Tennessee. Because I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal I am frequently torn when choosing between candidates. Both sides have political assassins like Mark Alexander and Ann Colter, but the liberal assassins develop much less of a reputation for meanness because they can wax intellectual and their constituency will still understand them. As we frequently see here, the battle between science and creationism is just one manifestation of the larger war between liberal and conservative philosophy, and in a larger sense, between rationalism and emotionalism, with both sides having a heaping measure of each. Liberals falsely believe that analytical answers are best and tend to ignore our long history of discovery of what works, while conservatives tend to stick with what they know and distrust the new. But all that aside, what we need is for both sides to abandon Colter-esque tactics and politics as usual. But of course this will never happen. Political demogoguery, chicanery and hit men have been with us forever and will never go away. A backup strategy would be for people to simply ignore political nonsense, but that's never going to happen either. The human animal isn't going to change, and so the Mark Alexanders and the Ann Colters will be forever with us. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 7.7
|
Because I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal I am frequently torn when choosing between candidates. Both sides have political assassins like Mark Alexander and Ann Colter, but the liberal assassins develop much less of a reputation for meanness because they can wax intellectual and their constituency will still understand them. The difference being that the liberals tend not to spout such verbal vomit as "convert them to Christianity and kill the rest" like Ann Coulter does, and don't get nearly as much exposure. The closest would likely be Michael Moore, and while his documentaries tend to be extremely biased, he's never to my knowledge proposed something like the eradication of an entire culture. I don't think I can really clearly define myself as "liberal" or "conservative" even when dividing between social and economic issues. My goals are maximizing the reduction of net real harm to society while allowing as much individual freedom as possible. This means that I strongly support ideas like universal healthcare (which I consider on a level with public police or fire protection), and yet I deplore wasteful spending of public tax dollars. I'm extremely utilitarian - if a given program is successful in reducing net harm and improves the lives of citizens beyond the hardship of the taxes that support it, then I support funding it. Bringing this back to the article, there are a few bits from the Constitution that definitely allow Federal or State level programs like universal healthcare:
quote: It starts in the preamble. The purpose of the COnstitution is to ensure public prosperity and welfare. Libertarians like to rail against agencies like the FDA, proposed programs like unviersal healthcare, or generally any Federal-level program that is not a barebones military (sometimes taking the form of a public militia rather than a professional military). They frequently cite the preamble when making such arguments...completely ignoring the majority of what's written. One of the most important segments is Article 5:
quote: Americans frequently view the COnstitution as some sort of divenely inspired document that must remain inviolate, and the Founding Fathers as the collective Voice of God. Even the [i]founders/i knew that the Constitution isn't perfect, and that the needs of society will change over time. They weren't prophets, they weren't even geniuses. Remember, according to the Constitution originally, a black man was only 3/5 of a person, slavery was fine, and women couldn't vote. Super-Constitutional wingnuts like the author of the above article seem to want us to forget that. The Constitution is a living document - it can and has been changed. At its core, the Constitution is simply meant to minimize the possibility of tyranny (whether from a too-powerful executive or the oppression of minorities by the majority) while allowing as much flexibility as possible - including the flexibility to amend the document as needed as society changes. Really, I don't even need to continue. The Constitution makes no law that would disallow universal healthcare or other such Federal programs. Again, if you want to accuse the Obama administration of Constitutional breaches, it would be far easier to focus on the denial of the Constitutional right to a speedy and fair trial before a jury of your peers to the Gitmo detainees - but the right wingnuts won't do that, because Bush started it and they supported it at the time. Articles like this are just sour grapes. "My guy didn't win, whaaaaaa!" None of the arguments carry any weight - it's just a whiny rant from someone crying that their precious status quo may not be preserved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member
|
Because I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal I am frequently torn when choosing between candidates. I feel your pain, as I generally could categorize myself in the same way. The Libertarian Party is fiscally conservative and socially liberal, which, as best I can tell, mimics the beliefs of the Founding Fathers vision for the United States. People sometime's scoff and claim that voting for the 3rd party is "throwing away your vote because they can't win." But as long as we grudginly opt to a default vote or a lesser of two evils, we'll continually be stuck in a two-party system which is at least 50% at odds with our core ideologies. That's just a friendly suggestion. Take away from it what you will. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3264 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined:
|
People sometime's scoff and claim that voting for the 3rd party is "throwing away your vote because they can't win." But as long as we grudginly opt to a default vote or a lesser of two evils, we'll continually be stuck in a two-party system which is at least 50% at odds with our core ideologies. I feel your pain. I usually vote Democratic because they are closest to my ideologies, and with their inability to do much at all, they don't screw up as much as the lock-step republicans do. My feeling is, rather than trying to build up a new party to try and take on the two established parties we have, it makes more sense to try and change one of the parties to better reflect my ideals, and again, the democrats are closer to my ideals and are thus easier to change. I used to post and regularly read DailyKos, and their goals are "more and better Democrats." We've got the "more" part, now it's time to start working on the "better." (And we've got a long way to go on that score)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member
|
Libertarians like to rail against agencies like the FDA, proposed programs like unviersal healthcare, or generally any Federal-level program that is not a barebones military (sometimes taking the form of a public militia rather than a professional military). They frequently cite the preamble when making such arguments...completely ignoring the majority of what's written. The Constitution was intended to be and laregly is considered a "living document," meaning that the buck doesn't stop with the Constitution itself. The Constitution is intended to be the basic template, and as you said, the Framers were aware that its relevance in that time may become irrelevant later. It was carefully manufactured to give the right of the People power and to have their government serve and defend them. That is a broad scope and no one could reasonably define every single intent the Framers had, but especially on things they had no idea would exist. In fact the word "amend" literally means "to change," so it is definitely right to say that it is a living document not infallible piece of literature passed on by sage's and scribes. That being said, it is certainly open to some broad interpretation. All parties attempt to utilize the Preamble in defense of their position, but that is disigenuous because it is completely non-specific. It's an ideal to strive for, not a codified law to adhere to. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member
|
I feel your pain. I usually vote Democratic because they are closest to my ideologies, and with their inability to do much at all, they don't screw up as much as the lock-step republicans do. My feeling is, rather than trying to build up a new party to try and take on the two established parties we have, it makes more sense to try and change one of the parties to better reflect my ideals, and again, the democrats are closer to my ideals and are thus easier to change. I'm cynical of it because the Republican Party, for instance, has evolved so much over its tenure. The Republican Party of yesteryear would much more likely be modeled after today's Democrat Party. It later synthesized in to a Party that politically and ideologically aligns with today's Libertarian Party. Barry "Mr. Conservative" Goldwater is one of the last like him. Ron Paul is another traditional Republican. But then neoconservatives and the religious right came in and hijacked the party and it went to hell in a handbasket. Then again, what purpose does it serve to even have identifiable "parties?" Aren't they on the base level devisive? For instance, if you are a democrat you would be much more likely to side with a democrat on the basis of them being a democrat! But Lieberman is a democrat who often sides with neo-conservative ideals and Ron Paul is a Republican who often sides with liberal ideals. Isn't it even more patriotic to vote for someone on the basis of their beliefs, their morals, their resume, and their character rather than voting for partisan party ties? Something to consider I would think. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Then again, what purpose does it serve to even have identifiable "parties?" That goes back to tribalism, which seems to be a basic human trait.
Aren't they on the base level devisive? That's what tribalism boils down to: us vs. them. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3264 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
I'm cynical of it because the Republican Party, for instance, has evolved so much over its tenure. The Republican Party of yesteryear would much more likely be modeled after today's Democrat Party. Very true, which just goes to show that parties can be changed if enough people strive to do so. The apparatus needed to get a fully functioning, national party is expensive and extensive. It's much more economical to nudge a party in the right direction than starting from all but scratch.
Then again, what purpose does it serve to even have identifiable "parties?" Aren't they on the base level devisive? The Framers, and Thomas Jefferson in particular, didn't want parties at all. The sad truth is, however, that even with that as his ideal, he ended up leading the Federalists against the AntiFederalists just to get the Constitution ratified. Parties have been a part of our politics since the beginning of the country, sadly. I don't see any way to get rid of them now, so the best we can do is try to use what's there to our advantage.
But Lieberman is a democrat who often sides with neo-conservative ideals and Ron Paul is a Republican who often sides with liberal ideals. Lieberman is not a Democrat, he lost the Democratic Primary and was "forced" to create his own party to get elected again. He caucuses with the Democrats, but I honestly don't expect him to last through the next election. As for Ron Paul, he's the best Republican I can name, but he's got some ideas that are a bit too anti-government for me.
Isn't it even more patriotic to vote for someone on the basis of their beliefs, their morals, their resume, and their character rather than voting for partisan party ties? This sounds right, but it has a habit of ending up biting you in the ass. For example, there are groups with very defined goals, such as Emily's List and the NRA and such. These groups will rate candidates and incumbents as to how closely they align to their ideals, and will advocate for the person who is closest to them. However, if Emily's List advocates for a Republican, or the NRA advocates for a Democrat (though on a lesser scale than the previous example), they end up shooting themselves in the foot. If, by voting for a candidate that is close to their ideologies, but belongs to a party that is opposed to them, you end up giving a majority to that party, even if the person in particular shares your views, your issue will not come up, or will be heavily lobbied against by the party in power. It's a sad fact, but the best thing to do is vote for the party that will take even a small step in the right direction, rather than vote for a candidate that may want to take a larger step, but belongs to a party that would rather go backwards. If you can get a majority that is willing to take a small step, you can pressure them to do more, or start working to replace the current official with another one who is closer to your ideology, but belongs to the party that is also closer to you. It's a long game, and we've got to remember that trying for short-term gains can end up with long-term losses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Seems so simple to avoid when we know the reasons for it, yet we keep doing it.
It's kind of like the anti-war mantra" give peace a chance." That's all fine and good on paper, but peace is reciprocal. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Put simply, there is no authority for a "constitutional rewrite" by Barack Hussein Obama, nor Nancy Pelosi, nor Steny Hoyer ... And that would be why they haven't changed a single word of the Constitution. Well, that and not particularly wanting to.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024