The anti-federalist papers. The Constitution was a mistake.

[Big Dog]

Damn!  You are perceptive.  I was actually raised in the wild by marmosets.

Somehow, I knew that to be true.  Whereas I am a cigar-smoking Dog who was raised by a honey badger with a toothache.

This threadjacking brought to you by...









And the letter "c".

[Bad Dog]

Somehow, I knew that to be true.  Whereas I am a cigar-smoking Dog who was raised by a honey badger with a toothache.

This threadjacking brought to you by...

And the letter "c".

Thank Dog, I was running out of witty repartees.  Boooobiessss

[Danglars]

Thank Dog, I was running out of witty repartees.  Boooobiessss

There were some? JK.

But the bacon looks good. The boobieez too. Right now I want the beer most, though.

Peace. Let's let it go.




-------------------------

One little serious thing I want to address, BD; in one post earlier you seemed to be suggesting I'm some sort of "mole." The whole thing about looking for "ignorant" and "redneck" people. Not only am I just as conservative as you are, but I wouldn't even bother to keep a mole in the DU or any other website like other people here do. Too much work for...what? I am, in tvtropes talk, Exactly What It Says on the Tin: a conservative heartsick at what is looking more and more like the end of the Republic. I look to history and I see every one of the prophecies of the anti-federalists borne out but one: the end to elections. And so I wonder--can that be far behind? I didn't say I'm giving up. I was looking at history. And no, I don't have answers or a plan. Which you know.

That went on a little longer than I wanted. Gotta learn to edit myself better.

[Danglars]

A number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this country, object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving previous notice. If gentlemen are willing to run the hazard, let them run it; but I shall exculpate myself by my opposition and monitory warnings within these walls. But then comes paper money. We are at peace on this subject. Though this is a thing which that mighty federal Convention had no business with, yet I acknowledge that paper money would be the bane of this country. I detest it. Nothing can justify a people in resorting to it but extreme necessity. It is at rest, however, in this commonwealth. It is no longer solicited or advocated.

With respect to the economical operation of the new government, I will only remark, that the national expenses will be increased; if not doubled, it will approach it very nearly. I might, without incurring the imputation of illiberality or extravagance, say that the expense will be multiplied tenfold. I might tell you of a numerous standing army, a great, powerful navy, a long and rapacious train of officers and dependants, independent of the President, senators, and representatives, whose compensations are without limitation. How are our debts to be discharged unless the taxes are increased, when the expenses of the government are so greatly augmented? The defects of this system are so numerous and palpable, and so many states object to it, that no union can be expected, unless it be amended.

But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our representatives, will not abuse the powers we put in their hands. I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny. Happy will you be if you miss the fate of those nations, who, omitting to resist their oppressors, or negligently suffering their liberty to be wrested from them, have groaned under intolerable despotism!

Where is the danger? If, sir, there was any, I would recur to the American spirit to defend us; that spirit which has enabled us to surmount the greatest difficulties: to that illustrious spirit I address my most fervent prayer to prevent our adopting a system destructive to liberty. Let not gentlemen be told that it is not safe to reject this government. Wherefore is it not safe? We are told there are dangers, but those dangers are ideal; they cannot be demonstrated.

This, sir, is the language of democracy — that a majority of the community have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how different is the genius of your new Constitution from this! How different from the sentiments of freemen, that a contemptible minority can prevent the good of the majority! If, then, gentlemen, standing on this ground, are come to that point, that they are willing to bind themselves and their posterity to be oppressed, I am amazed and inexpressibly astonished. If this be the opinion of the majority, I must submit; but to me, sir, it appears perilous and destructive.

But now, sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire. If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together. Such a government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government. What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances?

Consider our situation, sir: go to the poor man, and ask him what he does. He will inform you that he enjoys the fruits of his labor, under his own fig-tree, with his wife and children around him, in peace and security. Go to every other member of society, — you will find the same tranquil ease and content; you will find no alarms or disturbances. Why, then, tell us of danger, to terrify us into an adoption of this new form of government? And yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce? They are out of the sight of the common people: they cannot foresee latent consequences. I dread the operation of it on the middling and lower classes of people: it is for them I fear the adoption of this system. I fear I tire the patience of the committee; but I beg to be indulged with a few more observations. When I thus profess myself an advocate for the liberty of the people, I shall be told I am a designing man, that I am to be a great man, that I am to be a demagogue; and many similar illiberal insinuations will be thrown out: but, sir, conscious rectitude outweighs those things with me. I see great jeopardy in this new government. I see none from our present one. I hope some gentleman or other will bring forth, in full array, those dangers, if there be any, that we may see and touch them. I have said that I thought this a consolidated government: I will now prove it. Will the great rights of the people be secured by this government? Suppose it should prove oppressive, how can it be altered? Our bill of rights declares, "that a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

[Danglars]

But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our representatives, will not abuse the powers we put in their hands. I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny.[/b]

[Danglars]

Take note that the two statements above are not mutually exclusive. You can fail to keep a thing if you are foolish concerning that thing's safety, but you can also fail to keep it if it is stolen, up to and including at gunpoint. And that is what has happened in the United States. What has been taken from us was not taken with our consent, and was taken at the point of a gun--the full force of the federal government's powers in the hands of a few men of dictatorial bent acting without check.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

The thing we're figthing against is greed and apathy.

Too many people find the gov't to be the gift-giving uncle. At first they crave the attention he provides not realizing that one night he will slide under the covers with them and tell them not to tell mom and dad if they still want their gifts.

What our problem ISN'T is a matter of the rules governing our government. The rules are just fine and worth defending and promoting. The problem is when others don't follow those rules.

If Roberts caved to seek liberal favor or to not be "that guy" then what he feared was politics and those politics are based on what "the people" want. If they want a law dictating insurance companies must spend X on medical coverage, not deny coverage and all the other lunacy you cannot dissuade them if they also accept mandates as part of that solution.

Yes, we the politically, historically and constitutionally engaged see the dangers both to efffective business practices and personal liberty. But if the masses are greedy enough to demand the benefits and apathetic enough to ignore the dangers no amount of revolution will move them. They will ignore a confederate constitution as quickly as they ignore a republican constitution. Once they have become so sedentary it is a small thing for cowards like Roberts to cave to their foolishness.

A revolution against the encroachment of government tyranny would be pointless as long as the people see the government as effective and beneficient. You can strike against the government but all you will do will be to earn the emnity of those you would presume to make free and with that you will be doomed to failure.

The best hope for reversing this is to use the rules to our advantage both in the Roberts opinion and the COTUS as a whole. There are plenty of means to attack from repealing under rules of Reconciliation to challenging the constitutionality of the tax (it originated in the senate) to ongoing petitions to our fellow citizens (bitch-slaqpping never hurts). We have to convince the greedy and apathetic to act in their own best interests even if that means they have to forego short term gain for long term liberty. It may take years.

I can think of fewer affronts to liberty than the institution of slavery as  was originally practiced in this nation but as offensive as that was even the Abolitionists pursued the proper course of gaining a political solution. Ditto the Civil Rights movement. We mock what they endured if we dare to pretend our struggle approaches their own. We suffer no fugitive slave bounties or the fire hoses and police dogs of the segregationists. The abolition and civil rights freedom fighters proved the efficacy of the COTUS and those that resisted them by force are the villains of history.

Until freedom is more important than freebies we will lose and you cannot hold people in a state of freedom at gunpoint. We should honor Frederick Douglass and the Tuskeegee airmen by honoring what they fought to defend and realize.

The rest of this thread is yours to make of what you will. I will trouble you no further.

[Danglars]

I'm a man of much fewer words, SB. I don't agree that we're fighting greed and apathy. The thing we're fighting is nothing less than top-down, imposed, autocratic tyranny. The Constitution did not safeguard us in the end, and we are not "getting the government we deserve," as some would say. We're essentially being imprisoned in our own country, and it is NOT our fault.

[Penrod]

Put another way: the safeguards in the Constitution have failed.

The Constitution has failed as its been so warped as to be unrecognizable.