The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: Danglars on June 29, 2012, 08:26:27 AM
-
This government is to possess absolute and uncontroulable power, legislative, executive and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends, for by the last clause of section 8th, article 1st, it is declared "that the Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution, in the government of the United States; or in any department or office thereof." And by the 6th article, it is declared "that this constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and the treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution, or law of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." It appears from these articles that there is no need of any intervention of the state governments, between the Congress and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government, and that the constitution and laws of every state are nullified and declared void, so far as they are or shall be inconsistent with this constitution, or the laws made in pursuance of it, or with treaties made under the authority of the United States. — The government then, so far as it extends, is a complete one, and not a confederation. It is as much one complete government as that of New-York or Massachusetts, has as absolute and perfect powers to make and execute all laws, to appoint officers, institute courts, declare offences, and annex penalties, with respect to every object to which it extends, as any other in the world. So far therefore as its powers reach, all ideas of confederation are given up and lost. It is true this government is limited to certain objects, or to speak more properly, some small degree of power is still left to the states, but a little attention to the powers vested in the general government, will convince every candid man, that if it is capable of being executed, all that is reserved for the individual states must very soon be annihilated, except so far as they are barely necessary to the organization of the general government. The powers of the general legislature extend to every case that is of the least importance — there is nothing valuable to human nature, nothing dear to freemen, but what is within its power. It has authority to make laws which will affect the lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United States; nor can the constitution or laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given. The legislative power is competent to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; — there is no limitation to this power, unless it be said that the clause which directs the use to which those taxes, and duties shall be applied, may be said to be a limitation: but this is no restriction of the power at all, for by this clause they are to be applied to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but the legislature have authority to contract debts at their discretion; they are the sole judges of what is necessary to provide for the common defence, and they only are to determine what is for the general welfare; this power therefore is neither more nor less, than a power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises, at their pleasure; not only [is] the power to lay taxes unlimited, as to the amount they may require, but it is perfect and absolute to raise them in any mode they please. No state legislature, or any power in the state governments, have any more to do in carrying this into effect, than the authority of one state has to do with that of another. In the business therefore of laying and collecting taxes, the idea of confederation is totally lost, and that of one entire republic is embraced.
One excerpt from likely writer Judge Robert Yates' first letter. It's agony to admit this, but the anti-federalists were right. Entirely right. We who revere the Constitution revere it because it limits the size and scope of the federal government, but it worked only so long as men of true good will embraced its limitations. The reason we DO revere it so much is that it places limits on the power of the central, federal government, but those limits have turned out to be illusory. The Articles of Confederation did not empower a centralized federal government with the might that the Constitution gave it from the get-go. I am convinced: the Constitution was a mistake. After yesterday, after the increasing and accelerating dictatorship of the Obama "Presidency," after the daily intusiveness and control exerted by the federal government into every aspect of our lives, after so many enormities I could never number them here, how can we claim that the anti-federalists were wrong? WE can postulate all kinds of "what if?" scenarios, if we like, especially in readiness to take on foreign adversaries--which we managed to do only under the minimal "government" of the Continental Congress, so I'm not convinced, for example, that we couldn't have had the same outcome in the War of 1812 without the federal government created by the Constitution--but those are only what if's--the prison being built around us is no "what if."
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus00.htm
The anti-federalists were the true visionaries. They saw far, far into the future, and they were right.
-
They saw a danger that was real but the Federalists put in electoral safeguards: only the HoR can originate tax bills because the entire HoR stands for re-election every 2 years, as opposed to the senate where terms are 6 years and only 1/3 are vulnerable at any given time.
And what dangers the Antis foresaw in taxation they were clueless WRT national defense. I doubt we would have endured 2 world wars and the Cold War under their schemes.
-
They saw a danger that was real but the Federalists put in electoral safeguards: only the HoR can originate tax bills because the entire HoR stands for re-election every 2 years, as opposed to the senate where terms are 6 years and only 1/3 are vulnerable at any given time.
And what dangers the Antis foresaw in taxation they were clueless WRT national defense. I doubt we would have endured 2 world wars and the Cold War under their schemes.
But we now see that the safeguard of the HoR originating taxation does nothing to protect us from what KIND of taxation we are subjected to. And in any case, they play almost literal shell games with that "limitation" now; the Senate creates "shell" bills for the House to fill up all the time.
With respect, Mr. SB, you're postulating the kind of "what if" I wrote of above regarding national defense, and my answer will be the same: it's a what if, and even without the Articles we managed to fend off the British. It's a maybe. The tyranny we're under now--and we know it will get worse before it gets better, IF it gets better--is REAL.
And we DID have the Articles in place. Just because the anti-federalists weren't so clear on national defense doesn't mean we couldn't have defended ourselves under the Articles. What we DO know is that the Constitution has, as in no guessing game, as in no maybe, as in no requirement to hypothesize is needed, brought us to the brink of true dictatorship. We're almost there.
-
Put another way: the safeguards in the Constitution have failed.
-
Put another way: the safeguards in the Constitution have failed.
The SCOTUS was never meant to bless-off on our laws as if they were some college of Cardinals setting church doctrine (my apologies to my catholic friends).
Bad laws passed badly were anticipated. They were expected. They were taken for granted as a fact of life.
That's why the Constitution reads "the right of the people to petition for the redress of grievances." You can't enshrine the right to petition for the redress of grievances unless you assume there will be grievances. Moreover, you don't petition the SCOTUS, you petition your representatives and your fellow citizens.
Bad law is to be remedied by good law, not executive orders and judicial decrees.
We cannot claim the Constitution is a failure when we ourselves are not bothering to live up to it.
You're not going to get a constitutional convention to dissolve the union or revert back to the AoC. Meanwhile we're passing-up the opportunity to deploy a dozen constitutional remedies because self-pity is somehow sexier.
This nation has endured much worse. I see no reason to even pretend our lives are so miserable we have no recourse except to lay down and take it. How many jihadists, communists and fascists have thrown everything they have at us only to suffer one humiliating defeat after another but we're prepared to throw in the towel because elections and consensual government are too hard.
You're better than that. Get on your feet.
-
In the 1st article, 8th section, it is declared, "that Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence, and general welfare of the United States." In the preamble, the intent of the constitution, among other things, is declared to be to provide for the common defence, and promote the general welfare, and in this clause the power is in express words given to Congress "to provide for the common defence, and general welfare."
1st. To detail the particulars comprehended in the general terms, taxes, duties, imposts and excises, would require a volume, instead of a single piece in a news-paper. Indeed it would be a task far beyond my ability, and to which no one can be competent, unless possessed of a mind capable of comprehending every possible source of revenue; for they extend to every possible way of raising money, whether by direct or indirect taxation. Under this clause may be imposed a poll-tax, a land-tax, a tax on houses and buildings, on windows and fire places, on cattle and on all kinds of personal property: — It extends to duties on all kinds of goods to any amount, to tonnage and poundage on vessels, to duties on written instruments, newspapers, almanacks, and books: — It comprehends an excise on all kinds of liquors, spirits, wines, cyder, beer, etc. and indeed takes in duty or excise on every necessary or conveniency of life; whether of foreign or home growth or manufactory. In short, we can have no conception of any way in which a government can raise money from the people, but what is included in one or other of three general terms. We may say then that this clause commits to the hands of the general legislature every conceivable source of revenue within the United States. Not only are these terms very comprehensive, and extend to a vast number of objects, but the power to lay and collect has great latitude; it will lead to the passing a vast number of laws, which may affect the personal rights of the citizens of the states, expose their property to fines and confiscation, and put their lives in jeopardy: it opens a door to the appointment of a swarm of revenue and excise officers to pray [sic] upon the honest and industrious part of the community, eat up their substance, and riot on the spoils of the country.
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus05.htm
Does this all sound familiar? "Lives in jeopardy"--"healthcare." "Confiscation"--the death tax (Kelo was foisted on us through the 5th amendment/eminent domain). Rights taken away--the right to buy what we want, as long as it is a legal product. The right to NOT buy what we DON'T want to buy.
"Swarm of revenue and excise officers"--is it 16,000 or 18,000 new IRS agents? Be that as it may, there it is. As if we weren't swarmed before Obamacare.
"pray [sic] upon the honest and industrious part of the community, eat up their substance, and riot on the spoils of the country"--Look at California. Look at the other states to which liberal Californians are now swarming. They are locusts, annihilating wealth everywhere.
-
The SCOTUS was never meant to bless-off on our laws as if they were some college of Cardinals setting church doctrine (my apologies to my catholic friends).
Bad laws passed badly were anticipated. They were expected. They were taken for granted as a fact of life.
That's why the Constitution reads "the right of the people to petition for the redress of grievances." You can't enshrine the right to petition for the redress of grievances unless you assume there will be grievances. Moreover, you don't petition the SCOTUS, you petition your representatives and your fellow citizens.
Bad law is to be remedied by good law, not executive orders and judicial decrees.
We cannot claim the Constitution is a failure when we ourselves are not bothering to live up to it.
You're not going to get a constitutional convention to dissolve the union or revert back to the AoC. Meanwhile we're passing-up the opportunity to deploy a dozen constitutional remedies because self-pity is somehow sexier.
This nation has endured much worse. I see no reason to even pretend our lives are so miserable we have no recourse except to lay down and take it. How many jihadists, communists and fascists have thrown everything they have at us only to suffer one humiliating defeat after another but we're prepared to throw in the towel because elections and consensual government are too hard.
You're better than that. Get on your feet.
Damn!! Hi5 I like the way you think. Ever consider running for office?
-
The SCOTUS was never meant to bless-off on our laws as if they were some college of Cardinals setting church doctrine (my apologies to my catholic friends).
Bad laws passed badly were anticipated. They were expected. They were taken for granted as a fact of life.
That's why the Constitution reads "the right of the people to petition for the redress of grievances." You can't enshrine the right to petition for the redress of grievances unless you assume there will be grievances. Moreover, you don't petition the SCOTUS, you petition your representatives and your fellow citizens.
Bad law is to be remedied by good law, not executive orders and judicial decrees.
We cannot claim the Constitution is a failure when we ourselves are not bothering to live up to it.
You're not going to get a constitutional convention to dissolve the union or revert back to the AoC. Meanwhile we're passing-up the opportunity to deploy a dozen constitutional remedies because self-pity is somehow sexier.
This nation has endured much worse. I see no reason to even pretend our lives are so miserable we have no recourse except to lay down and take it. How many jihadists, communists and fascists have thrown everything they have at us only to suffer one humiliating defeat after another but we're prepared to throw in the towel because elections and consensual government are too hard.
You're better than that. Get on your feet.
Mr. SB, I never said anything about calling for a new Constitutional Convention. But the federal government we have is so far from what we had even 30 years ago, never mind 200 years ago, that I do think it may be irredeemable. I'm on my feet--the implication that I'm on my back is unfair. But I'll call it like I see it. It is NOT our fault that bad men, and a flawed document, allowed this country to morph into something close to, and becoming, a dictatorship. The flaws are inherent in the founding document itself. I appreciate the sentiment of the clause "...you're better than that" as it was intended, in the complimentary way you meant it; but the implication of the statement is that somehow my pointing out simple reality makes me less than "better," and that honor I must decline. I'm not "better" than admitting when the American experiment--through the Constitution especially--has failed. It HAS failed.
What right to petition? It's gone, Mr. SB. We have a runaway ruling class lording it over us without check.
-
Mr. SB, I never said anything about calling for a new Constitutional Convention. But the federal government we have is so far from what we had even 30 years ago, never mind 200 years ago, that I do think it may be irredeemable. I'm on my feet--the implication that I'm on my back is unfair. But I'll call it like I see it. It is NOT our fault that bad men, and a flawed document, allowed this country to morph into something close to, and becoming, a dictatorship. The flaws are inherent in the founding document itself. I appreciate the sentiment of the clause "...you're better than that" as it was intended, in the complimentary way you meant it; but the implication of the statement is that somehow my pointing out simple reality makes me less than "better," and that honor I must decline. I'm not "better" than admitting when the American experiment--through the Constitution especially--has failed. It HAS failed.
What right to petition? It's gone, Mr. SB. We have a runaway ruling class lording it over us without check.
What's your plan? Do you have one?
-
What right to petition? It's gone, Mr. SB. We have a runaway ruling class lording it over us without check.
They say that as DU a lot.
You're better than that.
You know, it's against military law to surrender your troops while they still possess the means to resist.
We've no time for chest beating lamentations. Get on your feet.
-
I know what I'm seeing. I'm seeing nearly all the dire predictions of the anti-federalaists either already come, or coming, to pass. Their argument was with the Constitution, not the people, because they saw how those in power could easily, in time, rule without having to take into account any petition by the people.
I believe in his second letter Judge Yates describes his fear that, once elected, those who are elected can abolish elections. How often have we seen that in other countries where the traditions of liberty were too new, or were never really embraced philosophically by the people, or where simply having control of the machinery of power was all that was required for the new "officeholders" to take power permanently? How far are we from that outcome, do you think, Mr. SB, and will it be our fault then for not passing new laws that will never be enforced, or for not petitioning those selfsame autocrats, who would only laugh at us? Do you think we're immune to that? I don't. Maybe once I thought so, but not now. We teeter on the brink of pure dictatorship.
Please do not misunderstand me. Maybe you're used to hearing this from the nutty followers of Ron Paul. I'm not one of those cultists. I'm saying it because I see it happening, and I will NOT deny empirical reality.
-
I know what I'm seeing. I'm seeing nearly all the dire predictions of the anti-federalaists either already come, or coming, to pass. Their argument was with the Constitution, not the people, because they saw how those in power could easily, in time, rule without having to take into account any petition by the people.
I believe in his second letter Judge Yates describes his fear that, once elected, those who are elected can abolish elections. How often have we seen that in other countries where the traditions of liberty were too new, or were never really embraced philosophically by the people, or where simply having control of the machinery of power was all that was required for the new "officeholders" to take power permanently? How far are we from that outcome, do you think, Mr. SB, and will it be our fault then for not passing new laws that will never be enforced, or for not petitioning those selfsame autocrats, who would only laugh at us? Do you think we're immune to that? I don't. Maybe once I thought so, but not now. We teeter on the brink of pure dictatorship.
Please do not misunderstand me. Maybe you're used to hearing this from the nutty followers of Ron Paul. I'm not one of those cultists. I'm saying it because I see it happening, and I will NOT deny empirical reality.
WHAT...IS...YOUR...F******...PLAN?
-
What's your plan? Do you have one?
No. I don't have one. The only hope at all that I see for us is open rebellion, and that's a slim one.
Perhaps it's time for an "American Spring."
-
No. I don't have one. The only hope at all that I see for us is open rebellion, and that's a slim one.
Surely, you have a better idea than killing Americans on the bhalf of al Qaeda, Russia and the Chinese. And since I'm sworn to kill rebels and I enjoy my job you might want to consider voting to turn congress and the WH over to the GOP as a first recourse.
-
WHAT...IS...YOUR...F******...PLAN?
BD, have mercy. I didn't claim to have a plan and I only just saw your post asking that question just as I was posting what you just quoted. I was observing that the anti-federalists have been proven to be right. I hadn't moved on to "stage B"--a plan. But, to be blunt, it may be that a massive convergence on Washington of those of us who know our "leaders" are out of control is all that can save us. I mean that we must forcibly demand that they return to originalism by force of numbers, first ejecting the creatures who have done this to us. And I don't mean a million-man march, or a 10 million-man march, I mean a 100 million.
Yes, this way may lie anarchy. But all I see now is a not-so-slow-slide for us into genuine totalitarianism.
Sorry to be such a downer. But I cannot deceive myself.
-
They say that as DU a lot.
You're better than that.
You know, it's against military law to surrender your troops while they still possess the means to resist.
We've no time for chest beating lamentations. Get on your feet.
They may say it, and in this one respect they are correct. How is pointing out observable reality, and that the anti-federalists were right (at least in my opinion), lamentation?
I don't think you're going to like this Mr. SB, but if you think my excursion into prophecies borne out constitutes (ha ha) "lamentation" and "chest beating," I must make it clear that I believe you're willingly denying reality, and for that I must repeat to you your own words: You're better than that.
-
Surely, you have a better idea than killing Americans on the bhalf of al Qaeda, Russia and the Chinese. And since I'm sworn to kill rebels and I enjoy my job you might want to consider voting to turn congress and the WH over to the GOP as a first recourse.
Yes. My better idea is to remove those who are enslaving us on their behalf. You could have just as easily have conflated those who rebelled against King George with any other foreign powers who would have, and did, benefit from Britain's loss of the colonies, as doing so primarily for that purpose--would you have said Adams and Washington and Jefferson and all the others fought the good fight for France? I believe you know the difference, so please don't conflate the concept of action based upon the words "when in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another" with an alliance with Al Qaeda. I am saying Washington has become King George.
Of course I'll be out there for Romney. But I still see little hope.
And what about the Santanya's dictum that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it? is it not worth paying attention to what the anti-federalists foretold?
-
If you're going to quote Santanya then you should at least accurately cite history.
The founders had no recourse. Hence, the utterance, "Taxation without representation is tyranny."
You have representation. You may not like it but you can also work to change it.
Case in point: 2010
In 2008 I knew Obama was going to be a goat-****ing SOB but I also knew the American people would soon learn of their mistake and throw him out on his ass. What I never anticipated was anything even close to the Tea Party, 9/12, etc We are stronger than even I had hoped.
Obama obviously didn't learn from the history of 2010 because he applauded the upholding of the very thing that cost Pelosi her crown and turned Ted Kennedy's seat over to the GOP.
I have the history of that as a fact to sustain my optomism. You just have self-pity and morbid fantasy.
-
No. I don't have one. The only hope at all that I see for us is open rebellion, and that's a slim one.
Perhaps it's time for an "American Spring."
Since my grandkids have to suffer in your "revolution" I guess you will be on your own. The Tea Party turned over 63 Congressional seats & 680+ state offices in 2010. In my county primaries this year, we had exactly one D running for any city county office & He's going to loose. The revolution is happening. Get off your ass & help.
-
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus11.htm
God, this man was a seer:
The judicial power will operate to effect, in the most certain, but yet silent and imperceptible manner, what is evidently the tendency of the constitution: — I mean, an entire subversion of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the individual states. Every adjudication of the supreme court, on any question that may arise upon the nature and extent of the general government, will affect the limits of the state jurisdiction. In proportion as the former enlarge the exercise of their powers, will that of the latter be restricted.
That the judicial power of the United States, will lean strongly in favour of the general government, and will give such an explanation to the constitution, as will favour an extension of its jurisdiction, is very evident from a variety of considerations.
1st. The constitution itself strongly countenances such a mode of construction. Most of the articles in this system, which convey powers of any considerable importance, are conceived in general and indefinite terms, which are either equivocal, ambiguous, or which require long definitions to unfold the extent of their meaning. The two most important powers committed to any government, those of raising money, and of raising and keeping up troops, have already been considered, and shewn to be unlimitted by any thing but the discretion of the legislature. The clause which vests the power to pass all laws which are proper and necessary, to carry the powers given into execution, it has been shewn, leaves the legislature at liberty, to do every thing, which in their judgment is best. It is said, I know, that this clause confers no power on the legislature, which they would not have had without it — though I believe this is not the fact, yet, admitting it to be, it implies that the constitution is not to receive an explanation strictly, according to its letter; but more power is implied than is expressed. And this clause, if it is to be considered, as explanatory of the extent of the powers given, rather than giving a new power, is to be understood as declaring, that in construing any of the articles conveying power, the spirit, intent and design of the clause, should be attended to, as well as the words in their common acceptation.
This constitution gives sufficient colour for adopting an equitable construction, if we consider the great end and design it professedly has in view — these appear from its preamble to be, "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity." The design of this system is here expressed, and it is proper to give such a meaning to the various parts, as will best promote the accomplishment of the end; this idea suggests itself naturally upon reading the preamble, and will countenance the court in giving the several articles such a sense, as will the most effectually promote the ends the constitution had in view — how this manner of explaining the constitution will operate in practice, shall be the subject of future enquiry.
2d. Not only will the constitution justify the courts in inclining to this mode of explaining it, but they will be interested in using this latitude of interpretation. Every body of men invested with office are tenacious of power; they feel interested, and hence it has become a kind of maxim, to hand down their offices, with all its rights and privileges, unimpared to their successors; the same principle will influence them to extend their power, and increase their rights; this of itself will operate strongly upon the courts to give such a meaning to the constitution in all cases where it can possibly be done, as will enlarge the sphere of their own authority. Every extension of the power of the general legislature, as well as of the judicial powers, will increase the powers of the courts; and the dignity and importance of the judges, will be in proportion to the extent and magnitude of the powers they exercise. I add, it is highly probable the emolument of the judges will be increased, with the increase of the business they will have to transact and its importance. From these considerations the judges will be interested to extend the powers of the courts, and to construe the constitution as much as possible, in such a way as to favour it; and that they will do it, appears probable.
3d. Because they will have precedent to plead, to justify them in it. It is well known, that the courts in England, have by their own authority, extended their jurisdiction far beyond the limits set them in their original institution, and by the laws of the land.
The court of exchequer is a remarkable instance of this. It was originally intended principally to recover the king's debts, and to order the revenues of the crown. It had a common law jurisdiction, which was established merely for the benefit of the king's accomptants. We learn from Blackstone, that the proceedings in this court are grounded on a writ called quo minus, in which the plaintiff suggests, that he is the king's farmer or debtor, and that the defendant hath done him the damage complained of, by which he is less able to pay the king. These suits, by the statute of Rutland, are expressly directed to be confined to such matters as specially concern the king, or his ministers in the exchequer. And by the articuli super cartas, it is enacted, that no common pleas be thenceforth held in the exchequer contrary to the form of the great charter: but now any person may sue in the exchequer. The surmise of being debtor to the king being matter of form, and mere words of course; and the court is open to all the nation.
When the courts will have a precedent before them of a court which extended its jurisdiction in opposition to an act of the legislature, is it not to be expected that they will extend theirs, especially when there is nothing in the constitution expressly against it? and they are authorised to construe its meaning, and are not under any controul?
This power in the judicial, will enable them to mould the government, into almost any shape they please. — The manner in which this may be effected we will hereafter examine.
-
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus11.htm
God, this man was a seer:
God this man is a whiner.
-
Since my grandkids have to suffer in your "revolution" I guess you will be on your own. The Tea Party turned over 63 Congressional seats & 680+ state offices in 2010. In my county primaries this year, we had exactly one D running for any city county office & He's going to loose. The revolution is happening. Get off your ass & help.
BD, this is unfair. I tell you what is in front of your eyes and you take it as some personal invasion of your children's safety, or choose to deride it as such, perhaps because this may be a little too much truth for you--that's really what I'm sensing. I will point out that, of course, most of the participants in the American Revolution had children, leaders and soldiers.
So YOU can sit on YOUR ass come the new revolution, when or if it does, and NOT fight to free your country from totalitarianism, but I won't.
Now THAT sounds like DUmmietalk to me--ignoring reality.
But to deal with a problem, you first have to recognize it for what it IS, and you don't want to. That much is clear. I would like to point out that it is you who are beginning to insult and Mr. SB who is being slyly insulting--you are, Mr SB--with such pronounements as "your'e better than that," as if HIS view and HIS path could be the only good ones. Then, when I didn't rise to that bait, but politely explained it for what it is, my suggestion that we might have to FIGHT for our country made me an ally of Al Qaeda, Russia, and China.
Edited for typos.
-
God this man is a whiner.
Bah. He was right. Period. 100% right.
-
BD, this is unfair. I tell you what is in front of your eyes and you take it as some personal invasion of your children's safety, or choose to deride it as such, perhaps because this may be a little too much truthy for you--that's really what I sensing. I will point out that, of course, most of the participants in the American Revolution had children, leaders and soldiers.
So YOU can sit on YOUR ass come the new revolution, when or if to does, and NOT fight to free your country from totalitarianism, but I won't.
Now THAT sounds like DUmmietalk to me--ignoring reality.
But to deal with a problem, you first have to recognize it for what it IS, and you don't want to. That much is clear. I would like to point out that it is you who are beginning to insult and Mr. SB who is being slyly insulting--you are, Mr SB--with such pronounements as "your'e better than that," as if HIS view and HIS path could be the only good ones. Then, when I didn't rise to that bait, but politely explained it for what it is, my suggestion that we might have to FIGHT for our country made me an ally of Al Qaeda, Russia, and China.
Ya convinced me scooter. Grab that flag & lead out I'll be right behind you.
-
If you're going to quote Santanya then you should at least accurately cite history.
The founders had no recourse. Hence, the utterance, "Taxation without representation is tyranny."
You have representation. You may not like it but you can also work to change it.
Case in point: 2010
In 2008 I knew Obama was going to be a goat-****ing SOB but I also knew the American people would soon learn of their mistake and throw him out on his ass. What I never anticipated was anything even close to the Tea Party, 9/12, etc We are stronger than even I had hoped.
Obama obviously didn't learn from the history of 2010 because he applauded the upholding of the very thing that cost Pelosi her crown and turned Ted Kennedy's seat over to the GOP.
I have the history of that as a fact to sustain my optomism. You just have self-pity and morbid fantasy.
I have cited history correctly and NO, I do NOT consider what we have now to be representation. The "law" now imposed on us isn't even the one Congress passed, bad as that one is! The word "penalty" has been transmuted to "tax."
Did 2010 stop yesterday's enormity? So I have THAT portion of recent history to make sure my glasses aren't so rose-tinted that they're opaque.
You actually tried to conflate the desire to rid ourselves of the dictatorship coming out of Washington with an alliance with America's enemies. I didn't know you had such venom in you, Mr SB, and I'm disappointed. I kept it civil, but have it as you would.
As to the last, I have reality, you have delusion. I am not the one fantasizing about what our country is, right now. You are. You have not, not even once in this thread, disputed one prediction of this writer. You have merely rattled off a list of sly ad hominem attacks (did you imagine I missed them? I'm better than that.)
-
So YOU can sit on YOUR ass come the new revolution, when or if to does...
Did I mention I like my job.
Quit saying stupid shit.
I have cited history correctly and NO, I do NOT consider what we have now to be representation. The "law" now imposed on us isn't even the one Congress passed, bad as that one is! The word "penalty" had been transmuted to "tax."
Did 2010 stop yesterday's enormity?
Aw, poor baby. 1 election --WON--and still all is lost.
Put your big girl panties on and vote twice. And then a third time. And a fourth. Keeping doing it.
It's a neverending process.
You're not going to team up with you beer buddies and march on DC to impose some new form of government (would you keep the old one you whine is so broken?). And whatever you propose would still be subject to corruption and those who outright ignore the rules. One other fact of history you ignore is the tens of thousands of jokers who thought they were smart enough to have all the answers to take care of everyone else.
At best you'll bitch and pout. At worse you'll go out like Tim McVeigh.
And if you keep talking up violence against the US I'll dime you out myself so just shut the **** up about it.
-
Did I mention I like my job.
Quit saying stupid shit.
Aw, poor baby. 1 election --WON--and still all is lost.
Put your big girl panties on and vote twice. And then a third time. And a fourth. Keeping doing it.
It's a neverending process.
You're not going to team up with you beer buddies and march on DC to impose some new form of government (would you keep the old one you whine is so broken?). And whatever you propose would still be subject to corruption and those who outright ignore the rules. One other fact of history you ignore is the tens of thousands of jokers who thought they were smart enough to have all the answers to take care of everyone else.
At best you'll bitch and pout. At worse you'll go out like Tim McVeigh.
And if you keep talking up violence against the US I'll dime you out myself so just shut the **** up about it.
I had no idea you were such a complete jerk. I started in a simple, declarative manner, listed some significant observations from the time shortly after the Revolution, and you head straight to 1) condescension, and 2) telling me I'm an ally of our country's enemies.
If I "go out," it'll be like Nathan Hale, not like Tim McVeigh. I wouldn't attack innocent people and I never proposed that! That was a pretty revolting comment, SB.
You're free to mischaracterize what I've written all you like, but there's no bitching, no pouting, just a facing up to reality--something you're pretty obviously incapable of. You have no idea what I'll do when my country's freedom from a dictatorship is at stake. You don't know me. But I know you, just from your comment "I like my job"--fat (which I do not mean literally) and comfortable, and unwilling to do anything that matters. You're the pouter here, Mr SB, and you're a child. Enjoy your playpen.
-
This really sucks for old dingelar. I think he/she/it was hoping for a bunch of ignorant rednecks to show how ignorant & redneck they are. Where is the MILF when you need them.
-
You're the pouter here, Mr SB, and you're a child. Enjoy your playpen.
I look at the above quote & your avitar & it cracks me up. Prissy little punk.
-
This really sucks for old dingelar. I think he/she/it was hoping for a bunch of ignorant rednecks to show how ignorant & redneck they are. Where is the MILF when you need them.
I was hoping for nothing of the kind, and I never thought that of you or anyone here. Would "ignorant rednecks" have any grasp of the anti-federalist sections I posted, or would comprehending them require a high degree of learning?
I was hoping for people who didn't have their eyes shut. I was also really just trying to present some history that shows that learned people at the time shortly after the American Revolution saw all this coming. And yes, it sucks, seeing two such self-blinded but self-misnamed "conservatives" mischaracterize the words (and intent!) of someone they would have called a fellow conservative. What did I get? Comparisons to Tim McVeigh and Al Qaeda. Hey, why don't you go for Hitler?
Funny thing is, it looks like a couple of ignorant people is precisely what I found. I have no idea if you're "rednecks."
And no, I don't think either one of you is better than that. You've shown what sort of vituperative individuals you are. I wouldn't be able to stand myself, if I were like either of you. I pity your children.
-
If I "go out," it'll be like Patrick Henry...
Except no one is offering to hang you.
There is nothing going on in this nation that was not foreseen by the founders or offer a political resolution.
Talking about armed revolution to overthrow a government when political remedies abound is an act of insurrection. Even your own fantasy government would never tolerate such a thing.
Heaping unending compliments upon yourself ("I'm not deluded" "I'm not wearing rose-colored glasses" "You're pouting") only betrays the ridiculousness of what you propose. You declare all is lost because 2010 didn't immediately undo ObamaCare ... but somehow you think you have the stamina to overthrow the US when the troops and citizenry are still loyal.
We aren't going to Dc armed. We're going to our local rallies and then we're going to our voting precincts. Because that's what patriots do.
Telling you to STFU about stupid shit was an act of friendship. I tried appealing to a sense of optomistic defiance but apparently you lack the wherewithall to measure up to even my worst PV2. A good ass chewing can be useful. If nothing else it will save you from embarrassing yourself.
-
if I were like either of you. I pity your children.
Well obviously, you're not. Therefore, I guess you won't be having any children for us to pity.
-
Except no one is offering to hang you.
There is nothing going on in this nation that was not foreseen by the founders or offer a political resolution.
Talking about armed revolution to overthrow a government when political remedies abound is an act of insurrection. Even your own fantasy government would never tolerate such a thing.
Heaping unending compliments upon yourself ("I'm not deluded" "I'm not wearing rose-colored glasses" "You're pouting") only betrays the ridiculousness of what you propose. You declare all is lost because 2010 didn't immediately undo ObamaCare ... but somehow you think you have the stamina to overthrow the US when the troops and citizenry are still loyal.
We aren't going to Dc armed. We're going to our local rallies and then we're going to our voting precincts. Because that's what patriots do.
Telling you to STFU about stupid shit was an act of friendship. I tried appealing to a sense of optomistic defiance but apparently you lack the wherewithall to measure up to even my worst PV2. A good ass chewing can be useful. If nothing else it will save you from embarrassing yourself.
I didn't "heap compliments" on myself. I was insulting you as gently as I could. In the face of your naked vituperation, some response that also denigrated you by implication was called for. That implication being that you're blind as a bat.
You're a lazy thinker, SB--you state "Heaping unending compliments upon yourself ("I'm not deluded" "I'm not wearing rose-colored glasses" "You're pouting") only betrays the ridiculousness of what you propose." But you don't explain how those two are connected. At all. No doubt the sentence sounded good to you, but explaining further was beyond you.
No, no one is offering to hang me now, nor was I suggesting that anyone was. I think that was obvious to any reader, but your delight in your own self-imagined cleverness just couldn't let you pass up that line, could it?
NOT all the political movers behind the Constitution foresaw what is happening now, not so clearly as the anti-federalists, and they certainly did not lend their formidable writing talents to achieve the opposite of what they were, of course, leading the charge for--the Constitution.
No, telling me to STFU on this was the act of a thoughtless clown, with not an original thought in his head, and one who had not one intelligent comment to make on Judge Yates' opinions. You can cling to the notion that you are in some way viewing the writing I've presented here in any way other than the most heedless, DUmmie-like way possible, but that won't make it so. I also attend meetings and rallies, and that may not be enough.
I told Bad Dog that I DIDN'T have a plan and I didn't start posting this with a plan in mind. But since he insisted, I gave him the obvious answer to enslavement--rebellion. That does not mean I'm in the midst of planning one, fool.
I don't need to be saved from "embarrassing myself," SB, but you do, oh you do very much. I repeat--you addressed not one word of any of the historical writings I posted. And why? Mostly, I'd guess, because you're just too damned lazy to read them.
-
Well obviously, you're not. Therefore, I guess you won't be having any children for us to pity.
You should be doing video editing for MSNBC.
-
You should be doing video editing for MSNBC.
Indeed.
-
Nor did you address any of my subtantive answers SB. You tossed me naive comments about bills originating in the House, with your Katie-Couric-to-Sarah-Palin snideness; just as she was insinuating that Palin doesn't read, you were insinuating that I don't know something so basic. The last thing I need is a civics lesson from someone so shallow as you. Want to explain how bills originating in the House stops Congress from passing dictatorial laws? Not that Obamacare originated in the House--or didn't you know that, SB?
Pravda-like, you repeat the big lie, eg that I've "cited history incorrectly." But I hadn't. You just wanted that to skate by.
YOU put on your pants, girlfriend, and look at the world around you. Or stay blind. It's all one to me.
-
Dear Danglers,
I don't know you but I have developed some level of respect through your writings.
It is due to this respect I would like to offer a small bit of advise.
You are doing yourself some small bit of harm in this thread. You might say "so what this is just some internet forum".
I would venture to say that you must care or you wouldn't have bothered in the first place. I suggest that you take a break, take a deep breath, maybe start reading some of the excelent analysis available.
Don't get me wrong, the decision reached by the supremes was very bad news but all is not lost. This kind of crap moves in cycles, it always has. The events of this week are not going to lost on the public, I know they move rather slowly but keep 2010 in mind.
Thanks,
EK
-
Dear Danglers,
I don't know you but I have developed some level of respect through your writings.
It is due to this respect I would like to offer a small bit of advise.
You are doing yourself some small bit of harm in this thread. You might say "so what this is just some internet forum".
I would venture to say that you must care or you wouldn't have bothered in the first place. I suggest that you take a break, take a deep breath, maybe start reading some of the excelent analysis available.
Don't get me wrong, the decision reached by the supremes was very bad news but all is not lost. This kind of crap moves in cycles, it always has. The events of this week are not going to lost on the public, I know they move rather slowly but keep 2010 in mind.
Thanks,
EK
EK--I don't think I'm doing myself any harm whatsoever. Others are free to think as they wish. I know who started this thread in good faith, did not resort to condescension or ad hominem attacks, and really I couldn't possibly care less what such a nasty person as SB thinks of me. And if others flock to him or against me merely because they know him better, without reading what was written here, they can go to hell along with him.
And you're right, I'm thinking that this is a just an Internet forum. I can take it or leave it. I cared enough to post, but I don't care to be mocked when I write in good faith, and I'm sure not going to beg for the privilege of being insulted. Nor did I see one, NOT ONE, cogent point on the topic at hand made by the other people posting to this thread.
Thank you for your concern, EK, but the above would be better directed to SB. Since you seem well-intended, I ask you to please read these posts and see who began the food fight, which I tried to avoid.
Best.
-
EK--I don't think I'm doing myself any harm whatsoever. Others are free to thinkas they wish. I know who started this thread in good faith, did not resort to condescension or ad hominem attacks, and really I couldn't possibly care less what such a nasty person as SB thinks of me. And if others flock to him or against me merely because they know him better, whithout reading what was written here, they can go to hell along with him.
And you're right, I'm thinking that this is a just an Internet forum. I can take it or leave it. I cared enough to post, but I don't care to be mocked when I write in good faith, and I'm sure not going to beg for the privilege of being insulted. Nor did I see one, NOT ONE, cogent point on the topic at hand made by the other people posting to this thread.
Thank you for your concern, EK, but the above would be better directed to SB. Since you seem well-intended, I ask you to please read these posts and see who began the food fight, which I tried to avoid.
Best.
All you do is piss, moan,whine and puke. When I asked you what your solutins were, you said you had none. So what use are you?
-
You tossed me naive comments about bills originating in the House...
Naive? It's the constitution. Granted, you might wish to overthrow it while killing Americans in pursuit of ...something... but it's still there.
We can repeal it, we can punish those who voted for it and we can exploit Roberts' and the Dem's bone-headedness to our advantage.
Case in point: We don't need 60 votes for cloture in the senate.
Why? Because 1) the dems passed it as a budget item under rules of Reconciliation and 2) when Roberts called it a tax he reaffirmed that its a budget item.
Not only did we stomp a mud-hole in them in 2010 but we have 2012 and 2014 elections to build on those gains as taxes increase, services decline and the economy stagnates all without the much-promised benefits.
The American people will demand unholy vengeance on those who forced such a thing on them.
Why even considering killing Americans (you do know that is the implied task of "overthrowing the government")?
I consider killing Americans an insult so stop whining about some supposed abuse you've suffered at my keyboard. At least nobody fantasizes about killing you.
-
All you do is piss, moan,whine and puke. When I asked you what your solutins were, you said you had none. So what use are you?
I just want to be clear on your point here: presenting the roots of a problem requires that I also have the solution? Is that the prerequisite, now, for posting information and discussing history? Or is that rule just for me? You'll have precious few threads started, then.
All you do is post a lot of foul-mouthed trash talk, but hey, I guess you can't help yourself. It's in your nature.
-
I just want to be clear on your point here: presenting the roots of a problem requires that I also have the solution? Is that the prerequisite, now, for posting information and discussing history? Or is that rule just for me? You'll have precious few threads started, then.
All you do is post a lot of foul-mouthed trash talk, but hey, I guess you can't help yourself. It's in your nature.
Man, you sure have a high opinion of yourself. Thank you so much for enlightning us.
-
I just want to be clear on your point here: presenting the roots of a problem requires that I also have the solution?
Meanwhile, those of us that constitutionally anticipate such problems and have political solutions will apparently be on the wrong side of your People's Unstoppable Revolution of Glorious Equality because campaigning and voting is too hard for some.
-
Meanwhile, those of us that constitutionally anticipate such problems and have political solutions will apparently be on the wrong side of your People's Unstoppable Revolution of Glorious Equality because campaigning and voting is too hard for some.
We need some pie here Sarge.
-
Naive? It's the constitution. Granted, you might wish to overthrow it while killing Americans in pursuit of ...something... but it's still there.
We can repeal it, we can punish those who voted for it and we can exploit Roberts' and the Dem's bone-headedness to our advantage.
Case in point: We don't need 60 votes for cloture in the senate.
Why? Because 1) the dems passed it as a budget item under rules of Reconciliation and 2) when Roberts called it a tax he reaffirmed that its a budget item.
Not only did we stomp a mud-hole in them in 2010 but we have 2012 and 2014 elections to build on those gains as taxes increase, services decline and the economy stagnates all without the much-promised benefits.
The American people will demand unholy vengeance on those who forced such a thing on them.
Why even considering killing Americans (you do know that is the implied task of "overthrowing the government")?
I consider killing Americans an insult so stop whining about some supposed abuse you've suffered at my keyboard. At least nobody fantasizes about killing you.
It's naive because it has NOTHING to do with Congress abusing its power! Good gods, you must see that when a political party takes control of all the instrumentalities of government it can do ANYTHING it wishes!
If you consider killing Americans an insult--and I never proposed killing anyone, I proposed a mass convergence on DC, but I will admit something like that might eventually require violence--then you would have to consider the Revolutionary war an insult. They were all "Americans" until battle lines were drawn between royalists and rebels. I didn't fantasize about killing you particularly or anyone particularly, so stop putting words on my keyboard. Quote where I wanted some act of violence to occur to YOU particularly or cut the mischaracterization crap. I answered Bad Dog's question as best I could, in fact I wasn't expecting it at all, I never said I had a "plan," because I'm as helpless as anyone--and we are helpless; as I've written the last bricks of a prison are being mortared into place around us--but it wasn't my main point here. If you want to think we have power then think it, but I won't fool myself. I'll continue to do just what you do, I'll keep fighting the good political fight, but I don't believe it's going to work. Even after Nov. 2012--assuming the electorate casts out that monster.
I have written over and over myself that Obamacare can be, of course, be repealed in just the same manner it was passed. I am not unaware of that. But I look about me and I see that the anti-federalists were RIGHT. They WERE. And that's ALL this thread was supposed to be--a bit of interesting historical disquisition. And, yes, a place for my stated opinion, not refuted here at all, that we'd have been better off with the Articles of Confederation, because we KNOW the consequences of the Constitution. We are living them. And they are very bad.
-
Meanwhile, those of us that constitutionally anticipate such problems and have political solutions will apparently be on the wrong side of your People's Unstoppable Revolution of Glorious Equality because campaigning and voting is too hard for some.
You know, you can use hyperbole to try to deflate a valid point, but I'll keep assuming the smarter readers of this thread know that that's exactly what you're doing.
I was writing about those who PRE-constitutionally anticipated the problems that our third founding document would engender. So--you have all the answers? Attend rallies, meetings, organize? That'll turn back the clock to a government that isn't obliterating anything outside itself?
Nor did I write anything that could be construed as "voting is too hard for some." I've written that it may be useless. That we may be done. Is that too difficult a possible reality for you to consider, you who writes speculative fiction? No matter what we do, it may be too late. BD can call that "whining" all he likes; I call it taking off those rose-colored glasses.
-
I'll keep assuming the smarter readers of this thread know that that's exactly what you're doing.
I'm afraid we're not worthy of you dinglars.
-
Man, you sure have a high opinion of yourself. Thank you so much for enlightning us.
I'm looking at the post to which the above is a response to and I can't find ONE THING I wrote about myself. Unless it's the part about a "rule just for me," which was based on my wondering if you really expect people who post thoughts to have all the answers, or if you're just writing this because you wanted to help out SB, no matter who might be right or wrong?
I DO have a low opinion of foul-mouthed trash talk. It has its place in occasional posts, but when used routinely, it tells us something about the writer and his upbringing.
-
I'm afraid we're not worthy of you dinglars.
More hyperbole. Other readers can judge.
-
I DO have a low opinion of foul-mouthed trash talk. It has its place in occasional posts, but when used routinely, it tells us something about the writer and his upbringing.
Damn! You are perceptive. I was actually raised in the wild by marmosets.
-
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...
(http://www.forwardedge.com/3309.jpg)
(http://img4-1.southernliving.timeinc.net/i/2010/06/pies/pies-blackberry-l.jpg?400:400)
(http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4099/4864397694_c32fd66355_z.jpg)
(http://beaugureaufood.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/GuinnessPint.jpg)
And the letter "c".
-
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
-
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.
(http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_264/1209572312Rc7X6w.jpg)
-------------------------
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.
-
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."
-
Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.â€
-
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]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Put another way: the safeguards in the Constitution have failed.
The Constitution has failed as its been so warped as to be unrecognizable.