She said, "I am tired of people just whining and crying about taking back America, and getting back to the Constitution, and yet doing nothing about it."
Indeed. The Constitution is merely ink and paper if not fought for.
Which Constitution do people want? The Hamiltonian Constitution where implied powers and activist courts legislating from the bench do as they please? Or the Constitution where the federal government honors the original intent of the Founding Fathers as related in Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention?
The original intent calls for an understanding that only the authorities expressly enumerated belong to the federal government, and those powers not expressly given to the federal government are reserved to the States. A return to limited government is the only way to save this nation, and turn these things around. However, the cockroaches of both parties ignore their oaths to the Constitution, which serves as a great obstacle to those trying to return this country to a Constitutional standard.
A United States in line with the Constitution would be a very different one than we have today. The rule of law would prevail, the Senate would be populated by State legislature appointed representatives, all legislative actions would be performed by Congress, taxes would not be direct or through payroll, federal spending would be about 5% of GDP, and the government would fear the people (not the other way around).
The growth of government and the centralization of power is the beginning of the end of civilizations, and the beginning of the end of liberty. The only way to stop it is to take back our local governments, and bring everything to a tipping point where the federal government has the choice of either following the Constitution, or losing their power to a tidal wave of revolution.
The anti-Federalists feared a central government, seeing the one created as potentially becoming one that would seek to silence, and abolish, State governments, and bring the nation under a strong general central government determined to force itself upon the people, in the name of the common good.
Statists like the big government liberals in charge of the White House right now are collectivists. The community is more important than the individual, according to these people. They work to redefine the Constitution, to provide for the general welfare by dictating to the people through mandates and punitive taxation.
Justice Roberts has made taxation the new commerce clause. Anything can be done by the federal government, as long as a penalty is attached, and it is called a tax.
A United States in line with the Constitution would be a very different one than we have today. The rule of law would prevail, the Senate would be populated by State legislature appointed representatives, all legislative actions would be performed by Congress, taxes would not be direct or through payroll, federal spending would be about 5% of GDP, and the government would fear the people (not the other way around).
The growth of government and the centralization of power is the beginning of the end of civilizations, and the beginning of the end of liberty. The only way to stop it is to take back our local governments, and bring everything to a tipping point where the federal government has the choice of either following the Constitution, or losing their power to a tidal wave of revolution.
The anti-Federalists feared a central government, seeing the one created as potentially becoming one that would seek to silence, and abolish, State governments, and bring the nation under a strong general central government determined to force itself upon the people, in the name of the common good.
Statists like the big government liberals in charge of the White House right now are collectivists. The community is more important than the individual, according to these people. They work to redefine the Constitution, to provide for the general welfare by dictating to the people through mandates and punitive taxation.
Justice Roberts has made taxation the new commerce clause. Anything can be done by the federal government, as long as a penalty is attached, and it is called a tax.
Isn't that a stretch?
The Supreme Court is colluding with the executive branch, the Congress has been made irrelevant, and the States are silent. The federal government is interfering with private business, regulating in a manner similar to Mussolini's fascist government, using a warped definition of the Supremacy Clause to do as they desire, exempt themselves from their laws, and sue the States for daring to enforce laws on the books.
The Tenth Amendment is clear. The powers not delegated to the federal government, or prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States. Reserved, because the States had original authority.
The statists like Hamilton agreed to it because they knew they could grow the courts to eventually usurp the Constitution. The courts gave themselves the power to judicial review, decided for themselves that they are the final arbiters, when it is clear that distinction belongs to the States.
The people and the States have been silenced, and in their silence they are complicit.
Without a return to the Constitution, without a revolution by the States that includes nullification and a threat to secede, we might as well hang it up. The statists want you silent. The centralists, the statists, the nationalists, and the Hamiltonians are not interested in liberty and sovereignty.
The people and the States have been silenced, and in their silence they are complicit.
Without a return to the Constitution, without a revolution by the States that includes nullification and a threat to secede, we might as well hang it up. The statists want you silent. The centralists, the statists, the nationalists, and the Hamiltonians are not interested in liberty and sovereignty.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Madison's Notes on the Federal Convention - Avalon Project
3 comments:
Again, Doug, you are technically correct in your remarks, but you're failing to figure in what is politically possible. Remember: Elections in 21st century America are determined by the most apathetic and ignorant of voters. Terms like "nullification" will make their eyes glaze over, and talk about "secession" is a propaganda gift to the other side. Don't forget where these low-info voters get their "news".
What you champion is far outside the "Overton Window" of what is attainable in today's politicocultural landscape. Which is not to say that the efforts to re-educate and re-engage low-info voters shouldn't be made - absolutely it should. But we must be realistic about how far down the statist road the country has drifted, how long it'll take to re-educate the public on the value and wisdom of the founding documents, and how little time there remains in which to do it.
Nullification is very possible. . .
for example:
http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2012/07/oklahoma-bill-to-nullify-obamacare.html
I didn't say nullification wasn't possible; I said it wasn't remotely *likely*. I also notice that Representative Ritze is "re-introducing" his nullification bill, which appears to indicate the he tried before and it either never got off the ground or was voted down.
Which reflects what I said - unwinding this disaster (looking beyond just O-Care) will, politically, take a very long time, because it took a very long time to dig this chasm. And we have to face the very real probability that we're so far down this road there isn't time to escape the endgame at its terminus.
"Fighting the good fight," as it were, with equal portions of noblesse and pyrrhicism.
Post a Comment