http://opeds.com/2011/01/09/statist-or-constitutionalist/

QuoteWhich type of government do you want? That is the question that confronts American politics today. Do we want Statist or a Constitutionalist government? What is the difference between them? A Constitutionalist wants the limited government that lives by the checks and balances in our Constitution. A Statist believes that our Constitution is a "living document" and it can be used to justify the creation of any government program imaginable. Here is an explanation of how we now have a Statist government and how we can bring back the Constitutional government we once had.

A Statist's hero is Franklin Delano Roosevelt. A Constitutionalist's hero is James Madison. Both men were Presidents of the United States. Madison wrote most of our Constitution. FDR threw it away. How did FDR throw away our Constitution? He did so when he changed the meaning, the understanding of an important phrase in our Constitution. This phrase can be found twice in our Constitution. The first time is in the preamble but the most important time is in Article I Section 8 of our Constitution. It is in Article I Section 8 that the enumerated powers of our government are found. What are those two words? They are the words "general Welfare". When FDR created the New Deal he changed the meaning of the "general Welfare" from what James Madison meant to what FDR wanted them to mean. When FDR did that he threw our Constitution away! Here is what Madison had to say about what the phrase general welfare means when he wrote Article I Section 8 of our Constitution.

Are you a statist or a Constitutionalist?

The egg of statism was planted by Hamilton; the cockatrice which sprang from in in the 19th century simply became full size under FDR.  I am in terms of the Constitution being a written articulation of a compact among the several states and being the instrument through which they, the states, created their servant, the general government, with the states being the sovereign principals, a good Constitutionalists; however, a rational and reasonable person must hold, unless he is blinded by partisanism, that the Constitution has been usurped and trashed by the statists and is, therefore, an utterly meaningless document, trotted out by the statists themselves so that they can plot and execute their nefarious schemes behind its rotting facade!

As long as there are Constitutionalists who believe in the greatest legal document ever written it will never be an utterly meaningless document. Those who do either are statists or people who want to return to the feudal societies that existed before the Magna Carta was written. Whichever they are they are not supporters of, or believers in, our G*D given rights.

Quote from: Thomas Paine on January 10, 2011, 09:21:50 AM
As long as there are Constitutionalists who believe in the greatest legal document ever written it will never be an utterly meaningless document. Those who do either are statists or people who want to return to the feudal societies that existed before the Magna Carta was written. Whichever they are they are not supporters of, or believers in, our G*D given rights.

The validity of the Constitution as a framework for the legitimate functions, i.e. delegated and enumerated powers,  of the general government of the states united, with the states being the principals and that government being their mere agent, is indirectly proportional to the tendency to worship the document, i.e. to say that its was or is the greatest legal document ever written.  In other words, when said document, the Constitution, is less and less valid as it is being usurped, end run, malinterpreted, etc., then it must be held up as a "sacred document" because the scheming ideologues, stock jobbers, bankers and paper aristocracy, need something to legitimize their nefarious schemes.  Rather than a lawful touchstone and reference point for men of character, the Constitution has become a false god behind which men with no character plot and overthrow.

Cockatrice? Jesus Berggie, you think you could take yourself any more seriously or would you collapse into a black hole under the gravity of your gravity?

If  I had to pick a side I'd probably hang out with Thomas since singing a dirge for the Constitution isn't to my taste and the patient, while bloodied and bruised, still has a fair amount of life in him.

I will however take issue with the conclusion of the editorial. The fault for the damage done to the Constitution is never farther then the nearest mirror. We, the people, hold our fate in our hands and if human nature weren't as perverse as it quite clearly is that would be a recipe for unbounded good. Trouble is, we are a perverse lot and quite capable of throwing away the blessings of liberty for some shiny trinkets.

Quote from: arpad on January 10, 2011, 01:32:33 PM
Cockatrice? Jesus Berggie, you think you could take yourself any more seriously or would you collapse into a black hole under the gravity of your gravity?

If  I had to pick a side I'd probably hang out with Thomas since singing a dirge for the Constitution isn't to my taste and the patient, while bloodied and bruised, still has a fair amount of life in him.

I will however take issue with the conclusion of the editorial. The fault for the damage done to the Constitution is never farther then the nearest mirror. We, the people, hold our fate in our hands and if human nature weren't as perverse as it quite clearly is that would be a recipe for unbounded good. Trouble is, we are a perverse lot and quite capable of throwing away the blessings of liberty for some shiny trinkets.

The Indians did.  ;D

Quote from: arpad on January 10, 2011, 01:32:33 PM
Cockatrice? Jesus Berggie, you think you could take yourself any more seriously or would you collapse into a black hole under the gravity of your gravity?

If  I had to pick a side I'd probably hang out with Thomas since singing a dirge for the Constitution isn't to my taste and the patient, while bloodied and bruised, still has a fair amount of life in him.

I will however take issue with the conclusion of the editorial. The fault for the damage done to the Constitution is never farther then the nearest mirror. We, the people, hold our fate in our hands and if human nature weren't as perverse as it quite clearly is that would be a recipe for unbounded good. Trouble is, we are a perverse lot and quite capable of throwing away the blessings of liberty for some shiny trinkets.

Every time I do this, I end up in a knock-down drag-out brawl... but I can't help m'self. Well said, arpad!

Okay. Bring it on.  :P :P :P

(Had to look up 'cockatrice,' a word I'm sure I'll be using a lot in future posts...)

Quote from: arpad on January 10, 2011, 01:32:33 PM
Cockatrice? Jesus Berggie, you think you could take yourself any more seriously or would you collapse into a black hole under the gravity of your gravity?

If  I had to pick a side I'd probably hang out with Thomas since singing a dirge for the Constitution isn't to my taste and the patient, while bloodied and bruised, still has a fair amount of life in him.

I will however take issue with the conclusion of the editorial. The fault for the damage done to the Constitution is never farther then the nearest mirror. We, the people, hold our fate in our hands and if human nature weren't as perverse as it quite clearly is that would be a recipe for unbounded good. Trouble is, we are a perverse lot and quite capable of throwing away the blessings of liberty for some shiny trinkets.

One supposes that you have never read much of Chaucer and have not read the work entitled The Cow of Dun Hill; otherwise, my metaphor would have likely had more meaning for you.

Yes, one might suppose that, mightn't one?  ::)

Quote from: tbone0106 on January 10, 2011, 03:43:10 PM
Yes, one might suppose that, mightn't one?  ::)

;D

Quote from: Berggeist on January 10, 2011, 03:34:25 PM
One supposes that you have never read much of Chaucer and have not read the work entitled The Cow of Dun Hill; otherwise, my metaphor would have likely had more meaning for you.

One can suppose whatever they propose to suppose. I suppose. But getting back to the subject of the thread, I'm not quite as ready as you to put coins on the eyes of the republic. Yeah the Constitution's been banged around and yeah we've given up way too much of our birthright but what I categorically reject is the notion that we've gone past the point of no return.

As I've pointed out elsewhere there are more then a few signs that the spirit that motivated those who founded the republic is still alive and making itself felt to the intense discomfort of those opposed to the ideas that provide the foundation for the republic.

Also, and I know this'll bring a torrent of disagreement, I believe those ideas are finding resonance outside the U.S., that concept of the sovereign citizen, of inalienable rights and of a nation of laws rather then men is slowly, but inexorably, pushing aside the more primitive ideas of might making right and the governance forms based on that belief.

Quote from: arpad on January 10, 2011, 07:26:53 PM
One can suppose whatever they propose to suppose. I suppose. But getting back to the subject of the thread, I'm not quite as ready as you to put coins on the eyes of the republic. Yeah the Constitution's been banged around and yeah we've given up way too much of our birthright but what I categorically reject is the notion that we've gone past the point of no return.

As I've pointed out elsewhere there are more then a few signs that the spirit that motivated those who founded the republic is still alive and making itself felt to the intense discomfort of those opposed to the ideas that provide the foundation for the republic.

Also, and I know this'll bring a torrent of disagreement, I believe those ideas are finding resonance outside the U.S., that concept of the sovereign citizen, of inalienable rights and of a nation of laws rather then men is slowly, but inexorably, pushing aside the more primitive ideas of might making right and the governance forms based on that belief.

Whether by design or by happenstance, progressivism, liberalism, leftism, whatever you want to call it, tends to collect in predictable places: unions in general, public unions almost by requirement, teachers' unions practically by religious vow. Add to that college instructors, professors and administrators... and journalists. A generation ago, this unholy combination was able to carry young American kids from their first day of public school kindergarten indoctrination to receiving a sheepskin at the end of a college career... and beyond into their lives as adults, through the popular news media.

Something is breaking the top branches out of the indoctrination tree, and working its way down. I think that something is the electronic communication revolution, and most especially the internet. Finally -- for the first time in my life -- the average adult has fingertip access to an endless range of opinion on current events, a circumstance utterly unknown just twenty years ago. For the first time in my life, I see people taking a critical look at some of the crap they've been fed all these years, and they're not liking it much.

We've all been on the slippery slope, the descent to socialism, statism, communism, whatever lies at the bottom of the slide. I honestly don't much care if the American Idea finds resonance in other places, though those places would benefit greatly from a dose of Americanism. I just hope the American Idea is rediscovered by enough AMERICANS to find a permanent home HERE.

I think I see that happening. I hope I'm right.

Has anybody read the entire article? I hope so. In there is an idea of how to bring about some necessary changes so that our Constitution is again a function limitation of our government.

QuoteIn our elections we do not, in theory, allow anyone to vote who is not a registered voter in that district. Why then do we allow anyone who is not a registered voter in that district to vote for candidates with a financial contribution? Are corporations, Unions, PACs, and other special interest groups registered voters? No, they are not. When candidates can only get financial contributions from registered voters in their district it would have several positive effects on our political campaigns.

It would make our elected officials more accountable to the voters in their district.
It would reduce the amount of money spent on political campaigns.
It would require candidates to spend more time in their district.

Why would this happen? When candidates can only get money from their friends and neighbors, people they have known, they are more accountable to voters in their district. When less money is spent on a campaign it reduces the opportunity for corruption. When the candidates can only raise money in their district they have to spend more time there.

I do not "worship" the document but know that it has no equal in the government it created and the limitations it put on that government. What I believe must happen is that our Constitution is no longer used to legitimize its own destruction but used as its authors and ratifiers intended it to be used, as a limitation on government power. Before anyone says that the states created our government that is true. That was done when delegates from the states in convention wrote our Constitution and then delegates to the various state conventions ratified it. Which was how our government was created.

So if me and a few million of my close friends decided to band together to coordinate our efforts to elect representatives we favor this idea would prohibit our empowering that organization to make contributions on our behalf?

I think there are some freedom of association and freedom of expression issues that ought to be thought through. "Special interests" has become a dirty word but only because it serves to advance the interests of those who seek to curtail freedom of association and freedom of expression.

No, you and a million close friends could still band together to endorse candidates but only members of it in a candidate's district would be allowed to contribute cash to their campaign. Why should your organization have more power to influence an election just because it has more money to contribute to a candidate than a registered voter does? Your organization would still have the right to endorse any candidate or candidates it wanted to it just wouldn't be able to buy them with large contributions to their campaigns. If your organization wanted to financially support a candidate what it would do is suggest to its members in that candidate's district to donate money to that candidate.