The Constitutional Case Against Progressives
by Josie Wales[Do not read this article without a copy of the Constitution, and if you do not have one handy, shame on you (link here).]
A line is being drawn in the sand between the statists and Americans, and I use the term American in the grandest sense. The United States of America represents one of the last bastions of traditional liberalism, which is why the Left should no longer be identified as liberal, but rather we should continue to identify its members as progressive statists. The Left believes the precepts of our Constitution have failed society, and thus, we must look towards the “enlightened democracies” of socialized Europe for guidance in the progression of American society.
We hear the mantra of rights professed daily by the progressives: education, work, social security, health care, etc. And since we do not live in a state of nature, the guarantor of those rights must be the government. This is the definition of a statist, and adherence to these beliefs is inherently in opposition to the Constitution. The Founders recognized that government could NEVER be the guarantor of rights which is why so much of the Constitution is written in terms of limiting powers conferred upon the government.
Take for example Article I § 1:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives (emphasis added).
Congress has no power outside the enumerated powers identified in the Constitution, and furthermore, Congress may not exercise any power that is not inherently legislative in nature. Article I § 9 lists specific power limitations upon Congress, and Article I § 10 lists legislative power limitations upon the States. Article III identifies the judicial power of the United States and limits it in much the same manner as in Article I.
Article II is a little different, but can only be understood in the context of the framing of the Constitution. Article II § 1 begins:
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
On its face, Article II seems to grant rather broad powers to the President. One of the main reasons the Constitution was created was because of the impotence of the Articles of Confederation without a federal executive. But even the President is confined to the boundaries identified in the Constitution through his Constitutional Oath as written in Article II § 1 cl. 8:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States (emphasis added).
All other Constitutional officers are “bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution,” in Article VI cl. 3, but the President is beholden to specific duties.
The only time “right” is mentioned in the original articles of the Constitution is in Congress’s duty to promote the ownership of Authors and Inventors to their respective creations (Article I § 8 cl. 8), but even that was only to be secured for a limited time. The Bill of Rights is written in negative terms to prevent the government from infringing upon certain recognized rights of the people. The only positive rights are identified in the 6th Amendment, but should really be read in the negative since the government prosecutes for alleged crimes committed. In fact, the entire Constitution, articles and amendments, is written in terms of limiting government infringement upon existing rights, not creating rights. For a discussion of this you must check out Federalist No. 84. Furthermore, many of the amendments to the Constitution forbade government infringement upon the people’s rights (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th).
Some would argue that “privileges and immunities,” as discussed in Article IV § 2, indicates positive rights, but rights are not privileges because privileges may be revoked. Article I § 9 cl. 2 recognizes the “privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus,” but also recognizes that it may be revoked under certain circumstances. Privileges are allowances granted to specified individuals in areas where government power prevails, which is limited to the powers granted by the Constitution.
Let us turn our attention to the most under-utilized provision of the Constitution as it exists today; the 9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people (emphasis added).
Essentially, any right not identified by the Constitution is retained by the people, not the government (state or national). This is where progressive statists run astray of the Constitution. Government cannot grant us the “right” to work or receive health care because government does not have that power, nor the power to force us to exercise any right (imagine the outcry if the government forced every person to exercise their 2nd Amendment right). And the government does not equal “the people” because our government is only representative of an illusory majority.
Herein lays the danger of the progressive statist utopia. It envisions a permanent government entity, exemplified in the bureaucracy. People may come and go, but the government will always remain. And our rights are beholden to that permanent entity.
Americans recognize that government is only an extension of the individuals that comprise it, and thus ethereal. Bureaucracies are invasive upon the rights of the people. And unless the people are vigilant in protecting their rights, all governments will attempt to seize them.
The United States of America was the first country to create a government wholly in terms of limitation. This is what makes it the first and last bastion of traditional liberalism. We often identify ourselves as conservatives or libertarians, but we are only as much because we understand the context of the Constitution striving to create a liberal utopia within the boundaries of our nation. We understand and have fought against the horrors of the statist utopia, so we must not allow the progressive statists to hide behind concepts like liberalism.
And for those who espouse certain liberal social rights, you will not find salvation within the progressive statist agenda. You will only find regulation and marginalization; at least until the government deems you oppressive to the progress of the state.
The Constitution cannot be a living, breathing document. If it is then government can arbitrarily grant and take-away the people’s rights. If it is then the government can arbitrarily create and seize powers.
Read your Constitution. Study your Constitution. Defend your Constitution.
The Constitution is your only protection from the progressive statist utopia.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
234 Comments
If the Progressives get "healthcare" you kiss the Constitution goodbye.
Our constitution is divine – the problem is that there are folks in power that do not understand this.
There are already so many socialist programs that are not among the enumerated rights of the constitution.
Throw in this "Obamanation" of Healthcare Reform that would eventually control such a large part of our lives and our Country, and the Constitution will increasingly be viewed by many as something that doesn't apply anymore.
We the People, cannot allow that to happen!!!
There are already so many socialist programs that fall outside of the enumerations of the Constitution.
Add in this Progressive overtaking of Healthcare, with the Congress and the President thumbing their noses at We the Pepole while they disregard the Constitution, and there will continue to be an increasing number of "dependent" people that have no idea what this document means to our liberty and freedom.
We the People cannot allow this to happen!!
What I think should also be made clear is this distorted definition of liberals calling themselves 'progressives.'
In truth, what the liberal left proposes is 'regressive' to include their leanings toward socialism, marxism and communism–all European forms of government for which our Founders rejected in favor of our self-governing free Republic and it's governing Constitution.
This free, self-governing Republic which our Founding Fathers, with help of the Almighty God, incorporated with our Constitution of the United States, is the most progressive government in the world.
Let us expose these retrograde, libertine liberal leftists for what they truly are–primitive.
Well…I have been trying to post, and keep getting deleted by the administrator????
The lure of power tends to attract the wrong people to politics. Witness Eric Massa: he was a perfect example of the wrong type of politician, as is Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Dodd, Frank, Waxman, Graham, and, well, you know who the rest are. These people have no concept of the restriction of power. Obama himself called our Constitution a "limiting document" primarily due to it's failure to redistribute wealth to his liking.
So much in our form of government rests upon the individual's voluntary adherence to the Constitution. Our system isn't broken: we've managed to somehow elect the wrong people into it.
Damn right. We don't want the federal government to do anything for the general welfare of the people like it so clearly states.
I, for one, am doing my part by never using the interstate highway system, nor buying anything that has traveled the interstate highway system. It only enables those dirty scum sucking feds.
God you people are stupid.
There are many Progressive programs already in place. If Healthcare Reform in it's current direction is passed while the President and the Dimocrats in Congress thumb their noses at We the People, then the control over the lives of the American people will increase tremendously, and it will continue to create an increasing dependence that is not in the spirit of the Constitution.
We the People cannot allow this to pass!!!
Constitutional Rights?
""They have no damn right to interfere in our free right to do as we damn well please."
~ Barry Goldwater ~
All I want is left alone. I will defend that right, to the death.
This is the best and most concise explanation of the U.S. Constitution that I have ever read!
I did not realize you were such a Constitutional scholar Mr. Wales. I though you were content to just give those damn Kansas "Red Legs" the whoppin' they desperately deserve. Great Job!
Wrong. If it is "passed", it gets repealed. The Constitution stays.
Thanks for posting this article. More people need to understand the context and underlying principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You did a good job of hitting the high notes. Hopefully, this will entice many more Americans (to Hell with everyone else…they don't get a say) to become re-engaged with their heritage. If you're going to fight, you need to know exactly what's at stake. Above all, never take someone else's word for anything important in life! Learn for yourselves.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Declaration of Independence.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government"
Basically it's saying that when the government shows signs of or "evinces" a design or plan (even intention) to reduce (subvert) us to system of despotism, it is our duty to throw off such government/representation. In this case it is our duty to remove and replace, by any means, those who seek to subvert and undermine the will of the people (aka their constituents).
I say, "such has been the patient sufferance of these" united states "and such is now the necessity which constrains (compels) them to alter their former Systems of Government"
most of them probably have never read it.
Anon: "Damn right. We don't want the federal government to do anything for the general welfare of the people like it so clearly states. "
Like WHAT so clearly states? You failed to state what exactly what was so clearly stating a statement.
Dang, you're stupid.
And we must also correct the distortion by the liberal left in projecting themselves as 'progressive.' What they would offer, in truth, is to have us move backward.
Our self-governing Republic governed by our Constitution is, in fact, the most 'progressive' government in history. The democratic liberal leanings toward imperialist, marxist, socialist and communist styles of government are, actually, 'regressive' European forms of government of which our Founders rejected.
Let's also expose these retrograde, libertine liberal leftists truly are–primitive
Doesn't the Constitution require the Congress to only meet once a year? Why has it become a de facto full-time organization?
"Like WHAT so clearly states?"
The constitution. Dumbass.
Divine?
hey, dummy, we'd rather the federal government do as we ask, not at it pleases.
God you're and idiot for not understanding that.
If you are going to refer to the constitutions at least use the whole line you are referring to:
We the People of the United States, in Order 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 our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Now that we have have the preamble to the Constitution here to read, please define what you call the general welfare of the citizens?
I share that sentiment. Simply put, Progressives, leave me alone and I won't kill you.
Or better yet DontTreadOnMe, kindly cite the portion of the constitution that empowers the federal government to build interstate highways with YOUR tax dollars.
The Constitution doesn't advocate a nanny state nor government control which are part of the core ideology that the Left thrives on. What the Constitution does advocate is Individual rights and freedom and that is the worst thing in the world for the Left as it doesn't require their involvement.
So they can pillage and rob the people of money all year, that's why. We need to limit them to meeting one month out of the year, tops. Texas has had great success with keeping their state from being ruined by legislators this way.
It comes from God
Social Security, Medi-Care, Medi-Caid . . . I know this time is different – civil war different – but these commies are willing to kill for their socialist dream. Put it this way as you and I are just trying to survive and distract ourselves and discuss politics, then there is your congressman getting threatened and bought off to vote for this – this is not a Constitutional Republic anymore, the sooner we all come to that conclusion the better. This is a dictatorship under the color of law – very dangerous for all involved. We elected a dictator, not a President. I know we have in the past, and will in the future, but it is very scary to live through.
Me, too.
Anon, you are the most idiotic, willfully ignorant fool I have ever seen on any post anywhere at any time. To wish anything on you would be a waste of time, as you already exist in the most wretched state of humanity that it is possible to survive in. You have my pity.
If you think congress' healthcare reform has ANYTHING to do with actual health care reform, you really are stupid. It's a power grab, nothing more.
Not only have they read it, they hate it!
Excellent! I would be fine with identifying the two emerging political parties rightly as the Progressive Statist Party and the American Party.
I finally figured it out…was using S O C I A L I S T
Folks, I wouldn't waste my time even responding further to him. It is apparent he is eat up with a case of the dumbass, and as we all know, ya can't fix stupid.
Let me try to clean up last. We could not repeal any other entitlement program – the odds are long indeed to repeal this one. The USA will breath a sigh of relief that the debate is over and we will move on to other concerns. Those concerns will be dictated to us and so will the solutions. In time people will accept their fate – unless this issue becomes like slavery once was, one that could be avoided no longer and a modern day "Henry Clay" steps forward to not only hold off the possible – but solves what is the intractable.
Guess your right that they have read because they are doing there best to destroy it and the counry.
Try to say what you want to say using less threatening language. See my post below.
"Essentially, any right not identified by the Constitution is retained by the people, not the government (state or national)."
YES!
YES!
YES!
Repeat that another thousand times.
Giving rights to the states means nothing more or less than trading a federal master for a state master.
Our Constitution has separation of powers, not separation of rights.
"…but rights are not privileges because privileges may be revoked."
Ahem.
Rights may be revoked, via due process of law. Think trial by jury of your peers. Think jail cell . Think physical freedom being revoked. Think death penalty. These are examples of rights being revoked – Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness all revoked as a result of chosen action.
Rights and Privileges are the same thing. Look at the 14th itself. "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…"
What has happened, over time, is a bastardization of the meaning of the word privilege. As I have said before, think of this example. Today, if a person views a 1966 Mustang at a car show and they say " That's bad! No negativity exists, even though, by definition, the word bad is negative.
Rights and privileges are the same thing when talking about the Constitution. Some may want to deny it, but as Gura told the Supreme Court, those who do so should look to history to see it is true. To those who stick with the notion that they are two different things, I challenge them to explain how the 14th Amendment did not create a new class of citizenship absent inalienable rights where we are all nothing more than subjects being ruled over by an all powerful government that can require us to gain permission to do anything and deny that permission at it's own whim without boundaries.
I would offer to folks that the Constitution can only be construed as a negative document if one limits viewing it from the perspective of government. There are more perspectives to consider.
This is why need so desperately need people to represent us that would do so out of a sense or responsibility and/or patriotism. Those people we continue to elect do so only for personal benefit. This is why our government is filled with lawyers, millionaires and career politicians whose second language is legalese. The ones who continue to write two thousand plus page bills to camouflage their agenda items.
You give him too much credit calling his ignorance willful. I'm sure he can't help it.
No one's going to stand for this sack of BS. An entitlement no majority wanted in the 1st place? One that does NOT save money or improve quality of care, and in fact costs more and reduces quality? One that the people knew little about before it was passed (maybe)? One that took legislative legerdemain and buy-offs and bribes and tricky manuevers and "deem (ing)"? One that we get taxed for for four years before anyone ever sees a single benefit??? HELL no.
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please… Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." –Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148
"[If] it [were] assumed that the general government has a right to exercise all powers which may be for the 'general welfare,' that [would include] all the legitimate powers of government, since no government has a legitimate right to do what is not for the welfare of the governed." –Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:397
It was NEVER meant to be a career job!!!
Interstate Highway system was Eisenhower's way of ensuring that troops could safely and quickly move about the country in case of war on US soil or other national emergency. That helps everyone.
"Health care reform" is just a naked power grab by nakedly evil people.
"Our tenet ever was… that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." –Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:133
"Talking to you is like an alien talking to a fungo"
"promote general welfare" does not mean choosing winners and losers. What kind of moron would ever want a government to be the arbiter of fairness.
In fact, I propose the banning of the would "fair".
AMEN COWBOY!!!!
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." — James Madison
My wife said this to me last night.
I own the privilege to exercise my right to keep and bear arms or not.
I own the privilege to exercise my right to pray or not.
I own the privilege to exercise my right to speak or not.
She gets it, rights and privileges are the same thing.
Is that crayon blue-green or green-blue? Same thing, just said an alternative way.
"What has happened, over time, is a bastardization of the meaning of the word privilege."
You know it!
Privilege and rights have both been bastardized and interchanged so much, that entitlements are now the word of the day. Just like every fool that dies anymore is a "hero", words in the lexicon get twisted. Just because some drunken fool walked in front of a train, that doesn't make him a hero. He just had bad luck.
It is the same with our rights and privileges.
When Don King was promoting Mike Tyson fights, was he providing anything more than an opportunity?
Anon, think about that…
Once again, you are the fool.
The government does not give you anything, except protection and the infrastructure to do business. The rest is up to you. It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. I think you may have heard of the concept, but are so unintelligent that you haven't exercised it.
We'll "stop at nothing" too. This BS has got to end. The Left is too self-centered; they cannot sustain as those who are motivated by LOVE can (love of country, love of freedom, love of family). Love of power will not win them this war.
common defence clause.
Really?
Can you share with me what Book and verse of the bible it appears in?
Can you identify the judge, King, prophet, or saint that proclaimed it?
Which of its authors do we venerate in the full religious sense?
One person's rights stop where another person's rights begin.
If we stuck to the Constitution we would be governed by 2/3 conservatives, and 1/3 liberals. Thanks to Rahm and his devious plan to find pro-gun, pro-life dems to run – against rino's – they won and now we have pelosi, reid, and obama. Once these new dems get to dc he uses the dc gravey train to seduce them or extort them.
We The people have the authority to make that fully known.
The entire House of Representatives can be replaced and it would be a profound message sent this fall if that comes to pass.
Thank God I'm not the only one who figured this out. I've been saying exactly this for a long time now all over the place.
Progressives are Big Government Statists and as such, violate the spirit and letter of the Founding Principles. – Me.
No, it requires them to meet at least once in every year.
Also, neither house can adjourn for more than three days unless the other house does, and they must meet in the same place.
There is no minimum amount of time they can sit around and conspire.
With rights comes responsibility – Freedom is not free.
Dang! Madison was psychic.
You might want to read your constitution again.
"We the People(1) of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare(2), and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I will summarize for you. We the people ordain and establish this constitution to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure (ensure) domestic tranquility, PROVIDE FOR the common defense, (read closely now) PROMOTE (not provide) the general welfare, and secure the BLESSINGS of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. You see? The constitution itself was created, not the government, for these purposes and with these intents. This does not mean that by virtue of establishing a government that the government is thereby responsible for these things. Nowhere in these words do you find that the government was established to provide anything other than to equip and facilitate the people to defend themselves and their nation.
Fuchsia.
The "certain inalienable rights" do, yes, but not The Constitution. That was created by men. Wise men, but men.
The only documents God gave Man directly were the Ten Commandments.
"the Constitution can only be construed as a negative document if one limits viewing it from the perspective of government"
Excellent point. The founders, being knowledgeable of the history of government abuses, did not trust government to remain a tool of all citizens and wrote limitations to the power of government. They did foresee the need to deal with individuals who would harm others and left the power to deal with these individuals with people in the form of a jury, not the government. This system, while not perfect in every case, generally works well to prosecute criminals without giving the government the powers needed by tyrants.
Exactly.
Related satire: Historians Discover Lost Letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson (click image to enlarge) http://optoons.blogspot.com/2010/02/historians-di...
True. But the 'requirement' is for once a year. They must meet once a year. Here's the wording in the original document..
"The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall (be on the first Monday in December,) (The preceding words in parentheses were superseded by the 20th Amendment, section 2.) unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day."
I think we should ask Congress to go back to meeting just once a year. We can't afford them in this economy.
How di
And one might well suggest that a totalitarian government "providing" everything does not, in fact, promote the general welfare, never mind utterly failing to secure the blessings (or other aspects) of liberty, establish justice, or insure doestic tranquility.
If the Constitution is null and void then so is the 16th Amendment and any obligation we have to pay federal income taxes…..
Straight Democracy – a tool of all citizens.
You hit the nail on the head. Another example of how wicked the Selective Incorporation Doctrine is.
RE Leadfingers:
The line from the Declaration of Independence that you quote ("But when a long train of abuses and usurpations…") is a bit misleading without mentioning that the document also cautions against such an action without major justification. It does so in the preceding line:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes…."
Importantly, the document then goes on to list well over a dozen British abuses to demonstrate that the declaration is not imprudent.
To often people use this document to threaten or promote revolution without placing it within context.
As you quoted, "at least".
That not merely fully admits to assembling more often, but pretty much suggests that is an expected standard.
Not looking things up at the moment, I would expect it stood in reaction to the practice of the English Parliament, which had no such requirement, and which could meet once, approve ministers, then leave the government to what was functionally a legislative/executive oligarchy operating without any oversight.
That is basically what a lot of progressives would like now! For Congress to have met, elected Pelosi and Reid, have them pass majority resolutions endorsing Obama, then disband for two years while Obama reigns via his "czars".
When Congress is not dominated by the same party that holds the Presidency, meeting more often to legislate against excesses of executive orders is a Good Thing (TM).
Unfortunately our troll doesn't understand that.
Yes. Sadly, he was.
At 17, in 1960 I stepped forward and took this oath;
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
After 50 years; nothing has changed.
Back in the day, "welfare" didn't mean hand-out. It meant general well-being. Read a dictionary.
I know. When did it become one? I'd love a history of Congress from the time before it became a full-time career that made men/women millionaires.
Obama has stated that he wants to "break free" from the limitations imposed by the Constitution. Every time I hear him say that it gives me the chills. He was a professor of the Constitution, but he just doesn't get it. He sees the negative terms as just that, a negative thing that needs to be destroyed in order for him to have his way. That his way may be a terrible thing for all of us, he just can't admit or even comprehend.
Move to Somalia. You'll love it there. A total lack of a central government. Militia rule. Teabagger heaven.
It is not that he will not admit or comprehend such, he simply believes in a political ideology completely different, and rather thoroughly in opposition, to the ideology expressed within the Constitution.
Actually, I'm considering Mali.
They have a problem there that needs corrected.
You're welcome to come.
I'd love tracking you through the bush.
use a capital i instead of a lower case L, and it works.
If they had to keep REAL jobs 11 months out of the year they'd be less tone-deaf , less destructive and more reality-based people.
A lot of us should do something similar every July 4, after we read the Declaration of Independence at our backyard BBQs.
"Obama said the Constitution mostly "says what the states can't do to you … what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."….
What HE wants is total control! We cannot allow this to happen…This arrogant narcissist wants to be the one to rewrite the Constitution in order to giver 'his' people reparations…..
Each State should write a new law so that only one of their Senators
could be from the legal profession.
Good points. I can see your point of view. Thanks.
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the Constitution actually grant State government more power than the federal government? Wasn't Congress originally meant to be a means by which each state was represented to take care of federal business such as maintaining national security, overseeing national roads, and the other very limited areas in which the federal government was meant to preside?
I always thought that the founding fathers by requiring only "at least one assembly" per year were acknowledging that the federal powers were limited and didn't require a full Congress to be present year round.
In essence, the founding fathers produced a Constitution that created a Union of Sovereign States hence why we are called the United States. The President was the Commander-in-Chief in regards to national security and his/her other limited scope of power.
That was always my understanding.
Good article.
The next step is to brush up on Article II – Secton 4.
Section 4 – Disqualification
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
A case is building for several specific counts justifying impeachment of POTUS, and AG, for a general failure to fulfill the oath to "…preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
[For a light hearted take our present peril]
Thank you. Congress was never meant to be a place where you retired after 40 years as a millionaire with a Cadillac health plan and enormous pension for the rest of your life.
You think anyone in the GOP would have the guts to repeal it?
Did they repeal social security?
Simply put, corruption is measured not by how much money Congressmen receive, but from how much they spend. Constitutional government limits corruption going out from Washington DC.
[...] » The Constitutional Case Against Progressives – Big Government [...]
The reality is that the "entitlement programs" are broke. No more money and no prospect of repair with the current set of morons in DC. They are going to end one way or the other, that you can bet on.
The phrase "provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare' in the PREAMBLE is not a carte blanche grant of power, but merely an introduction to the enumerated powers that follow – powers that concern the common defense and the general welfare.
Try reading the ENTIRE Constitution some time. The REAL Constitution, not the "living, breathing" one.
Compone, that is the wrong path. What you seek can be accomplished without going there.
Voters already have the power needed to do exactly that, they simply need to exercise it.
Here are the powers of the Executive Branch:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Yes, Mr Obama, there are specific Powers granted to the President. I thought he was a constitutional lawyer??
What will the country look like when all those capitalist 'pigs' out there figure out the real money is in Government? I wonder how many libs think that could even happen. If we keep going down this road it will.
"To those who stick with the notion that they ["rights" and "privileges"] are two different things, I challenge them to explain how the 14th Amendment did not create a new class of citizenship…"
It didn't because it was not interpreted that way. It was interpreted as if "rights" did, in fact, mean the same as "privileges." However, that fact in itself doesn't prove that the two words are synonymous. The use of "privileges" may simply have been the result of very poor drafting; i.e. it may have been a poor choice of words. Indeed, given the notoriously ambiguous nature of much of the 14th's language, and the mental and legal hoops that jurists have been forced to jump through in trying to interpret the damned thing, that seems more than likely. It doesn't mean you're wrong. "Rights" and "privileges" may, in the end, amount to the same thing. It just means that the 14th's use of the word "privileges" doesn't in and of itself prove it.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." –Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
Most folks understand this. Washington does not.
This is where you get into areas that tend to set people off.
"Theoretically" and "it depends on how you look at it".
As you note, the Constitution sets a limited of number of powers that the three branches of the federal government has. For those that was not explicit enough for, the 10th Amendment reiterates the concept, and notes that all other powers are reserved to the states and the people.
Aside: Note the implicit concept here that the states and people are also both branches of our government in an overall sense.
Aside: Note the additional implict concept here that since the people have reserved powers, there may in fact be powers they do not grant to their state governments.
How does raising the cost of something I already have or forcing me to buy something that I may not want promote my general welfare, or for that matter, allow me life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of Happiness?
Jesus, Village Idiot, do you understand the meaning of "general" in "general" welfare?
Apparently your Golden Children's Dictionary doesn't have entries for "anarchist" and "libertarian"
I'm surprised they let you out of the house without a bike helmet.
Just an add-on, in the Eisenhower system, at least 1 out of every 5 miles of highway must be straight to allow emergency landing of aircraft. This is to help if we ever get invaded. Plus, Anon is right, we don't have to use the highway, but if healthcare goes through, we ALL get sucked in to it, that is the plan from the start.
Of course the constitiution failed Liberals, thats beczuse they are all losers and socialist collectivism is the best option for a loser.
Will? Has. Ask GE and Goldman Sachs, for two.
test test….the Liberals detest the constitution because they are socialist collectivist who cant compete in a free market, so socialist collectivism is their best choice
I suggest you move to Venezuela, you'd love it there, Communist state, cheap gas, government tells you how long your showers can be, Chavez is a Bush-hater and all conspiracy theories start at the top of government because the citizens don't have free speech.
He's from one of those multi-generational welfare families, his responsibility is to protect the hand that wants to feed him. If he had to work for a living he'd starve!
Show me where in the constitution after the pre-amble, you know, in the nuts and bolts where it says anything about providing a nanny state.
The thing is this, Obama has studied his enemy for a couple of decades, now he knows which mechanisms would be best utilized to defeat his enemy (the constitution).
Today Barbara Lee (D) Ca. who is the Black Caucus Chairwoman is at the white house with member of The Black Caucus, meeting with obama with a list of complaints. I wonder what their complaints are, and if obama will help them?
Today I have called two of our reps. here in Colorado, with my opinion of the healthcare bill, the person on the other end of the phone sounded disinterested!! I also emailed my rep John Salazar, I think it went through but I had to go through a s..tload of crap!!
I also emailed sen Bennet with our concerns about the constitutionality of the healthcare bill!!!
But for some reason my email would not go through!!!
I have tried different addresses with the same result!!!
I believe that they are trying to ignore the people here!!! They don't want to hear from us!!!
Can we say " Civil war". See below
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/...
Couldn't have put it any better myself. Interstates promote the general welfare. Obamacare promotes nanny state welfare!!!
Hey anon, hop a plane or ship to Europe you socialist phuck!!!
No we cannot. That trip wire is your right to vote, speak your mind, and your right to keep and bear arms – we are far from that and much closer to an election in 8 months – which will prove to be quite an elixir for what is causing your innate desire to fight for your Constitution. Have faith in James Madison, at least as much faith as you have in John Mosses Browning.
The statist utopia is based on a false premise, that mankind is predominantly evil, & therefor must be controlled. So they take, & take, in order to build & build on their controls over us. & all that really ever gets anyone is a giant bureaucracy, lots & lots of government workers who vote democratic, & a poor civil society, who has been forced into dependency.
At this late date on 2010, our civil society is losing the ability to care for itself, the obama presidency, & democrats in power have taken so much, that there is nothing left for us, & yet, they still want more. Our U.S. Constitution is infinite law, & the best that mankind has ever known. If we are to move forward with strengthening of the civil society, it is in recognizing that mankind is predominantly good. & grows stronger is tandem with the infinite law of life. The very spirit of mankind hangs in the balance this day. & the fact that the U.S. has the strongest infinite law, does not make it adhere only to us citizens. We in America are lucky enough to enjoy it, but infinite law is also universal. We are endowed by our creator, well, the human spirit is it's creator, life is infinite law, & can not yield.
You have weighed and measure and found unfit. Thank you and now move along you socialist MORON!!!
Thanks for the interesting bit about emergency landing capabilities!
He is…but it's HIS constitution that he learned from Alinsky and the rest of his socialists buddies!!!
He is…it's just HIS constitution that he was learning…
I hear you. But we who would be free have to decide whether our hopes are best placed in a central power that we would have secure liberty nationwide and for all time, or to fear a central power that can more easily and effectively be turned against us. Our founders opted for the latter for philosophical and practical reasons. I'm not saying it has to be that way just because they said so. But I think I'd rather fight this battle out on the state level. The tryrants and busy bodies probably can't take over and ruin all or even a majority of the states at any one time. We'll always have free places to which to flee and from which to launch our counter attack.
Right. We've become saddled with a slightly different form of "royalty" and it's time to do away with them and their expensive priveledges.
God directly gave Moses the 10 Commandmets, twice. The rest of the entire Bible is God-Breathed. The writers, at diffferent times and places were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write. Other times, God's good angels caused men to write the scriptures. It's like having "wind in your sails".
This has happened to me several times, where I created an inspired work. I actually made an Electrical Schematic of the Bible. After reviewing the work, I found an obvious electrian's mistake and I just could not delete it. This power system was "grounded" at the wrong place. The title of the work "The Haschmalein's Truth Table", with an underlying philosophy being: "Lies are In Series, and Truth is in Parallel"
This work has no monetary value.
God's existence is proven thru His Prophecies regarding future events. Check out Ezekiel Chs 38 & 39 once.
I thought that this particular event was going to happen during the Reagan's Confrontation w/Russia.
Sure he is guilty — violating the rule of law to force GM's creditors to cede their collateral to the UAW, intentionally bakrupting us for generations, borrowing money from China to bail out Haiti (what Constituional power is that one based on?), pushing statist schemes that violate his oath of office, aiding and abetting bribery to further that trreason, etc. But his buddies control both the House, which would have to impeach, and the Senate, which would have to convict. It would have to be a heck of landslide in November to get the numbers we'd need. And, even then, would the Republicans do it? I doubt it. Half of them are guilty of the same crimes — maybe more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzYl48V0HTM
Right, I'm glad no one on the left does that….
States were disarming freed slaves. The 14th was fully intended to stop that, among other things, from happening. History proves it my friend, for it is indisputable that the 14th was intended to stop state violation of the rights of freedmen.
The only other reading of it can only mean that an entirely new class of citizenship was created by the 14th. Ponder the ramifications of such a decision carefully.
Great Article! When our POTUS or Senators take this oath "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States (emphasis added)." and then they turn the other check and try and destroy it and our BILL OF RIGHTS should that not be counted as TREASON?!? How do these people sleep at night? I know it's getting hard for me to sleep at night because of these PROGRESSIVES!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you for your service.
The government has promoted the general welfare by making more poor people. And you're right, they are dirty scum sucking feds, who are also Stalinists.
Seems like he had problems swearing in, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6PKfWEMup0. Is this an omen?
Well, you're right, and many many have felt the same way, or are thinking about it now because people will have to choose.
The progressive agenda is mutually exclusive to the constitution and they cannot coexist, which means this could be the big showdown for progressivism and we must prevail. There are many more of us than them so it should not be so hard.
Progressives are essentially traitors to the constitution like Hugo Chavez is to the Venezuelan constitution.
.
.
Oh, good one!
[...] Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this | // Posted by Justin at 3:47 PM Tagged with: Constitution, Culture, History, Justice/Legal, liberals, Marxists in the White House, politics, privileges, Progressive, progressives in government, rights, statist [...]
I took that oath too and there is no expiration date on it!
Those who don't believe in the constitution should stay out of government and just find another line of work. When they lie taking the oath, it makes me wonder what else they're lying about.
Besides, Obama has done pretty well for himself with the constitution and Reaganomics. What's he got to complain about?
.
What Inor said…. Also, until I read your piece, I all but succumbed. Now I can change my Icon.
I love your icon.
That is the cover from Jonah Goldbergs book of the same title.
A great reminder of where we came from as a nation.
That is the whole point.
Separation of powers goes deeper than just having three, or really five, branches of government.
Instead we have a system were powers are generally divided into the three categories of legislative, executive, and judicial, but then some aspects of those powers are then divided up. So:
The President can make treaties but the Senate must approve them.
The Supreme Court is independent, but the President must appoint the Justices, and the Senate must approve them.
Thanks…I scanned his book….. That is why your (?) article hit home for me. The book cover sorta reinforces the myth, he destroys in it.
The political spectrum is not well known. That and the “Democratic” play on words crap just piss me off!
How the use of two little words managed to confuse the masses is actually quite brilliant in its nefarious propaganda.
Sharing this article will help to “Push back the frontiers of ignorance” by actually teaching what is/in the Constitution.
Yes, many of us understand all this to be true. However, nobody ever seems to brings such cases to the Supreme Court to solidify these beliefs.
The lefties have all these "non profit" groups that sue and win over environment, civil rights, etc. but where are the conservative groups taking these cases to the Supreme Court?
kissing it off is no option !!!
Just call me Patrick Henry
It is too bad the constitution is not 2000 pages long, so that everyone understood what the founding fathers intended.Instead we have a corrupt,pork filled healthcare bill that is over 2000 pages long…..It will eventually get to a point that the only way to save the constitution will be to starve it of money.
It is too bad the constitution is not 2000 pages long, so that everyone understood what the founding fathers intended.Instead we have a corrupt,pork filled healthcare bill that is over 2000 pages long…..It will eventually get to a point that the only way to save the constitution will be to starve it of money.
Technically, you are right. I should have been clearer. It was divinely inspired.
And we must also correct the distortion by the liberal left in projecting themselves as 'progressive.' What they would offer, in truth, is to have us move backward.
Our self-governing Republic governed by our Constitution is, in fact, the most 'progressive' government in history. The democratic liberal leanings toward imperialist, marxist, socialist and communist styles of government are, actually, 'regressive' European forms of government of which our Founders rejected.
Let's also expose these retrograde, libertine liberal leftists truly are–primitive
And we must also correct the distortion by the liberal left in projecting themselves as 'progressive.' What they would offer, in truth, is to have us move backward.
Our self-governing Republic governed by our Constitution is, in fact, the most 'progressive' government in history. The democratic liberal leanings toward imperialist, marxist, socialist and communist styles of government are, actually, 'regressive' European forms of government of which our Founders rejected.
Let's also expose these retrograde, libertine liberal leftists truly are–primitive
I haven't seen you around here before, but sure welcome your participation.
To clarify one thing, I think though you are mistaken wherein you think this was my article. it wasn't.
NO, he's definitely willfully ignorant.
I stand with you dontteadonme, but I would be derelict if I did not try to inform others with the way things really are as opposed to what we wish them to be. There are very powerful unions and politicians who will stop at nothing. We are stopping this current assault, and if we can get this to the 18th with no vote – then I will count it as another win in the war. But the War wages on. I've come to realize two things. One violence will not work. and two this is a very long an unending fight – it is a marathon not a sprint.
I'd propose banning government………
2nd
[...] The Constitutional Case Against Progressives [...]
Great find, awesome post. Thank you…
Never again, America!
Your livelihood, your future, your children's future is under attack by Democrats in office and their ultra-liberal agenda. It is my responsibility, your responsibility, and every true American's responsibility to stop these destructive maniacs immediately! Failure to do so is panda-mount to suicide.
Have you called your Senators? How about you’re Congressmen? I have, more times than I care to recall. If you have not called them have you emailed them? If so, show me and forward you emails to me so that I may share them with my friends, my family, and my co-workers. My email address is joem_eng@comcast.net. I will forward along every single email I receive to all I know. I hope and I pray those that receive them will do the same. If you have no emails to send then I suggest you do so now. We are all running out of time, if you don’t make your voice heard now then it never will.
What nobody seems to grasp is that once you are truly dependent upon Government to put food on your table, a roof over your head, and money (however little it may be) in your pocket it will be too late. You have become nothing more than a number, a slave beholden on those in power to take care of your miserable existence. What is perhaps even sadder than that is you children will suffer the same fate as you.
Teach your children, tell them what this country was founded upon, read them the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they are not being taught this school, I guarantee you this! Do it now before others convince them your are ignorant and know no better, this is what is what they are being taught from grade school straight through college. Only we the people can set this country back on the right path. Only through fiscal conservatism, self reliance, limited government can we once again make this the country of freedom and opportunity.
Rights are inalienable (well, supposed to be)
Privileges are granted and subject to denial or revocation.
You have the privilege to exercise your rights you do not have the right to assert a privilege.
Messy word play, but they are different words because they mean different things.
A Tea Party rally is scheduled for 3/16/2010 on washington, D.C., If you cannot attend. Join with millions of American citizens battling for freedom from government oppression, by mobilizing in large cites, and small towns across the country.
Obama and the Progressives will NEVER give up on Obamacare. In addition to the huge government control and purposely bankrupting the country, it is also a payback to unions, abortion advocates, George Soros, SEIU, ACORN, and illegal immigration refrom advocates. He has to pay them back before the November elections. After November we will begin to see the REAL Obama. I'm scared of his Executive Order powers.
Would you like an even dozen, a baker's dozen, more?
Our current government has duped generations into an unconstitutional surrender of their rights. It doesn't matter if a majority "votes" to deny the rights of the minority, it is still unconstitutional and a violation of INDIVIDUAL OBJECTIVE rights. THAT is what this country was founded to protect.
You may have tried to insert the word SociaIist in there which rejects your post. So how did I just write sociaIist and get posted? Here is how you do it:
For the letter "L" in the word sociaIist use capital "I" (like eye) in place of the "L", it will look like a lower case "L" and get the word past the censor.
Great article. Never underestimate the knowledge and wisdom of a cowboy with a brain.
You mean the People's Democratic Republic of Somalia? That's what happens when socialists finally achieve their utopia.
Obama studied the constitution to learn how to DESTRUCT it…..plain and simple.
When Obama said he wanted to "break free from the limitations imposed by the Constitution" he new EXACTLY what that meant. . . . . . the man is a statist at best and to many, a Marxist at his core.
He "gets it" all right . . . . and THAT is what should have given chills to the numb-heads before they voted for him!
Maybe he's not ignorant at all, he may be from one of those multu-generational welfare families just trying to protect his gravy train, lol!
Of course the constitution failed Liberals, they are socialist collectivists and this is the best choice ideology for a loser
You are right, we don't HAVE to use Interstates. You can get everywhere in the Country into Canada and all the way to South America using "POSTAL ROADS" that the government has got to build and maintain with our Tax dollars as provided for in the 18 Enumerated Powers of Congress.
With the ever-so-snorkely Eric Massa resigning this week, I think the Libs and Progressives deserve a new name for their party – the Snorkelers – TA-DA!!
You can also walk, fly or take a boat, or, not go to Mexico or Canada, however, everyone pretty much has to live.
Man! I love how those on the "right" side speak with such intelligence and support their argument with FACTS, when all the Libs can do is spew stupid comments and call names.
Excellent Post from Madison!
Progressives want to be left alone to but you fascist a$$holes don;t seem to get that point now do ya? Instead you have "outlaw" shady characters using the Constitution of the United States of America to fabricate a Nazi anti-Semitic style propaganda to drum up support for Americans to turn on other Americans. You are all weak-minded pathetic fools for reading and accepting this bullsh#t! People have political differences but the idea you would accept this evil dribble as gospel from this Nazi? AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE IS…A NAZI!!! Look up some of the same rhetoric that was written in "defense" of the Nazis from the evil attacks of the progressive Jew back in the 1930's. There's no difference. Does not one of you pathetic punks have the balls to look it up and see it for yourselves?
Nobody is taking your rights. Your just being indoctrinated into taking away other people's rights because you've been convinced you are being threatened by the Jew…oops…I mean the PROGRESSIVE JEW!!! Next step…take away our lives? Who here has the plans for the new and improved concentration camps for the Jews….oops….I mean the PROGRESSIVE JEW?
The folks in power were put there by the Constitution you dumb f#ck!
Yeah…Mr. Wales and his shady anti-Semitic Nazi distortion of our Constitution is a f##king scholar. The Constitution only applies to you and others in the country such as Progressives are NOT entitled to the rights in the Constitution that you are entitled to.
YOU ARE ALL A BUNCH OF F##KING PARASITES!!! IF you hate America so much and want to pull this Nazi propaganda on the rest of us for trying to identify us as threats and strip us of our rights, our freedoms and our liberties…bring it you weak-minded bitches!!! We beat your type in 1945 and we'll beat your type again. We have guns too but unlike you weak-minded pathetic parasites, we actually are smart and can think for ourselves. You are a bunch of brownshirt drones. Stop talking and bring it or shut the f#ck up!!!
Stop talking and step up fa66ots! Stop sniveling and bring the fight or keep your skirts on and shut the f##k up!
And to you Mr. "Wales"…grow a set and bring it bitch! Time to stop sniveling about the bid bad wibawals WAAAAAHHHHH and pick up the fight. Mr. Wales my a$$…Massa wannabe sniveling about progressives while hiding behind your boyfriends thong.
STOP YOUR GODDAMN PMSing AND BRING THE FIGHT DRAMA QUEENS OR STFU!!!
WOW! WOW! WOW! The More I read these comments EVERYONE is acting as if This crap happened in the last 2 years!! FACT.. The States you live in "own" your rights.. check out your State's Statutes people!! MOST civil and domestic offenses are arrestable along with monetary fines you don't get the right to set prices on.. if you believe you are FREE.. You are mistaken.. Do you KNOW why these offenses are ARRESTABLE?? It takes probable cause away and replaces your rights to resonable searches and seizures away from you!
THIS CRAP is NOT NEW!! Wake up from The "conditioning" we have already progressed into!! Municipalities have stripped you of your rights ALREADY, for MONEY!! You have no inalienable rights unless they are "handed out" by your government through regulation!! WAKE UP!!!
OBAMA, as much of a communist/marxist I think he is, IS merely using the very laws and powers that were there before he came into power! WE have already been in this "state" of abuses!! The IRS can take you FREDOM and EVERYTHING you own away for MONEY!! The 1st amendment, gone! "free speech ZONES" are and have been in place. research this! 2nd Amendment, guess what, gone..It is so heavily regulated with other laws..NO LONGER a SIMPLE right.. I could go on and on!!
The Federal gov't is supposed to enforce that the states laws that they enact adhere to the Constitution FIRST. Then the States can enact and regulate thier laws, this is where things go wrong!! This is where the "confusion" is coming from… the Oath taken to uphold and protect the Constitution has become a mere formality for our "elected" officials.. It means nothing to them.. look at your statutes and the punitive damages for them.. j-walking is arrestable!! if you don't pay the ticket, you go to jail!! ( you are FREE from tyranny remamber!!) One simple example of many that are out there!! we NEED laws, yes..your states go way to far with it's impositions on you..
the FINE amounts have become unjust in comparrison to the crime violated..this can be looked at as, "so, don't break the law." It is also a way of extortion..period! The law can commit legal extortion..hahaha oxymoron huh! Hypocracy!
The Military Industrial Complex has BEEN doing this in pieces for decades, this is not new!
[...] » The Constitutional Case Against Progressives – Big Government [...]
[...] » The Constitutional Case Against Progressives – Big Government [...]
I've taken that oath at least 6 times, and I agree with Ellie, there is no expiration date. We may have to defend the
Constitution against our domestic enemies, ie: Obama and Congress. That's the real reason for the 2nd amendment.
Chickenshit rides again! Come out of hiding if you have any principles…
Douche bag.
nope! things are different now. the people have their eyes open, they see these would be dictators for what they are. this administration has shown their true colors – and it damn sure ain`t red, white and blue. tough times are coming, but we will NOT ALLOW this country to fall to the likes of obama,dodd, frank,pelosi,etc.
you`re wasting your time responding to anon, he`s (?) like the skeeter buzzing your ear – a minor irritant, but not relevant enough to spend the time to kill it.
you can, but ammo is getting expensive.
would`nt be hard to find, my guess is he would be the one with his hands up and wet pants.
This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 3/12/2010, at The Unreligious Right
This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 3/12/2010, at The Unreligious Right
ANON, YOUR SIDE IS LOSING IN THE MOST EMBARRASSING WAY. HOW DOES THAT FEEL?
Your side is losing!! Did you notice? They're going down in flames. How's that workin for ya?
It is frustrating. I'm getting some of the same stuff. My belief is that they get our messages loud and clear, and it's working Batt. Go to dickmorris.com for more emails. Don't get sick over it. This HC Bill is going down in flames because of good people like you! Thanks.
What's your point? Which side are you on? Your cursing and out of control anger blocks your point.
What are you talking about. No one can understand your fa66ots stuff. Speak like an adult.
You are out of control. Get a grip, or take Anger Management Classes. State your point like an adult. Grow up.
They honor their "False" prophets who question law, while they defy the laws that are natural!!! Every "Time tested" law of nature is made to be broken or changed in their theology, this is the new beginning in their minds!! It is weird the way they try to perverse the laws which constrain the humans they try to perverse into not believing in those laws, in their quest to have them believe in the new laws, the ones they have Authored, which are better than the OLD LAWS!! ! Why do HUMANS obey laws in the first place??? Is it because a government (Collection of human rulers) legislate/demand/entice people to obey them, what they say goes, like it or not, is it because they profess, I am the master of LAWS? Or is it something we are still studying, trying to understand? What is it, is it a governor we seek? If it is, is it on earth or is it just something we believe in, beyond our reach/understanding?? Is it god vs God?
*yawn*
Grow up.
Each State is better able to deal with the specific "cultural" needs of the constituents in that State than an over reaching Federal-level government. As an example, what the people of Montana may require for general well-being is going to be completely different than what someone in, say, New Jersey is going to require for all kinds of reasons.
That is exactly why State's power should and have been laid out in the Constitution to be greater than Federal powers. The federal government was never supposed to lay out blanket legislation that effected States in more than a cursory fashion, such as the power of interstate taxing–which was originally meant to be a means by which the federal government could collect money to, once again, fund it's very limited scope of powers (military, et al).
Angry little feller, aren't you?
Well said sir. Promote(not provide).
Another great point. Thank you.
Anon is an entitilement bubba. He thinks he's entitled to the spoils of your hard work. Just like the rest of the progressives.
That man was among the wisest of men and if alive would be today.
I guess the questions was to hard for Anon. I wonder why when the light is shown on the progressives they retreat and hide?
Goo, anon may look in the mirror to see nothing looking back. Apparently he is a social vampire.
Good to see you again bro. By the nature of Freedom and man, it will never be free. The price however is much more than gold or silver.
Thanks to you I just figured out who he is. Robert Gibbs.
With the introduction of 16th amendment, the vehicle for the massive explosive groth of the federal government began. The progressives figured that if they could have the power to tax the individual, then they could impose their statist utopian ideal. The administrative/regulatory state was born. They figured that they could wiggle their way around the constitution with regulations and administrative actions. Creating layers of red tape. I think that the 16th amendment coupled with the creation of the federal reserve was the beginning of the end of the freedoms our forefathers envisioned. Now we have the regulatory arms of the federal government infiltrating every corner of our lives, from education to the environment. The use of taxation on the individual gave birth the the ever growing monster that is the federal government.
Just like rats and roaches. Hmmm. LOL
Hey, rats and roaches will be offended with being grouped in with progressives. We need to be careful because they have feelings to.
So true. I apologize to all the rats and roaches for comparing proglibs to you. I hope I didn't offend any of them. You have to admit though the behavior is similar.
LMAO
"In fact, the entire Constitution, articles and amendments, is written in terms of ___LIMITING GOVERNMENT INFRINGEMENT___ upon existing rights, not creating rights. " (emphasis mine)
The Founding Fathers: The Party of No
Own It
If Progressives and States have gone too far then we should continue to communicate with our local, state, and Fed officials to take our country back, which obama/pelosi and reid have forced us to do. So Lets roll! Lets keep going to return our Country to it's former common-sense self. We're on them now that they've waken the sleeping giant.
We have the numbers! I believe we are about 300,000,000. We do have power in our numbers.
Oh, ROFLMAO! Bullseye L4S!
Yeah they creep around in similar places as the rats and roaches. Maybe they are actually a long lost tribe that mutated wildly out of control.
If they go ObamaCare, then we go Article V convention. Much easier than waiting until 2012 and hoping against common sense that Republicans will finally use their power to roll back the welfare state instead of being what Murray Rothbard called "Santa Clauses"; and furthermore this may settle the redistribution question for all time.
Indeed! Of course he had the benefit of decent education and a civil society, by any standards.
Thank the Founders for providing ample supplementary material, thus enabling future generations clarity as to their intentions.
If the Constitution were aprinted on toilet paper; Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and ilk, would make it their brand.
[...] exist outside of the government, or rather, the government is not the guarantor of our rights. As I have argued before, the right to free speech is not guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, but rather, the 1st Amendment [...]
I am embarrassed to not have responded to your post.
It went into my junk mail folder and I just read it.
Anyway, Yes this is my first feeble attempt at blogging. I wanted to join the Huf'nPuff’n post as a troll before I even learned what a troll was. However, it took only a couple more visits before I realized I would rather pound spikes into my head.
Found this site via Drudge. Conservative journalism????? Man I really want to support these guys I thought! So here I am. Hope I can contribute without making a total fool out of myself.
Maybe, at your leisure, you can drop me a pointer or 2 on who some of these people are.
I suspect some are people in high places. And I think I’m falling in love with Missy. He He.
I welcome your input.
I think there are a wide variety of people here, from all walks of life.
[...] not be applicable until the national government actually tries to enforce the individual mandate. I have asserted the importance of this amendment in a discussion of “fundamental rights,”… More importantly, this line of argument could prove persuasive to Justice Anthony Kennedy, a [...]
[...] not be applicable until the national government actually tries to enforce the individual mandate. I have asserted the importance of this amendment in a discussion of “fundamental rights,” and in… More importantly, this line of argument could prove persuasive to Justice Anthony Kennedy, a [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.