http://www.ktul.com/Global/story.asp?S=14000671&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.ktul.com/Global/story.asp?S=14000671&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
Conservatives' clout flummoxes House GOP leaders
QuoteWASHINGTON (AP) - The clout of tea party advocates and other hard-line conservatives in Congress has caught top Republicans by surprise, raising questions about whether GOP leaders can impose enough discipline in their House majority to pass tough measures, such as raising the debt ceiling.
Within 24 hours this week, House Speaker John Boehner's team had to pull a trade bill from the chamber floor, suffered an embarrassing setback on a USA Patriot Act vote, and failed to recoup money paid to the United Nations.
And in electoral politics, the tea party's threat to Republican incumbents came more into focus. Three GOP senators up for re-election in 2012 could be looking at challenges for their party nominations. One of them, five-term Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, crossed town Tuesday to tell the tea party's national town hall that he has supported its budget-balancing, smaller-government agenda for decades.
Democrats and Republicans said the events show that GOP leaders have yet to gauge the full extent of libertarianism and independence in their newly swollen ranks. Republicans gained control of the House thanks to sweeping victories last fall, many involving tea party loyalists.
"If they're divided on an issue like the Patriot Act, it's a bad omen for things to come regarding unity on their side," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md. "It's only going to get tougher for them when it comes to budget issues."
Many congressional Republicans want to slash spending beyond levels their party leaders support. GOP leaders say Congress must raise the federal debt ceiling this spring to avoid dire economic problems. Judging from the week's events, it may be a tough sell.
All three House setbacks can be reversed. The Patriot Act and U.N. votes needed super majorities under expedited House rules, and Republican leaders probably can pass them later with simple majorities. Likewise they can try to build enough support for the trade measure.
House Republican leaders Wednesday shrugged off suggestions that they've lost control of their caucus.
"We're not going to be perfect every day," Boehner told reporters. He noted that Tuesday's effort to extend provisions of the Patriot Act failed partly because it was opposed by three dozen Democrats who previously had supported them.
The Patriot Act vote would have extended the life of three surveillance tools central to the nation's post-Sept. 11 anti-terror law. The 277-148 vote fell short of the two-thirds majority required under the expedited rules.
Voting nay were 26 Republicans, many of whom have libertarian leanings and are wary of government intrusion in private lives. Joining them were 122 Democrats.
A similar vote occurred Wednesday on a bill to force the U.N. to return $179 million the United States paid into the U.N. tax equalization fund. The 259-169 vote was short of the two-thirds threshold.
Some lawmakers said GOP leaders had failed to give colleagues enough details about the trade and Patriot Act bills, and therefore they overestimated the level of support. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, a tea party favorite, said freshmen lawmakers didn't have "adequate time to digest" the contents of the Patriot Act bill.
"I hope it makes us get sharper," said King, who supported the act's extension.
Boehner said the Patriot Act provisions will be extended under a simple-majority vote soon.
When asked why the bill was brought up under the two-thirds majority rule, Boehner glared at the reporter and said, simply, "It was."
Another Republican leader Wednesday tried to cool the cost-cutting fever of tea partiers. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky., proposed ending more than 60 government programs and cutting $35 billion in spending.
Cutting more deeply at this point, Rogers told colleagues, could lead to furloughs of federal workers at the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Agency, or politically wrenching cuts to health research, special education grants to local school districts, or college Pell Grants.
There were other signs in Washington this week that Republicans are still grappling with the influence, or threat, wielded by fiscally conservative, libertarian-leaning members. Not all are associated with the tea party, but the tea party movement has boosted their numbers and clout.
Hatch's remarks at the tea party "town hall" were carried or commented on by C-SPAN, Facebook, Twitter and other outlets.
His appeal reflected the belief that tea party activists could oust him next year in the GOP nominating process. That's what happened to his colleague Bob Bennett, the veteran conservative senator who critics accused of being too willing to compromise with Democrats on some issues.
Hatch saluted the tea party for waking up the electorate, and ticked off a list of policy positions he shares with the movement: support for a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget; repeal of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul; a general distrust of big government; and a zeal for cutting spending.
"I for one want to thank the tea party for what they've done," Hatch said.
Awesome! This means that Congressional spending may be brought to a complete halt!
Now we just need to figure out a way to reverse it.
No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session. – Mark Twain (1866)
This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as we do when the baby gets hold of a hammer. – Will Rogers
Conservatives and liberals are kindred spirits as far as government spending is concerned. First, let's make sure we understand what government spending is. Since government has no resources of its own, and since there's no Tooth Fairy handing Congress the funds for the programs it enacts, we are forced to recognize that government spending is no less than the confiscation of one person's property to give it to another to whom it does not belong – in effect, legalized theft. – Walter Williams
If we do not halt this steady process of building commissions and regulatory bodies and the special legislation like huge inverted pyramids over every one of the simple constitutional provisions, we shall soon be spending many billions of dollars more. – Franklin D. Roosevelt
The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but a swindling futurity on a large scale. – Thomas Jefferson
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot help the wage-earner by tearing down the wage-payer.
You cannot further the brotherhood of mankind by encouraging class hatred.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative.
You cannot help man permanently by doing for them what they could do and should do for themselves.
What a load. Context, context is everything.
Corporations are also committing "legalized theft" (as though that contradiction in terms is even possible). They own nothing. They have no resources of their own as they only shepherd the resources of their stockholders. The thing a corporation and a government both have in common is the implicit understanding that others, whom they have explicitly approved of, who they implicitly have faith in, whom they have directly elected, are going to spend their money for them in an effort to maintain or increase their value. Even their goals are the same. Some are in it for short term monetary gain, others have committed that money for longterm safety. Some even give the money for causes they hold dear with no expectation of return. Imagine that. Corporations are just mobsters by your definition.
Roosevelt oversaw a pretty large growth in government both pre-war and during the war. Strange you would pull that quote. Jefferson owned, and mated, with slaves while proclaiming that only landowners should be able to vote, so not all of his proclamations were gems.
You cannot bring about wisdom by reproducing as policy what you have read on a bumper sticker.
Glad to see you still carry a flag in the war against the private sector. :D
Would be good to see them stop. Any day they do nothing is a day they cannot hurt us more!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 11, 2011, 12:47:38 PM
Would be good to see them stop. Any day they do nothing is a day they cannot hurt us more!!
+1
Our freedom is only endangered when congress is in session.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 11, 2011, 07:18:50 AM
Glad to see you still carry a flag in the war against the private sector. :D
Its not as big or as bright as the one you carry for anarchy!
Quote from: waterboy on February 11, 2011, 03:27:40 PM
Its not as big or as bright as the one you carry for anarchy!
Not anarchy, just freedom. ::)
Quote from: Gaspar on February 11, 2011, 04:01:32 PM
Not anarchy, just freedom. ::)
To Waterboy, freedom is anarchy. Duh!
One man's freedom is another man's anarchy and vice versa. There's your bumper sticker.
Quote from: waterboy on February 11, 2011, 05:17:56 PM
One man's freedom is another man's anarchy and vice versa. There's your bumper sticker.
So because I want: to keep more of the money I earn; the government to curb its discretionary and entitlement spending; those that are innovators and risk takers to be rewarded and not punished by taxation, I am an anarchist in your opinion? If so, this anarchy thing is freakin awesome.
Here's your bumper sticker: "I wanna suck on the teat of the (name your anarchist)".
Quote from: guido911 on February 11, 2011, 05:46:44 PM
Here's your bumper sticker: "I wanna suck on the teat of the (name your anarchist)".
+1
No chance at enticing me with your craziness G('s). Bolsheviks thought they were fighting for freedom. Pol Pot thought he was defending his country from aggressors, thus defending their freedom to rule. The Nazi's wanted freedom for Deutschland. You want freedom from taxes and gub'mnt.
Well, we all doin' what we can.
What G and G don't quite understand is that it's not just the government that has the capability to encroach upon our liberty. Government is a vital check against monopolists who cry "freedom" while bringing ruin to our economy. It's not perfect, by any means, but it's a damn sight better than nothing.
If business replaces government, we might as well be back to monarchy for all the say we get in how our country is run.
I'm a firm believer in checks and balances. That is, government exists to balance other powers. Government has branches which (should) balance each other to prevent one from growing too great. Even we the people should have a balance. That balance is the Constitution, which helps to stave off the tyranny of the majority.
I think (large) business is pretty much broken in this country, but I don't advocate wholesale dismantlement of the corporate form. I also think government is pretty much broken in this country, but I also don't desire to see it dismantled either. I would like both to be fixed. Just like when my deadbolt is sticky and my shower leaks, I fix the problems rather than tearing down my house because it doesn't work right.
G and G seem to think that deadbolts are for rubes and showers are for elitists.
:)
I thought for a few moments that my intellect might be failing me. That I might be misusing a word. So I got out the old college Websters to look up the word "Anarchy". That was worthwhile. Every Libertarian should do that before they start listing their bumper sticker politics.
Anarchy: 1. Absence of government. 2 Lawless confusion and political disorder. 3. General disorder [Gk. anarchias without a leader]
So, yes G(1), freedom is anarchy of sorts. Freedom from government. And the Greek word kind of brings to mind Tea Partiers doesn't it? Who is their leader? Do they really want any leader? Judging by the way they recently treated Rand Paul one wonders if they only consider a "leader" anyone who agrees with the group.
Anarchism: 1. The theory that all forms of government are incompatible with individual and social liberty and should be abolished. (philosophic anarchism- The advocacy of voluntary cooperation and mutual aid as a substitute for the coercive power of the state).
That nails it. The G's are philosophic anarchists.
Who are fighting for freedom of course. They are freedom fighters. All hail the freedom fighters may they always have freedom fries at their table and freedom flags pinned to their lapels.
They aren't anarchists. I am an anarchist. But I also grew up somewhere along the line to the realization that there is a need for government, and in recent years, that need has reverted back to a similar, if less intense, version of where we were about 110 years ago with big companies run amuck and the government bought and paid for by those same corporations.
ANY and ALL regulation, union activity, social rebellion in this country after the Civil War while maybe not 100% motivated by corporate excess, at least 60 to 70%. And one of the best Republican Presidents we have ever had - besides Gerald Ford - warned us explicitly about a well developed problem that we were experiencing in the late 50s, which has done nothing but accelerate ever since. (Eisenhower talking about the military-industrial complex.)
And the second big realization is that there IS no freedom. Just because you have not run into the "wall" doesn't mean it isn't there. Couple of quick examples; just ask the Mormons about their treatment concerning just about everything from the founder of same to the issue of polygamy. Yeah, there's some religious freedom. (No, I am not Mormon - I have friends who are, but I think it is all kind of odd - but they have incredible family values, as well as many other exceptional values like being prepared - best Boy Scouts in the world, and avoiding debt, that the rest of our society could not only learn from but SHOULD embrace.)
And the religious practices of pretty much every Native American tribe. Official US policy for about 400 years was extermination. Of what is arguably the single most "free" society the world has ever seen. Harsh way of life a lot of times, but true personal liberty within a tribal group was incredible. And since we are NOT all about freedom, it had to go. (Kill 'em all...let God sort 'em out....)
And the latest, greatest example of our "love of freedom" would have to be the Patriot Act. (In case someone wants to dwell on how the previous examples were "ancient history".) And we could talk about Ford Motor getting the military to come in and machine gun their employees. And Kent state. Kids throwing rocks at 'armored' soldiers with M-1, 30-06's. Or our support of dozens of cheesy little tin-horn dictators, the lamenting and lashing out against, and in some cases working actively to depose FAIRLY elected democratic leaders. Talk about your military-industrial complex!! We SAY we support democracy and freedom and we turn around and our government DOES; Iran. Iraq. Afghanistan. Panama. Venezuela. Philippines. Viet Nam. Nicaragua. Israel/Palestine. Okinawa. All in the name of democracy and freedom.
As I have ranted about before, we as a society have no sense or knowledge of history, possibly because we are so young, but I think more likely because we are so arrogant. We feel that the world should be grateful for our imperialistic voyeurism (what Eisenhower warned about), and cannot understand how they could be so mad or hate us so much. It's because we don't know what happened in 1951. Or 1976. Or 1947. Or much of anything.
And don't really seem to care much.
Quote from: waterboy on February 12, 2011, 10:58:59 AM
:)
I thought for a few moments that my intellect might be failing me. That I might be misusing a word. So I got out the old college Websters to look up the word "Anarchy". That was worthwhile. Every Libertarian should do that before they start listing their bumper sticker politics.
Anarchy: 1. Absence of government. 2 Lawless confusion and political disorder. 3. General disorder [Gk. anarchias without a leader]
So, yes G(1), freedom is anarchy of sorts. Freedom from government. And the Greek word kind of brings to mind Tea Partiers doesn't it? Who is their leader? Do they really want any leader? Judging by the way they recently treated Rand Paul one wonders if they only consider a "leader" anyone who agrees with the group.
Anarchism: 1. The theory that all forms of government are incompatible with individual and social liberty and should be abolished. (philosophic anarchism- The advocacy of voluntary cooperation and mutual aid as a substitute for the coercive power of the state).
That nails it. The G's are philosophic anarchists.
Who are fighting for freedom of course. They are freedom fighters. All hail the freedom fighters may they always have freedom fries at their table and freedom flags pinned to their lapels.
No. Libertarianism is based on Jeffersonian principals. Government has a purpose. A very necessary but narrowly defined purpose. Our constitution was constructed to empower government within narrow constraints. To enable government to serve people without the threat of people serving government.
A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. – Thomas Jefferson (1801)Nice try. Thanks for playing.
Interestingly, our libertarian conversations around here always seem to be centered on how government has failed so spectacularly at governing anything, and thus should be radically reduced to virtually nil. We talk very little about how government could be used to advance libertarianism.
That's why you seem like such an anarchist at heart, Gassy. There's never ANY role for government in your politics.
Quote from: we vs us on February 14, 2011, 09:24:52 AM
Interestingly, our libertarian conversations around here always seem to be centered on how government has failed so spectacularly at governing anything, and thus should be radically reduced to virtually nil. We talk very little about how government could be used to advance libertarianism.
That's why you seem like such an anarchist at heart, Gassy. There's never ANY role for government in your politics.
There never really is for tried and true Libertarians, which is what the Tea Partiers pretend to espouse...the reduction or removal of gubmint services....
....until it interrupts those gubmint checks they've been getting.
Quote from: we vs us on February 14, 2011, 09:24:52 AM
Interestingly, our libertarian conversations around here always seem to be centered on how government has failed so spectacularly at governing anything, and thus should be radically reduced to virtually nil. We talk very little about how government could be used to advance libertarianism.
That's why you seem like such an anarchist at heart, Gassy. There's never ANY role for government in your politics.
Government should never be used as a tool to advance
anything. Government is force. If you wish to advance a political mindset or philosophy, that is done through education and understanding, and the free and open communication of the people.
Dude, you're not a player. You're just a philosophical mule. You act as though Jefferson was the only keen intellect who signed the Constitution. He was a star but certainly only one view among many of government operations.
BTW, any other "libbies" recieve e-mail from a sender known as "consigliere" that links to a medical marijuana operation in Cali? Someone here thinks they're cute.
Quote from: waterboy on February 14, 2011, 09:41:22 AM
Dude, you're not a player. You're just a philosophical mule. You act as though Jefferson was the only keen intellect who signed the Constitution. He was a star but certainly only one view among many of government operations.
BTW, any other "libbies" recieve e-mail from a sender known as "consigliere" that links to a medical marijuana operation in Cali? Someone here thinks they're cute.
Very true.
Never heard of your "consigliere" friend.
I find it entertaining how when one begins to talk about very simple concepts of individual freedom, and basic constitutional foundations that our government is based on, liberals begin to twist and foam.
I am saying nothing controversial. The role of government interpreted by a libertarian is fundamentally identical to what is presented in the constitution. Therefore this leads me to believe that the constitution is what liberals have issues with.
Help me to understand. Do liberals view the constitution as antiquated or somehow irrelevant?
Quote from: Gaspar on February 14, 2011, 09:52:20 AM
I find it entertaining how when one begins to talk about very simple concepts of individual freedom, and basic constitutional foundations that our government is based on, liberals begin to twist and foam.
I am saying nothing controversial. The role of government interpreted by a libertarian is fundamentally identical to what is presented in the constitution. Therefore this leads me to believe that the constitution is what liberals have issues with.
Help me to understand. Do liberals view the constitution as antiquated or somehow irrelevant?
No, it's just easier to resort to character insults and ad hominems when they either don't agree or simply don't understand what you are talking about.
in re: "anarchy"
Quote from: Conan71 on February 14, 2011, 10:01:00 AM
No, it's just easier to resort to character insults and ad hominems when they either don't agree or simply don't understand what you are talking about.
in re: "anarchy"
Let's not isolate this to just 'libbies'. I know of at least one 'conservative' poster on here whose
modus operandi could be considered just this.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 14, 2011, 10:01:00 AM
No, it's just easier to resort to character insults and ad hominems when they either don't agree or simply don't understand what you are talking about.
in re: "anarchy"
Yes, but it's un-necessary. The idea is to develop through debate. Defend what you can and surrender the rest.
If I do not understand, then teach me. Don't stomp around like an angry teenage girl.
Don't hurt yourself. ;)
Quote from: Gaspar on February 14, 2011, 09:35:52 AM
Government should never be used as a tool to advance anything. Government is force. If you wish to advance a political mindset or philosophy, that is done through education and understanding, and the free and open communication of the people.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that government is the sole entity capable of using force. In times past, corporations used force in our own country. In others, they still do. I can use force; you can use force. Collectively, we can muster a large amount of force, whether through buying it or convincing people to use it on our behalf through rhetoric.
As waterboy mentioned, libertarians do not have a monopoly on the Constitution. The true libertarian constitution (the Articles of Confederation) produced a spectacular failure of government. Our present Constitution was a mish-mash of all sorts of different points of view, one of which was indeed the libertarian point of view. It has since evolved further from being the purely libertarian document you make it out to be as it has been amended over the years.
Someone else accused me of equating anarchy with freedom. I simply responded with a Websters definition. Turns out they're the philosophical anarchist.
Someone else gets pissy whenever their view of the world conflicts with differing views, refuses to be taught and stomps around like a teenager. The teaching begins when the student arrives.
You guys set the ground rules, define others to fit your world, (I was never considered liberal till I posted here), then seem perplexed when we all don't bow to your obvious superior views. You might consider re-analyzing those views. GI-GO.
I am not a spokesperson for the left. I'm just a guy who has FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson era views. Views that worked pretty well till Reagan, Bush & Paul surfaced. Much has been written here and elsewhere describing Liberal, Progressive, Moderate views. Reread them. The same views btw that our founding fathers (Yes! They were Liberals!) used to write the constitution. Now you're interested?
Quote from: Conan71 on February 14, 2011, 10:01:00 AM
No, it's just easier to resort to character insults and ad hominems when they either don't agree or simply don't understand what you are talking about.
in re: "anarchy"
From me, no and no. It ain't an ad hominem, though I very much wonder to what degree Gassy believes the things he believes.
Gassy: I believe the Constitution is one of the foundational documents of the modern world. Taken with the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, you're looking at a corpus that is as important as the Magna Carta, or Hammurabi's Code. But I'm at a loss to understand how and why your reading of it qualifies as originalist. Your reading seems highly selective, and your opinion of what it should accomplish seems very narrow when compared with the mechanisms the document itself sets up to mediate the losses of liberty.
To me, the Constitution guarantees that the liberty we will inevitably lose when being ruled will be adequately checked and balanced, and that those losses will be slow and agreed upon by as many people as possible. It guarantees that the majority rules but that the minority will be protected. And it guarantees that the document itself can change with the times. And the Founders structured the government itself -- all three branches of government, from soup to nuts -- to help mediate our freedoms in the context of a governed society.
And yes, when I say "mediate our freedoms," you're going to break out in hives. But really, our freedoms aren't absolute and haven't been since day one. The existence of the judicial branch alone is evidence enough that there has to be a mechanism making sure our freedoms and our government are in balance. Look further into how the Judicial interfaces with the creation of and enforcement of the law -- how it will and will not intervene for certain things -- and it's clear that your freedoms aren't meant to always and cleanly win out.
Anyhow, I don't find that we're having a lot of logical conversations about libertarianism. I feel like our conversations veer off into the ideological almost immediately, and I can't get a good factual read about what you want, rather than what you don't want -- which seems to me to be everything. If we were trying to serve together in Congress, say, I would have no idea how to approach a relationship with you politically, because you seem hostile to the act of governance itself.
Quote from: nathanm on February 14, 2011, 10:42:38 AM
The true libertarian constitution (the Articles of Confederation).
Wrong!
Quote from: Gaspar on February 14, 2011, 10:57:34 AM
Wrong!
Is that really the best you can do? The Articles of Confederation, in my view, created a government for people who didn't want government.
Quote from: we vs us on February 14, 2011, 10:55:18 AM
From me, no and no. It ain't an ad hominem, though I very much wonder to what degree Gassy believes the things he believes.
Gassy: I believe the Constitution is one of the foundational documents of the modern world. Taken with the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, you're looking at a corpus that is as important as the Magna Carta, or Hammurabi's Code. But I'm at a loss to understand how and why your reading of it qualifies as originalist. Your reading seems highly selective, and your opinion of what it should accomplish seems very narrow when compared with the mechanisms the document itself sets up to mediate the losses of liberty.
To me, the Constitution guarantees that the liberty we will inevitably lose when being ruled will be adequately checked and balanced, and that those losses will be slow and agreed upon by as many people as possible. It guarantees that the majority rules but that the minority will be protected. And it guarantees that the document itself can change with the times. And the Founders structured the government itself -- all three branches of government, from soup to nuts -- to help mediate our freedoms in the context of a governed society.
And yes, when I say "mediate our freedoms," you're going to break out in hives. But really, our freedoms aren't absolute and haven't been since day one. The existence of the judicial branch alone is evidence enough that there has to be a mechanism making sure our freedoms and our government are in balance. Look further into how the Judicial interfaces with the creation of and enforcement of the law -- how it will and will not intervene for certain things -- and it's clear that your freedoms aren't meant to always and cleanly win out.
Anyhow, I don't find that we're having a lot of logical conversations about libertarianism. I feel like our conversations veer off into the ideological almost immediately, and I can't get a good factual read about what you want, rather than what you don't want -- which seems to me to be everything. If we were trying to serve together in Congress, say, I would have no idea how to approach a relationship with you politically, because you seem hostile to the act of governance itself.
Why seek to understand someone else's philosophy when you can simply bloviate?
Quote from: Conan71 on February 14, 2011, 11:02:11 AM
Why seek to understand someone else's philosophy when you can simply bloviate?
You may find this shocking, but there was a time when I self-identified as libertarian. It's a wonderful philosophy in abstract.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 14, 2011, 11:02:11 AM
Why seek to understand someone else's philosophy when you can simply bloviate?
Because there's no there there.
Quote from: we vs us on February 14, 2011, 10:55:18 AM
From me, no and no. It ain't an ad hominem, though I very much wonder to what degree Gassy believes the things he believes.
To me, the Constitution guarantees that the liberty we will inevitably lose when being ruled will be adequately checked and balanced, and that those losses will be slow and agreed upon by as many people as possible. It guarantees that the majority rules but that the minority will be protected. And it guarantees that the document itself can change with the times. And the Founders structured the government itself -- all three branches of government, from soup to nuts -- to help mediate our freedoms in the context of a governed society.
First of all, what I believe may not be right. I am happy to admit that. It is an evolved philosophy that I share, and it continues to evolve.
Secondly, your interpretation of the Constitution is incorrect. The constitution is not designed to protect us from anything but government. It does not serve to "mediate our freedoms." That intension is wholly absent in it's intent.
Contrary to popular opinion, the Constitution was not – and is not – a grant of rights to the citizenry. Instead, the Constitution is a "barbed-wire entanglement" designed to interfere with, restrict, and impede government officials in the exercise of political power. – Jacob Hornberger
Our Constitution is not a body of law to govern the people; it was formulated to govern the government, to make government the servant and not the master of the people. – William F. Jasper
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. – Daniel Webster (1782-1852)
Edited: to add a little Webster.
Quote from: waterboy on February 14, 2011, 10:47:34 AM
The same views btw that our founding fathers (Yes! They were Liberals!) used to write the constitution.
Actually, the English probably considered them to be somewhat radical. Maybe even bordering on terrorist since we shot from behind trees rather than line up to be mowed down.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 14, 2011, 11:10:40 AM
Actually, the English probably considered them to be somewhat radical. Maybe even bordering on terrorist since we shot from behind trees rather than line up to be mowed down.
John Locke, upon whose writings much of the constitution is based on, was part of the upper class during his time just before the Revolution. These so called liberal ideas based on the rights of man were floating around all over England and France unofficially during the 1700's. They were certainly considered radical by the King and could subject their believers to death. Our founding fathers were well read, well traveled and well aware of these liberal precepts.
Yes, the British had little respect for our military tactics we had learned from the natives along the frontier. I would disagree that they felt we earned the label terrorist however. A terrorist commits heinous crimes in order to terrorize any opposition. The British were much better at terrorist behavior than we were. They considered us hopeless simpletons who needed to be put in their place.
Kind of like we think of each other around here.
Why is Waterboy signing on as "guest"?
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 14, 2011, 11:10:40 AM
Actually, the English probably considered them to be somewhat radical. Maybe even bordering on terrorist since we shot from behind trees rather than line up to be mowed down.
Actually the terminology we employ today is quite twisted from it's original definitions. The terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" have very little of their original trappings. Both have been infiltrated by philosophies that could find no other place in the modern world. They are but terms. It is the philosophy of individual men that matters, and the framers had very diverse beliefs. But, they recognized common threads. Those threads allowed them to construct a fortress to constrain the power of government from imposing its will on free men.
Red, I believe the framers were quite liberal based on the definition of the time period.
Quote from: guido911 on February 14, 2011, 09:32:48 PM
Why is Waterboy signing on as "guest"?
Yeah, what's up with that? Has he been kicked out? What happened?
Quote from: Gaspar on February 14, 2011, 11:06:12 AM
First of all, what I believe may not be right. I am happy to admit that. It is an evolved philosophy that I share, and it continues to evolve.
Secondly, your interpretation of the Constitution is incorrect. The constitution is not designed to protect us from anything but government. It does not serve to "mediate our freedoms." That intension is wholly absent in it's intent.
Contrary to popular opinion, the Constitution was not – and is not – a grant of rights to the citizenry. Instead, the Constitution is a "barbed-wire entanglement" designed to interfere with, restrict, and impede government officials in the exercise of political power. – Jacob Hornberger
Our Constitution is not a body of law to govern the people; it was formulated to govern the government, to make government the servant and not the master of the people. – William F. Jasper
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. – Daniel Webster (1782-1852)
Edited: to add a little Webster.
The framers had a very healthy mistrust of "the people" and popular opinion. They shielded government from the people all over the place. They very much wanted to protect people from the tyranny of the masses and created a great deal of insulation and checks and balances on the will of the people. They protected people rights only secondarily with the bills of rights which of course wasn't achieved as an original part of the constitution.
Examples:
The Electoral College. They didn't trust people to vote directly for president, the original intent was that in local regions people would elect a wise and trusted person to vote on their behalf for president. This was an intentional separation between popular vote and power.
Election of Senators: Much like the Electoral College, originally Senators were not representatives of the people at all, that was only intended to be the House, the Senate was intended to be the representative of each state as a whole elected by the state legislatures.
Lack of any mechanism for direct petition. It just doesn't exist and that is intentional.
Look at the three branches of government as originally intended, each branch has checks and balances on the other two. And only half of one branch was elected by the direct will of the people.
They also limited states powers and made states plainly subordinate. While the states were given influence through the Senate, they are always overruled by Federal authority. This also insulated government from the people's direct influence.
Amending the constitution: The founders did want a bill of rights and it was the first change they made to their own document and it was achieved and it codified the rights of citizens. But at the same time, they made removing or changing those rights very difficult. The 2/3 rules make popular opinion far from good enough to amend the constitution.
Throughout the Constitution you can plainly see that founders didn't fear government so much as they had a fear of unchecked power in any one person's or groups hands and a great fear of the whim of the masses. We are a government "Of the people" not "by the people" and have strong mechanisms that protect the rights of the minority.
Quote from: swake on February 15, 2011, 09:38:33 AM
The framers had a very healthy mistrust of "the people" and popular opinion. They shielded government from the people all over the place. They very much wanted to protect people from the tyranny of the masses and created a great deal of insulation and checks and balances on the will of the people. They protected people rights only secondarily with the bills of rights which of course wasn't achieved as an original part of the constitution.
Examples:
The Electoral College. They didn't trust people to vote directly for president, the original intent was that in local regions people would elect a wise and trusted person to vote on their behalf for president. This was an intentional separation between popular vote and power.
Election of Senators: Much like the Electoral College, originally Senators were not representatives of the people at all, that was only intended to be the House, the Senate was intended to be the representative of each state as a whole elected by the state legislatures.
Lack of any mechanism for direct petition. It just doesn't exist and that is intentional.
Look at the three branches of government as originally intended, each branch has checks and balances on the other two. And only half of one branch was elected by the direct will of the people.
They also limited states powers and made states plainly subordinate. While the states were given influence through the Senate, they are always overruled by Federal authority. This also insulated government from the people's direct influence.
Amending the constitution: The founders did want a bill of rights and it was the first change they made to their own document and it was achieved and it codified the rights of citizens. But at the same time, they made removing or changing those rights very difficult. The 2/3 rules make popular opinion far from good enough to amend the constitution.
Throughout the Constitution you can plainly see that founders didn't fear government so much as they had a fear of unchecked power in any one person's or groups hands and a great fear of the whim of the masses. We are a government "Of the people" not "by the people" and have strong mechanisms that protect the rights of the minority.
I don't disagree with that. Accurate. They believed Democracy was "Mob Rule." They realized that Democracy was simply the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. . .tyranny of the majority.
They cherished individual liberty within the framework of a Constitutional Republic. It wasn't "mistrust of the people", it was mistrust of the "Mob". In a democracy, two wolves and a sheep take a majority vote on what's for supper. In a Constitutional Republic, the wolves are forbidden on voting on what's for supper, and the sheep are well armed.
They protected the individual from both government and the "mob." They struck a beautiful balance. The only reverence they had for government was in its necessity to protect individual rights through the enforcement of law.
FROM THE US ARMY TRAINING MANUAL
"Democracy – A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic – negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard for consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."
Quote from: Gaspar on February 15, 2011, 10:22:57 AM
I don't disagree with that. Accurate. They believed Democracy was "Mob Rule." They realized that Democracy was simply the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. . .tyranny of the majority.
They cherished individual liberty within the framework of a Constitutional Republic. It wasn't "mistrust of the people", it was mistrust of the "Mob". In a democracy, two wolves and a sheep take a majority vote on what's for supper. In a Constitutional Republic, the wolves are forbidden on voting on what's for supper, and the sheep are well armed.
They protected the individual from both government and the "mob." They struck a beautiful balance. The only reverence they had for government was in its necessity to protect individual rights through the enforcement of law.
FROM THE US ARMY TRAINING MANUAL
"Democracy – A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic – negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard for consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."
Quick point of order: that US Army Training Manual is quoted from the 1928 edition, as best as I can find, and is cited almost exclusively in places like firearmsforum.com, libertytree.ca, etc.
Would dearly LOVE to see a slightly more verifiable cite.
Quote from: swake on February 15, 2011, 09:11:19 AM
Yeah, what's up with that? Has he been kicked out? What happened?
Why the silent treatment on our requests?
Quote from: we vs us on February 15, 2011, 11:15:20 AM
Quick point of order: that US Army Training Manual is quoted from the 1928 edition, as best as I can find, and is cited almost exclusively in places like firearmsforum.com, libertytree.ca, etc.
Would dearly LOVE to see a slightly more verifiable cite.
Geez. . .excuse me. I am very aware of that. It was a quote pertaining to Democracy as a pure form of governance. I find it very accurate. If you have information to the contrary, or can illustrate a functioning purely democratic governance, please do so.
You may notice that most of what I quote is actually even older ;). Sorry about that, but I find great wisdom in history. It's all I have to learn from.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 15, 2011, 01:47:50 PM
Geez. . .excuse me. I am very aware of that. It was a quote pertaining to Democracy as a pure form of governance. I find it very accurate. If you have information to the contrary, or can illustrate a functioning purely democratic governance, please do so.
You may notice that most of what I quote is actually even older ;). Sorry about that, but I find great wisdom in history. It's all I have to learn from.
I don't know that there are any forms of pure governance that aren't authoritarian in nature. We are a constitutional federal democratic republic.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 15, 2011, 01:47:50 PM
Geez. . .excuse me. I am very aware of that. It was a quote pertaining to Democracy as a pure form of governance. I find it very accurate. If you have information to the contrary, or can illustrate a functioning purely democratic governance, please do so.
You may notice that most of what I quote is actually even older ;). Sorry about that, but I find great wisdom in history. It's all I have to learn from.
My apologies. I misunderstood how you were using it.
Quote from: we vs us on February 15, 2011, 02:06:49 PM
My apologies. I misunderstood how you were using it.
Sallright! :)
Here is an intriguing take on a possible government shut down.
QuoteThe obvious point here is that if it's so "reckless" to shutdown the government, why have Wisconsin legislators, the President and the DNC all supported the government shutdown in Wisconsin? Not only that, they have shutdown the government by fleeing the state and breaking the law, not to mention the illegal union strikes shutting down schools and national Democrats helping to organize the angry mob descending on Madison.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/after-wisconsin-how-will-democrats-argue-against-gop-government-shutdown_550497.html