- Here I will throw out the first bait to debate why we must vote with a purpose
OK let us have a serious conservation, some level of government now employs or gives a monthly check to about 25% of the population. The government union jobs pay about 20% more than comparable private companies. The so called stimulus bill was mostly spend to bailout cities, counties and state union jobs and pension plans that is why we did not see any job creations from $ 900 billion dollars.
Next - do you think it is permitted in the Constitution for the government to TAKE more from you and me so that they can give it to them? Call it medicaid, welfare, food stamps, education grants for college, trains and buses, minority assistance, free housing or hundreds of other programs. Is this fair right or just, or is it just a bribe for votes of those in power to stay in power and reward thier friend with your and my money?
Remember - if it sounds to good to be true it is probably is. There is no such thing as a middle ground in government - would that be they only steal half as much from each of us to give to their friend and minorities that make up their power block. How can anything be half correct? How can anything be half incorrect? That is why our Forefathers wrote the Constitution to bind the hands of those that would take from you and give to them. However the trisection government gave each other powers that none or even all of them collectively possessed - they have broken the rule of law and conspire to continue with courts acting outside their Constitutional powers and the Legislative and Executive branch refuse to sanction them.
WE will suffer the misuse of power until we elect enough Constitutional Conservatives that they can force the return to the original intent and meaning of the Founders Constitution. It the trisection government wants to alter or change parts of the Constitution then by all that is holy - submit an amendment as is required under the laws of the land.
SO VOTE WISELY THE FUTURE OF YOUR NATION IS ON THE LINE - TO BE FREE OR NOT TO BE FREE THAT IS THE QUESTION.
- Permalink Reply by on
- We must all keep trying to share the lessons of the Founders and the RULE - by - LAW concepts so our fellow citizens can learn and share with others. This is going to be a person by person, faction by faction effort which will take maybe a decade to reach full bloom and Restoring the Freedoms of the Republican form of our Constitution.This will be done because it is the only means that selfish citizens can protect their own property and future. There is no way back, we can only go forward toward selfish freedoms for all.
- Permalink Reply by on
- This is USURPATION on steroids - Obama and a new executive order placing rural areas under AGENDA 21 UN RULES BY HIS KING POWER EDICT.This is just another reason we need to take our government back -
- Permalink Reply by on
- Some further thoughts on 'can we take it back':
Montesquieu- The Spirit of Laws, Book III,3. Of the Principle of Democracy."There is no great share of probity necessary to support a monarchical or despotic government. The force of laws in one, and the prince's arm in the other, are sufficient to direct and maintain the whole. But in a popular state, one spring more is necessary, namely, virtue.What I have here advanced is confirmed by the unanimous testimony of historians, and is extremely agreeable to the nature of things. For it is clear that in a monarchy, where he who commands the execution of the laws generally thinks himself above them, there is less need of virtue than in a popular government, where the person entrusted with the execution of the laws is sensible of his being subject to their direction.Clear is it also that a monarch who, through bad advice or indolence, ceases to enforce the execution of the laws, may easily repair the evil; he has only to follow other advice; or to shake off this indolence. But when, in a popular government, there is a suspension of the laws, as this can proceed only from the corruption of the republic, the state is certainly undone.A very droll spectacle it was in the last century to behold the impotent efforts of the English towards the establishment of democracy. As they who had a share in the direction of public affairs were void of virtue; as their ambition was inflamed by the success of the most daring of their members; as the prevailing parties were successively animated by the spirit of faction, the government was continually changing: the people, amazed at so many revolutions, in vain attempted to erect a commonwealth. At length, when the country had undergone the most violent shocks, they were obliged to have recourse to the very government which they had so wantonly proscribed.When Sylla thought of restoring Rome to her liberty, this unhappy city was incapable of receiving that blessing. She had only the feeble remains of virtue, which were continually diminishing. Instead of being roused from her lethargy by Cæsar, Tiberius, Caius Claudius, Nero, and Domitian, she riveted every day her chains; if she struck some blows, her aim was at the tyrant, not at the tyranny.The politic Greeks, who lived under a popular government, knew no other support than virtue. The modern inhabitants of that country are entirely taken up with manufacture, commerce, finances, opulence, and luxury.When virtue is banished, ambition invades the minds of those who are disposed to receive it, and avarice possesses the whole community. The objects of their desires are changed; what they were fond of before has become indifferent; they were free while under the restraint of laws, but they would fain now be free to act against law; and as each citizen is like a slave who has run away from his master, that which was a maxim of equity he calls rigour; that which was a rule of action he styles constraint; and to precaution he gives the name of fear. Frugality, and not the thirst of gain, now passes for avarice. Formerly the wealth of individuals constituted the public treasure; but now this has become the patrimony of private persons. The members of the commonwealth riot on the public spoils, and its strength is only the power of a few, and the licence of many.Athens was possessed of the same number of forces when she triumphed so gloriously as when with such infamy she was enslaved. She had twenty thousand citizens when she defended the Greeks against the Persians, when she contended for empire with Sparta, and invaded Sicily. She had twenty thousand when Demetrius Phalereus numbered them as slaves are told by the head in a market-place. When Philip attempted to lord it over Greece, and appeared at the gates of Athens she had even then lost nothing but time. We may see in Demosthenes how difficult it was to awaken her; she dreaded Philip, not as the enemy of her liberty, but of her pleasures. This famous city, which had withstood so many defeats, and having been so often destroyed had as often risen out of her ashes, was overthrown at Chæronea, and at one blow deprived of all hopes of resource. What does it avail her that Philip sends back her prisoners, if he does not return her men? It was ever after as easy to triumph over the forces of Athens as it had been difficult to subdue her virtue.How was it possible for Carthage to maintain her ground? When Hannibal, upon his being made prætor, endeavoured to hinder the magistrates from plundering the republic, did not they complain of him to the Romans? Wretches, who would fain be citizens without a city, and be beholden for their riches to their very destroyers! Rome soon insisted upon having three hundred of their principal citizens as hostages; she obliged them next to surrender their arms and ships; and then she declared war. From the desperate efforts of this defenceless city, one may judge of what she might have performed in her full vigour, and assisted by virtue."------------------------------------------------------------------
So, if 'virtue' is indeed a requirement for orderly and just govt, will we be able to 'take back' our govt? Or if we did, would it be a replay of the English example: 'At length, when the country had undergone the most violent shocks, they were obliged to have recourse to the very government which they had so wantonly proscribed.'? Is it possible to 'take back' our govt when the quality of virtue is lacking in the body politic?My apologies if I am being vague or taking the discussion in an unwarranted direction.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I certainly appreciate this post. I’ve not read this or many of the works others have referenced. I think everyone is doing a service when they extract these really cool portions of major works. It helps me decide what to read in the little time I have to do so.Concerning virtue, who is to say when we collectively no longer have enough to take back our government? Where is that point of no return? I for one do not know so I will forge ahead in the absence of metric by which to judge the question.Having said that, the belief that a Republics success depends on a virtuous people is pretty well documented. Here is a similar excerpt concerning virtue from NOVANGLUS ANDMASSACHUSETTENSIS, (John Adams) February 6, 1775.“License of the press is no proof of liberty. When a people are corrupted, the press may be made an engine to complete their ruin: and it is now notorious, that the ministry, are daily employing it to increase and establish corruption, and to pluck up virtue by the roots. Liberty can no more exist without virtue and independence, than the body can live and move without a soul. When these are gone, and the popular branch of the constitution is become dependent on the minister, as it is in England, or cut off as it in America, all other forms of the constitution may remain; but if you look for liberty, you will grope in vain, and the freedom of the press, instead of promoting the cause of liberty, will but hasten its destruction…”
- Permalink Reply by on
- I always appreciate your posts. You state:
Concerning virtue, who is to say when we collectively no longer have enough to take back our government? Where is that point of no return?
Ahh...that is the question. I am not suggesting anyone give up nor do I say that our Republic is 'irretrievable'. My questions were more of a rhetorical nature. In answer to my own question I would say if virtue is lacking in a significant portion of the populace then no, it is not.
That's not to say an attempt to 'take it back' should not be made or that I, or anyone else, could make a definitive pronouncement as to whether there is enough collective virtue remaining to allow a restoration or not. I would say to even have a chance to find a definitive answer one would have to make the attempt.
Perhaps I'm engaging in a bit of mental preparation for a possible outcome of the attempt?
Just sharing ideas with others whose opinions and feedback I respect.
- Permalink Reply by on
- To all, I was part of the Sagebrush Rebellion in the 70's and 80's here is a link to show what we tried to do but the Federal Government won after we fought a good fight.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The post went down the rabbit hole again?Let me add this to the thread as it is a current problem that seems to have no end and no answers.
OPEN THE COFFIN OF POLITICS. Speak of programs that occurred because they were needed. These could have been done by the individual states as the Constitution requires. The clean water act is a real mess and has been since first passed, the limits are unreal and costs of water has increased many times the inflation rate. Not to mention the mess they have created over water rights.
Parks are a business of states, the federal government has no claim or right in the Constitution to own land in the States and not pay taxes. (see Sagebrush Rebellion 1970-1980s) Let us review the other Progressive (liberal socialist) accomplishments - Medicare and medicaid bankrupt and filled with bad management, Department of Education resulting in the rapid degradation of learning over 50% of the high school graduates are functional illiterate and can not do simple math. When schools were built by the towns they served they got the job done with a tenth of the dollars per student - oh maybe turning the teaching profession over to the unions had some effect?
Then let us go onto the post office system, this is a Constitutional allowed Federal function which includes Post roads (national highway system). They have done real well; have they not? Next we can go to railroads, the Federal Government took over the Amtrak system 30 or more years ago stating that they would just finance it's recovery and then sell it back to the private system - did not happen but the unions kept their jobs. Maybe this is what will happen to the Auto industry, save union jobs and lose billions per year.
I can go on and on but the point is made. Progressive Socialist operations of owning or "controlling industries" just does not work. England tried it and abandoned the concept under the Thatcher Government in the 80's. France has tried it since the revolution and is now giving up on the idea and turning conservative. The treasured Free medical system of Switzerland is only good if you are included in the political class or the rich which get very good care, however the regular citizens receive something less.
Like always Progressive-ism - Socialism rewards the political class and the rich over the hoards of just workers. Communism had it's super rich they were the 10 % that belonged to the "PARTY". Europe and the entire EU is turning to Conservative business methods to rebuilt their industries and economies. China has built a economic powerhouse in Hong Kong by limiting income taxes to a fixted rate and so did Russia (not a progressive system like America).
- Permalink Reply by on
- Every citizen has an equal opportunity to achieve the American Dream. The Constitution which encouraged Capitalism as the economic engine to drive our economy provides the best opportunity for all of us to achieve this dream. This requires that we all have equal protection from our government. So that we can maximize our potential without unfair burdens imposed on us by our government. The United States is the most affluent society in the world. We have achieved this through Capitalism and the protection of the Constitution. Left unrestricted our government would grow into bureaucratic nightmare of corrupt National Socialism. Socialism has in most all cases lead to failure, due to bankruptcy of the national currencies of all of those countries that did not have the wisdom of our Founding Fathers to prevent them from falling into this trap. Ignorance of the Constitution, the vision of the founding fathers, and merits of capitalism is seducing many of our citizens to want to”Change our Government” I am afraid of the unintended consequences of what this change will lead to.I am a Republican because I believe that the Republican Party offers the best support of the Constitution as visualized by our Founding Fathers. That is not to say that all Republicans have this Conservative vision, nor does it mean that there are no Conservative Democrats. The last great Democrat Conservative John F. Kenney once said “ask not what your government can do for you but what you can do for your government”. This concept seams to be totally lost in the Democratic Party today. The Democrats have fallen into intellectual idealism which disregards the frailties of men, the corrupting influence of power, and the fact that too many people would prefer to grant their welfare to the government, than take responsibility for themselves and their family. All of these things will eventually bring failure and bankruptcy to the policies that they so proudly proclaim is the “change our country needs”.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The Democrats are owned lock stock and barrel by the following factions: Unions, environmentalists, socialists, Communists, Progressives, Liberals, Educators, government workers, welfare "TAKERS" and ice cream eaters in general. All of these factions must be feed daily from the bounty of the taxpayers with the Political class taking their share off the top of course.Free enterprise and capitalism does not exist in any of our States [even Texas]. All must be licensed, permitted, approved, limited, and controlled so the EPA and other regulators can have their say and take a piece of the profits. Yes, I am afraid what made us great is now hidden under a blanket of protections for the government and their factions. As, you point out earlier the Federalist 10 says it all.
- Permalink Reply by on
- the judiciary act of 1802The United States Judiciary Act of 1802 (2 Stat. 156) was a Federalstatute, enacted on April 29, 1802, to reorganize the federal court system. It restored some elements of the Judiciary Act of 1801, which had been adopted by the Federalist majority in the previous Congress, but was repealed by the Democratic-Republican majority earlier in1802.The Act restructured the circuit courts into six circuits, and assigned one Supreme Court justice to each circuit. Unlike the 1801 Act, no new circuit judgeships were created, so the justices were faced with having to return to the practice of "riding circuit" to hold court in each district within their circuit, along with the local district judge, during the majority of the year. No circuit courts were created for the judicial districts of Kentucky, Tennessee, Maine, or the territories, although the 1801 Act would have done so.Since the circuit courts were now to consist of only two judges, the Act permitted them to certify to the Supreme Court any question of law on which the two could not agree. Also, the district judge was not permitted to hear appeals of his own decisions, so appeals from the district courts were decided by the circuit justice alone. But the most important part of the Act was the provision that a quorum of only one judge was needed to convene a circuit court. As a result, Supreme Court justices could often rely on district court judges to convene circuit courts. With circuit riding largely optional, Supreme Court justices were no longer saddled with what they had previously felt was a tremendous burden. The Act's flexibility proved crucial to the demise of circuit riding, which essentially disappeared by 1840.The Act also created additional district courts by dividing the District of North Carolina into the districts of Albemarle, Cape Fear, and Pamptico, and by dividing the District of Tennessee into the Easternand Western Districts of Tennessee. No new judgeships were created for these courts, however; the district judges in North Carolina and Tennessee had to hold court in each district within their state, and the North Carolina judge also had to sit on the circuit court (which, however, continued to sit for the state as a whole, not in the separate district court districts).The Act established a United States District Court for the District of Columbia, although this court is not the direct predecessor of today's court bearing the same name.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Nice read. I agree that no one individual put forth the Constitution. It was through committee and debate that we have what we have (or had) today.I have had the honor to sit committees for debate and decision making for a larger group of people. There is always a guiding light, if you will, of a few individuals that mold and shape the out come to meet the needs.The creation of our Constitution was not unique in its formation. Only unique in its end result. A group effort was achieved. No group has walked the face of the planet without direction of leadership. IMO, I would place Madison and Jefferson as the torch bearers leading the way.“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” - Margaret Mead
No comments:
Post a Comment