- Hey all, at some point I’m going to punch holes in my own original observation but before I do I'm going to push it to test its merit (or not).So the basic idea is that Madison briefly remarked that back then there were obvious limits on the ability of local factions of people to communicate plans to take control of things. This of course would be a good thing towards limiting a federal government.Several responses mention or focus on the “speed” of communication. I didn’t think Madison was really talking about speed of communication as much as just the overall inability to communicate. No doubt my use of “real time” and flash mobs had a part in everybody thinking about speed. I did later say I thought the speed of communication ‘could be a factor’.I was more intrigued by this portion of Madison logic. The large (dispersed) Republic by its nature would make it “more difficult for all who feel it [a common interest] to discover their own strength and to act in unison with each other.In other words groups with a common interest couldn’t even become aware of themselves as a common interest group and then “act in unison with each other” on a continuous basis. This is in affect what we are doing right now ourselves.It is because Madison mentioned this a couple of times I wondered if it was part of the plan by default. Something that was true in their day (and history) that they just took for granted. To be sure technology changed that. I wanted to share this because I thought it possibly very important if it has merit and in fact played a role in putting us where we are today.So while we restore the original structure of the Republic (17th etc) should we not also having witnessed “...a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object… to reduce…” us “…under absolute Despotism… provide new Guards for…” our future security?If the ability to communicate played the kind of role Madison suggested it could play and facilitated the “long train of abuses and usurpations” threatening us than we would want to consider doing more than restore the structure of our Constitution. In fact does not our Declaration say it is “our duty”?
- Permalink Reply by on
- "No matter where you look you will see that there is very little integrity in America anymore. You can hardly trust anyone. With a nation filled with people with no integrity how can such a nation remain great? It cannot. America is now in great decline and we see that in every new "progressive" position she now embraces.Progress to people with no integrity is more moral decline and the fulfillment of their own lusts.There are two Americas in America but the one that now seems to prevail is the nation that is full of self centered lustful people without Integrity. Half of the nation is now doing whatever they can get away with and not what real Americans would be doing if they were still people of integrity.May God have mercy on the America that still has integrity, His mercy will not endure on the other."
The Death of Integrity in America
Don Koenig 2008
- Permalink Reply by on
- IMO large scale social changes have always been started by a small group of thinkers communicating, debating and forming a new paradigm. This started with the Greeks and then the Romans. Man then became involved in determining what human rights were and where they were derived from.The next great change occurred in the time of the Founders by advancing the thinking of Locke, Plato, Aristotle, and many others being molded into new ideas to provide a form of government that protected the individual from oppressive Kings and government in general. The concepts were not new but the structure and application was outside of all thinking up to that point.Now we are again at a fork in the road - do we proceed more toward Progressive - Socialism - Democracy or do we return to our original Constitutional Republic form of government? Today's paper carries an article about Obama going against his own legal staff on the Libya conflict - war or and the necessity of complying with Article I section 8 clause 10 and the War Powers act. The legal staff appears to have advised him he needed approval - he chose to override their advice - this action could be viewed as usurpation.We have 34 States in some form of nullification of laws they feel are unconstitutional and usurp power by Congress and the Executive. One recent case the Wisconsin Union issue and the State Supreme court found the Judge usurped the power of the Legislature and had zero power to interfere. Now this case appears to be headed to the SCOTUS.The heath care bill was passed by usurpation as was many other laws now being questioned and challenged in the Courts. These challenges will bring decisions on the use and application of the COMMERCE CLAUSE and THE NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE. Congress and the executive have used these clauses to usurp in most constitutional thinkers since FDR destroyed the separation of the courts from the executive and legislative branches.We are now, for lack of a better description, find ourselves in a full blownCONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS working it's way through he courts and legislatures of the nation. The people will discover that the extend of the usurpation and will IMO raise up to return the powers t the States as they discover the costs in terms of loss of freedoms. The people will be defended by the States as the Founders intended and again more proof that these were men of exceptional understanding of the human life form and of governments it has created over the generations. As word spread and the feeling of the general population that government has been screwing we the people starts to float to the front pages of news papers and magazines [Blogs] the nation will change quickly.
- Permalink Reply by on
- You are the heart and the soul of the American citizen - learning, studying, and applying the concepts of a free Republic. Your sharing this with others will start a chain reaction that will fly around the world and if we continue - AMERICA, LAND OF THE FREE AND THE HOME OF THE BRAVE WILL BE SAVED AND FREEDOMS RESTORED.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Factions in the days of the Colonies were often based on a single religion which controlled the Governor, the Legislatures, and the city governments. so, the 13 colonies were factions. IMO this is one of the reasons that the FF insisted on making freedom of Religion such an important first Amendment item.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.The FF believed that a free religion and free press would keep the government small and limited. It worked for just a few years before the first usurpation. The people and courts have revoked a very limited number of usurped laws however it appears that many might be removed in the next 10 to 20 years.As more of the citizens become reacquainted with the Constitution and for what it stands the government will placed back into Pandora's box.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The FF's had their hands tied when in came to the bill of rights. Most of the several States already had what was to become the "first" in their constitutions. The Bill of Rights was championed by the anti-feds.
- That is true, in this case the anti-Federalists did the nation a great favor as it codified the limits and gave the people a clear understanding of just some of our right to protect us from a unjust government. Look how the Federal government has usurped the Constitution even with the bill of rights.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hey Nathan thanks for the comments. I didn’t feel that he emphasized communication either. My observation was as you suggest, that he merely mentioned communication limits as an existing reality and (I think he said very important) part of the system. The later part of your observation is right in line with what I was thinking. “To benefit a number of local interests, spread over a vast geographic and cultural landscape, would be quite difficult.” My assertion was that the formation and organization of factions has become less difficult and as we were warned it is has had a negative effect. I think you are getting closer to what I was driving at and I really appricieate your thoughts.
- Permalink Reply by on
- In other words groups with a common interest couldn't even become aware of themselves as a common interest group and then “act in unison with each other” on a continuous basis.
Reading #10, Jon, I don't get the sense that Madison was as focused on the communication aspect as you feel he does. It strikes me as being much more concerned with dispersal both geographic and cultural. After asserting that the creation of 'factions' is human nature he focuses on the best check on them; a large Republic being the best. Not due to the inability to communicate but rather the break up of power between regions. With strong State govt, local interests would trump power seeking factions; with a strong State govt the representatives would be hard pressed to form a broad power faction. To benefit a number of local interests, spread over a vast geographic and cultural landscape, would be quite difficult.
Obviously, this is all predicated on State sovereignty and States being represented at the federal level.
- Permalink Reply by on
- My assertion was that the formation and organization of factions has become less difficult and as we were warned it is has had a negative effect.
I agree with that statement in one context, that it is true insofar as State representation has been removed from the federal govt thereby breaking the geographic 'isolation' of competing interests.
I have always considered the 'cultural divide' to be far less influential to the topic at hand than geographic representation is but I suppose one could make a convincing argument that, due to communication, cultural 'isolation' is less of a factor than perhaps it once was.
I know you, like myself, support a repeal of 17A. If this can be accomplished I think the ability to form power factions would be greatly reduced. I agree with Mr. Madison that to prevent factions is impossible [in and of itself a faction is not a bad thing it is after-all how human beings get things done] so the best we can strive for is to limit the ability of a faction with a monopoly on power to form, as well as give the best odds to our ability of dissolving one, in the shortest amount of time, if one does form.
If Mr. Madison's premise is correct our Republic should provide greater safeguards now than it did in his time; if our Republic were operating in it's constitutional form, that is.
- Permalink Reply by on
- This is from a friend and I will share it with you all. copy it and send it to your friends and other posts.It is un-American to require citizens to purchase their rights from
government. It is un-American to force individuals to join unions.
It is un-American to dictate wages, prices, working conditions, and
benefits. It is un-American to legislate from the bench. It is
un-American to rule by decree using executive orders to circumvent the
legislative process. Forced equality of outcome is a fundamentally
un-American goal.
It is un-American to grant special government privileges to one group
at the expense of others. It is un-American to subsidize industries,
corporations, and technologies. It is un-American to tax some
citizens and not others. It is un-American to invade other nations
without a declaration of war. It is un-American to take from those
who earned and give to those who did not. Redistribution of wealth is
the primary objective of socialism; it is a particularly un-American
goal.
The Democratic Party has sold out entirely; the Republicans only
somewhat less so. Socialist government is like a grizzly bear mauling
and devouring everything it encounters. Democrats want to rile it up
and point it towards their successful neighbors, while Republicans
think they can potty train it to keep its crap out of their family
rooms. Libertarians want to kill it, or at least send it back to
Canada.
BTW un-American= Unconstitutional IMO
- Permalink Reply by on
- Beck is good for America, that being said: I generally agree with much he presents except IMO he is mixing many items into a porridge that I find distasteful. As You have seen from me in the Past - I have little fear of belief in the grand conspiracy theories. Are there bad people trying to destroy our way of life - yes; are there groups of these bad people trying to harm our nation - yes; are some of these groups inside America - yes; are some of these financed by Socialist leaning individuals - yes; are they big enough and powerful enough to do great harm to America and our Constitution - No; does our government need to expose these people as possible threats - yes; is there extremism on all sides of the spectrum - yes.He is doing the nation a service by exposing those that want to change our form of government and to destroy the Constitutional limits on the powers of the Federal government. As we all know this must be done for the education system even the Law Schools of the land do not teach strict Constitutional Republic law and the natural rights. We must reeducate the populous like the Founders did with the Federalist papers.
- Permalink Reply by on
- LockIts it congress that is destroying our nation, The vast majority of Treasury notes sold are being bought by the federal reserve, because no one else will buy them. The federal government is going broke, for this reason there is an opportunity to close Pandora's box and return to a constitutionally limited government. The nation will have no other choice. My hope is that when that happens we will be able to close some of the holes that congress has used to extend it powers beyond the limits imposed by the Constitution; The deliberate misinterpretation of the commerce clause, the general welfare clause, and the supremacy clause all of which has lead the nation to its downfall.
No comments:
Post a Comment