The Inconvenient Constitution
As a United States Senator, I have sworn an oath to support, defend, and bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. Complying with this Oath is not always convenient. Sometimes this requires voting against legislation that embodies policies I agree with, other times it requires taking a stand when doing so may not be popular.The Constitution itself is not a document of convenience. It specifies an onerous process – bicameralism and presentment – with which the government must comply to enact legislation. And it imposes separation of government powers and a system of checks and balances between the different branches.Among those checks and balances is the requirement that the President’s nominations of federal judges and executive officers receive the Advice and Consent of the Senate before they take office, unless they are nominated during a Senate recess.Events of the last few weeks show just how inconvenient the Constitution can be for politicians who want to get their way at any cost. On January 4, 2012, President Obama attempted to bypass the Senate and unilaterally “recess appoint” those nominees even though the Senate was not in fact in recess.These are brazen actions with real consequences. As a duly sworn United States Senator I feel duty bound to resist these actions, regardless of the difficulty.In taking a stand against the President’s unconstitutional assertion of executive power, I have already been targeted by the President himself. In his weekly radio address, the President singled me out, suggesting that I am playing politics with the judicial nominations process.The Constitution is not partisan. I will oppose any president, regardless of party, who attempts to ignore constitutional limits on executive power. The Senate has an important role in the appointment of federal judges and officers. All members of Congress should be deeply concerned when the executive encroaches on that constitutional function.The President’s justifications for his appointments are troublingly hollow. The Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel memorandum on which he relies passes straight over the plain text and original meaning of the Constitution and concludes that the President may determine for himself that the Senate’s pro-forma sessions do not count as sessions for purposes of the Constitution’s Recess Appointments Clause.It seems as if the President’s response to the inconvenient Constitution is simply to interpret away its restrictions if he doesn’t like them.I and members of Congress of both parties who care about the Constitution must take a stand. If, as a political branch, the legislature does not protect the Senate’s constitutional right to advise and consent to nominees, it may lose it forever. Doing so would have far-reaching implications for Democrats as well as Republicans.I call on all Americans – Republicans, Democrats, Independents – to stand with me in defense of this blatant and egregious encroachment on our basic constitutional liberties.
- Permalink Reply by on
Dependence on Government at All-Time High
The 2012 Index of Dependence on Government, released today, should be a wake-up call for America. Published by The Heritage Foundation for the past 10 years, the Index tracks the growth in government dependence dating back to the early 1960s. This year’s edition shows an alarming trend. Among the most troubling facts:- One in five Americans—the highest in the nation’s history—relies on the federal government for everything from housing, health care, and food stamps to college tuition and retirement assistance. That’s more than 67.3 million Americans who receive subsidies from Washington.
- Government dependency jumped 8.1 percent in the past year, with the most assistance going toward housing, health and welfare, and retirement.
- The federal government spent more taxpayer dollars than ever before in 2011 to subsidize Americans. The average individual who relies on Washington could receive benefits valued at $32,748, more than the nation’s average disposable personal income ($32,446).
- At the same time, nearly half of the U.S. population (49.5 percent) does not pay any federal income taxes.
- In the next 25 years, more than 77 million baby boomers will retire. They will begin collecting checks from Social Security, drawing benefits from Medicare, and relying on Medicaid for long-term care.
- As of now, 70 percent of the federal government’s budget goes to individual assistance programs, up dramatically in just the past few years. However, research shows that private, community, and charitable aid helps individuals rise from their difficulties with better success than federal government handouts. Plus, local and private aid is often more effectively distributed.
This much dependence on government has not been seen before in our nation, and it spells grave danger for the republic. A dose of reality would inform politicians that federal handouts, while politically expedient, will doom the republic if they are not curtailed.A plan exists that would reverse the yearly rise in government dependency. It’s called The Heritage Foundation’s Saving the American Dream planPosted in Entitlements, Featured
- Permalink Reply by on
- Not really into international turf wars, but here is how the propaganda is pushed for war:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE0pfZy-YgE&feature=g-all-u&...
- Permalink Reply by on
- Russian TV is interesting - they appear to be a propaganda machine - The Arabs and Persians have been at tribal wars for more than 5,000 years - this is no new deal - all war is politics and always has been. IMO
- Permalink Reply by on
Libertarianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaPart of a series on Libertarianism Outline of libertarianism
Libertarianism portal
Liberalism portalLibertarianism is a term describing philosophies which emphasize freedom, individual liberty, voluntary association and respect of property rights. Based on these, libertarians advocate a society with small or no government power.[1]Historian George Woodcock defines libertarianism as a critical individualist social philosophy, aimed at transforming society by reform or revolution, that fundamentally doubts authority.[2] Philosopher Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[3] According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.[4]Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should be reduced. Anarchistic schools advocate complete elimination of the state. Minarchist schools advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Some minarchist libertarians accept minimal public assistance for the poor.[5]Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead.[6][7][8] Another distinction can be made among libertarians who support private ownership and those that support common ownership of the means of production; the former generally supporting a capitalist economy, the latter a socialist economic system. Contractarian libertarianism holds that any legitimate authority of government derives not from the consent of the governed, but from contract or mutual agreement, though this can be seen as reducible to consequentialism or deontologism depending on what grounds contracts are justified.[9][10][11] Some Libertarian socialists reject deontological and consequential approaches and use normative class-struggle methodologies rooted in Hegelian thought to justify direct action in pursuit of liberty.[12]In some parts of the world, the term "libertarianism" is synonymous with Left anarchism.[13] In the United States, the termlibertarian is commonly associated with those who have conservative positions on economic issues and liberal positions onsocial issues.[14] This is based on the common meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in the United States.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Neil,Then Paul would have supported a war against Iran when they attacked and stormed our Embassy taking the entire staff hostage - Share his speech that he made on the floor of the house saying that Iran declared war v the USA - Carter was a non intervention supporter He got beat-up very badly over his failure to defend our nation and the people [Embassies are equal to the American soil]. It took a very strong leader to force Iran to release our people as he made it very clear, that they would be destroyed. His Name was Ronald Reagan.Why did Ron Paul miss his great opportunity to show how his policies would have amounted to a declaration of war v Iran as they like Tripoli attacked Us - he is weak and his inconsistent behaviour proves it. Nice try but his policies have been tried many times in history and they always end the same way - weakness leads to attacks by others.It is necessary for him who lays out a state and arranges laws for it to presuppose that all men are evil and that they are always going to act according to the wickedness of their spirits whenever they have free scope.
Niccolo MachiavelliHence it comes about that all armed Prophets have been victorious, and all unarmed Prophets have been destroyed.
Niccolo Machiavelli
- Permalink Reply by on
- Jim,Nothing personal - I have serious issues with Paul - he is an unrepentant Usurper of the Constitution and his sacred oath - a person that will violate his oath of office is null void as if he never existed at all for all he did was as in the Founders words - null void as if it never existed at all except he took the Treasuries money and gave it to his voters to buy their support.I believe you are a good citizen and a good man - however you have been IMO mislead by a Usurper that tells you what ever he thinks will garner some support.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Q,Like Iran attacking US soil and taking hostages - we are at war until they surrender. The howling dog you hear is the echo of the DARK WATER - it is all just American aggression and they are coming for you in your home next - I will never yield to false rumor nor fail to confront those that would bring down our great Republic.I only stand in the way of false rumors and those that attack America and our Republic. You want freedom from war then defend our great nation do not attempt to tear it down at every opportunity. I have been critical of the government but have backed up my criticism with facts from the Constitution and the works of the Founders/Framers/Ratifiers.All that do the same will find a willing ally but violate the principle that America is the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC and WE THE PEOPLE are the responsible parties to insure the rules are enforced that protect us from tyranny and oppression. Just as Ron Paul clearly broke his sacred oath of office for personal gain most of the other have done the same = shame on them all and they should be voted down and sent home in shame to be shunned from a polite lawful socitey.So, my friend it is not me that stands in the way of restoration - it is those that will not study, will not learn, become vested in single issues and then permit USURPERS to be reelected so they can have that item. No Sir, I will yield the truth.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Jim,And he to is guilty of breech of faith and violation of his oath of office - I have no trust in any man that will stand and lie about his actions that violate Article I section 8. No quarters is give to the USURPER for he will take our Constitution and violate it at will - which is what congress has done since:Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law and in the history of law worldwide. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. It was also the first time in Western history a court invalidated a law by declaring it "unconstitutional".[1][2] The landmark decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.Then expanded by other cases and the FDR switch in time saved nine [Supreme court yielding to the executive and congress] - this lead to FDR New Deal and then years latter to LBJ's Great Society - ENTITLEMENTS AND RIGHTS THAT WERE CREATED OUT OF THIN AIR.If you all chose to fight then let it be to RESTORE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, not just elect another serial violator we must rid the government of the usurpers and return the power to the States and the people.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Your observation would be correct as I have said little about Santorum as I do not believe he is going around saying he is the CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVE. The time will come and he will be painted with same brush.Paul has gong around just flat out lying to the public about his PORK - he talks about Article I section 8 all the time but has USURPED IT FOR 24 YEARS, he know this and if he does not know it then even more reason to reject his candidacy. He that finds he can steal a little while you are watching will steal a lot more when you are otherwise occupied. The act of breaking the law with malice of forethought is repugnant to all that is CONSTITUTIONAL and would be a shunned act to our Founders.Read his news letters and the articles written during the investigation by the Houston newspaper. He and Lew Rockwell discussed making statements that would bring in the EXTREME ELEMENT OF SOCIETY to increase the number of buyers of his news letters.
