- Permalink Reply by on
- Government is about ideas and solutions to reduce the burden on the society while protecting them from other nations [defense]. This was the cornerstone of the Founders works which became our most valuable possession - THE CONSTITUTION. The Founders fought great battles on the floor of Independence halls which at times even included fist fights. Leadership is not for the weak and uncommitted for they shall fall by the wayside leaving the important tasks not done.WE must have leaders that can come to the bully pulpit and convince a unwilling nation to go where they fear venture. These leaders many times have been maligned by the public and suffered set backs in their personal lives. Some great ones have been banished from public office only to return in the times of critical need for that leader to step up to the podium and say:If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
Winston ChurchillI was only the servant of my country and had I, at any moment, failed to express her unflinching resolve to fight and conquer, I should at once have been rightly cast aside.
Winston ChurchillIn war as in life, it is often necessary when some cherished scheme has failed, to take up the best alternative open, and if so, it is folly not to work for it with all your might.
Winston Churchill
In war, you can only be killed once, but in politics, many times.
Winston Churchill
So, in politics never never never never say never for all things are possible when one is a great communicator with ideas and the courage to take actions feared by others.
- Permalink Reply by on
- You are not looking at reality - IMOWhen John F. Kennedy was President, just over a quarter of federal spending went to fund programs paying for some 21.7 million Americans to be dependent on Uncle Sam. But as high as that spending and dependence on the federal government was then, it has exploded today, with one in five Americans -- more than 67.3 million -- depending on Washington for assistance.
The Heritage Foundation's 2012 Index of Dependence on Government shows an alarming trend under the Obama Administration of a level of dependence on our government that has never been seen before. Today, a full 70 percent of the federal government's budget goes to pay for housing, food, income, student aid, or other assistance, with recipients ranging from college students to retirees to welfare beneficiaries. Heritage's Patrick Tyrrell writes that other findings from the study show:- 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.
- Permalink Reply by on
- This is from Madison in the Federalist Paper no 43:8. "To provide for amendments to be ratified by three fourths of the States under two exceptions only."That useful alterations will be suggested by experience, could not but be foreseen. It was requisite, therefore, that a mode for introducing them should be provided. The mode preferred by the convention seems to be stamped with every mark of propriety. It guards equally against that extreme facility, which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It, moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other. The exception in favor of the equality of suffrage in the Senate, was probably meant as a palladium to the residuary sovereignty of the States, implied and secured by that principle of representation in one branch of the legislature; and was probably insisted on by the States particularly attached to that equality. The other exception must have been admitted on the same considerations which produced the privilege defended by it.
- Permalink Reply by on
- What part are you having problems with and maybe we can assist. You need to look for what is not prohibited for the Constitution is a negative document for the most part it tells government what it can do and then says it limited to those specific items. Article V is being redefined each and every day as their are many that do not want the States to take actions that would destroy most of the Federal government and put it back into the Founders box of the Article I section 8 enumerated powers.Many of us are of the opinion that the States can by the language in Article V hold a convention and when 3/4 or 38 of The States ratifying their desired action it becomes the law of the land as an amendment to the Constitution. There is no language that prohibits this and much of the Founders works support that concept that the States and the people can use this act to stop usurpation by Congress and the courts. So, I would submit that there is no requirement for Congress to be involved in the process if the purpose is to stop usurpation.[that would be a contradiction to the FF works]
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock:IMO the Sprague line of cases will have no impact unless we can have an Article V Convention. The principal that the Constitution was written in the language of the voters first showed up in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, (1816) but the significance is that it is the first case in which the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) exercised supremacy over the state courts in all matters involving federal law. If it was a matter of federal law, the SCOTUS trumped anything the states did.SCOTUS now pays lip service to Sprague's language--"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition."782 U.S. 716, 732 (1931) up through the Heller case in 2008. I often quote Sprague for the proposition that the Constitution was written in the language of the people; SCOTUS actually intrpreted the Constitution that way for well over 100 yrs. Therefore, it was a convenient shorthand, without citing twenty or thirty other sources, to prove my point.That essentially changed when the modern SCOTUS began using its "Living Constitution." I'll save that discussion for another day. Let me just say here, inAtkins v. Virginia, (2002) Justice Scalia in dissent wrote,"Today's decision is the pinnacle of our Eighth Amendment death-is-different jurisprudence. Not only does it, like all of that jurisprudence, find no support in the text or history of the Eighth Amendment; it does not even have support in current social attitudes regarding the conditions that render an otherwise just death penalty inap-propriate. Seldom has an opinion of this Court rested so obviously upon nothing but the personal views of its members."Scalia continued, "[I]t explains, of course, why the Court can be so cavalier about the evidence of consensus. It is just a game, after all. '[I]n the end,' it is the feelings and intuition of a majority of the Justices that count--'the perceptions of decency, or of penology, or of mercy, entertained ... by a majority of the small and unrepresentative segment of our society that sits on this Court.'"I have often written here (and elsewhere) about the hubris of a Court that does not need the law or the Constitution to make its decisions. It only takes five votes.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Jeff,Do you have a single clue how the current Senate is elected? How many are multimillionaires? How many million does one have to spend in the Dakotas, Wyoming, Alaska and the small population states to get 50% plus one vote ?Talk about being bought and paid for - you sirs are an uninformed, un-experienced overbearing fool. Many of us have attempted to bring you into the world of reality but you must be very comfortable in your community wearing a tall pointy hat and siting on a tall stool - firmly proud of your community title "VILLAGE IDIOT".
This will be my last post addressing you or any post you make.
- Permalink Reply by on
Fact-Mauling in Mesa
The four remaining GOP presidential candidates met in Mesa, Ariz., for another debate, and mauled a few facts. Rick Santorum claimed earmarks were done in an “open” process during his time in Congress. Mitt Romney said dispensing morning-after pills to rape victims was “entirely voluntary” for Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts.Santorum’s EarmarksSantorum made one false and one exaggerated statement when defending his earmarks — which are pet projects added to the annual spending bills at the request of members of Congress:- Santorum said that when he was in Congress the members would “publicly request” earmarks in an “open process.” That’s not true. The rules requiring public disclosure did not pass until 2007 — after Santorum left office.
- He also called Rep. Ron Paul “one of the most prolific earmarkers in Congress today.” Paul does request earmarks, but he’s not close to being one of the most prolific in bringing home the bacon.
Santorum, however, is the one misrepresenting the facts. Members of Congress did not have to publicly disclose their earmarks when he was in Congress. The requests were privately submitted to the relevant appropriations committees. Even earmarks that were inserted into spending bills did not carry the sponsors’ names. Public disclosure was left up to the individual members. That lack of transparency changed in 2007, when the House and Senate passed legislation requiring the disclosure of earmarks. Santorum was defeated in his bid to win reelection to the Senate in 2006.In 2007, the Senate disclosed the sponsors of earmarks that were included in spending bills. Therules were later expanded, and now senators must disclose their earmark requests, too. They must post on their government websites “a description of the items proposed — including their purpose, location, the recipient of the funds, and an explanation of why the spending is in the interest of the taxpayers.” Senators also must certify that they or their immediate family members have no financial interest in the earmarks.In defending himself on earmarks, Santorum also said as an aside that Rep. Ron Paul is “one of the most prolific earmarkers in the Congress today.” But that’s an exaggeration.Using earmark data compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Center for Public Integrity did an analysis of fiscal year 2010 earmark requests. Paul sought 15 earmarks for a total of $17 million that year, ranking him 242 out of 435 House members. He was successful in obtaining 14 of those earmarks at a cost of $11.1 million, placing him 299 on the list of top earmarkers,according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. That year Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, requested 67 earmarks at a cost of $154 million — the most of any member. She was one of nine House members who requested more than $100 million, and she secured 63 of her requests for $116.6 million, placing her third on the list of top recipients. Now that’s prolific.Paul ranked higher in the previous two years. He was 33rd on the list in fiscal year 2009 with 23 earmark requests at a cost of $80.7 million, and he was 163rd in fiscal year 2008 with eight earmark requests that cost $27 million. But the totals still pale compared with the most prolific earmarkers. In fiscal year 2009, when Paul requested $80.7 million, there were 16 House members who requested more than $100 million, including top earmarker Rep. David Loebsack, D-Iowa., who sponsored 29 earmarks at a whopping $217 million.“Ron Paul requested a lot of earmarks,” Ellis said. “He always defended it by saying he thought it was his constituents’ money and they should have as much of it back as possible. However he was never prolific in getting them. Mostly because he wasn’t on the appropriations committee where the money was being allotted.”Santorum Spins What The Standard SaidSantorum misrepresented what a conservative magazine said about his record for conservatism on taxing and spending when he was a U.S. senator:That’s not quite true. The Weekly Standard said in a Feb. 15 analysis that Santorum was no spendthrift and that he got very good vote ratings from taxpayer groups, as we also did in a similar report on Feb. 18. But those groups didn’t rate Santorum the most conservative. According to theStandard, Santorum’s average rating of “A-minus” from the National Taxpayer’s Union put him “in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50.” The NTU itself calculates Santorum’s average at a “B-plus.” Either way, other senators rated more highly.But making an argument is one thing, and making a flat statement is another. The Standarddidn’t say Santorum was the most fiscally conservative senator, period. Santorum misquoted the article.Gingrich vs. Romney on Morning-After PillFormer House Speaker Gingrich was right in a back-and-forth with Romney over requiring Catholic hospitals to provide morning-after pills to rape victims in Massachusetts when Romney was governor.CNN’s debate moderator, John King, asked Romney whether he “required Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims.”As we wrote in January, Romney vetoed the law requiring the morning-after pill to be dispensed to rape victims at hospitals. His veto was later overridden by the Legislature. Romney thenbacked a state ruling that private hospitals, including religious hospitals, didn’t have to follow the requirement if they had moral objections. But he later flip-flopped on that position, saying that his legal counsel concluded that all hospitals would have to follow the new law. The Boston Globealso quoted Romney as saying: “My personal view, in my heart of hearts, is that people who are subject to rape should have the option of having emergency contraception or emergency contraception information.”Paul continued to downplay the possibility of Iran building a nuclear weapon, saying: “We don’t know if they have a weapon. As a matter of fact, there’s no evidence that they have it.” The International Atomic Energy Agency did not say in a Nov. 2011 report that Iran was definitely building a weapon, but it expressed strong concern that the country could do so. IAEA said that its information indicated that “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.”
- Permalink Reply by on
- I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – Annals of Congress (1794-01-10) James Madison
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Again here is James Madison to start with -jim,did you forget this guy wrote the Constitution for the most part -I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – Annals of Congress (1794-01-10) James MadisonSo, strike one - he wrote the Constitution and was a Founder/Framer and a Ratifier.As Madison said he could find no authority in the Constitution to use money for items not approved in the AI S8. It has taken years to get you all to see the facts and truth of ear mark PORK issue -The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Alexis de TocquevilleReply byMangus,No, I do not agree they are illegal (usurping) or that a an apology is forth coming from any current or past Congressional member.Again, I understand that Paul thinks this is a more transparent way to do federal spending. And maybe it is. But in the political atmosphere in which he’s doing it, it looks to me like he’s just bellying up to the trough like everyone else.Mangus,They are doing it. If it were illegal, no one has been charged or been impeached..The prevention and correction lies in the replacements we send.- The only crimes are those that are prosecuted?Getting away with murder makes it something else? No logic.
Reply byPody,How can you say there is no Constitutional authority for ear marks and then say but they are not illegal - get a grip old friend - they are in direct violation of the Constitution and all that have done them funding outside of the AI S8 limits are USURPERS AND HAVE VIOLATED OUR SACRED TRUST AND TH E VERY FOUNDATION OF OUR REPUBLIC.byMangus,What I am saying is the current practice is not in line with the intent of the inked idealogy of the FF.To make it legal and to have authority, they have re-written the rules. Thus they are legal.It happens all the time everywhere. People do not like what they have so as a group they re-vote the laws or the rules to make it legal.When a new CEO, General Manager or whatever comes in to power. They give new direction and if that direction is hindered by current rules and regs. They petition to change them, now they are within the bounds and not illegal.The above post shows that you do not have a full understanding of the Constitution - it limits the government and thus the legislature and the executive - they do not have any power to expand their abilities outs side the enumerated powers with out an amendment under article V. What they have done is to attemp to give themselves cover to SPEND EAR MARKS FOR ITEMS OUTSIDE THE AI S8 LIMITS.This is a USURPATION and now that Bond v US has been decided IMO we will see many more challenges in court. There is no language in your post that gives them expanded powers to make RULE that exceed their stated powers.You have quoted the "CLAUSES" there have been SC decisions instructing the Congress that they have exceeded their powers - school gun case in California put down a new limit on the Commerce clause, The General Welfare Clause and the necessary and proper clauses are all directly referencing the AI S8 enumerated power - they bestow no new powers read the words as meant in the time of the Founders - you will find the legislature and the executive usurped the Constitution as written.As Jefferson, Hamilton and other warned that the greatest threat would come from Congress and the Judiciary working in tandem to usurp. These problem were started from the very beginning and have been expanded by rewriting of the meaning of words in the Constitution and creating rights were none exist.The Congress knows that they do not have power to spend on items outside AIS8 but can not give up the power to bribe voters at home with another States money. Read the Constitution and the Federalist papers, and the anti Federalist papers. You will see many reference to the issue. Keep in mind that the government has seized on the principle that the Constitution is old and out of date and that the words now need a new meaning so the Government can have expanded powers - there is no basis for these beliefs in any of the writings of the Founders, Framers, Ratifiers or the Constitution.Thus the Progressive have redefined those of us that support the Constitution is a timeless document and the meanings of words were set at the time of recording as STRICT UNCONSTITUTIONALIST. Why did the left chose those words to describe us - is that not proof that they have changed the meaning of the words and clauses to expand [usurp] their powers beyond the limits of AI S8???You can believe as you pleas but they have broken the laws of the Constitution - just because they choose to say the new speed limit is 90 now so any member of congress can go 90 on all "state" highways. They can not make laws that exceed their authority.
- Permalink Reply by on
No comments:
Post a Comment