Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishpart
What about sticking to Article 2 and Amendment 10?
Exactly. That was the point I was hinting at by saying that I believe that "on the other hand" has to do with how far our national government has been remodeled. And by reciting what is expected now, after the progressive transformation, of the President (as well as the federal government in general). Neither is any longer restricted to the limitations that bound them in the Constitution. And the President has been recast as more of an elected monarch instead of sticking to the duties prescribed in Article two; and the federal government as a totality has, as well, broken its chains and usurped the vast residuum of rights which Amendment 10 guaranteed to the people and the states, and it as well has severely encroached on the people's Bill of Rights.
We now look to the federal government, and specifically the President, to somehow make better every aspect of our lives . . . that is, many and a growing number, do. And the federal government apparatus is not only all too willing to accommodate that desire, but encourages and promotes it. We are being transformed from a democratic republic to an elected (for the time being) benevolent dictatorship. And though it has been incremental, it has not been by accident. It has been an evolving progressive design which has relentlessly chipped away, with every real, or fabricated "crisis" the structure of our foundation and turned that Constitution into the opposite of what was actually created and intended.
back to the original post.. Is everyone answering the same questions or do we ask selective questions to only a few?
|
It may not be a cause to wonder at all why today's journalists would ask if a candidate would go to a gay wedding. The central government has been made over time into our caretaker and so must be involved with the most intimate portions of our lives. It is presumed that, in our progressive system, the President being the head of our Nanny State, and the one to redress all of our grievances, attending gay weddings would be of utmost importance to her/him.
But In a constitutional system, the question of whether she/he would go to one is wholly irrelevant to the "qualifications" of a President, and would have nothing to do with his constitutional duties. That's why I call it a bogus question. It has no relevant connection to the enumerated presidential duties.
And, of course, your implication is correct. Everyone is not asked the same bogus gotcha questions. And if questions of marriage were relevant to this new, progressive, concept of President and presidential responsibility, the media could probe even further, with more relevance to performance of duties, by asking if the candidate approved of marital infidelity. If she/he would protect the infidelity of her/his partner in order to get and maintain power. Wouldn't that be more of an indication if the candidate had the character to faithfully perform the presidential duties than would be if he would go to a gay wedding? To perform them correctly for the benefit of the people rather than to protect her/his turf?
Wasn't the marriage question not supposed to be relevant to how Bill Clinton performed his job as President? Wasn't that his personal business, even if he had some form of sexual relations with someone other than his wife . . . even in the Whitehouse itself?
No, it ultimately reverts to politics. And the media has its biases. The media asks bogus gotcha questions of those it doesn't like, and bogus fluff questions of those it does.
And the questions are, ultimately, bogus because they are not connected to any foundational system of government, nor any constant relation of the citizen to the government. Progressive government is in a constant state of flux. It has no coherent philosophical or moral reason for being. It is a massive mix of contradiction which leads it to destroy that which it claims to make whole. While claiming egalitarianism, it thrives on inequality. Inequality becomes a mantra which it constantly purports to eliminate. It rails against the rich and champions the "middle class" while under its policies "income inequality" grows and the "middle class" shrinks. It vows to eliminate discrimination in race and gender while it grows reverse discrimination and promotes class and gender warfare.
Progressivism feeds its rulers' hunger for power, so must centralize power and destroy the founding document which limited and separated power. So it creates an intractable President who takes power unto himself; who changes and amends laws such as the ACA and welfare even though there is no constitutional power to do so; he makes recess appointment even when Congress is not in recess; he legislates outside of his enumerated powers through unlawful executive orders and through regulatory agencies when it is the duty of Congress to legislate not his; he attempts to make treaties without Senate approval; He unlawfully picks winners and losers both in the business and personal sectors; he bullies for continuing resolutions and submits budgets beyond economic means; he gives opinions in state and local matters which inflames racial or class animosity; he badmouths the Constitution when it makes his desires difficult and twists it to suit his needs.
In short, he abrogates his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. He and his party agree to all this. His willing accomplices in Congress and the Courts all agree to suspend the opposition those branches are supposed to enforce against a President who usurps the power they should supposedly, jealously, guard. They willingly dissolve the separation of powers which were emplaced to prevent tyranny, and purposely create a unitary government which holds the legislative, executive, and judiciary power in, essentially one progressive hand. That is the definition of tyranny.
And all of that can be dismissed, overlooked, by asking candidates, not if they will govern lawfully, maintain separation of powers, uphold their oath to PRESERVE, protect, and defend the Constitution. That is all irrelevant. Worries about despotism which the Constitution prevented, individual freedom which the Constitution protected, piling on of federal debt which the Constitution would limit the government to do, maintaining a military that is equal to the dangers of the time which the Constitution requires . . . those are all non-sequiturs.
In this "modern" (actually as old as tyranny) system of government, into which every aspect of our lives is intruded, the relevant question is "would you go to a gay wedding?"