Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
I blame the voters...those who decided to leave this President in office on his current course of "fundamental change", who continually vote the people back in to office who have made such a mess with unsustainable and unkept promises while claiming that they are best qualified to fix the mess....who voted to maintain an unsustainable and ever growing dependency state under the fallacy that raising taxes on 1% or 2% of their fellow Americans is the best way to ensure the flow of gifts from government..... who ignore the founding of this country and the principles onwhich it's foundation was laid and who swoon at the voices of the sophists whose promises always fall short....they voted to not only continue the current course of government dependence but also to expand it through Obamacare and whatever else might be devised to sell the electorate on better living at "government's" expense....the only way to attampt to pay for it is through higher taxes on "all" earners and massive military cuts.....and even then...we're still screwed, it's not the inability to cut a deal in Washington that forced us over the "fiscal cliff"...it's the inability of the electorate to recognize the danger that the ever expanding bureaucracy and it's profligate spending poses...Happy New Year
Nah, we'll be fine. After all, the Senate passed a bill last night with - wait for it - $15 billion in spending cuts. 15 billion. That's almost 1/1000th of what we need!
Also, 620 billion in tax hikes.
What happened to the deal of $12 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes?
Let’s Give Up on the Constitution
By LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN
Published: December 30, 2012
"AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.........
If even this change is impossible, perhaps the dream of a country ruled by “We the people” is impossibly utopian. If so, we have to give up on the claim that we are a self-governing people who can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate. But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance."
Let’s Give Up on the Constitution
By LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN
Published: December 30, 2012
"AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.........
If even this change is impossible, perhaps the dream of a country ruled by “We the people” is impossibly utopian. If so, we have to give up on the claim that we are a self-governing people who can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate. But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance."
Wow--progressives are coming out of the closet. This piece is pure progressive anti-constitutional fallacy loaded with its contradictions and vague suppositions.
He opens with "As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos . . . almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution," but ironically fails to see that the fiscal cliff thingy is a result of disobedience to the Constitution.
He wonders "why does a grotesquely malapportioned senate get to decide the nation's fate?" And why should anyone care that the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the "lower" chamber, and why should that chamber "have a stranglehold on our economy?" He doesn't mention that the senate would not get to decide the nations fate so readily if the progressive 17th ammendment would not have given them so much power, and that the "malapportion" was a PROTECTION against the central government having supreme power over the states. Nor does he seem to understand that the "stranglehold on our economy" is a result of the unconstitutional transfer of power from the people to the central government. His whole thesis throughout his essay is an argument for and about central power. Their is no discussion of state sovereignty or the sovereignty of the people--only the unilateral decision of "reasonable" bureaucrats. He speaks as an elitist who deems that "our economy" should be in the hands of a central bureaucracy freed from constitutional restraint rather then in the hands of the people who are protected by the Constitution from that bureaucracy. He blames the Constitution for keeping us from debating the merits of devisive issues and inflaming our public discourse. He is, apparently secluded in his ivory tower, not aware of the ongoing debates on those issues that actually do exist, and that inflamatory public discourse derives from individual perspectives. He would quiet that discourse by more efficiently channeling the debate through discussion by select experts rather than by the freedoms reserved to the people by the Constitution.
He considers adherence to constitutional law to be "bizarre," then creates a scenario where "a" president or "a" party leader in congress "reaches a considered judgement that a particular course of action is best for the country" then "someone bursts into the room" and says that some dead white men who thought it was fine to own slaves, etc., might have disagreed with his course of action. He reduces the argument to absurd simplicity. He bizarrely attributes such absurdity to adherence to constitutional law??? All white men will eventually be dead as are all those white men who have disregarded the Constitution. And most of the founders did not think slavery was a fine thing, even many of them who owned slaves, but had to allow it in the Constitution to ratify it, and with its precepts and provisions that it would eventually be eradicated.
He then goes on about "the long history of disobedience" to the Constitution and how that has not produced chaos or totalitarianism but has helped us to grow and prosper. He does not explain how that prosperity was more likely a result of the constitutional liberty of the people rather than dissobedience to the Constituition, nor, indeed, how disobedience created our national bankruptcy and dwindling prosperity.
He, incredibly, then goes on about how we should not disobey ALL constitutional "commands," mentioning the most important ones which we should continue to obey out of "respect" not "obligation." And that we should not change the existence of the constitutional structures, but "the basis on which they claim legitimacy." That is, policy, not principle would be the basis for their existence. He seems to beleive that policy is a precept divorced from mere opinion. That one official's policy is, ipso facto, better than another's. That one bureaucratic expert's opinion/policy is better than another's and that all political policies created by elite politicians are superior to individual desires and the divided wills of the people. Policy by the elite shall rule.
He then goes on with the amazing juxtaposition: "As we have seen, the country has successfully survived numerous examples of constitutional infidelity, and as we see now, the failure of the congress and the white house to agree has already destabilized the country." WHAT??? He has admittedly throughout his piece pointed out that the Constitution is and has been disobeyed while at the same time we are obsessed with adhering to it. So which is it? Are we surviving because of disobedience or is the country destabilized because of it? Under the Constitution, the president executes the laws of congress, he doesn't negotiate them. Disobedience has made the president a co-equal, or more, legislator. And that unconstitutional condition is not the sole reason for destabilization. How about the disobedience of all branches of central government to adhere to their enumerated powers which would preclude them from creating the massive central bureaucracy that spends and controls beyond the power granted to them and even makes them ALL legislators--including the judiciary and the unconstitutional shadow government of regulatory agencies. If the bureaucratic, adminsitrative, unconstitutional state of central government that hovers over us is so beneficial, why is there this destabilization and fiscal cliff? Why is the Constitution, which is disobeyed, the problem?
He even advocates drawing on resources such as Britain and New Zealand who don't have written constitutions but have systems of parliamentary "supremacy" as models. Isn't Britain deeper into fiscal cliffs than we are? And yet he also likes their being "held together" by longstanding traditions and accepted modes of procedure and ENGAGED CITIZENS. Yet he calls our relatively young Consititution "ancient" as if that were a detriment. How old is the British unwritten constitution and longstanding tradition and procedure? And how old is the concept of centrally dictated, bureaucratic government? All are older and more "ancient" than our Constitution.
He speaks of "much constitutional language being broad enough to encompass an almost infinitely wide range of positions." That is the nature of language itself. Its functional purpose of entirely transferring thought from one mind to another is impossible, but the purpose of language is usually to do so. So if we pretend because of the imperfection of language that it is impossible to communicate concepts, then the idea of government would be impossible, as would most facets of society. Because of this, he relegates constitutionalism to " . . . a place for discussion . . . rather than as a tool to force others to give up their moral and political judgments." And, yet, isn't it, indeed, the Constitution that not only allows discussions but guarantees individuals their moral and political judgments. Is it not, on the contrary, the unconstitutional centralized administrative state that suppresses those judgments into a one-size-fits-all judgment?
He seems to have missed the point that not only has the Constitution, which guarantees individual liberty been disobeyed, which to him is a good thing, but that it has not been merely "a place for discussioin" that has ensued, but an entirely new system of government, one that limits our ability to "give real freedom a chance." And by force of the power which it has usurped from the People, caused them to be less "engaged citizens" in self-government and more dependents of that central government.
All of this Fiscal Cliff nonsense is nothing but a dog and pony show to keep the public distracted and muddy the already molasses-thick waters that is our bloated and corrupt federal budgeting. Neither Congress nor our President have a sense of fiscal responsibility to anyone except those that pad their pockets.
Senator Coburn from Oklahoma said: "If We Raise Taxes, We're Just Going To Use It To Grow Government." While he was correct in that aspect, he then voted Yea for a bill that increases the tax burden on Americans.
I recently read a statement: "Today, the only difference between Democrats and Republicans is how they'll spend the money they steal from you."
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
I knew you'd like that...
I think he mentioned that he teaches or taught Constitutional Law ...apparently the same version as our President...
Those who best know and understand the law are also best-suited to exploit it. There was more than one major push last year by our lawmakers to completely stomp on the Constitution. The biggest offense was National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 which could have subjected American citizens in the country to indefinite detention, a-la the Chinese government.
He seems to have missed the point that not only has the Constitution, which guarantees individual liberty been disobeyed, which to him is a good thing, but that it has not been merely "a place for discussioin" that has ensued, but an entirely new system of government, one that limits our ability to "give real freedom a chance." And by force of the power which it has usurped from the People, caused them to be less "engaged citizens" in self-government and more dependents of that central government.
First off, I think this may be the longest sentence you've ever written.
Second, I think the tone of this opinion was very successful in gaining your attention. I'd suspect that the headline and opening salvo was meant to be taken a bit tongue in cheek.
Third, the opinion to me at least simply says we're using the Constitution as a divisive tool rather than a constructive tool and on this point I'd have to agree.
Perhaps the author's message is this...try and figure out what's the right thing to do, then look to the Constitution for guidance rather than just looking to the Constitution for the solution. I've read the damn thing so many times I know I can't tell for sure what it's all about...especially that pesky Second Amendment.
First off, I think this may be the longest sentence you've ever written.
Nah, I've written longer ones. Besides, it's actually two sentences. There's a period in there amongst all the words. But I hate that almost every time I type a word ending in ion I manage to add an extra "i" as in ioin. Can't always manage to catch and edit out the extra "i"s since so many words end in ion and I write such long winding and pompous sentences. Gotta work on that shorter, punchy, style.
Second, I think the tone of this opinion was very successful in gaining your attention. I'd suspect that the headline and opening salvo was meant to be taken a bit tongue in cheek.
Spot on. Not only the tone, style, shading, intent, and progressive view of govt. got my attention. Above all, his blatant, if not refreshing honesty. I don't think he meant any part of it to be taken as tongue in cheek.
Third, the opinion to me at least simply says we're using the Constitution as a divisive tool rather than a constructive tool and on this point I'd have to agree.
How do you use the Constitution as a divisive "tool" except by claiming that it stands in our way? Divisions of political opinion exist naturally outside of it. The Constitution unites divided opinions within a structure of government that allows those differing opinions to coexist. But its structure "divides" government powers in order to check and balance those powers against the tyranny of an undivided, unitary central government. It unifies the nation and guarantees the union of sovereign differences by dividing its own power. That is what makes it a constructive "tool" rather than a divisive one. Those who wish to eliminate the "divisive" checks and balances, as progressives do, in favor of a central power that acts in unison will impose favored opinions against the unfavored, and will be divisive of society.
Perhaps the author's message is this...try and figure out what's the right thing to do, then look to the Constitution for guidance rather than just looking to the Constitution for the solution. I've read the damn thing so many times I know I can't tell for sure what it's all about...especially that pesky Second Amendment.
-spence
Often the problem is not just the right thing to do, but who is to determine that right thing. The Constitution doesn't create solutions, it determines who is responsible for those solutions. Why we so often go astray and why it is so often hard to determine what the Constitution means is that power is expressed by those who do not have constitutional authority to express it. That is determined by the structure and language of the Constitution, and that is not vague or indeterminate. The problem with the progressive view of government is that ultimately a central group of experts have nearly unlimited authority to express and enforce power.
Last edited by detbuch; 01-01-2013 at 05:10 PM..
Reason: typos
Hybrid Mode
