Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

For Southern Republicans, ĎItís the Constitution, Stupidí
Pajamas Media ^ | 4/11/2010 | Rick Moran

Posted on 04/11/2010 7:35:57 AM PDT by GregNH

The Southern Republican Leadership Conference wrapped up on Saturday afternoon after three days of speeches dripping with red-meat criticisms of Democrats and President Obama. This is par for the course for any party gathering, especially one where the party holding the shindig is on the outs.

But there was also something most unusual about the conference: an uncommon amount of talk and discussion of the United States Constitution. Ordinary people from all walks of life, not a constitutional scholar or lawyer among them, are actually trying to come to grips with the fundamental meaning and purpose of our founding document.

Has such a thing happened since the debates over ratification? If the numbers of tea partiers can be believed — and they were omnipresent at this gathering — perhaps millions of citizens are reading the Constitution and trying to place the actions taken by our government within the confines of our founding document’s strictures. And judging by the numerous conversations I had with delegates, bloggers, and just ordinary folk, there is a profound feeling of unease about not just what Obama and the Democrats have done to expand the power of the federal government, but Republicans as well. Contrary to what the left would like to establish as conventional wisdom — that the tea party movement is a wholly partisan operation — the anger people are demonstrating about spending is directed at both parties, almost equally.

(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: boggovernment; constitution; federalism; issues; redstates; republicans; southernvote; srlc; teaparty
Read also this b Mitchell Lambert. The above graph shows the growth in total government spending, including state, local and federal, divided by gross domestic product, since 1948. Notice the asterik at the far right that jumps up above the rest of the pack. The outlier reflects President Obama's and the Democratic Party's outlays last year. This was the most radical movement in spending in the past 62 years. A similarly radical increase will occur in 2010.

Here http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-tea-party-doth-protest-enough.html

1 posted on 04/11/2010 7:35:58 AM PDT by GregNH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Really? And that why Romney won their straw poll?


2 posted on 04/11/2010 7:40:32 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Will work for guns and ammo!.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Just barely, I don’t think he going to run....or maybe that is “hope” I don’t think he will...


3 posted on 04/11/2010 7:43:44 AM PDT by GregNH (Re-Elect "No Body")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Gotta have someone electable. Romney is possibly that. Imagine Romney - Palin... or better: Palin - Romney. Either way she’d keep him straight.


4 posted on 04/11/2010 7:46:44 AM PDT by Huebolt (Some people are born to be slaves. They register as democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

If I were you my friend, I would not take any poll, “straw” or otherwise in serious fashion. The eyes are on the prize has to be the November, 2010 mid-term elections. The goal, the complete destruction of the current anti-American, Democrat Party by we, the people of these United States (Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives and all American peole who love our great country, its freedom, liberty and opportunity!!! Forget 2012!!! It does not matter right now!!!


5 posted on 04/11/2010 7:52:06 AM PDT by JLAGRAYFOX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Great article.


6 posted on 04/11/2010 7:55:04 AM PDT by EricT. (Can we start hanging them yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huebolt
"Gotta have someone electable. Romney is possibly that. Imagine Romney - Palin... or better: Palin - Romney. Either way she’d keep him straight."

I could write a childrens' book called, "Romney the RINO", in which I could show children what they should NOT grow up to be. If John McCain and obama had a child together, he would be named "Mit Romney".

And Sarah as his VP? Well I would hope she has more class than that, and more pride not to accept "2nd place" behind Romney when she is light years ahead of him both politically and personally.

I don't think the "Mit train" is going very far, at least I hope not...but then, I never thought obama could get elected either.
7 posted on 04/11/2010 8:13:31 AM PDT by FrankR (Those of us who love AMERICA far outnumber those who love obama - your choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FrankR
anyone but Romney

I agree, but WHO??

8 posted on 04/11/2010 8:20:03 AM PDT by Huebolt (Some people are born to be slaves. They register as democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Huebolt
Why does everyone insist on these wishy washy republicans? Myth Romney, Huckabee, Juan Me-Cain, Bob Dull.

None of these people are electable. NONE. They have no principles and no spine.

I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. If this is the absolute BEST America has to offer politicaly, than it deserves everything it gets.

It is absolutely disgusting seeing these people sweet talk their way into a conservatives bedroom. We wake up the next morning; they're gone. They kiss and tell and cheat on us with the media and every liberal cause known to man. I know what cheap whore feels like.

If we allow the RNC to cherry pick the biggest RINOs the most un-principled BASTARDS to ever disgrace the American political scene then they deserve to lose.

So, go ahead start crying that 0bama will win. Good. To hell with it. I've been moving in a position to Go Galt. Y'all deal wih it. Remember these people are reresentatives of US.... if you want a spineless idiot to represent you, what does that say about you?

9 posted on 04/11/2010 8:27:20 AM PDT by Repeat Offender (While the wicked stand confounded, call me with Thy Saints surrounded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Huebolt
"I agree, but WHO?? "

Ahhhh...the night is still young, grasshopper; who can tell what will be brought us on tomorrow's tide.

My hope would be that Governor Palin throws her hat in the ring, but that's still quite "iffy".

But we just can't go back to the old retreads of Romney or Huckleberry...please. I find it hard just to listen to Huckleberry on his country music show.

Romney impresses me as a tall John Edwards, blustering about in a cloud of hair spray trying to sell obamacare-lite...and doesn't know what is in his own bill....either.

We'll just have to wait and see.
10 posted on 04/11/2010 8:28:02 AM PDT by FrankR (Those of us who love AMERICA far outnumber those who love obama - your choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Huebolt

ps... my last isn’t directly AT you.


11 posted on 04/11/2010 8:28:57 AM PDT by Repeat Offender (While the wicked stand confounded, call me with Thy Saints surrounded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Huebolt

After what we KNOW Romney did to MA, why would anyone in their right mind want him to be President? Obama-Lite we don’t need.


12 posted on 04/11/2010 8:35:13 AM PDT by MizSterious ("Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

13 posted on 04/11/2010 8:45:15 AM PDT by Riodacat (Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huebolt

If they nominate Romney I am gone. How about McCain/Dole. That would be right up RINO alley and the GOP could keep its coveted minority. 1/3 of the Loot and no resposibility.


14 posted on 04/11/2010 8:46:14 AM PDT by screaminsunshine (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Repeat Offender

You’ve identified the problem, but it is somewhat worse. That is, the national government has become institutionally ungovernable. It is beyond the ability of elections, and both political parties, to alter this destructive momentum.

So what if Sarah Palin was elected president? Even with a heavily Republican Senate and House, the national government institutional momentum is such that those Republican congressmen would be just as worthless as were the last bunch, under George W. Bush. And even Sarah Palin couldn’t change its course.

But there is another constitutional mechanism to correct a flawed national government. It is the constitutional convention of the individual States.

We were all raised with the idea that a constitutional convention was “unthinkable”, or would be “too radical”, or would be prone to manipulation by dark and insidious forces. But nothing could be further from the truth.

2/3rds (34) of the States must agree to convene a convention, and 3/4ths (38) of the States must vote in favor of any draft constitution they produce. This guarantees both that our national circumstances must be dire, and that a restoration of a *federal* government, from being a national government, is done in a conservative and orderly fashion.

And it is long past due for the States to convene such a convention.

The article mentions the Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), as being critical to any debate on the subject, and it is, but the problems with our current constitution go all the way back to its very beginnings. It is past due for a bunch of “fixes”, to get our house in order.

Marbury v. Madison, in a nutshell, established both that the Supreme Court could constitutionally review laws; but just as importantly, that the President of the United States is in effect “above the law”, and cannot be controlled in any way other than with impeachment and conviction.

And this is the reason why today, the President can appoint “Czars” who have not been approved by the Senate, and why he can create federal agencies with a memorandum, and declare what parts of the law he feels like enforcing, with “Presidential Signing Statements.”

Here is a laundry list of other subjects that right now, the individual States and their citizens should be debating, prior to interstate discussions as to the formation and agenda of a constitutional convention. While there is some redundancy, there are serious arguments for each of these things.

This is *not* an inclusive list:

Repeal of the 16th (Income Tax) and 17th (Direct Election of US Senators) Amendments of the constitution.

Flat Income Tax Amendment;

Balanced Budget Amendment;

Presidential Line Item Veto Amendment;

National Census Enumeration Only Amendment;

Personal Information and Records Limitation Amendment;

Corporate Civil Rights Distinct From The Civil Rights Of Living Persons Amendment;

Oligopoly Antitrust Amendment;

Presidential War Powers and Posse Comitatus Amendments;

Limitations on Presidential Authority To Declare Martial Law Amendment;

Presidential Authority Only Through Cabinet Officers, Appointment and Impeachment of Cabinet Officers Amendment; Term Limits for Recess Appointments;

Congressional Approval of Bureaucratic Regulatory Authority Amendment;

Creation of a State Appointed Constitutional Review Court Amendment (50 State Judges To Sit As a Federal Nullification Court);

Reorganization of Federal Judiciary Amendment;

Amendment for the Reduction of the Size and Authority of the Federal Government and Enabling Acts;

Writ of Mandamus Amendment;

Congressional and Judicial Term Limits Amendment;

Restoration of State Lands from Federal Land Takings and Limitations of Eminent Domain Amendment;

Delineation of a National Tribal Congress for Indigenous Peoples Amendment (renegotiation of treaties and integration of tribal and commercial law);

Limitations of Federal Intelligence and Police Authority, Surveillance and Records Retention Amendment;

Renunciation of the National Debt Amendment;

Abolition of the FED Amendment;

Prohibition of Federal Largess to Individuals Amendment;

Restrictions on Earmarks, Single Subject Congressional Act Amendment;

Abolition of Government Employee Unions Amendment;


15 posted on 04/11/2010 9:48:30 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

dont understand that biz with Romney.


16 posted on 04/11/2010 9:50:43 AM PDT by rrrod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
It is the constitutional convention of the individual States.

Where does this silly notion come from?

If we cannot even elect a Congress that will do it's duty, what insanity makes people think they will elect delegates to a CC that will be any different from the current crop of thugs and crooks?

The same people who get elected NOW, and have created this mess, are the same people who would run a CC!

All a CC does is allow the current political class to rewrite those parts of the US Constitution they find inconvenient, like the 1st, 2nd and 10th Admentdments, to say something more to their likening.

NO, a CC is pure insanity. The solution is NOT to flailing around looking for some simplistic silly notions of some sort of quick fix.

The solution is for Conservatives to get off their asses and do the hard, nasty dirty work of winning elections.

17 posted on 04/11/2010 9:55:48 AM PDT by MNJohnnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

How about an Amendment that disallows a federal agency from initiating its own regulations without specific direction from Congress.


18 posted on 04/11/2010 10:17:36 AM PDT by marsh2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

You are mistaken, sir. Delegates to a constitutional convention are appointed by the individual States, not popularly elected, and officials and officers of the national government are prohibited from being seated as delegates.

Thus, for what you are implying, the legislatures of 38 States would have to be corrupted by a particular force or organization, that would inspire them to vote for a draft constitution of a corrupt nature. This is an almost impossible conjecture.

Instead, the purpose of a constitutional convention is *not* the prerogatives of the people, or of particular groups. It is those of the individual States themselves.

And the proof of this is that right now, groups of the individual States are already banding together on several parallel issues, each of which however is based on one principle: that the national government has overextended its reach into the power of the States.

Some of these States are asserting that guns and ammunition produced and used exclusively within their State are beyond federal prerogative. Another group says that the federal prohibition against the use of marijuana exceeds the national mandate. There are several more, similar to these ideas.

Likewise at least 17 States are joining in the lawsuit against Obamacare.

The most popular effort are the resolutions demanding adherence to the 10th Amendment. It is a first gesture, which in its current form will not convene a convention, but it is still a polite warning to the national government to cease and desist.

And it so far is being ignored at by the national government.

So in the final analysis, your fears are unjustified. The convention will not, and has strong safeguards against, being radicalized or co-opted for villainous purpose.

While I would certainly encourage a conservative recapturing of Washington, the only demand I would place on them is to ask if they would support a constitutional convention of the individual States, or if they would shun it, and fruitlessly try to once again regain control of this unwieldy behemoth, filled with rogue agencies and unresponsive bureaucrats.

As things stand, or national laws are being written by corporate lobbyists and Hill Rats, and are passed into law without review by our elected officials in either party. Their feints and parries against each other accomplish little or nothing, and the perpetually employed bureaucratic Mandarins care little or nothing for other than maintaining and enlarging their personal fiefdoms.

The bottom line is that it is not up to the people to afford change that we cannot make. Instead this is the prerogative of the individual States. So at best we should encourage them to aspire to this end, that our nation be restored to full function, not just have another coat of drab paint added to conceal its corruption and erosive decay.


19 posted on 04/11/2010 10:36:53 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
Hey, I agree with you until you bring up a ConCon. What the Founders did was radical. They went to Ammend the Articles of Confederation and completely scraped the government.

Our elected officals have proven they CAN'T/WON'T reject the temptations of power. Look at the 0care bill they just passed. Sure you can say the pubbies will be different, but it was [Snowe? Collins? both?] that helped it out of comittee.

What we need, is a House that will refuse to fund the unconstitutional apparatus of fedgov.... ie DoE, BATF, etc etc.

We don't need amendments for much of the things you mentioned... ie

National Census Enumeration Only Amendment

The census is spelled out; we need to stop the abuse of the census, an amendment is not needed

Abolition of the FED Amendment

The FED is unconstituional; it needs abolished. An amendment is not needed.

Flat Income Tax Amendment,

This is still a regressive tax. How about repeal the 16th Amendment and institute the FairTax.... which is a tax on consumption.

Personal Information and Records Limitation Amendment;

We already are protected under the 4th and 5th Amendments... we need to enforce those rights. How many Amendments do we need to assert our rights? A million of them won't do any good if we refuse to exercise them. further, the 9th and 10th Amendments already garuntees us the protections because it further limits the Fed and States... and speciffically grants us all rights not enumerated.

Corporate Civil Rights Distinct From The Civil Rights Of Living Persons Amendment;

No. Corporations are made up of people. Just because they belong to a body (corporation) does not mean they lose any rights..... SCOTUS just ruled on this regarding McCain-Feingold.

Renunciation of the National Debt Amendment

This would severly handicap us during a war or crisis. The US has always been in debt... even under the Articles. In fact one of the reasons for the ConCon was the fedgov did not have the power to tax; this was essential because the new country had war debt. Part of the reason many southern states did not want to scrap the Articles and sign the Constitution was they recognized the northern states still held Rev War debt, while many of the Southern states had paid theirs off.

We need to get rid of Social Security, Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC, Dept of Ed, and a whole host of other unconstitutional programs. This could be done though a Congressional Comittee of strict constructionists appointed by conservative Congress members. They could then move to defund and remove unconstitutional laws/institutions.

20 posted on 04/11/2010 10:51:00 AM PDT by Repeat Offender (While the wicked stand confounded, call me with Thy Saints surrounded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Huebolt
Gotta have someone electable. Romney is possibly that.

We've fallen for that 'must be electable' mistake too many times. Dole was 'electable.' McCain was 'electable.'

And Reagan was not.

Despite the way he actually performed while in office, George W. Bush was considered very conservative - particularly during his first campaign. And that was the cultural perception even during his second campaign (just try telling a liberal that "W" was not conservative and see how big a laugh you get.)

The only Republicans that can get elected - except the the coat-tail anomaly of Bush I - are considered to be conservative. If the people don't want a conservative, they are going to vote for the Dims anyway.

That doesn't mean they actually have to be conservative (e.g. Bush II). Only that they are considered conservative by the voters.

And Romney is not considered conservative at all. The Republicans have lost their way so badly that they have inverted the 'conventional wisdom.' They nominate a 'moderate' who then has to spend his entire compaign establishing his 'conservative' credentials. And then they lose.

This has come about because a preponderance of the early caucuses and primaries are in the more liberal areas of the country. If the delegate train started in more conservative states, the moderates would not get nominated. A truly 'electable' candidate - as opposed to a nominatible candidate - must be conservative enough that the voters do not perceive him (or her) as Democrat-lite.

A candidate who ran on the anchors of an honest implementation of the Constitution and fiscal responsibility would capture the current mood of the country. However, establishment Republicans have already lost their credibility on that. It will take a true outsider - probably a governor, and certainly someone with a track record of fiscal responsibility.

Though Romney was a governor, he fails the rest of that test completely.
21 posted on 04/11/2010 11:30:50 AM PDT by Phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Repeat Offender

Short of a military dictatorship, I don’t imagine any elected official, conservative or not, with that much chutzpah. Likewise, the process for making laws is designed to prevent new laws from being passed—but this cuts both ways as being tremendously difficult and time consuming to get rid of bad laws as well.

But the individual States are outside of the system. As such, they would not be “removing their own appendix”, but working as a surgeon works on a patient. In addition, the say of a convention is final, and cannot be appealed through the ponderous federal courts.

This has to be such a certainty, that after the 38 States have ratified the new constitution, that the convention remains seated to insure that the changes are carried out, having the power to relieve and replace federal officials and officers who refuse to obey the new law.

Ironically, this is almost required, because of the Writ of Mandamus argument. That is, what if there is a new constitution, and the president refuses to follow it, and congress refuses to impeach him? In this case, the convention could remove him from office with a simple majority vote, and appoint a replacement who agrees to carry out the will of the States.

The bottom line is that this will never be frivolous. America will have to be in a deep crisis before the States will do this.


22 posted on 04/11/2010 11:42:20 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson