Skip to comments.Right-Wing Progressivism in the U.S. (Must End!)
Posted on 04/30/2010 3:02:32 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
I posted this first to the latest Glenn Beck thread. I think it embodies what Glenn is talking about in a concentrated summary and deserves notice, IMHO:
A right-wing progressive can be defined as one who joins with the left in promoting the all-encompassing all-powerful Commerce Clause in order to push a social "conservative" or religious agenda, primarily today in the federal War on Drugs. (Right-wing Progressivism predates left-wing Progressivism in the alcohol temperance movement of the 1870s and also in the premature ending of Reconstruction and Plessy v. Ferguson institutional and statute-enforced segregation.) The right has been willing to help the left dine out on our substance in tyrannizing and regulating all aspects of our lives in return for the crumb of a federal war on vices, obscenity, violating the 1st Amendmend's "no law", and drugs, having failed miserably with alcohol, perverting the meaning of "interstate" commerce in order to avoid another Prohibition Amendment debacle.
Okay, what has happened to "right-wing progressivism" since the 1930's New Deal right-left coalition? The left has pushed right-wing progressives into smaller and smaller corners, while still able to count on their support for big government.
The right lost almost all control of freedom of association in the 1950s and 1960s when forced segregation, which many were happy with, became forced integration and forced busing. These are two sides of the same big government coin. Had the left been satisfied with de-institutionalizing segregation, that would have been the small-government ideal. But promotion of desegregation became a tool of leftist state control as segregation had been a tool of right-wing control.
On obscenity, the Right has lost almost all control of adult pornography except in public places and public broadcast of the most explicit material. They lost from the 60s to the 90s on public broadcast of the seven dirty words, though they recently regained that. But where is the 1st Amendment authority for that in "no law"?
On drugs, the "Right" lost on alcohol in 1933. In the last decade, the Right's control on marijuana has begun to slip. Soon, only "hard drugs" will be illegal IF that is enough to keep the social right wing in the big government coalition or if indeed the right is still needed in that coalition.
The right did have good reasons for collaborating with the left in federalization. State-by-state temperance laws had failed to get the degree of control over alcohol that the religious right sought because state borders are porous. What was illegal in one state was easily carried to another by individuals and black marketeers. Lax broadcast standards in one state would let language and views bleed over into stricter states. Rather than taking the lengthy process of persuading adjacent jurisdictions, the right opted for the easy answer of federal standards. But the Supreme Court from 1900 to 1920 correctly ruled such efforts beyond the scope of federal power. The 18th Amendment seemed to be the solution for alcohol. But when that promoted violent crime and disrespect for the law, the right surrendered on alcohol and retreated to federal control on issues and values on which there was general public agreement. On of those was marijuana. And the left was able to get the right to join the New Deal left to forge a coalition for big government culminating in the Wickard v. Filburn decision. Then the left set about undermining those values with the goal of one day obtaining sole control of big government power with a majority able to do without a coalition with the right.
The federalizing of religion-based legalistic control on these issues has gradually turned against the right in the left's push for federal exclusion of religion which reaches state and local levels through unconstitutioinal federal funding, mandates and regulation. The right needs to understand that federalizing these issues was always going to be temporary and self-defeating, diverting them from true efforts at persuasion and evangelization for the easy shortcut of coercion while the left used those tools to evermore shrink the right.
The only solution lies in the right pulling the rug from under the left while it may still have the numbers to do so. The right must leave the big government coalition, even if that means setbacks on individual issues. With a collapse of big government, the right must then set about persuading on its issues at the local level. And the right needs to understand that some people are going to be sinners and stop trying to convert by coercion at any level where there is not an immediate and direct threat to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.
Now would be an ideal time for Megan McCain to go popping of about all of her Conservative Progressive causes!
That would ensure JD’s win in AZ.
Funny, how she has been out of the picture and silent all of the sudden, you know?
She has not been silent. She was just out there bashing the Arizona Governor.
There is no such thing as a Right Wing Progressive.
There is no such thing as a Conservative Progressive. These 2 idealogies cannot co-exist within the same party, as they are oposites.
There are Progressive Republicans.
DYK that many major cities had public smoking bans around the time of our founding fathers?
Right does not equal conservative when right seeks to use the levers of power to impose its views on individual behavior. Progressive is the coercive left.
A progressive right-winger is one who colludes with the left in their creation of a coercive non-conservative government in return for being allowed to use those tools for bits of the right-wing agenda that the left allows temporarily.
I believe you are confusing “Social Conservatives” with “Progressive Conservatives.” Certainly many Social Conservatives have bought into Progressivist “moral” campaign’s, such as the aforementioned “Temperence” campaign that resulted in the 18th Amendment and Prohibition in the early 20th century. But the motivations were quite different. Social Conservatives were motivated by protection of families, children, life, Progressives were interested in control, order, “social betterment.” I draw these conclusions not merely as a layman, but as a minister of the Gospel and as a Professor and student of History and Religion.
One might argue about the means, but NOT the motives. Social Conservatives clearly do NOT share the motives of Progressives. Incidentally — the very idea of “Conservative Progressive” is an oxymoron. It’s self-contradictory. One is either a Conservative, or one is a “Progressive.” One cannot be both.
To claim that Scalia, Roberts and Alito are “Progressives” is to totally misunderstand and confuse Social Conservatism and so-called “Right-wing Progressivism” (a misnomer, as I’ve already pointed out). They are Originalists and Constructionists, characteristic of Social Conservatism in their view of the COnstitution, NOT Progresivism!
PLEASE note the difference between SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES and these so called RIGHT-WING or PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVES. They are very different, just as there are differences between Libertarian Conservatives and Social Liberals...There are differences, aren’t there?
And some states had established religions and slavery.
Yes, I’m aware of many contradictions held at the time.
To obtain a measure of the relative frequency of different criminal charges and the types of punishments imposed, Powers reviewed the General Court and Court of Assistants records set out in the Plymouth Colony Records (PCR) for a ten-year period, from April 1, 1633 through 1643. The following is a summary of his findings, listed by category of crime and in descending order of the number of convictions for those crimes:
* Fornication: 19 convictions, resulting in 2 fines, 9 whippings, 1 bond for good behavior, and 9 stocks.
* Drunkenness: 18 convictions, with 11 fines, 2 whippings and 2 stocks.
* Lewd, lascivious, or wanton behavior: 16 convictions, resulting in 10 whippings, 2 stocks, 2 banishments, 2 burnings on the shoulder, and 2 “other” punishments. Other penalties included: to be whipped and forced to wear an AD for adultery, or to have to give a public account of one’s way of living.
* Liquor law violations: 13 convictions, resulting in 13 fines.
* Vilifying authorities: 12 convictions, resulting in 8 fines, 2 bonds for good behavior, 1 stocks, and 1 banishment.
* Assault and battery: 9 convictions, resulting in 9 fines.
* Tobacco smoking: 8 convictions, resulting in 6 fines.
* Stealing: 7 convictions, resulting in 4 whippings, 1 bond for good behavior, 1 restitution (repayment), and 2 burnings on the shoulder.
* Swearing: 6 convictions, resulting in 2 admonitions, 1 stocks, and 2 prison sentences.
* Extortion: 6 convictions, resulting in 3 fines and 2 restitutions.
* Lord’s Day violations: 6 convictions, resulting in 2 fines, 2 whippings, 1 bond for good behavior, 1 stocks, and 1 banishment.
* Murder: 3 convictions, resulting in 3 executions (Powers 1966: 406).
Powers also counted 68 convictions for crimes he categorized as “Miscellaneous.” Among these, the most prominent in number was “keeping unringed swine” (letting them run loose), with 21 convictions, resulting no doubt in the imposition of fines. Among the other crimes Powers included in this miscellaneous category were a number of infrequent transgressions, such as: “cruelty to servant (1); living alone (1); runaway servant (1); . . . selling powder to Indians (1); scoffing at religion (1); sodomy (death penalty [of Graunger]); adultery (1); neglecting duty about the ferry (1); calling a man a ‘rogue’ (1)” (Powers 1966: 406). These 68 convictions resulted in 46 fines, 5 whippings, 3 restitutions, 1 admonition, 3 stocks, 1 prison sentence, 2 banishments, 1 death sentence, and 3 “other” penalties.
That’s a Rino.
Sure there are degrees are left and right, but I would not consider anyone right wing if they were progressive.
Lindsay Graham, for instance, is a progressive, he’s a Republican, but he is not ‘Right Wing”.
Symantics, perhaps, but I don’t like the way the left intrchanges words and inevitably skews the meaning.
Understand you completely. I am a social conservative. The progressive right is mainly a subset of social conservatives, probably a majority, unfortunately.
Scalia, Roberts and Alito are NOT originalists because they agree with the left’s all-encompassing New Deal interpretation of interstate commerce (or the general welfare, or the necessary and proper clauses) because that is intellectually necessary to continue the federal drug war without a specific Prohibition amendment granting the federal government that authority. If they pulled out of that mindset and became conservatives and originalists, half of the cabinet level departments become unconstitutional.
It seems to me one has to put far too much emphasis on the ICC to get to their objections to the drug war — and anyone who finds drugs legally objectionable must defacto be a progressive BECAUSE they oppose drugs.
As a Social Conservative, I oppose drugs — not based on the ICC, but on a myraid of other legal (and to me more importantly MORAL) reasons. I do not think that ONE example — the “drug wars” — is grounds to deny that three of our Supreme Court Justices are not Originalists. These men are not perfect. I don’t agree with all their decisions by any stretch — but we’ve got to start somewhere and work with what we’ve got.
You have it exactly backwards. You can oppose intoxicating drugs for a lot of REASONS without being progressive. The issue is on what legal BASIS and with what MEASURES you want to use to do something about it.
The ICC is a blunt instrument that if used against drugs, it justifies regulating everything else. What existing Constitutional provision would you suggest using that targets drug use without a massive claim of federal power or distorting the original intent beyond recognition? Or what Prohibition language would you propose that does not result in the problems created by the 18th A. or the problems we have now?
Scalia et al are not progressives because they want to stop drug use even by coercive means. That makes them not libertarian. They are progressives because the tool they want to use, the ICC, also gives power to the progressive left. They do not have the courage and intellectual consistency to leave that decision to the people whether to grant that power by amendment or not, and they short-circuit any impetus by the people to do so by imposing their own views for an unauthorized drug war.
I’ve seen plenty of libertarians cheer on the “progressive” oppression of their enemies. They cheer on the Left forcing homosexuality on the public and especially enjoy the left’s violation of religious liberty for the groups they hate. They cheer on the health nazis. They cheer on corporate upsurption of the spirit of the constitution.
Everyone has mud on themselves in this sick system where people compete to win elite’s all powerful Federal oppression game. No one should be mounting a high horse and especially not libertarians.
You are exactly right. Progressive libertarians would rather give the left free reign than see abandoned either Roe v. Wade or Lawrence v. Texas and the federal power they embody. Progressivism cuts across all political bedfellows and sacred cows.
The only solution that I can see, short of breaking the country into two, is a return to the US constituional government and an overturning of all the law, case law, foreign treaties and Executive Oders that have eroded freedom’s structure of government and individual liberty.
Then no one has a reason to look to the Federal government to “get” their social, economic and political enemies in a centralized way. However, if this is not possible, we need to spilt into two nations - one free and one socialist. Freedom is not reconcilable with socialism and surely not with global fascism.
The other option is to break up into two Nations - one free and one socialist.
:-) I think you understood me exactly backwards. In the case of the “drug war,” however, perhaps they HAVE granted leeway [wrongfully] that has opened the door to massive abuse. Wouldn’t be the first time Conservatives have done something stupid like that. It’s happened for over a century!
Most recent example? Mike Pence and Eric Cantor voted FOR HR 2499, the “Puerto Rico Democracy Act,” which ostensibly will give Puerto Rico the chance to vote for statehood (which they have voted down 3 times before. Only this time, the PR Progressive Party has already RIGGED the process and fixed it WITH the Democrat-Socialists in Congress so that they could actually FORCE their way into statehood within a year! And yet, CONSERVATIVES — REAL Conservatives! — voted for it! Real Conservatives in Each and every branch of Government do STUPID things and make DUMB decisions sometimes. It’s the nature of the business.
That still doesn’t make them thorough-going Progressives....
I believe the “General Welfare” clause was intended as an additional limit on the power of Congress, that is, they were not being empowered to exercise those enumerated powers arbitrarily or in any way contrary to the general welfare or to promote other than general welfare as opposed to specific interests. We have strayed far.
I’ll vote for you if you vote for me.
We’ll have bonfires at the Whitehouse, the Supreme Court,
Capitol Hill and a BIG one at the United Nations building.
And rescue America from the National Archive.
Maybe we should use paper shredders so as not to scare anyone. LOL
...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.
Justice Scalia, concurring in Raich, 6 June 2005.
You may not base your support for federal prohibition on the New Deal Commerce Clause, but fedgov certainly does. If you support that policy, you cannot escape responsibility for supporting a violation of the Constitution.
I do not think that ONE example the "drug wars" is grounds to deny that three of our Supreme Court Justices are not Originalists.
As I said earlier, Scalia's opinion in Raich was not confined to the war on drugs; he endorsed Wickard. One legal heavy hitter is citing Scalia to claim Obamacare will survive a constitutional challenge. Charles Fried, US Solicitor General 1985-1989 and Harvard Law professor was on Greta Van Susteren, 04/14/2010:
FRIED: The statute which I have front of me, I bothered to read it, says that the health insurance industry is an $854 billion dollar industry. That sounds like commerce.
The Supreme Court just five years ago with Justice Scalia in the majority said that it is all right under the Commerce Clause to make it illegal for California for residents in California to grow pot for their own use, because that has affect on interstate commerce.
Well, if that has affect on interstate commerce, what happens in an $854 billion national industry certainly does.
FRIED: I daresay that, because I looked at that 2005 lawsuit about the pot in California. If somebody growing pot in their basement is interstate commerce and Scalia said so, I don't know where you are going to get five votes the other way.
Exactly. The Commerce Clause isn't so much the reason for the drug war as it is the legal excuse for the feds to engage in it (if their interpretation were correct).
Currently the biggest mistake is demanding a big gubmint solution to immigration. Granted immigration presents some problems. What makes any conservative think that big gubmint is the solution?
National ID card?
Telling private employers whom they can and cannot hire?
Eminent Domain to build border stations ... in Vermont?
Be careful what you wish for.
A libertarian progressive would be one who practices personal wealth distribution without forcing it on others.
Fried is just ONE “Legal Heavey Hitter.” I think he might be surprised by Scalia. But then, I could be wrong — and he — perhaps you — could be right. The Justices on the Supreme Court tend to be removed from both reality and Constitutional Responsibility after a while on the bench. I hope I’m right about Scalia though...
As to my opposition to drugs — you make one fatal assumption — that I base my opposition wholly or solely on FEDERAL GOVERNMENT grounds. In fact, I think the several States in and of themselves WITHOUT the agency of the Federal Government could each make a sound case for fighting their own “drug wars.” But quite apart from it “Commerce Clause,” a national security case could easily and Constitutionally be made to fight against the cartels of Mexico, Central and South America and the Caribbean, and those with whom they have allied themselves. Consider the border in Arizona right now...Think about towns just across the border from Texas, like Nuevo Laredo or cuidad Juarez.
Spending billions on crimes, treatment, wasting resources, preoccupation with those who would do us harm, pollute and kill our children and grow rich with out cash while doing so — I find that a “clear and present danger” for a Constitutional declaration of war. But if the Feds, or even a majority of States wouldn’t do it, I think individual States could — and should be allowed to. If the Feds won’t help, they ought to stay out of the way.
Once again, YOU may find it such, but fedgov does not. In their eyes this is a Commerce Clause issue and has been so since the drug war began. You simply cannot escape responsibility for supporting the New Deal Commerce Clause. It is a display of contempt for the Constitution whether or not you wish to acknowledge it.
But if the Feds, or even a majority of States wouldn't do it, I think individual States could and should be allowed to. If the Feds won't help, they ought to stay out of the way.
The feds should act in accordance with original understanding and let the states set their own intrastate drug policies.
Let me ask this... Rasmussen has the California ballot initiative to tax and regulate marijuana ahead by 49%-38%. Suppose it is passed by CA voters. Would you support CA's prerogative under the Tenth Amendment to enact such a program without fedgov interference? Or, would you support fedgov shutting it down under authority of the Commerce Clause?
I’ll answer you’re last question first — if California passed a law legalizing & regulating marijuana, I would be ALL for it — with TWO Caveats: (1) That the FedGov would not then FORCE all the rest of the States to do the same or RECOGNIZE as “legal” California’s laws in their courts (as in the case of gay marriage and other issues), and (2) as long as the rest of the States didn’t have to foot the bill when ALL of the potheads moved en masse to California and went on their welfare roles, or drug dependency lists, or whatever they created to supply them with their grade a Columbian leaf — and if you don’t think that would happen, you done been tokin.’
As to your assumption that, because I support a drug war I MUST then support the ICC — are you kidding?! I simply see drugs as a national security threat. These are Constitutional questions, but the ICC need never come up in confronting enemies foreign and domestic. Even the Preamble of the Constitution clearly delineates one of the major roles of the FedGov is to “provide for the common defense.” As I said, there is not a clearer case to be made than the one that foreign drug producing and supplying cartels and those with whom they have allied themselves (including Communists, and now Islamofascists) are our enemies and we should declare war on them. NO ICC crap necessary. We don’t have to “invent” a reason to go to war with these people. They hate us and seek our destruction by any means necessary. That’s war.
Suppose a politician says, "I support the Second Amendment, but with TWO Caveats...". Would you think that person was a principled supporter of the Second Amendment and the RKBA? If you believe the originalist position is to honor the Tenth Amendment, then attaching caveats is showing a degree of contempt, IMO.
As to your assumption that, because I support a drug war I MUST then support the ICC are you kidding?!
Look, I agree that Congress has authority take on the cartels with deadly force and/or close the border. It has sovereign power over such things.
Congress has gone beyond that in imposing a nationwide prohibition under the New Deal or Wickard Commerce Clause. Is it your position that Congress is acting in accordance with original understanding in this regard?
Again, answering your second question first, the simpleanswer is NO, Congress is NOT acting in the original understanding. I think there are some complexities there, but essentially, there are few disagreements there.
With regard to your comparison between drugs and guns — again, are you freaking kidding?! The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. It is essential to liberty. There IS no right to keep and use recreational drugs! No matter WHAT penumbra you look under in the Constitution! I show no contempt (I find that mildly insulting) for the Constitution in saying that it does not protect the “right” of individual criminals or groups of enemies both foreign and domestic to destroy the nation and the several states both morally, physically and economically. That’s patently absurd.
Reread what I wrote. I did not compare the RKBA to a right to keep and use drugs. I compared support for Amendment II to support for Amendment X. Support for Amendment X means the states should have the choice regarding intrastate drug policies, not that they must legalize.
If fedgov passed a law requiring states to legalize marijuana, then that would be just as much a violation of Amendment X as are the current laws which impose national prohibition. Attaching conditions to one's support for either of the amendments is a display of contempt, IMO.
Again, I don’t see how we disagree to any great degree. The Constitution as originally constructed limite the FedGov. States, in that case, would have been free to set their own guidelines regarding arms (though no SANE State would have forbidden them in the 18th or 19th centuries — and I would argue that’s even more true today).
All things being equal, the same would be true for recreational drugs. But all things are not equal. First, as I mentioned, there is no national security imperative nor personal security use for recreational drugs as there is with RTKB. Second, if this is one of the rights NOT enumerated in the Tenth Amendment (an intellectual argument in itself I have no problem with), then certainly the FedGov COULD NOT intervene whether a state banned usage or freely permitted it. If only it were that “simple.”
It’s not. First, the 14th Amendment stood the Constitution on it’s head, applying all the restrictions imposed on the FedGov on all the State Governments AND in fact now on even private corporations, and even individuals, and it’s even been used to make the Federal Courts the ARBITERS of who is and is not entitled to those rights. It’s a perversion of the document, and a usurpation of the highest order that our Founders would be appalled at, and would likely have rebelled against. This being the case, NOTHING the State chooses to do WILL escape Federal scrutiny. Anything they choose to do MUST be approved by funded by, and/or supported by Washignton.
The only way to right our nation is if the States stand up to Washington and refuse to recognize their jurisdiction and right to rule in such a manner. Will it happen? Short of violence? Rebellion?...
Back to the original question — Even if the FedGov could neither impose nor forbid drug policy on a given state, so long as I in South Carolina would NOT have to PAY taxes that would then be used to support the drug habits of high Californians, or bail them out when they went bust — ok. Under the current system, that’s EXACTLY what we’re doing. I would refuse to do that in the NAME of “Constitutional Freedom” too.
You wanna snort coke, shoot heroin or smoke pot all day long and California says ok, move out there. Live in the trees, bathe in the creeks, eat in the soup kitchens and buy from the Government run suppliers. But don’t look to ME (or to ME THRU the auspices of Washington DC) to pay for rehab, rent you a crash pad, scoop you up off the street, reimburse all your victims and their families, and pay your burial costs. My response would be, “you want “laissez-faire” buddy, you got it.
One common sense lesson I learned from my Dad years ago — and he is a man who LOVES this nation and the Constitution. If you ask for MY money, I’m gonna call the shots. Right now, Greece wants European money with no strings — it doesn’t work that way. California wants a Federal bailout with no strings — sorry, it doesn’t work that way. WASHINGTON wants our money and STILL wants to tell us what to do — they got it exactly BACKWARDS. The people PAYING all the taxes and FOOTING all the bills are the ones who call the shots — NOT the ones with no skin in the game.
Sorry if you think I am displaying “contempt” for the Constitution. I can only assure you, I am not. If you don’t agree, well, then, we will disagree. I am just a bit tired of people telling me that because I insist upon RESPONSIBILITY that I infringe upon someone elses “rights,” yet when I am RESPONSIBLE, I have even more rights taken away from me, and less left to me to enjoy the few rights I have left. SOmetime, the tide has to turn back in favor of the 53% of us who DO pay the taxes and work out butts off to foot the bill for the illegals, the lazy bums and the government employees, politicians and societal deadweight that depend on US and yet demands even more FROM us.
Okay — rant officially over :-)
I don’t support the “New Deal Commerce Clause.” I DO believe in the Tenth Amendment. :-) How’s that for a clear, plain, simple, straightforward statement? No contempt there at all.
That is known as constitutional contempt.
It’s a very clear statement, but it contradicts your earlier stated position. In regard to the CA’s proposed marijuana policy, you DO support the New Deal Commerce Clause and you do NOT support the Tenth Amendment.
That is known as constitutional contempt.
If I understand you correctly, what you’re saying is that California ought to have the right under the Tenth Amendment to legalize marijuana (and other drugs I suppose?) And neither the Federal Government NOR the other States should have a right to STOP them. I agreed to that premise, intellectually anyway. BUT, at the same time, you are saying that WHEN California runs OUT of money to PAY for the junky culture which they will certainly build and attract (and in reality already HAVE)you are saying that the FEDS and the other States ARE ON THE HOOK to PAY for it too?! And if we object, somehow we have contempt for the Constitution?!
YOu HAVE been tokin.
IF we are to assume that the Founders meant the Tenth Amendment to free the States and the People to engage in activities of their choice — even ones which would be harmful to them — then we must also assume that the states or people do so AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE. South Carolina has not responsibility to pay for the failure of California. I as a clean, tea-totalling citizen have NO responsibility to pay for your rehab IF you choose to get hooked on nose candy. If we are to be Libertarians, we go all the way. The Feds don’t set the rules. The Founders did, the Constitution DOES.
YOu may honor the Constitution by observing it — but don’t twist it so as to make me culpable to pay for your vices, or to make my state liable to pay for your states foolish expenditures.
We both seem to agree that that is the originalist position.
BUT, at the same time, you are saying that WHEN California runs OUT of money to PAY for the junky culture which they will certainly build and attract (and in reality already HAVE)you are saying that the FEDS and the other States ARE ON THE HOOK to PAY for it too?! And if we object, somehow we have contempt for the Constitution?!
Since your objection takes the form of supporting the New Deal Commerce Clause at the expense of the Tenth Amendment, then yes, you indeed display contempt for the Constitution.
It is the New Deal Commerce Clause that enables fedgov to put productive citizens on the hook for such things as welfare, public housing, and health care. Your position seems to be that because you believe your pocketbook will be adversely affected by one unconstitutional fedgov policy (forcing you to pay for CA's problems), then you are justified in supporting another unconstitutional fedgov policy (using the New Deal Commerce Clause to trample the Tenth Amendment).
I find that a morally indefensible position. If you're willing to dishonor both the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment, why should anyone trust you not to dishonor any other part of the Constitution when it suits your purpose?
It is the New Deal Commerce Clause that enables fedgov to put productive citizens on the hook for such things as welfare, public housing, and health care. Your position seems to be that because you believe your pocketbook will be adversely affected by one unconstitutional fedgov policy (forcing you to pay for CA’s problems), then you are justified in supporting another unconstitutional fedgov policy (using the New Deal Commerce Clause to trample the Tenth Amendment).
I find that a morally indefensible position. If you’re willing to dishonor both the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment, why should anyone trust you not to dishonor any other part of the Constitution when it suits your purpose?
I will try again, though I think you are deliberately trying to MISunderstand me. :-) Under the Tenth Amendment, California may pass a law legalizing marijuana (as do other States). Conversely, other States may pass laws OUTLAWING drugs or further strengthening their drug laws under the Tenth Amendment. That is left to the States under the Tenth. The Federal Government has little or nothing to say about it.
Now, what I am trying to make clear is that EACH State is (AND SHOULD BE) wholly and completely responsible for the economic impact of the choices of its government, and of its voters. YOU have to KNOW that UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM, ALL States ARE held accountable for the failures of a California. I don’t ENDORSE that. I don’t SUPPORT that. I don’t AGREE with that! I don’t LIKE that. That’s simply REALITY. That’s the way it IS under the ICC — and it seemed to be what you were suggesting was the “Constitutional” way to interpret the Tenth Amendment in your last few posts.
Simply put, that’s NOT Constitutional. It also DEFIES Common Sense. IT additionally flies in the face of what our Founders intended. The Constitution WAS not a suicide pact. So, I agree. California can legalize all the dope they want. And they can pay for it. Here in South Carolina, we’ll throw your a$$ in prison for life if you bring it in the State. And no, we won’t give a thin dime to California if they go bust. And THAT is both Common Sense and Constitutional. The Founders NEVER intended one to have it both ways.
Freedom without responsibility isn’t freedom, it’s chaos.
Agreed. Forcing SC residents to pay for CA's profligate ways violates both the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment. Such is made possible by the unconstitutional New Deal Commerce Clause. I do not support that.
and it seemed to be what you were suggesting was the "Constitutional" way to interpret the Tenth Amendment in your last few posts.
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but my previous paragraph should clear up any misconceptions about my position.
Simply put, that's NOT Constitutional. It also DEFIES Common Sense. IT additionally flies in the face of what our Founders intended. The Constitution WAS not a suicide pact. So, I agree. California can legalize all the dope they want. And they can pay for it. Here in South Carolina, we'll throw your a$$ in prison for life if you bring it in the State. And no, we won't give a thin dime to California if they go bust. And THAT is both Common Sense and Constitutional. The Founders NEVER intended one to have it both ways.
It seems we agree on the original meaning of both the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment.
The difference is that you support fedgov using the New Deal Commerce Clause to trample the Tenth Amendment prerogatives of CA in the case of marijuana. You dishonor the Tenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause in doing so. Do you not get that?
You rationalize your support for this violation based on the fact that Fedgov - using the New Deal Commerce Clause - forces you to pay for CA's profligacy. That's all it is though, a rationalization for your constitutional contempt.
OKay — I think you half understand my point now.
Let me try to get across the OTHER half. I DO NOT, as you suppose, believe in using the “New Deal Commerce Clause” to “trample the Tenth Amendment Prerogatives of California in the case of marijuana.” I don’t care what California does — I just don’t want to pay for it. O don’t care if the FedGov says I have to, or Governator Ahnold says I have to — the answer is, NO. The reason the answer is NO is because the Tenth AMendment is NOT a one way street. California has a right to legalize drugs — fine. I have a right NOT to foot the bill.
Wouldn’t you agree?
OK. Suppose CA votes to legalize mj. What specifically do you want the US DOJ to do about such a program?
California has a right to legalize drugs fine. I have a right NOT to foot the bill. Wouldn't you agree?
Yes, I do agree. I don't agree that that justifies fedgov violating a state's Tenth Amendment prerogative. A violation of one provision of the Constitution does not justify a violation of another provision of it.
I have to foot the bill for smokers, drinkers, overeaters, etc. That doesn't mean I'm going to support fedgov restrictions on such activities. That would be contempt for the Constitution. Agreed?
OK. Suppose CA votes to legalize mj. What specifically do you want the US DOJ to do about such a program?
If the State votes to legalize, under the Tenth Amendment, I would want them to do NOTHING.
Yes, I do agree. I don’t agree that that justifies fedgov violating a state’s Tenth Amendment prerogative. A violation of one provision of the Constitution does not justify a violation of another provision of it.
I have to foot the bill for smokers, drinkers, overeaters, etc. That doesn’t mean I’m going to support fedgov restrictions on such activities. That would be contempt for the Constitution. Agreed?
And WHY do you have to “foot the bill” for smokers, drinkers, overeaters, etc.?” If you’re talking about “footing the bill thru free market and private enterprise mechanisms — businesses, insurance, etc., well and good. Free market CHOICES leave the consumer with the freedom NOT to participate in picking up such costs. But if you’re talking about FedGov POLICY by which I am MANDATED to PAY for the stupid policies of OTHER States (OR the FedGov for that matter) then THAT is not only an affront to the Tenth Amendment, but it is using that SAME “New Deal Commerce Clause” and is the highest contempt to the Constitution, don’t you think?!
The shoe’s on the OTHER foot in THAT case...
My Answer: And WHY do you have to "foot the bill" for smokers, drinkers, overeaters, etc.?" If you're talking about "footing the bill thru free market and private enterprise mechanisms businesses, insurance, etc., well and good. Free market CHOICES leave the consumer with the freedom NOT to participate in picking up such costs.
But if you're talking about FedGov POLICY by which I am MANDATED to PAY for the stupid policies of OTHER States (OR the FedGov for that matter)
then THAT is not only an affront to the Tenth Amendment, but it is using that SAME "New Deal Commerce Clause" and is the highest contempt to the Constitution, don't you think?!
THen why are you saying I must pay for California’s stupidity under the ICC if they choose to legalize drugs? It seems to me that YOU would be the one showing contempt for the Constitution, not I.
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.