Posted on 02/21/2007 5:53:58 PM PST by NellieMae
And the Constitution clearly states FROM THE FIRST SENTENCE ONWARD that it is "WE THE PEOPLE" who grant powers to the government and that clearly means that WE THE PEOPLE can choose to rescind these powers in the manner put forward (a constitutional convention).
Unfortunately, with only a handful of exceptions, our elected representatives have been totally ignorant to this fact for about two hundred years.
Let her husband be a general contractor and find work to support a couple of crews.
Hire anyone with a tax ID number.
_____________________________________________________
Says the guy who hires illegals to run his little business.
Yepp...homeowner.
Which is the long way around to saying, "Consent of the governed."
To put this in context, it's important to recall that this particular conversation started over this particular claim: "We are the true government, according to our founding documents."
While I fully agree with the idea that legitimate government operates only with the "consent of the governed," it is simply not true that "we are the true government." That would be democracy -- and we are a republic.
"Consent of the governed" means, explicitly, that we are the ones who are governed; and the Constitution defines the three branches which form the government.
It also means that once the government acts outside of the bounds of consent, that "We the People" are empowered to reign it in.
It's almost pedantic to draw this out for you and Jim, but the meaning and boundaries of "Consent of the Governed" is nevertheless the crucial point in this whole debate.
For example, there is probably never unanimous agreement on any government action. Short of perpetual stalemate, how is "Consent of the Governed" actually defined, as a practical concept?
There's really only one way: local politics define "local consent" by majority vote; and national consensus is defined by the accumulation of local results. The Democrats have the majority in both houses because they won more local races -- and thus they currently hold, in some sense, the imprimatur of "consent."
There's more, though: even at the local level it's almost never true that "consent" boils down to a single issue like immigration. It's usually a trade-off between a bunch of disparate issues. With the current Congress, "consent" on immigration is mixed in with "consent" for the war in Iraq, and "withdrawal of consent" from Republicans, and so on. It's a mixed bag, in other words.
In terms of illegal immigration, I think there is a broad consensus that it needs to be dealt with .... somehow. But there are a lot of different ways to deal with it, and the "consent of the governed" is scattered all over the map.
The truth is that people on this and similar threads are thrashing around about wanting the "consent of the governed" to rest with their particular solution.
Well, there might actually be a solution that a "majority of majorities" can accept -- imperfect, perhaps, but much better than what we have now. The way to achieve that national consensus is through the political process. If various FReepers want their solution to be THE solution, they've got to work for it.
But that solution will require acknowledgement of the facts of the problem. And it also demands a style of debate that doesn't sound like the end of a 6-day drunk -- something that more than a few FReepers seem unable to achieve.
California has been dealing with this for like 40 years. You cannot find gardeners, or any construction workers that are NOT illegal alien stolen.
Garbage. Be a man. Stop being a little girl.
You are right about that! Not to mention our own is once again lying to us and I guess we like it.
In 65 Ted Kennedy and yes Republicans too assured us that:
"[O]ur cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same...Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset...Contrary to the charges of some quarters, S. 500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any other country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia..."
In 1986 Conservatives compromised because we were assured that border security and illegal immigration would be taken care of. Our borders secured and immigration laws enforced.
Here we are again. Gee wonder what our politicans will do?
They lied in 65, They lied in 86 and in 2007 they... Hopefully they will at least kiss me while they are doing it.
With your stringent purchasing criteria, you can rest assured that everything you buy is going to be cheap.
don't think so? you don't have to wait 20 years to find out. look at the people today trying to get into the IT field with no experience. those jobs ship offshore now. i know, because that is what i do. i pay $500/mon for mid level help. $1500 for seniors. i have heard morons like you berate people like me when we blew the whistle... saying we should learn to compete. well, we did... and we won't be hiring your kids in the future.
suck it up, and enjoy your paper hat.
loser cry baby.
name calling? lol. you sure you aren't a liberal?
Bet it matches the goods at WalMart. You know that excellent example of capitalism. Are we really about cheap?
Thanks for the link. This is getting a little scary.
please spread the word.
Little welfare girl competing with illegal aliens? You expect me to give a damn about you?
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.