Skip to comments.We Can't Sit Back and Allow the Loss of Our Freedoms
Posted on 11/15/2009 11:12:49 AM PST by Bokababe
...The Founders did not give us a government like the one we have today. The government they gave us was strictly limited in its scope, guaranteed individual liberty, preserved the free market, and on matters that pertain to our private behavior was supposed to leave us alone.
In the Constitution, the Founders built in checks and balances. If the Congress got out of hand, the states would restrain it. If the states stole liberty or property, the Congress would cure it. If the President tried to become a king, the courts would prevent it.
In the next few weeks, I will be giving a public class on Constitutional Law here on the Fox News Channel, on the Fox Business Network, on Foxnews.com, and on Fox Nation. In anticipation of that, many of you have asked: What can we do now about the loss of freedom? For starters, we can vote the bums out of their cushy federal offices! We can persuade our state governments to defy the Feds in areas like health care -- where the Constitution gives the Feds zero authority. We can petition our state legislatures to threaten to amend the Constitution to abolish the income tax, return the selection of U.S. senators to state legislatures and nullify all the laws the Congress has written that are not based in the Constitution.
One thing we cant do is just sit back and take it....
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
the check and balance was removed the second the states were nullifed by having the senate directly elected.
the senate was there to represent that states, the house the people and thus 100 years later, no checks or balance but an out of control federal government with no way to rein it in.
We should all tell all our friends/family about this program.
I would believe that if we were broke as a nation for a government without checks and balances would surely break the bank.
When that happens I will take your statement to heart.
Not until then!....
From the Declaration of Independence " That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.".
It starts with the vote and ends wherever it has to!
I am still trying to find Part 2 of this & will post it when I find it.
I really enjoy listening to the Judge. He makes a lot of sense. However, he comes up a bit short on this one. He couches his argument in terms of arresting the expansion of government by threatening the elected elite with a variety of actions: amendment to scrap the Income Tax, return election of Senators to the State legislatures, etc.
For my part, we should be doing these things REGARDLESS of the party in control; and, it should be much, much more that mere threats. We should be demanding the Federal leviathan return to the live within the constraints of the Constitution. We should be demanding that the Income Tax be repealed. We should be demanding that the States be returned the election of Senators. And, we should be demanding that ALL Federal legislation of the last 200+ years be tested against the authorizations of the Constitution. AND IT SHOULD NOT MATTER WHICH PARTY IS IN CONTROL. It’s the right thing to do.
It’s time to take back the country.
And don’t expect any help from the courts.
we are broke as a nation, we depend on the chicoms to keep giving us the cash we need to survive.
Looking forward to Judge's course.
My naturally cynical thoughts tell me the voters tried voting the bums out in 1994, 2006 and 2008 and congress only gets worse(1994 being the exception short lived). Your state level ideas are OK in some states, but you can forget my liberal state MD doing anything but electing more liberals.
My thoughts are :
1) Term limits for house and Senate as promised in 1994 contract with America. Guess why that didnt get passed..
2) A ‘congress has to live in our world” act. For starters, congress must send their kids to public schools as long as they are office. Next, apply Freedom of Information act to congress like it is applied to the white house.
And I thought all along that because of our freedoms via the Constitution that we are the only "super power" surviving today.
I'm rethinking of late.
I’d like to hear a discussion of Obamacare vs. the health care plan that congress enjoys but does not pay for. That discussion should be centered on the ‘equal protection clause’.
This is a nice sentiment, one that I believe in to my core. But, there is a possibility that it makes me an ideologue. Why? Because the status quo is so ingrained in peoples minds, it is the way our reality is framed, and there are some things that many just would not want to give up. Even conservatives have raked me when discussing whether the 17th amendment should be repealed and many balk at eliminating the Department of Education, the EPA, the FDA and so on. It does not matter that these departments, as policized as they are do not function in the best interest of the people and over time have expanded way beyond their intended scope.
This stiff opposition to my constitutionalism (which is distinct from Libertarianism) lead me to believe that I truly am quite a minority, and people like me have been likewise as far back as John Adams. The recognition of things like the Alien and Sedition Acts, constant meddeling in the financial sector, and political manipulation of states all along shake my confidence that true constitutionalism could ever be a reality.
In my opinion, that government the Founders established died a very painful and bloody death during the civil war. What we have now are bits and pieces of what was left over. We are indeed very lucky to have as many freedoms and liberty left over as we have today, but many of the attitudes from the civil war persist even to this day, only with a different face. Something and someone has to be the historic antithesis of the liberals, and I don’t beleieve it is folks like me. Constitutionalists, and even Libertarians are stuck in the middle of the persistant tug-o-war between different ways to stomp on the constitution, for better or worse. Winning and having it be their way is far more important than just letting people and society be what it is, and more importanly for society to have the ability to define, and govern itself the way that was intended in the constitution.
“We can petition our state legislatures to threaten to amend the Constitution to abolish the income tax, return the selection of U.S. senators to state legislatures and nullify all the laws the Congress has written that are not based in the Constitution.”
This would be a major step in the right direction.
“Three: in certain extreme situations, the law is inadequate. In order to shame its inadequacy, it is necessary to act outside the law. To pursue... natural justice. This is not vengeance. Revenge is not a valid motive, it’s an emotional response. No, not vengeance. Punishment.” Time that some needed punishment was served.
We’re marerialistic junkies and the Chicoms have become our pimps. Plus we have an addiction to Saudi oil, and there ARE doemestic forces that are keeping us trapped into relying on both foreign oil and yen.
That and the Commerce clause spelled Doom for the Republic. We are reliving the history of the Roman Republic.
:....... nullify all the laws the Congress has written that are not based in the Constitution.”
THIS should NOT be a threat, it needs to be an uncompromising DEMAND.
"The vote" has changed to the point where it's almost impossible for the people to uphold the Constitution through voting.
There are too many who will vote for a candidate simply because said candidate offers something "for free" or "what you are owed/deserve/have a 'right to'". Bull!
Agree, except for the “Constitutional Ammendment”. That could open up a real can of worms as once a “CA” process starts there is NO LIMIT as to what may be included in the new Constitution. The judge should know that.
And the demise of it if we don't get our constitutionally driven freedom loving sh!t together and fast!
It is true that much of this has been ingrained in people's psyche, but it is also true that "the idea of the Constitution", rather than its actual content, has been equally ingrained. If and when people actually refer to the content of the Constitution, they will find that you are right. The point is to get them to look and educate themselves. Ron Paul and the Campaign for Liberty has been doing an excellent job of that, as have many smaller organizations.
That you feel this to your core makes you a Patriot, not just "an idealistic dogmatist".
Even conservatives have raked me when discussing whether the 17th amendment should be repealed and many balk at eliminating the Department of Education, the EPA, the FDA and so on
There are many people here on FR and beyond who are primarily Social conservatives rather than Constitutional conservatives, many of whom like big government and big government power -- their only dispute is how that power is used when it denies their agenda. They virtually never question whether government should have that power over us at all -- unless the opposition is in office and then they start the Constitutional chest-beating. It's a hard to make them realize that once you allow those powers to a President and government you like, you've also allowed the powers to the next government who you may hate.
Social Conservatism is the RESULT of a functional free society where people are responsible for their choices. It cannot be achieved by government decree whether we wish it so or not.
In my opinion, that government the Founders established died a very painful and bloody death during the civil war. What we have now are bits and pieces of what was left over. We are indeed very lucky to have as many freedoms and liberty left over as we have today, but many of the attitudes from the civil war persist even to this day, only with a different face.
Probably true, but politics is always a push-pull with history, yet there was never a Constitutional amendment passed to deny the rights of the States to secede -- that says something about the limits that the Fed had, even after that bloody Civil War.
"Something and someone has to be the historic antithesis of the liberals, and I dont beleieve it is folks like me. Constitutionalists, and even Libertarians are stuck in the middle of the persistant tug-o-war between different ways to stomp on the constitution, for better or worse."
Yes, and it is exactly where they should be right now because they have elements that appeal to be shared with both sides in fighting for our freedom and our country. IMHO, this should not be a purely partisan fight -- until or unless one of those Parties, hopefully the Republicans, come to their senses and begin to defend (rather than just try to cash in on) preserving those freedoms that this country was based on.
At worst, the Constitutionalists and libertarians will have stopped both Parties from moving further and further ideologically Left away from the Constitution, and at best, will have moved the discourse back toward a more Constitutional and libertarian model.
I think that we need to quit thinking of "idealist" as a dirty word, because without "ideals" we will have no sense of direction whatever.
Quite a difference from the OTHER Napolitano:
“Napolitano Announces Obama Administration Plan to Give Amnesty to Illegal Aliens”
One of my very favorite quotes:
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites—in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity;—in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption;—in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite is placed somewhere: and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
— Edmund Burke
Some excellent comments on this thread!
Agreed ... it starts with a vote and ends wherever it has to. We should have been throwing these bums out the entire time and shame on us for failing to do so. But we CAN start doing it now and a whole new batch of fresh faces will be an excellent place to start.
Agreed ... complacency is our worst enemy. People panic at the thought of making even minor changes, let alone major ones. You want some major changes? How about secession? Or some state nullifying federal law that affects ... oh ... payroll tax withholding? Capital gains tax? How about Oregon sez SCREW YOU and just starts drilling for oil and gas or building reactors without “permission” from Uncle Sugar? Sound like fun?
Agreed ... a Constitutional Convention would be scary ... but just HOW scary? Theoretically they COULD write a new Constitution, and I’d be willing to at least look it over. Because if they did, the Several States would have to ratify any new Constitution. They don’t just get to write one (if they were able!) and have it take effect the next day. Doesn’t work that way. On the other hand, what happens if a clear majority of our brethren want a new Constitution? What then?
Agreed ... expect no help from the courts. We could have avoided all of this grief if the Sleeping Nine were still doing their jobs. But they aren’t.
Agreed ... an act to make Congress “live in our world” would be great. But who is going to vote for it? That’s why we need all new Congresscritters, top to bottom. And no, “your guy” isn’t the only good one! THEY ALL SUCK!!
Agreed ... “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it” by any means necessary, including violence.
All of this being said, I look forward to Judge Napolitano’s ConLaw class!!
"Catch me on the "O'Reilly Factor" tonight @ 8pm EST debating the KSM trial in NYC."
Our Forefathers fought for less...
Two party system.......ummm, yeah, I'm thinking that's exactly what the power people hope for.
Socialism quickly or socialism a bit slower is still socialism.
Our government, republicans and democrats alike are responsible for the destruction of this nation.
From illegal immigration to de-industrialization, government health care to government prescription rx’s.
You name it, whether republicans or democrats are in office, we have been moving toward a socialist state for many years.
I've heard the Europeans refer to our political system as, “One Party, Two Choices”.
How right they are.
Republicans are in large part globalist.
De-industrialization of America for the bottom line. The almighty buck. It's shameful what these multinational corps are doing to our standard of living with congress enabling them.
Democrats are nothing less than socialist. Every policy fashioned to enslave the American people to Uncle Sugar.
Both parties hell bent on flooding this country with illegals.....then giving them OUR birth right.
Whether we get there slow or fast, socialism is still socialism.
Why threaten? Anything you'd get in exchange for not doing all that stuff wouldn't be as good as just doing it.
Finally, a Napolitano I can listen to without my blood pressure climbing into stroke range!
No, you're thinking of a Constitutional Convention, where you could rewrite the entire thing from scratch if you wanted. The process for individual amendments (we've got twenty-seven of them) is much more contained.
And wouldn't matter if it had. If you're willing to secede, it means you don't care what the law is in the country you're parting ways with. Maybe a little more convenient if it were explicitly sanctioned and the other government abided by it, but that wouldn't happen anyway.
Why? The electorate votes for the what they want. If that's the same guy, year after year... you'd be saying that the electorate shouldn't have the right to vote their choice.
A better choice would be to require that anyone who wishes to vote have to pass a civics test, so that only those who understand how the government works can vote. Thus eliminating any @sshat that thinks the President is some magic-man that can pull free stuff out of a hat.
Good post, thank you for taking the time to write it.
You are welcome, gogogodzilla!
I agree with DNME, many of excellent comments on this thread.
Why you ask? You really think this is working? Both candidates in 2008 tried to out Santa each other. Incumbent congressman have a huge advantage at getting re-elected and at bringing back the $$$. Congress hasnt polled over 40% in decades.
I agree with you 100% on civics test, everyone should have to know how Washington passes laws. I have believed that for a while. But two problems , 1) the history of election tests in South will label it white racism, 2) those in power will write the test to get opposing voters excluded.,just like McCain's campaign finance laws.
Term limits are a key step. They should have to put their kids in public schools while in congress, and white house. I know those will never happen,
Obama’s STIMULUS is working, he’s stimulated the whole country into tea parties, anti-health care rallies and all kinds of citizen revolts. He’s even got Napolitano giving lectures on the Constitution.
The Stimulus is working!
Who knows what he’ll stimulate next?
Completely agree, Bob!
One thing that you have to give to Obama -- he's made our life far more stimulating than it would have been with McCain in charge!
I recommend a Class Action suit against this administration for violating the Constitution. If it's possible, why wait until 2010 to hope some of these scoundrels are thrown out? There's no guarantee and we're still stuck with many more of these scumbags.
I have to admit that I hadn't given a thought to taxpayers footing the bill for their apparently outstanding health care deal. Unmitigated gall!!!
Until this gov't health plan was concocted by Obama, who even thought about the administration's "above the rest of us" health care?
It's drawn our attention now and still they intend to saddle us with a stupid, gov't controlled take-over of our rights.
2010 is too long to wait to take action.
Thank you for your very thoughtful response.
I had been figting what I believe to be the ‘good fight’ ever since this whole financial meltdown and what it has meant to me personally really opened my eyes about the conseqences of tyranny. To my dismay, I’ve been labeled not a ‘true’ conservative, a Libertoon, and other such things by those who are only interested in blue steel and have felt like a complete outcast. It does not seem to matter to anyone what the framers actually said, or thought, or how much or often I post Thomas Jefferson’s argument against the establishment of a national bank, which applies to just about everything the government is doing today, or the Federalist papers that describe the purpose of the Federal government, and what it is not. They just don’t get why it was limited or do not care.
To me, that big government sword cuts both ways, and I’d prefer that it cuts not at all. This problem we have of being in fear of the government running amuck, and being promised that by the party in power, is a problem that I do not wish my children to have and it all comes from the constant over-stepping of bounds, with each step being even more bold and more brash than the last; left or right, it doesn’t matter.
If you ever have a chance to study the Buchanan era, you might notice some similarities to the political and economic envrionment today. Some like to think that FDR wrote the book on big government, but it probably started as early as Jackson, coming to a head during Buchanan. I agree with you that the post-war Fed was indeed a kinder, gentler Fed, but it did nothing to prevent future economic and societal meddling that I believe was at the root of the conflict.
In the debate about the 17th amendment I was told that it would have some negative impact on the subsidy southern states get because they lost their 3/5th exemtion after the war, and they still need it because they aren’t as economically advanced as the northern states. I was boggled that a subsidy for that still exists 150 years later.
Why is that place STILL a shambles? Why am I paying taxes for this?
It wasn’t until then that I realized that this problem is far bigger than logic, rational thought, or any amount of education about what the constitution really means. All people can see is what they get from the abuse. It is a monumental task, and a lonely one at that.
Amen. Congress is out of control. And people keep reelecting these same criminals. And no way to stop it until it explodes.
Seriously, who is going to run on a campaign of cutting expenses such as Medicare? That is a political death sentence? Or cutting funding for education?
As long as people put their self interest above the country’s (which is over 50% of people), we will eventually blow up.
Sorry. There is NO SOLUTION. Even Reagan barely cut expenditures.
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.