Skip to comments.FReeper Book Club: The Debate over the Constitution, Centinel #1
Posted on 02/01/2010 7:56:26 AM PST by Publius
click here to read article
BTT for night shift.
I agree that business is a big impediment at whatever scale the republic is. However, a countervailing situation would be that the individuals would see the effects of this open border policy in a very real sense and the people who are suffering under this would be right there to do something about it. They would also be in a better position to do something real about the problem. About the best I can do right now is confirm that people who are coming in to do my yard or construction work are legal. If not, I don't do business with them, hoping to starve the beast.
I would say lawyers and bankers/financiers. Lawyers seem to lapse into case law discussions where the average common sense person's eyes would glaze over and would revert the discussion to where it needs to be - the Constitution. I think equally privileged and elitist are the bankers. If I were president, I'd certainly want to break up this lovefest amongst Goldman Sachs, the government, and the Fed. I was struck when Michelle Bachman asked Tim Geithner to tell her where in the Constitution it said he had the right to do (whatever it was he was doing). He acted as if he had never heard of the document. Scary.
That seems to work when the representatives are insulated from the constituents. I propose to remove that insulation.
Remember how they insulated themselves during their town hall meetings? They ridiculed those who believed in fiscal restraint and the proper role of our government.
Gee....just like the Nazis ridiculed the Jews.
What I am speaking of, and what Madison was talking about as well, is any group with similar interests gaining control of all three branches of government.
Look closely at all three branches of our government today and see what group you think that might be.
That is one of my favorite words.
I know someone who is simultaneously obsequious, abstruse, and pedantic. He is overly fawning when addressing others, speaks in a highly professorial manner, and focuses on minute detail and technicality when discussing topics.
But he's a nice guy.
I think the problem with today's "elites" is that they see themselves as trans-national, which was probably not the case in the 18th century.
Look at the reaction by elites to the Iraq wars. They refused to show patriotism, wear flag lapel pins, even said they would not inform American military if they became aware of impending ambush.
The People, on the other hand, seem to have much more nationalistic pride in their country, and are not ashamed to openly express it, and even rejoice in it. It is from the aggregated People that we get a collective concious of what it means to be American, and why a national identity is important.
Being ruled only by people who cannot or will not articulate an American exceptionalism would lead to an erasure of ties to America's history, and the temporal responsibilities between "antiquity" and "posterity," as Paine and others often cited.
That’s a good obsevation. There is a little too much Oxford and Sorbonne, and too little Georgia Tech.
Fascinating history about whiskey and how tax makes people relocate businesses.