Posted on 07/09/2015 2:07:13 AM PDT by markomalley
I disagree with the entirety of your post, including the history you confuse, all of it.
What then in your opinion is the remedy to our head first dive into tyranny?
Mark is wrong! Golly, did that ever occur to you that he is not infallible. I’ve read the liberty amendments and see many flaws. Mark thinks he can make amendments so good that no one could possible subvert them. I like Mark but I also know vanity when I see it.
Have your convention. I’m certainly not stopping you. I just think you, Mark and many others are foolish and expect to find virtues that are terribly out of fashion. I’m not worried about a “runaway” convention, but I am worried about the level of cowardice in our own camp and how that will cave under media pressure.
As to how I feel about amendments, I am not against them but I will question why anyone believes an amendment will prevent bad behavior. Term limits and Balanced Budget are, in my opinion, foolish and unnecessary. Its an outright admission we don’t have good people in government but instead of doing hard work of raising and finding good people, we will attempt to bind bad people. That’s the argument for gun control: ban guns and criminals will obey that law.
Actually, I would love to see an Article V convention, right alongside nullification by states and committees to explore secession.
Just one more time as you don’t catch on too quick:
“We have state governments for a reason. Regardless of what today’s media would have you believe, state representatives are not elected state paper-shufflers or federal mandates. State governments share power with the federal government as equal partners.”
The state legislatures and Governors can invoke the 10th amendment anytime they want. Its as simple as that. Eventually they will start doing it as things get worse and worse.
An Article V convention is never going to happen and if it did by some miracle of God the amendments that come out of it would have no chance to get ratified. But that’s OK you keep dreaming about it. :-)
Since 1913 our two popularly derived houses of congress, and one with six year terms, have served as the foundation of the progressive’s jihad against freedom.
The 17th must go, and only an Article V convention can possibly recommend its repeal.
BTW, and speaking of virtue, Scotus entirely repealed republican government less that three weeks ago.
In post #61 I asked, “What then in your opinion is the remedy to our head first dive into tyranny?”
In a previous post I said
Actually, I would love to see an Article V convention, right alongside nullification by states and committees to explore secession.
Repeal the 17th - yes, if we can. Return the size of the House to the constitutional requirement so that it stops behaving like a country club aristocracy and more closely resembles a representative republic. The states and localities have their work to do as well and remove some of the little dictators they have in courts, boards and commissions. If the people of this country had any real courage, general strikes to starve government income would become routine until the political parasite class found real jobs and worked like the rest of us must.
Just a few ideas but nothing quite as grandiose as mangling a perfectly good constitution.
“Mark is wrong! Golly, did that ever occur to you that he is not infallible?”
My defense of the arguments put forth by Mark, and others as well, is not based on the fact that Mark made them. It’s based on the substance of the arguments. The specific criticisms you bring up have been addressed many times, substantively by Mark, who you say you listen to all the time, as well as others. When I substantively try to engage you on specific points you raise, you change the subject.
So lets address these points individualy:
Point # 1
“As to how I feel about amendments, I am not against them..”
Well, it sounds like you are if your basic argument is that it would be foolish to expect that they would accomplish anything. It sounds like your saying, ‘I don’t have a problem with them, it’s just that I think they’re pointless’. If that’s your position then you’re making a basically meaningless distinction.
If I’m mischaracterizing your position on amendments, then fair enough. Tell me which amendments you would be in favor of and which amendments you wouldn’t. If you don’t believe there are any amendments worth passing at this time, then was there ever a time in our history when you feel it WOULD have been worthwhile to pass certain amendments? Is your belief in the futility of passing certain or any amendments at this time, whichever the case may be, dependent on whether they were introduced through a convention of the states or through congress?
Point # 2
“I’m not worried about a “runaway” convention, but I am worried about the level of cowardice in our own camp and how that will cave under media pressure.”
What exactly does that mean? Please clarify.
Point #3
“...but I will question why anyone believes an amendment will prevent bad behavior. Term limits and Balanced Budget are, in my opinion, foolish and unnecessary.”
and
“...Its an outright admission we don’t have good people in government”
The main premise of the Constitution is that we don’t have good people in government, or at the very least, that we shouldn’t assume or count on it.
The Constitution was a painstaking effort by the framers to divide power, and to provide independent, and to some degree antagonistic centers of power that would provide a check on one another so that the acquisition of power, and the ambition and greed that is inherent in human nature would not be allowed to get out of hand. It was an attempt to try to tame the worst parts of our natures and encourage the best.
They knew that a strategy of just electing ‘good’ people was a futile strategy that couldn’t be counted on to prevent tyranny from gaining the upper hand. Even the people’s ability to see clearly and make perfect decisions at all times, when electing their representatives could not be counted on.
Something more, a legal restriction on power from without was needed so that we wouldn’t have to rely on angels governing us to have good government. The main structural problems we see now are the result of new centers of power emerging which the framers hadn’t anticipated - the hyper-politicization of the courts and the career Congressmen and women who spend 30 years in Washington. If they had forseen these problems perhaps they would have devised a means of preventing them.
Their system worked very well for a long time, but almost from day one, there were those who worked to try to undermine the system. They found weaknesses in the system and over time exploited them. The framers gave us a good, solid and robust legal structure in the Constitution but understood that there was no way they could foresee all the specific strategies that the enemies of Freedom would employ to subvert the system. They left it to future generations to address this through the amendment process.
I can’t think of two more important amendments than Congressional term limits and repeal of the 17th amendments. These are specific amendments which would go a long way to breaking up the concentration of power in the hands of professional politicians. And yes, they could be enforced. The states control the election process.
Point # 4
“Actually, I would love to see an Article V convention, right alongside nullification by states and committees to explore secession.”
I don’t entirely disagree with you there, but I would hope that we could right the ship through amending the Constitution before the other options become necessary.
The main premise of the Constitution is that we don’t have good people in government, or at the very least, that we shouldn’t assume or count on it.
The main premise is not stated in the Constitution but was stated by Adams that the Constitution was only suitable for a moral people. That does not demand perfect leaders, just good leaders. If the people elect someone intent on committing crimes on their behalf, there is no possible amendment you can pass to stop that. Limiting government power was the best our Founders could formulate but again, it is only suitable for a moral people.
Term limits will not force immoral people to elect good leaders, but it could expel the rare good leader who does resist the corrupting influence of power. If the people are unwilling to remove bad leaders, then term limits are meaningless as we simply put a constant stream of evildoers in office.
A balanced budget is just plain common sense to any person with any sense of right and wrong: you don't spend what you don't have. An immoral people are not concerned about stealing from this generation or the next. For practical purposes, any balanced budget must allow for emergency spending exceeding income and we can rest assured that every evildoer put in office will see that we are in a perpetual state of emergency. Are the immoral people that elected them going to remove them for not balancing the budget, or will they re-elect them to continue the thievery?
As for the judiciary, the Constitution provides a remedy and note that judges are held to the standard of "good behavior", which I would assert is more demanding than that set for the President. The trouble has always been political back scratching and collusion with the courts to usurp power. A term limit or confidence vote every ten years is a bit long between what could be disastrous rulings. Then again, if we had good leaders they would be far more careful about what appointments they confirm. Something should be done but it must be something a lot better than allowing for 10 year crime sprees.
Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendment? Absolutely, but a larcenous public and their elected leaders would never go along with that. In fact the "rich" would be even more dead set against that since many of the rich are in that condition because of government.
Trying to re-tool a Constitution that has been thoroughly trashed by people unworthy of its purpose for self-government is a fool's errand. As clever as anyone may think they are to write foolproof amendments, they are writing those for people who don't care. Those of us who do care, and I definitely include you and Mark in that company, are too few and too civil to deal with an immoral mob. How on earth do you turn child-killers into decent people? You can't but we would be remiss if we abandoned other people who feel as we do.
So I say attack the problem on every front. Give them no rest and boldly resist their attacks. Be prepared for confrontations as well because evil does not go away because we wrote some nice words and passed some nice laws. Separating ourselves from our immoral fellow citizens or ignoring what their minions try to compel must be alternatives. Disobedience, disruption and revolt must be an alternative.
As a race (Man), yes, we are little different than those can came before; as one of *culture* we are WORLDS apart.
Those before were better (home) educated, more independent and had a greater affinity for critical thinking....”what’s your is yours and mine is mine”.
Today, we have ijits that sue for dropping hot coffee in their own lap, where a step ladder requires more warning stickers than steps and are more willing to sit on their ass and vote for ‘legal theft’.
Allowing the Socialists+ to indoctrinate for over a century did/does not bode well for our (lost) Republic.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on a few points.
As far as misrepresenting your points, I would only respond that my point 2 was actually a request for clarification on one of your comments. Point 1 was my best assessment, based on one of your earlier comments, that you don’t believe there are any Constitutional amendments worth passing at this time. It was merely an assumption, which I noted at the time, and asked you to clarify whether it was true or not.
With regards to point 3, you responded with
“The main premise is not stated in the Constitution but was stated by Adams that the Constitution was only suitable for a moral people.”
Fair enough, but I think your citing of that point clarifies our disagreement somewhat. We seem to be at odds with regards to whether or not Constitutional restrictions are capable of reigning in bad behavior in our leaders. I think that to some degree, we are confusing two issues - the moral character of the electorate, and the moral character of those in power. If, as it would appear you believe, we’ve reached the point of no return with the electorate, then you’re right. Constitutional government is no longer viable in such a situation. You may be correct on this point. From my perspective, I’m not sure we’re there yet, although who can deny the prevalence of immorality in our country?
My sense is that, for all of society’s problems, the majority, on an issue by issue basis, still side with us. Most polls still show self-described conservatives outnumbering self-described liberals 2-1. The problem, in my opinion, is less an issue of the morality of the people, and more an issue of the morality or lack thereof of our leaders.
You’re correct to say that legislation can’t turn the people into a moral people. But, so often, we see the people supporting the right position on an issue, and their will being thrwarted by the political elites. Just look at how all the Republican Congressmen pretend to be conservative to get elected, and then do the opposite once they are in power. This is not caused by the immorality of the people, but by the system being rigged.
Congress has found a way to subvert the will of the people, and the main engine behind that, IMO, is the power that incumbency has to corrupt. Incumbency encourages elected officials to make getting re-elected, and all the personal power and enrichment that comes with it, their highest priority - instead of good governance, and accountability to the people. Note how many, not all, but many of our corrupt Congressmen and women started out with good voting records but over time, got sucked into the corruption.
On a brief note, I would just make a distinction between two different kinds of constitutional remedies. Those, like a balanced budget amendment, for example, would rely on the fidelity of our elected officials in order to be effective. I share your skepticism that our representatives would comply in good faith. On the other hand, others, like term limits, would restrict the powers of our leaders from without, and would not have to rely on their honesty to be effective. Politicians tend to be conniving and manipulative, but they also tend to be risk averse. They prefer their defiance of the law to be hidden in the form of buerocratic and legislative minutae and double talk. The open defiance of a limit on their term of office, imposed by the states, would require a degree of courage and defiance not present in most politicians.
Best Regards. It’s been an enjoyable discussion.
Your comment about culture caused me to pause for thought. I digress somewhat but not to far from the core subject (I hope!)
The ancient Amalekites dedicated temples to their gods, whom they attempted to please with child sacrifices, which included abortion. If pleased, the gods would grant all kinds of prosperity and happiness to the Amalekites.
While we are culturally quite distant from the Amalekites, we have abortion clinics that are very similar in purpose. The child sacrifices made in those "temples" are to please the gods of convenience, population control, liberalism and feminism. The end purpose is about the same though our analysis of cause and effect may be different. The gods of the left assure us that fewer unwanted people will bring greater prosperity and happiness. It is the same behavior expecting a similar outcome but with a cultural difference.
Of course God ordered Samuel to order Saul to annihilate the Amalekites to the last man, woman and child. Nothing was to be spared, not even their sheep or oxen. That is how offensive their crime was in the eyes of God. What is our cultural equivalent to complete annihilation?
This has been an enjoyable, and as usual at FR, enlightening exchange.
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.