Skip to comments.Vanity: Free Republic Priority One: Defending the Constitution
Posted on 06/10/2003 4:17:50 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
One thing I've learned during the last six years or so of hanging around Free Republic is that politics is a dirty game. It may qualify as a runner-up for the understatement of the year, but it seems to me that one of the worst things about politics is that it is made up of politicians. These guys seem to be desperate to get into office and once they've had a taste of power they're even more desperate to hang onto it. Doesn't matter what the Founders had in mind for our Republic and or what they wrote into the Constitution, if the elected politicians feel that they can create or expand another give-away program or cater to the demands of one special interest group or another, and it will help them get re-elected next time, well, why not? Constitution be damned.
The House represents the people. Sure, the Congressmen are supposed to be sensitive to the wants, needs, desires and demands of their constituents and they are and should be swayed by popular opinion and they should be passionate in their representation of the people. That's the name of the game and that's what the Founders intended. But when the people demand more than the Constitution allows, then what? Well, for one, you've got to get by the Senate. Then by the President, and perhaps by any Supreme Court challenges.
It's my understanding, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Founders established the Senate as the senior body of the bicameral legislature and set higher qualifications, higher standards and longer terms for its members. The Senators were to be experienced, wizened senior statesmen, insulated from swaying popular opinion, and the Senate as a body was to serve as a check on the hotheads in the House.
I also believe that one of the primary responsibilities of the Senate was to defend the Constitution and to guard over the longevity and continuity of the Republic. To this end, the Senate was designed to confirm judicial and high level executive appointments, ratify treaties and conduct impeachment trials--all highly essential elements to the maintenance of our constitutional republic, our national sovereignty and our Liberty.
To ensure that the Senators were truly insulated from swaying public opinion the Founders intended them to be appointed by the state legislatures rather than elected by the populace. It was hoped that only the very best statesmen, men of unimpeachable personal character, would rise to the top of the state legislatures and be considered to serve as U.S. Senators. Hmmmm... Hillary Clinton? Well, so much for high hopes.
I also understand that the three branches of the federal government were established as co-equal partners, with checks and balances designed so that no branch could control another and none could subvert the Constitution. The terms of the members of each branch were varied and staggered and the methods of election or appointment were different for each branch. The only members elected by the populace were to be the members of the House of Representatives. The Senators were to be appointed by the state legislatures, the President elected by the Electoral College and the Judiciary and high officers appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
The members of the House serve for two years, the President four years, the Senators six years and the Judiciary for life. The number of representatives for each state is determined by the number of people in each state, each state was guaranteed representation by two senators, and the number of electoral college members for each state determined by the number of congressional representatives, etc.
The state governments were intended to remain sovereign and all rights and powers not expressly delegated by the Constitution were to be left to the states and to the people. The central government was restricted to only about a dozen and a half enumerated powers and functions and was never intended to be the absolute ruling authority over the states or the people that it is today.
The primary functions of the federal government was to defend our national borders, maintain the federal judiciary, run the post office, the weights and standards office, the patent office, etc., and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and our individual rights.
Well, we all know that this is not how it ended up. What went wrong? For one thing, the balance of power was upset with the ratification of the seventeenth amendment. This amendment allowed for the popular election of the Senators instead of having them appointed by the state legislatures. At first glance, this looks like it would be more democratic. In fact, it is. However, as we conservatives love to point out, our Founders did not establish a democracy, they established a Republic.
With the popular election of both the House and the Senate, we are now one step closer to being a democracy where the mob rules rather than the rule of law. Also, the states essentially lost their representatives to the federal government and now, four-score and some odd years later, the result is that most of their states rights and powers have been eroded away. And we're now seeing where the democrats are wanting to do away with the electoral college. Al Gore won the popular vote in the last election, due mostly to the large highly populated liberal states, but President Bush obviously won in the electoral college. Thank God for the wisdom of the Founding Fathers! If Hillary and her mob have their way, the electoral college is history and so is the Republic. That's what happens when you allow mob rule and we're only one amendment and one step away from that sorry end now.
The liberals rule the land. They control the education systems. They control the media. They control the judiciary. Regardless of the party in executive or legislative power, the career liberals control the more or less permanent bureaucracy, the regulatory agencies and the courts. In defending the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, I count the liberals (lumping in the greenies, the socialists, the anarchists, and other assorted un-American types, etc.) as our primary domestic enemy number one. I count the left-leaning moderates and RINOs as domestic enemy number two.
Pretty basic and simple so far, but here's where it gets tricky. Like it or not, we have a two party system. Our good friends, the Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Reformers, Buchananites, paleocons, and other right-wingers, etc., may have some pretty good ideas about constitutionality, freedom, Liberty, etc., however, they are weak numerically, and will probably never get much stronger. Let's face it. The general populace has been indoctrinated for decades (make that several generations) by the liberal state controlled education system, brain-washed by the liberal controlled media and conditioned by the liberal controlled judiciary to accept whatever mushy touchy-feely liberal policy or concept that comes down the pike.
Where are the libertarian, reformist or strict constructionist parties ever going to find enough voters to overcome the Democrats and Republicans? Answer is they can't. It's an impossibility. Perhaps they can draw from the conservatives or Republicans, but they can hope to draw almost no liberal or Democrat voters. So, even if they can draw away from the conservative parties, it will only serve to strengthen the liberals and we will only reinstall Democrats to the majority. Happens every time. We flop back and forth between the Democrats and the Republicans and we continue to make zero progress, but the head-long slide into socialism continues on.
My conclusion is we will never, ever regain constitutional government until we completely demolish the liberal stranglehold on the bureaucracy, the education institutions, the media and especially, the judiciary. How do we do that? The most straightforward way, IMHO, is to vote out the Democrats. Ensure that we maintain as large a Republican majority as we possibly can. Ensure that the most conservative judges as can be found are appointed by the Republican president and confirmed by the Republican Senate. Why do you think Daschle and the Democrats are fighting so hard to block Bush's judicial appointments? They see the handwriting on the wall. As we begin replacing the liberal judiciary. the socialist welfare state is going to fall. The socialist bureaucracy will begin to crumble. We will withdraw from the U.N. and begin rescinding international treaties not in our best interests. We will be defending America and America's interests first.
Who knows? We may even get to the point we can overturn Roe vs Wade, repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, abolish the slave tax, privatize social security and medicare, repeal the unconstitutional gun control laws, dismantle the welfare state and reestablish the American Republic. These are my dreams, my goals and my reasons for Free Republic. If sometimes my actions seem a bit odd, please remember that my ultimate goals are to restore constitutional government and I see the total destruction of the Democrat Party and liberalism in general as the only possible solution to the problem. I don't care if people call me a neo-con, a bushbot, a blind Republican, a statist or whatever. I've asked many times but there has been no Libertarian or Buchananite or Reformer or Rockwellian or paleocon who has documented and presented a better plan or one that has any prayer of success, so I'm committed to this one.
As we move forward into the next election cycle, the FR battle cry will be: Restore the Republic! Vote out the RATs!
See you at the Free Republic George Bush Second Inaugural Ball in January '05!
Until then, we have to live with them, frustrating as it is.
I thank God I was late to work this morning so I could read you again, Jim Robinson.
Thank you, Jim.
Thanks for the forum and on with restoring the Republic!
Who knows? We may even get to the point we can overturn Roe vs Wade
I believe this will happen no later than 2050 and, hopefully, long before that. The problem with Roe v Wade is that it's technology driven. The point of viability even now is much different that it was when Roe was written, and it's moving closer and closer to fertilization every year. When fertilization and viability become the same event in the not too distant future, it'll be awfully hard for liberals to maintain their killing machine.
A vote the democrats out ping.
My conclusion is we will never, ever regain constitutional government until we completely demolish the liberal stranglehold on the bureaucracy, the education institutions, the media and especially, the judiciary.
Great writing and solid logic. Thanks for writing it, I agree %1000 with your conclusion.
I think Jim's point is that we need to focus. There so much wrong with our law making. Much of that is because it doesn't center around adherence to the Consitution. With the Constitution in effect, much good would follow. More so than sticking to 20-30 annoyances. Some of them are related, but not all.
Heading back to a Constitutional republic would be a big win because it'll be easier to work on the other things that bother us patriots every day. I do like the idea of abolishing the 14th amendment; Representational government won us President Bush's election! That's just one good example.
Well, my touchstone issue is the renewel or sunset of the Assault Weapon ban. We got a lot of RINO's last election, this was going to make or break your theory.
The fat lady ain't sung yet, but it appears your theory holds. It looks like the AW ban will sunset. RINO's caved on this issue.
So I must subscribe to your theory, because it is the operational one. I don't like being wrong, and I like admitting it even less. But I'm man enough to admit it when I am.
No, I won't gush how you are the savior of the Republic, or how great and wonderful you are, or any of that stuff. :o) I will merely observe that your theory appears to be right, and that mine appears to be wrong.
But I do get to quibble in one place:
I count the liberals (lumping in the greenies, the socialists, the anarchists, and other assorted un-American types, etc.) as our primary domestic enemy number one.I count the domestic terrorists as domestic enemy number one. Then the liberals, then the RINOs. :-)
Jim, I'm compelled to write.
Your statement shows that you are quite a profoundly incisive political thinker. You get to the point of the business: we cannot restore the Republic unless Republicans win.
Most liberals, not the clever ones who actually control the apparatus, adore the concept of "democracy" and parrot it as a totem. What they do not realize is that the Framers understood the danger that democracy poses to the liberties of the citizen. Democracy leads to the rule of the mob. The Rule of the Mob leads to the Man on the White Horse, and Fascism.
Democracy is the handmaiden of fascism, nothing more, nothing less. The Framers understood the dangers of the imposition of a tyrrany by the will of the People: that's why they set up a system of checks and balances.
I have very little tolerance for Brigadiers and Paleocons who don't understand the essential two-party nature of the American people. God knows how many states we might have won had the Libertarians and the Brigadiers stuck with George W. Bush. There would have been no Recount Hell, that's for damn sure.
Anyway, great post. The essential thing to remember is that we live in a constitutional Republic, but only if we can keep it.
Be Seeing You,
Many splinter conservative groups, despite comendable motives, want immediate solutions to the problems liberals have caused and used to further their agenda, and when these solutions are not forthcoming, they withdraw from the larger political arena.
The Founders created a system that would move slow, that contained checks and balances, that forced debate. What has been taken from us over decades, will only be restored over decades, and with mighty effort. This may dishearten many.
Though we will probably not see the restoration of proper constitutional government in our lives, does that make it any less worthy a goal?
Even if we hand over a country to those who follow that is more free, we will have done more than the several previous generations, and can be justly proud.
I understand your sentiments. Benjamin Franklin said:
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."This is certainly the case today. At this point, resistance to taxation is the best I can do. Voting Republican will accomplish that, I hope. But I will say that a return to the Constitution as it is written today would be a good step to take. We can decide how the government should fund itself once that is done. Jim is right: it's the Constitution! All else follows.
Thanks for your concerns about our nation's future, Canadian brother.
. . .a strong Republican body politic is the only way out of the Liberal/Socialist paradise that is being created in a 'heaven's name'. . .
. . . and one we know that in reality, is a living hell.
Jim, do you know of any Republicans on the national stage who are willing to endorse all the above policies? I'll be happy to contribute to their campaigns and work for them. Heck, if I live in their state I'll change my registration back to GOP.
I'm not unsympathetic to your comments. I can understand the point of view that if slowing down the drift to socialism is the best we can do, then that's what we have to do.
But if the GOP's victory strategy is basically to buy votes using my money (and in the absence of the 9-11 event that's exactly what it would have been) then please, let's not delude ourselves that we are replacing a bad thing with its opposite.
Once the budget got balanced the leading reason for the party vanished. The same will happen with the greenies and the Libertarians. One of the unfortunate things like electing Bill Clinton is the result of a strong third party, and with that he wound up being elected even though almost 2/3rds of the American electorate did not want him to be president, making it very hard to govern.
You don't seem to have a lot of respect for those who Jim calls "good friends".
Our good friends, theLibertarians, Constitutionalists, Reformers, Buchananites, paleocons, and other right-wingers, etc., may have some pretty good ideas about constitutionality, freedom, Liberty, etc.,
Maybe you might like to re-think your agenda.
While the logical fallacies and errors of omission and commission committed by the conservative faction of the Pygopagus Conjoined Twins (with apologies to Pygopagus Conjoined Twins everywhere) known as the DemocRATrepublican Party can hardly be enumerated they are so many and so various, I will briefly attempt to address the most obvious:
Newsflash for the so-called party of self reliance, free market capitalism, smaller government and personal accountability:
The Libertarian Party had NOTHING TO DO with your defeat at the polls.
In the open, fair and competitive free market of ideas you had an opportunity to persuade certain voters you deserved their vote and YOU BLEW IT!
Unlike the "vast overwhelming majority" of eligible voters who choose NOT TO EVEN APPEAR in the voting booth for ANY reason, Libertarian Voters arrived to fulfill their obligation at the ballot box as required of all sober Sovereign Citizens in a Representative Constitutional Republic.
For some reason they were unmoved by the product offered by the erstwhile Republican Party.
They don't seem to believe that life is limited to a selection between two flavors of dark, carbonated sugar water known as Pepsi or Coke. They seem think they should be able to choose Root Beer (another flavor of dark carbonated sugar water) or maybe even Ginger Ale or Seven Up (two clear forms of carbonated sugar water) Or, gosh darn it, in a free market, maybe they could even express a desire for milk or orange juice or (gasp!) beer or wine or (double gasp!) WATER! Yes, plain ordinary water! Imagine that!
Stroll with me a moment down memory lane:
In 1993, the official scapegoat for the defeat of the Republican Presidential Candidate was Ross Perot and his hastily organized Reform Party.
Along comes 1996 and the ill conceived, poorly prosecuted Coronation of Bob Dole, a man who couldn't stand on stage long enough to deliver a stump speech.
Currently we are blessed with Bush43, a man who, with all his virtues, still cannot pronounce NUCLEAR as well as non-native speakers for whom English is a second language. What is up with that? I thought the Republican Party was the party where words had meaning and actions had consequences.
What are you Republicans going to do when you run out of excuses? When are YOU going to look in the mirror and say " I solemnly swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God" ?
Because that is what Libertarians do when they go to the ballot box and vote their conscience. They firmly believe the Government governs best that governs least and anything else is simply unacceptable. They do not hold their nose and vote the lesser of two evils. They do not pout and stay at home until the perfect candidate arrives. They vote their party and they vote their principles in the capacity of the "wee, still voice of conscience".
If Republicans want to win elected office, they might do well to find out why some 60% of their voters stay at home. They might finally learn to craft a message that has broad appeal across diverse party lines. Libertarians have been known to switch their vote. After all, former Libertarian Presidential Candidate Ron Paul is now Republican Congressman from Texas.
But this pathetic whining from the party of pre-emptive surrender, aka the party of unending lost opportunities must stop. It is unbecoming, stupid and frankly, just plain annoying.
You want to win? Just do it. No excuses. And don't hand me any more of this nonsense about scandalous Libertarian Candidates. Does the name (former) Senator Bob Packwood ring a bell? I thought so.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure.
From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years.
These nations have progressed through the following sequence:
from bondage to spiritual faith,
from spiritual faith to great courage,
from courage to liberty,
from liberty to abundance,
from abundance to selfishness,
from selfishness to complacency,
from complacency to apathy,
from apathy to dependency,
from dependency back to bondage."
From Alexander Tyler's 'The Cycle of Democracy'
Tyler was a 18th century historian/economist who wrote 'The Cycle of Democracy' in 1778. This quote is the central thesis from his work.
Mere voters get lost in the shuffle somewhere after congress is called to session. I do not believe the founding fathers' had this in mind when they created what was to be a simple system for honest representation.
Two weeks before I turned 50, I started getting mailers from AARP asking for money with the simple premise that my vote didn't count -- only their lobbying had the juice to change things. Quite an insult to the American people, but only because it is true.
Every election we are told to vote for republicans, not some unelectable third party because, if we don't, the democrats will win. Well, if the Constitution is trashed by both, and both pursue the key policies to socialism, so what?
This scare tactic has gotten us bigger and more expensive government, just with more decorum. Screw decorum. Genteel socialism is socialism.
The only possible chance we have to change things at the ballot box is to elect renegades. Not only will that shake loose the calcified joints of our political system, it will make clear to the newly elected renegades that we can and will punish corrupt behavior, encouraging them to avoid the path of settled certainty of reelection.
The time to do this rapidly passing, and indeed, may already be past. Regardless, it is the only choice we have; none others exist. And we had better realize it or the chance will for sure be gone completely, and the only way back is, like all other examples in history, reduction by force.
So, by advocating status quo remedies, you, for all intents and purposes, advocate the eventual armed conflict or socialist tyranny.
Sorry to be confrontational, but I can't see, from recent domestic history, how what I describe is not a hardcore certainty. That is to say, certainty, not a possiblilty, not a probablilty. A certainty.
The way I see it, we either amputate the arm or we die; we either break the glass bubble, and get cut by flying glass, or we suffocate and our civilization with us.
Each time I read about some Dem touting Gore's apparent edge in the popular vote I wonder about the lack of thoughtfulness in the whiner bringing it up. The contest was for the Electoral College majority. How would football be played if a team were given 3 points for gettin out of bounds inside the ten yard line? Do you think Bush would have spent more time campaigning in California and New York if the contest were for popular vote rather than the winner take all Electoral College?
BTW, I'm not trying to change the direction of the discussion, but using this in place of a simple bump as I'd like to return to the thread for more comment later.
I know this may sound revolting, but the Republican Party is apparently playing the role of a two-party system all on its own right now. There were some good ideas on both sides of the aisle in JFK's time. Truman was a decent president. Things went down hill fast after Kennedy was assasinated. Moderation in the Republican party will bring many opportunities for change in the future. This is good.
In The Radical Presidency of GW: Reagan's Son Bill Keller (also cited in an article by Philip Gaily) argues that Reagan was not a zero-government Republican, although he did cut taxes. He also did not take steps to totally outlaw abortion. President Bush's crossover success will probably be the environment. He will uphold values of conservation while cutting red tape and saving our firetrap forests, which have been defended to the point they could go up in smoke in a matter of days.
There is much President Bush will accomplish drawing on support from both Democrats and Republicans. And he will be positioning us for a continued sweep toward "conservatism."
The terrible events of 9/11 have brought the Democratic party to a precipice and they have gone over. There are some values held by traditional Democrats that can coexist with Republicans and Libertarians, but the national defense issue stands out above all.
Again, it is the Constitution we need to defend. The positives that will emerge after eliminating gun control are boundless. Preservation of the Republic is the first benefit.