Skip to comments.REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
Posted on 07/24/2002 3:47:01 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
click here to read article
If the abortion industry weren't tax-subsidized, and if they weren't de facto exempted from criminal investigations, they'd fall on their own. Neutrality doesn't bother me as much as it used to. No funding. And their crimes (which they can't help but commit, by their very nature) aren't ignored. That's a has-teeth combo.
This has been an interesting thread. And, it goes to prove a point I have been trying to make these past few years: There are a lot of people out there who do not understand the concept of Liberty or what the Founding Father's original intent was when they wrote our Constitution -- and they do not know that they do not know. Unfortunately, some of these people also feel that the freedom of others can and should be curtailed by government at the point of a gun.
Part of the problem is they were never taught that the federal government was intended to be one of limited powers. That is, those powers not specifically tasked to the federal government by the Constitution are to be left to the individual States, or to the people collectively. So, for instance, when the federal government wanted to prohibit alcohol consumption, Congress realized that the Constitution gave them no such power. Therefore, they needed to pass a Constitutional amendment first.
There was no such amendment passed for the misdirected war on drugs. Yet, we allow this unconstitutional malfeasance to continue unabated. Sixty or seventy years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court told the federal government that it ordinarily may not even try a perpetrator for murder. Except in a very few cases, law enforcement functions belong to the States.
Today, the federal government is so corrupt that it actually takes some law enforcement cases away from the States because federal law provided harsher penalties. Even worse, the federal government sometimes even puts citizens in double jeopardy for the same crime.
And can anyone point to Constructional authorization for those 114 independent federal regulatory agencies that write 50 times more law (rules and regulations) every year than Congress? Of course not! The Constitution states just the opposite, in fact. Read the very first sentence.
In other words, today's federal government has mutated into a government that does pretty much anything it wants, with absolutely no restraints by common sense, the common law or the Constitution.
The fact is, most RLC members believe this is wrong. Totally wrong! And, our goal is to change it.
Our marching orders were written over 200 years ago by folks like Washington, Madison and Jefferson. Along with the Federalist Papers, there are reams of documents explaining how the central government was intended to be operated.
Back then, all of the Founding Fathers supported individual Liberty. The members of the Republican Liberty Caucus do today. That some misguided American citizens do not is neither here nor there. We do and we are banding together to work towards that end.
That debating society known as the Libertarian Party makes some excellent points. To say that many of the Founding Fathers would tend towards libertarian were they alive today is an understatement. The whole concept of our Constitutional form of government is to support individual Liberty and to institute that form of government that would "secure the Blessings of Liberty."
Clearly, we have our work set out for us if we are to educate the people on Liberty. And, this thread tends to demonstrate that perfectly.
There will always be Johnny-One-Note nit-pickers around, of course. Some of that is expected. Our problem, then, is to educate them on where their criticism is best placed.
Unfortunately, there are also so called Republicans who use the Party structure for their own gains and care nothing about Liberty. Obviously, these people are not suitable RLC candidates and need not be advised of our activities.
We are, after all, also working for great changes within the Republican Party. Therefore, as RLC members, one important function is that we also stay active within the Republican Party and make our voices heard in all policy issues.
I shall not get into the abortion debate, except to say that I am in general agreement. However, I find those arguments misplaced here. And, if anyone has not yet realized why, they should return to the top and read this again.
...I shall not get into the abortion debate, except to say that I am in general agreement. However, I find those arguments misplaced here. And, if anyone has not yet realized why, they should return to the top and read this again.
I certainly understand why you think the abortion debate is misplaced in this thread; however, for the very same reason I believe it to be germane. Here's why:
Roe vs. Wade and subsequent supporting decisions from the USSC, as wrongly as they were decided, did make abortion a de facto federal matter, if not de jure. Those sophists in long, black robes turned what was (and still is, by any legal logic) a State issue into a Federal issue by finding a non-existent "right to privacy" in the US Constitution.
There are many reasons to oppose abortion more important than its patent illegallity, all based on morality and ethics, but because the USSC put abortion into the Constitution, the Republican Liberty Caucus [IMO] should have some concern about taking it out, don't you think?
And Jim, thanks for offering this discussion.
Wish I was there. Life is much too busy here -- too much traffic and way too many people. I'm ready to move down to that little Burg on the river we talked about. Just can't right now due to family matters.
Hope y'all keep us well informed about the great results of the Kentucky contingent of the RLC. You guys are what's happening! People need to know that.
Generally speaking, yes. However, I fail to see how RLC -- as a club -- can do that. True, many of us would like to do it. But I see no means, method or opportunity here. Part of that will come after educating more people.
And, as part of the whole of that issue, I propose that we work towards making government schools stop teaching deviancy as acceptable behavior to our children. That is something that is doable within the next couple years and most definitely points to the core of the problem.
Meanwhile . . . so many issues, so little time. . . . .
So you are saying I won't take a moral stand? You are saying that you are more moral than I am because you say YOU will take a moral stand and I won't?
My first priority would be to make it a requirement that the Federal government stop spending money when there is a budgetary shortfall instead of raising taxes to "cover" the new (and always excessive) spending.
In fact, I'd be willing to help start a movement. I receive a pension. If it would apply to everyone across the board - NO exceptions, NONE - I'd willingly take a 5% cut in my pension. IOW, cut all spending programs - ALL spending programs - 5%.
The only exception would have nothing to do with individuals or their needs, but would be solely contingent upon national defense. After all, war does seem to make a difference. Other than that one exception, cut every item on the federal budget by 5%.
How's that for a plan, eh?
[Of course, this has about as much chance of happening as me adding two inches in height and dropping another 25 pounds in weight...]