Dear Republicans: NOT a Democratic Mandate

I saw a bit of news that had a Democratic spokeslady grinning and saying “Americans voted for a tax increase. WE Won.”

I see the Republicans falling all over themselves to abrogate the “no tax increases” pledge.

I see the Republicans doubting that they will ever win anything again unless they become Democrats Lite.

Dear Republicans: YOU didn’t “lose” and the Democrats did not get a mandate. YOU are continuing to listen to the Democrats to define who you are. That is a horrible error.

What the American people did was vote for “No Change”. Think about it. Long and hard.

Republicans continue to hold the House. What does the House do? CONTROL Spending. Americans put a Republican House in place to control spending.

Yes, Obama was given a ‘second chance’. Why? Was it a massive mandate? No.

First off, most presidents get 2 terms unless they screw up horribly. Obama almost did, in cramming Obamacare down our throats. THEN he got a Republican House and things were “OK” for a couple of years. WHY? Because he was kept more ‘limited’ in aspirations.

THAT is what America voted for. Continuation of a more or less “OK” split congress. With restraint on Obama’s avarice. With restraint on Republican snooping into private lives and moralizing.

Now Obama was constantly claiming that it was all Bush’s fault. OK, he’s a whiner. We got that. So we gave him a second term. He can not any longer claim “It’s Bush’s Fault!!!”. He OWNS his second term. So let him own it.

Yes, it was a ‘racist vote’. What? You expected the Hispanics and Blacks to vote out “their guy” without a fair chance at escaping Bush’s Legacy? To be forever branded with “failure – couldn’t get a second term”? So yes, they voted race as a racist vote and whites ignored race and voted principle. Get over it. BTW, running a Mormon is NOT a good way to get the “Social Liberal Fiscal Conservative” vote… Run a candidate that says “The war on drugs is a waste of money and ought to be stopped. We need the U.S. Government out of your bedroom, your blood stream, your email, and foreign wars.” and you will do much better.

We also were a bit ‘fed up’ with a congress that was just trying to run out the clock and not do their jobs. So we voted to stick you with the same problems you were trying to duck with “kick the can” and “run out the clock”.

So please, there was NOT a Democratic Mandate. There was a “get back to work, all of you, and fix things” vote for no change.

We want a “middle of the road” solution, not a Republican Cave. We want Democratic social ideals and Republican spending restraint. And yes, we know that those two are in conflict. Your job is to work it out. NOT cave.

Got it?

Now, get to work and find a way to NOT raise a boat load of taxes while keeping a decent ‘safety net’ (and not a hammock..) and cutting that load of crap that’s all over the Washington Budget, OK?

Subscribe to feed

About these ads

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Political Current Events and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Dear Republicans: NOT a Democratic Mandate

  1. omanuel says:

    Thanks, E.M.Smith.

    I endorse your letter, with one caveat: “We want Democratic social ideals and Republican spending restraint” plus restoration of the right of citizens to control government, as explained in the US Declaration of Independence on 4 July 1776

    http://tinyurl.com/5yr32

  2. DocMartyn says:

    I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative; so are a lot of people. Thing is, if Republican candidates say things like ‘women’s bodies close down reproduction in rape’, or ‘pregnancy resulting from rape or incest is a gift from God’, or ‘I will work to ban abortion’ then the number of women who vote ‘reproductive rights’ Democrats will be much greater that the ‘carry that’ Republicans.
    I am not going to be able to vote for a party that states they are going to make it a party position that they will ban abortion.I hate abortions beyond 22 weeks, but stating that life begins at conception is political suicide.
    How the f*ck did the Republicans get to be the party of deregulation in everything except whats in a womb?

  3. Absolutely correct, EM! I hope they get the message.

    @DocMartyn Well said.

    P.S. Your last post (on relativity) reminded me why I’m reading your blog, and why I don’t have one. Please keep up the great writing, even if it passes to the north of my head on occasion. BTW, I’ve got 40 acres in northern VT that could use a henge.

  4. BobN says:

    I agree with your comments EM, but I seriously doubt it will work that way. The democrats are much more adept at winning the publicity fight on the issues. The Republicans, fight and then realize they are losing the verbal battles and Panic as they might not get re-elected.
    I have been a strong Republican all my life, but I think I’m done, they are worse than Democrats, they can’t seem to put up a fight and can be counted on to cave. Me, I’m looking for a new party.

  5. John Robertson says:

    Your right letting the media parties define conservative values is nuts. Canada went thro years of the CBC & their clones telling us how awful, divisive and evil we conservatives are. The Progressive conservatives bought that rubbish, became liberal light and were destroyed in the ballot box, PC =pair of chairs. We rebuilt from conservative and fiscally responsible base,The Reform Party, with the media telling us how pathetic and unrefined we were.
    Now conservatives hold a majority govt. Politicians seem to change when they gain power, ours have become more cautious, incrementally changing things and turning power back to the provinces. They must be doing Ok cause the media hates them.
    Sorry of topic, the point, our media and yours are joined at the hip, pushing an agenda that attacks every value our society is built on.Property ownership is a sin? Somehow we taxpayers are too foul to bring to the party, but our money is just fine as long as our betters spend it for us.
    The anti-america drivel never stops up here and your CNN and MSN sound just like CBC, The insanity of some of your Democratic politicians would not amount to much, if they did not get a free ride and amplification from the media. But who is leading who here, cause seem like the media speaks before the politicians . Are the liberal politicians just puppets for the interests who control our media?

  6. crosspatch says:

    Republicans have knocked out exactly 1 incumbent Democrat in 100 years and if this election had been two white guys running against each other, Romney would have won.

    Obama has about 5 million fewer votes in 2012 than he had in 2008 while Romney has about 500,000 more votes than McCain had. Redistricting in IL and CA combined cost the Republicans 10 House seats but the Republicans lost only a net 8. This says the REST of the country went net Republican. Republicans SHOULD have picked up at least one Senate seat but lost two. Aiken in MO and Mourdock in IN were victims of foot in mount disease. Brown in MA was a victim of party loyalty trumping basic ethics where the Democrat had apparently been practicing law without a license and claimed minority heritage to advance her career but was elected anyway. As it was, Republicans lost only a net 2 seats.

    Republicans gained governors and total control of state legislatures. Arkansas, Mississippi, and Alabama have for the first time in over 130 years both houses of their legislatures and the governor seat controlled by Republicans.

    With a D+6 electorate, Obama eked out a 3 point win. FL was a difference of about 75,000 votes. OH and VA were somewhere around 100,000 votes each difference. About 400,000 votes in key states were the difference.

    Net result: Republicans are sitting in a MUCH better position after the 2012 elections than they were after the 2008 elections. 2014 mid terms are going to see a worsening economy and a lame duck President who won’t be on the ticket to attract voters. Meanwhile, several “gettable” Dem seats are up for election in 2014.

    If I were the Democrats, I’d be a bit worried right about now.

  7. crosspatch says:

    What I found really interesting is that the Democrats came within one point of losing the IL-10 House district. This is suburban Chicago. Dems carried it by one point.

  8. DocMartyn says:

    crosspatch, Captain Smith almost missed the iceberg.

  9. adolfogiurfa says:

    You live in a republic, as far as we know, and such a thing is composed of free individual citizens; democracy is the dictatorship of the “masses” (really of a small group of leaders of those “masses”; in times of the soviets that group was called the “Nomenklatur”. You can find an example of this close to your shores: That of the cuban “Nomenklatur”: The Castro´s family.
    Stop being TV addicted and, gradually, you will awake.

  10. philjourdan says:

    I made a comment on another blog. Basically it pointed out 2 things.

    #1 – As long as republicans allow the propaganda wing of the democrats to define who they are, they will always be looking at becoming democrats.
    #2 – The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time. IN the 80s, 91, and 93 democrats promised spending cuts in exchange for tax increases. Not a single cut every materialized. While the democrats are clearly liars, republicans are clearly insane.

    As for Docmartyn – I hate murder. But I guess using your logic, I must accommodate it since it is a reality. Life does begin at conception. That is a scientific fact. The debate is whether it is human life or not. So the next time a woman gives birth to a monkey, let me know.

  11. DrainedBrain says:

    philjourdan ‘ Life does begin at conception. That is a scientific fact. The debate is whether it is human life or not. So the next time a woman gives birth to a monkey, let me know’

    Is that supposed to make sense or make you feel better? Abortion is a complex moral issue that has no completely good answer. Neither making abortion completely illegal from conception or legal up to the moment of birth make sense. To throw in ‘next time a woman gives birth to a monkey let me know’ is intellectually insulting and add nothing to the debate as to how we have a fiscally responsible government elected. We could have the best group of politicians, with the best plans for economic recovery, and if they stated ‘non abortion anytime’ they would lose women by 20 points.
    You want to be part of a morally pure opposition, whilst for opponents get to makes laws, borrow more money and pack the supreme court.
    Good for you.
    Some of us would like a responsible government to be in power, and lines like ‘next time a woman gives birth to a monkey’ are like this

    “It seems to be, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, it’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.”

    and

    “I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

    There goes control of the Senate and probably helped Romney lose.

  12. Jason Calley says:

    @ philjordan “So the next time a woman gives birth to a monkey, let me know.”

    February 22, 1932 in Boston, Massachusetts.
    http://www.nndb.com/people/623/000023554/

  13. p.g.sharrow says:

    If the government Can outlaw Abortion, it Can make it Mandatory!
    Just say NO to government manipulation of peoples lives.pg

  14. philjourdan says:

    @Jason Calley – Ok, the NEXT time. ;-)

  15. DirkH says:

    ChiefIO, what do you say – will the USD survive the next 4 years of QE?

  16. agimarc says:

    One of our smart guys up here is of the opinion that Akin / Mourdock cost the “R”s 5 senate seats. Akin was completely inarticulate and Mourdock was only mostly inarticulate. Yet both are Evangelicals and were attempting to wrap their tongues around the notion that there are 3 involved in the abortion decision, with the mother being only one of 3, and that the child is an innocent. And nobody on the right was talking about abortion or contraception until George Stephanopolous introduced it out of the blue in one of the Republican debates last January.

    The thing that they need to remember – especially Evangelicals, and I consider myself one – is what office they are running for and what hat they wear. Congress is essentially a national office, where the successful candidate represents the state. Solution to all the social wars, and yes the left has been the aggressor here, is to return the power and decision making authority to the states.

    Proper answer to the Akin / Mourdock question was to point out that their job is to move the decision making on that issue from some unelected, unaccountable bozo in Washington DC back to the citizens of (name your favorite state) to decide. You wind up with 50 (or more) solutions to the problem, some of which would actually work.

    And this identical answer works for the drug wars, gay marriage, education, energy, endangered species, and any of a thousand other things the feds are doing that they have no business doing. Besides that, the closer the decision is made to the individual, the shorter walk you have to make to find someone to strangle for making it.

    Federalism. Time to re-embrace it. Cheers -

  17. Tim Clark says:

    {I hate abortions beyond 22 weeks, but stating that life begins at conception is political suicide.}

    I agree, at some stage humans develop self awareness.

    And, this poll states that most Catholics in the U.S believe the church should focus on social justice and not abortion.
    “The survey confirms that there is no such thing as the Catholic vote.”

    news.yahoo.com/catholics-want-more-focus-poverty-abortion-survey…

  18. philjourdan says:

    What part of my quoted stated does not make sense to you? The fertilization of an egg by a sperm is not life? Or that a woman giving birth to a monkey makes no sense? I agree with the latter and that is why I asked for an example. However, life beginning at contraception is a scientific fact. I do not care to get into the moral issue here or now. I did not. I made a statement of fact, and asked a question.

    Murder is a moral issue that I do not care to get into now. So your throwing in non sequiturs when attacking me contributes nothing either. I made no statement promoting one side or the other. I simply stated facts. Facts that seem to get lost in the rush for pigeon holing the issue as you are want to do.

    If you want to debate what I said, do so. Do not moralize when attacking a strawman that I did not make.

    I remember a congress woman asking where the American flag on Mars is. And a congress man worrying about Guam tipping over. Do you see anyone saying all democrats believe either stupidity? If you are going to parrot talking points, then go discuss your talking points on dnctalkingpoints dot com.

  19. Tim Clark says:

    Jason Calley says:
    27 November 2012 at 3:57 pm

    LOL. He was more of a chump chimp.

  20. E.M.Smith says:

    OK, I see the ‘life begins when?’ and abortion topics have started to squirm….

    Here’s my take on it: The arguments on both sides are bogus.

    Why? Life began once, a few Billion Years Ago. Since then there has been an unbroken chain of life, from past to present. No child bursts into existence from inert minerals. All come from the fusion of two living cells. To argue about “when life begins” and limit the choices to “conception” and “delivery room” is to already be guaranteed wrong.

    The more interesting question is “When does human life begin”. We could answer that in the same way: About 6 million years ago it evolved. Each egg and sperm cell contain a set of human genes, so are genetically human. Yet that ignores the fact that each is a 1/2 set compared to a full grown human. Furthermore: it also ignores the “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” point:

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC6aOntogeny.shtml

    While not strictly true, it is clear that we drag a lot of historical baggage along with us in our development. Gills, tails, etc.

    So at one point we are 1/2 genome single cells. Is each one of THEM human? When two of them fuse to make a single cell amoeba like blob is THAT human? When that makes a small cell cluster with gills and a tail, is THAT human? If the answer is based on potential, that it can become a fully functional adult human, then those 1/2 genome gametes are “human life” too. Just mix them and wait. If the answer is based on capacity to do human things (like speak and argue their case) then we are not fully human until an adult (and some never make it to that stage of development). Are we ready to say that infanticide up to age 18 is A-OK? (It has been in the past at times…)

    IMHO the best answer is the ‘viability’ one. Once a developing baby can survive separated from the umbilical, it is far enough along to be a distinct human being. But I could be wrong. Perhaps the better answer is ‘when gills and tail are gone’. Or perhaps “1 year old” as they are starting to show some human behaviours by then.

    But one thing that is quite clear: It isn’t “at conception life begins” and it isn’t “At birth life begins”. Life never ended and does not begin again. There is an unbroken chain of life from you, all the way back to that first cell in the primordial ooze billions of years ago and it never ended and does not begin anew.

    So my “choice” is simply this: Until birth, it is the decision of the mother to carry to term or not. Once born, it is the decision of the child… once a legal adult, you can ask them…

    @DocMartyn:

    What amazes me is just how wide and deep the “stupid” is among politicians… both sides but different topics.

    @OManuel:

    If we could just get the people or congress realize that the constitution demands limited small government for a reason…

    @Bennett in Vermont:

    Thanks! Frankly, what I like to do is push until something is over MY head. (Like the relativity thing). That’s how I learn something new and find interesting things… in that process of stretching…

    @BobN:

    You are not alone. As of now, roughly 1/3 of the nation are “Independents”. Tired of the game from both sides…

    The “two party system” is destabilizing.

    @John Robertson:

    It is that kind of ‘to the brink and back’ in other English speaking cultures that gives me some hope we can do the same. We’ll see. (The history in Spanish speaking cultures to the south of us is less encouraging. So we have Argentina defaulting on external debt, again, and being grumpy about it too…)

    @Philjourdan & Crosspatch:

    We can hope the Republicans figure that out…

    @Jason Calley:

    I think the common term “yard ape” sums up the reality. We are all born as ‘baby monkeys’ (really apes) and develop our humanity over the next decade or so. Some of us faster than others. My son said “I drew a happy face in the condensation from the humidifier” at about 2 something years old… The Pediatrician was astounded (as were we). We had used sign language in simple form from birth and both kids developed language way early. Something like 4 to 6 months they were signing things like “change diaper and feed me”. We did simplify the hand forms to accommodate their needs and the initial vocabulary was something like a half dozen signs. We never had ‘the terrible 2s’ as they could always express what they wanted…

    Personally, I’m of the opinion we all are STILL monkeys. Just noisy mean ones…

    @P.G.Sharrow:

    Try as I might, I can find nothing in the constitution saying the Feds have authority over individual bodies or their medical treatment….

    All we really need is for folks to be honest about what the constitution says and obey it.

    @DirkH:

    It will survive, but at diminished value. We’re on our way to a Japan style stagnation. It will take closer to 8 years for the economic blowup from the Demographic Bomb to become inevitable. So there’s still a bit of time. Just not much.

    @Agimarc:

    Very well said.

  21. DocMartyn says:

    philjourdan, represents why we have such a huge gender gap in elections. Calling women who have undergone an abortion murderers is going to have them flocking to polls to place their cross next to a Republican candidate.
    Until the Republicans realize that abortion isn’t a party political issue, and there are are more women than there are philjourdan’s, and men who think the idea of calling abortion murder is outrageous, the Republicans are pretty much screwed.
    People who treat the electorate with contempt tend not to get elected, even those who give birth to monkeys.

  22. philjourdan says:

    @E.M. – ” Life began once, a few Billion Years Ago. ”

    Hence why I did not address the issue, nor care to at this (or any juncture). I was specific in saying the issue was “is it human”.

  23. philjourdan says:

    DocMartyn is the reason we have Obama – illiteracy. Perhaps you should learn to read before commenting. I called no one anything. I stated facts. I asked a question. Another thought it a silly or even stupid question. He did not read too well either.

  24. Jason Calley says:

    @ agimarc “And nobody on the right was talking about abortion or contraception until George Stephanopolous introduced it out of the blue in one of the Republican debates last January.”

    Actually, Ron Paul has been consistent in discussing abortion for decades.

    You also say “Proper answer to the Akin / Mourdock question was to point out that their job is to move the decision making on that issue from some unelected, unaccountable bozo in Washington DC back to the citizens of (name your favorite state) to decide.”

    Which is exactly what Paul has said all these years. He is personally against it, but says that the decision must be made at a state level, not a federal level.

    @ E.M. “My son said “I drew a happy face in the condensation from the humidifier” at about 2 something years old… The Pediatrician was astounded (as were we).”

    As am I! Smart kid…. probably takes after his Mama. :)
    In retrospect, I wish I had looked into the “teach baby sign language” process. I am very certain that much of the upset my grandkids went through during the pre-verbal and barely-verbal stages was frustration from lack of ability to express themselves. Obviously for your son, something really kickstarted his ability to speak!

  25. Steve C says:

    EM – “the best answer is the ‘viability’ one”. Pragmatically, probably the only workable answer. Think of those dirt-poor parents in the “third world” who don’t bother even naming their kids until about age 5, when they’ve beaten the odds and actually survived. Arguing about “how many weeks” is a luxury on the whole-of-humanity scale, and one of the blessings we soft Westerners should count.

    On topic, I think your “Democratic president without a Democratic mandate” is a nice match for our “Government which nobody voted for” in the UK, with its weird mix of two mostly incompatible parties trying to present a unified face to the world. Doubtless on both sides of the pond they will continue striving to implement an entirely un-“democratic” UN agenda anyhow, whatever their nominal sympathies.

  26. DocMartyn says:

    Steve C, the biggest difference in the abortion debate in the UK and USA is how in the UK it was debated in Parliament, and throughout the country, and was then treated to a free vote. About 80% of people in England and Wales are satisfied with the law, with a 24 week limit. Some want the limit moved 2-4 weeks in either direction, but can live with it.
    In the US the law was found in the Constitution, even though it is clearly not present, and this has led to all sorts of bad feeling. Only 20% of people in the UK would fall into the pro-life/pro-choice camps, as 80% fall between the two extremes; same in the US, 90% of people are ill served to one extent or another.

  27. Mark T says:

    @agimarc and those that agreed: good call, that is precisely why we have separate, though united, states. 50 laboratories of “democracy” (noted they are all actually constitutional republics).

    Silly nit: condensation is the process, condensate is the stuff in which the happy face was drawn. ;)

    Mark

  28. Mark Miller says:

    @DocMartyn:

    I was surprised that some Republicans running for federal office chose to come forward saying that they would ban abortion for anything except the life of the mother. I thought, “Really?! You want to push that *now*? I don’t think that’s a good idea.” It seemed overconfident to me.

    I agree with agimarc. They should leave it to the states. It’s my understanding that’s the way it was before Roe v. Wade, and it makes sense.

    @philjourdon:

    On the philosophical point, I thought pro-lifers had their head on straight when they said (as recently as a year ago) that, “When we’re talking about ‘choice’, we should move that from a point in time after a man and a woman have had sex to *before* they choose to do it.” I agree with that. The pro-life movement, as I understood it, used to make it an issue of choice *and* responsibility. They said, “Look. If a man and a woman are engaging in an activity that is likely to have an undesirable outcome, what do we tell them? Stop doing it.” I’d add, “unless you’re willing to accept the consequences, either way, of your actions.” I’d add also add, for those who don’t have religions strictures against this, “Take steps (contraception) to prevent the undesirable outcome.” That doesn’t mean it will be prevented, but you increase the odds of avoiding it. And then there was what I was taught in high school health class, which seems tautological on its face, “The safest sex is no sex.” That goes for all the venereal diseases as well.

    This move by some Republicans to advocate banning abortion except for the life of the mother *removes* the idea of agency from pregnancy altogether, and it really shifts what had been the pro-life message. That’s problematic to me.

    What irritated me about the Democrats’ faux issue of the “War on Women” was they were saying that every business and institution should have to cover female contraception in their employee insurance plan as “preventive medicine.” Why? Well…you know, women just become pregnant. It just happens. They have sex, too. They can’t control that, either. It’s just something that happens. That seemed to be the reasoning behind what they were saying. Women had little responsibility for it. Society needs to help them out with it. I know Republicans didn’t think they were thinking like this, but for the ones who want this more restrictive ban on abortion, isn’t that what they’re saying as well? Some women just become pregnant even if they didn’t choose to do anything that would make that happen? This is an even harder case of that message, because with the “War on Women” critics could say, “Come on! These women are being promiscuous. They have responsibility for what happens to them.” You can’t say that about a woman who’s been raped.

    I tell you what. If Republicans were ever successful in making the ban real, they would only increase the pressure for institutions to cover contraception as “preventive medicine,” and they would inadvertently legitimize the “hook up” culture that promotes promiscuity, because they (in their denial) believe in the same basic principle. As I said to one pro-life advocate, “Do you really want to add fuel to that fire?” Further, this move to make abortion more restrictive adds fuel to the pro-choicers, who will say, “Could they make it any plainer? They want to take away a woman’s control over her own body.” If Republicans ever bring up the “choice” issue again (ie. the choice about whether to have sex or not), the Democrats will have ammunition to throw right back in their face, calling it a red herring, since they can say the *real* agenda is to take away control.

    Back to the pro-life advocate I was talking about earlier, we were talking about the issue of “choice.” He said to me, “You still haven’t answered the question of whether it’s the baby’s fault.” I said, “It’s not the baby’s fault, but guess what? It’s not the mother’s fault either! Yet in your scenario she gets stuck with a gestating baby for 9 months, which she played no part in creating.”

    I have heard wonderful stories about mothers who were raped, got pregnant, and chose to accept the children into their lives. I think those instances are great. God bless them. I don’t think it’s a good idea to make it gov’t policy. If raped women choose on their own terms to do this, fine, but I understand if a rape victim wants to take an abortifacient to prevent pregnancy as well. They have to deal with their own conscience in that decision. Certainly if they were religious, I’d think it wise for them to consult their faith, and others who believe like they do.

    I think the pro-life movement needs to stick with their issue of choice. They had a good thing going with changing the terms of the “pro-choice” debate. They took a step backward in their campaign, IMO, by abandoning that stance.

    @John Robertson:

    I was part of the Reform Party in the U.S. from 1997-2001 (no relation to the Reform Party in Canada). We were successful in forcing the issue of fiscal responsibility during the late ’90s, even though we didn’t elect anyone to federal office. We managed to get a few people elected to some municipal offices back then. Jesse Ventura ran under the RP banner, and won a term as governor in MN. That was our big accomplishment, though he quickly disowned the party after he won. The party imploded during the 2000 election. Anyway, at some point during that time I remember seeing coverage of a victory rally for the Canadian Reform Party, and it made me wistful that we could be that successful someday. You had better luck with it.

    I saw an interview with a representative of a survey group last night, which has been looking for years at how free countries are in the world. We used to be #2 in 2000, but now we’ve dropped to #16. He said Canada is freer than we are now! Good job, you guys! You might be a good example of how a country can “reverse course” on an overbearing gov’t.

    @E.M.Smith:

    If we could just get the people or congress to realize that the constitution demands limited small government for a reason…

    I still hear today the belief that Teddy Roosevelt had, which is that the federal government can do whatever it wants, so long as the Constitution doesn’t disallow it. It’s the so-called “guide” theory of the Constitution, that it doesn’t represent a body of law, but just a guidebook to go by. A writer for Time last year called it a set of “guardrails,” as his response to the Tea Party. That was not the intent of the Constitution, but the Progressives have successfully set this as the standard of interpretation for many years. What this “guide” and “guardrail” theory allows is for the government to be a problem solving institution, which is what the Progressives want. They’d like to think that the idea of limited gov’t is passée, that it was a concern at the time of the Founders, but that science and technology have made this concern trite and outdated. There’s no chance now, they think, that the leaders we elect will abuse their power like King George III did, because they believe that their method of education is scientific, and that they have found the way to educate self-interest out of our elite (HA!). They believe the theory of biological evolution shows that societies and governments must co-evolve together, so gov’t must be responsive to “the times.” They want no part of the idea that the gov’t is run by compromise driven by factions, or that the basic rules by which the gov’t operates are changed by public consensus.

    They already have their answer against limited gov’t. They’ll say that the articles and amendments don’t say anything about limited gov’t, that this was an ideology the Founders had, but their time has long passed. Their notion of the “social contract” (the Constitution) and human nature is temporal. The notion the Founders had about human nature is that it’s pretty much non-temporal. That’s the basic dividing line between us and Progressives. Until they come to understand the fixed quality of human nature, they’ll never understand that gov’t needs to be limited, no matter what the Constitution says.

  29. Tim Clark says:

    test

  30. p.g.sharrow says:

    Chief Justice Roberts said that the constitution was a limit on government actions but he did not know what that limit was. This guy is a Conservative? WTF! We need a controlling authority that will enforce the contract, AS WRITTEN! The Supreme Court is just another arm of the Federal Government. The government that the Constitution was created to limit. Since when is the controlled party allowed to interpret the terms of control and enforcement in that contract. These are not honorable people. pg

  31. Mark Miller says:

    @p.g.sharrow:

    Thomas Woods talked about this a couple years ago. He is equally distrustful of the SC. He likened it to someone having a dispute with him, and he gets to pick his mother as the arbiter. “Now, my mother is a fair woman, but she’s likely to side with me,” he said.

    He’s advocated for what he calls “state nullification.” He wrote a book about it as well (http://www.tomwoods.com/books/nullification/). He said that when the Constitution was being considered by the states, they talked about the same thing you did, and they were told not to worry, since there was provision in it for the states to rule on whether an act of Congress was constitutional. He made a distinction, saying this was not an arbitrary power. This was not license for states to say, “We don’t like the law, so we’re not following it.” What it allowed was for a state to say it doesn’t recognize the lawfulness of an act, because it goes outside Congress’s authority. He said his book went on to describe how a state could legally go about doing this. The catch is you have to have a state legislature that’s willing to look into the matter, and have the gumption to do it.

    And the truth of the matter is this is not as outlandish as some might like us to believe. We have states and localities who are more or less doing this right now. Look at the states and localities who do not cooperate to varying degrees with the federal government’s policies on immigration. Look at my own state of CO, which recently passed an amendment to its constitution saying that selling, and possessing some of amount of marijuana is legal, despite the fact that the federal government has a law that forbids the sale or possession of it, and has agencies that actively enforce it. Just recently Gov. Hickenlooper talked about how the state now has to consider telling its police forces *not* to cooperate with federal drug enforcement WRT marijuana. There is plenty of precedent for this.

Comments are closed.