Posted on 12/28/2009 6:06:34 AM PST by Patriot1259
The country of the United States isn't the country it was just some 30 years ago. Then we were a country willing to give our lives for any threat which may take our Constitutional freedoms away.
Today the U.S. resembles those countries which threatened us in the fact that our Federal Government has stepped in and taken control of most of the private sector of business and finance and is poised for control of the medical industry as well.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecypresstimes.com ...
Prediction:
2010-2020 will be the decade that will make 1860’s look like a Sunday church picnic and decide if the American Republic very existence survives.
Good article. Thanks for posting.
If one reads the Declaration of Independence, it looks almost exactly like it could have been written against Washington, rather than London. Other than the complaint about quartering troops in our homes, it seems almost dead-on for use today...especially here in Texas.
Not surprising, really.
But now, sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire. If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together. Such a government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government. What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances?... Where are your checks in this government? Your strongholds will be in the hands of your enemies. It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs should they be bad men; and, sir, would not all the world, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad? Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.
Patrick Henry, June 5th, 1788
LOL! What planet is this guy living on? Social Security was passed in what? 1935? By my math that over 70 years ago. Medicare and Medicaid were passed when? 65? That's 44 years ago. The 16th amendment was passed in what? 1916? How about Prohibition? 1922 or thereabouts? This country has trended AWAY from freedom from the beginning.
The term "constitutional freedoms" is an oxymoron. The Constitution doesn't create any freedoms. It was, in theory, limited in power, and was supposed to leave untouched those freedoms we claim to possess outside the power of any government. And as we have seen over the last 200 years, the government under the Constitution tends to usurp freedom, not protect it.
This confusion--conflating freedom with the Constitution--prevents us from moving on intellectually to the true problems at hand. What is the goal? The goal is liberty.
“…but we now have arrived at being a country which will very soon resemble a Central American Country.”
You would love living in Panama. It is considered part of South America because of its culture since Panama was part of Colombia. Economically Panama is doing very well and its economy continues to grow in spite of the rest of the world.
Was it Costa Rica that wanted to become part of the U.S. as a state but was told to stuff it by the U.S.? It turns out they were lucky to be rejected.
The Federal govt did something worse, the troops are quartered overseas....I mean our state National guard troops are gone gone gone. There are no more means of state control of locally grown and raised “militia”. If a state decided to challenge the Feds on an issue that the Feds were persistent on, they could take the state over within seconds of the first troop carrier pulling up in front of the state governors mansion....or with a simple phone call. We as states are completely defenseless, and I would move to the state that would stand up for its rights in a minute...KNOW OF ONE? If you answered Texas, you must have forgotten how they stood by and watch children abused or slaughtered in Waco, or at the Mormon offshoots “compound”.
I agree with you HUCK, what better structure is there? More importantly, how do we get to there from here?
Our founders were one smart group of folks. Patrick Henry one of their best. How lucky we were to have such men.
None.
I believe we need a truly all-federal system. We all learn in grade school that the confederacy under the Articles was too weak. But it's not an either/or problem. It's not a choice between a weak confederacy or a consolidated national government. In fact, then the framers met in Philly, they had been asked to strengthen the confederacy by amending the Articles. They were not asked to create an entirely new form of government.
It seems to me we should institute a truly federal system--a confederacy. We should do away with vague language such as "promote the general welfare". We should do away with "implied powers" and delegate EXPRESSED powers only. The power to determine the meaning of the founding text should lie outside the general government.
Have I got a perfect system designed? No. I'm just a music teacher, for crying out loud. But I believe that conservative intellectual firepower should be pointed in this direction.
How do we get there? I have no idea. I do know that as long as conservatives cling to the notion that this Constitution can work "properly", we'll never get there. We have 200 years of data on this part-national, part-federal system. In my opinion, it's a failure, and the failure is due to structural design flaws. I'm trying to convince people of this fact, or at least get them to raise the question---what if the Constitution is the problem?
To get where I am suggesting we go will take a few generations. Midterm wins will be fine. Short term political strategies have their place. But time marches on. Social Security was passed in the 30s. Medicare in the 60s. And in the 00s we defend against single payer health care. We need to lay the groundwork over the course of a few generations. We need to own movie studios, record labels, tv networks, publishing houses. We need to infiltrate school boards, become teachers. We need to work on the people. But first, the people that would lead such movements need to recognize that consolidated national government is the problem. There is no right way to do it. We need confederated independent states.
I am one of those that think we need to get back to original intent, but the reason for this is to disallow reinterpretations of law. Really, the best system would be one which does not depend on which party member you vote into office. Why should our elected officials have so much power to enforce their will? Your way may be better, I will have to study more on the Articles of Confederation, as I think they got just a passing glance in my learning process. I saw them as a failed early attempt, and the Constitution as the stronger method. You have a fellow traveler in me, on the road to more powerful and independent state govts, and a vastly smaller and constrained FED. The current system depends too much on human goodness, while setting up itself to constrain the bad intent of people. People are truly corrupt or corruptible, I can only think of one in our nations history that refused ultimate power, George Washington. All others were grasping at power to a greater extent with a few trying to stay on the straight and narrow.
Do you really think that our system is the best it could be? I personally think there are some design flaws, otherwise how could one party or another so enslave others without being in danger of being imprisoned?
That's the official gubmint version of the story. I'm not saying they were perfect as is, but the shortcomings were correctable. Anyway, thanks for entertaining my thoughts on the subject. I am sure we want much the same outcome. Good to share ideas about how to get there.
I recommend the Antifederalist Papers, especially 32, 39, 78-84. And I recommend you read all of Patrick Henry's speeches from the Virginia ratification debate. Especially June 5th, 1788. They are available online. Just google em.
Washington stopped short of absolute power, to be sure. But he was one of the primary advocates of a strong, national government. He despised the old confederacy. He wanted a government strong enough to warrant respect from Old Europe. He spoke of America as an infant-empire. He was clearly on the side of the nationalists. He was most in tune with Alexander Hamilton, the most fervent nationalist and advocate of centralized power around at the time.
So count Washington among those who wanted to see the United States become an Empire. He said as much in his writings ("However unimportant America may be considered at present…," said George Washington, "there will assuredly come a day, when this country will have some weight in the scale of Empires..." )
Contrast that with Patrick Henry:
But now, sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire. If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together. Such a government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government. What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances?
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.