Kalamata:
"Joey's posts are always deceptive.
I have exposed his progressive, central-planning, big-government ideology over and over again. Joey has even praised the ACLU and a rogue federal judge for meddling in a local school board ruling, which was none of their stinking business!
The bottom line is, Joey is a bully and a control freak, and, accordingly, he admires other bullies and control freaks." It appears Kalamata is off his meds and out of control.
Sure, his posted quotes are always accurate (so far as I can tell), but otherwise his words are almost entirely lies.
None of his diatribe above is true.
Kalamata: "Again, Joey's posts are always deceptive.
He and all other modern Democrats despise the chains of the Constitution, exactly like Lincoln despised them.
Rather they seek the praise of mere men above civic duty. "
And yet more lies.
Here's the truth: Kalamata doesn't deny being anti-federalist, anti-Founders, anti-Constitution, anti-Republican, anti-American.
What he wishes to "conserve" is the Old Confederacy -- not of course as it actually was, but rather as our Lost Causers fantasize it to have been.
Kalamata: "Lincoln was always trying to break those chains.
He, like all modern Democrats, reinterpreted the Commerce Clause to mean anything and everything, in order to (one day) make way for his so-called "American System" (which was actually, the corrupt, crony British Mercantilist system.)"
That's complete nonsense.
Here's the truth: every Founding President supported protective tariffs, "internal improvements" and even a national bank, as did Lincoln.
Yes, Jefferson opposed the bank, but accepted it in exchange for moving the capital city to Washington, DC.
Yes out of power, VP Jefferson also opposed Federalist internal improvements on "strict construction" grounds, but President Jefferson was happy to sign such internal improvements as the Cumberland Road, and proposed many, many more.
Madison approved tariffs and the bank, while Monroe also approved internal improvements.
That is the history of Federalists, Whigs & Republicans, including Lincoln. ![]()
>>Kalamata wrote: "Lincoln was always trying to break those chains [of the Constitution.] He, like all modern Democrats, reinterpreted the Commerce Clause to mean anything and everything, in order to (one day) make way for his so-called "American System" (which was actually, the corrupt, crony British Mercantilist system.)"
>>BroJoeK wrote: "That's complete nonsense."
Joey's posts are always deceptive. The "American System" is an Hamilton/Clay invention created solely to bypass the chains of the Constitution under the pretense that the federal government somehow has powers that were not originally authorized to it during the conventions. And, of course, everything they do is for the "good of the people," (and, an even greater good for themselves and their friends.)
****************
>>BrojoeK wrote: "Here's the truth: every Founding President supported protective tariffs, "internal improvements" and even a national bank, as did Lincoln."
This is how Joey's understanding works, in a nutshell:
"Joey, you have been stealing again."
"It's okay, Mom. Charlie does it, too!"
****************
>>BrojoeK wrote: "Yes, Jefferson opposed the bank, but accepted it in exchange for moving the capital city to Washington, DC. Yes out of power, VP Jefferson also opposed Federalist internal improvements on "strict construction" grounds, but President Jefferson was happy to sign such internal improvements as the Cumberland Road, and proposed many, many more. Madison approved tariffs and the bank, while Monroe also approved internal improvements. That is the history of Federalists, Whigs & Republicans, including Lincoln."
Those are the same kind of deceptive arguments that gave us the horrific Supreme Court concept of stare decisis, used to justify virtually all unconstitutional court opinions by basing them on past unconstitutional court rulings or precedent, rather than on the Constitution itself. This is how it began:
During the debates that led up to the ratification of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton explained some of the many powers reserved to the States, in this manner:
"The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State, the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be provided for by local legislation, can never be desirable cares of a general jurisdiction. "
[Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 17, in Bill Bailey, "The Complete Federalist Papers." The New Federalist Papers Project, p.83]
So, according to Hamilton, the supervision of agriculture could NEVER properly be a federal government matter. BUT, once in power in the Washington administration, Slick Hamilton, pulled a bait-and-switch on the States:
"It is, therefore, of necessity, left to the discretion of the National Legislature to pronounce upon the objects which concern the general welfare, and for which, under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general interests of learning, of agriculture, of manufactures, and of commerce, are within the sphere of the national councils, as far as regards an application of money."
[Report on Manufactures, December 5, 1791, in Henry Cabot Lodge, "The Works of Alexander Hamilton Vol 04." G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1903, pp.151-152]
The first sentence is an absolute lie: the general welfare is simply a preamble defined and explained by the enumerated powers, such as post offices and post roads, weights and measures, etc.. Hamilton's post-Constitution definition opens to door to the "general welfare" preamble clause being applied to any imagined "general welfare" scenerio, such as Social Security, Obamacare, Welfare, and much more.
When ruling on cases relating to general welfare, commerce, and what is and is not necessary and proper, the Supreme Court never goes back to the Constitutional debates, but rather stops at the precedent laid out in Hamilton's Report on Manufactures, if not beforehand. Using that method, they have turned the Constitution from a strictly constructed legal document, into a "living constitution" that can mean anything and everything at the whim of the federal government.
In summary, the concept of precedent, or stare decisis, has been used to usurp the Constitution from the states and the people. Outlaw stare decisis, and we can take our Constitution back from those corrupt, evil, "living constitutionalists".
And, remember, just because Charlie does it, doesn't make it right.
Mr. Kalamata