Davy Crockett on Charity

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Constitution_Issues/davy_crockett_and_charity.htm ^

[winodog]

Preface When a reviewer wishes to give special recognition to a book, he predicts that it will still be read "a hundred years from now." The Law, first published as a pamphlet in June, 1850, is already more than a hundred years old. And because its truths are eternal, it will still be read when another century has passed.

Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) was a French economist, statesman, and author. He did most of his writing during the years just before - and immediately following -- the Revolution of February 1848. This was the period when France was rapidly turning to complete socialism. As a Deputy to the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Bastiat was studying and explaining each socialist fallacy as it appeared. And he explained how socialism must inevitably degenerate into communism. But most of his countrymen chose to ignore his logic.

The Law is here presented again because the same situation exists in America today as in the France of 1848. The same socialist-communist ideas and plans that were then adopted in France are now sweeping America. The explanations and arguments then advanced against socialism by Mr. Bastiat are -- word for word -- equally valid today. His ideas deserve a serious hearing.

This is a amazing page. It describes todays politicians to the tee. They are all plunderers.

http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm

[LS]

You make an interesting point on "clearly understood matters." For example, there was never any mention of the word "gold" in the Federal Reserve Act because everyone at the time understood that banks would continue to use gold as their "reserve currency." But, of course, that quickly changed.

BTW, if I haven't pinged you alerady, please check out my newly released book, "A Patriot's HIstory of the United States" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1595230017/qid=1092168718/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/002-0543492-4011203?v=glance&s=books

[expatguy]

One of my favorite speeches.

An American Expat in Southeast Asia

[Recon Dad]

You are correct it isn't as simple as term limits, but I would hope by eliminating the professional politician the motivation to be in Congress would change. Getting people who have respect and understanding of the Constitution would be easier without the temptation to make it a career.
My Congressman, John Boehner, considered a staunch conservative in a very conservative district is a prime example of someone who got to Congress and found out he likes it. The local party will never change horses because it would not serve their purposes.
Over the years the Federal government has assumed more and more authority abetted by a willing congress. Finding a way to get this authority away from them will require a legislature that set limits, right now we have none, liberal or conservative.

[BlackbirdSST]

It's the age old Grass is blue, Sky is green argument! Blackbird.

[B4Ranch]

WHERE IS THE EXPENSE REPORT?

[libertyman]

Rep. Paul isn't my Representative (he is from Surfside, TX, & I'm in Ft. Smith, AR...my Rep. is John Boozman, who is a neocon). Just like you, I wish that a Ron Paul-like candidate would be elected in my district.

As for federal President Bush's efforts in education are concerned, they are flat-out unconstitutional (whatever happened to the GOP that wanted to eliminate the Dept. of Education???). Here's what James Madison had to say as a member of the house on february 7, 1792:

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, & are the sole & supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, & parish, & pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress...".

So much for "No Child Left Behind"--I'd say, along w/ James Madison, that it's time to leave federal involvement in education behind! We should support (@ the FEDERAL level):

--the seperation of SCHOOL & state;

--the seperation of WELFARE & state;

--the seperation of TRANSPORTATION & state;

--the seperation of CRIMINAL LAW ENFORCEMENT & state (support your LOCAL police!), etc., etc., etc.!

The above issues are left to the states or the people to decide, as the 10th Amendment requires (y'all remember that one, right?).

[G.Mason]

" ... Getting people who have respect and understanding of the Constitution would be easier without the temptation to make it a career ... "

And here's the rub. The study of our Constitution is not taught, to any great length and understanding, in the public schools.

As we parents are aware, children take the easy way out. They want to begin employment at the top. No apprenticeship, and if possible, be handed everything by others.

I guess what I am saying, is that even should we "children" read and understand the Constitution, we would wish to ammend it, allowing this to continue.

As you decribed Congressman Boehner, so have we all become, and I am afraid the solution to the change in this attitude will be severe when it comes.

"Listen my children and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five;
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year."

[libertyman]

You're absolutely right...it IS amazing. Now just imagine how great the REST of the book is, as short as it may be!

This booklet should be REQUIRED READING for anyone who says "I'm proud to be an American"!!!

I challenge ALL FReepers to read this small book & pass it along....

[Recon Dad]

Good thoughts I hope will stimulate thinking. As to my suggestion for term limits I will only point to the term limits put on the Presidency as something I believe works. As much as I would like to see GW able to run for President in 08 I think back to 2000 and know that Bill Clinton would still be President today if there were no term limits.
Listening to Fox as I type Ben Stein is saying the same things about the present aid being given to Asia as Davey did long ago. Let's vote for Ben.

[Recon Dad]

Thank you, you'll get no disagreement from me. I'd like to see the government out of the education business, but I did feel W's approach was the best attempt to move from a purely "throw money at it" to more "results via testing".

[decimon]

It does tick me off somewhat to start the year off seeing the living constitutionalists winning on Free Republic.

The Constitution was meant to be "live" but in the hands of the Ents and not the Orcs.

[G.Mason]

"Let's vote for Ben."

I'll second that! Mr. Stein is a very sound thinking man.

As far as term limits, you have a good point. (that I neglected to comment on previously)

I think the "term limits" must be made mandatory, as the president, and not something these spineless elected officials can weedle out of, as they have been known to do when they "pledge" to limit themselves.

[mrsmith]

Thanks, that tickles my funny bone.

We've got liberals who want a living constitution to give power to the feds, and their supposed opposites who want a living constitution to take power away from the feds.

A pox on all of them, stick them in the mines of Mordor until they get sick of each other.

[Badray]

"I do not profess to be a constitutional expert but am anxious to see your reply to "BlackbirdSST" in post #17.

If congress does indeed have constitutional authority to give tax money to other countries or individuals I would like to see chapter and verse."

Ditto that here too.

Yesterday, I posted a link to this story on the thread about the jump from $35 to $350 Million.

I was called every name in the book because I questioned the authority to tax us for charity, including racist.

Show us the chapter and verse, mrssmith. Please.

[mrsmith]

Don't you think it's your claim that the Founders- all the Founders in this case- didn't know what the Constitution meant that needs to be defended?

A living constitutionalist wouldn't of course.

[Badray]

"No, it means that the very men who DRAFTED the Constitution knew what it meant better than you."

You mean like what this guy had to say?

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -- James Madison

[Badray]

I didn't post it, but here is the article that I reference in my email. Wanna jump in?

[sweetiepiezer]

I agree with you.
The public has reached into their own pockets and we have given 44 million to the Red Cross alone, should come from the people, us Americans have big hearts.

While reading what Crockett had said, I still wonder why the govenment gave so much to the victims families of 9/11.

[Badray]

"Don't you think it's your claim that the Founders- all the Founders in this case- didn't know what the Constitution meant that needs to be defended?

A living constitutionalist wouldn't of course."

You made a very specific claim that the Congress is authorized to spend in these areas. You have been asked repeatedly to show the SPECIFIC ENUMERATED POWER that authorizes it. We know Congress has abused it's power in the past, but precedent alone does not prove your assertion. So, instead of calling names, please show us chapter and verse for your claim or retract it and apologize.