Posted on 09/30/2009 11:07:52 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake
Probably true. Some problems are insoluable. There are other flaws in the USA that the FRAMERS can't be blamed for. We're much too big, for one thing. You can blame Jefferson a little, for the Louisiana Purchase, which IIRC, was unconstitutional. But even all that was probably inevitable. In short, we were doomed from the start. But thats life.
It’s not even debatable. Rush and others failed to recognize correct usage of the term. They heard negative and thought “bad.” When it doesn’t mean that. Obama was lamenting a lack of “positive” rights, which is fine to criticize. Those are socialist rights—benefits. Right to a living wage, etc. But the rights in the bill of rights, many of them anyway, are properly described as negative rights. I assume Rush was just ignorant.
God gave rights to man, and man created states (governments) to secure those rights.
I think it's a simple (but very important) question of jurisdiction, not "rights".
The citizens of a state, who have rights, grant limited, enumerated powers to governments at the state and the federal levels. The Constitution clearly restricts the powers of the US government to enumerated matters and specifically reserves all other powers to the states or to the people.
"Rights" is not the correct word here. This is about powers and jurisdiction. Citizens have rights.
I'd heard that, but it seems to me there was already another conservative player in the running but don't recall right off hand who it may have been. The primary might be fun, eh?
I don't know how much more Conservative and Liberty-oriented the other candidate could be, but Brogdon appears to be the real deal
From Wiki: In all of his six years of service OCPAC selected him as "Senate Legislator of the Year." for having the highest conservative voting record in the Senate. In 2005 Senator Brogdon was the first senator in 20 years to receive a 100% on the Conservative Vote Index. For the 2005-2006 legislative session he was elected to a leadership position by his caucus to serve as Senate Republican Whip and in 2007-2008 he served as the Assistant Republican Floor Leader.
In 2007 he was the recipient of the Phyllis Schlafly Oklahoma Eagle Award for his consistent support of Constitutional Conservative legislation.
In 2008 he was appointed as chairman of Appropriation of Transportation and General Government sub-committee.
On April 18, 2009 Senator Brogdon announced his candidacy for Oklahoma Governor in the 2010 election.
From OkeSenate.gov:Since being elected State Senator in 2002, Randy Brogdon has championed legislation such as "The Taxpayer Bill of Rights" (TABOR) and SB 1 "The Taxpayer Transparency Act." In addition, he was successful in leading the charge to opt out of the federal "REAL ID ACT" of 2005.
Randy Brogdon is also the author of SJR 10, otherwise known as the 10th Amendment Resolution. This resolution is designed to protect states rights and prevent the federal government from overexerting its legislative power. His efforts on the 10th Amendment Initiative have brought him national attention from several media outlets across the country. In March of 2009, Senator Brogdon was invited to speak to the Pennsylvania State Legislature about his work on the 10th Amendment Initiative.
Maybe the other candidate is a good guy, but Randy Brodgon's accomplishments look to me like "the gold standard" for what I would hope to find in a candidate for Governor of my State.
Well, as much as anything else, it's a money thang. We have reviewed/discussed/debated several ideas on these 10th Amendment threads about how a State or States could go about telling the federales to take their fed funds and stuffing 'em! Probably some workable ideas around, it's just a matter of taking that first step; the journey of a thousand miles and all... Who'll be the first???
You forgot the one about literacy. That is to say, one should be able to pass a short quiz to determine if one understands how our system of government works. There goes half the electorate! I daresay the government left standing would be a far superior to what we have now. NONE of which is likely to happen in my lifetime.
While I agree there has been considerable damage done to our system of government I don't believe it's too late to get the ship back on course. Just as the libtards felt 2008 was a mandate for "change", I think 2010 could send a chill down the spines of the ne'er do wells in DC. We The People have got to send a clear and unambiguous message to the dregs in DC that we're not going to put up with their foolishness any longer. Not making any predictions but can you imagine what would happen if there was a CONSERVATIVE house cleaning in 2010 and most of the trash was hauled off?
For some perspective, the Revolutionary War and the Civil War were decades in the oven before coming to a fruition. IMO, we're still in the early stages of a new revolutionary war. It may come do blows but it certainly doesn't have to. But the nature of tyrants is such that they will have to be beaten to a bloody pulp before we gain their attention. Problem is, tyrants rarely give up anything so patriots will have to be just as diligent in our dissent. Are we up to it?
Two big mistakes they made, besides the various clauses that serve as gaping loopholes (necessary n proper, general welfare etc) were not designing into the document how constitutional questions would be resolved, and not providing a means for secession.
You can't go back and undo the Civil War, and I daresay youd have a hard time repealing the 14th amendment. We've got all this SCOTUS precedent that won't be overturned. Thats what I mean by not being able to undo history.
Just as they have been doing to us for decades. I've said it numerous times before but I believe it to be absolutely true: The mindsets of conservatives and libtards is so different we might as well be from different planets. Libtards are incessant busybodies who feel compelled to run other people's lives; conservtives just want to be left alone to go about their lives. One mindset is much more conducive to meddling than the other and therefore are the ones always on the attack in their insatiable desire to run things. Conservatives ALWAYS play defense against these simple minded morons. They are, for lack of a better term, control freaks. A form of mental illness is it not? ;^)
Good points all. You haven’t read through the thread have you? ;^)
Don’t get me wrong, Brogdon is a definite keeper, it’s just that I recall there being another player who might be just as good, or almost as good. Maybe I’ll do some research to see what’s cookin’ in OK.
You're apparently referring to the "supremacy" and "commerce" clauses. Neither of which on its face necessarily gives the federales any additional powers outside of those listed in article 1, sec 8. They have been "interpreted" and stretched all out of proportion to something I submit our Founders would not recognize or condone for the most part.
For better or for worse the Constitution is clear that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of things Constitutional. An agent of the feral government deciding issues between the feral government and the States could conceivably be construed as a conflict of interests, but that IS the plan. Secession like most things in life comes down to a power play, or more simply, are you big enough to get away with it. The feral government has been employing this tactic since the beginning.
The warnings were made at the time. It's not as if no one brought it up. These superfluous clauses shouldn't have been in there. The whole idea was to keep the national gubmint in a box, right? Well, the results are in---EPIC FAIL.
Guilty as charged.
Drive-by scanning.
The money flows both ways. States’ citizens send the biggest share of income tax to DC, DC takes their 70% overhead and returns about 30% maximum to red states and 40% to Blue states. Do the math, because in the long run, certainly the red states would be far better off just keeping the money within their borders. Something has to break because the bast***s in DC are not listening.
Nonsense. They actually serve a useful purpose as long as the feral government stayed within the constraints of their unumerated powers; they didn't. That is NOT the fault of the feral government who does what governments do, consolidate power; it's the fault of the American people for allowing them to get away with it for so long.
The whole idea was to keep the national gubmint in a box, right? Well, the results are in---EPIC FAIL.
FWIW, a piece of paper alone will NOT constrain a government. It does however give the makers of and parties in the contract the ability to call them to task should the need arise. The fact we're past the point where we should have reined in the federales, doesn't change the fact it is still our duty as citizens to pull them up short, or if necessary rout the bastards!
Heh, I've never been guilty of that myself of course. You DO believe me; don't you???
Just so, and that's why I contend the states, acting on our behalf, are a better and stronger source of resistance. IF we can get many of them to join the fray against our bloated feral leviathan.
You can't just say it's the people's fault and act as if that somehow negates the errors of the framers. They knew that people were involved. They knew what they were attempting involved great risk. They created the federal gubmint where there was none. They weren't even tasked to do it, but they did it. So now it's been long enough to judge the results.
The failures unravelled over time. I think perhaps the most significant was the expansion of territory over time. The framers feared the original 13 were too big for a republic. WHat would they think of our size now? I think it's very likely that we're simply too big to function as a republic.
The failure to address secession--what if someone wants to leave the union--led to a whole lot of the mischief that got us where we are today. They simply didn't have the stomach to bring up the subject. But they should have.
They left the supreme court with too much power,and no real check on its power. That's pretty obvious. It doesn't even matter what you do with the judges. Once the decisions are made, they become precedent, and are difficult to do away with.
The interstate commerce clause is far too broad, obviously. Ironically,it was the skeptical anti-feds--George Mason, Patrick Henry--who wanted that clause in there. Big mistake. They needed to define clearly what they meant, and put clear limits on its interpretation. They didn't, and that has been one of the biggest loopholes for the feds to use.
Even the bill of rights has some major flaws. That clause at the beginning of the 2nd amendment has created decades of controversy. Hell, the phrase "establishment of religion" in the first amendment has been quite troublesome.
All of this is 20/20 hindsight of course, but that's the point of doing an experiment, isn't it? You do the experiment, you wait for the results, and then you draw conclusions.
It's not enough to blame lawyers for doing mischief. They had lawyers back then. They knew what they were dealing with. The 9th and 10th amendments turned out to be totally worthless.
And so, here we are. Were we to craft a new Constitution, I sure hope it would correct some of these known errors. The idea is to try to create a gubmint that preserves liberty, property. We have failed. All the fighting now is around the margins.
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.