Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here | DONATE to FreeRepublic NOW!
Posted on 11/15/2009 11:12:49 AM PST by Bokababe
...The Founders did not give us a government like the one we have today. The government they gave us was strictly limited in its scope, guaranteed individual liberty, preserved the free market, and on matters that pertain to our private behavior was supposed to leave us alone.
In the Constitution, the Founders built in checks and balances. If the Congress got out of hand, the states would restrain it. If the states stole liberty or property, the Congress would cure it. If the President tried to become a king, the courts would prevent it.
In the next few weeks, I will be giving a public class on Constitutional Law here on the Fox News Channel, on the Fox Business Network, on Foxnews.com, and on Fox Nation. In anticipation of that, many of you have asked: What can we do now about the loss of freedom? For starters, we can vote the bums out of their cushy federal offices! We can persuade our state governments to defy the Feds in areas like health care -- where the Constitution gives the Feds zero authority. We can petition our state legislatures to threaten to amend the Constitution to abolish the income tax, return the selection of U.S. senators to state legislatures and nullify all the laws the Congress has written that are not based in the Constitution.
One thing we can’t do is just sit back and take it....
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
:....... nullify all the laws the Congress has written that are not based in the Constitution.”
THIS should NOT be a threat, it needs to be an uncompromising DEMAND.
"The vote" has changed to the point where it's almost impossible for the people to uphold the Constitution through voting.
There are too many who will vote for a candidate simply because said candidate offers something "for free" or "what you are owed/deserve/have a 'right to'". Bull!
Agree, except for the “Constitutional Ammendment”. That could open up a real can of worms as once a “CA” process starts there is NO LIMIT as to what may be included in the new Constitution. The judge should know that.
And the demise of it if we don't get our constitutionally driven freedom loving sh!t together and fast!
It is true that much of this has been ingrained in people's psyche, but it is also true that "the idea of the Constitution", rather than its actual content, has been equally ingrained. If and when people actually refer to the content of the Constitution, they will find that you are right. The point is to get them to look and educate themselves. Ron Paul and the Campaign for Liberty has been doing an excellent job of that, as have many smaller organizations.
That you feel this to your core makes you a Patriot, not just "an idealistic dogmatist".
Even conservatives have raked me when discussing whether the 17th amendment should be repealed and many balk at eliminating the Department of Education, the EPA, the FDA and so on
There are many people here on FR and beyond who are primarily Social conservatives rather than Constitutional conservatives, many of whom like big government and big government power -- their only dispute is how that power is used when it denies their agenda. They virtually never question whether government should have that power over us at all -- unless the opposition is in office and then they start the Constitutional chest-beating. It's a hard to make them realize that once you allow those powers to a President and government you like, you've also allowed the powers to the next government who you may hate.
Social Conservatism is the RESULT of a functional free society where people are responsible for their choices. It cannot be achieved by government decree whether we wish it so or not.
In my opinion, that government the Founders established died a very painful and bloody death during the civil war. What we have now are bits and pieces of what was left over. We are indeed very lucky to have as many freedoms and liberty left over as we have today, but many of the attitudes from the civil war persist even to this day, only with a different face.
Probably true, but politics is always a push-pull with history, yet there was never a Constitutional amendment passed to deny the rights of the States to secede -- that says something about the limits that the Fed had, even after that bloody Civil War.
"Something and someone has to be the historic antithesis of the liberals, and I don’t beleieve it is folks like me. Constitutionalists, and even Libertarians are stuck in the middle of the persistant tug-o-war between different ways to stomp on the constitution, for better or worse."
Yes, and it is exactly where they should be right now because they have elements that appeal to be shared with both sides in fighting for our freedom and our country. IMHO, this should not be a purely partisan fight -- until or unless one of those Parties, hopefully the Republicans, come to their senses and begin to defend (rather than just try to cash in on) preserving those freedoms that this country was based on.
At worst, the Constitutionalists and libertarians will have stopped both Parties from moving further and further ideologically Left away from the Constitution, and at best, will have moved the discourse back toward a more Constitutional and libertarian model.
I think that we need to quit thinking of "idealist" as a dirty word, because without "ideals" we will have no sense of direction whatever.
Quite a difference from the OTHER Napolitano:
“Napolitano Announces Obama Administration Plan to Give Amnesty to Illegal Aliens”
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?rsrcid=57133
One of my very favorite quotes:
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites—in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity;—in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption;—in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite is placed somewhere: and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
— Edmund Burke
Some excellent comments on this thread!
Agreed ... it starts with a vote and ends wherever it has to. We should have been throwing these bums out the entire time and shame on us for failing to do so. But we CAN start doing it now and a whole new batch of fresh faces will be an excellent place to start.
Agreed ... complacency is our worst enemy. People panic at the thought of making even minor changes, let alone major ones. You want some major changes? How about secession? Or some state nullifying federal law that affects ... oh ... payroll tax withholding? Capital gains tax? How about Oregon sez SCREW YOU and just starts drilling for oil and gas or building reactors without “permission” from Uncle Sugar? Sound like fun?
Agreed ... a Constitutional Convention would be scary ... but just HOW scary? Theoretically they COULD write a new Constitution, and I’d be willing to at least look it over. Because if they did, the Several States would have to ratify any new Constitution. They don’t just get to write one (if they were able!) and have it take effect the next day. Doesn’t work that way. On the other hand, what happens if a clear majority of our brethren want a new Constitution? What then?
Agreed ... expect no help from the courts. We could have avoided all of this grief if the Sleeping Nine were still doing their jobs. But they aren’t.
Agreed ... an act to make Congress “live in our world” would be great. But who is going to vote for it? That’s why we need all new Congresscritters, top to bottom. And no, “your guy” isn’t the only good one! THEY ALL SUCK!!
Agreed ... “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it” by any means necessary, including violence.
All of this being said, I look forward to Judge Napolitano’s ConLaw class!!
"Catch me on the "O'Reilly Factor" tonight @ 8pm EST debating the KSM trial in NYC."
bttt
Our Forefathers fought for less...
Two party system.......ummm, yeah, I'm thinking that's exactly what the power people hope for.
Socialism quickly or socialism a bit slower is still socialism.
Our government, republicans and democrats alike are responsible for the destruction of this nation.
From illegal immigration to de-industrialization, government health care to government prescription rx’s.
You name it, whether republicans or democrats are in office, we have been moving toward a socialist state for many years.
I've heard the Europeans refer to our political system as, “One Party, Two Choices”.
How right they are.
Republicans are in large part globalist.
De-industrialization of America for the bottom line. The almighty buck. It's shameful what these multinational corps are doing to our standard of living with congress enabling them.
Democrats are nothing less than socialist. Every policy fashioned to enslave the American people to Uncle Sugar.
Both parties hell bent on flooding this country with illegals.....then giving them OUR birth right.
Whether we get there slow or fast, socialism is still socialism.
Why threaten? Anything you'd get in exchange for not doing all that stuff wouldn't be as good as just doing it.
Finally, a Napolitano I can listen to without my blood pressure climbing into stroke range!
No, you're thinking of a Constitutional Convention, where you could rewrite the entire thing from scratch if you wanted. The process for individual amendments (we've got twenty-seven of them) is much more contained.
And wouldn't matter if it had. If you're willing to secede, it means you don't care what the law is in the country you're parting ways with. Maybe a little more convenient if it were explicitly sanctioned and the other government abided by it, but that wouldn't happen anyway.
bttt
Why? The electorate votes for the what they want. If that's the same guy, year after year... you'd be saying that the electorate shouldn't have the right to vote their choice.
A better choice would be to require that anyone who wishes to vote have to pass a civics test, so that only those who understand how the government works can vote. Thus eliminating any @sshat that thinks the President is some magic-man that can pull free stuff out of a hat.
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.