Best Sign I have Seen San Diego Tea Party Express October 24
Posted on 08/03/2010 7:45:32 AM PDT by markomalley
When Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., was told during a July 24 town hall meeting with constituents that he and public officials like him were "destroying this nation," he smirkingly replied, "And I guess you're here to save it. And that makes me very uncomfortable." This derision of a constituent was particularly poignant, considering that the questioner had only asked what limits would remain on the federal government if Congress could get away with passing a bill as destructive of individual rights as Obamacare. Stark responded that "I think that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life." He was roundly booed, but then given another opportunity to respond. He observed that "the federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country."
Unfortunately, Stark's extreme views are common among the current congressional majority. Still, we have no doubt that those who wrote the Constitution would be astounded to hear such monarchical attitudes today since they were exactly what the American Revolution was fought to overcome.
Sadly, it probably comes as no surprise to most Americans that Washington politicians like Stark hold such a self-serving view of the Constitution. It's still shocking to hear it put in such stark terms. But Americans have been hearing this theme from their leaders throughout the current economic crisis: Those in power are mainstream agents of change, whereas those who, like Tea Partiers, protest bailouts, deficits, tax hikes and exploding national debt are disreputable radicals and even racists. This is the incumbent- protection narrative that seeks to discredit the middle-American rebellion sparked in 2009 when President Obama proposed an $862 billion economic stimulus program that most knew would mostly line the pockets of his political allies.
Congress is subject to checks and balances by other branches of government, as well as to specific constitutional limits. The First Amendment, for example, says "Congress shall make no law" on freedom of religion, speech, assembly and petition. The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." The 10th Amendment says all powers not specifically enumerated for the federal government "are reserved to the states, or to the people." Washington politicians like Stark should get familiar with the founding documents, particularly this radical Constitution whose present advocates among his constituents make him so uncomfortable. After all, every two years for the past nearly four decades, he has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and vowing to bear "true faith and allegiance to the same." It's past time such politicians get right with their vows.
Best Sign I have Seen San Diego Tea Party Express October 24
In order to defeat these ignorant so-called "progressives" and restore liberty, American citizens mush study and understand their Constitution's bounds and limits on government power.
The following essay is a beginning. It is from "Our Ageless Constitution."
The Constitution was devised with an ingenious and intricate built-in system of checks and balances to guard the people's liberty against combinations of government power. It structured the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary separate and wholly independent as to function, but coordinated for proper operation, with safeguards to prevent usurpations of power. Only by balancing each against the other two could freedom be preserved, said John Adams.
Another writer of the day summarized clearly the reasons for such checks and balances:
"If the LEGISLATIVE and JUDICIAL powers are united, the MAKER of the law will also INTERPRET it (constitutionality).
Should the EXECUTIVE and LEGISLATIVE powers be united... the EXECUTIVE power would make itself absolu te, and the government end in tyranny.
Should the EXECUTIVE and JUDICIAL powers be united, the subject (citizen) would then have no permanent security of his person or property.
"INDEED, the dependence of any of these powers upon either of the others ... has so often been productive of such calamities... that the page of history seems to be one continued tale of human wretchedness." (Theophilus Parsons, ESSEX RESULTS)
What were some of these checks and balances believed so important to individual liberty? Several are listed below:
HOUSE (peoples representatives) is a check on SENATE - no statute becomes law without its approval.
SENATE is a check on HOUSE - no statute becomes law without its approval. (Prior to 17th Amendment, SENATE was appointed by State legislatures as a protection for states' rights - another check the Founders provided.)
EXECUTIVE (President) can restrain both HOUSE and SENATE by using Veto Power.
LEGISLATIVE (Congress - Senate & House) has a check on EXECUTIVE by being able to pass, with 2/3 majority, a bill over President's veto.
LEGISLATIVE has further check on EXECUTIVE through power of discrimination in appropriation of funds for operation of EXECUTIVE.
EXECUTIVE (President) must have approval of SENATE in filling important posts in EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
EXECUTIVE (President) must have approval of SENATE before treaties with foreign nations can be effective.
LEGISLATIVE (Congress) can conduct investigations of EXECUTIVE to see if funds are properly expended and laws enforced.
EXECUTIVE has further check on members of LEGISLATIVE (Congress) in using discretionary powers in decisions regarding establishment of military bases, building & improvement of navigable rivers, dams, interstate highways, etc., in districts of those members.
JUDICIARY is check on LEGISLATIVE through its authority to review all laws and determine their constitutionality.
LEGISLATIVE (Congress) has restraining power over JUDICIARY, with constitutional authority to restrict extent of its jurisdiction.
LEGISLATIVE has power to impeach members of JUDICIARY guilty of treason, high crimes, or misdemeanors.
EXECUTIVE (President) is check on JUDICIARY by having power to nominate new judges.
LEGISLATIVE (Senate) is check on EXECUTIVE and JUDICIARY having power to approve/disapprove nominations of judges.
LEGISLATIVE is check on JUDICIARY - having control of appropriations for operation of federal court system.
LEGISLATIVE (Peoples Representatives) is check on both EXECUTIVE and J U DICIARY through power to initiate amendments to Constitution subject to approval by 3/4 of the States.
LEGISLATIVE (Senate) has power to impeach EXECUTIVE (President) with concurrence of 2/3, of members.
The PEOPLE, through their State representatives, may restrain the power of the federal LEGISLATURE if 3/4 of the States do not ratify proposed Constitutional Amendments.
LEGISLATIVE, by Joint Resolution, can terminate certain powers granted to EXECUTIVE (President) (such as war powers) without his consent.
It is the PEOPLE who have final check on both LEGISLATIVE and EXECUTIVE when they vote on their Representatives every 2 years, their Senators every 6 years, and their President every 4 years. Through those selections, they also influence the potential makeup of the JUDICIARY.
It is up to each generation to see that the integrity of the Constitutional structure for a free society is maintained by carefully preserving the system of checks and balances essential to limited and balanced government.
"To preserve them (is) as necessary as to institute them," said George Washington.
Footnote: Our Ageless Constitution, W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987) Part III: ISBN 0-937047-01-5
This is our fault...that We the People have allowed our employees to forget who is supposed to be running the show...
Fortney’s grasp on reality has stretched way beyond its limits.
He's correct, the federal government can do most anything it wants to Americans...it's not constitutional, of course. Americans live in tyranny and don't even realize it...the federal government has discarded the constitution and is now illegitimate.
Agreed. I saw the video of his exchange with a lady who challenged the constitutionality of ObamaCare. Although her argument could have been better, she managed to expose Stark for what he is: a doddering old fool who couldn't even think of anything reasonable to respond to her grievances.
Stark's handlers should have known better than to expose him to a real Town Hall (that is, one not limited to Democrat activists) given the national mood and his mental status. Not too many Dem congresscritters are holding Town Halls this summer, I'd presume.
BTW, there is supposed to be a second part of that Stark Town Hall video. If someone can find it, please post a link.
I wouldn't be so absolute about that. Remember that there is a sentence in the Constitution barring any religious test for (federal) public office. There are some atheists who are capable of abiding by the Constitution, but certainly not Stark.
Can it stop bullets, Neo-style?
Cuz it's gonna have to if it keeps this up much longer.
Well said
We have allowed this to happen and now we must clean up our own mess.
Wither that or let our children live in fear.
I could not hold office in a government that was founded upon the view that the state was absolute and denied the existence of God. I could not take the oath of office in which I would swear to support those views and laws. That is one reason that Christians did not serve in political office or the military before Constantine. I was making the assumption that an Atheist would find it contradictory to support and to promote the view that rights originated from God alone, and not from the state. Stark my see himself as an Ubermensch not bound by convention or conscience. I would hope that even Atheists would cherish honesty.
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.