Posted on 04/12/2012 7:14:38 AM PDT by Kaslin
What if the government never took the Constitution seriously? What if the same generation -- in some cases the same human beings -- that wrote in the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech," also enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to criticize the government? What if the feds don't regard the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land?
What if the government regards the Constitution as merely a guideline to be referred to from time to time, or a myth to be foisted upon the voters, but not as a historic delegation of power that lawfully limits the federal government? What if Congress knows that most of what it regulates puts it outside the confines of the Constitution, but it does whatever it can get away with? What if the feds don't think that the Constitution was written to keep them off the people's backs?
What if there's no substantial difference between the two major political parties? What if the same political mentality that gave us the Patriot Act, with its federal agent-written search warrants that permit unconstitutional spying on us, also gave us Obamacare, with its mandate to buy health insurance, even if we don't want or need it? What if both political parties love power more than freedom? What if both parties have used the Commerce Clause in the Constitution to stretch the power of the federal government far beyond its constitutionally ordained boundaries and well beyond the plain meaning of words?
What if both parties love war because the public is more docile during war and permits higher taxes and more federal theft of freedom from individuals and power from the states? What if none of these recent wars has made us freer or safer, but just poorer?
What if Congress bribed the states with cash in return for their enacting legislation that Congress likes, but cannot lawfully enact? What if Congress went to all states in the union and offered them cash to repave their interstate highways, if the states only lowered their speed limits? What if the states took that deal? What if the Supreme Court approved this bribery and then Congress did it again and again? What if this bribery were a way for Congress to get around the few constitutional limitations that Congress acknowledges?
What if Congress believes that it can spend tax dollars on anything it pleases and tie any strings it wants to that spending? What if Congress uses its taxing and spending power to regulate anything it wants to control, whether authorized by the Constitution or not? What if anyone other than members of Congress offered state legislatures cash in return for favorable legislation? What if Congress wrote laws that let it break laws that ordinary people would be prosecuted for breaking?
What if the Declaration of Independence says that the government derives its powers from the consent of the governed? What if the government claims to derive powers from some other source that it will not -- because it cannot -- name? What if we never gave the government the power to spy on us, to print worthless cash, to kill in our names, to force us to buy health insurance or to waste our money by telling us that exercise is good and sugar is bad?
What if we never gave the government the power to bribe the poor with welfare or the middle class with tax breaks or the rich with bailouts or the states with cash? What if we don't consent to what has become of the government? What if the Constitution has been tacitly amended by the consent of both political parties, whereby instead of ratifying amendments, all three branches of government merely look the other way when the government violates the Constitution? What if the president cannot constitutionally bomb whatever country he wants? What if the Congress cannot constitutionally exempt its members from the laws that govern the rest of us? What if the courts cannot constitutionally invent a right to kill babies in the womb?
What if the federal government is out of control, no matter which party controls it? What if there is only harmony on Capitol Hill when government is growing and personal liberty is shrinking? What if the presidential race this fall will not be between good and evil, between right and left, between free markets and central planning or even between constitutional government and Big Government; but only about how much bigger Big Government should get?
What if enough is enough? What do we do about it? What if it's too late?
The Afghans didn’t defeat the Brits. The Brits eventually imposed their will and put an end their raiding for duration of the British Raj.
We can’t beat them because we’re not ruthless enough. If we applied the methods of the British Raj or, better yet, the Mongols, we could get this over with and go home secure in a real victory.
Of course, there wouldn’t be very many Afghanis left...
What if a state(s) started to print their own money and forming voluntary infantry regiments with the governor as their C-in-C?
I was just asking questions, same as Judge Napolitano. By definition, it is all hypothetical, all just a stimulant to a free and open discussion. :>)
But thanks for the warning - it may help others.
Freepers crack me up. I love hearing how if FedGov™ was dissolved or seceded from there would be anarchy. This is a REPUBLIC and I would argue every state would be much better off as an independent country. After about 20 years maybe some alliances could be formed and maybe the whole thing reconstructed, but reconstructed the right way not the way it was done last time.
The constitution was designed to create co equal branches of government in order to contain or restrict it’s power. The fact that there are challenges to our governing document shows that we are all under attack from enemies both foreign and domestic.
Germany btw had once 300 different countries and many fought wars against each other.
Actually not quite true.
The Brits were unwilling to pay the price to conquer and occupy Afghanistan, if they indeed were capable of doing so.
Instead, they established a "buffer zone" in their NW Provinces. These areas are largely occupied by Pathans and other peoples who are "really" Afghans. The Brits didn't try to control this area. They paid off local chiefs to keep the level of violence to a dull background roar. They would make punitive expeditions every few years to keep the inhabitants from getting too out of hand.
It was essentially a policy of "whack a mole" as has been proposed. "Rubble doesn't make trouble" wouldn't work because there wasn't much there but rubble to begin with.
The Brits also fought several real wars with the Afghans themselves, the last in the 1920s.
But the Frontier was never quiet, and raiding never stopped.
Dear Judge,
I’ll refer you to Amendment the 2nd.
Have a nice day.
L
150 years ago, we had a President from Illinois who twisted the Constitution and waged war to free the slaves. Today we have a president from Illinois who rejects the Constitution and wages war to make us all slaves.
The outcome of the Civil War was that the states did not have the power to break the covenant with the federal government. The net effect of that is that we the people are left with no choice but revolution.
Politicians have made this bed, they will then have to lie in it.
I would say that King George III got his butt whipped by 13 individual countries. I will risk possible internecine warefare if I get to keep the fruits of my labor. That is what it is all about.
It's unity that makes the U.S. strong. Once the unity is destroyed expect the post-U.S. to matter as much as, say, South America.
Traitors & cowards, you have been notified.
And I'll bet my retirement papers there are even more patriots out there who live by their Oaths, unlike the treasonous swine and race baiter's in DC.
They thought of just about everything. They knew a time like this time would come.
It’s because they understood history and history clearly shows that people and power do not mix well. That’s why the Constitution is a limiting factor on government (a document of negative rights) and not an enabling factor (a document of positive rights).
The founders understood the paramount importance of defining what the government was allowed to do while expressly saying it was not allowed to do anything else. They understood powerful people very well and the powerful people’s mindset has not changed. That’s why the arguments they made 200+ years ago apply to today and they seem prescient.
The tools and trappings of man has changed but the nature of man has not.
I could not agree with you more. If I was teaching any course on 20th century history or politics which touched on Marxism and its real world effects, George Orwell’s ‘Homage to Catalonia’ woould be required reading. George Orwell is unique as far as I know in being 1) leftist, 2) honest, 3) brave and this is what sets him apart - 4) honorable.
Yes, a new American civil war would more closely resemble the horrors depicted in ‘Homage to Catalonia’ than ‘Battles and Leaders’. Further, it would be even more post-Christian in flavor than the Spanish Civil War, and would be an absolute playpen for sociopaths.
That is not to say that such a war is unthinkable, and may even be necessary at some future point in some future dystopia. A Communist said it, and she was wrong on application but correct in principle: “It is better to die on our feet than live on our knees.” A terrible option. The last option. But not the worst option.
BS. Right now I the primacy of the Federal Govt. is causing weakness, the accent of the individual state would reverse the enervating effects of tyrannical centralized power.
That's an interesting thought experiment.
What if they had left most if not all legislation strictly to the state legislatures, for which the court system would still be split on state and federal lines depending on interstate issues and appeals from state supreme courts.
Federal budgets would have to be ratified by majority of state houses.
There would be no suing over Obamacare, as the 26 states could effectively veto it.
CWII heads up.
Thoughtful article, thoughtful thread.
If the 50 states dissolve the present Union they are by definition not standing together. Expect mucho conflict and the consequences therefrom.
Think of the impact of the following Amendment:
Legislators of the United States, having shown willful disregard for the limits of their enumerated powers under this Constitution, shall be subject to life imprisonment without possibility of parole provided a majority of their respective State legislature concur.
Judges of the United States, having shown willful disregard for the limits of their enumerated powers under this Constitution, shall be subject to life imprisonment without possibility of parole provided two-thirds of the Senate concur.
I stand corrected; We’ll have to go with the Mongol method.
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.