You're quite welcome. I do believe we have a problem with conservatives who failed to read the poll data and didn't see Obama's victory coming. Now we have to deal with the consequences.
On some of the other points in your note, I'm glad to see you still define yourself as a Calvinist, though I certainly wish you were applying Reformed principles outside the walls of the church building. For example, limiting the proper role of government to what is specified in Romans 13 and related passages. There are reasons why Calvinists have historically emphasized principles which today are considered both politically and religiously conservative — beyond the very limited role of national defense, most of what the federal government does now is a massive expansion beyond its proper role. The same could largely be said for state and federal governments, though I recognize that their role under Romans 13 will of necessity be greater. Police and fire protection are obvious legitimate examples.
And yes, as you pointed out with regard to Ronald Reagan's phone programs, I am painfully aware that these problems did not begin with President Obama. Problems of grossly overexpanded government began decades ago, in some cases more than a century ago, and will take decades to roll back unless a federal financial crisis forces catastrophic cutbacks without time to plan for the consequences.
Exactly that is a real possibility with sequestration coming up at the end of this year, and the fiscal crisis that is coming no matter what the lame-duck congress does.
87 posted on Fri Nov 16 2012 13:51:11 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time) by IronJack: “Contrary to your implication, the Supreme Court is not the ultimate arbiter of American law; the People are. And if they say a certain behavior or standard is not acceptable, all the writs in the world won’t change that. Besides, if we don’t contain governmental sprawl within constitutional boundaries, where will it stop? What limits ARE there on government if not those imposed by our founding charter?”
I am increasingly beginning to believe that a major difference between conservatives and liberals, one which needs more attention, is whether the written text of the Constitution is our final authority, or whether alternatively, the “wax nose” of an unwritten constitution which has been invented rather than interpreted by the courts and ultimately by the Supreme Court, is the final authority.
Unwritten constitutions aren't necessarily bad. The English common law system is an obvious example. But they're not our American system in which the judges in our courts are supposed to be interpreting a written text.
In no way am I trying to overturn Marbury v Madison, or to question the role of court precedents or of stare decisis, nor am I trying to say we should ignore what the courts say.
What I am saying is we have a written constitution, not an unwritten constitution, and we need to be demanding that the judges be interpreting the written text rather than making interpretations up out of thin air.
That same idea holds true today. Many government programs are founded on noble notions -- "fairness," a "hand up," "the public good ..." But noble ends cannot be achieved by ignoble means, and no good arises from a good idea badly served. Robbing one segment of the population to support another is robbery, no matter how needy the recipient or how "undeserving" the victim.
THAT is the principle on which the Constitution rests -- that no man is more entitled to the fruits of my labor than I, and that government exists for one purpose only: to protect the rights vouchsafed me as a freeborn man.