Posted on 10/09/2013 8:21:23 AM PDT by Kaslin
There’s a narrative emerging among leftists pundits, commentators, and columnists that the current government shutdown is due to a fundamental flaw in the American form of government. Chris Hayes on MSNBC (ya know, the guy that looks like a 16 year old wannabe economist?) recently dedicated an entire segment of his show to exposing the “fatal flaw in our Constitution”.
According to MSNBC’s woefully statist anchor, our Constitutional form of government inhibits the ability for government to adequately (or speedily) race toward action. Which, in a way, is true. Fascism, in comparison, enables for a rapid-response-government that forfeits deliberation for action. And of course, that brings us to the main issue at hand: The Constitution was orchestrated with the very explicit purpose of derailing radical shifts in government.
Leave it to an MSNBC liberal, however, to take things a step further. The narrative, throughout Hayes’ segment, was that the “radical GOP” is exposing the flaw of America’s form of government. At one point the apparently constitutionally-ignorant host referred to the conservative wing of the Republican Party as the “most extreme” party in American history. I guess it’s nice to know that nothing has changed in over 150 years of GOP political involvement. . . I’m pretty sure that they were also described as “radical” when Lincoln was elected President.
More to his point, however, was the assertion that our government is incapable of functioning, due to the flawed design of the Constitution, and the “radical” nature of the GOP. . . Right. Because, an Executive Branch that openly admits it will “not negotiate” with the minority party is clearly not a causal player in today’s legislative gridlock.
The “modern GOP” is no different than any party that has held control of a portion of America’s legislative body. The minority party routinely wields its outsized influence to accrue a platform from which it can bully the majority into negotiations. That, contrary to the single-party ramblings of some left wing pundits, was not a flaw – but a deliberate design by the framers of the US Constitution.
To be fair, the historically ignorant Chris Hayes did, in fact, make a couple of correct points. His conclusions, however, were woefully off-base. At one point Hayes pointed out that our system is “an anomaly” in today’s world. But where Hayes sees that as a deficiency, our founders would no doubt see it as a badge of honor. Our anomalistic system is the reason we’ve historically been unmatched in our prosperity, equality, and individual liberty. Regardless of how desperately any political party, character, or movement would like to erode America’s fundamental existence, their intentions will be suspended by our cumbersome and intentionally deliberate form of government.
In fact, the shut-down illustrates the entire intent of the Constitution’s delegation of power. In the world envisioned by the authors of our founding document, Obamacare (regardless of its intentions, Constitutionality, or propriety) would not be fully implemented. Why?Because there is not a consensus among a wide enough swath of American citizens to give supporters political impunity.
It would almost seem as if things were working exactly as they should, according to our Constitution.
Then the segment got worse: Leave it to a Congressman from New York (Jerrold Nadler, Democrat) to make Hayes look like a simple victim of ignorance. As Hayes introduced his Congressional guest, the conversation quickly focused its narrative on the GOP’s culpability in obstructing America’s democratic potential. Nadler explained that Republicans are doing something “unprecedented” by allowing a minority movement (we have to assume he means “tea party” Republicans, and not Obamacare supporters) to control the “will of the majority”.
Um. . . Congressman, our system was set up to protect the minority from the will of the Majority. We are not a democracy, but a “Constitutional republic.” Citizens, therefore, are afforded the protection of representation with confidence that the majority will not strip from the minority their rights, liberty, or property. The Constitution is designed, specifically, to give the political minority outsized influence in governing as a form of protection from a “majority-rules” mentality.
This protection for minority interests inspired the creation of institutions such as the Electoral College. This was the thought behind divided government, filibusters, Supreme Court nominations, executive power limitations, the “checks and balances” of three branches, the length of elected terms, and almost every other provision in our Constitution that enables the minority a voice in the political direction of the nation.
What Hayes, Nadler, and progressive pundits across the nation, seem to be missing is that the system is working exactly as intended. What is not working, necessarily, is the art of negotiation. After all, it’s not as if America has never seen sharply divided political opinions before. Such political polarization, as it turns out, has been with this nation since our conception. And it was the art of negotiation, ironically, that lead the US to dissolve the Articles of Confederation in exchange for the Constitution shortly after our War for Independence.
The very document Hayes believes is “flawed” was written by men who were in the midst of equally troubling political times. Debate, gridlock, and political polarization are -- far from being a legislative nuisance -- vital to the long-term survival of the nation. The American form of government is not “fatally flawed” in the way that progressives would lead you to believe.
What is broken is the willingness to negotiate. And with a President, and Democrat leadership, who openly refuse to do just that, it is hard to make a legitimate case that the “radical” GOP is at fault for America’s political crises.
is that an accurate quote? couldn’t find a source for it...
Has anyone submitted his picture to the Men Who Look Like Old Lesbians website yet?
So sayeth the 700 pound human pustule.
It is easy to recognize the obvious PONZI SCHEME called Obamacare.
Obamacare has nothing to do with health, care, or medicine.
Obamacare has EVERYTHING to do with insurance.
Obamacare is a Federal Insurance Monopoly.
Obamacare is in violation of US Anti-Trust Laws.
Obamacare is a Federal Insurance Premium Collection Agency, aka FIPCA for Obamacare.
We CONSERVATIVES know that there will be other future Federal Insurance Ponzi Schemes, right down to the Insurance Premium collected for the inhaling of the EPA ruled toxic gas CO2.
Then FIPCA will be there to collect that CO2 Insurance premium from all citizens.
But I digress, so let us focus on the present.
If Boehner Caves In to the Court of Public Opinion, which is run by the Low Information Liberal “Mainstream” Media, and Obamacare is funded, Obama can then raise every year or quarter his Obamacare insurance premiums as high as he wants to, and the sorry US Congress can’t do anything about it.
Congress will thus be bypassed, and will no longer be needed in the future to fund the vote buying schemes of the social engineering POTUS.
Could Boehner be stupid enough to come up with his own Boehnercare Ponzi Scheme?
_____________________________
Compliance with Obamacare violates Doctor Patient Confidentiality.
Obamacare is in violation of the Doctors Hippocratic Oath as follows:
” - - - All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal. - - - “
Another line of legal reasoning involves comparing Obamacare to all the do’s and don’ts the Federal Government has put into Law about our “privacy rights” such as HIPPA, questions that future employers can and cannot ask at one’s job interview, etc.
A criminal at arrest time has the “right to remain silent” which is not an option for any of us - - - , as our Doctors have been forced by the damn Federal Government to betray us over our very loud protests.
Class Action Law Suit anyone?
Might be something for Senators Cruz and Lee to file on our behalf ?!
_______________________________
Here are a few “settled” facts:
* Since Obamacare was re-written by the SCOTUS, it is not the same bill that both Houses of Congress voted on, or Obama signed into Law.
* Therefore, until the changes have acheived “The Advice and Consent of Congress,” the revised law is invalid, by standards set forth in the US Constitution and the rules of both Houses of Congress.
* In effect, Traitor John Roberts voided the same Law that he tried to save.
“Actually, the President is required by law to submit a budget every year, normally the first Monday in February.”
I don’t doubt you, but is this a law or is it in the Constitution?
Somewhat counter-intuitively, this statement is, rather, NOT true. I have lived in or visited several Communist/Statist countries. They do not move fast, or efficiently. They are hidebound by politics, ideology, and corruption. Little pasty-faced homos like this MSNBC guy were the sort who were cheering on Mussolini in the 1920's and Hitler in the early 30's.
This is just Wikipedia, so not scholarly, but a pretty good wrap up of the process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process
Bottom line, it’s in law and not in the Constitution.
Why are they not passing budgets? Because the last budget that was passed contained the Stimulus. That’s right, as we’ve passed “continuing resolutions” we’ve re-spent the Stimulus every year. That’s why they don’t want to do a new budget.
Why are they able to do this? Because no one is holding them accountable for not passing the budget.
Funny how that works out. The proggies are having a temper tantrum because they thought they'd rolled us. They still might, but not by bawling.
Constitutional form of government inhibits the ability for government to adequately (or speedily) race toward action.
Duh it’s why we have a Constitution to prevent people like Obama from raping the country.
secular humanist libtards believe:
1) the continuing evolution of man ultimately determines secular humanist legal principles.Man is evolving, man is is becoming. Everything is in flux . Nothing is permanent.
2) subjectivism and relativism. There are no absolute legal standards. There are no permanent Ten Commandments. There is no permanent Constitution.
When these two are combined, the Constitution becomes hopelessly obsolete and outdated, and is not able to provide an enviroment fit for man's continuing evolution.
America is currently plagued with a host of insufferable jackasses who somehow manage to land positions far beyond their qualifications. Once established in offices which, in a sane world, they would be sweeping up rather than occupying, they proceed to lecture their betters on how things should be. Most imagine that because they have a piece of paper hanging on the wall saying they have completed a course of study at some recognized institution they are somehow educated. A real education would reveal to them that they are merely pompous, arrogant and ignorant. For these ignorant twits (I apologize to all real jackasses for having called such twits by that name in the first sentence) to imagine that they know better than the founding fathers of this country who were actually classically educated men with a deep understanding of human nature beyond the capacity of twits to grasp is simply unforgivable.
Now you know what a guy with a B.A. in Philosophy does.
Regardless of red/blue state majorities, the states have aggregate interests that just aren't reflected in popularly elected senators. Before 1913, a senate of the states served very well in keeping the lid on majoritarian idiocy from the House of Reps.
Until the 17th Amendment is repealed, there is little hope we'll return to a free United States.
To call these people Nazis is an insult to Nazis.
>>>Rachel Maddow in male garb<<<
That’s an oxymoron
FUCH
It truly is and that in itself is disgusting!
Constitutionally, the only requirement in Article II Section 3 is this:
"He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;"
For Congress, the Article I Section 9 requirement is:
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
What's missing from the Senate is the "Appropriations made by Law" and the "regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money" that are "published from time to time," "time to time" coming to mean annually.
-PJ
-PJ
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.