Posted on 07/16/2025 1:00:27 PM PDT by EnderWiggin1970
bttt
Yes, this has led to elected leaders making poor choices. The solution to this is not to suspect the Republic and turn rule over to unelected autocrats. The solution is to shine light on the abuses, embarassing and destroying the political support of the elected official(s) who made the bad choices. Until now we could see corruption in plain sight and nothing was done about it, because electing now officials is useless if they can't touch the unelected bureaucrats. But if the politicians can fire the corrupt or incompetent officials, then voters can and should hold them accountable.
Bottom line is the people posing as "opposing the spoils system" are really opposing representative government, and offer no solutions to the corruption that has been a reality for a long time now.
Should be suspend, not suspect! ;-)
“…introduce far more corruption than our nation has seen in the last 100 years”
The key words there are “has seen”. We can’t actually see the vast majority of the Deep State’s machinations. That’s why they call it the deep state.
Unraveling?
Not one single administrative state agency has been repealed. Not one.
No. No unraveling. This word choice is unwarranted. We are only seeing minor tinkering at best. It all comes back in 2028.
* I meant to use the word abolish. But abolishing the DoEd or repealing the DoEd involves the same process and is the same in the end. Congress ends the law that created it.
They may “get it” but they aren’t acting on it though.
Supreme Court 9, Administrative State 0
On April 14, 2023, the Supreme Court struck a blow supporting our Constitution and individual liberties. Beginning in the late nineteenth century, our citizens began losing many freedoms through administrative edicts. Appeals of regulations had to be submitted to courts within the agency which has already found the person guilty. Such power harks back to discretions of English kings, unrestrained by Parliament, found in such places as King’s Council and the Star Chamber.
The Supreme Court acted to reassert the jurisdiction of district and circuit courts and the legislature as established by the Constitution. All power was to reside there, so Americans could avoid the sad experience of English citizens. Justice Kagan delivered the unanimous opinion of the court saying, “One respondent attacks as well the combination of prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions in a single agency….They maintain in essence that the agencies as currently structured, are unconstitutional in much of their work”.
You and I could relate too many examples of frustrating experiences facing government bureaucrats. Their sufferings cause me to reflect on a passage where Fredrick Douglass describes overseer duties. I only substituted for the words slave, overseer, and master.
“No matter how innocent a citizen might be it availed him nothing when accused by the bureaucrat of any violation of a regulation. To be accused was to be convicted and to be convicted was to be punished….To escape punishment one was to escape accusation….few citizens had the fortune to do either under the overseership of the agency.”
Supreme Court 9, Administrative State 0
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4145682/posts
The History and Danger of Administrative Law
https://constitutionclub.wordpress.com/2014/10/01/the-history-and-danger-of-administrative-law/
The destruction of the unelected, unaccountable fascist bureaucratic state will be one of Trump’s greatest victories.
The unelected bureaucratic state writing law is one of the primary traits of a dictatorship. It doesn’t belong here.
“The Founders fought a war to overthrow bureaucracy, not establish one...”
LOL, the Founders did not such thing. They fought against what they perceived as a lack of representation as taxed British subjects and the inability therefore to fairly compete with business in Britain. The Declaration of I dependence actually lists as a grievance that the British government was NOT DOING ENOUGH to protect its subjects from hostile Indians.
(Politically)
1) Both the political left and the right have their pet-projects they put their name on, get nepotism through, and pay kickbacks to corporate or oligarch interests with. Conservatives complain about the waste and over-regulation of the left, waste being what they disagree with, but then spend like mad and regulate when they are in power on the things they support.
(The people)
2) A large part of the population is dependent on government cheese and the government has them convinced that somehow this bureaucracy can create both fairness and safety.
Trump is an anomaly and not even truly liked by his own party.
Someone like Trump is far more likely to get killed in office than some turd like Obama who really just plays the game and gives all those with real influence what they want.
"1) Both the political left and the right have their pet-projects they put their name on ...... but then spend like mad and regulate when they are in power on the things they support."
Yeah, but it doesn't have to lead to monetary interests. How many things in West Virginia are named after Robert Byrd? Self-aggrandizement is highly seductive.
The ability to ban things is also highly seductive. I don't hear anybody complaining about Robert Kennedy banning food dyes even though it is actually a classical case of overbearing government.
"2) A large part of the population is dependent on government cheese and the government has them convinced that somehow this bureaucracy can create both fairness and safety."
There's also government comfort outside of fairness of safety. It cannot be overstated how masterful of a stroke it was to put government in charge of food in 1906 and also the parks.
Now government is wise, government is trustworthy, and government is even fun. It is hard to overcome that sort of culture.
If politics is downstream of culture then returning all National Parks back to the states should be viewed as a paramount goal otherwise government can always call itself "fun" and even not, people will look at it that way. Politics is downstream of culture, you get what you demand. As an example, Glacier National Park should Constitutionally be Glacier Montana State Park. I am highly motivated to have a "government is no fun" culture because of all that it implies.
Today's conservatives, those like Bush H and W, the late McCain, Romney, etc are all about big government and centralization of power.
Liberals simply focus on social and pop culture issues, while so-called conservatives focus on national security and public safety. Propose a law to wrap barbwire around the ankles of folks that jaywalk, and you'll find some get tough on crime conservatives to get behind it.
This nation has post WWII seen some of the biggest expansion of federal government (spending, scope of powers, manpower) under Republicans, think George W. with the DHS, Patriot Act etc.
True conservatism is rare.
None of the people you named in this shortlist are conservatives. They are all simply republicans and nothing more. Like a Thom Tillis - Not a conservative.
If you want to hurl insults you're going to need to be able to demonstrate a proper identification capability.
Very few people that vote Republican or call themselves conservative actually believe in what traditionally was considered the foundation, the basic tenets of conservatism: limited government.
The entire Constitution is basically a document limiting government powers:
—It does that through a Bill of Rights (individual empowerment): but today every single unalienable right has been abridged primarily by the government bureaucracy.
—Separation of powers with checks and balances: which have been side stepped by a fourth branch that spans across all three branches of government, the bureaucracy which is given near unlimited powers within their domain and a legislature which has abdicated its responsibility.
—A balance of powers between states and federal, but today states are powerless (controlled by the power of the purse) and it's the bureaucracy that can leverage various tools to force a state into compliance.
Big government has become so pervasive that it has become who determines the winners and losers. Not a free market, government. Amazon, Tesla, George Soros, Bill Gates, big pharma, Google, big agra... If you look at most billionaires created in the last 30 years, government played a major role in them succeeding. May it be protectionism through laws or tariffs, mandates to buy their product or service, some form subsidy, seed money, or big government contracts, government played a big role.
—
1.) Dismantle much of the government bureaucracy.
2.) Create term limits for Congress.
And many of our problems would simply disappear.
All these words can't mean the same thing, we eventually would run out of words.
If a liar claims he is a woman, I am under no compulsion to accept his claims and call him a woman. Why should we destroy the word simply because there's liars using it calling themselves conservatives?
We did this same error with the word "liberal" by letting the progressives take that word over. The word "liberal" was perfectly fine before the progressives stole it in the 1930s. The progressives took over the word monopoly, why was that word surrendered so quickly?
"The entire Constitution is basically a document limiting government powers:"
I think our entire discussion is solely about the meaning of words. This is happening more and more lately. The English language is becoming meaningless, nobody defends it.
In my cynical moments, I sometimes call myself a liberal because that's what the Founding Fathers were and no, today's "liberals" are not liberals they are just liars. They are progressives. Progressives are not liberals they are progressives. Men are not women they are men. And big government republicans are not conservatives, they are just lying republicans trying to obtain votes they have not earned and do not deserve.
Liars do not deserve recognition.
The word theft has gone to insane levels. If we keep it up and let the thieves run wild I'm soon going to be forced to ask people what "thing" means, what does "government" mean? And what is a "document"? What is a "limit"? What is a "word"? What is a "republic"? What is "free"? What is a "forum"? Its not that I do not actually know, but there's only so much word surrender that can be tolerated before we're all back to being cavemen shouting ug at each other.
I don't even think there is a word anymore to describe people who support limited government. We've run out, the shelf is bare.
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.