Democrats Win on Federalized Airport Workers

You keep talking about smaller government when our constitution calls for limited government, which is not the same thing. The constitutional principle of federalism simply means that certain powers belong to the federal government. National defense is clearly within the federal government's jurisdiction under our Constitutional system envisioned by the framers. None of the Founders would have had a problem with the federal government taking steps to protect its citizens or declaring war against terrorism.

Long before the New Deal, the Federal government launched a war against the 19th century version of international terrorism, namely the Tripoli pirates. I'm sure American Firsters like you and Pat Buchanan would have been screaming about the expedition that sent U.S. navy frigates to Tripoli to fight and defeat the pirates in the early 1800s. Whatever the merits of that adventure, it was clearly constitutional.

Civil libertarians like Nat Hentoff have a point about the threat to the Bill of Rights the War on terrorism entails, but that is an entirely different argument than your vague ramblings about the Republicans turning their back on "smaller government." Federalizing airport safety personnel may or may not be a good thing, but it is clearly NOT unconstitutional even under the original understanding of the Constitution. Article I section 8 gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. If air travel isn't interstate commerce, nothing is. I don't want the federal government involved in tasks that properly belong to the states, but national defense is the federal government's responsibility.

Since you have no interest in discussing the real enemy - the Democrats - I have no interest in engaging in petty arguments, fallacies, and incoherent statements. I appreciate having an intelligent discussion and constructive criticism of the GOP or anyone else for that matter. But I definitely don't waste my time with the ones that don't meet this requirement. Put it simply, I'm NOT your hate monger, Bush basher, trash talking, name-calling, liar, and petty-soul 1%er loser. Your best option is Salon or the Bush haters for that.

You place the blame with the FBI, INS, etc. How far are you willing to allow such agencies to penetrate into the lives of people? What solutions do you offer? Are you opposed to better screeners as a waste of money?

CIA had specific knowledge on one of the perps, Muhammad Atta. If they had coordinated knowledge with INS, FBI, it might have been stopped. Don't think we are giving up much in liberty to have agencies coordinate better. JMHO.

My views are more in accordance with the views of "House Majority Whip Tom DeLay and Majority Leader Dick Armey, both Republicans from Texas, [who] led the fight against the ultimately successful Senate approach, apparently unable to change the bill substantially." I agree that the GOP does not always follows the party line and that they deserve their share of criticism. However, I cannot help but notice how the GOP's critics always give a free pass to the Democrats who are the biggest cause of the problem. So I think the Mister Magoo glasses are more fitting to compensate for the 1%ers' lack of vision. After all, by voting for proven losers, they make it possible for the Democrats to enact their socialist agenda.

Dittos on this!

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.