Posted on 06/30/2003 6:03:55 PM PDT by B.O. Plenty
HTML> FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
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.
It's time to part company
One political question we have to answer is whether George W. Bush or Albert Gore shall be president, and just which party will control the House of Representatives and the Senate. But I'd suggest that there's a far more important long-run question we must answer: If one group of people prefers government control and management of people's lives, and another prefers liberty and a desire to be left alone, should they be required to fight, antagonize one another, and risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences, or should they be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways?
Like a marriage that has gone bad, I believe there are enough irreconcilable differences between those who want to control and those want to be left alone that divorce is the only peaceable alternative. Just as in a marriage, where vows are broken, our human rights protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them. Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have no intention of mending their ways.
Let's look at just some of the magnitude of the violations. Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution enumerates the activities for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend. James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, explained it in The Federalist Papers: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."
Nowhere among the enumerated powers of Congress is there authority to tax and spend for: Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank bailouts, food stamps and other activities that represent roughly two-thirds of the federal budget. Neither is there authority for Congress' mandates to the states and people about how they may use their land, the speed at which they can drive, whether a library has wheelchair ramps and the gallons of water used per toilet flush. A list of congressional violations of the letter and spirit of the Constitution is virtually without end.
Americans who wish to live free have two options: We can resist, fight and risk bloodshed to force America's tyrants to respect our liberties and human rights, or we can seek a peaceful resolution of our irreconcilable differences by separating. That can be done by peopling several states, say Texas and Louisiana, controlling their legislatures and then issuing a unilateral declaration of independence just as the Founders did in 1776.
You say, "Williams, nobody has to go that far, just get involved in the political process and vote for the right person." That's nonsense. Liberty shouldn't require a vote. It's a God-given or natural right.
Some independence or secessionists movements, such as our 1776 war with England and our 1861 War Between the States, have been violent, but they need not be. In 1905, Norway seceded from Sweden, Panama seceded from Columbia (1903), and West Virginia from Virginia (1863). Nonetheless, violent secession can lead to great friendships. England is probably our greatest ally and we have fought three major wars together. There is no reason why Texiana (Texas and Louisiana) couldn't peaceably secede, be an ally and have strong economic ties with United States.
The bottom line question for all of us is should we part company or continue trying to forcibly impose our wills on one another?
WorldNetDaily contributor Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.
Well, they are only "anarcho-capitalists" when it comes to America. They thought it was jolly good fun for Chiang Kai-shek to redistribute land to the peasants in Taiwan in the Fifties with the "Land to the Tiller Act" or for Douglas MacArthur to set up a "new deal" social democracy in occupied Japan or for Henri Pilippe Petain to create a strongly centralized paternalistic state in Vichy France. These men were heroes. But Americans must never benefit from this "true rightwing" beneficence. Sorta like how leftist hippies worshipped strong, proud, goose-stepping, nationalistic, military dictatorships in Cuba and Vietnam while working for the exact opposite thing in America. When did any foreign Communist dictatorship engage in "military cuts?"
The American Far Left and Far Right are both anarchists who worship totalitarians and work for the opposite positions in the US of the foreign regimes they admire so much.
But really, isn't there something kinda funny about "libertarians" who want an "racially pure" society?
That they may, but absent figures you have ZERO basis on which to claim that Texas is pushed from a 5 cent deficit to above the dollar mark by them.
I beleive they still have people down there as a result of last years shuttle disaster.
So spending on the shuttle disaster (which was in February, not last year) is to be treated as a federal expenditure in the benefit of Texas? Now that's odd, cause I tend to think of it as a national tragedy and have no doubt that they would do the same thing no matter where it broke up.
We have not even begun to calculate the current asset value or economic impact of all the Federal installations in Texas or the dollar value of all the years of Federal maritime improvements from Sabine down to Brazos.
Calculate them all you like then. Give us some figures. Otherwise you have no basis in your claim.
And my point still stands
No it doesn't. The only figure you provide contradicts you, and only by vague speculation without any substantive evidence are you able to bring it above a dollar.
you are making a huge deal out of only getting 95 cents back on your dollar when there are other states contributing a great deal more than you are.
So what's your point? I think we should give them back their losses as well.
The masses have been socially engineered thru various generations since our founding to walk the tracks which are in diverging angle to those the constitution laid down for us to travel. This has gone on for so long that even if a justice was willing to rule on issues based on their charter, that being rule of law based on constitutional relevance, the resulting ruling would be so foreign to what the people have been conditioned to that they would have a cultural nervous breakdown.
With daily effort which would be viewed as extreme and all that is bad, we could drag the public kicking and screaming back to constitutional pinnings in about a hundred years.
Time after time people bring cases that go to the surpreme court based on what the constitution says in the matter. As we have learned once again that is a dumb thing to do. If one wants to predict the outcome of a Supreme Court Case one should never ask what the law or Constitution says. Those Documents are worhtless predictors. The only question is are their 5 votes on the court to support a case. If there are not it does not matter what the constitution says. It matters what the judges say.
I see you're one of those people whose posts I'm going to have to avoid, so that I don't end up eating the business end of a .38.
"Constitution? We don't need no steenkin' Constitution!"
You can rest assured that if the Congressman disagreed with me, he would have a compelling counter argument.
The esteemed Congressman and I have been reading each others posts for quite some time. Perhaps me reading more of his than he reading more of mine. We have upon occasion sharpened our wits on each other. We have also argued points in private and expressed our mutual respect in private. Sometimes we debate issues in public as well.
I greatly admire Congressman BillyBob. He is a brilliant man. We agree on many issues. But as the congressman would be the first to state, if two men always agree, one of them is doing all the thinking. That is not the case with the illustrious councilor from North Carolina, and the commonest of Southern Ohio 'tators.
I did not say we don't need one. I said we don't have a constitution whose words mean anything to the people that are charged with interpreting it.
YIKES!...Can you imagine, taking the concept to it logical ends..How many counties/parishes are in the U.S.A?...like W.V. in 1863 during the civil war?... :/
You left out invertebrate.
sod·om·y [ sód mee ] |
| noun |
 |
| 1. an offensive term for anal intercourse |
| 2. an offensive term for sexual intercourse with an animal |
|
So, change the laws to be specific as to what SODOMY means, per the dictionary. ANAL intercourse is down right unhealthy, whether hetero or homo sexually done. Don't even ask about the second definition as far as being unhealthy. So, let's put NEW Sodomy laws on the books according to the dictionary definition, for health reasons alone. |
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.