Constitution- Who Cares?

The American Partisan ^ | 1/31/02 | James Antle III

[prambo]

Yawn - your liberal turn-about rubbish doesn't impress me (or many others here I suspect).

You big gubmint types need your own website. Let's call it "www.OnOurKneesAndLovingIt.com"

Has a certain ring, what? Maybe even panache, as it were.

prambo

[headsonpikes]

"...it is how to manage and control it, as best we can."

AS BEST WE CAN.

I mean, the warstate is inevitable, isn't it?

Took a big motherin' war-state to beat the Nazis and latterly, the Russkis, didn't it?

Our best bet is to just trust the public-school educated pension-seeking bureaucrats with our lives, our property, and our children.

No harm could come from that, surely!

Winston Smith died pensioned, drunk, and happy! Big Brother really did love him back!

Remember, "Ignorance is Strength", and despite ugly rumors to the contrary, we have always been at war with Eurasia.

[dubyajames]

OK, first of all full disclosure is in order: dubyajames is W. James Antle III, the author of the article that prompted this very interesting thread. I try to stay out of threads involving my own articles, but every now and then I can't resist.

First, the poster I am responding to fails to tell me how agriculture or any of the other things he - forgive me if you are female - mentions as important national priorities would suffer in the event that the federal government adhered to the Constitution as written. Just because something has national significance does not mean that it must be done by the national government, or any government. The benefit of the free market is the wonders it can work within and beyond national borders based on voluntary exchanges, as opposed to the managed trade and subsidies the poster presumably feels that we need.

Also, it is hyerbole to suggest that we would have to switch cars or drive around on differently sized roads and other such nonsense if we had limited government. We do not have to do that driving to Canada, a separate nation with a different government than we have. It is absurd to pretend that we would have to do so here.

I would like to hear a better argument for big government than simply sweeping generalizations like: "Big government is a fact of life, we really need it." Really? Why? Give specific, quantifiable examples to support this. Do we need the welfare state, the income tax, subsidies to corporations, etc. and if so, where and why? That would be the beginning of an honest dialouge rather than arguments a fascist, which are sure to degenerate into "I know you are but what am I childishness."

[headsonpikes]

bump

[verboten]

Dont you just love all the folks who define freedom as a license from the government? Or who would suggest that you are free if to eat you must first have your intestines searched the same as to own a gun you must first have your background checked.

[verboten]

Yep all laws not protecting life, liberty, and property are destroying or redistributing it. Plain and simple. The global marketplace is taking wealth from your neigbor and moving it to DC, NYC and other places where the elite like to consolidate their power.

[Magician]

The searches at airports are just the beginning. When the Homeland Security Act and its Agency and rules are fully implemented we will see:

1. Searches without warrants.

2. Wire tapping in many forms without warrants.

3. National ID cards, probably as national drivers licenses.

4. Internal checkpoints on our highways (your papers. please).

5. Detention without charges or indictments.

6. Detention without time limits.

7. Detention without access to visitors, family or legal counsel.

8. Seizure of property without charges.

9. Seizure of property without recourse.

10. An internal military force acting within the U.S.

11. An end to any remaining freedom of the press.

I hope is am wrong, but I'm suspicious as h-ll. As Bin Laden says on the tape released today, "Life for Americans will be a choking one." We will do it to ourselves.

[Gumption]

Well, what part of government are you so willing to pitch? You want to ride home on toll roads, tonight, stopping to switch cars, as you go from one width road to another, with more frequent stops to pay tolls, get robbed (no police), arrive at a service station and then have to measure gas in a glass jar (no weights and measures for the pump), I could go on and on and on.

Why do you think wanting a Constitutionally limited FEDERAL government means you don't want state police?

Why do you think wanting a Constitutionally limited FEDERAL government means you have to change cars?

Why do you think wanting a Constitutionally limited FEDERAL government means you don't want the FED Govt. to do its constitutional duty to "fix the Standard of Weights and Measures" as it clearly states in Article I section 8 of the Constitution?

[ridensm]

It would be nice if any of our congresscritters ever read anything the Founding Fathers wrote about that general welfare clause, or anything the Founders may have written regarding the Constitution for that matter. I'm not holding my breath either.

[Gumption]

More jargon and slogan. Say something concrete

I don't know what you mean by that. I do know I asked you questions that you didn't even acknowledge, much less try to answer.

[mrsmith]

Good points all!

(But he could have at least mentioned the doctrine of Separation of Powers)

[Gumption]

Even if everything you wrote in #47 was completely true, that would only be all the reasons for a constitutional Amendment granting the Feds the power to regulate everything about agriculture as opposed to saying the words "regulate commerce" actually mean "regulate commerce and everything else even if it has nothing to do with commerce".

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

[Gumption]

but it (the Feds) clearly has the right to impose FICA taxes

Please show me where the Fed. govt. gets that power, please. Thanks.

Constitution of the United States of America