One Less Republican in Camp

I can no longer tolerate the GOP's disgraceful lack of principle and outright hypocrisy. I have therefore officially resigned from the Republican Party. Here's why.

Life is a balance scale of choices and few choices consist of all positive or all negative factors. Most are a combination that we must weigh and then make our choice.

Such is my case with the GOP. On the positive side, Bush brought personal morality back to the White House, has been an effective war time President and for now, has slowed the all out assault on the II Amendment. For this, I applaud him and his team.

However, the negative side of the Republican scale is heavily weighed down by serious failures to stand firm on principle, serious dereliction of duty and hypocrisy.

Although my voter registration card indicated Republican, I am much more of an independent Constitutionalist. I could have "un-registered" numerous times and aligned my voter card with my ideology but I just delayed getting around to it.

I delayed in 1995 when the GOP took control of Congress for the first time in 40 years and we heard bold promises of change. Despite the rhetoric about smaller government and replacing the income tax, government expanded and income taxes became even more complex!

I delayed resigning again when a Republican was elected president but look what happened.

A Republican education bill increased funding 11% for the unconstitutional Department of Indoctrination, a.k.a. Department of Education.

A Republican president signed the USA/Patriot Act after it passed the Senate 98-1, and the House 356-66, giving government the power to install the carnivore e-mail snooping system without a court warrant.

Under a Republican administration, airport security was federalized and Gestapo-like screening tactics implemented.

Bush told the world we would go after terrorists wherever they were, yet we pressure Israel for restraint in battling terrorism in their own backyard. That's tremendously hypocritical. Then on 14 March our Republican president committed 5 billion of your tax dollars to the war on global poverty—an international version of Lyndon Johnson socialism. The final burr under my saddle was the GOP disregard for the Constitution in two major ways: Ongoing failure to secure our borders and Campaign Finance Reform.

This Republican administration has failed to effectively enhance border security even after 9.11. Recently, it even prevented the National Guardsmen patrolling that border from being adequately armed because they wanted to avoid sending an "undiplomatic message" to Mexico and Canada. This violates government's constitutional duty to provide for the common defense and sending soldiers on a security mission unarmed is totally unforgivable!

Such neglect clearly says that America's security, even in light of 9.11, takes a back seat to the potential benefits gained from political pandering. That's dereliction of duty bordering on criminal negligence in my book.

Campaign Finance Reform passed both houses and Bush signed it even though it's "flawed in some areas" as he said.

Yes sir Mr. President it sure is flawed! Besides not complying with any of the principles you specified in a letter to Trent Lott, it clearly violates the Constitution you swore an oath to uphold. So why then did you sign it?

Our Constitution was clearly subordinated to political expediency and this "new tone" of yours. 'Politics over Principle' is standard operating procedure with the Democrats but it's also clear that's the theme and substance of this "new tone" as well. 'Go along to get along and to hell with the Constitution' is the same old tone we've seen in Washington for years Mr. President—there's nothing "new" here.

Despite how the Supreme Court may finally rule on Campaign Finance Reform or how our border situation ultimately turns out, when those sworn to uphold our Constitution can't be trusted to do so, it tells me a lot about them and we've been cautioned about such folks:

"If you can trust a man in little things, you can also trust him in greater; while anyone unjust in a slight matter is also unjust in greater." ~ Luke 16:10 ~

Although their rhetoric proclaims more freedom and less government, facts clearly show the GOP isn't really interested in standing firm in defense of and preserving America's constitutional principles—period. As most now realize about our major parties, the Republicans are nothing more than miniature Democrats. While the Democrats are clearly "SOCIALISTS", the Republicans are merely "socialists."

Don't take this as surrender or dropping out on my part. I'll remain decisively engaged and fight for the principles of colonial traditionalism through my writing. After all, I'm still 100% American and a son of my colonial forefathers. I'll just not be officially registered as a member of any party where principles and the Constitution are so easily ignored, blatantly stepped on and repeatedly compromised.

I can accept compromise on style [technique] but I can't accept compromise on principle and our Constitution is the very foundation of America's most basic principles.

As Thomas Jefferson put it, "In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."

With extremely rare exception, the Republicans never stand like rocks on anything and are thus untrustworthy guardians of America's principles.

Personally, I don't care for any party, Republican or otherwise, where principle is negotiable, lip service is paid to the Constitution, sacred oaths are ignored, and America's security is bargained away. If that means I'm "party-less" and remain an independent irritant in the side of all politicos, so be it. As a "gun slinging columnist", that's probably as it should be anyway.

I've had my fill of disingenuous politicians, ulterior motives, incremental socialism, sacred duties neglected, constitutionality ignored and sworn oaths brushed aside.

The GOP has violated my trust for the last time. Since I will always choose Christ's teachings and Jefferson's wisdom over political hypocrisy and lack of principle, there is now one less Republican in camp.

Note: This isn't intended to persuade anyone to follow me out of camp. This is….

I have therefore officially resigned from the Republican Party.

Being in a particular party means squat. it is what you do, not with whom you are registerd.

.Life is a balance scale of choices and few choices consist of all positive or all negative factors. Most are a combination that we must weigh and then make our choice.

OK so far, you make yours, and I'll make mine. If we agree, fine, if not, that's ok too.

Then there are several paragraphs about waffling re to resign or not to resign...that is the question. Sounds like an odd number of daisy petals are needed for some serious introspection.

Despite how the Supreme Court may finally rule on Campaign Finance Reform or how our border situation ultimately turns out
IOW, regardless of how this shakes out...

when those sworn to uphold our Constitution can't be trusted to do so,
Would it not depend on how this shakes out?? Or is it the methods used that the writer does not agree with, as in, " I would have done it differntly."

"If you can trust a man in little things, you can also trust him in greater; while anyone unjust in a slight matter is also unjust in greater." ~ Luke 16:10 ~
Looks like you can trust him on some stuff, and you do, and you perceive that you cannot on others. So is it a matter of trust, or differnces of opinion on some items and not others. I mean, either you trust, or you dont. There is no "sometimes I trust him.." stuff.

As most now realize about our major parties, the Republicans are nothing more than miniature Democrats.
Oh, I don't know, I would not go so far as to say "most", unless you mean most of the cells in your particular brain. I think there are quite a few in fact, that simply do not share your views in this matter. I would dare say the majority of repubs. But then, hey, what do they know, they are all wrong. < / sarcasm >

I'll just not be officially registered as a member of any party where principles and the Constitution are so easily ignored, blatantly stepped on and repeatedly compromised.
I will say again, your registration means diddly. It is what you do that counts. Then you must live with your actions.

I can accept compromise on style [technique] but I can't accept compromise on principle and our Constitution is the very foundation of America's most basic principles.
Whose pinciples??

With extremely rare exception, the Republicans never stand like rocks on anything and are thus untrustworthy guardians of America's principles.
Try to imagine for one moment what and where this country would be if the president, and houses of congress that were in existence in the late 30's and mid sixties, the mid 70's were the sole arbiters of legislation and execution of same.

a "gun slinging columnist", that's probably as it should be anyway.
All columnists should be non partisian, they owe it to the readers. Let loose with both barrals on both parties, keeping them in the light.It is a good thing to be and do.

I've had my fill of disingenuous politicians, ulterior motives, incremental socialism, sacred duties neglected, constitutionality ignored and sworn oaths brushed aside.
The country places their heads in a cold bucket of water every now and then, then elects republicans into office. Later, after falling asleep while content, the media kicks in, dems spin their tales (jedi mind tricks for the weak minded), and 'viola, there is a dem in the white house, doing what you ascribe above. The cycle has been going on for some time now.

Can you explain to me how a principled loser is anything but a loser?

I will be quite blunt here, the 1995 budget battle showed what happens when you act without taking into consideration possible responses of your opponents. I watched that whole affair, and quite frankly, I think the Dems laid a political ambush that a veto would have sprung. The ads about how Bush chose to allow corporate crooks to buy influence as well as the media's coverage with plenty of soundbites from McCain and the Dems would make this a mess.

Instead, Bush has a strategy that will get most of this legislation killed pretty thoroughly, and it will be a lot more permanent.

The other fact is that if we run off and go third party, we'll have Hillary, Gephardt, Schumer, Rangel, Jackson-Lee, and the rest of the Left running along with unfettered power, and we lose. Politics is a messy business. You WILL get dirty in this business, and you WILL be faced with Hobson's choice on multiple occasions. All we can do here is to rack up as high a batting average as we possibly can.

Set the principles as a long-term goal, and in the short-term make what gains you can, and come at them again after the next election. If I have a net advance in my agenda in 2004, I'll work to re-elect the President. So far, he's done that. I just want to come back for more each time, and when it ain't possible to win through the front door, then outflank `em and hit `em hard elsewhere.

Are you angry enough to let the Dems keep the Senate, and continue borking conservative judges? Or are you going to give the President a fair chance to get conservative nominees like Pickering confirmed? Right now, that is the big prize: Two Supreme Court nominations in the 2003-2004 tiem frame (Stevens and O'Connor are my guesses). From 2004-2008, it will be Rhenquist and Ginsburg, possibly Scalia. Who do you want making that call? Given the fuss the Left has made over the President's nominations, he seems to be doing THAT right, and that's how we secure our principles long-term.

I have no problem with a few compromises to win, especially when the guy's doing things that will give us a long-term edge in the courts. Do you really want to have Hillary or Gore making the nominations for the federal bench?

A simple little matter re the constitution. It is not the president's job nor place to determine if a law is constitutional or not. That is the supreme courts responsibility not the presidents, and you know that.

Where in the Constitution is that responsibility reserved for the Supreme Court? It wasn't until the 20th Century that the Supreme Court played that role. The Congress originally took the role of determining the constitutionality of laws.

The only reference to the role of the Supreme Court is in Section 2 Clause 2.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

IMHO the President, the House, the Senate and the entire Judiciary have this responsibility. The President swears to uphold and defend the Constitution.

(Section 1) Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

How else can he uphold and defend it, besides preventing unconstituional bills from becoming illegal laws? And possibly using the bully pulpit to cojole the other branches of the government into doing their part in protecting the Constitution.

Waging war is not defending the Constitution. It is (sometimes) defending the Constitution, but is rather "providing for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

This is from a previous post on this subject by Texasforever:

"Maybe Rush should learn the constitutional peocess before he accuses Bush of violating it!"

Article. III. Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2. Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects

The Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the United States. Its existence is provided for in Article III of the Constitution, although Congress is given the power to determine the size of the Court. The size of the court is set by Congress and currently consists of a Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices.

Members of the Supreme Court are appointed for life by the President. They may be removed only by death, resignation or impeachment. The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review. It may declare acts of Congress or of state governments unconstitutional and therefore invalid. The Supreme Court decides cases by a majority vote and its decisions are final.

Franklin D. Roosevelt came into conflict with the Supreme Court during his period in office. The chief justice, Charles Hughes, had been the Republican Party presidential candidate in 1916. Herbert Hoover appointed Hughes in 1930 and had led the court's opposition to some of the proposed New Deal legislation. This included the ruling against the National Recovery Administration (NRA), the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) and ten other New Deal laws.

On 2nd February, 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt made a speech attacking the Supreme Court for its actions over New Deal legislation. He pointed out that seven of the nine judges (Charles Hughes, Willis Van Devanter, George Sutherland, Harlan Stone, Owen Roberts, Benjamin Cardozo and Pierce Butler) had been appointed by Republican presidents. Roosevelt had just won re-election by 10,000,000 votes and resented the fact that the justices could veto legislation that clearly had the support of the vast majority of the public.

The Constitution is deliberately inefficient.

The Separation of Powers devised by the framers of the Constitution was designed to do one primary thing: to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist. Based on their experience, the framers shied away from giving any branch of the new government too much power. The separation of powers is also known as "Checks and Balances."

Three branches are created in the Constitution. The Legislative, composed of the House and Senate, is set up in Article 1. The Executive, composed of the President, Vice-President, and the Departments, is set up in Article 2. The Judicial, composed of the federal courts and the Supreme Court, is set up in Article 3.

Each of these branches has certain powers, and each of these powers is limited by another branch.

For example, the President appoints judges and departmental secretaries. But these appointments must be approved by the Senate. The Congress can pass a law, but the President can veto it. The Supreme Court can rule a law to be unconstitutional, but the Congress, with the States, can amend the Constitution.

All of these checks and balances, however, are inefficient. But that's by design rather than by accident. By forcing the various branches to be accountable to the others, no one branch can usurp enough power to become dominant.

The following are the powers of the Executive: veto power over all bills; appointment of judges and other officials; makes treaties; ensures all laws are carried out; commander in chief of the military; pardon power. The checks: The Legislative branch can override vetoes; can refuse to confirm appointments and reject treaties; can declare war; can impeach the President. The Judicial branch can declare Executive acts as unconstitutional.

The following are the powers of the Legislature: Passes all federal laws; establishes all lower federal courts; can override a Presidential veto; can impeach the President. The checks: The Executive can veto any bill and can call the Congress into session. The Judicial branch can declare laws unconstitutional. In addition, the two houses of Congress must agree on legislation, providing an internal check.

The following are the powers of the Judiciary: the power to try federal cases and interpret the laws of the nation in those cases; the power to declare any law or executive act unconstitutional. The checks: The Executive appoints members. The Legislative can impeach judges and has approval power over Presidential appointments; it can also propose amendments to overturn judicial decisions.

Historically, the concept of Separation of Powers dates back as far as ancient Greece. The concepts were refined by contemporaries of the Framers, and those refinements influenced the establishment of the three branches in the Constitution.

History of the Veto

Tracing the veto back to the Roman Republic, Spitzer states that the veto was used by tribunes to protect plebeian interests from those of the patricians. And, as a result of their conquests, the concept of the veto was spread throughout Europe, eventually coming to be one of the last vestiges of power the British monarchs had over the law-making process.

From there the veto made its way to America. But due to the experiences the colonies had had with the veto, they initially made it unavailable to those in power. However, by the time the founders met in Philadelphia, the question was not whether or not to include the veto – or as it was known at the time, the negative – in the Constitution, but whether it should be absolute or qualified.

It should be noted, though, that the founders intended the veto not just as a block to bad legislation, but as a revisionary tool whereby the president and Congress could come to an agreement on a proposed bill. This revisionary intent is an aspect of the veto that has all but disappeared over the years.

40 posted on 3/26/02 5:52 PM Pacific by Texasforever

So all of you professional GW haters can rant and rave. This is going to the Supreme Court as it should.

Hopefully, Texasforever will join this and discuss it with you. I'm out of here since I'm not a constitutional lawyer nor a hater of GW! Have a nice Easter!

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.