Vanity: Free Republic Priority One: Defending the Constitution

Free Republic | June 10, 2003 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

One thing I've learned during the last six years or so of hanging around Free Republic is that politics is a dirty game. It may qualify as a runner-up for the understatement of the year, but it seems to me that one of the worst things about politics is that it is made up of politicians. These guys seem to be desperate to get into office and once they've had a taste of power they're even more desperate to hang onto it. Doesn't matter what the Founders had in mind for our Republic and or what they wrote into the Constitution, if the elected politicians feel that they can create or expand another give-away program or cater to the demands of one special interest group or another, and it will help them get re-elected next time, well, why not? Constitution be damned.

The House represents the people. Sure, the Congressmen are supposed to be sensitive to the wants, needs, desires and demands of their constituents and they are and should be swayed by popular opinion and they should be passionate in their representation of the people. That's the name of the game and that's what the Founders intended. But when the people demand more than the Constitution allows, then what? Well, for one, you've got to get by the Senate. Then by the President, and perhaps by any Supreme Court challenges.

It's my understanding, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Founders established the Senate as the senior body of the bicameral legislature and set higher qualifications, higher standards and longer terms for its members. The Senators were to be experienced, wizened senior statesmen, insulated from swaying popular opinion, and the Senate as a body was to serve as a check on the hotheads in the House.

I also believe that one of the primary responsibilities of the Senate was to defend the Constitution and to guard over the longevity and continuity of the Republic. To this end, the Senate was designed to confirm judicial and high level executive appointments, ratify treaties and conduct impeachment trials--all highly essential elements to the maintenance of our constitutional republic, our national sovereignty and our Liberty.

To ensure that the Senators were truly insulated from swaying public opinion the Founders intended them to be appointed by the state legislatures rather than elected by the populace. It was hoped that only the very best statesmen, men of unimpeachable personal character, would rise to the top of the state legislatures and be considered to serve as U.S. Senators. Hmmmm... Hillary Clinton? Well, so much for high hopes.

I also understand that the three branches of the federal government were established as co-equal partners, with checks and balances designed so that no branch could control another and none could subvert the Constitution. The terms of the members of each branch were varied and staggered and the methods of election or appointment were different for each branch. The only members elected by the populace were to be the members of the House of Representatives. The Senators were to be appointed by the state legislatures, the President elected by the Electoral College and the Judiciary and high officers appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

The members of the House serve for two years, the President four years, the Senators six years and the Judiciary for life. The number of representatives for each state is determined by the number of people in each state, each state was guaranteed representation by two senators, and the number of electoral college members for each state determined by the number of congressional representatives, etc.

The state governments were intended to remain sovereign and all rights and powers not expressly delegated by the Constitution were to be left to the states and to the people. The central government was restricted to only about a dozen and a half enumerated powers and functions and was never intended to be the absolute ruling authority over the states or the people that it is today.

The primary functions of the federal government was to defend our national borders, maintain the federal judiciary, run the post office, the weights and standards office, the patent office, etc., and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and our individual rights.

Well, we all know that this is not how it ended up. What went wrong? For one thing, the balance of power was upset with the ratification of the seventeenth amendment. This amendment allowed for the popular election of the Senators instead of having them appointed by the state legislatures. At first glance, this looks like it would be more democratic. In fact, it is. However, as we conservatives love to point out, our Founders did not establish a democracy, they established a Republic.

With the popular election of both the House and the Senate, we are now one step closer to being a democracy where the mob rules rather than the rule of law. Also, the states essentially lost their representatives to the federal government and now, four-score and some odd years later, the result is that most of their states rights and powers have been eroded away. And we're now seeing where the democrats are wanting to do away with the electoral college. Al Gore won the popular vote in the last election, due mostly to the large highly populated liberal states, but President Bush obviously won in the electoral college. Thank God for the wisdom of the Founding Fathers! If Hillary and her mob have their way, the electoral college is history and so is the Republic. That's what happens when you allow mob rule and we're only one amendment and one step away from that sorry end now.

The liberals rule the land. They control the education systems. They control the media. They control the judiciary. Regardless of the party in executive or legislative power, the career liberals control the more or less permanent bureaucracy, the regulatory agencies and the courts. In defending the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, I count the liberals (lumping in the greenies, the socialists, the anarchists, and other assorted un-American types, etc.) as our primary domestic enemy number one. I count the left-leaning moderates and RINOs as domestic enemy number two.

Pretty basic and simple so far, but here's where it gets tricky. Like it or not, we have a two party system. Our good friends, the Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Reformers, Buchananites, paleocons, and other right-wingers, etc., may have some pretty good ideas about constitutionality, freedom, Liberty, etc., however, they are weak numerically, and will probably never get much stronger. Let's face it. The general populace has been indoctrinated for decades (make that several generations) by the liberal state controlled education system, brain-washed by the liberal controlled media and conditioned by the liberal controlled judiciary to accept whatever mushy touchy-feely liberal policy or concept that comes down the pike.

Where are the libertarian, reformist or strict constructionist parties ever going to find enough voters to overcome the Democrats and Republicans? Answer is they can't. It's an impossibility. Perhaps they can draw from the conservatives or Republicans, but they can hope to draw almost no liberal or Democrat voters. So, even if they can draw away from the conservative parties, it will only serve to strengthen the liberals and we will only reinstall Democrats to the majority. Happens every time. We flop back and forth between the Democrats and the Republicans and we continue to make zero progress, but the head-long slide into socialism continues on.

My conclusion is we will never, ever regain constitutional government until we completely demolish the liberal stranglehold on the bureaucracy, the education institutions, the media and especially, the judiciary. How do we do that? The most straightforward way, IMHO, is to vote out the Democrats. Ensure that we maintain as large a Republican majority as we possibly can. Ensure that the most conservative judges as can be found are appointed by the Republican president and confirmed by the Republican Senate. Why do you think Daschle and the Democrats are fighting so hard to block Bush's judicial appointments? They see the handwriting on the wall. As we begin replacing the liberal judiciary. the socialist welfare state is going to fall. The socialist bureaucracy will begin to crumble. We will withdraw from the U.N. and begin rescinding international treaties not in our best interests. We will be defending America and America's interests first.

Who knows? We may even get to the point we can overturn Roe vs Wade, repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, abolish the slave tax, privatize social security and medicare, repeal the unconstitutional gun control laws, dismantle the welfare state and reestablish the American Republic. These are my dreams, my goals and my reasons for Free Republic. If sometimes my actions seem a bit odd, please remember that my ultimate goals are to restore constitutional government and I see the total destruction of the Democrat Party and liberalism in general as the only possible solution to the problem. I don't care if people call me a neo-con, a bushbot, a blind Republican, a statist or whatever. I've asked many times but there has been no Libertarian or Buchananite or Reformer or Rockwellian or paleocon who has documented and presented a better plan or one that has any prayer of success, so I'm committed to this one.

As we move forward into the next election cycle, the FR battle cry will be: Restore the Republic! Vote out the RATs!

See you at the Free Republic George Bush Second Inaugural Ball in January '05!

Jim

[Sabertooth]

The survival of the Electoral College is certain, since the number of less populous states whose interests are protected by the EC is greater than the number of states necessary to thwart a Constitutional Amendment to abolish it.

[deport]

FYI as you post the countdown threads to election 2004.... Bookmarking for the eventual bashers that will show up as the campaign progresses...

[RightWhale]

For this reason we cannot allow any kind of Constitutional convention. They could change everything [and nothing for the better, IMHO] if they get their foot in the door on any issue.

[benjaminthomas]

The only possible chance we have to change things at the ballot box is to elect renegades.

The whole point is that this is not possible.

Socialism continues to develope whether democrats or republicans dominate. I see no difference, except that the path to socialism wears jeans when the democrats dominate and suits when the republicans dominate.

I disagree. Do you really think there would be no difference had Al Gore been elected instead of George W. Bush? You may claim that any differences are just differences in degree. I claim that a few degrees' difference is the difference between being comfortable and uncomfortable (and eventually dead.) Kind regards,

[hchutch]

Horowitz said it best: "If you don't win, you don't get to put your principles into practice."

Too many folks on the Right have not learned that lesson, and until they do, we are in serious trouble. Because those who have their pet issues that they will not budge on, and who will go third party or stay home over them, will no longer be trusted by the GOP.

[Sabertooth]

I can only see the occurence of another Constitutional Convention as either arising from or resulting in another civil war.

[Fearless Flyers]

Hey Jim,

While I believe we share the same goal, I have to disagree that another prominent political party is beyond hope. If we attempt to make the Democrats irrelevant by voting them all out, doesn’t conservative theory demand we offer an alternative?

My self oppressed, creative liberal side, suggests the fastest way to shift the power structure back in a direction towards what the Founding Fathers had in mind Is for President Bush to resign from the Republican Party and try to strengthen an existing conservative third party. If such action ever had a chance of bringing our Nation back to Libertarian vs Constitutional debate this moment in our Nations History offers the best opportunity.

My realistic conservative side tells me this will never happen and President Bush will leave the dance at the White House with those that brung him.

We should recognize that if Democrats become irrelevant another party will emerge to replace them. Conservatives should consider if they want to allow the Libertarians who are currently the strongest third party to be the only choice or offer another alternative.

This is where I lean to the Constitution Party, though they would never embrace President Bush as their candidate. Formally the Tax Payers Party and recognized for the last 3 years under its current name. They are strong on conservative issues, Pro Life, Pro 2nd amendment, Property Rights, States Sovereignty, National Sovereignty, Immigration, and Taxes. The most affective weapon in conservative activism is the Constitution for the United States of America and therefore a natural alternative for Conservatives in regional and congressional elections.

Unfortunately The Constitution Party is often recognized as extremist, because of their Pro Life, Pro Gun, anti-U.N. positions and their procedural objections to the war in Iraq and most of the other recent U.S. conflicts.

The Constitutionist objections to war are not part of the Peace Movement but rather procedural, they object to vague language that allows the Senate to claim deniability if the outcome becomes objectionable to the People. They object that this allows for the possibility of “Foreign Entanglements” which can change from administration to administration. These are conservative issues and if we truly want to shift our Nation’s direction back to what the Founding Fathers had in mind, it would be helpful to allow more relevance to these discussions.

I’m a Constitutionalist who supported the war in Iraq, even though I feel the Senate could have and should have performed better in their duties declaring war. Many Constitutionalists believe what they sent the President was too vague and came up short of a full Declaration of War.

This is where the Constitutionalists were drowned out on the Debate their issue was hijacked by the Socialist Peace Movement. The Lame Stream Media gave unbalanced relevance to a Socialist Movement that never had a voice in the founding of our Nation. The Socialists mocked the credibility of our Constitution and the Media ignored the voice of Conservatives who were legitimately concerned about the issue.

Republicans could help by dismissing Democratic Policies and recognizing Constitutional Debates. They could openly criticize Democratic Policies as hypocrisy and unconstitutional and at the same time engage open debate on constitutional issues of active legislation with conservative third parties.

What often happens is the opposite Democrats dismiss the Conservative Constitutional issues, ignoring the interests of the people and allow socialist third parties in the debate who often end up dictating terms of policy. We know this would never be allowed, if the Senate were appointed by States Legislatures and not the populace, property owners would have an equal voice in Government policy especially where the environment and U.N. Treaties are involved.

As the populace becomes more concerned with government policy because of the War on Terrorism and the threat to their personal security, Republicans have a prime time opportunity to encourage more Constitutional debate and point out the irrelevance of the socialist ideals Democrats embrace. They could bring in Conservative third parties to debate the Constitutional issues and the Republicans can debate from the position they would surrender if the Democrats were allowed legitimacy.

If there is ever going to be a time to accomplish such goals, when will we have a better opportunity then now, and if conservatives offer an alternative to the Democrats and Republicans couldn’t that force the pendulum to swing towards freedom?

Democrats have successfully used third parties to promote their agenda through the Black Caucus and Environmentalists. If Republicans embraced more participation by conservative third parties, and consistently approached issues from constitutional positions, it would add credibility and strength to conservative issues.

I suspect this will always be a fundamental difference between our views but I hope you respect that it is an alternative that deserves consideration.

As a participant in conservative activism, the divide I find between Constitutionalists, Republicans and other Conservatives on common issues purely because of ideology embarrassing and counter productive. Most of the time the division is among the power structure while the individuals embrace each others similarities.

[Sabertooth]

Because those who have their pet issues that they will not budge on, and who will go third party or stay home over them, will no longer be trusted by the GOP.

Seems backwards to me; the concern should be with keeping the GOP trustworthy to us.

Being "trusted" by any of the Machiavellian political parties is a nosebleed ticket to political serfdom. Is there any constituency more trusted by the Democrats, and more thoroughly betrayed by them, than the 90% loyalists in the black electorate?

How will politicians understand that our votes are not their birthright, if we don't understand that ourselves?

[Jakarta ex-pat]

"One thing I've learned during the last six years or so of hanging around Free Republic is that politics is a dirty game. "

I love this opening statement.

" The fact that you created Free Republic seems to go right over your head is irrelevant, I guess.

"It's my understanding, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Founders established the Senate as the senior body of the bicameral legislature and set higher qualifications, higher standards and longer terms for its members."

Britain used to call this the divinity of Kings.

"I also believe that one of the primary responsibilities of the Senate was to defend the Constitution and to guard over the longevity and continuity of the Republic."

That's almost funny.

But the west must take into account others "feelings"

Hence Asians retaining identity, Whereas...fill in the blanks.

"all highly essential elements to the maintenance of our constitutional republic, our national sovereignty and our Liberty."

100 percent agreed. However, "Western sovereignty" is the domain of Iceland and few others.

"The primary functions of the federal government was to defend our national borders"

As Jim Morrison wrote...."The End".

"Pretty basic and simple so far, but here's where it gets tricky. Like it or not, we have a two party system."

If we accept this, please see above.

The general populace has been indoctrinated for decades (make that several generations) by the liberal state controlled education system,

HOME RUN

My conclusion is we will never, ever regain constitutional government until we completely demolish the liberal stranglehold on the bureaucracy, the education institutions, the media and especially, the judiciary.

Great stuff.

Except, especially EDUCATION.

We will withdraw from the U.N. and begin rescinding international treaties not in our best interests.

Now comes Utopia. "Withdrawl from the UN?" Linked with education?

Although a must, I fear America doesn't have the balls for it.

I Pray I'm wrong,

Keep smiling,

Philip

[sourcery]

we will never, ever regain constitutional government until we completely demolish the liberal stranglehold on the bureaucracy, the education institutions, the media and especially, the judiciary. How do we do that? The most straightforward way, IMHO, is to vote out the Democrats.

Yes--and no. What's my objection? It's the focus on a particular party. Party is not the issue. Political philosophy is. Politicians are not the problem, they are merely symptoms of the problem.

What matters is the voting public. They are the ones who elect objectionable politicians and vote for objectionable initiatives. The voters usually simply lack any coherent political philosophy. They also tend to have a simplistic, uninformed understanding of what is and is not in their best interests. Consequently, they are overly easy targets for socialist/communitarian demagoguery. If this could be changed, then we wouldn't have to worry about the party affiliations of the politicians who get elected. Objectionable (socialist/communitarian/statist) politicians would generally not win elections, and the politicians who were elected wouldn't pass socialist/communitarian/statist/unconstitutional laws (because it would be political suicide.)

But it's true that the Democratic Party of today is the stronghold of the Socialists and Statists, and that voting them out would at least be a tactical victory. However, the strategic import of eliminating the Democratic Party may be less than it appears. If the result was that an openly Socialist Party took the place of the Democrats, we could end up in a worse situation than before.

[hchutch]

Because the party can go elsewhere, too. A political party's acqueisence to YOUR agenda is NOT your birthright, either.

Or, the TEAM PLAYERS will ensure you are marginalized. Right now, "progressives" are in a civil war with the DLC. Why? Because the DLC and a number of Dems can't trust them NOT to bolt over a disagreement over tactics or if they don't get what they want WHEN they want it in the EXACT FASHION they want it. Now, I don't mind it occuring on their side, because it helps MY side win.

I just hope the Right has learned its lesson from 1992, and learns from the mistakes the Naderites have made.

It comes down to what Horowitz said - to put PRINCIPLES into practice, you have to WIN the elections. If we LOSE the elections, we DON'T get to put the principles into practice. It's that simple.

[Canadian Outrage]

I'm sure this was God's PLAN from the very beginning Jim. Amazing how the enemy of man's soul always finds a weak link/spot and begins his destruction from there. Christians need to be "on Guard"! at all times. After decades of Apathy we NOW see just how much progess Liberalism has made. Can it be undone?? I honestly don't know. I do know however, that if it isn't undone, the Country is doomed to a Socialist existence. Take it from me, Socialism is a killer.

[Tamzee]

Your post was inspirational and sounds like the only plan that can work to get America back on our founders' intended track. So many replies to you were also wonderful and added more terrific perspective :-)

It seems to me that with our two-party system, neither party is going to perfectly emcompass a voter's set of preferences. You can win most of what you want by supporting the larger party that best fits your ideals... or you can lose big by splitting off into small factions and letting those win who are most opposite your ideals.

Once the Democrat Party decays into nothing, then conservatives can sort out more of our differences amongst ourselves... and perhaps we will split into the different factions of the new two-party system :-)

[Sabertooth]

Or, the TEAM PLAYERS will ensure you are marginalized.

Are you trying to appeal to my soft spot for unintentional irony?

Are RINOs team players?

If not, should they be marginalized?

I just hope the Right has learned its lesson from 1992

Is there ever a time when self-proclaimed "realists" need to learn political lessons?

Is it realistic to take crucial segments of your consituency for granted, betray them, and expect to win elections?

[hchutch]

What's more important to you, Toothy, ideological purity, or getting a chance to put the principles into practice because you won the election?

YOU have to make that choice, and if you choose ideological purity, don't be surprised if the Republican Party stops giving a damn about what you think.

[Poohbah]

Is it realistic to take crucial segments of your consituency for granted, betray them, and expect to win elections?

Ah, but they really AREN'T crucial segments of the GOP constiuency--they've sat out enough elections, and slow-rolled the GOP so many frickin' times, that the GOP figured out how to win without them in 2000 and 2002.

Anything that these folks get is a gift--and they know that it's a gift--and they're remarkably ungracious about it.

There's a lot of talk about the "grass-roots conservatives."

They're doing this, they're doing that, they're doing damn near everything you can think of...except actually turning out and voting on election day in the numbers they claim to have.

[Brad’s Gramma]

Thank you Jim. This is just what we need, entering this election cycle.

Bookmarked and bumping.

[hchutch]

Not only that, they are still making demands on all sorts of issues. And the response from Bush and his people is, rightfully, I might add, "What have you done for me lately?"

Loyalty is a two-way street.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

Let's remember, "all politics is local politics."

While in principle you are certainly correct...let's remember something else my friend: politics is about winning, AND politics is about accepting the fact that you can't get EVERYTHING you want all at once.