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

[TLBSHOW]

Great thread and true, vote em all out and take back our country from the media and the liberal schools.

But we must keep their feet to the fire while we do it I would think..

[Amelia]

the only appropriate political involvement was to vote. She thought until the philosophy of the country, as expressed by the 'intellectuals', was changed, we could not expect political results. I think she was generally correct and the best we can realistically hope for, regardless of JimRob's solution of destroying the Dems and liberals, is to slow the progression of statism.

I tend to agree. And, sitting home without voting will certainly not change anything. It only ensures that the other guy has a voice and you don't.

[Mad Dawgg]

"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."

I was talking with a group of friends the other day and the topic of Washington and politicians came up. We were all in that semi-euphoric state induced by several good beers and some tasty bratwurst cooked over a cheery campfire. One of my more radical mates ventured we would all be better off if some Muslim nutcase were to nuke Washington D.C. while congress was in full session. Some of us were aghast at the idea but my mate carried on with his point.

“First,” he said. “We would have new rules.”

Rule One: No lawyers allowed within a 100 mile radius of the capital (Where ever it may be located for some of us pointed out that depending on what type of nuke was used D.C. could be uninhabitable for a while.)

Rule Two: Term Limits for everybody in Federal government including secretaries and janitors.

Rule Three: Lobbyists will be shot on sight.

Rule Four: First order of business for the new congress would be to put forth a new amendment to the constitution clarifying what the first ten amendments really mean. For instance the second amendment means citizens of the USA can own guns period no permits no license nothing. Think “shall not be infringed!”

Rule Five: Income Taxes will be 10% and everybody pays, no deductions, no loopholes, the IRS will be abolished and there will be no payroll deduction. Everybody writes a check to the federal government at the end of each month to pay their tax debt.

Rule Six: Congress will put forth another amendment which states no deficit spending and no raise in taxes ever, if they don’t have enough money to pay for the programs then they must cut the budget.

Rule Seven: The liberals can have as many social programs they wish and the US government will administer them. All such programs will be paid by voluntary contributions from the citizens of the USA and other countries. BUT, under no circumstances will Federal TAX DOLLARS be spent on social programs and if any tax dollars do mysteriously end up in said social programs then whoever is found responsible will be hung at dawn on the Capital steps and left there for one month.

Rule Eight: All Senators and Congressmen will be paid the same amount, 70k a year. For every day over 10 they spend per month outside of their respective districts they lose 1000 dollars from their paychecks.

Rule Nine: Immigration will be regulated and the borders of Mexico and Canada will be monitored and an immediate move to construct barriers (Walls) at both borders.

Rule Ten: We nuke France (every year)

After my good freind finished telling us the above none of us could come up with a good reason why his wasn't a good idea (especially number 10)

[unspun]

Well, the primaries are the time to fight like thunder to promote our own and keep pro-murder, socialist, statist candidates out, aren't they? Then, when it comes to general elections in states such as Illinois... if the RINO's know they can get our support with their own candidates why would they ever nominate real conservatives?

Like Dr. Dobson, I find it very unlikely I'd pick one of two pro-abortion candidates, for example, blood virtually dripping from their canine teeth, just because one has a certain party label. When an official is against the right to life, he is hardly for the constitutional rights which depend upon it. And in Illinois, there are many Democrat voters and a good number of candidates/officials who are more conservative in basic "social policies" than many on the GOP side.

As a rule of thumb, I think it's best to vote for individual candidates one can feel morally comfortable voting for.

I'm all for consolidating power at general election time (as opposed to competing against conservatives!) but only if we can say that the power is at least propotionately our power and not that of the RINO husband of the battered wife, so to speak. Let's remember, "all politics is local politics."

(Haven't read JR's piece thoroughly yet, though I generally like what I've scanned.)

My lil' ol' views.

[Grampa Dave]

Bookmarked as Real Politics 101 by Jim Robinson.

We need 60 senators in 2005 and more house members. Then things will start to change even more rapidly.

[Grampa Dave]

FYI

You may want to read and bookmark this as we get deeper into the upcoming election.

[DPB101]

Doesn't matter what the Founders had in mind for our Republic and or what they wrote into the Constitution. . .

No it doesn't.Liberals are correct on one thing: the constitution is a living document. While denying they do it, the Federal courts do reflect popular opinion. When Republicans have the majorities Democrats once enjoyed, we will see the Supreme Court "discover" that yes, states have the power to ban abortion, the Second Amendment means what it says, affirmative action is unconstitutional and the Federal government has no business censoring religious speech. Despite what the naysayers say, we have made great progress in the last ten years--more progress than in the preceeding 62 years. Consider the margins Democrats needed in the House of Representatives to get us where we are:

1937-1939
Dem 331
Rep 89

1965-1967
Dem 295
Rep 140

1977-1979
Dem 292
Rep 143

1993-1995
Dem 258
Rep 176

The trend today is not the Democrat's friend. Rove and Bush are correct. We are at a turning point. 2004 could be the year parity is smashed and the GOP begins to gain the majorities the Democrat party had for most of the 20th century.

[justshe]

This would be an excellent essay to quote from as we get deeper into the election cycle, you are correct.

Bookmarked and bumped!

[Spiff]

A couple of years ago you would have heard a lot of argument from me against what you just said. I would have given a laundry list of all the problems with the Republican Party, etc.

But, since then, I've come around to your way of thinking. I jumped back in to Republican politics, got elected as a PC and then as the president of the South East Arizona Republican Club, and I'm committed to working within the party to defeat the Democrats AND the RINOs in order to do my part to preserve the Constitution and save the Republic.

I'm behind you 100%, Jim.

[Grampa Dave]

Whenever, whatever you and Wolfstar call the nay sayers start to naysay, this will be an excellent reference.

It will be a good reference for the upcoming Freepathons.

[Grampa Dave]

Congratulations on this accomplishment:

I jumped back in to Republican politics, got elected as a PC and then as the president of the South East Arizona Republican Club, and I'm committed to working within the party to defeat the Democrats AND the RINOs in order to do my part to preserve the Constitution and save the Republic.

I'm behind you 100%, Jim.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for the ping!

[RightWhale]

we're now seeing where the democrats are wanting to do away with the electoral college

It's a serious problem. That Senators are supposed to be expert statesman and selected by a small body of people who have a greater than average understanding of matters of state makes a great deal of sense. Expertise cannot be elected, it must be appointed. The Senate is no different now from the House except for the greater attention given Senators by the news/editor media, so demagogues can become famous overnight.

Should popular election also be used to select the President and VP, expertise can be expected to disappear from those offices, too. Can't wait until the USSC becomes elected rather than appointed. At least we will have ringside seats to the spectacle of the destruction of the Constitution, just as we will have ringside seats to the final plummet of the famous killer asteroid. It's just a matter of time for either event, but we can, with luck and diligence, indefinitely delay mob rule in the first.

[rintense]

Liberals are only part of the problem. If conservatives/Republicans are the self-appointed guardians of the Constitution, then we need to do a better job than we are doing now. We can only blame liberals for so long. We can either keep bitching about liberals and do nothing, or we take it upon ourselves to elect officials who use the Constitution as their guideline to serve.

And in order to be proactive, conservatives as a collective group need to grow a collective spine. It still amazes me how quickly Republicans tucked tail and ran during the whole Trent Lott ordeal. Lott being right or wrong wasn't the problem. The problem was that so few had the guts to stand up against one of the most commonly played liberal assaults out there.

If we, as conservatives, Republicans, Neocons, whatever, don't make it our responsibility to defend the Constitution, then we are worse than liberals- for we have failed in our core principles and beliefs- and made the words our Fathers wrote and defended worth nothing.

[Mo1]

It will be a good reference for the upcoming Freepathons

Thanks for the ping Grampa

[Tauzero]

Bump to that, RJ.

Electoral politics might actually be one of the worst places to concentrate our energies. One alternative that comes to mind: education of jurors, and participation on juries.

Doesn't matter who passes the laws if juries will not convict. And in criminal cases, you just need one obstinate juror to block enforcement.

[Mo1]

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

EXCELLENT Thread Jim ... Thank You!!

[Darksheare]

Thanks Jim.

[Sabertooth]

If the problem with politics is the very politicians who are desperate to remain in power, then it seems to me in our interests to make sure that politicians are desperate to gain our votes. If politicians know they can get our votes under any circumstances, their desperation will turn to votes on which they can't depend.

Every election cycle, one subset of the electorate receives an inordinate amount of attention from candidates of both of the major parties: the swing voters. Swing voters decide elections, and the policies pursed in the aftermath. The reason gungrabbing RINOs are sitting on their hands while the AWB faces sunset is because working class gun owners were a decisive swing vote in the 2000 election. No one wants to offend citizens whose votes are in play.

It's interesting, isn't it, that we ignorant voters hold more power over the politicians than the Leftist, anti Second Amendment media? Yet so often on Free Republic, I see the proposition put forth that the GOP is powerless to face down the media, even when the latter is hopelessly out of step with the electorate. Posters flatter themselves as "political realists," when they wring their hands in the face of the Leftist Pundits of Oz.

So, how do conservatives whose first priority is to preserve and restore the Constitution make politicians averse to offending them? Not by telling our elected officials or any political party that our votes are in the bag, that's for certain. The Constitution will not become a priority for politicians until their support for it becomes crucial to their political survival. We need to make certain they understand that if they do not support the Constitution, they will not survive.

Telling politicians of either party that they can count on our votes under all circumstances is tantamount to bootlicking, and will be respected as much. In political marriages, cheaters who are allowed to cheat will continue to cheat, since they pay no price for their unfaithfulness.

So, should we support the Republican Party, flawed and cowardly as it is?

Certainly we should.

Should we promise vote GOP under all circumstances, regardless of whether and how much they assist the Leftist agenda for unconstitutionally federalizing our daily lives, only to serve the short-term political interests of remaining comfortable and in power?

Not if we want the leaders of Republican Party to make restoring and preserving the Constitution their first priority.

Regards,

[moneyrunner]

On a previous thread on an article by David Horowitz ”If You Would Rather Be Right Than President . . . Find Something Else to Do” I made a similar comments. There are quite a few people, especially on the Right, who would rather be ideologically pure than be in power. Some are driven by ideology, others by theology. Living halfway to heaven, their primary earthly role is to make sure that conservatives or Republicans who are willing to compromise in order to win elections are defeated. That this allows the election of liberals or socialists is, to them, of less concern than that their jihad has made RINOs extinct.

Liberals don’t have the same moral hang-ups. First, because they live in the here and now and are convinced there is no ultimate judge. Second, because they have seen the positive effects of having their side in power, even if part of “their side” is not totally on board. The fact is that many Democrats are to the right of Pelosi and Daschle yet they are the Democrats’ congressional leaders. They set the agenda.

You have an opportunity to implement your ideals once you get elected to office. If you lose, your opponent gets to implement his.

If you decide you are not going to run for office personally, the most logical way of deciding whom to support is to determine whose ideas are most like yours. However, if the choice involves more that two people, it is wise to determine who will do the most damage to your ideals and vote in such a way as to prevent his election. To do otherwise is to do violence to your ideals.

In their drive for ideological purity, some on the Right are quick to demonize those who do not toe the line. One of the facets of Reagan’s character that I remember is that he did not try to demonize anyone. He felt that government was often the problem, not the solution, but his comments were made with a general feeling of goodwill. I do not remember him either denouncing nor cheerleading homosexuals, pro-choice advocates and others who are not firm adherents of the Christian or Ideological Right; and he must have known more than his share, having spent most of his adult life in Hollywood.

We are all sinners. Some of us lie, cheat, commit adultery, engage in aberrant sexual behavior or commit a host of sins that are not crimes. As Christians, we do not want to justify those who commit sin. Yet, I would not like to see a requirement of moral perfection before we are allowed to serve the people in government office. Political leaders in a non-theocratic state are not primarily moral leaders. They are not responsible for the state of your soul, but for the welfare of your community, state and nation. And to govern in a free society, they have to have the support of a large portion of the people. It is easier to get that support if you are inclusive rather than exclusive.

We’re not going to win elections, or advance our agenda if we tell those with whom we have disagreements that we don’t want their vote. The intelligent and moral position for those who operate in the political arena is to try to get those who are persuadable to see things their way. I say “moral” because if we are concerned about the spiritual effects of political decisions, the last thing we want to do is to help evildoers to attain power. Human being are prone to sin and it is moral to avoid electing leaders who will lead them to sin. If the choice is between two evils, we must choose the lesser. The lesser of two evils is still evil, but it is lesser.

Some of the third party advocates believe that if we drive out the RINOS and allow liberals to be elected, the people will realize their mistake and throw the rascals out. There is little evidence to support this theory. Hitler was not turned out of office by the German people. In the USSR, when Stalin died the people wept despite his having murdered tens of millions of them. Bill Clinton, for all his faults, could probably have been elected to a third term. The current South African government is popular despite the falling living standards of the average black African there. “I’ll go vote for the third party to show the rascally Republicans that they can’t take me for granted” is a self defeating Walter Mitty pipe dream. You want to know how to drive the Republicans to the Left? Convince them that the only way they’ll win the next election is to move there because the Christian or Libertarian Right is going to sit out the next election.