Free Republic

as an attorney i can sympathize with your view. the issues surrounding the commerce clause are a classic touch-off point for discussing deeper issues in this country. Madison and Hamilton knew that, at the end of the day, virtue would stand as the ultimate tie-breaker and no words, paper or eloquent speeches would ever succeed it.

but fundamental law (a constitution) can act on the better hand to nurture virtue and purge all else. no system is perfect, and Madison’s dream of an ideal republic was handicapped by a Constitution insufficient to prejudicially eradicate everything not virtuous. i think we can see today that Hamilton’s version was the better choice, but we’re talking about what are, on paper, tiny differences that amount to a lot after 250 years of abuse by politicians. this will need fixing after the dust settles.

politicians and lawyers are by their nature selfish and nothing will suffice to control them than a culture of virtue that opposes them. they must be opposed with all vigilance and herded like the cattle they are. they are creatures of self. in that dusty and dirty crowd we once in a while find virtue and only in a state of crisis can the two meet and make things happen.

the united states is passing the rubicon and a crisis of impotence is emerging: the federal government is quickly reaching a point where it can no longer issue or enforce real public policy. all it can do now is transfer money from you, to the treasury and then back out to special interests. that is its raison d etat today. all else is fraud and corruption.

if virtue prevailed in washington as it did long, long ago, we would have no such debate about the commerce clause. everyone would understand exactly what it meant without having to call yale and poll the law professors. it means what it means. the second amendment means what it means.

before discarding all lawyers as a part of that cabal, i would only ask that people consider the possibility that virtue can be found there, that they are quietly observing the situation, and that you will know them by their obvious, public sacrifice where upon victory they hand the sword of power back to those that commissioned them, turn and quietly walk away entrusting their futures and the future of millions to rule of law. we will see this again soon, so help me God.

you and i may disagree greatly on matters of public policy. we’re supposed to. but in this war any who stand for virtue stand with us and again, you will know us by our faithful execution of rule of law. Law always should say what it says and should not be a tea-leaved, 10,000 dollar service just to understand one sentence. the commerce clause was obviously purely directed toward limited matters of interstate commerce. but all of his who care about virtue know that.

in these dangerous times those of our oldest traditions in politics are the last ones to hold on to any appreciation of virtue in rule of law. hopefully, those last holders of the crown will, upon the right confluence of events, act and act with purpose.

watch Sarah Palin, i’d suggest. she is going to make real history that puts her in that rare camp of those making history above and beyond the designs of public relations.

apparently the time in which everyone else will also know this is coming on, and its coming on strongly.

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I've read it very carefully.

I agree that a standard litmus test, from the outset, something we can all agree on, is essential to honest, constructive dialogue on very important national and international matters. My gold standard is the reason why I chose to live in the United States (I was born here and my family goes back to the 1700s here, but I am free to leave also). That standard is that, based on my limited knowledge of history and political philosophy, I find the ideas of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton to be vastly superior as a practical means of public cooperation and government to anything anyone has contrived thus far.

Is there an imbalance between the weak and the powerful in such a system? I think so, but its much preferable to the alternatives and it is certainly an economic juggernaut for which we can all be grateful. Capitalism is a powerful elixir and I'd still rather have it than any kind of socialist, centralized and thoughtless system which merely shifts the abuse of power over the weak to politicians.

So, I'm all for a planned economy if it could work, I just haven't heard of one that has any chance of doing so. We can agree to disagree, and I suspect that most people here are of the Jeffersonian and Madisonian flavor. I'm a Hamiltonian through and through and I view these guys not as conservatives but as radical progressives.

I believe, as Hamilton did, that separation of powers was a concept not limited to the organs of government itself, but to the balance of power between the state and what I call The People. So, in my view, the primary demons we face in our political landscape have to do with how we have foolishly relinquished the legitimate and reasonable concerns of The State to the whims of what Madison and Hamilton called popular faction - today called special interests. It is why we pay 8,000 dollars for toilet seats on military aircraft, why we have senseless laws passed that totally eviscerate the good intentions of the 2nd Amendment, and why our government seems, as each year passes, to be more and more impotent and unable to act in the interests of the Nation.

This is just to describe from the outset where I am coming from. So, some examples where we'd likely agree:

The border issue is a sad testament to the government's inability to ACT. I think the idea of open borders and a borderless society is great, provided it is done responsibly and with adequate consideration of the public safety. A president not owned by special interests would, upon inauguration, nationalize the State Guards of CA, AZ, NM, and TX, send them to the border with orders to shoot anything that moves and the immigration problem would end overnight saving thousands of lives from heat exhaustion, thirst and death as a result of crimes committed to further their illegal status. The argument that we "can't do this" is disingenuous. The Soviet Union managed their borders quite nicely for 70 years with just such orders issued. And believe me, people weren't trying to cross the border merely for a minimum wage job at 7/11. That, followed up with a compassionate immigration policy where immigrants can be known, tracked and vetted and the public safety ensured is much preferable and more humane, in my view. To me, that would BE an open border managed by responsible policy.

The second Amendment is another example of the government's total domination by special interests. The meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment is as clear as an elephant taking a dump in your living room; if you can't see it or smell it your're either unconscious or dead. Hamilton was very concerned (and Madison even more so) about what would happen if their 'ingenious' system failed. The 2nd Amendment was never about duck hunting. It was about intimidating the crap out of dictators. It worked. And there is not a seven nation army on this planet that could militarily occupy this country either. So, what do I think is the right way to approach the sad and horrible cycle of violence and crime? Why don't we start with the family? Well, that is now taboo discussion in my crowd.

So, when my liberal friends complain about crime I tell them a "cute little bed-time story". Back around 1780 the world's most powerful army went up to a place called Lexington Green in search of arms to confiscate from a bunch of ragtag colonists. They made a good show of it. But they had to get back home that night. Word spread that the Army had shot up some colonists on their way into the hinterland. One road led home and word traveled fast. Thousands and thousands of colonists raced to this road from numerous adjoining counties. Every dad, mother and child over 12 arrived within 24 hours armed to the teeth. This mighty Army was ripped to shreds by a bunch of ignorant, rag-tag colonists shooting from hidden positions all along the length of this long, dark road. Boys as young as 9 were firing large, heavy rifles from the windows of farm houses along the road. This was like Waco squared. When the commanding officer asked how many colonists were "rebelling" and how many of those were armed, the second in command gave him an incredulous look and paused. He then said, "uh...all of them"! (now, of course, he didn't mean all 2 million colonists on the continent, but the point was that the exact number was irrelevant at that point). This Army, known for a kind of discipline that never failed even in the face of being overrun, was reported to have broken up, soldiers running in all directions like "chickens with their heads cut off", only to be mowed down by withering fire from farms along the road. This is where the phrase "shock and awe" came from. Fear gripped the column and the commanding officer knew he had no choice but to make a mad dash for his redbout back in "the world" to the east. A non-combat worthy remnant staggered back to civilization barely hanging on to its life. The royalty of England just received a quick and swift kick in the groin. The Holy Army of Angels had just been found. THIS is why we need to appreciate the deeper meaning behind the 2nd Amendment. Most of my friends never knew about this history. Historical accounts today play it down but the primary sources are a shocking testament to the effectiveness of an armed populace. This legacy of maniacal behavior on the battlefield continued with their "commissioned" descendents; dead-eye dicks from the back waters of Kentucky, rifles in hand, quickly came to New England to be "sworn in". The likes of fighers Benedict Arnold, Daniel Morgan and even Alexander Hamilton were all inspired by the fighting spirit of everyday civilians who fought for no other reason than some dictator was "tresspassing".

So, I'm all for crime control, for Hamilton's increased sense of State Powers and progressive public policy provided we retain the ultimate safety valve of arming The People to the teeth. That is "balance of power". There are people in D.C. today who know this story quite well and are indeed scared to death of it. Stories like those above should inspire us, not divide us.

So, there is much we can agree on and less we can disagree on. I agree that it's a matter of methods, not intent. We all want what is best for the Nation and the world and I do believe that all people are basically good. But there are forces in this world that feed on and promote an insane degree of polarization to keep the voices of reason drowned out. That is what I fear most.

Unfortunately I have to agree that most of this comes from the liberal side. It started in the sixties when the party was hijacked by a bunch of extremist nutjobs. It just got worse. I have friends that when I try to explain that their ideas are extreme and actually don't make any sense they get angry and hostile. Change is good, but change without careful thought is to wrecklessly hazard an entire nation. We've got a lot of thoughtless change going on in this country right now.

But, what bothered me most is that children, especially handicapped children, are off limits and it ain't one bit funny. I just spoke with this author by email and he basically said that he was trying to point out that her reasons for resigning didn't add up and that the "families" focused on the "retard".

??

This is what I'm talking about. It's a kind of sociopathic toxin in public discourse. He has no idea what he did. V. Van Houten

Dude — I’m a progressive and no, I’m not here to crash a party. I’m here to ask what the heck is going on with Palin? I’m stunned at the vicious attacks going on. This last article is sicko.
I sent homie poet a nice email and told him to STFU, you’ve just set us back 50 years.
I don’t understand the excessive polarization going on in our society. Civil conversation is no more and its out of control.
v. van houten