On Liberty and Republic

[Master Shake]

Guest essay at C.H. Smith's site.


True Confessions (on Liberty and the Republic)
by Eric Andrews

I have a confession to make: I have been to a Tea Party meeting. I admit it was because my girlfriend was working in the coffee shop, but I was there. I saw it all.


Now don’t get me wrong. I’m an avid Libertarian and Constitutionalist, someone who read the Federalist Papers at 16 (assigned to me in AP American History), and I believe being an American means following the law described therein. However, the sort of changes they want to make are not my changes.

Not that I don’t want to vote out incumbents who are venal, corrupt felons who are risking the collapse of the United States with reckless, short-sighted spending and threatening the national security and very existence of our nation. I do. Not that I don’t believe that undo taxation cripples an economy, or that taking taxpayer’s money just to give it back to them in social programs isn’t a wasteful leviathan of circular insanity—it is. But my changes are different than that.

Suppose we got out those incumbents: others would simply take their place. The head-count in Washington DC, Albany NY, has become irrelevant—no matter who is sent, the system will self-preserve to buy them out, shut them down, or if they somehow become an actual threat to the system, however minor, scandalize or jail them. If they have no skeletons, no dark secrets, this is worst of all, and the candidates must be compromised, attacked and slandered in force to prevent their candidacy and political relevance from the get-go. White supremacy, black supremacy, taxes, nannies, true, false or indifferent, it matters not: threats to cash-flow are job #1, the only red-alert that remains.
Voting out incumbents is a useless exercise, and what’s worse, so long as you are paying attention to it, your attention isn’t on the multi-trillion or even quadrillion dollar frauds, thefts, murders, and scams where the real action and power is.

The answer to this, the single problem of the Republic is perfectly simple: move the power from the Central Government as far down to the people as possible. The vultures wouldn’t circle if there weren’t a big pot of money sitting all in one place. Take away the money-pile and push it back to the States, the Counties, and the People and there becomes no point in Lobbying Congress for anything. They’d have to shift focus to 50 States, to 10,000 town council meetings until it’s no longer worth the effort to lobby so many for so little. This is why they push for ever-increasing Centralization, of national power, of money and business, and International Agencies like the UN, IMF, or EU: one set of people to bribe and capture, and the fewer the better. Profits are higher that way.

Best thing about this plan? It’s already the law.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” --10th Amendment
What powers are delegated to the United States Government? Control and regulation of the economy, interest rates, and money supply? Nope. Energy policy? Nope. Promotion of Business or Agriculture? Nope. Education? Nope. How about national rails, ports, and water ways? Sorry, nope, not even that.

Rest here.

http://www.oftwominds.com/blogaug10/...essions08.html

[rdrees]

Re: On Liberty and Republic

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” --10th Amendment
What powers are delegated to the United States Government? Control and regulation of the economy, interest rates, and money supply? Nope. Energy policy? Nope. Promotion of Business or Agriculture? Nope. Education? Nope. How about national rails, ports, and water ways? Sorry, nope, not even that.

I think he forgot to read the whole Constitution. Control and regulation of the economy is pretty clearly specified in Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

That Clause has always been understood, among other things, to confer power to regulate national rails, ports, and water ways, too. For example, "The power to regulate commerce comprehends the control for that purpose, and to the extent necessary, of all the navigable waters of the United States.... For this purpose they are the public property of the nation, and subject to all the requisite legislation by Congress." United States v. Rands, 389 U.S. 121 (1967).

[Chomsky]

Re: On Liberty and Republic

Aw, you're letting facts get in the way of a good rant.

[Master Shake]

Re: On Liberty and Republic

I knew the Big Government fans would get the knives out.

[rdrees]

Re: On Liberty and Republic

No knives; just the Constitution.

It was a good rant, though, wasn't it?

[medved]

Re: On Liberty and Republic

“What powers are delegated to the United States Government? Control and regulation of the economy, interest rates, and money supply? Nope. Energy policy? Nope. Promotion of Business or Agriculture? Nope. Education? Nope. How about national rails, ports, and water ways? Sorry, nope, not even that. "

I think he forgot to read the whole Constitution. Control and regulation of the economy is pretty clearly specified in Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Regulation and promotion are not the same. Would it be reasonable for the gov't to regulate the financial system? Absolutely. In the first place, force the banks to comply with the official gold standard. This has never been tried. Instead, the monstrous Gosbank was created to "stabilize" the system of phony money. As we now know it does not end well.

OK, suppose we already got used to Gosbank printing money for the sake of supporting financial system, so what's next? Easy. Make the Gosbank control the economy by manipulating interest rate (reminder for the big gov’t enthusiasts, that’s not “regulation”). We can easily see, influence of the gov’t quietly expanded from the financial system to the whole economy.

Another example is the Social Security. I agree, we need something like insurance program it originally was. In general, insurance is an important part of the infrastructure, it needs to be regulated, or, even re-insured by the gov’t. But it does not mean, Social Security should turn from an insurance program into everybody’s retirement plan (reminder for the big gov’t enthusiasts, that’s not “regulation”). It would be fine to have this program available for, say, 10% of the population. But now it is a birthright even for illegals.

The “intellectuals” in this country and in Western Europe are sick with the same intellectual decease, their mentality is located somewhere between moderate and nutty Left. There is no other reason for the unstoppable growth of gov’t powers.

“The mania for giving the Government power to meddle with the private affairs of cities or citizens is likely to cause endless trouble, through the rivaly of schools and creeds that are anxious to obtain official recognition, and there is great danger that our people will lose our independence of thought and action which is the cause of much of our greatness, and sink into the helplessness of the Frenchman or German who expects his government to feed him when hungry, clothe him when naked, to prescribe when his child may be born and when he may die, and, in fine, to regulate every act of humanity from the cradle to the tomb, including the manner in which he may seek future admission to paradise.”

Mark Twain.

[Master Shake]

Re: On Liberty and Republic

No knives; just the Constitution.

It was a good rant, though, wasn't it?

Do you agree with the general principle of shrinking the federal government and shifting the locus of control back to local and state governments?

[jtabeb]

Re: On Liberty and Republic

Shake, we have more people in this country than we ever have. The key question is what responsibilities do we want the federal government to have and how do we fund these requirements. I think you have to look at the question in the total financial context of the country. States are in no better (arguably worse) fiscal shape than the federal government. Until you find a better way for states to fund themselves, shifting the balance back onto the "lowest level possible" remains a non-starter, even if it is desirable. We have GOT to find a way to sustainably fund the states and the federal government AND make sure that the requirements are valid and sustainable.

Propose a funding mechanism for states and how to fill their budget gaps, that's whats needed for a power transfer to be effected.

(Please note this was offered in general support of you premise, I'm just trying to lay out what is required to make it a reality).

[vinoveri]

Re: On Liberty and Republic

Shake, we have more people in this country than we ever have. The key question is what responsibilities do we want the federal government to have and how do we fund these requirements. I think you have to look at the question in the total financial context of the country. States are in no better (arguably worse) fiscal shape than the federal government. Until you find a better way for states to fund themselves, shifting the balance back onto the "lowest level possible" remains a non-starter, even if it is desirable. We have GOT to find a way to sustainably fund the states and the federal government AND make sure that the requirements are valid and sustainable.

Propose a funding mechanism for states and how to fill their budget gaps, that's whats needed for a power transfer to be effected.

(Please note this was offered in general support of you premise, I'm just trying to lay out what is required to make it a reality).

I would suggest that some of the problems with the states budget shortfalls are due to mandated spending by the federal government.
What this argument seems to be about is: do you believe in local control or central control; My view is that the family is the core element of any society and culture; families form neighborhoods and communities, which as they grow result in towns etc. It's really a simple question; leave people be or tell them what to do from on high and force 300 million people to live by some universal gov-mandated system, which IMO is utter nonsensical (and I admit I'm a bit perplexed by those who seem to think "we can't go back" to local and autonomous control by communities and states). Perhaps our minds and spirits have been wo weakened, that we see no way back (and some of us are meddling do-gooders who think they know best for everyone else ... remember "the road to hell...".

The role of the federal government is clearly expressed in the Constitution. Invoking the interestate commerce clause to justify every misappropriation of authority by the feds over the states is disingenuous imo.

[Serge_Tomiko]

Re: On Liberty and Republic

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” --10th Amendment
What powers are delegated to the United States Government? Control and regulation of the economy, interest rates, and money supply? Nope. Energy policy? Nope. Promotion of Business or Agriculture? Nope. Education? Nope. How about national rails, ports, and water ways? Sorry, nope, not even that.

I think he forgot to read the whole Constitution. Control and regulation of the economy is pretty clearly specified in Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

That Clause has always been understood, among other things, to confer power to regulate national rails, ports, and water ways, too. For example, "The power to regulate commerce comprehends the control for that purpose, and to the extent necessary, of all the navigable waters of the United States.... For this purpose they are the public property of the nation, and subject to all the requisite legislation by Congress." United States v. Rands, 389 U.S. 121 (1967).

Personally, I believe the constitution is a failure and that the United States will not continue as a political entity throughout my lifetime.

That said, this is Pharaseeic logic. In English, when different ideas are presented in the same sentence it is assumed they are related. Further, understanding of words is essential to reading any older document.

To the modern liberal, "regulate" means to dictate every action as in the Old Testament. For example, don't eat pork. Mutilate your phallus. Eye for an eye and all that. See, one of the big things about Christianity was its attack on this mindset of legalism. So, we have lots of religious texts from that era that clearly discuss and never use the word "regulate" in this context. "To regulate" in the 18th century meant "to make regular", i.e. consistent.

The purpose of the law was to ensure that the many states didn't have their own various important/export regulations with foreign nations, including Indian tribes, and amongst each other.

[shiny!]

Re: On Liberty and Republic

Shake, we have more people in this country than we ever have. The key question is what responsibilities do we want the federal government to have and how do we fund these requirements. I think you have to look at the question in the total financial context of the country. States are in no better (arguably worse) fiscal shape than the federal government. Until you find a better way for states to fund themselves, shifting the balance back onto the "lowest level possible" remains a non-starter, even if it is desirable. We have GOT to find a way to sustainably fund the states and the federal government AND make sure that the requirements are valid and sustainable.

Propose a funding mechanism for states and how to fill their budget gaps, that's whats needed for a power transfer to be effected.

(Please note this was offered in general support of you premise, I'm just trying to lay out what is required to make it a reality).

Here's the solution:

You take away 80-90% of the pies the Federal government has their fingers in. Let the Federal goverment deal with the Military, Interstate commerce and highways, printing money (the Treasury should be doing this, not the Central Bank), and a few, very few other things.

When you take away 80-90% of the duties the Federal Government has taken upon itself, you also take away 80% of the federal taxes people have to pay. That money instead gets taxed on the State and Local levels.

With local control comes better transparency, more accountability, and much more efficient use of tax dollars.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: On Liberty and Republic

Here's the solution:

You take away 80-90% of the pies the Federal government has their fingers in.

You've got my vote. Are you running for President anytime soon?

[shiny!]

Re: On Liberty and Republic

You've got my vote. Are you running for President anytime soon?

I'm considering legally changing my name to "None Of The Above". Then all I have to do is get my name onto the ballots in all 50 states and it's a done deal.

Of course, my lifespan once I win will be about 15 minutes...

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: On Liberty and Republic

I'm considering ..

Dang, that could work ... for 15 minutes.

[DSpencer]

Re: On Liberty and Republic

No knives; just the Constitution.

It was a good rant, though, wasn't it?

I love how smug this comment is.

Does "just the constitution" include the supreme court ruling you cite as some kind of "proof" that the constitution says the federal government can do anything it wants?

There are those of us who believe that even the US Supreme Court is FAR from infallible. The Supreme Court could make a ruling that the Constitution says that the POTUS is our lord and savior. That doesn't make it true.

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Does the above mean that we can "regulate" Commerce with foreign nations the same way that it's regulated in the US? Can we force them to buy health insurance and fine them if they don't?

Are there any limits to the federal government's power? If not, then what is the point of the Constitution in the first place?