We don’t want no government — we want limited government, as the Founders intended, and the Bill of Rights dictates. We want a restoration of the lost 9th and 10th Amendments, and a reining in of the out-of-control interpretation of the Commerce Clause that has served to eviscerate them.
As I’ve noted in the past, when the left has no real arguments against our actual positions, they make up their own for us, and then kick them down. Of course, the headline of my piece from two years ago (which was not mine) wasn’t correct — it was a way to win the election in 2008. This year, not so much…
Rand,
[[[a reining in of the out-of-control interpretation of the Commerce Clause that has served to eviscerate them.]]]
The legal way to do this is by an amendment that clarifies it. So where is the Tea Party’s proposed amendment on it?
There exists another legal method.
where is the Tea Party’s proposed amendment on it?
First things first, and the first thing is to cut back on out of control spending.
The legal way to do this is by an amendment that clarifies it.
That’s what the Tenth Amendment was supposed to be – a redundant reiteration of the concept of enumerated powers. Is it even theoretically possible to write still another clarification which this time would be immune to more willful misinterpretation by legislators and judges? If not, then what’s necessary is not new amendments, it’s new legislators and judges. Moreover, trying to push through even a hypothetical loophole-free “Tenth Amendment, but this time we’re not kidding”, would end up being interpreted as a concession that such an amendment amended something.
On the other hand, maybe that would be better than nothing. The original debate over the Bill of Rights was between “there are no Constitutional powers listed which would enable violating these rights, and adding a redundant Bill of Rights might confuse that fact” vs. “the government is likely to try to unconstitutionally expand its powers anyway, and the more obstacles in its way the better”. It seems clear in hindsight that both sides were right.
roystgnr,
The problem is legislators and judges are always changing, but amendments, well worded, go beyond elections.
I think the problem was they didn’t have sufficient checks and balances between the citizenry and the government built into the Constitution. It needs to contain more personal liability for government officials, ex. treason includes violations of the Constitution. Get found by a jury to have violated the Constitution, get the death penalty.
That should prevent most meddlers from seeking office.
If you don’t like big government, you don’t want roads, firefighters, and teachers.
“roads” — mostly local
“firefighters” — local
“teachers” — local
Next, please.
Roads are local as well. Each section connected to sections local to other places.
The problem is people without honor. No written law can deal with that. It has to be dealt with by people that understand and are outraged by the actions of people without honor. This is why they focus on destroying education.
You know, it was after the Fed took over the educational system in this country that it went to shit in a shinebox. I managed to just escape the big dumb hand of Nanny Government, as I graduated in 1980. And I went to a real school and everything — we even had desks and windows! All without the Department of Education making sure everyone had a brand new mechanical pencil.
Didn’t finish — just imagine how many acres of homes and businesses would be smoking ash if the fed took over firefighting. “We’ll put out the fire as soon as you fill out forms A-114b.c and B-345-xyz.” As for the roads, only the interstate highway system is under federal control, because, duh, it goes through more than one state. Do you want Uncle Sam overseeing the little street you live on? What for?
I’m fine with no government too. To paraphrase Anita Dunn’s favorite philosopher, justice comes from the barrel of my gun. The sole de facto purpose of government is to shield the criminal class from the righteous wrath of the citizen, by various means, be it legitimization (the crooks becoming the government), civil rights for criminals, and “law enforcement” (i.e. criminals in the pay of government protecting other criminals) arresting and imprisoning criminals only to protect them from the citizenry, or even arresting and imprisoning citizens who stand up to criminals.
Um, are you guys sure that ^^^ isn’t sarcasm?
Hey, I want a pony. Turns out they have a federal program for that too.
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/wild_horse_and_burro.html
The problem is legislators and judges are always changing, but amendments, well worded, go beyond elections.
Unless the government that is elected, doesn’t have to respect the amendments.
The problem is legislators and judges are always changing, but amendments, well worded, go beyond elections.
The Constitution only means what five justices on the Supreme Court says it means. They’ve proven quite willing to ignore the Constitution when the mood suits them.
Andera,
[[[As for the roads, only the interstate highway system is under federal control, because, duh, it goes through more than one state.]]]
U.S. 50 is an Interstate? Who knew….