Comments Posted By John Galt
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 38 Comments
INTELLECTUAL CONSERVATISM ISN'T DEAD: MAINTAINING A CONSISTENT PHILOSOPHY
"THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER. Everything about our system is designed to allow for that."
BS. This sounds exactly like "1984". Great quote from that book...it goes something like this..."Freedom is the ability to say 2+2=4". Well, if your the gov't, in your wolrdview, 2+2=5 and there is nothing the individual can say to deny that. The gov't tells you what truth is.
Very dangerous philosophy. This is what lawyers bring to society.
Comment Posted By John Galt On 16.10.2009 @ 06:16
I say it here and lo and behold, the "compelling interest" bullshit is beginning to appear in bills attacking the 1st amendment...
http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/15/could-politically-incorrect-sp
Comment Posted By John Galt On 15.10.2009 @ 21:25
I'm amazed that one might believe its ok for the Constitution to be trashed because the government has a "compelling interest". If the 14th's "equal protection under the law" is DISREGARDED because of "compelling interest", then surely other amendments can be DISREGARDED as well.
Gee, that's great. Hmm. I'm betting Obama has a "compelling interest" to not allow negative "news" or "opinion" concerning Obamacare. So, by yours (and O'Connor's) opinion, its ok to disregard the 1st amendment. After all, its compelling.
Brilliant.
I'd suggest simply reading the Constitution oneself and discovering what it means. Its quite an easy read. One doesn't need a robed master to tell you what it should mean.
Comment Posted By John Galt On 15.10.2009 @ 19:50
Actually, I forgot one thing about the Interstate System.
In every 5 miles of Interstate, it is required that 1 mile of it be straight. Why? So that military aircraft can use them for runways. So, in a time of war, our interstates could be turned into airports if need be. Makes it difficult for the enemy to bomb our airports and reach air supremacy. So not only are the interstates quite possibly the greatest legitimate use of interstate commerce, they also could very well be the greatest use of true defense.
Comment Posted By John Galt On 14.10.2009 @ 10:01
@busboy33
For the most part, yes, those agencies should be abolished. What is the Commerce Clause? The Constitution says Congress can "regulate interstate commerce". What did this mean at the time the Constitution was enacted? "To regulate" meant "to make ready", "to facilitate", etc. Congress was to ensure commerce (trade) flowed between the states. States could not hoard something or use "predatory" tactics to harm other states. Dispute me if you can, but history, the constitutional debates, and the Federalists papers are all clear. Lets go into specifics...
The FAA -- as noted in other discussions, the FAA is actually a very reasonable dept based on the original founder's few. Air Travel is HUGE for interstate commerce, therefore it's prudent for the US Gov't to do what it can to ensure air travel remains open.
Nuclear Regulatory Agency -- possibly the most effective dept ever as we don't build Nuke plants anymore. Brilliant. This dept has been so great that we have had to increase our dependence on all those other dirty fuels. If we didn't have these depts, I'd bet over 80% of our electrical energy would come from clean uranium and our "carbon footprint" would be next to nothing. No conservative would ever stand for reversing global warming now would they. So, yes, do away with it. Jane Fonda's movie was bullshit. We should have Nuke plants on every corner. Only the agencies stand in the way. Energy companies have a vested interest on making their plants safe. Plus, if a plant is made in one state AND an individual is purchasing energy in that same state, the federal gov't should have nothing to do with it. The Fed could potentially have a say in a different states citizens purchasing power from it tho. But why? There is no need and its Constitutionality is very suspect.
FDA -- aside from a couple of true successes in the early years, the FDA is basically just greatly increasing the costs and time it takes to get beneficial drugs on the market. Their decisions these days come more from political calculations then medical merit. Since the FDA seems to "hinder" trade of drugs, I fail to see how it is good for interstate commerce. Sure, it has had success in protecting the public in the past (thalidomide), but it sure looks like its just on overbloated bureaucracy slowing things down today. Drug companies have a vested interest in created safe, effective drugs. The FDA isn't needed AND isn't Constitutional anyway.
Interstate Highways -- I can't think of anything that epitomizes readying interstate commerce more than the Interstate Highway System. Nothing has ever been done by the Fed Gov't to increase trade more than the interstates. I'm surprised you think this is an expansive reading of the commerce clause. Its as direct as you can get. Not to mention that the interstate system was really passed on its use for the military in a time of war. The military would take over the highways and use them if we were attacked. That usage isn't as relevant today since air mobility is king, but it still would be used for defense purposes if the need arises. No constitutionality issue whatsoever, no expansive reading of the commerce clause on this one.
So, any other agencies you wish to discuss relating the commerce clause
Comment Posted By John Galt On 14.10.2009 @ 09:52
CAN THE GOP HELP GOVERN WHILE IN THE MINORITY?
I don't advocate putting "ALL" federal laws into the Constitution. That is not the intent. I only state putting federal "Powers" into it which is the intent of the Constitution. The Constitution is nothing more than an organizing document that describes the relationship between the federal gov't, the states, and the people. It is the by-laws of the nation. Implementation of those by-laws are contained in the federal codes. New powers are granted only thru Amendments.
I know you like to bring up the point of Congress not being able to legislate against speech (ref Flag Burning). But why? If the 10th Amendment is meaningless, why is the 1st untouchable? or the 2nd, 4th, 5th, et al. Sooner or later (i'm betting on sooner), someone will come up with the argument that criticism of the gov't is bad for the country, it will get congressional political support (from the statists), and Congress (and the Prez) will enact a law saying its in the interest of the gov't to ban this type of criticism. SCOTUS case law (look at O'Connor's majority opinion in the Michigan university's affirmative action case it totally disregards the 14th amendment) will show that "if it is in the gov't interest, then it can be done". Similar case law exists per the abominable Kelo decision. After all, the 1st Amendment was written over 200 years ago, surely it has no relevance in today's 330 million pop industrialized society.
If the Constitutional text is merely a suggestion, there is no Constitution. That's where the debate in society should be. Should our nation abandon it outright and simply rely on the goodness of our dear leaders to do the right thing? Lets see how well that goes down in society. Instead, our "leaders" simply usurp the power saying it is for the good.
I stand on the side of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution in all its glory and faults.
I don't see how the FAA was absolutely necessary to ensure safety of aircraft. If air travel isn't safe, manufactures and airlines wouldn't make any money, so they have a vested interest in making it safe. But, like I said, the FAA is directly related to interstate commerce, something that Congress has the authority to maintain in order to keep trade flowing between the states. Therefore the FAA is not an unconstitutional usurpation.
SS is unconstitutional however. Yes, abandoning it would harm those who were FORCED to rely on it. So, abandon it for anyone who wishes to keep the extra 12% of their income and for any future generations. Pay for it out of general funds (as is done anyway). Yeah, it will put some extra cost for a time, but better to head off the inevitable future train wreck as the system becomes more and more unsustainable. Plus the extra 12% income in folks pockets (or for the folks to invest for their retirement as responsible folks should do) will spur on investment in this nation and lead to growth, much like 401k's did when they started in the 80s. That extra growth (and inevitable tax revenue) will offset much of the lost revenue due to diminished FICA returns.
Comment Posted By John Galt On 13.10.2009 @ 12:05
By your same logic, if the SCOTUS reaches a decision that is blatantly incorrect, and I can think of many, who is to stop them? It is the system of checks and balances built in to the system. All branches of gov't a supposed to be following the Constitution and can deem an act unconstitutional by using their own inherent powers to correct the situation. The SCOTUS is only the highest of the federal court system. It is the supreme arbiter of those issues stated in Article III or any other issue deemed in its jurisdiction by Congress. Congress and the Prez did not make a jurisdictional law saying the court is supreme on the Constitution. On "constitutional" issues, again, all 3 branches are equal (by design anyway). It is not within the powers of the 3 branches to simply decide the court can be "supreme" in those matters. That would take an amendment and be decided by the states. As far as Congress and the President overstepping their bounds, they can be easily voted out or are term limited. SCOTUS...not so much. Politics in Congress would prevent attempts at impeaching SCOTUS judges.
Yes, states were supposed to be creating military officers and the fed was supposed to "raise" the army grunts. It worked for the North during the Civil War. And yes, a Constitutional Amendment should have been put forth for federal military academies creating officers. I'd bet that Amendment would have passed unanimously. The Constitution does not prohibit a standing army (the framers did not invision one tho), it only declares funding for it can only be appropriated for 2 years at a time. Congress simply votes in new money for it each year. No constitutional issue whatsoever. If Congress fails to fund, the army does not get paid, and we therefore have no more army. Oh, and you dont think Patronage, Cronyism, graft, etc occur in the military now? Congress approves promotions of generals after all.
On your concerns...
a) The Dept of Energy, Education, Social Security, are unconstitutional. Education has gotten worse and more expensive since the fed got involved (just look at education funding, adjusted for inflation, and test scores since the fed got involved. Graphs do exist.) Dept of Energy was created to end dependence on foreign oil, but they have done nothing since their inception and our dependence has increased. They are simply a black hole sucking in money. Social Security is a bankrupt ponzi scheme. I'd prefer to keep the 12.5% or so of my income put into it myself. I'd get a better return putting it in the bank or stuffing it in my mattress. The FAA is a slightly different issue since that is directly related to interstate commerce and opening trade between the states. The airline industry started its life without the FAA, and I would bet they have a vested interest in making their planes safe, even without an FAA.
b) my answer isn't yes.
c) no SS means more income at retirement for people that work during their lives. For people that don't work, well, I'm not here to provide them a free ride thru life or to provide for those that are irresponsible. No Education Dept means the states and municipalities do what they did for 200 years and handle it all themselves when we were the world leaders in education, manufacturing, research, well, just about everything. No Energy Dept means lower prices everywhere since the gov isn't taxing for this Dept that has done absolutely nothing it was founded to do.
On a general note about various agencies you deem necessary...why not put them into amendments before they were created? It is what was meant to happen. I'd bet 3/4 of the states would agree to many of the functions that exist. Others, they may not tho. That's the way it should be. We would not devolve into complete anarchy if the fed was stripped of the unconstitutional powers it has usurped. There would be a rough ride for a short time. States still have power and were meant to have more "control" of its citizens then the fed. The fed is there, basically, to protect the union of States. The framers intended the nation to be as close to anarchy as possible, without going into chaos. I don't believe the health care system is "chaos" since 85% of the folks are completely satisfied with what they get and half of the remaining don't want insurance. Out of curiousity, slavery was known since the founding of the nation to be wrong. It was not prohibited at first in order to maintain the union during the Revolution. After the Civil War, what did we do? Did Congress simply make slavery, an obvious wrong, illegal??? No, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were enacted to right those wrongs. Congress didn't simply usurp power in order to ban it. The nation needs to get back on this track or there is no freedom, only Tyranny. Government, by definition, is the polar opposite of Liberty. Gov't needs to be minimal and defined. It does not get powers unless we, the people, give it to them. And in our framework, that process is by Amendments. Anyone that does not think the Amendment process is needed for extra Federal powers, does not believe in the Constitution and its constraints. We might as well not even have a Constitution.
Comment Posted By John Galt On 13.10.2009 @ 06:13
@busboy33
One other thing on your belief in the supremacy of SCOTUS...
Congress (and the Prez) determine the jurisdiction of the federal court system. Any issue not directly stated in Article III as being the realm of the Federal Judiciary (Article III is the entire Judiciary, not just SCOTUS), is subject to being deemed out of bounds by ANY Federal Court review and there is nothing SCOTUS can do about it.
Supreme my ass.
Comment Posted By John Galt On 12.10.2009 @ 21:01
@busboy33
Then point to me where in the Constitution it says that the SCOTUS is the supreme decider on the constitutionality of an act. You can't. They just assumed it in Marbury v Madison. If the SCOTUS was intended to be the supreme in this, then we are ruled by 9 individuals instead of governed by 535 and an executive. That was not the intent of the Framers. I know reality. I know how things work today. That does not make it right, nor should it be an excuse to allow an unconstitutional power grabs to continue to occur.
If the SCOTUS is supreme, how do they enforce their rulings? SCOTUS has no arms. None at all. They don't direct the justice department, the military, or any other arm of the government. All they do is release an opinion. What if the Prez decided not to enforce? Is the Prez wrong? What if Congress decided to continue funding an act deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS, with the signature of the Prez? Can SCOTUS do anything about it? How do they enforce? I see nothing in Article III that gives any enforcement powers to SCOTUS. Therefore, it is easy to see that all branches of the gov't are EQUAL in determining constitutionality, regardless of Marbury v Madison or your law professor.
The States created the Federal Gov't and gave it defined, limited powers. I would expect that would be obvious to anyone with a remote grasp of history. It is not within the scope of the Fed to simply take more when it deems it must, no matter how "good" the intentions might be. The states, and the people, must give it the power thru amendments. The States were supposed to be experimenting with different forms of governing. This brings out competition between them to, hopefully, find the best way to govern. Wouldn't it be nice to have 50 different (or 57 if you're Obama) methods of health care "reform" to see what works best instead of only 1 all encompassing madness imposed by the oligarchy of the Federal Gov't? Simply saying that its been done a certain way for 100 years or so is meaningless if one believes the Constitution is the basis of nation based in freedom(which it is). The Constitution was written in plain English so that it is easily understood by the common man. It doesn't take a lawyer or, ahem, a professor to figure it out. Its all there in simple English. That is its beauty. If the wording of the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, is not followed, how is there any law at all? Any "laws" would be subject to the will of man and change according to man's whims. That is no longer a nation based in Liberty, but one of Tyranny.
You bring up the Air Force. That's a reasonably valid point. OK, I'll just rename the Air Force to be the Army Air Corps (sounds familiar for some reason). The Constitution, and the Framers, did not intend for there to be a standing Army, that is true and its a reasonable debate to say having our standing army be declared unconstitutional. However, Congress can fund the army for a period of up to 2 years by a single act, and they can repeat that funding every year (or 2 years) if they deem fit per Article 1 Section 8.
The Framers intended the Constitution to be adaptable. OF COURSE!!! But not just by simply "interpreting" a power. It was adaptable by the Amendment process only. You want to give the Federal Gov't more power, amend the Constitution. It seems people always forget about that. The Amendment process is there to ensure the support a vast array of people. A simple majority in Congress does not ensure the vast support of the people (as the bailouts, "stimulus", amnesty, health care, etc make abundantly clear).
One other point, since you disagree with me on the General Welfare clause, there is another aspect of that clause that says that "all duties...shall be uniform throughout the United States". Shouldn't that mean that income taxes should be the same for everybody and that the progressive tax system in unconstitutional, seeing that the 16th Amendment doesn't alter this clause? Now, don't just pick and choose the things you want to follow in the Constitution.
Comment Posted By John Galt On 12.10.2009 @ 20:43
@busboy33
One more thing...
If "promoting the general welfare" was meant to be an actual enumerated power, then, no other power needed to be listed in the Constitution itself. That one statement would have covered everything that proceeded it and nothing else would need to have been written to "define" the powers of congress. If that is true, Congress would have been no different than King George III, who famously said...
"I only desire what is good, therefore, anyone who disagrees with me is a traitor."
Comment Posted By John Galt On 12.10.2009 @ 17:08
