AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

I exist.

None of us are 100% anything as we are all individuals and come from myriad life experiences. But yes, I am far more a classifical liberal than any other ideology. And those voices I mention are not 100% like me nor do they agree with me 100% of the time, but they do fairly represent my views the largest percentage of the time.

ican711nm wrote:
The federal government cannot lawfully expend taxes for activities that it is not granted the power by the Constitution to perform. The federal government expending taxes for such activities is unlawful.

cicerone imposter wtote:
Congress has the power to tax; your saying they don't doesn't mean anything. If you think they don't have the power, try stop paying your taxes, and report it to the IRS. Good luck.

~~ ~ !???! ~ ~~
~~~ (O|O) ~~~
...~~ ( O ) ~~...

Foxfyre wrote:

None of us are 100% anything as we are all individuals and come from myriad life experiences. But yes, I am far more a classifical liberal than any other ideology. And those voices I mention are not 100% like me nor do they agree with me 100% of the time, but they do fairly represent my views the largest percentage of the time.

Just noticed I didn't complete my thought here.

Going back to my opening post for this thread. It is because the politicians we have elected to represent us have chosen to be, as Gingrich described them, the right wing of big government which doesn't look a whole lot different than the left wing of big government that has cost them favor with all those 'voices' I mentioned and their very large number of listeners, watchers, and readers.

I honestly do believe there are far more of us than anybody imagines but we are largely invisible because the bulk of the media is so biased to the left and have successfully been able to marginalize us in the minds of their constituency. Also we have not selected a new leader as standard bearer. But give us a leader with the vision of a Gingrich and the charisma of a Perot, and I believe we will be a force to be reckoned with.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp
Madison No. 45
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

"The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."


http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed41.asp
Madison No. 41
"Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms to raise money for the general welfare.

''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars."

But those voices out there--to differing degrees, Sowell, Williams, Shelby Steele, Medved, Limbaugh, Hannity, Lavin, O'Reilly, Malkin, Krauthammer, Elder--many others--you know, all those guys and gals that those on the left love to hate--between them have a huge following. And for the most part they are speaking with pretty much one voice promoting classical liberalism that we have affectionately dubbed MAC to distinguish that from modern American liberalism.

There are differences of opinion between all those mentioned (and everybody else), but Krauthammer, Steele, and Sowell nevertheless speak with motly the same voice as those you choose to despise mostly speak. I think you are simply less familiar with them because they write rather than express their views on the radio.

Well, CI is correct; Congress obviously does have the power to do this, b/c they are doing it. Your arguments are not necessarily contradictory.

Your assumption that our country could not evolve past the foundational principles is a little odd; nothing is static. The founders could not anticipate all situations which followed after their time.

(1) Congress does not have the legal power to expend taxes for activities that it is not granted the power by the Constitution to perform.

Also, when you use such adjectives to describe these people, I doubt seriously you have spent any serious time listening to any of them at all though I don't doubt that you have at least heard some of them now and then.