AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

FOUR OF OBAMA'S VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW
(1) Obama is transfering wealth from those who have lawfully earned it to those who have not lawfully earned it.
(2) Obama is trying to deny corporate bond holders of bankrupt corporations their full equity in those bonds, BEFORE distributing corporate assets to any other corporate persons including employees.
(3) Obama is refusing to allow many corporate receivers of federal loans to pay back those loans before he permits them to.
(4) Obama is forcing selected car dealers to close their businesses.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Are "we more disposed to suffer, while [Obama's] evils are sufferable, than to right" ourselves by removing Obama from office, while the cost to accomplish that objective remains relatively low?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

(2) Obama is trying to deny corporate bond holders of bankrupt corporations their full equity in those bonds, BEFORE distributing corporate assets to any other corporate persons including employees.
(3) Obama is refusing to allow many corporate receivers of federal loans to pay back those loans before he permits them to.

Ican, can you quote the laws - specifically, don't quote the general Constitution to me - that make these actions illegal? Especially number three.

Quote:

(4) Obama is forcing selected car dealers to close their businesses.

I don't think you can prove that this is true in the slightest.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Once again, Cyclotroll is wrong.

1 Reply

@Yankee,

Yankee wrote:

Quote:
As for Constitutional authority, I believe government should be limited in that respect; but I also believe that the Constitution has always been and will remain subject to interpretation, for two reasons:

1, there are natural differences in interpretation from those with different backgrounds, and at different historical points, different interpretations hold sway; this is natural and should not be looked on as a bad thing, and

2, situations arise for which we need to display flexibility, not rigidity.

I disagree with both 1 and 2.

No, I'm quite sure you don't.

Frankly, I'd be shocked if any self-styled conservative actually disagreed, in practice, with the notion that the constitution is a "living document." Perhaps there are a few cranks and crackpots out there who think that the constitution should be frozen in the late eighteenth century, but then that's why they're considered to be cranks and crackpots.

But, as a test, just ask your conservative friends the following:

--Should the definition of "arms" in the second amendment be confined solely to weapons as they existed in 1791?
--Should television and radio broadcasters enjoy the same freedoms as the "press" under the first amendment?
--Should conversations be protected from warrantless electronic eavesdropping under the fourth amendment?
--Would imposition of the death penalty for theft violate the "cruel and unusual" provisions of the eighth amendment?

In addressing these and other questions, it's simply amazing to discover just how much conservatives really believe in the "living constitution" approach to constitutional interpretation.

2 Replies

@Yankee,

Yankee wrote:

Quote:
As for Constitutional authority, I believe government should be limited in that respect; but I also believe that the Constitution has always been and will remain subject to interpretation, for two reasons:

1, there are natural differences in interpretation from those with different backgrounds, and at different historical points, different interpretations hold sway; this is natural and should not be looked on as a bad thing, and

2, situations arise for which we need to display flexibility, not rigidity.

I disagree with both 1 and 2.

While this Govt in the past has made, in my view, errors in the interpretation of the Constitution, if we read the Bill literally, there would be freedom of and liberty for ALL citizens. Justice must be BLIND and administered equally to ALL citizens.

I don't understand how you can disagree with 2. Are you saying that situations don't arise where flexibility is needed? Surely not if you mean to be taken seriously.

As for your disagreement with 1, I'm not sure how what you said illustrates disagreement here.

yankee wrote:

There should not be certain "rules " for one "class" of citizens as opposed to another "class" of citizens.

Yeah, sure. Easily said, but put your money where your mouth is. When you have school districts gerrymandered to segregate poorer and typically minority groups away from the children of affluent society, then under fund the poor school then expect the same standards, we are creating different rules. If law and policy can be used to make things uneven, it can be used to attempt to balance it too.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

Once again, Cy is wrong.

I scanned, read and reread your lengthy dissertation looking for your reasons, but they seem to have eluded me. You likely just wanted to get the word out, kind of like a headline and your reasons are soon to follow in another posting. I can't wait to hear you explain why.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

No, I'm quite sure you don't.

Umm.... I think I am more expert on my views and opinions than you.

The beauty in the way the Constitution was written was that it provided for the natural change in "technology" as it may relate to the 2nd amendment. That is what Legislation is for, to fill gaps that the Constitution may fail to fill.

Without going point by point in your response, in my humble opinion, the Constitution provides the framework to provide rights and liberties to ALL.

Our legislators are able to build off the foundation the Constitution creates without changing the fundamental rights and liberties provided.

Gun legislation is 1 example.

4 Replies

@Yankee,

Quote:

There should not be certain "rules " for one "class" of citizens as opposed to another "class" of citizens.

But that is entirely open to interpretation.

Which scenario results in the same for everyone?

Everyone pays $10,000 in taxes
Everyone pays 10% of income in taxes
Everyone is left with $50,000 after they pay taxes.

The idea that the rules are the same is hard to define since people are not the same. The ideal is there but how it is applied is something else.

2 Replies

@Yankee,

Quote:

The beauty in the way the Constitution was written was that it provided for the natural change in "technology" as it may relate to the 2nd amendment. That is what Legislation is for, to fill gaps that the Constitution may fail to fill.

Isn't that what you just said you didn't agree with?

0 Replies

@parados,

The application of justice and the rule of law must be applied equally in every circumstance to all citizens.

Taxation and any equity of property is really not part of this discussion.

1 Reply

@Yankee,

Yankee wrote:

Quote:
No, I'm quite sure you don't.

Umm.... I think I am more expert on my views and opinions than you.

You'd think that, wouldn't you? Still, you're wrong.

Yankee wrote:

The beauty in the way the Constitution was written was that it provided for the natural change in "technology" as it may relate to the 2nd amendment. That is what Legislation is for, to fill gaps that the Constitution may fail to fill.

As Parados has already pointed out, you're contradicting yourself here. But that's not surprising. As I mentioned in my post, most conservatives claim to be strict constructionists but actually follow a pretty standard "living constitution" interpretation.

Yankee wrote:

Without going point by point in your response, in my humble opinion, the Constitution provides the framework to provide rights and liberties to ALL.

Our legislators are able to build off the foundation the Constitution creates without changing the fundamental rights and liberties provided.

Gun legislation is 1 example.

Yep, I was right: you're a strict "living constitutionalist" through and through.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

you're a strict "living constitutionalist" through and through.

What would Ican be?

1 Reply

@Yankee,

What are tax laws if not laws? How can tax laws force compliance without the rule of law?

I am unclear how you think some laws are not laws.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Yes, I do think I am more expert on my opinions than you.

Do you disagree with the basic premise that justice and the rule of law must be disbursed equally to all citizens?

You can twist my words anyway you want to fit your personal point of view, I suppose, if that makes you happy.

2 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
you're a strict "living constitutionalist" through and through.

What would Ican be?

A crank.

0 Replies

@Yankee,

I don't think anyone is "twisting your words" Yankee. We took them as if they meant what you said.

The problem is that your first statement is contradictory to what you said later. We could have misinterpreted your meaning but we only had your words to rely upon to try to ascertain what you meant. Your words certainly didn't reflect what you later said is your stance.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Okay, instead of a list of people who have a problem with me as some kind of proof, let's put it to a test Parados. Would you agree that the Federal goverment should be small, efficient, effective, but limited to its Constitutional authority? Or do you agree with the President that the Federal government should be much bigger with more authority and much more involved in those things affecting the people? Please state three specific reasons that can be historically supported for your answer.

I'll answer, for fun.

I do not believe the purpose of government is Efficiency, and that shouldn't be a top goal of government. Rather, the purpose of government is Redundancy.

I support a government which increases in size in proportion to the increase in population, in order to provide the same level of service for more people. Therefore I expect government to continue to grow as long as the country does, it's only natural.

As for Constitutional authority, I believe government should be limited in that respect; but I also believe that the Constitution has always been and will remain subject to interpretation, for two reasons:

1, there are natural differences in interpretation from those with different backgrounds, and at different historical points, different interpretations hold sway; this is natural and should not be looked on as a bad thing, and

2, situations arise for which we need to display flexibility, not rigidity.

Cycloptichorn

Thank you for the response but while you provided some reasonable points, you really didn't address or answer the question which doesn't lend itself to rewriting but is rather specific. I did amend it a bit to adjust to Parados's complaint, but he still refused to answer it. (As it was not a leading question at all, but provided multiple choices with enough wiggle room in each to accommodate most folks, I translate 'won't' to 'can't' in his case.)

Remember the exercise is an experiment to test a theory as to whether those who classify themselves as 'liberal' are able to articulate a specific rationale to their opinion of an issue.

Here is the question again:

Do you favor a Federal government that is small, efficient, and effective but restricted much more closely to its Constitutionally mandated authority/responsibility or do you favor the President's initiatives to greatly increase the size, scope, and involvement of the Federal government? (I would accept a third option that you favor neither, but would still like to know why.)

Please provide three (or more) historically supported reasons for your answer.

2 Replies

@parados,

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

SO now the Legislature has the authority to establish HOW those taxes are to be levied and collected, at what rates, define what is income, etc....

The Constitution does not drive the tax system. The Constitution just provides the Congress to lay and collect.

So from a premise of equal justice under law, all citizens income is subject to taxes.

I apologize if I was not clear earlier.

0 Replies

@Yankee,

Yankee wrote:

Yes, I do think I am more expert on my opinions than you.

And I can understand why you'd make that mistake.

Yankee wrote:

Do you disagree with the basic premise that justice and the rule of law must be disbursed equally to all citizens?

Well, I'm not sure that justice is ever "disbursed," but certainly I agree that equality under the law is a fundamental principle of American jurisprudence.

Yankee wrote:

You can twist my words anyway you want to fit your personal point of view, I suppose, if that makes you happy.

No twisting needed. And yes, I am happy. Thanks for caring.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Thank you for the response but it really didn't answer the question, which doesn't lend itself to rewriting but is rather specific. I did amend it a bit to adjust to Parados's complaint, but he still refused to answer it. (As it was not a leading question at all, but provided multiple choices with enough wiggle room in each to accommodate most folks, I translate 'won't' to 'can't' in his case.)

Thanks for playing the ad hominem game Fox. You play it very well.

Your revision did NOT address the issues I raised. I did answer it by pointing out that I am all for a government that follows the constitution. That is an answer. It just isn't one you want to deal with it seems. I listed 3 things in my first post that historically support my constitutional requirement. You even agreed with me in that "general welfare" is allowed under the constitution. You failed to address the issue of "general welfare" doesn't have to benefit everyone equally to apply under the constitution.

So, to recap my argument which YOU ignored. Interstate highways are allowed under the general welfare clause but don't benefit everyone equally since those that don't have a car won't use them. That leaves the government free to implement things under "general welfare" even if all don't benefit equally.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know