Reply
Sun 15 May, 2005 02:30 pm
Found this letter in the Eisenhower archives which references our current political state:
Quote:
November 8, 1954
Dear Ed: (1) (This would be Ed Eisenhower)
I think that such answer as I can give to your letter of November first will be arranged in reverse order--at least I shall comment first on your final paragraph.
You keep harping on the Constitution; I should like to point out that the meaning of the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. Consequently no powers are exercised by the Federal government except where such exercise is approved by the Supreme Court (lawyers) of the land.2
I admit that the Supreme Court has in the past made certain decisions in this general field that have been astonishing to me. A recent case in point was the decision in the Phillips case.3 Others, and older ones, involved "interstate commerce."4 But until some future Supreme Court decision denies the right and responsibility of the Federal government to do certain things, you cannot possibly remove them from the political activities of the Federal government.
Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this--in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
Eisenhower Papers
Interesting that that is exactly what is happening 50 years later. And, there are Hunt influences in this administration as well. This is one:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/11/19/national1638EST0735.DTL&type=printable
Anyone with a knowledge of Eisenhowers presidency, history of what was going on then?
this is good stuff, squinney. thanks for the heads up, i'll let you know if i find more in research.
i don't know that much about ike, other than the surface stuff like sending the first observers to vietnam and the "beware the military industrial complex" thing. but there are a few good ike pages on the net that get fairly deep.
so much info, so little time... :wink:
Waiting for Setanta or other history buffs.