After getting back this morning from a business meeting and setting up quiet time for the kids, I started my daily task of clicking through my internet list of new outlets. I came across this link on the Drudge Report: Paper: Will Washington's Failures Lead to Second American Revolution? (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/542171/201007301830/Will-Washingtons-Failures-Lead-To-Second-American-Revolution-.aspx). The article is written by Ernest Christian and Gary Robbins and discussed if changes by the current regime are doing "more harm than good" and if "Too many overreaching laws give the president too much discretion to make too many open-ended rules controlling too many aspects of our lives." While the article does call out, briefly, President Clinton and G W Bush it evokes a warning that President George Washington had in his farewell address in regards to public credit and the revenue source from which it is paid back. So I looked up President Washington's farewell address to gain some context, especially after the recent dust up with words being said not in full context leading to knee jerk reactions, and read firsthand the thoughts of our first US Constitutional President.
Here is a link to the entire address: http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html . The consideration made in the article, by Christian and Robbins, was if Obamcare through it's "insidiously powerful" new rules and regulations; the Dodd-Frank power grab that will allow the President to "control all credit and financial transactions, rewarding friends and punishing opponents, discriminating on the basis of race, gender and political affiliation"; or the attempts by the Obama administration and the EPA "to impose by "regulatory" fiats many parts of the cap-and-trade and other climate legislation…" will lead to a "Second American Revolution." While I believe armed insurrection is a thing of the past in the United States, a sentiment among the populous may be gaining strength. The catalyst of how strong the populous movements of the Coffee and Tea Parties become lie in the decision Congress makes in regards to the expiring Bush tax cuts.
In President Washington's farewell speech he warned:
As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is, to use it as sparingly as possible; avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts, which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen, which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue; that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.
A friend of mine on Facebook recently posted an article that was spurned from Governor Tim Pawlenty's statement, "I don't think the argument can be credibly made that the United States of America is undertaxed compared to our competitors" (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/29/tim-pawlenty/tim-pawlenty-says-us-not-undertaxed-compared-its-c/). To which the article posted pointed out that in a sample graph in 2007, established by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), compared the United States overall tax burden to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and ranked us with 30 other OECD countries. The results were, in 2007, the United States overall tax burden was 28% of GDP and the average of the 30 OECD countries is 36%. The authors of the article did talk to several experts to gain their take and they cautioned interpreting the results as it does not paint a complete picture without taking into consideration deficits of the countries. As William Ahern, the director of policy and communications at the Tax Foundation, cautioned about solely drawing a conclusion from the OECD chart that, "a country with a low tax-to-GDP ratio may have a substantial deficit, and in time, that deficit will put upward pressure on taxes."
Since Obama has taken office, and one can even go back to Bush's term, America has increased the deficit percentage in regards to GDP substantially. The Congressional Budget Office reports that, "Over the past few years, U.S. government debt held by the public has grown rapidly—to the point that, compared with the total output of the economy, it is now higher than it has ever been except during the period around World War II. The recent increase in debt has been the result of three sets of factors: an imbalance between federal revenues and spending that predates the recession and the recent turmoil in financial markets, sharply lower revenues and elevated spending that derive directly from those economic conditions, and the costs of various federal policies implemented in response to the conditions. (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=116590). This is precisely what President Washington was warning us about. Our elected officials need to "cherish public credit" and understand that "to have Revenue there must be taxes" to abuse these tenets, as we have seen over the past 10 years, is an "inconvenient and unpleasant" assault on our peace, prosperities and freedoms.
Could we see a Second American Revolution? Has the ruling class embedded themselves in far enough that the only method of removal is by force? Does the current oligarchy of political power preclude Americans from making transformative decisions at the ballot box?
Well, I'm glad to see you aren't reading any articles that express bias in their use of language.
ReplyDeleteUm yeah, and articles that don't contain any broad, unfounded or factually inaccurate statements. Oh wait, "he and his agents will control all credit and financial transactions". Never mind.
ReplyDeleteI realize that the article was cited as the starting point for a discussion, but it's so far off the deep end that there's little to no hope of the conversation being based in reality. That's right, I'm giving up before I've even begun.
Is the trouble that the Investor.com article was posted on Drudge Report or is it with Investor.com? It amazes me that Progressives get turned off by certain words.
ReplyDeleteAnon- tell me one unbias news outlet or website. I routinely look at MSNBC, CNN, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, Star Tribune, Drudge, Fox News, Salon, Huffington Post, Daily Caller, Der Spiegel and The Telegraph. So, do not attempt to pigeon-hole my use of Investor.com.
Clark - what is broad, unfounded, and factually inaccurate statements via the Investor.com article or other citation in my blog?
Viper, I think the previous Anonymous and Clark tuned out once they saw Drudge Report which is unfortunate as the Investor.com is the actual site that you pulled the article from. I wonder if they'd have the same opinion if you were on Media Matters and pull the Investor.com link.
ReplyDeleteSecond Anon, you're wrong. I did not tune out when I saw The Drudge Report because I never saw that. The link went directly to investor.com. I'm generally willing to give any story a fair shake no matter what the source. For me, it's the content that matters.
ReplyDeleteViper, who is the Progressive that got turned off by certain words?
The quote that I provided is factually inaccurate.
For someone with a supposed open mind and goal of advancing the debate, you seem awfully quick to label someone simply for having a different take. Is it only progressives that would disagree with that article? Not moderates or independents? What difference does it make when there is substance to the disagreement, like Clark provided?(and I suspect he can add more things he finds offbase)
ReplyDeleteFirst anon here. The issue I took was similar to Clark, and the same quote is what struck me. "...he and his agents will control all credit and financial transactions". What an absurd statement based in nothing but rhetoric with the intent of spreading a demagogic message.
ReplyDeleteWhat bothers me most though is the palpable feeling I get from many of my fellow conservatives actually seem to desire a "revolution". These armchair generals and chicken hawks seem to forget that the last civil war engulfed most of this nation and spilled more blood than all other wars we've fought combined.
Perhaps they ought to enlist and see what war really is before they contemplate fommenting revolution.
It was asked why I pegged Frist Anonymous as a Progressive. I do so by the comment made "Well, I'm glad to see you aren't reading any articles that express bias in their use of language" since I acknowledged that I pulled the Investor.com article from Drudge.
ReplyDeleteAs to Clark, did I use their "he and his agents will control all credit and financial transactions" as part of my conversation? No. An agruement can be made that control of both transactions could be under the control of the Federal Government since the bill does not state specifically; rather it states general terms in which other agencies are to enact reform. So the door is open for more government control.
Anon that posted "For someone with a supposed open mind and goal of advancing the debate, you seem awfully quick to label someone simply for having a different take" as I stated above the shot at the entry was the use of bias articles. I have not vetted Investor.com completely but from what I have learned they are a respected site for financial matters. So, when I see that someone is blasted a citation as bias and I predicated it with being found on the Drudge Report I draw the conclusion I did.
Can a moderate, independent or Conservative disagree with that article or what I wrote; yes.
So because I called out the article as using inflamatory and sensationalist language I'm a progressive? Personally, I couldn't care if the source is MSNBC, Fox, Drudge or the Huntington Post - the article wasn't a journalist informing, it was a pundit enflaming.
ReplyDeleteSo to use it as a foundation for discussion seems moot because the source is not credible.
Anonymous - I took your critique based upon the Drudge lead in and not that actual article. I do agree that some of the language used within the Investor.com article is a bit sensationalized and reaching. I did choose to ignore those aspects when composing my blog.
ReplyDeleteThe bigger message is the warning by George Washington and the responsibility that Congress and the White House when dealing with public credit and the subsequent revenue stream. While I agree that revolution action may not take on violence, I do contend that with the ground swell of the Tea and Coffee Parties is evidence of a revolution in its infancy.
The reason for these grassroot Parties is a result of an overreaching government, increase deficit spending and the looming tax hikes for all Americans. I did have a challenge made of me on Facebook as to how such a revolution be played out and what the end goal may look like. I am in the process of composing such blog entry.
"I do contend that with the ground swell of the Tea and Coffee Parties is evidence of a revolution in its infancy."
ReplyDeleteThat's more a pipe dream sensationalized by the press than reality. The tea party has more infighting than the democrats and is slowly being usurped by the republicans. After November, I highly doubt there will be a true tea party anymore because to be a party you must be independent and field independent candidates. With the Tea party clearly aligned behind republicans, it's hardly a revolution as much as an expression of the radicalized base within the republican party.
This is most evident based upon the fact that the Tea party, which is supposedly about smaller government spending, supports republicans in the face of their spending record since 1980. At least historically democrats have paid for what they spend with tax hikes.
Republicans don't, as Dick Cheney poiniantly made clear when he said "deficits don't matter".
Anonymous - I would not say it is a pipe dream, we will have to see what takes place after the 2010 Mid-terms. Which Tea Party backed candidates have a republican spending record? What I am aware of, the Tea Party has been backing new people into the machine. It is natural for them to go through the Republican party as that is where most of the Conservatives exist.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think that the Republican Party has established a caucus and co-opted the Tea Party? They are trying to qwell the revolution.
Viper, you not only included the link to the article, you also used it as part of your post. I pointed out in my first comment that you use the article as a starting point for a discussion. It's not where I would have started, but that's just me. You included the link for a reason. You included excerpts for a reason.
ReplyDeleteYou could have just as easily said that you read something regarding George Washington's comments on public credit in his farewell address and gone from there. The investor's article was not necessary.
And sure, "an argument can be made", but does that mean it should be made? Does that mean it is a credible, factual, reasonable argument? No.
Why are executive orders now called "Obama-made fiats"?
"Which Tea Party backed candidates have a republican spending record?"
ReplyDeleteSarah Palin, arguably a leader in the Tea party has endorsed John McCain. Are you arguing he's not got a republican spending record? And I don't see co-opting the revolution as much as using it to mobilize their aging and politically isolated base.
"And sure, "an argument can be made", but does that mean it should be made? Does that mean it is a credible, factual, reasonable argument? No."
Agreed, simply using GWashington's statements would have been a much more compelling argument.
Clark - of course I used the article to start my post and cited as well so people can see the entire article if they choose as it has been asserted in the past that context of my usage may be suspect.
ReplyDeleteLet's face it Obama is getting some unprecedented leeway with executive orders as bills are being passed with no specific legislative language as to what the bill entails. Instead we see in Obamacare and the Financial reform bill, more in the financial reform bill, open ended blank memos for different agencies, current and new, to make regulatory reforms at the behest of the President. I think the executive order should be restricted to is real intention and not make policy as it has been done since President's realized it's potential.
Sara Palin is naturally going to back McCain, he put her on the ticket. I do not consider McCain a Conservative nor a core-principled Republican. I put mcCain in the same boat with the Blue Dogs.
Why are we getting hung up on the shiny object? Why are we not discussing the fact that our Government in the past 10 years, maybe more, has lost its sense. Obama's plan is to make matter worse and ignore the warnings of President Washington. Our Government officials are not being good stewards of our credit and abuse us to the point of enslavement with the revenue required. To keep us from realizing this they dangle shiny objects in our way; racism, unemployment benefits, and amensty.
The ruling classes understands that they need a new crop of taxpayers and are doing very little to stem the tide of illegal immigrants. We get all bent out of shape over racial profiling when the law passed by the state of Arizona mirrors current law. Is it okay for the Fed's to racial profile? Are the Fed's racailly profiling? If you are here illegally then beware, if you are not then be upset at those that are and not those that are paid to protect and serve based on the law of the land.
I agree. Why are we as American's allowing our Government, and I think this can be said at several levels, to forget that our credit is sacred and the revenue that is used to repay it comes from those that they represent.
ReplyDeleteWe need to stand up and demand more accountability. If the Revenues are only $10T then we can only spend $10T. We must account for interest payments on that as well. America has freeloaded long enough and the tab is due. We do not need to raise Revenue, we need to cut wasteful spending.
If the credit cards in my household get abused it me and my family that need to adjust our lifestyle to achieve a balance. Why should that be any different for our Government? Entitlement programs established by the ruling class only keep us in line as the whip did on the plantation. It is time to break the chains of bondage and demand more of Government through less entitlement, less unemployment benefits, less public funding, and less wasteful spending.
It is time for Government to get back to basics and allow the rest of us to stand on our own two feet.
Viper, my point was that you didn't need the article from investors.com at all. If you wanted to make a point about what George Washington said in his farewell address you could have done that without citing the article at all. No one would have questioned the "context of [your] usage" (whatever that means) because you would have had the citation for George Washington's address.
ReplyDeleteLet's face it, you have nothing factual to support the assertion that "Obama is getting some unprecedented leeway with executive orders" nor do you have anything factual to support the assertion that "bills are being passed with no specific legislative language as to what the bill entails".
If anything, it seems that you might need a refresher on the roles of the various branches of government focusing on the legislative and executive branches. The legislative branch writes the laws and the executive branch is charged with executing/implementing those laws.
There has always been, is and will always be a certain amount of leeway given by the legislative branch to the executive branch in terms of how laws are written. If you have an issue with new laws being too vague, then blame the institution charged with writing those laws and, as people love to say, vote the bums out.
Question for the Anonymous poster who posted right before my comment, how exactly are you not being allowed to stand on your own two feet?
ReplyDeleteClark
ReplyDeleteThat is where you are wrong - bills are being passed without specific language. Why did Pelosi say prior to passage of Obamacare that we will have to wait and see what is in the bill until it is passed then Reid said the same thing as they were passing financial reform. Why are Democrats saying this?
It is because the Financial bill creates new agencies and gives current agencies leeway to make new regulations. I understand the roles of our government the trouble is the Democrat led Congress is passing laws that are open-ended and gives powers to the agencies under executive order of the President. I did not read the entire financial bill because I feel asleep all three times I attempted to read it.
Oh I am all about throwing the bums out this time around and probably will be for many elections to come until things get straightened out. I used to be against term limits but with the abuses and lack of oversight on the Legislative branch of government, I am being swayed closer and closer toward term limits.
Clark - I can stand on my two feet but it becomes harder and harder with my tax dollars go to prop up people that rather look for a hand out than work for living. It will come a point that those paying taxes are outnumbered by those not paying taxes. At that point my tax rate will have to go up and thus take away from my ability to stand on my own two feet.
ReplyDeleteJust because I am able to provide well for my family and run a successful business does not mean I ought to pay more in taxes. I started in humble beggings and made something of what little I had to start with. Now, I am faced with punishment because of my success. Why is that?
I'll assume that you're retracting the statement about "Obama...getting some unprecedented leeway with executive orders" since you didn't try to defend it. If not, prove it. Regarding the assertion that "bills are being passed with no specific legislative language as to what the bill entails", you are wrong Viper, just plain wrong. Your "proof" consists of: (1) lawmakers stating that they'll see what's in the bill once it's passed; and (2) the creation of new agencies that are to make new regulations.
ReplyDeleteLet me get this right, a lawmaker says they don't know what's in the bill, you accept that as truth and expand that to mean that there's no specific legislative language. Interesting. So that health care bill that was debated for over a year, went through numerous committee reviews and consisted of more than 2,000 pages has "no specific legislative language"? Really?
The second piece of proof you provide is even more of a joke. Apparently you don't know what government agencies do. They make rules and regulations to implement the laws that Congress has passed. Read a bit about Administrative Law. Just a hint, it's not about secretaries and administrative assistants.
And before you go down this road, let me clarify that your failure to understand the language in a bill or your inability to stay awake to read it are no more convincing than the two arguments you tried to make.
I do acknowledge that there is legislative language in both bills the trouble is when reporters and consituents ask their representatives about aspects of the bill and they have no comment or accuse, as in the case with Luke Russert, the questioner that the item they ask of is not in the bill is very telling.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, if House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid come out as answer questions on these two bills by stating that we will have to see after the bill is enacted into law to determine what is in the bill is very telling. The reason is it is telling is the bills leave great discretion to the Executive branch to make uncheck changes through the Executive Order to direct the new and existing agencies. Has there ever been a Supreme Court review of an Executive Order?
First, all EO's (executive orders) are subject to judicial review and more than a few have been blocked by the SCOTUS. Presidents sign an average of 58 EO's per year (calculated since FDR). Obama is actually behind on that count from what I can tell while Bush was higher. And in many cases, Bush's EO's were much more concerning since they regarded things like FISA and the Patriot act.
ReplyDelete"The reason is it is telling is the bills leave great discretion to the Executive branch to make uncheck changes through the Executive Order to direct the new and existing agencies."
Again, as Clark points out, you seem to not be grasping that the legislative branch writes the laws, the executive enacts/enforces them. This has been the way of things for 225 years roughly, and god willing will remain that way for anothe 225 becuse it works.
Anonymous and Clark
ReplyDeleteI do understand the process and which branch is responsible for certain aspects of running government. Yes, Obama is not the only one, like to see the citation on the statistics, to use and possible abuse the EO. After my last comment I did unearth a few instances on when the Supreme Court took up an EO. I'd wish our current bench would do the same. And yes, the Patriot Act is full of challenges that should be done.
Where I am raising cain is with the vagueness of the legislation and the powering being transfered to the agencies created. Congress is unsure exactly what type of regulation these new regulatory bodies are going to enact. Doesn't that bother anyone?
No, that's not the job of the legislature. They pass the law. The executive executes it. That's how it works. For Congress to specifiy how the law must be executived would violate seperation of powers, in my opinion. If the executive is overreaching, it's up to the SC to decide.
ReplyDeleteFirst, my data originally included presidential proclamations and signing orders, I found a new source that listed just EO's and it breaks down by year by president from highest to lowest as follows:
ReplyDeleteReagan - 47.5
Clinton - 45.375
Bush Sr - 41.25
Bush Jr - 36.25
Obama - 28.5
That seems pretty clear evidence of lack of abuse on EO's by Obama when compared against predicessors.
And ALL EO's get judicial review prior to enactment. That is part of the check and balance for them. Back in when Truman was president he attempted to order all steel mills to come under federal authority, the SCOTUS overturned the order saying that he was legislating new laws, not clarifying existing ones. And that is the standard applied to all EO's today - that they must be limited to clarification of existing legislation passed by congress. In no way can they be an enactment of new law.
As to the regulation being created, that is what agencies do. Unless congress is targetting a specific aspect of the regulatory system (fuel efficiency standards for example), they rarely write regulations themselves. The EPA, FCC, CDC, etc all do that for them. This is nothing new.
It will be interesting to watch those EO's as the financial and ObamaCare agencies are set up. My bet it that they go up.
ReplyDeleteEO's regarding a piece of legislation are typically signed at the time the law is signed so I wouldn't expect much.
ReplyDeleteViper, you really are embarassing yourself here. Like I said before, take some time to learn more, scratch that, something about administrative law. You seem to be of tue mind that the health care law is going to result in a flood of executive orders. There is nothing to support that. Laws are clarified and carried out through agencies and the rulemaking that inevitably goes along with them. Get a clue, please. And not from the Internet. Try a brick and mortar bookstore that sells actual books.
ReplyDeleteI do not see the health care law as a slew of EO's but there will be some. The majority will come from a shell of legislation passed on financial reform; reform that did not address the reason we had th meltdown - Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae..Wonder why?
ReplyDeleteFannie/Freddie weren't the cause of the meltdown although the were culpable for part of the reason it was possible.
ReplyDeleteThe meltdown occurred in large part because the limits placed on derivative trading were lifted. This combined with a very active housing market being driven by numerous large banks supported by large investment firms that would bundle the mortgages and resell them was a major cause. This was finally coupled with the use of credit/default swaps that were purchased through AIG by those investment firms to hedge against the risk they knew existed in the marketplace. The risk they helped create though their securitization packages that were cherrypicked to fail in many cases. Goldman pleaded guilty to misleading investors on just such a package and that's the tip of the iceberg.
Fannie/Freddie's only role in this was that they were the clearinghouse for the initial stage of bundling the mortgages. But the driving force was banks, investing houses and the american public.
Yes, the american public carry a large part of the blame for this. We used liar loans (no proof of income) and interest only/multi-stage ARM's in order to buy houses we couldn't afford. We then found that our house would not go up in value forever and many people decided to default or were force to by unemployment.
That fact isn't the banks fault, it isn't fannie/freddie's fault, it's our own. So to try to push that off on the government is to not own what we as american's did in this. And almost ALL americans took part in this 10 year housing feeding frenzy, so very few are exempt from blame.
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteFreddie/Fannie was the vehicle that drove the meltdown. The driver behind the wheel did have a co-pilot along the way. The driver of the meltdown was Congress members that did not head warnings of several Republicans on the solvency of Freddie/Fannie and through the promotion of the concept that it is everyone's right to own a home.
Now, as you touched on, the co-pilot in all this is the American public. Every mortgage loan has a page that explains how your ARM may increase and when it is set to possibly increase. If you signed a mortgage and did not read that page then you need to take responsibility for your signature and not whine to the government over predatory lending. The banks simply carried out, and some did gloss over this page, the concept many in Congress wanted that it is the right of every American citizen to own a home.
The groups that set up the derivitive swaps did so with the backing of the Federal Government. The drivers of this disaster, Congress, turned a blind eye to the entire problem until their chums informed them that their golden nest eggs were disolving as defaults ramped up. Then the same Congress scolds Wall Street for doing exactly what Congress had intended, which none of it would have seen the light of day if the recession and housing market dive didn't take place, and passes finance reform that does not take the original symptoms into consideration.
Why is that? Perhaps we need to put George Sorros and Warren Buffet on the hot seat instead of the CEO's of financial institutions as these two men stand to lose more than Goldman Sach's and others.
Plus, this is a prime example where government needs to be limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution and not allow them to abuse the Commerce Clause as they have done for decades.
It's not abuse if the Supreme Court didn't overrule it. You might not like it, but the actions are constitutionally allowed, so you have to live with it.
ReplyDeleteCommerce Clause has been and continues to be used to justify all aspects of our lives. When the Individual Mandate first started being discussed they were going to use this clause as it's defense now they are calling it a tax. Which is it?
ReplyDeleteThe liberal use of the Commerce Clause has weakened State Rights and impose a heavy handed central government upon us. If it is not addressed in the Constitution and following amendments the Federal Government needs to back the heck a way. Unfortunately too many Americans are sheep and will not wake up to the shill game going on; a game that started with the Supremacy Clause Supreme Court case.
Yes, the banks were the innocent bystandards in this shell game.
ReplyDeleteThey had absolutely no interest making sure this shell game went forward. They didn't lobby the congress to remove the glass-stegall act and the mortgage changes. They didn't design the derivatives that allowed Fannie/Freddie to securitize the mortgages. They didn't facilitate the transactions between Fannie/Freddie and investors that purchased those securitized bonds. They didn't charge fees to both parties. They didn't take out billions in credit-default swaps to hedge their risks.
Yes, they must be quite innocent innocent, because they had no interests vested in this process. Well, other than the roughly 500+ billion in revenue the top 5 firms made in the years 1998-2008.
You don't get it. "Has been used and continues to be used" with challenges that the court has upheld. The liberal use has been the allowed use and the constitutional use. If it has been allowed to be used, it can weaken the states right, because it wasn't a right, because the use of the clause was constitutional.
ReplyDeleteThe commerce clause is mentioned along with with ability to pass laws necessary to carry out those powers. Therefore, it's in the constitution.
The Supremacy Clause Supreme Court Case? So the court upholding federal laws because they are required to so because the constitution says so? Isn't that something right in the constitution?
Maybe the problem is that too many Americans are sheep. Maybe it's that if what happens is something you disagree with it can't be constitutional. It has to be that others are wrong. Maybe you are the lost one?
The commerce clause exists in the Constitution but the Supremacy Clause was established in the McCullough case - of which I have previously blog on. America has seen State Rights slowly erode and many Attorney General of our different States have sat idlely by for the most part and allowed it take place too.
ReplyDeleteThe banks did play a role in the meltdown but they simply played the game that Glass-Steagall repeal allowed them to. In the end, it does go back to the repeal, the lack of oversight of Freddie/Fannie and the concept that everyone has the right to own a home. We all do not have the right to own a home. We have the right that our private property will be kept safe while we are away from it.
You are an idiot. You might want to look at Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. By the way, VI means 6.
ReplyDeleteOkay Anonymous here is Article VI:
ReplyDeleteAll Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States
Please expand upon how I have misinterpreted this Article. The Supreme Law of the Land aspect has to do with the fact that Congress, with the assistance of the Judicial branch, has passed laws not allowed them to do based on the Constitution. Remember this Article is predicated on the limited powers the Constitution gave the Federal government. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court took this Article as a standalone aspect in the McCullough case thus expanding the original intent of this article. So again, please show me how I am misinterpreting. The Constitution is put forth with all the pieces working together and not for pulling out one Article while ignoring the other ones.
You wrote: "but the Supremacy Clause was established in the McCullough case".
ReplyDeleteNo it wasn't. The Supremacy Clause is in Article VI of the Constitution.
And are you really suggesting that there has been some grand conspiracy in place since the founding of this nation? That seems to be the case when you make the following statement: Congress, with the assistance of the Judicial branch, has passed laws not allowed them to do based on the Constitution.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"
ReplyDeleteThis IS the supremacy clause. It is not something established by the SCOTUS. It was written by the founding fathers. It has been accurately interpreted by the SCOTUS for 225 years. Are you saying that the Supremacy clause should be repealed? If so, you are effectively abolishing the Federal government which goes against the ideals and ideas of the founding fathers.
The Supremacy Clause was established in the McCollough case, Article VI only states that "shall be the supreme law of the land" in so far as they are made "Pursuance thereof". That Pursuance is limited by earlier Article's within the Constitution yet our Supreme Court and others have forgotten that. I am saying the Supreme law of the land has it's limits set forth by the Bill of Rights and other Articles within the Constitution. Instead of seeing the entire forest we have allowed the trees to be cut down one by one. So yes, the Judicial Branch has enable Congress to pass laws not allowed them to pass based on the limitations the Founder Fathers put in the Constitution.
ReplyDelete"That Pursuance is limited by earlier Article's within the Constitution yet our Supreme Court and others have forgotten that."
ReplyDeleteThe supremacy clause has been upheld by even the most conservative of the SCOTUS that have sat on the bench. Even justices like Thomas and Scallia support the clause and it's prior interpretations. I hate to say this but given our own level of scholarly understanding of the Constitution, I'll accept their opinions on it before I accept yours.
The Supremacy Clause was not "established" in McCulloch v. Maryland. It just wasn't. It was established in Article VI of the Constitution. I don't know how much more clear it can be. McCulloch simply restated the Supremacy Clause.
ReplyDeleteYes, it's true that the federal government is a government of limited powers and those powers not explicitly given to it are reserved to the several states. It is also true that only the Constitution and laws (and treaties) made "in pursuance" thereof are the supreme law of the land. It is also true that the Amendments to the Constitution may serve to limit the power of the federal government.
However, none of this means that the Supreme Court has been plotting with Congress to cut down the trees one by one. It's almost as if you're saying the big government forces have been in charge since day one. How is that possible?
You're dangerously close to saying that the foundation of our entire country is a sham. Like one of your past commenters said, it sure seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too. Your opinion of "government" or "the Constitution" or "the Founding Fathers" is strictly dependent upon whether you deem it to be of any value. Government is evil unless it isn't. Government is the cause of all our ills unless it isn't. Government is nothing more than a heavy hand slowing down our nation's progress unless it isn't.