Is the US leaving the backdoor open to tyranny?

• majorspark

  

  Thomas Sowell, one of my favorite modern day political minds, believes we are. I tend to agree with him. The American people have allowed the federal government to unlock the deadbolt and at this point have left the door ajar. They have no idea that thieves are descending on the federal government ready to sneak through the door and steal their freedom.
  
  Whether it is in the name of the war on terror, the current economic crisis, the current environmental crisis in the gulf, or you name it the feds are there to save the day. They will extract extraordinary powers in the name of the common good. Perpetual crisis demands perpetual solutions.
  
  Don't get me wrong. I realize the need for federal power. But only when those powers are specifically granted by the constitution. If the constitution falls short and the states see a need to grant the federal government more power to deal with new and emerging problems, so be it. If they are that pressing and that necessary there should be no problem in getting an amendment passed granting the feds the authority.
  
  The keepers of the constitution, the American people, have themselves to blame. They have allowed their freedom and the risk that comes with it, to be subsidized by the federal government. The constitution has been transformed from a document that once espoused limited government defined by enumerated powers, into a document that grants unlimited federal power as long as it is covered in the cloak of "general welfare", "necessary and proper", and of course the interstate commerce clause.
  
  These terms are removed from the context of the constitution and its intent of limited federal government power. Once these general terms have been stripped of their context in the constitution, they can be liberally defined. Federal power is now only limited to congress's definition of "general welfare", necessary and proper", and its definition what falls under interstate commerce as defined by a simple majority and the executives approval. In lieu of the amendment process. Not to be slighted, the executive branch is joining the fray. The judicial branch as well has fallen prey to the lusts of central government power.
  
  It would be my contention that the states ratified a constitution that does not exist today. The federal government has broken the contract. IMO legally they have the right to part ways and move on. But like a marriage contract that has been violated they can remain in the union if it is in their best interest. Whether it is by fear or choice.
  
  http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/537967/201006211813/Is-US-Now-On-Slippery-Slope-To-Tyranny-.aspx
  
  Lets evaluate some of Sowells's points in the article.

  Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.

  Anyone want to take a gander at this one?
  

  And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
  
  Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.
  
  But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men."
  
  If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.
  
  But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law."

  Anyone think BP should be denied the due process of law before their property is confiscated by the government? Anyone? I know they are publicly perceived shitbags but should they not see their day in court? What about federal regulators who may have shirked their duties? Should they get a pass? Maybe some gulf state will grow a pair and sue the feds for dereliction of duty in that they failed in their regulatory duties to protect the gulf states from this sort of disaster because they were sleeping with BP? Don't hold your breath.
  

  With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.
  
  If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government.
  
  And, without constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a "crisis" — which, as the president's chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to "go to waste" as an opportunity to expand the government's power.
  
  That power will of course not be confined to BP or to the particular period of crisis that gave rise to the use of that power, much less to the particular issues

  Sowell is 100% right. Power is never confined to the particular crisis that gave it its birth. But like a cancer it metastasizes and spreads through the body politic. It destroys the healthy cells and antibodies that the constitution laid forth for our defense against unbridled central government power.
  
  Our federal body is sick. The American people are the only ones that can bring forth the radical treatment needed to cure the cancer that has infected the federal body politic. The constitution was supposed to provide us with immunity from the ills of unlimited government power. It is high time the American people wake up and once again constrain the federal government to those powers strictly enumerated in the constitution, otherwise this cancer will kill the freedoms we hold dear.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Good points, Major!
• jhay78

  

  In short, yes.
  

  The keepers of the constitution, the American people, have themselves to blame. They have allowed their freedom and the risk that comes with it, to be subsidized by the federal government.

  Who needs freedom when you have American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, and other shows that are way more important than the Constitution?
• I Wear Pants

  I actually agree with most of your points. Whether it be under the guise of protecting us from terrorism, "helping" oppressed peoples in foreign lands, saving us from economic crisis, or protecting us from malevolent corporations we've decided that it's best to hand away our rights. This is stupid.
• FatHobbit

  

  all good points and I agree we are leaving the door open.
• Footwedge

  Where was Sowell bitching about tyranny when Bush bailed out the bankers? Where was Sowell bitching about tyranny when the writ of habeous corpus was banned? Where was Sowell on the tyranny in invading Iraq on manipulated intel? Where is Sowell on the US government's direct violation of the Geneva Conventions? Where was Sowell's complaint regarding tyranny with undeclared wars?
  
  Sowell has a selective memory on tyrannical behavior....which comes out of the woodwork when the other team has the ball.
• FatHobbit

  

  Footwedge;399332 wrote:Where was Sowell bitching about tyranny when Bush bailed out the bankers? Where was Sowell bitching about tyranny when the writ of habeous corpus was banned? Where was Sowell on the tyranny in invading Iraq on manipulated intel? Where is Sowell on the US government's direct violation of the Geneva Conventions? Where was Sowell's complaint regarding tyranny with undeclared wars?
  
  Sowell has a selective memory on tyrannical behavior....which comes out of the woodwork when the other team has the ball.

  
  I agree that both parties are responsible. I don't know what Sowell's motivation is, but I think we do let the government trample all over our rights when they claim to be doing what's in our best interests.
• majorspark

  

  Footwedge;399332 wrote:Where was Sowell bitching about tyranny when Bush bailed out the bankers? Where was Sowell bitching about tyranny when the writ of habeous corpus was banned? Where was Sowell on the tyranny in invading Iraq on manipulated intel? Where is Sowell on the US government's direct violation of the Geneva Conventions? Where was Sowell's complaint regarding tyranny with undeclared wars?
  
  Sowell has a selective memory on tyrannical behavior....which comes out of the woodwork when the other team has the ball.

  Do you agree or disagree with Sowell in this article? That is the question in this thread.
  
  If you are going to demand perfection from anyone putting forth a political argument, no one will be able to cite anyone's opinion.
  
  Thomas Jefferson himself violated the constitution when he held political power (Louisiana Purchase). Does that mean that all his prior political arguments are bullshit? Can we not cite them anymore because he is imperfect?
• Footwedge

  majorspark;399460 wrote:Do you agree or disagree with Sowell in this article? That is the question in this thread.
  
  If you are going to demand perfection from anyone putting forth a political argument, no one will be able to cite anyone's opinion.
  
  Thomas Jefferson himself violated the constitution when he held political power (Louisiana Purchase). Does that mean that all his prior political arguments are bullshit? Can we not cite them anymore because he is imperfect?

  Doesn't matter if I agree with him or not. Sowell is nothing more than a political hack that is jumping on the anti Obama bandwagon...citing unwarranted usurpation of the constitution. Well, what exactly is his point? If he was consistent in his writings...which he isn't, then he would have hammered the biggest violators of the constitution ever....and that was the last group in power.
• Footwedge

  Oh and Sparky...one more thing....go back to your OP where you quoted the "tyrannical practices" cited by Mr. Sowell. And then substitute those exact same issues with those that I listed that Bush was guilty of. Like I said, if an author wants to cite a government overstepping it's bounds, and sidestepping the Constitution, then you conservatives out there need to reread your history between 2001 and 2008. Talk about shitting on the Constitution...Bush et al were the absolute masters at it.
  
  Here is an article showing the short list. If you don't like the source, I will find others.
  
  http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/012406.html
• sjmvsfscs08

  Every President since Washington has been the master of it...
• Footwedge

  sjmvsfscs08;399522 wrote:Every President since Washington has been the master of it...

  
  
  Not at all true. The US has been true to form when it comes to the Constitution. Not until Bush crapped over a whole host of fundamental constitutional principles, did things begin to change.
• Footwedge

  And from another staunch conservative...that succinctly points out how bad his guy was in following our constitution...
  
  "Clinton got his dick sucked in the White House then lied about it. He’s a scumbag. Bush has gotten us into a disaster of a war, instituted domestic espionage programs, instituted official torture policies which violate the Geneva Conventions and countless other treaties and agreements, done everything conceivable to alienate our allies and empower our enemies, sullied America’s reputation on the world stage, weakened habeas corpus rights, weakened fundamental Constitutional protections, and used the office of the president primarily as a tool for cementing power for the GOP.
  
  http://right-thinking.com/index.php/weblog/comments/comment_of_the_day7/
• sjmvsfscs08

  Footwedge;399525 wrote:Not at all true. The US has been true to form when it comes to the Constitution. Not until Bush crapped over a whole host of fundamental constitutional principles, did things begin to change.

  
  Okay first off I wasn't all that serious and was using hyperbolic speech. Buuuuuut come on now, Bush started it?! Give me a fucking break.
• Footwedge

  sjmvsfscs08;399532 wrote:Okay first off I wasn't all that serious and was using hyperbolic speech. Buuuuuut come on now, Bush started it?! Give me a fucking break.

  You're missing the point of my argument on this thread, completely. The OP cites an article written by one of the most conservative authors out there hammering Obama for doing things outside of the constitution. Now compare and contrast what Sowell cites with what Bush did. If you can't draw the hypacracy in the op ed by Sowell, then I can't help you.
  
  This is just another example of partisan bullshit peddled by those trying to claim that my guys are good...and your guys are bad. It's disgusting.
  
  As for shitting on the constitution...other than LBJ lying about several aspects regarding Nam, show me where other presidents have broken constitutional law. There hasn't been anything of consequence for over 200 years.
• majorspark

  

  Footwedge;399506 wrote:Doesn't matter if I agree with him or not. Sowell is nothing more than a political hack that is jumping on the anti Obama bandwagon...citing unwarranted usurpation of the constitution. Well, what exactly is his point? If he was consistent in his writings...which he isn't, then he would have hammered the biggest violators of the constitution ever....and that was the last group in power.

  You have your opinion of Sowell I can understand that. To claim the last administration were the greatest violators of the constitution in history is ludicrous. How about FDR imprisoning American citizens just because they had genetic ties to one of our wartime adversaries? Yet he found it unnecessary to imprison those of German heritage. Not to mention his countless violations in regards to domestic policy in his fight against the great depression.
  
  Then there is Lincoln. His administration brought about forced conscription to fight in the war to preserve the union. He suspended the writ of habeous corpus. Many northern citizens were rounded up and imprisoned because they had doubts about the war and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men along with those actively participating in fomenting the rebellion. Don't for forget Clement Vallandigham whether you agree or disagree with him is not the point. Having a politician arrested is.
• tk421

  

  I hope not. At least I hope they use lots of lube.
  
  Sorry.
• believer

  

  Footwedge;399541 wrote:As for shitting on the constitution...other than LBJ lying about several aspects regarding Nam, show me where other presidents have broken constitutional law. There hasn't been anything of consequence for over 200 years.

  
  C'mon....C'MON. LMAO.
  
  You slam Sowell and conservatives in general for being hypocrites for pointing a finger of unconstitutionality at BHO by claiming that Bush started it all? Are you kidding me?
  
  Presidents have usurped constitutional principles for well over 150 years to one degree or another. Do I deny Bush's role in it? Nope. I'll agree that he was one of the worst. But don't "Blame Bush" for starting it. That's just nothing short of friggin absurd.
• isadore

  Wow we can read the article by Mr. Sowell and get that rhetoric so similar to Mr. Beck, comparing President’s of the United States to Hitler and Lenin. Gosh he even mirrors Beckian ravings on the Gold Standard, I wonder if he is paid for by any of the gold sellers. But more insultingly claiming they are conspiring to push us into totalitarianism. BS. Negotiating an agreement with BP is far from a violation of due process. BP made a decision based in large part about trying to assuage public opinion to put up that 20 billion. They could have held out, they chose not to.
  
  Sowell’s ravings would be bad enough, but then we are lucky enough to the political theory of M.Sparks on what fuckups the writers of the Constitution were. How they sewed the seeds for the destruction of America 223 years in the future with the Necessary and Proper clause.

  majorsparks wrote:Don't get me wrong. I realize the need for federal power. But only when those powers are specifically granted by the constitution. If the constitution falls short and the states see a need to grant the federal government more power to deal with new and emerging problems, so be it. If they are that pressing and that necessary there should be no problem in getting an amendment passed granting the feds the authority.
  
  The keepers of the constitution, the American people, have themselves to blame. They have allowed their freedom and the risk that comes with it, to be subsidized by the federal government. The constitution has been transformed from a document that once espoused limited government defined by enumerated powers, into a document that grants unlimited federal power as long as it is covered in the cloak of "general welfare", "necessary and proper", and of course the interstate commerce clause.
  
  These terms are removed from the context of the constitution and its intent of limited federal government power. Once these general terms have been stripped of their context in the constitution, they can be liberally defined. Federal power is now only limited to congress's definition of "general welfare", necessary and proper", and its definition what falls under interstate commerce as defined by a simple majority and the executives approval. In lieu of the amendment process. Not to be slighted, the executive branch is joining the fray. The judicial branch as well has fallen prey to the lusts of central government power.
  
  It would be my contention that the states ratified a constitution that does not exist today. The federal government has broken the contract. IMO legally they have the right to part ways and move on. But like a marriage contract that has been violated they can remain in the union if it is in their best interest. Whether it is by fear or choice.

  We have had experience with the kind of government that Mr. Sparks wishes to establish under our first constitution, the Articles of Confederation. It lasted 6 years and was in the process of destroying the United States when it was to our great and lasting benefit killed and replaced by our present Constitution. America would have been balkanized into a group of petty feuding, powerless states open to foreign domination.
  “If the constitution falls short and the states see a need to grant the federal government more power to deal with new and emerging problems, so be it. If they are that pressing and that necessary there should be no problem in getting an amendment passed granting the feds the authority.” That idea which was part of the Articles proved to be a complete and utter failure.
  James Madison argued for the Necessary and Proper Clause in Federalist 44, “Without the substance of this power, the whole Constitution would be a dead letter.”
  As he looked at Sparks ideas of strictly following the enumerated powers and returning to the states get amendments to add to the powers. And sees these ideas as unrealistic and ridiculous, producing a government that could not function.
  
  http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa44.htm
  To paraphrase, Sparks ideas are suicide pact for America,
• Footwedge

  majorspark;399558 wrote: To claim the last administration were the greatest violators of the constitution in history is ludicrous. .

  I stand 100% behind my statement...and will debate you anytime on it's merits. When's the last time a president started a war based on 935 public and documented lies?...thus hoodwinking the entire legislative body into permitting the executive power to start a completely unnecessary war that has killed 4200 unsuspecting US Soldiers? When in the annals of American history has a US president violated the Constitutional acceptance of not torturing people in a time of war? (Geneva 1947) When has a president allowed wire tapping and eaves dropping on innocent victims without going through the proper steps clearly written in the constitution?
  
  And yet here you are Sparky blaring your trumpets regarding tyrannical practices of the "other team" because they were forced BP to "post bond" of 20 billion for fucking up the environment. Are you people kidding me? Making this an example of tyranny when the last guy started 2 wars without an end game? No... Sowell is no hero. His article is partisan garbage because he fails to mention "the rest of the story". Sowell is as big of a partisan hack as you will ever find.
• Footwedge

  An analogy to Sowell's tripe would be a staunch liberal writer denouncing President Bush for patting his secretary on the rump....as deicpicable and vile behavior in the oval office. Albeit forgetting that Clinton was spewing his DNA all over an intern's dress.
• majorspark

  

  Footwedge;399787 wrote:I stand 100% behind my statement...and will debate you anytime on it's merits. When's the last time a president started a war based on 935 public and documented lies?...thus hoodwinking the entire legislative body into permitting the executive power to start a completely unnecessary war that has killed 4200 unsuspecting US Soldiers? When in the annals of American history has a US president violated the Constitutional acceptance of not torturing people in a time of war? (Geneva 1947) When has a president allowed wire tapping and eaves dropping on innocent victims without going through the proper steps clearly written in the constitution?

  
  Save the congress were innocent bystanders BS. They shirked their constitutional duties as well. I am not saying the Bush administration didn't violate the constitution, but to say his were the greatest is BS. FDR and Lincoln get that reward.
  
  

  Footwedge;399787 wrote:And yet here you are Sparky blaring your trumpets regarding tyrannical practices of the "other team" because they were forced BP to "post bond" of 20 billion for fucking up the environment. Are you people kidding me? Making this an example of tyranny when the last guy started 2 wars without an end game? No... Sowell is no hero. His article is partisan garbage because he fails to mention "the rest of the story". Sowell is as big of a partisan hack as you will ever find.

  I blare my trumpet any time I spot the federal government violating the constitution or demonstrating tyrannical behavior. As for the wars and their constitutionality, I have stated many times what my opinion is of them.
• jhay78

  

  I must have missed in that article where Sowell says, "Now GW Bush- that guy was a great president who did everything right and before whom every future president should bow."
  
  Disagree with the Bush/torture/Geneva Convention thing. Simulated drowning/waterboarding is NOT torture. If you want to talk about mistreatment of prisoners, that's another issue.
• majorspark

  

  isadore;399735 wrote:Sowell's ravings would be bad enough, but then we are lucky enough to the political theory of M.Sparks on what fuckups the writers of the Constitution were. How they sewed the seeds for the destruction of America 223 years in the future with the Necessary and Proper clause.

  There is nothing wrong with the necassary and proper clause. Just how it is used. It is not a separate power. Its context is in the execution of the enumerated powers listed in section 8 and other enumerated powers listed in the constitutuion.
  
  To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof
  
  

  isadore;399735 wrote:We have had experience with the kind of government that Mr. Sparks wishes to establish under our first constitution, the Articles of Confederation. It lasted 6 years and was in the process of destroying the United States when it was to our great and lasting benefit killed and replaced by our present Constitution. America would have been balkanized into a group of petty feuding, powerless states open to foreign domination.

  The Articles of Confederation were drafted in the context of the revolution. The Articles were not a solid lasting governing document. It was primarily a defense and foreign policy contract. It had no power of taxation and was dependent on the states for funds. Your implication that this is what the anti-fedalists wanted as a lasting governing document is false.
  
  If this was the case many states would not have sent delegates to the constitutional convention. They desired to form a "more perfect union" not create an all powerful central government. They had just broken free from such a government. Instead they sought to "perfect" a more lasting union based on limited central power.
  
  There is no doubt that some delegates sought a very strong centralized government. In order to get all delegates to sign and the states to ratify, the lower common denominator is what was agreed to. It is now being used in a manner that a majority of the signitories to the constitution never intended.
  
  Words like "general welfare" and "necessary and proper" are just yanked out of context and made seperate powers. The words "general welfare" were a part of the articles of confederation as well. Yet never morphed into the power they have today once taken out of context.
  
  Article III of the Articles of Confederation:

  The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever

  Since you are a fan of Madison's opinions, lets see what Madison thought about this issue.
  
  James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
  With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.
  
  James Madison, 1799
  Resolved, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocally express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic ... That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.
  
  James Madison, Federal No. 45, January 26, 1788
  "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."
  
  James Madison, Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention [June 6, 1788]
  "The powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."
  

  isadore;399735 wrote:As he looked at Sparks ideas of strictly following the enumerated powers and returning to the states get amendments to add to the powers. And sees these ideas as unrealistic and ridiculous, producing a government that could not function.

  Really? You need to read his writing more closely.
  
  James Madison is quite clear on his beliefs concerning original intent of the signatories of the constitution and their beliefs on "general welfare" being a seperate power instead in context of the enumerated powers. Here is a link to a letter he wrote to Andrew Stevenson. 27 Nov. 1830Letters 4:120--39
  http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...a1_8_1s27.html
  Excerpt from the letter.
  Consider for a moment the immeasurable difference between the Constitution limited in its powers to the enumerated objects, and expounded as it would be by the import claimed for the phraseology in question. The difference is equivalent to two Constitutions, of characters essentially contrasted with each other--the one possessing powers confined to certain specified cases, the other extended to all cases whatsoever; for what is the case that would not be embraced by a general power to raise money, a power to provide for the general welfare, and a power to pass all laws necessary and proper to carry these powers into execution; all such provisions and laws superseding, at the same time, all local laws and constitutions at variance with them? Can less be said, with the evidence before us furnished by the journal of the Convention itself, than that it is impossible that such a Constitution as the latter would have been recommended to the States by all the members of that body whose names were subscribed to the instrument?
  
  Passing from this view of the sense in which the terms common defence and general welfare were used by the framers of the Constitution, let us look for that in which they must have been understood by the Convention, or, rather, by the people, who, through their Conventions, accepted and ratified it. And here the evidence is, if possible, still more irresistible, that the terms could not have been regarded as giving a scope to Federal legislation infinitely more objectionable than any of the specified powers which produced such strenuous opposition, and calls for amendments which might be safeguards against the dangers apprehended from them.
  
  In light of these quotes by Madison, a signitory to the constitution, could he in good faith sign on to the constitution knowing that the "general welfare" and "necessary and proper" clauses would be taken to the extent they are today? In fact he argues the opposite. Look at his latter statement to the Viginia Ratifying Convention. It is quite obvious what the signitories thougt they were agreeing to.
  
  The assault on limited Federal power began before the ink was dry. Your side, the side of centralized power in the hands of a few, has won. It continues to win and Federal power continues to grow.
• bigmanbt

  Footwedge;399787 wrote:When's the last time a president started a war based on 935 public and documented lies?

  
  Umm.... the Vietnam War, WWI, WWII, all fought because of lies. Hell the Gulf of Tonkin incident that got us into the Vietnam war was a false flag operation, but since it was declassified all people do is laugh it off and act like it can't happen again.
  
  Bush was a horrible President, but not nearly the biggest overstepper of the Constitution. That, good sir, would be the one and only Abraham Lincoln. Suspended habeus corpus, threw whole state legislatures in jail, made sedition illegal and jailed many for it, the list goes on and on. Lincoln was by far the most tyrannical President, followed by FDR. Bush is up there, but you can't be serious that this hasn't happened before him. That's just plain dumb and unfounded.