|
Folks, it has been my opinion for quite a while now that we've been operating under an UNCONSTITUTIONAL government -- and one that bears little (if any) resemblance to
that that our Founding Fathers set up over 200 years ago.
Lets face some unpleasant facts here folks.
Our government today bears little resemblance to that which was established just over 200 years ago.
For quite a while in our country, we've been ruled, not by
the Democrats, not by the Republicans, but by the Incumbent Party.
And for want of a better word, be it Democrat in name, or Republican in name, the true name of the Incumbent Party is -
The Ruling Class.
These jokers -- almost to a man -- think of themselves as being superior to us. Better, more intelligent, more 'worthy' of running things than the rest of us.
The
only real difference between OUR Ruling Class and that in say Britain, is that in our Ruling Class, entry can be purchased.
For example, Senator Corazine PURCHASED his Senate Seat spending over SIXTY million
of his own dollars.
To win a 6 year job that pays $135,000 per year? What an investment!
Actually the SIXTY million -- from his point of view -- was probably cheap. It purchased entry into the
Ruling Class
Once you are in it, Rich or Poor matters little. You have terrible POWER over your subject citizens (thats us by the way).
Once you have the Power - Money is easy to arrange
Look at our dear ex-President Clinton.
We paid him some $195,000 per year.
He disgraced himself, disgraced the Office of the Presidency, Perverted our system of Justice, suborned Perjury,
threatened witnesses, lied under oath, lied to a grand Jury, sent his subordinates to lie, used the Secret Service to protect his sexual escapades from discovery.
Did I leave anything out?
And now the
sucker is getting MILLIONS upon MILLIONS. $100,000 per lecture. $12 million for a book (and why oh why would anyone think he's going to reveal any TRUTH in the book? after all who says he knows what
TRUTH is anyway?)
Once in the Ruling Class, Money is a secondary objective, that readily is achievable!
Sure, there are some minor (and even some significant) differences between the two
parties. And on specific issues, I probably favor the Republican point of view more than the Democrat.
Namely:
I believe in LESS government, not more.
Government is an overwhelming waster of our money. And the current arrengement in our country is
DIAMETRICALLY opposed from the vision of our founding fathers. Our government was originally set up as a WEAK coalition of SOVERIGN states. The federal government was SUPPOSED to be a weak central
government and ONLY supposed to be responsible for things like the NATIONAL defense, and referring disputes BETWEEN two sovereign states. The Federal Supreme Court was originally intended as this inter-state
referee, and also to check State laws to ensure that they did not violate the Federal Constitution.
The Federal Government was NEVER supposed to ORDER states how to conduct their business. In fact it was
explicitly stated that any powers NOT explicitly vested in the central federal government were RESERVED to the states.
A FEDERAL legislator (congressman and senators) were supposed to be ordinary citizens,
and come to Washington 3 or 4 months per year to conduct any national business, and then go back home to the farm or ranch to continue your 'normal' job.
Hearing me write the above you might be wondering what
country I'm referring to - as the above is so obviously NOT the system we are governed by.
Thats kinda the point!
Now when did things radically change?
Basically during the between 1920
and 1940. Roosevelt was probably the president presiding over the radical expansion of Federal power.
Points:
Before this period there was NO INCOME TAX. After all, a weak federal government didnt really need much money. It survived on levys and import duties
and things like that prior to that point. And the INCOME TAX was originally supposed to be limited to ONE percent of your income!
During this time there was an incredible expansion of the Federal government
.
Everything you know as the 'New Deal' happened during this time, and all of it was certainly utterly opposed to the visions of our founding fathers. In fact, Roosevelt was so worried that his
programs would be struck down by the Supreme Court as UNCONSTITUTIONAL that he tried to pack the Supreme Court by adding more justices to it (hand picked by him) prior to some critical votes!
After the
precedents established during this time, the Federal Government suddenly started DICTATING to the states in a rapidly and vastly increasing range of areas.
They either used the federal courts to
'invent' new 'rights' and impose them on the states, And more recently, they not only 'discovered' new 'rights' that had not only somehow escaped notice for 200 years, but discovered new rights that would have
had the founding Fathers spinning in their graves!
Three cases in point:
a) 1964 Civl Rights Act
This act basically was the first major Federal act that dictated to supposedly Sovereign States, a huge
range of activities proscribed, and others that must be done.
Now this one of course has worked out well. And no one today would suggest that we should go back to pre 1964 with the segregated hotels and the
like. BUT CONSIDERED from a Federal/States point of view, honestly, where in the Federal Constitution does the Federal government get to tell the States who can register in hotels? THATS my objection. It
literally ordered the States to change how they regulated something as internal as how a business located in that state treats its customers.
A more blatant and questionable 'power grab' would be hard to imagine. But read on!
b) the 1973 Roe Vs Wade case.
Here we have the Supreme Court - LITERALLY - 'discovering' some new right that the
Founding Fathers would have ABSOLUTELY outlawed -- had they EVER thought that women terminating a pregnance WAS EVEN UNDER CONSIDERATION!
This has to be one of the most terribly UNCONSTITUTIONAL actions of this
court - and it reverberates to this day in the utter hatred between the anti-abortion and the pro-abortion forces.
WAIT -- I'm NOT anti abortion folks. Read on.
My objection is that the Supreme Courts ACTION was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It was TERRIBLE LAW and has caused a terrible rift in this country.
At the time in 1973 there
was a serious national discussion about abortion. Some states (New York) were very permissive on this subject. Others (Utah) - well enough said. But each State had its own discussions here and acted based
on its peoples mores and views. And obviously the Supreme Court ran roughshod over this discussion by saying 'wait weve just discovered a new RIGHT'
Most lawyers I know agree. Its not the OUTCOME
that many object to - its the MEANS that were used. 9 people substituted THEIR will for the will of the country.
Strangely enough, just recently the Supreme Court Acted in the 2000 election and many of the SAME people who were so in FAVOR of the unconstitutional action above -- now
object VIOLENTLY to the SAME 9 people substituting their will in the case of the 2000 election!
Odd.
Frankly I would like to see Roe OVERTURNED tomorrow - just as I would at that time been rooting for the Dred Scott case to be overturned (when the Supreme
Court ruled blacks as only 3/5 of a person!).
And what would happen? Well many states have amended their Constitutions in preperation for Roe being overturned, and have State Consitution language saying
that the rights under Roe will continue just as if Roe had NOT been overturned.
Other states would obviously impose stricter limitations on abortion rights, and some might outlaw it entirely (Utah
maybe). But the UNCONSTITUTIONAL action would have been expunged.
And IF the consensus of the people of this Country is that Abortion on demand SHOULD be a right -- it should be handled AS IT SHOULD HAVE
BEEN HANDLED in the first case -- with a Constitutional Amendment.
If the pro-choice crowd is as sure of themselves as they maintain, it should be possible to get that amendment passed.
And every poll that
I've seen a big majority SUPPORTS SOME abortion provision -- even though short of the on demand stance of the pro-choice folks.
If they are not, then it would not be passed, but that too - would be the WILL of
our PEOPLE, not the will of 9 unelected persons.
Thats the difference. And frankly I think our discourse on the abortion subject would be VASTLY different today -- because I think virtually ALL people on
both sides of the issue DO respect the fact we live in a Democracy (in theory) and that the will of the majority should rule. But on the anti-abortion side, they will NEVER get over the fact that 9 unelected
people utterly negated their side of the arguement That sticks in their craw now just as it has for the last almost 30 years!
And the final case of terrible law I think is: <drum roll>
c) The 55 mile an hour speed limit!
Now this absurd action -- was done neither by congressional law, nor by unconstitutional judicial action, but by BLACKMAIL!
The
states were simply told that those that did NOT impose a 55 mile an hour speed limit WOULD NOT RECEIVE HIGHWAY FUNDS from the Federal Government.
Simple blackmail. And our States are so DEPENDENT on the
Federal largesse these days -- they they - to a state- capitulated. No one even challenged in court this simple extortion.
However -- at the same time -- many simply chose to IGNORE that law.
In
Denver we used to see the 'average' speeds on all the major highways, shown in a chart so you could see where the congestion is the worst.
When they have all their bars CAPPED OFF at 55mph -- thats a JOKE
We know damn well the 'average' speeds on those major highways are more like 65-70. but cant show THAT on the TV screen <grin>
Not withstanding that this law is utterly absurd in the wide
open huge-expanses-of-utterly-straight-highway west! In Montana (which many I know love) if you drive at 55 at ALL in that state its an exception.
My point here is two fold. a) the absurd law and b)
the CORROSIVE EFFECT this law has had on the MANY MILLIONS of Americans who knowingly violated that law - EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK
After all, the DISRESPECT that this law has engendered in our citizens has I'm sure
lead to the attitude that these LAWS are for us to TAKE OR LEAVE!
"This law is STUPID - I'm not going to OBEY IT'
Sure puts us on a slipperly slope when we pick and choose which laws we will obey
and which laws we will NOT - when we substitute OUR judgement over that of our representatives.
Kind of reminds me of the equally stupid drug laws. Iv'e NEVER been into drugs myself -- but I cannot for
the life of me understand WHY alcohol is LEGAL and pot is NOT.
We had a HUGE fight over that issue -- the Prohibition -- and all we did there was enrich the mobsters and contribute to the public disrespect for
the law -- when people again said "This law is STUPID - I'm NOT going to OBEY IT"
The coarsening of our society is a DIRECT result of this kinds of disrespects - both for our Constitution (Roe vs Wade), for
stupid LAWS we pass (drugs and prohibition) and for laws that get passed due to extortion (55 mph).
Anyway, the above shows you how things have so radically diverged from the original intentions when our country is founded.
And frankly if our Fathers were alive today, I think they would utterly REJECT the monstrosity that our government has become.
|
