A day to reflect on self-evident truths ...

[74novaman]

Over and again in this forum we have heard these words,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Then invariably follows, in some form, the vivid expression of hatred toward our government, its leaders, and our representatives.....

snipped for length by 74novaman

...I have seen words here lately that come close to fomenting insurrection, if in fact they have not done so. This great nation of ours has solved its problems in the way those great men in Philadelphia devised more than 200 years ago, and we can solve any problems we have if we stop whining and whingeing and ranting, stop just sitting on our hands, stop looking for others to do our political work for us, and work constructively toward getting our government to work the way we want it to work.

Jim

You seem to be awfully surprised/worried about this anti government talk. Let me put you at ease...its just talk. Even more reassuring, this sort of talk didn't even start in 2008!

During the Bush administration, we had democrats hanging Bush in effigy and speculation about when they'd have to rise up against the fascists in the US govt and speculation about how Bush would suspend elections.

During the Clinton administration, you had right wing militias springing up everywhere, speculations about Clinton suspending elections, talk of UN invasions, etc.

We had radical leftists actually bombing govt buildings during the 60s and talking about abolishing the nation as founded.

During the early part of the 20th century we had anarchists killing people trying to do away with our form of govt.

Before the civil war, we had sitting congressmen beating each other almost to death on the House floor.

Before that, we dealt with the Whiskey Rebellion.


I am saddened by media talking points about this being the most divisive time in our history, or the idea that talk of insurrection or rebellion is somehow unique to our time on this earth. Are there some people who aren't happy with how things are? Of course....but this sort of talk is not unique to this election cycle, or Republicans.

Our country has weathered storms in the past, and I think we can withstand this one as well. But don't obsess over talk of Texas secession, or constitutional conventions, or insurrection. If you do, you'll miss the forest for the trees. It's nothing we haven't seen before, and nothing we won't see again, many times.

To obsess over the idea of a "second civil war" or "rebellion" is to miss out on the actual political discussions that occur here. It may fit a certain stereotype that is pushed by folks on the left, but it is no more meaningful than the words of those who called Bush Nazis 8 years ago.

[The Annoyed Man]

Jim, would you be so bold as to say that our government, for perhaps the past 10 or so administrations, has behaved with due regard for the Constitution........regardless of what the majority of voters at any time have wanted?

If the answer is yes, then how so. If the answer is no, then why not?

At one point does a responsible government tell voters, "No, what you want is not permitted by the Constitution," instead of "the Constitution means whatever we want it to mean?" I submit that elected officials know that changing the Constitution so that it will meet the whims of the voters is deliberately hard to do, because whims are passing fads, while self-evident truths are eternal. We are to fix our gazes on the self-evident truths, not the passing fads. When administration after administration strays ever further from the Constitution, it may not be time to change the form of government, but that is only part of the list. And, to do nothing about it but vote, since votes do not seem to matter anymore and are fraudulently cast in ever increasing numbers with the tacit approval of those who occupy the seats of power, is to invite an ever worsening situation.

Are you suggesting that we must, like an alcoholic nation, be allowed to hit absolute rock bottom before choosing an alternate path? How bad does it have to get for you? What kind of socialist workers paradise do you require before you would be willing to hoist the Jolly Roger?

You've changed the subject again, Chris. Emcee rib and I were talking about altering or abolishing our form of government -- our Constitution.

I would submit that the solution for your problem, how those we elect conform to their duties under that Constititution, is for all those of your opinion to get out there and vote for your preferred brand of representatives on the Hill and in the White House, not to abolish the greatest Constitution ever devised, particularly not by armed insurrection, as clearly suggested by some here, who, like me, are walking around with deadly weapons on their person.

It is terribly frustrating when It seems I cannot even compliment you, as I attempted to do a couple of posts back, without receiving flames in return.

Jim

Jim, I wasn't flaming you....at least such was not my intent. And perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. For the record, I do not want to abolish the form of our government. What I want to do is enforce the form of our government.........even if it takes the bullet box to do that. What I do want is for voters to stop asking for the unconstitutional. I would like to see ALL federal legislation make a clear case in the opening pages for why the proposed law is justifiable under the Constitution—without resorting to the thinnest possible uses of the Commerce Clause. I would like the constitutionality of a piece of legislation clearly established by a 2/3 majority of the Senate and/or the House before the necessity of such legislation is established and voted on. It would seem to me that a 2/3 majority for constitutionality is something that the Senate and House could simply write into their rules, and would not require legislation or constitutional amendment to institute. However, if conservatives ever regain supermajorities in both houses AND the executive, it might behoove them to pass it as legislation. Then, anybody who proposed repealing it would have to justify to the voters rather than their fellow congressmen why they would want to permit unconstitutional legislation to become law—regardless of what that law says.

Voters, who mostly don't pay much attention to the sausage-making process in DC, assume that candidates for office are knowledgeable about the Constitution, and that they have no intention to act beyond the narrow confines of what the Constitution permits the federal government. Also, most voters think the Constitution is a good idea, but they have no idea of what it says other than the mistaken belief that it contains the words "separation of church and state." Plainly said, people are ignorant. We don't even require a literacy test anymore (making it easier for illegal aliens to vote).

Politicians are generally aware of their constituent stupidity and uninformed state, and so those that have no particular loyalty to the Constitution or its principles understand that they will never be held to account by their constituencies for their treasonous failure to uphold their oath of office to "solemnly swear (or affirm) that [to] support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; [to] bear true faith and allegiance to the same; [and to] take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion."

I think that deliberate failures to fulfill the above ought to be punishable by a prison sentence for commission of fraud. I think a law ought to be passed requiring a public review period of no less than 30 days for all subsequent legislation, so that no more abominations have to passed so that we can know what's in them (to use that scab Pelosi's words). I would like ALL congressional negotiations open to real time public scrutiny. No more "smoke filled back room" politicking. It is The People's business. The People have an absolute right to know what is going on.

These are the types of steps that are going to be necessary to the preservation of the Republic.

[57Coastie]

A thought I'll give you to consider, 57Coastie: You complained that you couldn't seem to give a compliment without being "flamed" in return in your views. One thing that might cause people to react negatively to things you post is this style of what my grandmother would refer to as "left handed compliments".

When you give one compliment accompanied by a dig, it can rub folks the wrong way. For example, if I told my wife "What a pretty necklace! It really takes attention away from your fat rear end", I should not be surprised when I receive hostility instead of thanks.

Just something to think about that might reduce the instances of "flaming" you seem unhappy with in response to your posts.

I'm not unhappy at all, novaman. I honestly recall using the word "flaming" but once -- with one of the limited few with whom I am often in agreement -- but if not, one with whom I can often have an intelligent discussion. From my particular viewpoint the political issue forum is usually burning up. If I were sensitive to what I am accustomed to seeing on this piece of the forum I could fairly be accused of being a masochist.

I do regret using that word, though. I have always disliked it. I also regret offending you, as you offer much here, as you did in this post itself.

Jim

[74novaman]

I do regret using that word, though. I have always disliked it. I also regret offending you, as you offer much here, as you did in this post itself.

Jim

No offense taken here so no need to apologize. Just wanted to offer a different perspective on your post. I almost always reread my posts before I submit them, and edit heavily for clarity. Since this is all online, tone is very easily misconstrued and I've had difficulties getting my point across before without sounding like a jerk.

[tbrown]

For the record, I do not want to abolish the form of our government. What I want to do is enforce the form of our government.........even if it takes the bullet box to do that.

I agree. Doctors removing or destroying cancer cells is not an attack on the human patient. In fact, it's the opposite, even though both the scalpel and chemotherapy can be unpleasant. However, if other measures fail to halt the growth of the cancerous cells, those extreme measures are often necessary to save the patient. Otherwise the cells growing out of control can overwhelm the system and kill the patient.

Maybe there's an analogy there somewhere.