Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Walter E. Williams :: Townhall.com Columnist
Political Loathsomeness
by Walter E. Williams
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Do any of the prospective nominees of either party deserve respect from the American people? The answer partially depends on your knowledge, values and respect for the U.S Constitution.

When either Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain take office, they are going to place their hand on the Bible and take the oath, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

It will be a phony affirmation, but what's worse is that the chief justice of the United States, who administers the oath, and the average American will believe the new president.

You say, "Hey, Williams, that's a pretty tall charge! Explain yourself." There's a measure introduced in every Congress since 1995, by Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., called The Enumerated Powers Act that would require that all bills introduced in the U.S. Congress include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which the law is being enacted.

The Enumerated Powers Act currently has 44 co-sponsors in the House. In the Senate, it has never had a single co-sponsor, and that's a Senate that includes our three presidential aspirants. The question one might ask is why would Sens. Obama, Clinton and McCain have a distaste for, and fail to support, a measure binding them to what the Constitution actually permits?

There's a two-part answer to that question. First, few congressmen, including our presidential aspirants, have the integrity, decency and courage to be bound by the Constitution, but more important is that congressmen and presidents simply reflect the constitutional ignorance or contempt held by the American people.

Most of what Congress is constitutionally authorized to spend for is listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and includes: coining money, establish Post Offices, to support Armies and a few other activities. Today's federal budget is over $3 trillion dollars. I challenge anyone to find specific constitutional authority for at least $2 trillion of it. That includes Social Security, Medicare, farm and business handouts, education, prescription drugs and a host of other federal expenditures. Americans who have become accustomed to living at the expense of another American would not want Congress to obey the Constitution, especially if it left out their favorite handout.

A harebrained politician or lawyer might tell us that the Constitution's general welfare clause authorizes those expenditures. Here's what James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, said: "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."

Later, Madison added, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."

Thomas Jefferson explained, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

At one time there were presidents who respected the Constitution. Grover Cleveland vetoed hundreds of spending measures during his two-term presidency, often saying, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." Then there was Franklin Pierce who said, after vetoing an appropriation to assist the mentally ill, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity," adding, "To approve such spending would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."

We should consider ending the charade and get rid of our 200-year-plus presidential oath of office and replace it with: I accept the office of president.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Walter Williams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
The oath
"I accept the office of president."

This would apply to the judiciary as well. They are increasingly comfortable ignoring the Document anyway. They find "rights" which are not written, ignore those which are, and go to foriegn sources as justification for their rulings. NO ONE COMPLAINS!!

Lives, fortunes and sacred honor.

I have been reading you a long time doc
I guess it is time for this column again. I agree. Again. It will never happen and the charade will go on as we both know. The only question, really is, can it be stopped? It cannot begun to be rolled back until and unless it can be stopped.

If the republican party is going to participate in the bachnalia then what hope have we? The supremes? Can the american people as an electorate reach a point where we say, stop the madness or are we doomed to the same fate that claimed previous attempts at self government?

If they could have just put a little more teeth into the idea of limited. Of course, the first attempt fell a little short and the final one just a hair long. It was probably the toughest balancing act and compromise ever reached by a group of people like them before or since but, you gotta wonder sometimes, what if.

Another Good Column
"Americans who have become accustomed to living at the expense of another American would not want Congress to obey the Constitution, especially if it left out their favorite handout."

Aye, and there's the rub, isn't it?

No matter what it is they spend money on, there's a beneficiary, an enabler and an apologist who will fight tooth and nail to keep it, Constitution and the American taxpayer be damned.




"A harebrained politician or lawyer might tell us that the Constitution's general welfare clause authorizes those expenditures."

THIS INCLUDES at least one "conservative" columnist on Townhall!

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/PaulWeyrich/2008/04/07/i s_congress_dangerously_gambling_with_gambling

First Time I Recall
a five star rating by any columnist. Congratulations Dr. Williams! Well Deserved!

Excellent Column !!!!
Excellent Dr. Williams. You have cut right to the bone of the matter. I am sick, tired, and fed up with the president elects standing before the Chief Justice with their hand on the bible swearing to execute the oath of office and then there after doing what they Damn Well please.
Cite me a president in the last 40 to 50 years who hasn't appeared to consider himself an Imperial Ruler rather than an elected leader ?

Free Fall
The politicians in Congress have been trying the boundaries of the Constituion since it was written and ratified by the States. The difference is that in early times the SCOTUS tried to make a stab at enforcing it. However, with John Marshall and the fraudulent implementation of Marburry things started going downhill. That downhill slide sped up at the end of the Civil War and it entered free fall with the FDR communist regime.

I have come to the conclusion that nothing will restore it short of another revolution. Certainly none of the current group of candidates will do anything but further accelerate the slide.

Buying yourself
This race for the highest office has gone beyond even being a popularity contest. The Clinton's have proven that. With loyal followers that would probably not trust them to walk their dog, they will trot out the vote because of promises to make their lives better.

They have learned that they can win by promising people more "stuff". And the amazing part is that they are using our own money to pay for it.

Unfortunately, the candidate that runs on a constitutionally guided platform will get less votes than Lyndon LaRouche.

Public "Education"
Now that we have "public education", whether authorized by the Constitution or not, one would think it's primary goal would be to teach each person the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The history of those who wrote it and their comments as to the meaning they intended would be a part of that education. Then the electorate would know what to expect of its government and what is expected of them.

How's that for wishful thinking?

WOW!
What a column!

What is so amusing is that I have on numerous occasions written my congressmen and demanded to know by what Constitutional right they are spending whatever pork comes up at the time. I have never, NEVER be given so much as a form-letter response.

We had a chance...
...to elect a candidate who has an unblemished record of honoring his oath to uphold the Constitution, but the Republican party and the mainstream media would have none of Ron Paul.

... and as a perfect example,
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you,

McCain-Feingold!!

- cynically passed by Congress in segments. supposedly so that some parts could be declared unconstitutional by the Courts, and,

- signed by the president after having - in an isolated truthful moment - declared it unconstitutional, and,

- ultimately found to be constitutional in its entirety by the feckless Supreme Court when any nearly illiterate citizen could read the First Amendment and declare the opposite.

Your best column ever Dr. Williams, and that's saying a lot.

How far we have travelled

Mr Williams, wonderful article. I spent sometime down at Montepelier and as I looked at Madison's house, the balance of the wings and was told his mother stayed in one wing with her colonial trappings while he and his wife lived the "modern" life in another wing (Madison's wife and step son squandered his estate after his death) it seemed a metaphor for today's topic.

The "progressives" won in his household because time was on their side and they bankrupted themselves and sought payment twice for Madison's papers to bail them out (sound familiar?)

Madison was the only one who did his homework before the Constitutional Convention and hence became the default father of the Constituion. This is an important fact because, though he prevailed in crafting a brilliant sustainable document because no one else does their homework, we drift farther and farther from it's intent as there are simply not enough people who can or will speak up for it.

The corruption that has been built in through pork at every level of government overcomes people's good sense. We will fall on the sword of avarice and the smallness of mankind.


Ever had to slice a pie?

If no one is looking one might consider taking a portion for oneself and then dividing it by the number of dinner guests. This is what politicians do today. The slice they stole is the slice that keeps them in power.

write in
Walter Williams for pesident

Oh yeah....
You've got it right on "the general welfare" clause. I've argued the same for several years! However, Walter E., you shouldn't have ended your column without at least one or two paragraphs on congress and The White House doling out millions and millions in foreign aid. Hellooooo!

Just exactly where in the Constitution does it mandate where congress can tax Americans into the poor house for foreign aid to shovel out to countries around the globe?

gagotdog

Foriegn aid is another form of pork. Just ask the "auditors" in developing countries receive the aid. Remember the pie metaphor?

HItchhiker asks ...
... (C)an it be stopped?

One way that it can be limited right now is the FairTax.

If we all know, on a daily basis, exactly what we're paying in taxes they'll have a much more difficult time raising them and we'll have a greater interest in lowering them.

The present method (payroll deduction) lulls us to sleep and most of Congress wants to keep it that way.

Go to the FairTax website. Buy the book(s). Get on board.

Incumbent protections

Of course then there are all the protections and capabilities of incumbents who communicate their sales pitch and propaganda on tax payer's dime.

What an incredible racket. Wonder if this fits under Racketeering, anti-trust or any of the other laws non-government organizations are subject to?

And to add insult to injury
Liberals are calling for yet another social welfare "entitlement" program, at the very point in time when the largest generation of Americans in history is about ready to retire.

That is the very definition of irresponsibility.

Goatlocker

Irresponsibile and narcisitically selfish.

And then there are gov't credit cards
I wonder if we'll ever see any of this money gov't workers spent on casinos, clothes, iPods etc.. Why isn't the credit card system "live" in that protocol must be in place before an authorization is approved? Their must be a way to eliminate a great deal of this fraud without excessive cost and process.

The Presence of Good

Of course the fact these bad players were caught is evidence that there is a presence in the government of good people reporting misappropriation.

At the end of the day...
...the Constitution is a piece of paper with writing on it.That's all.If the Constitution doesn't live in the hearts and minds of Americans in general,then it doesn't live at all.Everything we (or they in Colonial times or since)think of the document,we will NOT be bound by previous interpretations.It is up to each generation to put it's stamp of approval on it,and the majority WILL rule.I think that is the true power of the document.It is constantly being re-written by each generation to meet their needs and ideas.

The last thing we should do is read the Constitution as penned by it's writers.There has been a lot of water over the dam since then (225 years!),and we cannot be absolutely bound by those written words.Each generation has to interpret it themselves,and when they do that,they change the Constitution in a way that is not enumerated.It will always be thus.


I think the oath needs to remain...
in place. I want to know that the President is held to a higher ideal. Also, when our president stands before Jesus he will ultimately have to answer for his actions.

Nam65-66
The Constitution is NOT a living document. If you think that we, as a people, are of the same moral quality as those that penned it you are sadly mistaken. Then to say that we adapt the document to meet the attitudes of the current generation is to drag it down with us. I suppose that way some of the people can still feel patriotic.

Nam65-66 writes:
Nam,
Then if your view holds then the Constitution doesn't mean anything and never did. We're a mobocracy, sometimes known as a democracy.

You're a disgrace to the uniform you purport to have worn.

So then....
If we accept that the federal government is acting in a manner not allowed by the Constitution, and in some cases, ignores the Constitution altogether, and in other cases, tries to deny us Constitutional rights, then there is only one real question that needs to be asked:

What do we do about it?

FOWG
"NO ONE COMPLAINS!!"

You're wrong FOWG. We complain a lot here on TH. The problem is, it doesn't do any good.

Our government has grown to huge. Our leaders have a mind of their own, and they don't give a damn what we think. Most don't even pretend to have any integrity anymore.

Until we are willing to pick up our guns and initiate another Revolution, nothing is going to change. And lest someone say I am promoting violance, just remember, had it not been for our founding fathers doing the same thing, there would be no USA.

Nam 65-66
Wrong. It cannot mean what it didn't mean when it was written. Otherwise we have nothing to go on. Write on, Dr. Williams.

Tax dollars at work
Employers in America
Top Five Employers in United States of America
-------------------------------------------------
1) US government 1,800,000 excludes Military.
2) Walmart 1,800,000
3) United States Postal Sevice 678,782
4) McDonalds 447,000
5) United Parcel Service 407,000
-------------------------------------------------
Average Salary of Federal Employee 64,684
Average Benefits of Federal Employee 46,496
------------------------------------ =======
------------------------------------ 111,180

5.74 billion in credit card fraud by FED employees

An Agriculture Department employee fraudulently wrote 180 convenience checks for more than $642,000 to a live-in boyfriend over a six-year period. The money was used for gambling, car and mortgage payments, dinners and retail purchases.

This does not include "contractors" that actually do the work FED employees are not qualified to do even though they hold the position.


Life is a hill, get over it.

Solutions
1. Impeach the Supremes who protect and defend the erroneous decisions of dead judges (precedents) instead of honoring their oaths to protect and defend our not-a-living-document Constitution.

2. Support a strong constitutionalist third party candidate for President. The socialist/fascist vote will be split between McCain Feingold and Hillary Obama. The constitutionalist will win.

http://www.poorgrandchildren.com

How Madison Convinced the Founders

I think I would like more than anything to have listened into how Madison taught his fellow founders, the arguements that prevented them from straying.

The Founders must have had an ephiphany about humanity and wrote it to appeal to our nobler qualities. Were they cynical when they wrote it? Or did they foresee the changes to come? It seems to me the definition of Man has expanded.

Like in Robert's Rules they mapped out decisionmaking, created balance, eqaulity and responsibility to be lead by the majority with the rights of the minority and absent members protected. Everything should be done in the spirit of openness/transparency not secrecy.

We are still growing into this amazing document. And I agree with someone's earlier comment in that every generation must make the Constituion their own by reinterpreting that epiphany through the haze of scientific development and convenience. The reestablishment of what is important is every person's challenge among the distractions modernity provide.


Not a living document
The founders mandated that the best way to promote the general welfare is through a severely liimited federal government. If you disagree, you are free to seek an amendment. Calling the Constitution a living document is not one of the methods to change it that is provided. http://www.poorgrandchildren.com

Lisa
I saw that report on Fox yesterday about the government credit cards and the implication that the "taxpayer" was footing the bill for this spending in casinos etc.

If you listened carefully you would have heard that the number they quoted (5 bill?) was "unauthorized charges". It did not say charges that were paid by the government. If the government cards are like private company issued credit cards the individuals are responsible for paying the charges and the government only has to pay for them if the individual defaults. I suspect that the rules are that private charges should not be made and that the people violated the rules and made them. Not that the government got stuck with paying the bills.

I viewed that report as just like other network news organizations. They put out a sensational attention grabbing headline that implied something that was not true. Or in other words, lying by slant.

In this reguard Fox is just as bad as the others.

Great Column
Well said Mr. Williams !

I would add that neither of the three stooges we have to choose from for POTUS is worthy even to accept the office.

Thanks Vic

Thanks Vic. Let's see if there is a follow up to highlight the positive.

M Sederoff
If you should ever decide to advocate the use of guns, I suggest that you avoid advocating the violent overthrow of the government. Instead, I suggest that you advocate the use of violence to protect and defend the Constitution from those who have been attacking it since before it was signed. http://www.poorgrandchildren.com

Public education necessary
Public education is necessary.
Where else will children get indoctrinated? How are you going to get people to vote for big government is they know the federal government's powers are specific, enumerated and limited? How will people accept court decisions when they learn courts have no right to tax or author legislation?

Not a living document
If the Constitution were meant to be a living document subject to reinterpretation at will, there would be no reason to write it. It could be replaced with "The majority shall prevail on everything." The method of changing the Constitution is in the Constitution itself: Article 5. Believing that the Constitution is a living breathing document demotes it to a feel-good essay.

Hint: Ron Paul
Wasn't there some presidential candidate that was regularly harping on the Constitution? I keep thinking there was. I'm sure if there was that all conservatives would rally around him though. Since they didn't I must be mistaken.

Teach the Constitution
Hell's Bell's our education system can't even teach reading,writing,and arithmatic.

M Sederoff
Good criticism of my post.

I should have said no one with amicrophone or in a position of power complains. I am shocked that all the Reps. and Sens. and the POTUS accept rulings based on foriegn law and/or custom and remain silent. This is a total violation of the oath each took.

No one on news shows or talk shows questions this anti-American madness.

We cannot vote for constitutionalists, what course remains?

Tarrmagani and Ray...
...I was trying to give historical facts to the history of the Constitution.You two are arguing what should be,not what is.A free people will adapt the Constitution to what they think is right,and Americans,generations after generations, have done very well by the Constitution.So well,that we are the oldest unchanged form of government in the world.

Tarmagani:I never said that the constitution was a "living document",whatever that means.I simply said that the people will adapt it to their own times and they have,like it or not.That is the constitutions' strength,not it's weakness.Remember,the constitution did not outlaw slavery.Future generations did that.

And no,that generation was no different than ours.They had the good,the bad,and the ugly,just like us.Turning them into biblical hero's distorts history.

Ray:How dare you tell me I am a disgrace to my uniform!For 20 years I either fought for this country and it's constitution,or was prepared to.What the hell have YOU done,you moron!

Not One Of The Candidates
Of either party has any intention of upholding the oath of office, enforcing the laws or protecting the country or its citizens. The inundation of illegal aliens will continue unabated, say good-bye to your country.

Alan Keyes
Alan Keyes is still running and no greater champion of our constitution has run during my lifetime.

Go to his website and watch his videos.

The Republican party has suppressed his vote totals throughout this primary. Of what are they afraid?

The Constitution and our Children
GREAT article...should be mandatory reading in all schools. I would be fascinated to hear from the people here what they are teaching our children about the constitution. Mine are in a decent, supposedly non-biased private school, and the extent of their knowledge equates the constitution with some quaint, antiquated document that served its purpose "back then" but needs to be "reintrepreted" now that life is every so much more enlightened.

I am so frustrated at having to reeducate my children all the time that I am seriously considering quitting my job and home schooling.

Education
"If you want to think ahead one year, plant rice. If you want to think ahead ten years, plant trees. If you want to think ahead one hundred years, educate the people." ---Chinese proverb

The dumbing down of the American schools is deliberate. Dumb people can be led around by the nose. They are not taught to think for themselves because it is not desirable that they think for themselves.

Get your children out of government schools.

Tibby

Good grief!
Can you imagine a congress who wasn't buying a permanent position with taxpayer dollars for sporting event fields and stadiums, hiking paths, memorials, a whole plethora of "endangered species" including mice, a permanent retirement for those who are just too nervous or stressed to work? The very idea! Then even though the POTUS has little actual power over congress he goes along for the sake of his "legacy".
Great column, I wish it was being taught in schools over and over until we have a populace that understands it.

How's this for a pledge
to take office and to testify:
I, (my name) pledge my life, my honor, and my sacred honor, that I will execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
...that I will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Had this oath been in place when Traitor Bill lied to the federal judge, his life and his property (he had no sacred honor) would have belonged to us.

Of course
if upholding the Constitution would lead to a collapse of the Republic, or dangerously weaken its fabric, there may be good reason to at least take time in literally protecting and defending the document.

Is Prof Williams seriously advocating that it would be in the best interest of the US for it to follow the Constitution in a strict reading?

That would require a comprehensive set of policy positions on how the various social problems that government bodies were ostensibly set up to address could be handled without governmnet intervention. Can we just assume or hope that civil society would step into the breach just because of the absence of government?

Federalism
What the professor is calling for is a return to federalism. I bet there are not 5 high school students in the country who could tell you what federalism is.

Imagine....

Imagine how different this election might be if presidents were forced to adhere to the spending outlined in the constitution. Democrats would no longer be able to buy people’s votes by promising them perks (such as universal healthcare, etc.) paid for with OUR tax dollars. That would be the end of Hillary and Obama.

No Study of Constitution
The 'Living Constitution' argument is merely a ploy by the socialists to worm around the intent of the document for self-serving reasons. The Founding Fathers had a whole lot more brain power and common sense than any politician today, so the Constitution should stand as it is. As for teaching it in the schools, Heaven forbid! This would destroy the liberal agenda of social experimentation, indoctrination, and propaganda and this cannot be tolerated at all. Besides, I'm not certain that the public school teachers can read or understand anything as weighty as the Constitution.

The Encarta definition is:
A national or international political system in which two levels of government control the same territory and citizens. The word federal comes from the Latin term fidere, meaning “to trust.” Countries with federal political systems have both a central government and governments based in smaller political units, usually called states, provinces, or territories.

In the US we have local government, county government, state government and "federal" government. In my area there are also sub-county levels of government (North Hudson County something or other) and sub-state levels of government (Northern New Jersy something or other).

Yet on poster suggested that the founders did not take sufficient account of man's frailty? How divided do we want those powers to be?

Giving Up My Share of the "Slop"
Dr. Williams, I congratulate you on another well-written column! You're correct - or at least my opinion matches yours. Speaking as a recipient of military retirement pay and social security, if you or someone could cause the Federal (and State by the way) government spending to be reduced to Constitutional limits, I'd gladly give up my Social Security check. Such a thing would cause retail prices and taxes and all my other living costs to drop by at least half. Therefore, any job I could get at my age would suffice to provide myself and my wife with a decent living for the foreseeable future, combined with my military retirement. I have no hope that such a thing will come to pass in my lifetime. Much more likely that things will continue as they have, until that last 16% of the wealth we produce each year finally disappears into the maw of the tax man. Ah, well, it was an excellent article, just the same as if it had a chance of coming true. Thank you.

Let's cut the chase
Well to be perfectly honest about it, the ones taking the oath should be the corporate chairmen. They are the ones truly running this country. And into the ground I might add.

Lisa
We are not "growing into" the USC. It was designed as LAW. It isn't philosophy. It isn't suggested guidelines. It was not designed so that concrete clauses could be "reinterpretted" to mean nearly the opposite of the original intent. If it is the people's desire to change the USC... there is a proscribed method under the USC and rule of law for doing it... It is called an Amendment. Courts were NEVER intended to be a means of circumventing the Amendment process or rule of Law.

Like most great societies, America started with the rule of Law and has migrated toward the rule of men. The rule of Law promotes justice and freedom. The rule of men always results in injustice and bondage.

After the Exodus, God gave the Israelites a system for the rule of Law. They had no king. Their laws were unchanging because God Himself delivered them through Moses. The people were self-governing with Judges and prophets (preachers) to guide them. Though the people failed often, freedom worked. They were generally prosperous.

They demanded a king... the rule of man. God warned them that a king would demand their sons for his army and tax their wealth but they ignored the warning so he gave them a king.

From that point forward, the Israelite were always subject to the goodness or wickedness of their king. Most of them were wicked. The kingdom was eventually split because of kings... The northern kingdom was eventually lost to history altogether. Judah became a third rate nation.

Bill Clinton demonstrated that the American people want a king, not the rule of law. The man's felony could not possibly have been more cut and dry... yet he was give a pass.

We are headed for either revolution, anarchy, or bondage.

Without government
Isn't it the case that there is another reason - other than bureaucratic will to power - for the expansion of government, and that is that there were social needs that were not being met by civil society.

This comes under the historical heading of "The failings of Christianity".

For while Christianity did a fair job of maintaining the faith of the populace, being a placeholder while we wait for the return of the Messiah, the families of the poor especially were often ground under the wheels of industry. Or was Dickens making all that stuff up?

Marxism came in to fill the void of heart created by the lack of community in western society, that really came to head in the disruptions to traditional communities caused by the industrial revolution.

Is the argument now that such community can now be recreated in the post industrial world, the society of plenty? But isn't the contemporary world marked by the breakup of families and communities and the breakdown of traditional values - the atomization and group-ization of young people? Can that all be blamed on government?

We can go back to a literal federalism - but only with a rebirth of Christian spirit and true community - anybody have a plan?

PeterE
The Civil War effectively ended federalism when an Amendment was passed that made every state's laws subject to the USC and subordinated the legislatures to the Congress.

It didn't help that Lincoln's power grab established executive powers that had never existed before.

Without regard for slavery at all, the wrong side "won" constitutionally speaking. The founders left no doubt that states had a RIGHT to withdraw from the Union.

The ending of slavery was a great good. But it could have been done differently. We are still paying for the damage done to the USC.

Oath of Office
"I accept the office of president" (for life).

PeterE
Dickens wrote of England AFTER theological liberalism had infected the nation. By the time of the "Downgrade Controversy" of the latter part of the 1800's, Spurgeon was almost standing alone for biblical Christianity and its incumbent duties.

Can you cite proof that families, communities, and churches were failing to care for America's poor adequately in the context of the times?

Nam 65-66
Actually, what you advocate is almost verbatim the definition of the "living document" approach to the Constitution. The big evil in this is that it does not hold people to any standard whatsoever. Instead, it allows mob rule and allows the govt to abuse elements of the population by unjustly confiscating their income (livelihood/resources) or even improperly confiscating their property, confining them unjustly in prison, or so on (the list goes on literally forever in the ways that govt can act improperly).

The Founding Fathers provided the Constitution as the list of rules by which the Government must abide...outlining it's roles and responsibility. Now, there are ways in which the world has changes and our Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, provided for that exact occurence (the very process for amending the Constitution).

Bottomline, it is what it is and says what it says. It does not require us to continually mold it to each generation. This is where, as a society, we erred. We should, instead, study and learn it...know what it says and what this means for us...and how it affords us boundless opportunities.

Ron Paul
I wish the Republicans had nominated Ron Paul.

PeterE
Failings of Christianity? You seem to have a jaundiced view of history, my friend. The church was the center of providing social services and was not failing. It provided for the indigent, the sick, widows, orphans, etc. It also assisted in supporting the local schools. All this was done prior the neutering of the church and the ensuing crusade against Christianity by the liberal socialists/secularists/progressives in the West. They have been consistently attacking the church at every turn since the Middle Ages.

Once the church was effectively isolated and neutered, of course there opened-up "needs" to be filled...and the progressives/liberals, in time-honored fashion stepped-up to "champion" these "needs" and further expand the power/influence/control of government.

I won't stand here and insist that the church did not have it's faults as well. Anything involving mankind will err in some way. However, it did meet the needs as long as it was empowered to. Further, if you examine the tax records, you will see that the church is still the largest provider of charitable work. The Muslims know this...their mosque still fills the role in their society that our church filled in ours once upon a time.

An Example Of What Williams Wrote
The Clean Air Act was written in the early 70s and signed into law by Nixon. Congress explicitly named what pollutants should regulated and to what degree. The EPA was legally formed to carry out the Clean Air Act as defined BY CONGRESS (which was elected by the people). The EPA had no statutory authority to define what could be regulated, but was given BY CONGRESS sweeping powers to make sure the energy and auto industries complied.

In 2007, the state of California sued the EPA for not including CO2 as a pollutant. The State Attorney General wished to have California devise its own pollutant laws, and include CO2 as such. The EPA argued back that no state can make regulatory laws that go beyond what Congress has already mandated. The case of course will go to the Supreme Court. Anyone who follows this scuffle will wonder how California, a state, can force the EPA to do anything. Besides, CO2 is not a pollutant; it is a natural greenhouse gas that gives life to this planet. The EPA Director finally admitted he would love to classify CO2 as a pollutant, but only Congress can do that. California is hoping that the Courts will now do the job Congress will not.
If the Courts do rule in favor of California, the EPA will in affect be an agency beyond democratic recall, and only answerable to the judiciary.

Ron Paul?
Those who are still supporting Ron Paul should put away their issued crackpipes and look at the facts.

Ron Paul talks a good game and in principle sounds good. However, when you examine his real actions, you see he's as big a believer in govt pork as anyone else in DC. He states that he's never voted for pork ever. It sounds great until you realize it's more parsing of words in true Clinton style. He's not "voted" for it, but he's proposed quite a bit of it for his TX district--and all pork is attached to a larger piece of govt legislation (like the DoD budget, govt annual budget, etc.). Then, when the larger bill is brought to a vote, he votes against it, knowing that the majority will carry the legislation through and he then still receives the very pork that he proposed and voted against.

That's just one instance. I don't know about you, but it's quite misleading and dishonest on his part to claim to be a champion of limited govt. Just a thought.

We need a Revolution
New parody. My Blog.

Rich et al
No, I love and respect Christianity, and I am in awe of the sacrifices of its legions of dedicated followers.

I'm trying to capture a vast swathe of human history in a couple of sentences. I believe there must have been weaknesses in doctrine and the hearts of ordinary Christians to allow those external ideological forces (marxism, radicalism, anarchism, socialism of various kinds) to undermine Christianity not only in Britain but throughout Europe. In America (and England - Methodism) it was largely sustained through revival movements that rekindled Christian spirit and social activism.

Today of course Christinaity is so weak in Europe that Islam is emerging as a serious competitor.

This is what I am asking: does it make sense to urge a return to strict federalism without a spiritual revival which brings the majority of society back into the Christian fold?

PeterE
How can you blame Christians in England for the Gin ridden societies of London, Manchester, and Brimingham? The Temperance Movement got its start with Christians who wished to reform the immorality of the rapidly growing urban centers of Europe.As a matter of fact, there was world-wide revivial in Protestant Europe that spread to North America -it was known as the Great Awakening. From the Pietists of Prussia to the Methodists of England, to the Baptists of North America, Christians led a number reforms at the local level (Benevolence, Charity, and hard work) that had global implications. Marxism was an abstraction that had its greatest appeal to unemployed, illiterates. It was always top down and after 1848 lost most of its appeal. The Working Joe eventually saw it for what it was:worthless.

The return to Marxism can again be attributed to Christianity. The Progressive Movement of the late 1800s was a Christian Populist Movement that spread from North America to Europe. It evolved into a Corportist illiberal movement that had a disdain for Republican Democracy. Since 1900, all major political movements -including Lenninism, and Fascisi -can be traced to Progressivism.

To big difference between the Great Awakening and the Christian Progressives is the former stressed the Fall of Man, and the later The Goodness in Man.

A proposed addendum to oaths of office
"And if I fail to support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, I hereby agree to vacate my office immediately and forfeit all my cushy federal retirement benefits, so help me God."

One can dream, right?


Missing the point
Which is that taking away the government agencies that fill-in for community in modern capitalism may bring disaster in the absence of a force that can create revitalized communities. And my question is, again, wouldn't such a program require a spiritual revolution? Of course we can talk the merits and demerits of Christian movements til the cows comehome. I'm trying to address Williams' article.

PeterE - Great Points!
While we look for historical perspective on how government intervention into social concerns effected those issues, we are experiencing that very concept today - in the debate(?) over national health care. PeterE presumes that government expanded into the social program realm because "civil society" was not meeting the social "needs". This is a powerful presumption, and is not to be accepted as fact without diligent, truthful research. Today we hear about how we are "killing" millions of people in our country because they are uninsured. We are left to presume that these unisured are poor, destitute, sickly individuals too poor to afford insurance and therefore left to die on the streets. Of course, this is emotional bullcrap repeated ad infinitum by those desparate for government intervention into any and all aspects of our lives.

Buckbean
Getting closer - but actually the onus is on libertarians (if they really want to get involved in public policy) to demonstrate that the social needs that bureaucracy says that it is meeting are chimerical. That's not easy either.

It's the economy, stupid.
Great column . . . again.
The American public doesn't care because they see no harm. That's why economists like WW are more important to our survival as a free nation than lawyers. Economists deal in truth . . . lawyers deal in compromise.

PeterE et al
Was the constitution written to limit Government and guarantee individual rights?

Was the message of Jesus spoken to limit Religion and guarantee individual rights to God?
-------------------------------------------------
Has the Government seen its role to create mandates for compassion towards groups?

Did the message of Jesus change the individual to love and show compassion for his brother?
-------------------------------------------------
Has the government message brought frustation, strife and dispair to the individual and hatred towards his brother?

Does the message of Jesus to the individual, who believes and accepts the message bring peace, hope and joy for the individual and love for his brother?

Dr. Williams
Accurate and astute as always. Why won't you run for President??? Would you at least consider being VP so you might teach one of these socialist currently running for president something? God save the Queen (err) f the Queen. God please save the American people, we've fallen down and we can't get up!

Retired geek
I'm not sure how you are responding to anything I wrote - are you dealing with church-state issues or something?

PeterE
In terms of YOUR approach - therein lies the ultimate danger of expanded government. Once "the programs" have been instilled, we are left, in the minds of many, to "demonstrate" the inefficiency (or whatever) of those programs. My point is that the same set of standards or criteria should be applied BEFORE government gets involved. We base our decisions concerning government involvement on emotionalism and psuedo-science. It is only when one questions the role of the government program that true facts and figures are demanded. By then it's too late and the rut gets deeper, because the true state of affairs BEFORE government involvement (and the justification for expanded government) was not grounded in true facts to begin with.

I'm sorry
Yes, No, Yes, Yes, Sort of, Yes.

You're cherry picking, Rich
You've chosen earmarks because that's the one area where critics believe they've found some vulnerability in Ron Paul's very consistent record of voting in line with the Constitution.

Paul has proposed some earmarks for his district, though he opposes earmarks in principle and always votes against them. His point is this: under the current system, the spending levels have already been agreed upon before earmarks are proposed. Whether Congress decides how they're spent or bureaucrats do so, the spending will take place. Till the system is changed, his constituents deserve to be heard as much as any others in how this money should be spent. This may not be a purist view, but there is some logic to it.

Dr. Paul's believes that government spending should be limited to items specifically authorized by the Constitution, just as Dr. Williams says.

They break other rules


Let’s look at another place in the Constitution that is being violated each and every Presidency.

Maybe you’ve noticed that the Senate does not go home when they have a few days off, they have some stupid clown of a Senator in an adjacent state come into the office and create a phony session, because they don’t want Bush to appoint a conservative to any post.

But read this

The Constitution Article II, Section 2 says
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

And read it again, the says “all vacancies that may happen during the recess,” it does not say “all vacancies that still exist during the recess.”

So the Senate is just trying to keep Bush from violating the Constitution, but they never gave it a thought while Clinton was making his appointments.

And by the way, I am not going to take the time to research it right now, but there are rules in the Constitution that govern what happens when the Senate or the House is out of session, but I don’t suppose they would care, even if they are violating that rule.



I agree
with Jeffery P. We MUST start teaching the Constitution from day one in kindergarten. If not sooner. That and the Federalist Papers should be as major a school subject as the 3 R's.

Buck
You're ascribing to me something I don't hold. Since the myriad government programs exist, and they are full of people who can argue powerfully that they are necessary, libertarians have the job of demonstrating that they are wrong. Not vice versa, politically speaking.

I'm just skeptical of the political and governmental realism of libertarianism.

sgt18

sgt18 - we have grown into it by our definition of Man though these were remedied by the Civil War, Sufferage and Civil Rights.

Jim

That clown is Jim Webb - the King of because I say so this empty room is in session. A clear misuse of Robert's Rules and a means with malice of preventing our government from properly functioning.

PeterE
PeterE wrote; "I'm trying to capture a vast swathe of human history in a couple of sentences. I believe there must have been weaknesses in doctrine and the hearts of ordinary Christians to allow those external ideological forces (marxism, radicalism, anarchism, socialism of various kinds) to undermine Christianity not only in Britain but throughout Europe. In America (and England - Methodism) it was largely sustained through revival movements that rekindled Christian spirit and social activism."
-------------------------------------------------
Was the weakness the abstraction of the message of Jesus into doctrine or Relgion?

Was the the message of Jesus mixed with collectivism to pacify those who demanded social activism for society?

Judas betrayed Jesus to "force his hand" to break the domination of Rome. Jesus continued His mission to bring hope and freedom to the individual.
------------------------------------------------
Life is a hill, get over it.

Give W his due
Why no mention yet of our current president who has been quoted as saying, "(the Constitution) is just a goddamned piece of paper"? Congress isn't a public service organization it's a toxic jobs program...as is the law enforcement-prison system and the warfare system, etc. etc.

Nam65-66. that is a very Soviet idea
They changed their constitution every couple of years, too. Let's just move the goal posts, every time we feel like it.

Hillary delenda est.

Reired geek
So your point is - the social issues that I raise are irrelevant because Jesus came for individuals? So your libertarianism is sustained by your Christian fundamentalism? OK.

But not all libertarians share your religious persuasion, right?

What's the constitutional authority for
Passing the The Enumerated Powers Act?

Seriously, isn't it generally accepted that issues not expressly covered in the constitution can be acted upon by congress (like a protection of marriage law, for example). The Supreme court will back them up by ruling it's not unconstitutional, since it isn't specifically covered in the constitution. I love the idea of going back to the extremely limited government intended by the founders, but it seems virtually impossible when so many are dependent on the government and will never vote against handouts.

On a minor note, is it practical? If the fed. gov. is bound by enumerated powers, wouldn't any government action outside those powers require an amendment? A far more limited fed. govt. seems like it could only be a great thing, but the above realities make it seem unlikely. Even if the enumerated powers act were passed, wouldn't it just create more paperwork - I mean all that would happen is that lawmakers would hire a few more toadies to write up blathering justifications for how spending money on protecting the spotted tree shrew was the intent of the founding fathers.

PeterE
PeterE writes: Wednesday, April, 09, 2008 10:49 AM

"Is Prof Williams seriously advocating that it would be in the best interest of the US for it to follow the Constitution in a strict reading?"

Absolutely! Haven't you read enough of his columns?

"That would require a comprehensive set of policy positions on how the various social problems that government bodies were ostensibly set up to address could be handled without governmnet intervention. Can we just assume or hope that civil society would step into the breach just because of the absence of government?"

I think that you might be surprised now at the value of goods and services delivered by private individuals and organizations versus the amount spent by the government. Most of would give more if we were able to keep our earnings, instead of having them stolen unconstitutionally at the point of a gun.

Most government programs actually perpetuate and increase the behavior that they were created to "help". There is no shame generated when you get your food stamps by mail or from a faceless bureaucrat - show up regularly at a church's food bank or soup kitchen, and you might want to help cut the lawn or mop the floors.

PeterE
I think you totally miss the point that the Federal Goverment through its "benevolence" pushed away private christian institutions -namely the family- in the first place. Social Security has done more to break the ties that bind generations together than all other pieces of law combined.

You also mis-read history concerning Marxism, anarchists, and Christianity. Marxism was on its deathbed by 1900 -both intellectually and poltically. The socialist parties of Europe at the time were Christian Progressives. It was during this time that the great mainline Protestant Churches of Europe began thier steady decline -that is, they became consumed by politics and not enternity.

The US was immuned to this decline until Progressive Christianity made its way into the pulpits, lecture halls, and political stumps. Almost all of the famous progressives of that era were WASPs (Taft, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson); they all were infused with progressive (later termed fascist) ideas: taxes on income, corporatist social justice, class warefare, the federal reform of education, the impostion of morality from the top down (think of prohibition), eugenics, and social conscious raising. It took a century, but most of these agenda items have been completed.

The only people today in the US which stand against this trend are the Conservative-Libertarians. Unfortunately, we are a minority.

Rich...
...Now I agree with your post of 11:36 AM.Maybe I didn't make myself clear.If so,I apoligize.The point I was trying to make(however badly) was that the authors of the USC gave us a means of changing the document.As you and others pointed out,that is the amendment process.But I cannot think of a generation in our history that didn't support amending the Constitution in some way.

I do NOT believe that the Judicial branch of government has the right to amend the USC by issuing opinions.The authors of the USC made it difficult to change,but not impossible.That has eliminated "mobocracy".It requires a super majority and every State has a voice.that voice will be influenced by it's own voters.

Rich: Participation vs. Implementation
Lets say I'm against Social Security (I am, so this makes it even better). My government forces me to pay into it. Whether I want to or not, the money I pay government, in part, goes to the funding of social security. So if I'm against social security, should I tear up my social security check? I'm already participating through my forced taxes. There is a difference between not participating, and not deriving a benefit.

Now we move on to what you brought up about Ron Paul. As long as earmarks exist, Ron Paul's district will by default be forced to participate in them as their tax money goes to other earmarks. What your suggesting is that because Ron Paul is against earmarks, his district should have to pay into earmarks and not get any money back. Until District 14 of Texas is offered the option of not PARTICIPATING (perhaps through tax refunds in exchange for forgoing earmarks) in earmarks, deriving a benefit from forced participation is not contradictory to the ideal of abolition.

PeterE
I don't know much about libertarians. While in Philadelphia on a business trip (must have been 92), I watched some of their convention from my hotel TV. When one of the candidates mentioned the way to combat drug addiction was to "back up the trucks of drugs and let them kill theirselves" to a standing ovation - I decided that was not my cup of tea.
-------------------------------------------------
Collectivists and their leftwing dupes have poisoned the Government, Society and the message of Jesus. Select any liberal object and examine its output and you will find despair, crime and hatred.

War on poverty is a good example.

The collateral damage of liberalism is mind boggling.

And Rich...
...thank you for the civil reply.(My name is Rich also).

JPK
Very well put, my friend.

Very interesting...
thank you all for those kind and enlightening responses.

I continue to disagree as the status of Christianity in 19th century Europe, and about the deadness of Marxism in 1900.

The impact of Social Security on the family structure is an interesting point - do you have any documentation of that? Do you have any reason to think that weakening is reversible?


Bread and circuses
"Give them bread and circuses".

Four equations
McCain = Barf
Hillary = 2 X Barf
Obama = 3 X Barf

McCain + Hillary + Obama = I stay home Nov. 4th.

JPK

Well done.

Don't stay home!
"McCain + Hillary + Obama = I stay home Nov. 4th."

Please consider voting third party. It would be an embarrassment to the "winner" if they won with 40% of the popular vote.

You Gotta Vote

Please do NOT stay home. You must vote. You do not have to vote for Hillybama or McAmnesty. There are always other parties and people on the ballot. You could write in Joe Oliva. The important votes are for House and Senate seats. Conservatives MUST win seats in the House. The House is where things get done. It was the passage of H.R. 4437, an enforcement bill, in Dec.05 that sparked the illegal alien protest marches and moved this issue to the front burner. It was the Senate that tried to jam amnesty down our throats. The D's that won seats in '06 were conservatives running on enforcement platforms. One of them, Heath Shuler D-NC, introduced the SAVE Act. Call, e-mail, or write your Congressman and urge support of this legislation. Enforcement is what Americans want, not amnesty.

Amnesty is a losing proposition.
I don't think Hillary is stupid enough to step in front of this bus.
McCain is.

Just change...
the beginning of the oath to "I do solemnly give lip service ..."

Simple.

Taxpayer's Strike
Can you say "Atlas Shrugged"? Ever read it? The political part of it is happening as we watch.

I wish everyone that makes over $100k in this country would just take a year off. Then let's see what the traitors in Congress think of having NO MONEY to buy votes with.

You DO know we pay ALL the taxes that allow this fiasco to continue? Don't you?

First Google hit: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

Ron Paul
That guy who posted about Ron Paul constantly saying he never brought home pork was wrong. Paul always said he never voted to raised taxes. And that is the truth. But I can understand that many readers here are afraid and/or loathe Paul, as the majority of readers at TownHall are "national defense conservatives."

I got a newsflash for you: your days in Iraq are numbered, whether you like that or not.

Jill M
I got news for you, even if you have to wear a burka first. Your days on earth are numbered too... Shall we all start counting now?

Whatever idiot.
Gain coherence.

Well, if the Constitution...
...is a living, breathing document to be reinterpreted by each new generation to come along, I'd like one of the current generations to please "reinterpret" Amendments 16 & 17 because they've been a bane on our nation ever since they were ratified.

The 50% of our fellow citizens who do not pay income taxes (and have a good percentage of the taxes they do pay returned to them in the form of credits on the taxes they don't pay) have no incentive to elect representatives dedicated to lowering the tax burden on the rest of us. To the contrary, since they're the same group who most benefit from government largess (they and much of corporate America including defense contractors and agribusiness), they have a vested interest in keeping that burden high. And our elected officials have a vested interest in pandering to their "needs", the Constitution be damned.

As long as dollars by the trillions continue to flow into Washington, we will never see a return to Constitutional constraint, much less fiscal restraint (weren't we duly warned about this very thing?!). The only way it stops is if the producers decline to produce and the revenue stream stops flowing. Is anything along those lines likely to happen? Who is John Galt?

JPK
Very good post. I was wondering if someone was going to address PeterE on this. His wondering if private charity would pick up the slack in the absence of the welfare state kind of presupposes the welfare state government monopoly model of charity. The private sector was doing just fine until the Great Depression came along and overwhelmed it. The policies of FDR that deepened and prolonged the economic contraction also provided the needed populist pain to accept a new world order imposed from Washington to allegedly fix things. Government drove private providers of charity out of the market. The result has been the transfer of responsibility for the less fortunate from individuals to government.

Witness all the liberals screaming to raise taxes to help the poor and give nothing themselves. They actually believe they have performed charity by enacting a government program. They choose to ignore the forced taking of another's property to do this thus negating the act of charity. Do you believe a man is justified to take from one who has to give to one who has not. In essence, do you think Robin Hood was a just man.

No matter how desperate the situation, Jesus would never advocate stealing from the rich to help the poor. He would admonish the rich, lecture them perhaps on charity and their immortal souls but, he would never advocate that the poor band together and force the rich man to part with his riches.

Not Voting Is The Honorable Way
Americans need to learn and understand the power of the boycott. If every American refused to do business with just ONE company that hires illegal aliens, for example, and made their boycott known to that company and to their friends, etc. , American businesses that cheat would soon go under. Instead, Americans want it both ways, they turn their eyes and continue to do business with companies that they KNOW are cheating. It's the same with the vote. It doesn't work to simply stay home. You have to publicize your boycott. You have to call and write your Congressman and tell them you are WITHHOLDING your vote because they support open borders, gay marriage, or whatever. You have to write to the Republican National Committee and tell them you will never vote for a RINO like McAmnesty. Protest voting for a 3rd party accomplishes nothing. Don't vote unless you are voting FOR something. Voting for the lesser of two evils guarantees you will get evil.

Taxing the poor

Since all taxes end up being paid by the comsumer Democrats have done the most to hurt them. Now the Dems want to tax Pay Day lending - great make a bad situation worse.


Jill M
I am actually a national defense libertarian. The reason I can't support Ron Paul, who otherwise would be my ideal candidate. He also kind of tends to be a Pat Buchanan protectionist anti-economic reality conspiracy theorist which I don't like. There are a bunch of those here also. If only Walter would run. Now, that would be my dream ticket.

Totally disagree.
Either write someone in or vote 3rd party this year. McCain=Clinton=Obama, and you all know that if you are intellectually honest. You know your taxes will go up, you know the war will go on, you know nothing will change except more socialism on all levels. Go 3rd party. Constitutionalist Party, LP, anyone.

The Enumerated Powers Act
Mr. Williams,
Senator Barack Obama was a lecturer of U.S Constitutional law at the University of Chicago for 10 years. I’m not sure what your credentials are but have you ever actually asked him or others with similar credentials to comment on the Enumerated Powers Act? We all might learn something. You’re certainly not against learning are you?

Lisa
True statement about the dems. The poor have no idea how regressive the tax structure really is. They applaud their demagogues who promise to raise marginal income tax rates on the rich meanwhile they continue to pile it on the poor just as your example illustrates. Hey, let's raise those tabacco taxes some more.

refatsew
It would be refreshing if a reporter actually asked all the candidates about this and they gave an answer that wasn't and evasion. Do you actually think a reporter would ask the question and that you'd get a straight answer, even from Barak?

Even so, my guess is that Obama would be against the Act and is in favor of the fed passing any laws outside their enumerated powers so long as they agree with his ideology and could get by a liberal SCOTUS with at least three Obama selections.

refatsew
I don't think Mr. Williams is against learning. Neither am I. You, I question though. You seem to put an awful lot of stock in credentials. Do you defer to constitutional lawyers to interpret the constitution for you or have you tried reading it yourself? Do you use experts to learn or do you simply defer to their judgement?

Hitchhiker
That's neat, but I don't consider a "national defense libertarian" to be a libertarian at all, whatsoever. If it means you like the Iraq war, it boils down to you liking govt largesse on the scale that makes even headline social programs look like pocket change. Being this sort of "libertarian" is very much akin to calling the Lieberman-McCain relationship "conservative."

refatsew
Btw, I believe his credentials are listed in his bio on this site. Just click his picture. So many experts. Which ones to believe?

17th Amendment
“The Enumerated Powers Act currently has 44 co-sponsors in the House. In the Senate, it has never had a single co-sponsor, and that's a Senate that includes our three presidential aspirants.”

Ever since the 17th Amendment to the USC (direct election of US Senate vice selection by state legislatures), the Senate has slow drifted to its lowest point as being the biggest gatekeeper against REAL US government reform.

Hitchhiker

Nice to have you along for the ride.

Jill M: Really?
“That's neat, but I don't consider a "national defense libertarian" to be a libertarian at all, whatsoever. If it means you like the Iraq war, it boils down to you liking govt largesse on the scale that makes even headline social programs look like pocket change. Being this sort of "libertarian" is very much akin to calling the Lieberman-McCain relationship "conservative."

Really? Actually, speaking as a Libertarian, Reserve Officer & DoD Applied Scientist, the US Government annually spends nearly three (3) times more $$$ on the pro-feminist “Entitlement Industrial Complex” ($1.4T) vice the $500B+ wartime DoD budget. Which spending would be considered “more” Constitutional? Which is a bigger waste of $$$?

Jill M.
Interesting. Kicking me out of the party for supporting the war? You do know that military spending for national defense is specifically authorized in our constitution, dont you? I don't have the inclination to argue the Iraq war right now. Suffice to say, I disagree with virtually all government spending except defense and that required to maintain a certain level of regulation and organization of the executive branch for the effective management of the economy such as the treasury dept, the federal reserve, basic level playing field agencies like the EEOC, SEC, etc. I think they could be better structured and managed but they amount to a piddling of the budget anyway. I advocate the elimination of all transfer payments of any kind to individuals or corporations. I advocate the abolishment of the IRS and allowing the government ONE and only one method of collecting revenue. But, hey kick me out. I don't like groupthinking much anyway.

Mkay
I'm not in the LP, so you don't have to glorify your tribulation with me. At any rate, I have a good measure of your delusion at this time. Have a good day, sir.

Hitchhiker

Hitchhiker - Jill doesn't have the power to kick you out.

Moonkeeper...well said
Hint: Ron Paul
Wasn't there some presidential candidate that was regularly harping on the Constitution? I keep thinking there was. I'm sure if there was that all conservatives would rally around him though. Since they didn't I must be mistaken.

You are not mistaken, Moonkeeper. Trouble is, as stated by Dr Williams, most Americans including "conservatives" really don`t want strict enforcement of the Constitution. Freedom is risky and most of us aren`t willing to pay its price.

Social Security and Medicare sends checks to millions. Millions of others can`t fathom a USA that doesn`t fire up the gunboats at every opportunity to steam off into someone else`s troubles. These comforts and activities have no constitutional basis, but we love `em.

We may soon see things in America that haven`t been seen for 80 years. Shortages, hunger, war and disease have a way of turning the public mind away from liberalism...toward what, remains to be seen.

refatsew: 17th amendment
“Senator Barack Obama was a lecturer of U.S Constitutional law at the University of Chicago for 10 years. I’m not sure what your credentials are but have you ever actually asked him or others with similar credentials to comment on the Enumerated Powers Act?”

If you were familiar w/ your history since the 17th amendment, I think that you will find that Dr. Williams is commenting about the “gatekeeper” nature of the US Senate when it comes to REAL reform vice questioning Mr. Obama’s ability to interpret law. BTW, just because someone was a law lecturer, that doesn’t make them an expert on every other legal facet, e.g., Patent, Admiralty, Military/UCMJ, Constitutional, etc. I’ve probably forgotten more about the UCMJ than Mr. Obama will ever know.

refatsew: 17th amendment
“Senator Barack Obama was a lecturer of U.S Constitutional law at the University of Chicago for 10 years. I’m not sure what your credentials are but have you ever actually asked him or others with similar credentials to comment on the Enumerated Powers Act?”

If you were familiar w/ your history since the 17th amendment, I think that you will find that Dr. Williams is commenting about the “gatekeeper” nature of the US Senate when it comes to REAL reform vice questioning Mr. Obama’s ability to interpret law. BTW, just because someone was a law lecturer, that doesn’t make them an expert on every other legal facet, e.g., Patent, Admiralty, Military/UCMJ, Constitutional, etc. I’ve probably forgotten more about the UCMJ than Mr. Obama will ever know.

Lisa: Boo HOO
“Since all taxes end up being paid by the comsumer Democrats have done the most to hurt them. Now the Dems want to tax Pay Day lending - great make a bad situation worse.”

Boo Hoo- the “Poor” don’t pay any income taxes, i.e., The Democrats have slowly transferred all of the income tax burden to the top 50% of wage earners (= $50K or greater annually: top 50% pay 96% of all income taxes.) The bottom 50% only pay payroll taxes which consist of Medicare & Social Security Taxes. Social Security is a PONZI scheme that is heading for a near term crash. There is no Social Security surplus- it has been used by both parties to hide the true size of the national debt. DNC’s solution? The Democrats “solution” is to buy more votes from the “parasite class”: forget the first $15-30K in earnings and then raise the taxable income limit from $80K to $140K IOT make up the difference. This would of course place a greater tax burden on the top 50% taxpayers- most of whom are of course evil white males.

Unfortunately, most people who support the DNC’s policies WRT wealth redistribution are those persons who have placed themselves firmly in the “To Each According To HER Needs” Column of that great socialist equation.

Lisa: Boo Hoo
“Since all taxes end up being paid by the comsumer Democrats have done the most to hurt them. Now the Dems want to tax Pay Day lending - great make a bad situation worse.”

Boo Hoo- the “Poor” don’t pay any income taxes, i.e., The Democrats have slowly transferred all of the income tax burden to the top 50% of wage earners (= $50K or greater annually: top 50% pay 96% of all income taxes.) The bottom 50% only pay payroll taxes which consist of Medicare & Social Security Taxes. Social Security is a PONZI scheme that is heading for a near term crash. There is no Social Security surplus- it has been used by both parties to hide the true size of the national debt. DNC’s solution? The Democrats “solution” is to buy more votes from the “parasite class”: forget the first $15-30K in earnings and then raise the taxable income limit from $80K to $140K IOT make up the difference. This would of course place a greater tax burden on the top 50% taxpayers- most of whom are of course evil white males.

Unfortunately, most people who support the DNC’s policies WRT wealth redistribution are those persons who have placed themselves firmly in the “To Each According To HER Needs” Column of that great socialist equation.

Jill M.
I gather I touched a nerve with my dismissal of Pat Buchanan as a kook so that makes me a kook.

I believe anyone that believes we can completely fence off the outside world and continue our little experiment sans any outside influences is suffering from a delusion. However you want to spin it, buy american, etc, that is what his arguments amount to. It is xenophobia. All the CFR conspiracy theory crap, and railing against paper money and the federal reserve goes along with it. The New World Order. It is scaremongering no different than global warming. I hope you don't fall into this group. I don't recall having read your posts before.

Constitution is passe.
Thank goodness our senators have more sense that Walter Williams. Haven't we pointed out more than enough times that the world has changed enormously since the Constitution was written and shackeling ourselves to an out of date Constitution is sheer lunacy.

Demosthenes
Not to detract from your argument but, I would like to point out that although poor people pay no income taxes, they pay the same sales taxes, property taxes, vehicle registration fees, license fees, utility bill taxes, fees, surcharges, etc. We do need to make sure we take all taxes into account when discussing tax fairness among income categories. I am not even sure income categories are all that useful. Some very low income people have large amounts of wealth. Net worth and income are two different measures of well being.

Personaly, I don't like the idea of taxing either. I would rather tax consumption like the fair tax for a variety of reasons: simple, eliminates opportunity for fraud and waste, places a heavier burden on conspicous consumption(mcmansions, yachts, etc), I could list many more but, others have already done so. The current proposal is not perfect, it is not completely fair because it cannot be completely fair to all and still achieve the drastic revamping that is needed. I think it is a step in the right direction however.

Proud Liberal
How ya doin?

Liberals must never be shackled to anything, of course, a constitution, a religion, a set of moral principles. No, this the Age of Aquarius or something right? Throw away history, learn nothing, drop out, turn on, and whatever. Been there, done that. Someday, you to, will become a conservative. Or maybe not. Politics? Preaching? Academia? Adult liberals have never had to earn a living is all.

Proud Liberal -- Constitution is Passe
"the world has changed enormously since the Constitution was written"

So what's the big deal? Change it.

That's all you have to do. Just change it.

It is, after all, the contract between the people and their government.

You don't really want give the government carte blanch to do any durned thing they can think of, do you? Patriot Act, anyone? Domestic spying? Eminent domain to give one man's property to another man?

The whole idea is to LIMIT the government to a ENUMERATED set of things it can do. If there's something you really really really want, and it ain't on that list, go out and get it added.

We've done it before. We can do it again. No biggie.

If the Constitution
Is a living document and subject to the private interpretation of a Judge, then why is he required to Swear an Oath of Fealty, faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, steadfastness to the Document as it now reads?

The oath becomes meaningless.

Doro
Home school, I promise you will not regret it.
I was in the second wave of Homeschooling parents when the small Christian school my youngest son was attending closed it's doors. His older brothers had gone on to H.S. It was his idea, he begged me and I agreed to with some trepidation and it was the most rewarding 10 years of my life..from third through H.S. I enrolled him in a Christian Academy for most of the time which was out of state and did their Alpha Omega program, then switched to a Michigan
school that was secular but allowed religious
education also..and gave me the freedom to choose his curriculum. I am numerically challenged (have the checkbook to prove it) so
when he entered H.S., we hired a tutor from a local 2 yr. college. He went on to College,
growled for two years because he was forced to take classes he'd already passed in homeschool.
This kid took a copy of the Constitution with him to his summer job and took a lot of kidding about it. But he's a young businessman and a broken glass conservative with dreams of public office someday, not as a career but what the
Founders intended. My other kids are homeschooling their school age kids, I have two that were but due to divorce are now in public school but since it's a small country school it's tolerable, the teachers are free to TEACH.

Whoops
Should be He's a young businessman..no buts about it.

It's a given that our Constitution is given short shrift in classrooms these days, as well as Civics. We citizens have to find a way around the indoctrination. We can keep after our
electeds (although they might not want it since it would impact their career paths) to mandate that civics, U.S. history (unrevised), and the Constitution be taught, not just one Sept. day a year but throughout school, k through 12; those who are finacially able can place ads in newspapers and magazines, t.v. programs/ads, we can write letters to editors. We can start newsletters a la Committees of Correspondence.
And above all, we can pray for God to shed His Grace upon our land once again, and to help us spread the word about our exceptional God given
form of government.
Right now, we are just preaching to the choir,
we need to think out of the box. If the American citizens were educated about the rights and responsibilities of being citizens of this
country and the right to vote, there is NO way
those three stooges would ever get as far as they have.

Finally
Check out Peter Marshall Jrs. site and his commentaries.

It appears to me...
That we need to get back to the basics--- stick
to the constitution!It sure proved itself for this country for along time!
Wasn't that what reagan had in mind?
Back to the basics reminds me of one year Tommy Lasorda told the players at spring training(L.A.)
WE ARE GOING TO GET BACK TO THE BASICS---------
then he held a baseball in his hand and said to the players...THIS IS A BASEBALL!Am i getting through to the folks here?By the way they had a great year that year !!
Elvis

Outstanding--
Another one of the excellent articles by Dr. Williams. It is a shame that the majority of our so called leaders do not share Dr. Williams' standards.

The people can take back Government!
The internet provides a way of swift communication.

All we need is an organized group who care enough to use it to demonstrate our displeasure with Congress & The Judiciary.

The way our Nation is so dependent on Freeways it would be a simple matter to bring the Country to a halt with a National Strike.

Freeways and arterial traffic lanes would be blocked to all but emergency vehicles.

To dissuade Government interference;
In the event of any attempted reprisal or arrest of strikers the strike would continue until one day after they had been released and compensated $100 for every hour in custody.

National Strikes in Europe & Japan seldom last more that 1 day.
They get a lot more attention than standing on some sidewalk with a sign!

Just one time to show the possibility would be enough to get Congress to pay attention to our letters & e-mail.

The Constitution os a "living document"
Saying that the Constitution is a "living document" is to say that what is written in it is no longer binding. The reason given, that it was written in the past, namely, 1787, and so is out-of-date, would mean that no contract or agreement could ever be made - since they all exist in the past as soon as they are made. Harvard University, whose basis is in the Constitution of Massachusetts, based on the earlier founding, would no longer exist - since its property and authority were given over 200 years ago. No laws, including traffic laws, could be enforced, since they were made in the past.
The Constitution is as valid, and should be obeyed, like any other law or agreement.

They're enemies of the Constitution.

If a recently arrived intelligent alien from outer space was asked to assess the Senate voting records and campaign promises of each of the three candidates, the alien would declare unequivocally that each of the candiates is an enemy of the Constitution and an unabashed traitor of the highest order. The alien would be wondering why we are not trying them for treason.

The alien would firmly declare that we do not elect people to Congress or the Presidency who take their oaths seriously. The alien would have to conclude that the voters do not understand or care about the Constitution.

talent scout
Oaths only serve one thing to most people these days to "get others" to comply to some agreement or another. They then become a shield that many hide behind.

Case in point? The marriage vow or oath two people take at the alter. For many it simply is something one has to say to get what one wants. And, whether that is public support or respect or a means to an end. Example? Jane or John Doe who carefully select their partners, i.e. dating based upon "how much money" and what kind of social status they enjoy....Then when making those promises at the alter, they have kept that part hidden, do the actually mean those oaths or are they something they say to get what they want? If it is the latter, then said individual has committed the essence of adultery (to adulterate) means to taint or make impure...because they A. Don't really mean what they just said (ergo they are defrauding the other person) and B. Will only comport to that sworn oath so long as the "money" status or whathave you(pay off) is there.

Oaths and contracts then only have meaning so long as one actually complys with the terms and intent. The problem is most only see them as a means to an end and generally have NO INTENTION of honoring their own words or the meaning of said oath or CONTRACT...That is why there is so much divorce. That is why there is so much litigation.

The bottom line? People are about as emotionally mature as a five year old...and their behavior or lack there of is the testimony to that fact. Our politicians pander to it so it also stands the test of reason they also are not much better. It is all pretty pathetic.

I agree
I am on Soc. Sec. Disability Income. Even so, I agree with this article. While it is scary to think about how I would survive if I didn't have this help, I have faith in God above and in the principles that made this country great.
I would take great comfort in knowing that our country was back on track, as opposed to where it's headed now.

The alien and Prof Williams
seem to have a lot in common. What a coincidence!

I would love to believe that you folk are on the right radically anti-big-government track, but I am as yet unconvinced.

Simply stating that the private sector was doing fine until government came along and ruined it...? What evidence do you have for that assertion?

While I respect your reverence for the Constitution, and the moral clarity that it offers, moral clarity does not mean that you are right.

The central point is: is the Constitution correct in attempting to keep government spending within very narrow bounds? What is the justification for the point of view that the people cannot decide democratically how to apportion a percentage of national wealth?

One counter argument would be: look, individual wealth comes from much more than individual exertion. It is only possible because of things like infrastructure of all kinds - transportation, education, communications. Indeed, this is not just a world of individuals, we are families, communities, groups, businesses, tribes, cultures, societies. Why the focus on the individual?

What is the justification for the assumption that government is a boil on the butt of society? Since all known societies have had some form of government - usually doing way more than providing defense - why assume that government is illegitimate when compared to individual accumulation of wealth?

Kudos
I've read all posts here. Observation: respectful, thoughtful, educational, encouraging discourse. So, Professor Williams, bravo for that!

peterE and rights
You seemed to have missed my post to you from 1;48pm yesterday, and what you now state is backwards.

PE: "The central point is: is the Constitution correct in attempting to keep government spending within very narrow bounds? What is the justification for the point of view that the people cannot decide democratically how to apportion a percentage of national wealth?"

There is no national wealth - it is created and owned by individual who spend their limited lifetimes at labor. Every day they spend is one less day that they have. The "nation", if you mean the "government" simply appropriates it by force (at gun point), except by "consent of the governed". The U.S. Constitution lays out that contract, and we have the right to withdraw consent at any time if it is violated as it is now).

PE: "One counter argument would be: look, individual wealth comes from much more than individual exertion. It is only possible because of things like infrastructure of all kinds - transportation, education, communications. Indeed, this is not just a world of individuals, we are families, communities, groups, businesses, tribes, cultures, societies. Why the focus on the individual?"

No - that is based on a flawed premise that "infrastructure" is the default position and is responsible for individual wealth. The correct position is that any infrastructure is the result of voluntary or involuntary transfer of wealth from individuals to the government. The individual is the prime mover and sovereign in all of those institutions that you mention.

We, the people, have the unalienable rights - not kings, not governments.

PE and Progressive Liberalism
Peter,
Your posts just revisit old liberal talking points from decades gone by (Infrastructure, "community", education, blah, blah, blah blah). You obviously believe that citizens are here to serve goverment, and not the other way around. Here are some examples of a bloated centralized Federal Goverment gone astray:

1)The Federal Goverment spends $258 billion dollars in guarenteed student loans annually. Since 2001, universityu education's inflation rate is 35%, while the nation's is at 4.9%. Wonder why.

2)In 1998, and later in 2000 and 2001, the Department of Education stipulated looser guidelines for urban high risk mortgages that mortgage companies had to follow (ie quotas). Greenspan cut interest rates to 1% in 2003, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mack, and the FHA went out of thier way to subsidize (through tresury guarentees) high risk mortgages for minorities, and single mothers. Money began to pour into real estate shortyl thereafter. The Fed was enacted to prevent market bubbles not create them.

3)9/11. That was the day the Federal Goverment let down the very citizens it was there to protect. Despite spending over $150 billions on the FBI, CIA, DIA, DEA, NSA, and INS 18 hicjackers killed 3,000 people, destroyed a $40 billion skyscraper with nothing more than box cutters. The only thing that did work on 9/11 were the local fire and police, and 15 brave but desperate passengers. To this day, people like Norm Mineta and George Tenet have thier reputations intact. Today, a 40 year old house wive is more likely to be stripped searched than a 25 year old Saudi exchange student.

4)23 million illegals -Dare I say more?

5)Federal Mandates on corn based ethanol have allowed grain commodities to sky rocket, ahve caused shortages in barely, soybeans, and rice worldwide, and have only enriched farmers in Nebraska dn Iowa.

As Reagans said, the Federal Goverment isn't the solution, it is the problem.

Oath of Office
The problem with the oath of office is it's not really an oath of office. It's degenerated into nothing more that a photo-op.

We, the voters, allowed this to happen by putting the same people back in office again and again and again. Then, when they got indicted, or convicted, or retired as multimillionaires, we put their sons, cousins, and any relative or friend in to replace them.

We let "friend of" or "relative of" take precedent over the oath of office.

"The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars, but ourselves."

Political Loathsomeness

Dr.Williams as always you did a masterful job of presenting a problem and as too often is not done a solution.
This goes to the heart of one of our country's real dilemmas how to stop the ever increasing slide towards Socialism.
Friends and I are outraged that Congress and the President are bailing out individuals who bought houses they could not afford and the lending institutions that made bad business decisions.We find no authority to do this in the Constitution and equally as onerous is the fact that those of us who bought homes and were prudent with our finances must donate our money to those who gambled and lost all with the Federal Government's blessing.

Art

Political Loathsomenss
Don’t blame the political leaders for higher taxes, massive spending, a deficit budget every year, a bankrupt Social Security, an education system that ranks below 43 other countries and graduates only half of students in urban schools, importing costly oil rather than drilling our own wells, ever larger and more government, an economy that struggles under excessive taxes, and out-of-control medical cost.

History shows that a government can rarely run successful programs. Even Constitution granted programs like taking the census or running a post office becomes a costly bureaucracy. A fire needs to be applied to every voter to tell our leaders that the present government must change or they will be voted out of office.

In fact WE are the problem. The founding fathers gave us a Constitution that limited the power of government. We the people should forced our leaders to use only the powers granted in the Constitution. If we do not get this Government under control we shall reap the whirlwind.

Again, thanks
for your responses. It is strange that yo assume that I hold a certain position when I am really asking questions.

What seems to you to be as clear as day, is actually the fruit of certain historical developments. Others may know this history better than I do, but from Descartes philosophy took its starting point as the reflective individual, as he refused to the more "we" oriented ethics of Aristotle, or the metaphysical worldview of Christianity.

The British philosophers Locke and Hume tried to ground knowledge and ethics in what they thought was irrefutable self-grounded experience.

In fact this route led directly to scepticism, in Hume himself, and then into attempts to undercut Humean scepticism through such un-self-evident philosophies as Berkeley's idealism, Kant's dualism and Hegel's dialectics. And we also know where Hegel led to.

Hegel's philosophy was born out of a desire to solve the mysteries of Kant, specifically the unknowable thing in itself. But one fruit of Hegel's thinking is to move the subject of knowledge from the individual to the collective.

Now we know that the founding fathers were inspired both by Locke and by Christian fundamentals. But since the western tradition is all about criticism of assumptions, in the search for self-knowledge, I don't see why we can't ask whether the founding fathers' philosophical assumptions were correct or not.

Not because I have all the answers but because it is interesting that these debates on the Constitution come down to an assumed battle between the individual and the state.

Why, for example, do we not talk about a battle between the family and the state? Some would argue that the family is an institution created by God, and that I am not just "me" - individual worker in the garden of modern capitalism - but I am a husband, father of my children, child of my parents, working for the collective benefit of my family. Why not?

JPK
"Your posts just revisit old liberal talking points from decades gone by (Infrastructure, "community", education, blah, blah, blah blah). You obviously believe that citizens are here to serve goverment, and not the other way around."

No, I don't, but this patronizing method does not answer my point. Even though you might like to say that there are three kinds of goods: my goods, goods that I have given away, and goods that have been stolen from me, some how something is missing from this picture.

Its a bit like my cranky old mother in law who likes to say "I was born alone and I'll die alone" as a way of keeping people out of her business. Umm, wasn't her mother there at the time? And perhaps even her father and other relatives attended her birth. And there was her doctor who was there due to his knowledge - whish he did not create individually, but aquired though sophisticated methods of transmission (books, a medical school).

There are goods that are just here as a part of a general social wealth that I can enjoy by the grace of God. That I am free to call social infrastructure.

And if you think I am just repeating something - so are you, or are you not a conservative?

JPK
If you reread your post you will observe that you are going way beyond answering my points.

I don't disagree with any of your examples of bloated bureaucracy and government run amok with will to power.

Why would you think I am an advocate of bureaucracy just because I question the sacred cows of constitutional conservatism?

I began my questions on this thread by talking about how libertarians have to do a better job of proving their points if they want to make political headway - I still think I am correct about that. Just as the libertarian point of view posits the isolated individual against the awesome power of the state, so posters here seem to think that any dissent must come from an advocate of the evil power. (Tendency to paranoia).

I'm an immigrant, a hyphenated American
.. (that is: an AMERICAN-American) who when he was a child in the far abroad, fell in love with the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. Just as, through the years, I have come to love our beloved fraternal republic's every defender, with Doctor Williams and Doctor Keyes and with Doctor Newt Gingrich and Doctor Sowell et al.

So that part's a given.

But I'll be darned if I can find other than scorn and derision and something close to contempt in me that such a staunch defender of our nation's founding law can so kowtow to the language tyrants who've corrupted our beautiful language that he would write -- and editors would let slide by: -- "When either (sic) Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain take (sic) office, they (sic) are (sic) going to place their (sic) hand on the Bible and (mouth) the oath ... "

Instead of "When one of .... takes office, he is going to ...... his hand on the Bible ... "

But then I'll be blowed if the Good Doctor Williams doesn't go and catch out the Good James Madison telling us that: "If Congress (singular) can do whatever in their (plural) discretion ... " Instead of if Congress in its discretion ... "

I'm Black and White.

General Welfare
There is no "General welfare" clause in the Constitution. That phrase occurs exactly twice, once in the preamble and once in Section 8. In both cases it is plainly evident that the term is used to explain why the Constitution was drafted and then why Congress was given enumerated powers. Only a complete fool or a corrupt power hungry politician could ever construe those phrases to mean that Congress could do whatever it felt might promte the general welfare. The general welfare is promoted by the establishment of the Constitution and by the limitation of the powers of Congress.

"The Omnibus Amendment"
Back in 1999, columnist Joseph Sobran wrote an article called "The Omnibus Amendment", which observed, as we do here, that the Federal government routinely exceeds its authority, and proposed that Constitutional government might be restored by the simple expedient of making Constitutional everything the Federal government wants to do. Thus,

"Section 1. The Second, Ninth and 10th Amendments are hereby repealed.

"Section 2. The 'right of the people to keep and bear arms' is hereby denied.

"Section 3. The unenumerated rights retained by the people shall not include self-defense. The people shall have only such rights as the federal government chooses to grant them.

"Section 4. The powers of the federal government are not limited to those delegated by, and enumerated in, the Constitution.

"Section 5. The federal government may assume such powers as it deems appropriate for the general welfare of the United States. No powers are reserved to the several states or to the people.

"Section 6. The president shall have power to make war without consulting Congress, and to assume emergency powers when he declares an emergency to exist.

"Section 7. The courts of the United States shall have power to nullify any state or local law."

(Section 6, of course, refers to Bill Clinton's utterly despicable decision to involve the United States in the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo.)

Pass this amendment, and our complaints would no longer have Constitutional validity. Nor would they enjoy Constitutional protection.

General Welfare
sgtPUSMC you have nailed it.

An absolutely magnificent, to the point unadulterated statement of a very simple fact!!!
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.