Parting Company

[SF-TX]

The question is, how do we restore the constitutional values of limited government? I suspect that if the federal government continues to spend more than it receives we could eventually be forced to return to limited government. In order for this to occur, we will have to drastically reduce spending by terminating 2/3 of the entitlement programs. If we don't reduce spending, to continue funding the programs we will have to resort to a much more confiscatory tax policy. I wouldn't bet on reduced spending.

Parting Company

Posted By Walter Williams On April 8, 2010 @ 12:02 am In FrontPage | 112 Comments

Here’s the question asked in my September 2000 column titled “It’s Time To Part Company”: “If one group of people prefers government control and management of people’s lives and another prefers liberty and a desire to be left alone, should they be required to fight, antagonize one another, risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences or should they be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways?”

The problem that our nation faces is very much like a marriage where one partner has broken, and has no intention of keeping, the marital vows. Of course, the marriage can remain intact and one party tries to impose his will on the other and engage in the deviousness of one-upsmanship. Rather than submission by one party or domestic violence, a more peaceable alternative is separation.

I believe we are nearing a point where there are enough irreconcilable differences between those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone that separation is the only peaceable alternative. Just as in a marriage, where vows are broken, our human rights protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them. The Democrat-controlled Washington is simply an escalation of a process that has been in full stride for at least two decades. There is no evidence that Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have any intention of mending their ways.

You say, “Williams, what do you mean by constitutional abrogation?” Let’s look at just some of the magnitude of the violations. Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution lists the activities for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend. Nowhere on that list is authority for Congress to tax and spend for: prescription drugs, Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank and business bailouts, food stamps and other activities that represent roughly two-thirds of the federal budget.

Neither is there authority for congressional mandates to the states and people about how they may use their land, the speed at which they can drive, whether a library has wheelchair ramps and the gallons of water used per toilet flush. The list of congressional violations of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution is virtually without end. Our derelict Supreme Court has given Congress sanction to do anything upon which they can muster a majority vote.

James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, explained in Federalist Paper No. 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

Americans who wish to live free have several options. We can submit to those who have constitutional contempt and want to run our lives. We can resist, fight and risk bloodshed and death in an attempt to force America’s tyrants to respect our liberties and human rights. We can seek a peaceful resolution of our irreconcilable differences by separating. Some independence movements, such as our 1776 war with England and our 1861 War Between the States, have been violent, but they need not be. In 1905, Norway seceded from Sweden; Panama seceded from Columbia (1903), and West Virginia from Virginia (1863). Nonetheless, violent secession can lead to great friendships. England is probably our greatest ally.

The bottom-line question for all of us is: Should we part company or continue trying to forcibly impose our wills on one another? My preference is a restoration of the constitutional values of limited government that made us a great nation.


Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/04/08/parting-company/

[pjg45]

In my opinion (which means very little) all of these government entitlements have been slowly introduced to us over a very long period of time thus desensatizing people to what has happened. I believe it is only going to get worse due to the fact that people in my generation (ages 18-25) seem to just accept the fact that government is here to provide them money for college, health care and whatever else they fancy and also to tell them what boundaries to live their lives within. I of course could be a little slanted in my views because I am a cynic when it comes to the opinion of people my age going through college and not having any military service at all. I am not saying they are all a bunch of bad apples, but there is a majority that really does not care about politics or social policy and how it affects them but instead care about what they are going to be doing Friday night and then being concerned with how stupidly they acted the night before on a Saturday morning.

Just my two cents, take it for what its worth

[x SF med]

The transformation of 'these United States' to 'The United States' has been going on since the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The slow slide from a Republican Union of free states to a passive Federal 'tyranny' has been insidious and at the request of 'citizens' who want government to rule them rather than keep that responsibility for themselves. I'm not going to start arguing Constitutional Law, I'm not qualified. I'll just leave it to say that all powers not directly attributed to the Federal Government in the Constitution are to be governed by the States - and this philosophy has been overwritten by benevelont tyrants in the Congress and Senate of the United States...

Ok, I'll shut up now.

[Ret10Echo]

Interesting thought here...and I always enjoy the references to the Federalist Papers...(On a side note, I have a copy here that I bought at a bookstore in downtown D.C. for around $6.00. Considering the complaints over the cost of textbooks in America you would think these would be standard issue for Government or Civics classes..but I digress)

I would suggest the U.S. moves in cycles. When times are difficult there seems to be a greater acceptance of Federal Government involvement, when times are good the mood is for government to withdraw. The problem is that once you let Government in, they hardly ever leave. Entire Federal Agencies have been created to fit a perceived current need (my opinion)...none of which has ever gone away (Guess on which they are?)

Historically there have been those who feel the existing form of Government is completely acceptable regardless of any perceived incursions or abuses. The Tories of the colonial time were just fine with a king in England.

In my opinion the coming election cycles will be the most telling in some time. Either the majority is "good" with the course of the nation, or not. Meanwhile we spread the word and attempt to educate those who are ignorant of the issues (or apathetic).

YOMV

[Defion69]

Yawn

[SF-TX]

Originally Posted by Defion69

Yawn

Are you admitting you are one of the ignorant or apathetic?

[Go Devil]

Originally Posted by SF-TX

The question is, how do we restore the constitutional values of limited government? I suspect that if the federal government continues to spend more than it receives we could eventually be forced to return to limited government. In order for this to occur, we will have to drastically reduce spending by terminating 2/3 of the entitlement programs. If we don't reduce spending, to continue funding the programs we will have to resort to a much more confiscatory tax policy. I wouldn't bet on reduced spending.

I believe that a much more drastic increase in spending would quickly restore a limited government.

[Utah Bob]

Originally Posted by SF-TX

.. I suspect that if the federal government continues to spend more than it receives we could eventually be forced to return to limited government. ..

It will take a very strong and determined administration (more than one probably) to reduce the level of Federal spending to manageable levels. Politicians seem to think that deficit spending is fine as long as they make an occasional grandstand play of cutting a program or two with one hand while dipping into the entitlement coffers with the other.
An enraged and educated electorate would be a start. I pray that will happen but...

[nmap]

A great many people perceive that they get a variety of benefits from the existing form of government. I use the word "perceive" to differentiate between actuality and what people think they see.

When people get a stimulus check, a social security check, or an energy efficient appliance check, they believe they are getting free money. Likewise, federal payments to schools or highway departments give the appearance of getting something for nothing. Granted, the truth is that all of this comes from either taxes and redistribution or the incurring of unsustainable levels of debt - but this abstraction is lost on most.

We might rephrase the question to be: "How do we restore the understanding that dependence leads to the loss of liberty?"

Given the number of rice-bowls that depend on the seeming largess of the federal government, I regard the task as impossible. The addiction to getting something for nothing is too strong. At some level we recognize that the price is high - but in the short term, it is seductive.

To justify that position, I would ask:

1) Can we expect any administration to seek reductions in their own power and influence?

2) Can we expect the voters to repudiate the benefits they receive from government?

If the answer is in doubt, I propose a simple experiment. Attempt to persuade the local school board to reject any and all federal money.

But keep in mind: "I suspect that if the federal government continues to spend more than it receives we could eventually be forced to return to limited government. "

That's the key. I suspect that the eventually is remarkably short - a few decades at most, and probably less. The only problem is that all of those people with empty rice-bowls are, in my opinion, likely to behave badly.

MOO, YMMV.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by SF-TX

The question is, how do we restore the constitutional values of limited government?

I'd like to start with getting the federal government out of the School Standards issue.
What goes on in classrooms is the responsibility of the local Superintendent and School Board. Funding and disbursal of federal monies (and thus standard oversight) should be the duty of the State's Superintendent and the Legislature. Let's get rid of All Children Almost Getting There Slow . . . I MEAN, No Child Left Behind.

[Triman19]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

I'd like to start with getting the federal government out of the School Standards issue.
What goes on in classrooms is the responsibility of the local Superintendent and School Board. Funding and disbursal of federal monies (and thus standard oversight) should be the duty of the State's Superintendent and the Legislature. Let's get rid of All Children Almost Getting There Slow . . . I MEAN, No Child Left Behind.

That is a great point, well taken.

[6.8SPC_DUMP]

Congress passed into law The Authorization for the Use of Military Force Act (AUMF) on September 18, 2001.

The AUMF Act authorized the President to use Military force for the following specified purposes:

Use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

The initial White House draft was submitted to Congress on 9/12/01 and proposed a resolution authorizing the President to use Military force “to deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States." It was rejected.

Granting “appropriate force” to be used by the Executive branch “in the United States” was also rejected in the final version of the AUMF Act. Congress has the right to declare war and those two provisions were specifically not granted. Link

Incredibly, John Woo characterized Congress’s passage of the AUMF Act as merely “demonstrat[ing] Congress’s acceptance of the president’s unilateral war power in an emergency situation like that created by the September 11 incidents.”

Furthermore Woo said:Link

“Legislation expressly granting the President such powers is constitutionally unnecessary.”
.....
“Congress cannot constitutionally restrict the President's authority to detain enemy combatants or to establish military commissions to enforce the laws of war. Indeed, Congress may no more regulate the President's ability to convene military commissions or to seize enemy belligerents than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield."
.....
"Accordingly, to the extent that the legislation purports to restrain the President's ability to exercise his core constitutional powers as Commander in Chief, it encroaches on authority committed by the Constitution solely to the Executive Branch and thus violates fundamental principles of separation of powers. Although the bill cites four provisions of Article I, Section 8 as sources of constitutional authority, none of those provisions authorizes Congress to encroach upon the President's constitutional power as Commander in Chief by restricting the President's ability to detain enemy combatants and to establish military commissions.”

Examples given by Woo to support his case include:

“As Attorney General Speed explained at the close of the Civil War, "[t]he commander of an army in time of war has the same power to organize military tribunals and execute their judgments that he has to set his squadrons in the field and fight battles. His authority in each case is from the law and usage of war." Military Commissions, 11 Op. Att'y Gen. 297, 305 (1865). “
.....
“In Santiago v. Nogueras, 214 U.S. 260 (1909), for example, the Court addressed the "provisional court" in Puerto Rico "established by military authority, with the approval of the President," id. at 264, during the occupation immediately following the Spanish-American War.”

Furthermore:

“The original phrasing of the provision assigned Congress the power "To declare the law and punishment of piracies and felonies". That phrasing clearly indicates that the provision was intended to assign Congress nothing more than the ordinary power to set the punishment for violations of criminal laws.”
.....
“The Constitution, however, makes it express that Congress has the power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." U.S. Const, art. I, § 8, cl. 14.12 Absent an equally express grant of power to Congress over the task of enforcing the laws of war ' against the enemy, the Constitution should be understood as leaving that function with the Commander in Chief.”

In 2006 Congress passed the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 109-364) with over 90% support, although, every governor in the country opposed the changes.Link

Section 1076 of this Act changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from "Insurrection Act" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act." The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only "to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy." The new law expands the list of pretexts to include "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition".Link

This ended when:

The National Defense Authorization Act for 2008 included a “Repeal of modification of authorities relating to the use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies” (i.e. Section 1076); saying it “was never intended to provide additional authority to the President to employ the armed forces inside the United States to restore public order when domestic violence occurred to such an extent that State authorities were not able to enforce the laws and protect the legal rights of its people beyond what existed under the provisions of title 10, United States Code, that were updated.” Link

But, on February 3, 2010, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the House Intelligence Committee that the executive branch has the right to kill Americans who are deemed a "threat."

I believe this is a result of E.O.’s, Directives and Proclamations which are being used as justification to over ride the Constitution/Bill of Rights because we have a “war on terror”.

It applies to American’s because:

Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover ""domestic,"" as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

I am grateful and in awe of those patriots who work hard to keep us safe.

However, seeing as “the war on terror” is never going to end; the Constitution and Bill of Rights are no longer applicable unless deemed otherwise.

IMO Congress must narrow the definition of a "terrorist" and the privisions of the Patriot Act to maintain the American way of life. Federal LE policies are being used as justification to investigate politically motivated activities, that don't remotely resemble “terrorism”, with cooperation of State LE (in some instances).

There will always be American’s who are “threats” and labeling them “terrorists” and the masses "potential terrorists” is a guise for complete Constitutional erosion.

I agree with President Gerald R. Ford who said: “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”

If we weren't on the cusp of potentially massive changes in America I wouldn't feel as adamantly on the issue.

Just my .02

[ZonieDiver]

. . . I MEAN, No Child Left Behind.

I call it "Every Child Left Behind" - for that is what it is doing. That GWB came up with it WILL not be part of his "lasting legacy" (at least on the "good" side).

[Ret10Echo]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

I call it "Every Child Left Behind" - for that is what it is doing. That GWB came up with it WILL not be part of his "lasting legacy" (at least on the "good" side).

If your child is above the curve, then it is "No child gets ahead".......

[dr. mabuse]

*