CNN poll: Majority of Americans … agree with founders
posted at 2:20 pm on February 26, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
The most frightening part of this story is that it’s not a dog-bites-man announcement. CNN, in its latest polling, reports that 56% of respondents believe that the federal government poses a threat to individual liberty (via Mary Katharine Ham):
A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.
Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government’s become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.
The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.
Well … yeah. In fact, 56% seems pretty low to me. The entire reason that the founders wrote the Constitution was to keep a powerful federal government from encroaching on the rights of the states and the individual citizens of the US. If that wasn’t explicitly obvious from the actual text of the document, then the prolific discourse left by the founders in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere makes that point over and over again.
This shouldn’t be a surprise; it should be basic civics.
However, that 56% almost certainly represents an increase in the awareness of the basic reason for the Constitution’s limitation of federal power, and we can thank Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid for underscoring its need. The health-care initiative pushed by the Democrats would put the government into our most personal and private choices, greatly increasing the power of Washington and decreasing the liberty of Americans. After more than seven decades of increasingly statist policy, Americans have belatedly awoken to a crisis in liberty and a fiscal meltdown of the welfare state. Our massive federal expansion now has to be funded by debt bought by foreign countries — nations like China, who hardly have either liberty or our best interests in mind.
A massive federal government and the crushing debt it produces is exactly what the founders wanted to avoid. Thankfully, 56% of Americans have awoken to the danger of Leviathan. It’s hard to figure out what it will take to get the other 44% to comprehend it, short of total collapse.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Convoked?
Akzed on February 26, 2010 at 3:09 PM
It is a word, by gum. YLSED.
Akzed on February 26, 2010 at 3:11 PM
I hope they’re waking up. I wish they would wake up.
Unfortunately, I don’t see much evidence that that is the case. At least I don’t see a whole lot of it in the tea party movement.
2Brave2Bscared on February 26, 2010 at 3:12 PM
John Kennedy once said to a assembled group of scholars in the White House, “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House – with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
- Thomas Jefferson
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
- Thomas Jefferson
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
- Thomas Jefferson
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
- Thomas Jefferson
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
- Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
- Thomas Jefferson
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants..
- Thomas Jefferson
Banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
- Thomas Jefferson
MB4 on February 26, 2010 at 3:14 PM
When I make an argument, and all you guys do is respond by saying, “Read the 10th Amendment,” it suggests to me that you either don’t understand my argument, which makes you a bunch of morons, or you don’t know how to respond to it, which means you’re being disingenuous.
Either way, epic fail, gang. Better luck next time.
Proud Rino on February 26, 2010 at 3:16 PM
Um, only laws made in pursuance of the Constitution (i.e., Constitutional) laws are “supreme.” Any law which does not fall under the enumerated powers or violates the Tenth or BOR is ipso facto not valid and not “supreme.” And your comments about Jefferson are sacrilegious.
Jefferson on debt:
Firefly_76 on February 26, 2010 at 3:16 PM
All must submit to Furher Obama’s grand medical experiments.
MB4 on February 26, 2010 at 3:16 PM
Madison V Marbury was the start of the slide into servitude to the all powerful federal government. It must be stopped!
jwp1964 on February 26, 2010 at 3:18 PM
Proclaim victory! The true last refuge of a scoundrel! Well done, Loud Wino. Well done.
jamie gumm on February 26, 2010 at 3:19 PM
What exactly is your argument?
Holger on February 26, 2010 at 3:19 PM
And your argument was what exactly?
Holger on February 26, 2010 at 3:23 PM
I just saw Patterson saying he wants to keep fighting for New Yorkers — I thought he was suppose to represent them –why are all the elected/appointed officials fighting and who ?? We the people ??
wheels on February 26, 2010 at 3:24 PM
Holger on February 26, 2010 at 3:23 PM
I think PR crawled away.
Firefly_76 on February 26, 2010 at 3:25 PM
See, I said this on another thread, but RINO is just advancing my theory. Being liberal or progressive is a learning disorder.
RINO can’t understand why the fallacious arguments he is espousing aren’t convincing. He can’t understand the truth of the arguments against him, yet we understand exactly where he is in error.
RINO, one more time, the shortest and most concise argument made here was by Holger on February 26, 2010 at 3:07 PM. Look at it again.
Progressivism: It’s like a commonsense dyslexia.
Tennman on February 26, 2010 at 3:25 PM
Your being an incoherent narcist would be a simpler explanation. It would have the additional advantage of being a much more unified hypothesis.
semloh on February 26, 2010 at 3:27 PM
Indeed, these three and their socialist policies are why Americans are afraid.
GarandFan on February 26, 2010 at 3:27 PM
Arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall. You’re so clueless you don’t even know you’re clueless.
I don’t even know what the heck you’re trying to say? That the Supremacy Clause establishes that federal law is supreme? Well, duh. But our point is that federal law is limited.
Only when Congress enacts laws in areas where it has constitutional jurisdiction is the Supremacy Clause in play. For example, laws pertaining to the conduct of U.S. military personnel. No state laws can supersede them because the state has no jurisdiction to do so.
If, on the other hand, Congress oversteps its constitutional bounds and tries to regulate that which it is has no jurisdiction, if state law is in conflict, then the state is under no obligation to comply. The Supremacy Clause in that case has no standing.
——
It’s not that your argument is so complicated that dummies like myself don’t have the cognitive resources to understand it. It’s that your argument is so void of any constitutional understanding that some of us have found ourselves dumbfounded by the stupidity of it.
2Brave2Bscared on February 26, 2010 at 3:29 PM
It’s not my fault your hero is a hypocrite. He talked about freedom in such beautiful terms, but he had plenty of slaves of his own, he talked about treating those slaves with dignity, but he turned a blind eye while the people who ran Monticello beat his slaves into submission, he talked about debt and fiscal responsibility, but spent like a Real Housewife of Albemarle County, both in his private life and as President, he talked about the supremacy of the states but went against those principles by making the Louisiana Purchase, he talked so freely of the “blood of patriots” but never fought, and on the one occasion the fight actually came to him, he fled Richmond like a coward.
He was a great man in some respects. But only some. Maybe it’s sacrilegious, but it happens to be true.
Proud Rino on February 26, 2010 at 3:29 PM
These trolls are losing their minds now (if they had them in the first place). They are actually saying that the federal government has total power now just so they can pass their stupid health care bill.
These were the same morons that derided and blasted Bush for the Patriot Act… which by the way was renewed. Wow you guys are morons. Talk about epic fail.
MobileVideoEngineer on February 26, 2010 at 3:30 PM
Amazing that the Clinton News Network even asked this question! They must be VERY surprised by the response!
The fact that 63% of Indies believe that the Federal Government is a threat to their freedom is both good news for 2010 and a warning for later. In 2010, they’ll “throw the bums (Democrats) out”, but if a future Republican majority starts messing with costly, overbearing, top-down “comprehensive (fill-in-the-blank) reform”, those Indies will turn against them, as they did in 2006.
If the Republicans get a majority in the House and/or the Senate–just do your jobs, reduce spending, protect the country, and leave the rest to the states and private industry. We are a Constitutional Republic, and Republicans need to follow the Constitution.
Steve Z on February 26, 2010 at 3:30 PM
Cancel American Idol and phone texting services nationwide and things will start looking up.
ted c on February 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM
Who’s fault is it that you’re an idiot?
jamie gumm on February 26, 2010 at 3:34 PM
Wow, so when did they start using wiki to teach you public school kids?
Del Dolemonte on February 26, 2010 at 3:37 PM
I don’t know how to dumb it down any further, but I’ll try.
Ed said that the *entire reason* (whatever that means) the Constitution was written was to keep the federal government from encroaching on the powers of the individual states.
I believe this is false, for the following reasons:
1. The Constitution created more power for the federal government than the Articles of Confederation, not less. If the ‘entire reason’ (I assume he meant ‘sole purpose’) were to protect the states, why would the document take power away from them?
2. If the sole purpose is to protect the power of the states, then why include the Supremacy Clause, which specifically asserts the dominance of the federal government over the states?
Proud Rino on February 26, 2010 at 3:37 PM
Agreed. That’s why the phrase “elections have consequences” rings true.
We are the government. Of the people, by the people. A majority (although I question it now) voted for this, and now a majority will vote once again in November, and 2012. If we do NOT want this take over by the Federal government, citizens will be more diligent, and observant of the candidates, and take their votes more seriously.
capejasmine on February 26, 2010 at 3:38 PM
Epic fail
Proud Rino on February 26, 2010 at 3:38 PM
Let me guess…you “learned” everything you know about Jefferson by reading Howard Zinn’s book?
Del Dolemonte on February 26, 2010 at 3:39 PM
Yes, please judge me by my typos, not my ideas…typical lib.
jamie gumm on February 26, 2010 at 3:40 PM
It’s very simple. America was founded on freedoms not found any place else on earth. When the founding fathers wrote the constitution, they divided government into 3 bodies. To keep what is happening now, from happening. BIG GOVERNMENT. Why would they give more power to the federal government, that would inevitably create a tyranny, when they fought, and died to make sure that what they fled from, wasn’t what they were running to.
capejasmine on February 26, 2010 at 3:40 PM
What Rino said wasn’t exactly untrue…im sure you could make a case that its irrelevant in light of his work in forming this nation…but its not necessarily off the mark. History’s like that…people are human, they have flaws and occasionally their best intentions get mired in poor or rash judgment.
ernesto on February 26, 2010 at 3:40 PM
Yep, that man who ensured there was a constitutional path to freedom for the slaves, against the prevailing social mores, was s**t. And that Louisiana Purchase? What a s**t example of leadership, and just an overall bone-headed move, that was. And hey, calling someone a coward from the safe distance of, what two haundred and forty years, yep… good call.
Sen. Graham, you should probably stop talking now.
Doorgunner on February 26, 2010 at 3:42 PM
Man, Proud Rino is really a poor quality troll. At least crr6 makes a credible effort.
I think the reason there hasn’t been much debate over the constitutionality of the bill is because, sadly, this is not something that disturbs most Americans anymore. It does those of us who are originalists, but I think on the whole, we’re mostly like Glenn Beck’s boiled frog. After 70+ years of encroaching entitlements, I think people have grown comfortable with the idea of forfeiting personal liberty in exchange for “free stuff.” Until things start affecting them directly where they live, many people don’t really care. Liberty has become just an abstract concept for these folks.
NoLeftTurn on February 26, 2010 at 3:42 PM
In your world, there is no difference between more powerful and all powerful?
MarkTheGreat on February 26, 2010 at 3:43 PM
Did you file for a building permit before constructing that strawman?
MarkTheGreat on February 26, 2010 at 3:44 PM
Proud Rino on February 26, 2010 at 3:37 PM
Oy, you are incredibly dense.
1. Yes, the Constitution gave the federal government some additional powers in comparison with the Articles, but in the raging debate between the federalists and anti-federalists, textually the anti-federalists can be said to have prevailed because the Constitution would not have been ratified but for the BOR. Of course, 200 years of poor Supreme Court jurisprudence has ensured we live in Hamilton’s America, rather than George Mason or Patrick Henry’s. And as you demonstrate here, public schooling has clearly reduced the understanding of Americans in this regard.
2. Are you really going to continue to pretend we haven’t sufficiently addressed your “Supremacy Clause” argument?
Firefly_76 on February 26, 2010 at 3:44 PM
I think we need to assemble a huge government committee to study the meaning of this poll.
profitsbeard on February 26, 2010 at 3:45 PM
We’ve finally found something that we agree on.
MarkTheGreat on February 26, 2010 at 3:47 PM
No, because he doesn’t understand Article 1, Section 8 or the 10th amendment.
2Brave2Bscared on February 26, 2010 at 3:47 PM
The Constitution has suffered from the law of unintended consequences. The Republicans modified the Constitution to make the Federal government the guarantor of individual rights in an era were the States were apt to take those rights away. Hence we have the 14th Amendment.
I’m sure the people in the poll didn’t think that the 14th ought to be abolished. And while they think the Federal Government is too big, they have periodically voted to make it that way. Our ancestors elected FDR four times, and he used the power of the Federal Government to guarantee its citizens a good retirement income, just as the BHO is attempting to guarantee every citizen a “good” health plan. Every President (Bush included) has been pushed to guarantee citizens loans to rebuild their homes in the event of catastrophe. What we want in terms of lean government contradicts what we want the government to do for us.
Those people who think Government is not the best employer should not have voted for Obama. But they did, and we all get to sleep in that bed.
For us in California and a few other states, there are two monkeys on our backs — not just the Feds, but the State as well. Almost makes one want to move to Alaska, the last frontier.
unclesmrgol on February 26, 2010 at 3:49 PM
A dozen or more intellectual ass-kickings by your better-informed fellow citizens offering you face-saving ways to educate yourself, make some kind of cogent point and offer a coherent argument as befits any self-respecting troll on this site…and you’ve got time to “epic fail” my typo? Awesome!
I am honored.
jamie gumm on February 26, 2010 at 3:49 PM
Proud Rino = Democrat astroturfer.
Even President Barcky thinks the Constitution is a “charter of negative liberties” because it specifically limits the power of the Federal government: i.e., “what the federal government can’t do to you.”. Only a die-hard liberal who be so ignorant to believe the Constitution grants the Federal government unlimited power to do whatever it pleases, the States and, most especially, the citizenry be damned.
Spiny Norman on February 26, 2010 at 3:50 PM
That’s why some call them the “statist generation,” nonwithstanding their heroic sacrifices during WWII.
Firefly_76 on February 26, 2010 at 3:51 PM
I doubt if even 1% of CA would argue in favor of untrammeled states’ rights. We’d be “donating” labor in camps 2 weeks a year.
Chris_Balsz on February 26, 2010 at 3:53 PM
Or perhaps the 10th ammd answers your argument, and you are just to stupid to realize it.
MarkTheGreat on February 26, 2010 at 3:53 PM
Right, so then we agree that the sole purpose of the Constitution is not to protect the rights of the states, like Ed claimed.
Prevailed on what? Their version of government was not feasible.
Yeah, I’ll take 200 years of Supreme Court justices over you, guy on the internet.
Terrific. At least you’re not an elitist.
Well, you haven’t. If the sole purpose of the Constitution is to protect the states, like Ed claims, why would you have a Supremacy Clause?
Proud Rino on February 26, 2010 at 3:54 PM
Proud Rhino is right. The Constitution allows the Federal Government to emit bills of credit, but not the States. A bill of credit is a fiat currency. It should be noted that our entire Revolutionary War was funded by fiat currency — Continental Dollars.
unclesmrgol on February 26, 2010 at 3:55 PM
Ugh, Hamilton. Easily my least favorite Founder.
If not for “public” education, the socialist make-over of America could not have succeed — certainly not to the extent that it has.
America will never recover its Constitutional government without a return to the Christian religion which gave rise to it. Nor will it do so unless the entire government education system is utterly destroyed.
2Brave2Bscared on February 26, 2010 at 3:55 PM
Where does the Constitution mention Christ?
Proud Rino on February 26, 2010 at 3:57 PM
1) More power doesn’t mean unlimited power. Compared to today’s govt, the govt in 1780 had about 1% as much power.
2) Saying that laws passed by congress are supreme does not mean that congress can pass any law. The sphere of influence granted to the Fed govt was very, very small.
Marginally larger than that granted by the Articles of Confederation, but still very small.
MarkTheGreat on February 26, 2010 at 3:57 PM
He’s clearly the product of our public schools.
NoLeftTurn on February 26, 2010 at 3:58 PM
Loud Wino gets his daily talking points, then he just repeats them over and over again until other people get tired of arguing with a wall.
Then he declares victory and goes home.
MarkTheGreat on February 26, 2010 at 3:59 PM
So then you agree that the sole purpose of the Constitution was not to protect the power of the states. Great.
Proud Rino on February 26, 2010 at 4:00 PM
Just to throw this idea out – does anyone else think our culture has changed so much that the Constitution needs a ground-up rewrite?
I do, although I’m hesitant to endorse such an action with the current political climate…
Dark-Star on February 26, 2010 at 4:01 PM
The strawman was this:
Ed claimed that the founders didn’t want the govt to create crushing debt.
The Loud Wino piped in, where does it say the govt can’t have ANY debt.
MarkTheGreat on February 26, 2010 at 4:02 PM
The entire purpose of the BOR was to constrain the powers of the federal government vis-a-vis the States and the people. Really, read, re-read, and re-read again the BOR, including the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
And I don’t know how many people have to tell you, the Supremacy Clause only means that constitutional federal laws are supreme. A law that exceeds the federal government’s constitutional authority cannot be supreme.
Firefly_76 on February 26, 2010 at 4:03 PM
Ugh, and isn’t that *awful*? Some of our parents didn’t have the money to put us in private schools, so we had to go to the public ones, and couldn’t hang out with “old money” like you, apparently. Sorry, fancypants, some of us didn’t have everything given to us on a silver platter.
Proud Rino on February 26, 2010 at 4:03 PM
Not gonna happen brother. As for government education, it’d be perfectly fine if parents actually gave a sh*t and took an interest in what schools in their district and state teach. But back to the original point, philosophy is unnecessary when we already have the constitution. Its all we need, we have little use for the debates that led up to its creation…it spells out clearly what the rules are…
ernesto on February 26, 2010 at 4:03 PM
High School was a joke. They barely got across that there were 3 branches of government. No one read the text of the constitution. I laugh to exhaustion at the idea that kids in public school would read the Federalist Papers. Oh sure, freedom of speech was mentioned, but then it was off to the civil war. And since the source document content was so obsured, any discussion that did arise was based on ignorance. Civics? Me thinks you misunderstand the actual purpose of school.
AnotherOpinion on February 26, 2010 at 4:03 PM
Also, I highly recommend the book From Sea to Shining Sea: 1787-1837, it has some very good commentary on the Constitutional issues being discussed here.
Dark-Star on February 26, 2010 at 4:04 PM
The reason the Constitution was written to replace the Articles of Confederation was that the Articles of Confederation were too weak. That doesn’t change the fact that the Constitution was written to limit the power of the new government. This is why the Constitution carefully divides the powers of the government among 3 separate branches.
I would hope the basic civics you took mentioned that fact, or the course badly needs a rewrite.
tom on February 26, 2010 at 4:04 PM
Another one of your strawmen. Do you get volume discounts?
Nobody said that the purpose of the constitution was to protect the power of the states. Ed said that they constructed it the way they did in order to keep the feds from crushing the states.
Subtle difference, but very important.
The purpose of the constitution was to grant a very limited number of powers to the Fed govt. This was how it protected the rights of the states, by not granting the power to the fed to crush them.
MarkTheGreat on February 26, 2010 at 4:05 PM
We’re done here.
Proud Rino on February 26, 2010 at 4:06 PM
Proud Rino on February 26, 2010 at 4:03 PM
Stop with the elitism charges. Many folks here advocate for home schooling because of the failure of the public schools. And no, I didn’t go to a private school, nor do I send my kids to private school, but I at least have enough intellectual curiosity to have done my own homework about U.S. history and not regurgigate everything my lefty teachers told me.
Firefly_76 on February 26, 2010 at 4:08 PM
Putting aside for a moment the fallacious nature of the question…
It doesn’t. But that of course doesn’t mean the Constitution wasn’t based upon Christian principle and law. For example, the entire concept of Separation of Powers is based on the Christian understanding that man in his very nature is evil, and thus needs constraining.
If, as many would claim, the Constitution is a secular document based upon secular (see: Humanistic) reasoning, then the document itself makes zero sense. The Declaration of Independence certainly makes zero sense.
2Brave2Bscared on February 26, 2010 at 4:08 PM
I’d say so too. When you start seeing logic disconnects as big as that one as well as username-based insults like “Loud Wino”…it’s time to shake the dust off your sandals.
Dark-Star on February 26, 2010 at 4:09 PM
It’s not our fault you’re not smart enough to understand the 10th.
Better luck next time.
Dominion on February 26, 2010 at 4:10 PM
Now, was it really that hard to admit those that you disagreed with were right? Recognition is the first step to a cure.
mwdiver on February 26, 2010 at 4:11 PM
Maybe you should LEARN TO READ. Ed said,
“The entire reason that the founders wrote the Constitution was to keep a powerful federal government from encroaching on the rights of the states and the individual citizens of the US.”
Now, that was not the “entire reason” for writing the Constitution, as separating the limited powers and putting them in competition with/dependence on each other was a big part, but that was seen as necessary to insure the above.
You are a blithering idiot, Rino. Go back to elementary school.
neurosculptor on February 26, 2010 at 4:11 PM
The creation of “crushing debt” is certainly allowed by the Constitution. As to whether the founders (or anyone else for that matter) would desire “crushing debt” to be created by the Government has an obvious answer.
But one person’s crushing debt is another person’s necessary expense. We are seeing that debate now.
unclesmrgol on February 26, 2010 at 4:14 PM
That is, quite frankly, not an option if one’s goal is to see America return to it’s constitutional Republic roots.
You can’t expect to send generation after generation off to be taught by Caesar and not have them return as good little Romans of the state. So you have no choice. To say it’s “not gonna happen brother” is like saying America is already dead so there’s no point in trying to recover her.
2Brave2Bscared on February 26, 2010 at 4:15 PM
Already?
Well, I hope you learned something. But I doubt it.
2Brave2Bscared on February 26, 2010 at 4:16 PM
What America used to be in the beginning was a patriarchal semi-theocracy that spouted ‘freedom for all’, but in practice only gave much of it to landed white men.
Is that really the only road back to prosperity?
Dark-Star on February 26, 2010 at 4:18 PM
As for the 10th Amendment, it has been relegated to the back bench behind the Commerce Clause. It’s trotted out whenever the Federal Government passes a law forcing a state to act on behalf of the Federal Government, but sees little use otherwise.
unclesmrgol on February 26, 2010 at 4:18 PM
Red Herring Alert!
unclesmrgol on February 26, 2010 at 4:19 PM
Article I Section 8 Clause 1: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…”
You’ll notice that 1.8.1 refers to the general welfare of the United States, not individuals within the United States. This clause is worded for the states, just as other clauses (and amendments) are worded differently for individuals within the U.S. Words have meanings, learn them…
And please explain how racking up massive amounts of debt (held by a foreign government) provide general welfare for the United States. I believe that it greatly endangers our national sovereignty and our childrens’ futures. Thus, massive spending bills fail on even a liberal reading of 1.8.1. But I’d love to hear your explanation…
dominigan on February 26, 2010 at 4:20 PM
Hmmm, apart from the obvious issue of slavery, what do you mean by “freedom”? The ability to vote? There are serious political debates as to whether universal suffrage and democracy is actually the best means of securing individual liberty. When the majority continues to vote itself goodies from the public trough, at the expense of the liberties of the minority, I’m inclined to think democracy isn’t all that.
Firefly_76 on February 26, 2010 at 4:22 PM
Christianity will not ‘save’ the republic. If you insist that we cannot have a republic without us all being Christians then you’re damn right I’m saying America’s dead. However, since we can steer our ship of state towards more sensible waters WITHOUT Christianity, I’m convinced America is NOT dead. Enlightened self government must transcend religion…hell, the whole idea of enlightened self governance came into being flying in the face of church authority…not in concert with it.
And “Caesar’s” schools have boards and PTA committees that any concerned parent can join. While I’m a vocal proponent of charter schools and public/private partnerships in general, the problem of public school educational content is one with a solution…get more involved.
ernesto on February 26, 2010 at 4:22 PM
Who gave the goldfish a microphone?
Dark-Star on February 26, 2010 at 4:23 PM
You’re so far off the mark it’s laughable. But I’ll remember you said this the next time you rip Sarah Palin for being the graduate of the lowly University of Idaho.
NoLeftTurn on February 26, 2010 at 4:24 PM
If you consider that about half of the other 44 percent probably get every bit of their information from liberal media sources while the other half are just completely brain dead it’s really kind of encouraging.
mike_NC9 on February 26, 2010 at 4:25 PM
Translation: some people aren’t smart enough to vote the right way, so we shouldn’t let them. And here I thought only the liberals thought that way about those in ‘flyover country’.
Any group is capable of voting themselves goodies. So either democracy isn’t “all that” or we need to rework the system so it’s much harder for anyone to game in such a fashion.
Dark-Star on February 26, 2010 at 4:27 PM
The Articles of Confederation was the governing contract that a hard-core State Right’s advocate would want.
The fact that the Constitution granted more power to the states does not take away from the fact that it is a document enshrining State and Personnel Rights.
It does not mean the Federal Government should be a leviathan which it is now. The Framers understood that over-powering State’s Rights was not necessarily a good thing, hence the Supremacy Clause. But they also understood overpowering Central Government was not a good thing, hence the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Holger on February 26, 2010 at 4:30 PM
Incorrect. The idea is that people who contribute nothing to the operation of the government, or far worse, do nothing but take from that government, should not have any right to dictate the operation of that government (that wouldn’t exist if it were dependent on these leeches).
Giving control to people who have no stake, or to leeches, has always led to terrible consequences. This is why the Founders despised Democracies, even without universal suffrage, which makes it all the more insane.
neurosculptor on February 26, 2010 at 4:33 PM
Dark-Star on February 26, 2010 at 4:27 PM
Just because I acknowledged the debate, doesn’t mean that I or anyone here necessarily advocates the view that some are “too stupid.” So don’t put words in my mouth.
As to your second point, we can repeal the 16th and 17th amendments. If the fed needs to raise revenue they can do so on a sales-tax type basis. That way, everyone has skin in the game, and politicians would not be as able to manipulate groups with promises of freebies looted from their fellow citizens.
Firefly_76 on February 26, 2010 at 4:33 PM
First off, we are a Republic, not a Democracy. Second, the game has been reworked, and it would help prevent this if it was changed back. Senators used to be elected by the state legislatures, not the people.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm
Reverting back to this would go a long way in making it harder to game the system.
mwdiver on February 26, 2010 at 4:34 PM
You need to stop viewing history through the lens of contemporary mores. The beauty of the Constitution is that it was constructed in a way that such inequalities can not stand indefinitely. So it has been for the last 200 years, and so it shall be 200 years hence. Assuming the country doesn’t collapse under the weight of its own crushing debt of course.
NoLeftTurn on February 26, 2010 at 4:36 PM
A camp to which none of the authors of the Federalist Papers belonged…the articles created a union that would not have stood, the great minds we hark back to in our discussions of liberty and freedom recognized this. There’s no reason to be expounding the virtues of a broken system.
ernesto on February 26, 2010 at 4:38 PM
You are oversimplifying. We’re talking about the broader concept of Judeo-Christian principles, not Christianity specifically. There are even some avowed atheists who will concede that they believe in the teachings of Christ.
NoLeftTurn on February 26, 2010 at 4:39 PM
I believe this was the reason for originally only allowing land owners to vote, as they were the ones paying most of the taxes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage
mwdiver on February 26, 2010 at 4:39 PM
Actually, Ed is right in the first place. And it doesn’t require looking at amendments to make that point. The Constitution was written to detail what powers the federal government has, and what powers it does not have. Ultimately, it was designed to create a stronger system of government than the Articles of Confederation. But that doesn’t change the fact that it was written to limit the power of the new government. These limits are often referred to as “Checks and Balances,” and should be covered in any basic civics class. They include dividing the powers among 3 separate branches of government, requiring consent of the Senate for many actions of the President, requiring appropriations bills to come from the House of Representatives and ONLY from the House, the President having veto power, and the Senate being able to override the veto.
The Constitution is as much about limiting the power of the government as it is about making it strong enough to function.
So while Proud Rino is not wrong about the Constitution being intended to form a stronger government, he is dead wrong that the Constitution wasn’t written to keep the power of the new government in check.
The Bill of Rights was not added to contradict the new Constitution, just to spell out certain rights more clearly so the states would feel more comfortable voting for it.
tom on February 26, 2010 at 4:40 PM
As an agnostic, I’ll freely admit that things like the sermon on the mount amount to highly enlightened teachings that would lead to a better world…but they aren’t the only ones. And besides, those same teachings were used by men like Aquinas and Hobbes to justify monarchy and through that, tyranny. There has to be something more to enlightened self governance than biblical tradition…government need not be a cultural institution. Its 2010 people, we should be able to get past this by now…
ernesto on February 26, 2010 at 4:43 PM
The Documents Mention Religion. They mention Religious Ideals. In a generic sense, not a specific sectarian sense. And their view of the relationship between Religion and the Republic departs pretty drastically from even the Roman Republic of which alot of our ideals are derived from.
Anyone can believe in the same ideals as the Founding Fathers, regardless of what God they deem the Creator who gave us certain Inalienable Rights.
Then you have Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli that was adopted in George Washington’s Second Term. which says the Government is not built on the Christian Religion. I guess our Country got in the habit of lying at an early time huh.
Civic Virtue which will safe the Republic is not dependent on Religion, and certainly not dependent upon Christianity as the Roman Republic had Civic Virtue as well.
Holger on February 26, 2010 at 4:51 PM
There’s no mention of due process or state militias or quartering troops or free speech or excessive fines anywhere in the Articles of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights originates such language.
I should make clear that we appear to be arguing 3 stages of time:
-The understanding of the Congress and the states when they convoked a Constitutional convention;
- the understanding of the delegates when they drafted the Articles and added 10 Amendments;
- the understanding of the Congress and the states when presented with the work product of the Convention.
Historically the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are quite distinct; politically and legally, they were presented to the public as one unit and ratified at the same time.
Chris_Balsz on February 26, 2010 at 5:00 PM
1.) Public vs. Private schools. I went to one of the best public high schools in the country (at the time), and I dropped out anyway, because of all of the boring, idiotic crap they came up with to waste our time . Did I ask my rich mummy and daddy to send me to a private school instead? If mummy and daddy hadn’t been so goddamn poor, I might have, but I didn’t need to anyway. I knew about the big public building where all the books lived.
2.) The constitution is like the organizational chart of a company. It’s the job of the payroll department to get the checks out, but, if the payroll program crashes, it’s the job of the data processing department to fix the program. No one is confused by this, and runs around claiming that the payroll manager has “supremacy” over the data processing manager. (Except, sometimes, maybe the payroll manager.) The Federal government has to have complete control of some functions, like the military, because splitting that control between every state governor, and the feds, would leave the citizenry mostly dead.
3.) However, giving the federal government control of the armed forces and the right to make laws that supersede the bill of rights, would be like giving the human resources department the right to fire and hire at their whim, not at the request of the managers. Probably not a perfect analogy, but I’m too tired right now to do better.
That being said, it would certainly be accurate to describe the organizational chart as restricting the rights of each manager to their own department. I can’t wrestle a perfect “Federal Government” example into this analogy, because corporations differ from each other too much, let alone the government.
Feh, maybe that isn’t any easier to understand, but it does seem like a lot of hair splitting is going on to construct a meaningless “Gotcha!” on Ed’s point. The distinction without a difference crowd is at play, and they always give me headaches.
ral514 on February 26, 2010 at 5:08 PM
Which really just proves my point. The Constitution said nothing to authorize quartering troops, or to give the government the power to monitor free speech or take away due process. In fact, I don’t think you can find a single instance where the Bill of Rights actually contradicted anything in the Constitution.
Everything in the Bill of Rights was an addition to the Constitution to make clear certain things that would be protected.
The Bill of Rights absolutely went further in protecting people’s rights than the text of the Constitution did. That doesn’t change the fact that the Constitution was designed to limit the new government’s power just as much as it was to grant it power.
tom on February 26, 2010 at 5:10 PM
No. The Tenth Amendment recognizes states’ power by conferring upon each respective states’ citizens the ability to redress relevant issues locally. What is wrong with that?
You are a resident of country and state.
The Race Card on February 26, 2010 at 5:15 PM
Listen, I feel for you. Dropping out is rarely the best option. That experience undoubtedly soured you on public education and surely had far greater impact than just that. But your personal misfortune does not excuse your public misstatements.
The best public schools in this country provide excellent learning environments and superior education. Even moderately-ranked schools afford motivated students a good education or at least good opportunity.
You were immersed in a resource-rich environment surrounded by exceptional
peersstudents, but you quit anyway. You failed yourself. The excuses you give are hollow and sad.I’m not shocked that you would blame your failure on others.
***
Please see State Defense Forces
***
Please see Patriot Act
***
probably not
I have a different theory.
The Race Card on February 26, 2010 at 5:53 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »