Write Off...
A Nation divided cannot stand.
This is incorrect. The Nation is always divided.
If the presidential election has taught us anything, it is that the public school system is a failure in this Nation.
Which public school system is the author talking about? All of this information is freely available in any public school system or public library.
It does not properly teach history, world history, American history, or constitutional law.
Is the word 'proper' here in reference to the author's viewpoint or the dominant cultural viewpoint.
It does not teach the difference between a Marxist society, a socialist/communist society controlled at the Federal level and a constitutional republic where individuals have rights and the Federal Government is limited in its power.
This is also factually incorrect. If I learned this in school, am I the exception, or was I just listening?
The Democractic Party of American might as well be called the Communist Party of America for the social programs it advocates.
This is inaccurate. The American Communist party is far different from the American Democratic Party. Later in this piece the author directly claims that "Men and women of little honor and integrity sit in the Congress of the United States as a whole...Men and women that are bought off by the corporations of the world." Corporations are capitalist. This is a direct contradiction. Which one is it?
The General Welfare Clause of the Federal Constitution was never a grant of power to the Federal Government to do anything it chose to do.
How does the author know? The words "promote the general welfare" are in the preamble. This seems unclear at best. It may have been specifically written this way to leave it open to interpretation. The fact that these words are in the preamble is significant in my mind. The courts seem to agree.
It was only an introductory statement saying that the following inumerated powers were granted to the Federal for the general welfare and then it listed them: Military, postal roads and installations, U.S. Government court houses, governing of territories, and regulation of interstate commerce. All powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government were reserved to the States and People respectively per the 9th & 10th Amendments.
Here is the introductory statement:
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Why haven't the states, who are obviously burdened by their Federally mandated responsibility, challenged the constitutionality in the courts. If in the statement itself as well as the preamble, it speaks of the 'general welfare' this seems to open the door to rather broad interpretation.
Here is a further point. The third and seventh items beneath this clause read as follows:
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
AND
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
There is nothing in Article 1 Sec 8's opening text that mentions naturalization or promotion of 'science and useful arts' (So much for the anti-NEA argument). In other words, these added points don't restrict the interpretation of the opening as the author asserts, they add to it.
In any instance where there was a controversy between the basic federal constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights must prevail. Such an example is the 2nd amendment, the right to bear and keep arms.
This is correct. The amendments to the Constitution supercede the original text.
That is the People's Right and the Federal Government has no constitutional authority through the interstate commerce clause to regulate the sale of firearms to citizens. It is their right to procure them. The 1968 Gun Control Act is illegal by constitutional law.
This is where it seems unclear. I believe the courts have essentially upheld the Gun Control Act with certain modifications. Does the right to 'keep and bear arms' preclude a waiting period as the Brady Bill calls for? I don't think so. The waiting period does not stop the eventual acquisition of the firearm. The courts have already upheld that we can restrict access to guns for felons. In the end this is a job for the courts to decide, not me or the author who is obviously deeply partisan.
As far as his 'right to procure' statement, it seems clear that the court frequently upholds the 2nd amendment with some restrictions on procurement and/or transport. Two of these seem to be that the right is limited to lawful citizens and may be restricted in regards to interstate commerce where there is some constitutional authority. The law has been amended to say you and I can transact a gun purchase, as long as we are not felons, if we meet face to face. This would seem to be in agreement with the 'bear arms' portion of the 2nd amendment. But the Gun Control Act of 1968 specifically talks about mail order weapons. Here the buyer and the seller are not 'bearing' the arms. They are shipping them through a third party. This is obviously hair splitting. In any case the author's claims are not supported by the legal history here.
George Washington's first Cabinet had no member for health, education, or welfare, because it was never meant by the Federal Constitution for the Federal Government to legislate in those areas except for the benefit of Federal employees.
There is no connection here between what the Constitution says and whether Washington had a HEW cabinet member. Washington had 4 cabinet officials. We currently have 14. Commerce is specifically mentioned in the Constitution many times, yet Washington had no Secretary of Commerce. This refutes his argument. There is no limit expressed or implied in the Constitution regarding cabinet members from what I can find. As far as what the document 'meant', this is the author's interpretation unsubstantiated by the courts, who are the final arbiter whether the author likes it or not.
What we have in Washington D.C. is an outlaw government.
This is factually incorrect. They are elected therefore they are empowered by the Constitution as long as they obey it.
Your neighbors and friends that are ignorant of the the law,
Unfortunately this is true of most people. That is why this author can get away with his misinformation.
...are a greater threat to you than any foreign power.
I believe this author is a greater threat than my neighbors
They would deprive you of your property or your wages to support a Federal Marxist/socialist, communist government.
This is boiler plate, right wing, unsubstantiated and intellectually dishonest. It does a great disservice to articulate conservative thought.
It is perfectly legal for the sovereign states to advocate social programs, but not for the Federal Government.
I disagree as do the courts.
The framers of the Federal Constitution were afraid of having an all powerful central government that would control all the aspects of their lives.
I agree.
That is a Marxist government.
I would agree that Marxism seems to espouse heavy handed social control, which I abhor as an advocate of free markets. But I have never read Marx so my impressions are heuristic at best.
It is not a type of government that I or citizens like me want.
If you are in the majority, make your voice heard at the polls.
I could comment on every line of this piece but I think everyone here gets the point and my growing carpal tunnel forces me to stop. I find this author to be intellectually dishonest. He contradicts himself. He contradicts judicial precedent. He demeans his fellow citizens, his duly elected officials and the courts. He is looking for facts which support his world view and denying those that don't. There is no search for common ground. He seems very angry and unable to countenance opposing viewpoints, even by the majority. He does a tremendous disservice to the brilliant minds which have gone before him such as Rand and Von Hayek.
But this post illuminates a much larger point. This type of boiler plate thought is part of the problem. It accepts the extreme right wing checklist hook, line and sinker without critical analysis. This is just as intellectually dishonest as those on the far left who do the same. In a democracy it behooves us not to 'check our brains at the door' and accept the party line. In fact, those that recite the 'laundry list' should look in the mirror and realize they are being manipulated. They are letting others appeal to their emotions which clouds rational, critical thought.
We owe it to our democracy to rationally discuss our differences and come upon constructive answers to our common problems. Poisoned discourse is not the solution. Let's try and solve problems, not create them.
Q
PS: I'm going to stop posting here. It's too time consuming and I am neglecting my 'greedy capitalist enterprise'. I hope at least that I have added to the discourse and encouraged all to think for themselves and avoid the endless regurgitation of the dominant talking points. We are better than this as a Nation. We are greater than our leaders. I have faith that we will get through these recent difficulties. The people of this planet are on the verge of a tremendous time of change and exploration. No matter what our differences are, it is my hope that we go there together united as a Nation and as a world in peace.
Good luck everyone!
It is the province of knowledge to speak, and it is the privilege of wisdom to listen.
—Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. |
