SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (632830)9/26/2004 3:26:15 PM
From: Lazarus_Long  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
So what? We really NEED at least one group of politicians to stand up for fiscal conservatism and smaller government!
Good luck.

Over 200 years ago, an historian named Alexander Tyler bemoaned that the "American way of life" could not endure. His reason was chillingly accurate. "People do not want to take responsibility for their own choices." He went on to say that "people will invariably hand over their sovereign responsibility and freedom to that government which promises the most benefits… A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority only votes for candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship."

connectionmagazine.org

Now that I've made your day..... :-)

Right now, both branches of the Republicrats are busting the bank... but reality cannot be suspended, only delayed for a short while. Eventually economic problems (of the '70-s era 'Stagflation' variety, or a dollar collapse of the Argentina or Russia variety... or perhaps just the slow drip, drip, drip of declining economic indices) will be the headlines.
If neither party will say No, and people insist on sticking to the present 2 parties, see above.

[If it's not involved in inter-state commerce then the Feds have no authority under the inner-state commerce clause of the Constitution.]
Tell that to the USSC.

"The feds nevertheless claim jurisdiction because distributors MIGHT send it across state llines."

Correct, un-Constitutional expansion of Executive power.

Not execute. Legislative. Several acts which effectively legislated intastate matters were passed by Congress and thrown out by the USSC. Congress then essentially threatened the Court, passed another, and they got the hint and upheld it. And that settled that.

"CA has been butting heads with the feds for some years over medical marijuana, and Oregon over assisted suicide. The feds so far show no sign of retreating."

True --- but they have lost every single court case thus far. Eventually (next term, I believe) the Supreme Court must settle these matters and either OVERTURN all lower court decisions, or hand the administration & Ashcroft a stinging rebuke.

Ashcroft 5-4.

"If they have legal authority in ALL of these areas, then they have controlling authority in everything... and the States might as well disband their governments, because the feds can claim authority over all economic and non-economic actions.
The federal gov't at this point HAS in fact claimed jurisdiction over everything. Like it or not."

If so, then our Constitution no longer has meaning... and a Putin-style Authoritarian government (where the Executive branch dominates all the other local, state, and national government sectors) cannot be far away.

You're there. The feds have claimed unlimited jurisdiction.

[Now try to get Cy to take this test.]

"AFTER you teach him to read and write. :-) He uses a different Constitution than I. His is disposable at will."

"--- Funny. Also, seemingly supported by the evidence.
The first 10 amendments are still in mine. They must have disappeared from his. His "Let's intern all the Democrats" violates several provisions of the Constitution- -provisions the Founders put in purposefully precisely to preven the sort of thing he wants."

<G> I believe he would be a willing 'brownshirt-type' recruit for most ANY Strong Man who promised to 'keep the trains running on time' (regardless of whatever philosophies the Strong Man ennunciated). If the American Revolution had failed, he'd be sucking-up to the King of England right about now....

You should be so lucky. The King or Queen of England is FAR more civilized than what he'd be sucking up to.