Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (355479)	3/24/2010 2:44:02 PM
From: KLP	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793887

Rush just talked about this: Harsanyi: The mugging of personal freedom By David Harsanyi Posted: 03/24/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT What does it say about your cause that nearly every policy idea you cook up is based in some form or another on coercing the American people? When House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., was recently asked to identify where the Constitution granted Congress the authority to force all Americans to buy health insurance, he replied, "Under several clauses; the good and welfare clause and a couple others." For those of you who aren't familiar with the "good and welfare" clause, it states that "The Congress shall have Power to make Citizens of each State compelled to partake of the Privileges of Health Care Insurance, & those who refuse will be fined, charged with a misdemeanor crime or lashed (or receive Medicaid)." Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I was somewhat surprised to discover that the Constitution featured a "good and welfare" clause — though, obviously, Washington has done a laudable job fulfilling the latter part of this imaginary passage. (We'd be better off mandating that elected officials own a copy of the Constitution.) It has, actually, been widely speculated that Conyers, a lawyer, was referring to the "general welfare" clause that gives Congress the authority to tax and spend to promote the general welfare. The other "clauses" he mentions are likely the long-abused "commerce clause," which gives Congress the power "to regulate commerce . . . among the several states." Attorneys general from 14 states and other state legislatures disagree with Conyers, and have already mounted legal challenges to the constitutionality of individual mandates. Few people believe they will be successful in their admirable cause. As a layman, I have little business wading into the intricacies of constitutional law — though, in my limited understanding of this nation's founding tenets, forcing patriots to buy something in the private market seems to undermine the entire point of the project. Judging from the celebratory mood of the Democrats, who shrug off questions of constitutionality and individual rights, my reading of history is obviously way off the mark. Surely it is inarguable that the debate over a national mandate epitomizes the central ideological divide in the country today. In broad terms, there is one side that believes liberty can be subverted for the collective good because government often makes more efficient and more moral choices. Then there is the other side, which believes that people who believe such twaddle are seditious pinkos. And judging from nearly every poll, a majority disapprove of President Barack Obama and his defining legislation. Whether many of them understand the mugging of freedoms in legal terms or intellectual terms or only in intuitive ones, it doesn't matter. Richard M. Esenberg, professor of law at Marquette, explained the consequences of Obamacare like this: "If Congress can require you to buy health insurance because of the ways in which your uncovered existence effects interstate commerce or because it can tax you in an effort to force you to do any old thing it wants you to, it is hard to see what — save some other constitutional restriction — it cannot require you to do or prohibit you from doing." Come to think of it, I have a great idea: For the common good, everyone should be mandated to purchase a newspaper each day. (Thomas Jefferson understood that democracy suffers without a newspaper.) But you won't be able to purchase just any newspaper — only the local one — as we will eliminate the national market. Hey, why not? E-mail David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com and follow him on Twitter at @davidharsanyi Read more: denverpost.com

To: jlallen who wrote (355479)	3/24/2010 2:54:58 PM
From: goldworldnet	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793887

American history: Who were the Anti-Federalists by Jerry Curtis The Anti-Federalists were a political faction in the very beginnings of American government; as indicated by the prefix "Anti-" they were opponents of a group called Federalists. The Anti-Federalists did not want a strong central government and they strongly opposed the new Constitution engineered by their Federalist opponents. Even after ten years of disunity under the clearly inadequate Articles of Confederation, with a weak Continental Congress that proved unequal to the task of running our newly independent country, the Anti-Federalists were deeply suspicious of any system that would supplant the supremacy of the individual states. While the states were debating and considering the proposed Constitution, the better organized Federalists used the power of the press to make a good case for a new Constitution. Their vision was a new federal government with a strong chief executive, an empowered judiciary, and two chambers of representatives to keep an eye on the latter two. The Federalists, who were the brains of the country John Adams, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, to name only four- wrote and published the historic Federalist Papers and won their case. The Anti-Federalists, whose group was somewhat more reactionary, less well known and not so well organized, the firebrand Patrick Henry was their most famous member- wrote their Anti-Federalist papers giving opposing view points and insisting that a strong federal government would be a return to the very despotism they defeated in the recent revolution. They also argued that a federal judiciary with powers superseding state courts was a dangerous infringement on states rights. After the Anti-Federalists lost the constitutional argument, they assumed the role of an opposition party both within and outside of the first President's government. George Washington despised factionalism and wanted nothing to do with political parties. Within his cabinet, however, were the personifications of the factionalism he hated. Alexander Hamilton was the Secretary of the Treasury and quintessential Federalist. Hamilton's archrival, and premiere Anti-Federalist, was Thomas Jefferson. As the political argument between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists polarized both factions, a frustrated Thomas Jefferson withdrew from George Washington's administration. Despite the President's stated neutrality, George Washington normally favored much of Hamilton's strong Federalist banking and fiscal policies and backed Hamilton in disputes with Jefferson. The Federalists dominated American government until John Adams' failed reelection campaign in 1800. The four years of Adams saw the first real abuse of power by the Federalist Congress and its president with the hated Alien and Sedition acts. Under these egregiously anti-constitutional laws, it was unlawful to criticize the government and more than one newspaper publisher was jailed. The Alien Act targeted what the Federalists feared as French revolutionary influence. France at the time was undergoing their own radical experiment in democracy that both deposed and decapitated its king and nobility. The Federalists were essentially pro-British. The Anti-Federalists included the former American ambassador to France, Thomas Jefferson, who was an avowed Francophile. Jefferson defeated Adams in a rancorous, divisive election in 1800, which was ultimately decided by the House of Representatives. As the first Anti-Federalist in office, Jefferson doubled the size of our country through his Louisiana Purchase from the French. In doing so he violated his Anti-Federalist principles, believing that he was exceeding his constitutional Executive powers. Nowhere in the Constitutional was there any authority for extending the territory of the United States through purchase. Not wanting to pass up a great deal, Jefferson figured it was easier to get forgiveness than permission and bought the land anyway. Ironically, it was the Federalists who complained over this use of presidential power. In the end, America's political system evolved into the present day two parties. Modern Democrats as well as Republicans can trace their ideological origins in what Jefferson eventually named his party: the Democratic-Republicans. Today's Democrats owe their populism and advocacy for individual rights to Jefferson's Anti-Federalist roots. In fact, our Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted at the insistence of the Anti-Federalists. Today's Republicans inherit their suspicion of big government and judicial activism to the Anti-Federalist views of Jefferson. The Federalists eventually disbanded as an organized political party. Their former foes, the Anti-Federalists had long since split into the Whig and the Democrats. The Whigs went the way of the Federalists, and Lincoln's Republicans emerged. As the dispute over states rights and slavery developed, the factionalism that George Washington feared and hated would result in the irreconcilable differences that would become the U.S. Civil War. helium.com * * *