The Hell With Our Constitution

The Hell With Our Constitution
Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Dr. Robert Higgs, senior fellow at the Oakland-based Independent
Institute, penned an article in The Christian Science Monitor
(2/9/2009) that suggests the most intelligent recommendation that I've
read to fix our current economic mess. The title of his article gives
his recommendation away: "Instead of stimulus, do nothing -- seriously."Stimulus package debate is over how much money should be spent, whether
some should given to the National Endowment for the Arts, research
sexually transmitted diseases or bail out Amtrak, our failing railroad
system. Dr. Higgs says, "Hardly anyone, however, is asking the most
important question: Should the federal government be doing any of
this?" He adds, "Until the 1930s, the Constitution served as a major
constraint on federal economic interventionism. The government's powers
were understood to be just as the framers intended: few and explicitly
enumerated in our founding document and its amendments. Search the
Constitution as long as you like, and you will find no specific
authority conveyed for the government to spend money on global-warming
research, urban mass transit, food stamps, unemployment insurance,
Medicaid, or countless other items in the stimulus package and, even
without it, in the regular federal budget."
By bringing up the idea of constitutional restraints on
Washington, I'd say Dr. Higgs is whistling Dixie. Americans have long
ago abandoned respect for the constitutional limitations placed on the
federal government. Our elected representatives represent that
disrespect. After all I'd ask Higgs: Isn't it unreasonable to expect a
politician to do what he considers to be political suicide, namely
conduct himself according to the letter and spirit of the Constitution?
While Americans, through ignorance or purpose, show contempt
for our Constitution, I doubt whether they are indifferent between a
growing or stagnating economy. Dr. Higgs tells us some of the economic
history of the U.S. In 1893, there was a depression; we got out of it
without a stimulus package. There was a major recession of 1920-21;
though sharp, it quickly reversed itself into what has been call the
"Roaring Twenties." In 1929, there was an economic downturn, most
notably featured by the stock market collapse, after which came massive
government intervention -- you might call it the nation's first
stimulus package. President Hoover and Congress responded to what might
have been a two- or three-year sharp downturn with many of the policies
President Obama and Congress are urging today. They raised tariffs,
propped up wage rates, bailed out farmers, banks and other businesses,
and financed state relief efforts. When Roosevelt came to office, he
became even more interventionist than Hoover and presided over
protracted depression where the economy didn't fully recover until
1946.
Roosevelt didn't have an easy time with his agenda; he had to
first emasculate the U.S. Supreme Court. Higgs points out that federal
courts had respect for the Constitution as late as the 1930s. They
issued some 1,600 injunctions to restrain officials from carrying out
acts of Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned as unconstitutional
the New Deal's centerpieces such as the National Industrial Recovery
Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act and other parts of Roosevelt's
"stimulus package." An outraged Roosevelt threatened to pack the Court,
and the Court capitulated to where it is today giving Congress
virtually unlimited powers to tax, spend and regulate. My question to
my fellow Americans is: Do we want a repeat of measures that failed
dismally during the 1930s?
A more fundamental question is: Should Washington be guided by
the Constitution? In explaining the Constitution, James Madison, the
acknowledged father of the Constitution, wrote in Federalist Paper 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." Has the Constitution been amended to permit Congress
to tax, spend and regulate as it pleases or have Americans said, "To
hell with the Constitution"?

Suddenly the right wingers think they've "discovered" the Constitution. What a joke! This from the party of torture, wiretapping, watergate and Iran Contra.

Bunch of hypocrites.

Obama Rulz wrote:
Bunch of hypocrites.

Look whos talking...so tell me about Machine Guns again, and your question about my right to own them!

NonConformist wrote:

Obama Rulz wrote:
Bunch of hypocrites.

Look whos talking...so tell me about Machine Guns again, and your question about my right to own them!

Show me where in the Constitution is says you get to kill people with your machine guns?

Another attempt to sidestep, I didnt say anything about killing anyone, but afa the right to own a machine gun its called the Second Amendment, you should read it sometime

Oh and since you will undoubtedly try to argument about 'militia' I present you the federal definition of the same-

311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied citizens 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


ANd you could always read the Heller decision that says the 2A supports an individual right to bear arms

The 2nd A says militia. That means the National Guard.

Look above your post, according to federal code it does not and the National Guard didnt even exist when they wrote the 2A

Obama Rulz wrote:Suddenly the right wingers think they've "discovered" the Constitution. What a joke! This from the party of torture, wiretapping, watergate and Iran Contra.

Bunch of hypocrites.

Yes, because liberals are the party of the Constitution. Right.

Obama Rulz wrote:Show me where in the Constitution is says you get to kill people with your machine guns?

The 2nd Amendment says I can keep and bear arms. It doesn't refine as to what we can and cannot.

The 2nd Amendment exists for the ultimate protection of the People from a tyrannical government. Voicing our opinion, through the power of the 1st Amendment, will only carry the People so long until the government decides to oppress the People and then the bark of the 1st Amendment is supported by the bite of the 2nd.

Obama Rulz wrote:The 2nd A says militia. That means the National Guard.

The 2nd Amendment is a two parter
- establishes the militia for the State
- establishes the freedom for people to carry firearms.

The right for the People to carry firearms is supported by its history. Originally, the 2nd Amendment stated:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the State to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This was later changed to the People to keep them empowered.

Obama Rulz wrote:

NonConformist wrote:

Obama Rulz wrote:
Bunch of hypocrites.

Look whos talking...so tell me about Machine Guns again, and your question about my right to own them!

Show me where in the Constitution is says you get to kill people with your machine guns?

who says he was going to kill people??? THE right to bear arms is in the BOR . People are not as stupid as most lefties think, they will catch on and then a third party will be born and the Demons and The Rethugs are toast

The Constitution is a living document and we as a people have evolved greatly since the days of old white male slave owners. No one needs a machine gun and no one even needs to 'hunt' in this day and age. Haven't you people been to a Safeway?

Obama Rulz wrote:The Constitution is a living document and we as a people have evolved greatly since the days of old white male slave owners. No one needs a machine gun and no one even needs to 'hunt' in this day and age. Haven't you people been to a Safeway?

Thats sounds like a personal opinion to me. Do you ever use proof or logic in your arguments or do you only know how to spew out what the liberals have told you to spew?

Obama Rulz wrote:The Constitution is a living document and we as a people have evolved greatly since the days of old white male slave owners. No one needs a machine gun and no one even needs to 'hunt' in this day and age. Haven't you people been to a Safeway?

we would like to see it your way butt......................

Obama Rulz wrote:

Show me where in the Constitution is says you get to kill people with your machine guns?

Show me where in the Constitution it says we can't defend ourselves from the government out to control you and I.
Hint. It doesnt. In fact it says we can:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So, we can agree that the "people" in the 1st amendment means the "people". Right?
So the people in the 4th amendment means the "people".
And the "people" in the 9th means the "people".
And the "people" in the 10th means the "people".
But by the sounds of it, you're telling us that the "people" in the 2nd amendment means "The State".
It sounds like you defend the Constitution when its something you agree with. Thats not how its works nor is it how it's written. It also doenst grant you a single freedom, it only identifies them. It says you have your freedoms and I have mine. We dont have to like each others freedoms or expressions, but thats tough shit, this is America and in America we don't need the permission of the GOP or DNC to protect ourselves. If you want your freedoms you have to deal with mine as well. If you feel uncomfortable around a firearm then I reccomend that you not own one. My firearms are harmless, as is my car or Jeep. But if they are in the hands of an idiot, then they become dangerous like anything else in the world. If you feel uncomfortable having these freedoms, I suggest you move to a Country where you don't have them.

loner WTG on the smackdown very well said

Obama Rulz wrote:The Constitution is a living document and we as a people have evolved greatly since the days of old white male slave owners. No one needs a machine gun and no one even needs to 'hunt' in this day and age. Haven't you people been to a Safeway?

So you claim to be about right, but suddenly its about 'needs' and whos the hypocrit here!

it is called the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs

Instead of whining about your sacred assault weapons (which will thankfully soon be banned!) you should be more concerned about our basic rights like health care, food, housing, education.

Arguing with conservatives is like arguing with children. You want your toys and candy but ignore the basic needs of life.

Then please leave and let us children be...

Oh and in case you missed it(as usual)-


Pelosi throws cold water on weapons ban
By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 02/26/09 11:59 AM [ET]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats’ reluctance to take on gun issues.

Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat “no” when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.

The White House declined to comment on Holder's remarks, referring reporters to the Department of Justice. The DoJ did not respond to The Hill's request for comment.

“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”

Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-tosses-cold-water-on-reviving-assault-weapon-ban-2009-02-26.html

Obama Rulz wrote:Instead of whining about your sacred assault weapons (which will thankfully soon be banned!) you should be more concerned about our basic rights like health care, food, housing, education.

Arguing with conservatives is like arguing with children. You want your toys and candy but ignore the basic needs of life.

Children? Liberals are the ones with their hands out. The government is not your Mommy.

As usual, you have no argument so dodge my questions.

Please point out in the BOR where it states that you have a right to food, housing and health care.

Sorry guys, this one is a troll.

I already showed Obama Drulz the definition of Militia and he ignored it and still psted that crap...

KSigMason wrote:

I don't get how liberals can exclude the 2nd Amendment so easily.

Liberal journalist Michael Kinsley once said, "If liberals read the 2nd Amendment the way they read the rest of the constitution they would make firearm ownership mandatory."

I don't get the logic of liberals though. Say we ban all weapons, criminals will still have them and it will make it easier for them to assault us. On a second point, the government would have the total advantage over the People and with this they could oppress us. Sure we could protest and so on, but what would stop them from mowing us down? Nothing. I'm pretty sure a bullet penetrates a sound wave.

Let's go even further, we destroy every gun/firearm on Earth (and I mean every one), the criminals will just find another weapon to give them an advantage in their crimes. Are we going to ban all knives? Bow and arrows/crossbows? Bats/bars? Etc? Where will it end? Getting rid of guns won't get rid of crime, evil or war.

Liberals should be less worried about guns and banning them, and more worried about those who use them for crimes and punishing them. Guns are just inanimate objects that require an external factor to activate them.