If the Conservative Movement succeeds then What? My response!

reply to post by littlebunny


It is also refreshing to see people stick to their guns when presenting a position.

I, myself understand the premise you present. Especially when we look at self-governance and what it takes for a people to maintain it.

At the federal level you are correct. There should be no law that makes it mandatory. The only problem I could see running into in regards to State and local level laws making it mandatory, would be the use of the First Amendment. It can be argued that not voting alone, is a statement of Free Speech and thus cannot be infringed upon.

Education (not through public schools of course) is key in bringing up a generation that sees the benefits of their vote. Through strong actions of the older generation, in bringing about real, honest change, the wildfire begins. Kind of like laying the responsibility square on their shoulders because the fight has been made to bring about that change, so don't squander it by being apathetic.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by littlebunny

 

...It can be argued that not voting alone, is a statement of Free Speech and thus cannot be infringed upon.

Education (not through public schools of course) is key in bringing up a generation that sees the benefits of their vote. Through strong actions of the older generation, in bringing about real, honest change, the wildfire begins. Kind of like laying the responsibility square on their shoulders because the fight has been made to bring about that change, so don't squander it by being apathetic.

I agree with a lot of what you just said, and on so many other issues I would be standing right next to you saying, right on... However, on this issue... Even though we have freedom of speech, we cannot yell fire in a movie theater, or say the word bomb or anything other in an airport, or physically threaten the President, and for excellent reasons for all. I believe that same type of limitations should be placed onto not voting. I mean you’re free not to, but its going to cost you some of your personal fortune. Yet that cost is nothing compared to apathy and how quickly that leads to loss of personal freedoms.


Also, I'm not saying this should be the law of the land forcing every local community to have this law... But I am saying local communities should be able to decide for themselves whether they want to have a law that demands people must vote. Education will be needed to help people understand why a law like this is important, so that part of your concerns would be addressed. BTW, I just love the possible irony in that concept as well. Those who don't wanna vote must now pay for it because they didn't vote to stop the vote.


--Charles Marcello




[edit on 2-1-2010 by littlebunny]

reply to post by littlebunny


On a bit of off-topic, I just hope to see this thread continue and garner support and participation. When minds come together to hash out ideas is when we see greatness and enlightenment.

Now I agree on your summary regarding free speech and those protections should always be in place. What people, not you, just in general, enjoy doing is releasing themselves from responsibility and consequence. Like yelling fire or bomb or walking up to the President and telling him you want to kill him. Those are all unacceptable and as you stated, for very good reasons.

The irony is dully noted, as a lot of this is irony because we as a people have allowed to become such. I also agree on it being left up to the States and localities in terms of a law of some sort.

I just feel a little leery because it will then become a stipulation to be a citizen in this country. Whereas right now, a natural born citizen is one, not because of any circumstances other than he was born in a Free State or territory of our Nation (including bases on foreign land). That person doesn't have to take a test, doesn't have to pay allegiance, just breathe in the air of freedom.

Another reservation is enforcement. If enforced then there is always the chance it can be tracked. Who you voted for, what you voted for, etc. Which we all know would be a politician's wet dream.

After reading your thoughts I lean more towards your proposal but still hold onto a bit of paranoia

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by littlebunny

 

Another reservation is enforcement. If enforced then there is always the chance it can be tracked. Who you voted for, what you voted for, etc. Which we all know would be a politician's wet dream.

After reading your thoughts I lean more towards your proposal but still hold onto a bit of paranoia

Yes that is a valid concern, and that is where the Law of 13 comes into play. I too have a little paranoia, and that is why I came up with that idea of a 4th layer of governance.


Regarding this thread, save for a few posts, this thread has shown great promise in becoming one of those few places on the net that might actually bring about something very important for this country. I too am very interested in where it leads, and in helping anyway I can.


--Charles Marcello

[edit on 3-1-2010 by littlebunny]

So here's what's going to happen: The rhetoric and grandstanding of Fox news will reach an incredible high...maybe some bill will be passed, or proposed or some incident will occur that will galvanize the patriots. The right wing media will continue its rhetoric and derision of the elected officials and our supposed corrupt government.

In 2010 tea party patriot candidates will be elected, but only in very small numbers. This trend will continue until 2016, when the tea party starts gaining more ground and more seats. Once a majority is held, possibly before 2020, they will take over our corrupted government and begin enacting new sovreignty laws and abolishing long held laws that are deemed too socialist for the New America.

At this point it's too late for us, the patriot's have taken back their America and we begin where the nazi's began. The Germany of the 1920's was considered liberal, only after the nazi's started claiming power did the nation become more conservative to the point of totalitarinist fascism.

So go on patriots, I look forward to what you think you can provide, or take away from, our once great nation.

So you would do the same thing expecting a different result?

"You can't fix the problem with the same level of consciousness that created it" - Albert Einstein

Just a few thoughts...

* Nullification of all congressional perks;

* Enact real term limitations;

* Tie congressional pay to the average wage earned in each congressional district.

Real term limitations, no lifetime perks, and wages based on the average wage in each district would, in my opinion, promote a congress that worked for OUR benefit rather than for the benefit of corporations and other entities.

reply to post by endisnighe


My first post so please allow me to join the conversation. I agree something needs to be done and offer the following site to give you comfort that some folks are taking Constitutional action:

cc2009.us...

Read the Articles of Freedom and compare them to your list:

cc2009.us...

Originally posted by DeathShield
What about "the war on drugs?" one of the biggest reasons i left the Republican party, the conservative movement and abandoned being called a right winger is because i had been arrested for having a small bag of plants on me. I think it is absolutely insane that people can get legally addicted to deadly drugs such as Vicodin or Percocet yet if a cancer patient or a man coming home from work wants to smoke some cannabis before they go to bed ( and cannabis is a VERY safe drug, although like any drug there is potential for psychological addiction) they are all of a sudden public enemy number 1.

You are right. I am with you on this. We can thank the alcohol and tobacco lobby. They are afraid they are going to lose business.
My boyfriend has some government stamps that were going to be used in the sale of marijuana back in the 60's.
At that time I think it was pharmaceuticals that stopped it. A drug that seems to cure every minor ailment it would have cramped their style.
You will like this: www.procon.org...

reply to post by endisnighe

Conserve what?
What are you trying to conserve?

The environment?
Our natural resources?
Oil?
Pharmaceuticals and Insurance Companies?
Woman's right to their own bodies?
Health in America?
Lady Liberty and all she represents?
Police officers not to be outgunned by criminals?

What are you trying to conserve or preserve?

Money?

Bingo

Consider changing your name to The Exploiters.


[edit on 3-1-2010 by rusethorcain]

reply to post by endisnighe

In my opinion, the constitution was suspended since 911.

A few things:

Many of these ideas are contradictory - governments regulates some industries literally to death and remove all regulations on other - that's completely arbritary

Much of this isn't strictly conservative...

Finally, the Conservative movement ran America for decades and into the ground... that's what'll happen if they regain power.

I think what is most important is to keep the government from being corrupted by private corporations is to...

ELIMINATE PRIVATE FUNDING FOR CAMPAIGNS

If any person wishes to run for government, they should have to go through some kind of government independent system that looks at their case for running to make sure that they aren't some quack looking for money. Then, each candidate, whether it be for congress, senate, or presidency, should be given a flat amount of campaigning money, and must submit spending reports to this independant panel to ensure this system is followed.

I also suggest giving more power to the judiciary system to ensure that the constitution is followed, and any kind of corruption, at any level, is weeded out immediately, and the accused banned from working for government permanently.

Originally posted by Night Star
What an awesome thread! A breath of fresh air! I love seeing people come together to work out solutions in an honest and open discussion. Starred and flagged good sir!!!!

Thank you Night Star. It seems a few posting behind you think we are the devil though. Well, I guess it is their choice to be destructive and divisive.

Originally posted by Oaktree
All that was written in the original o.p. sounded great, with the exception of some of the mandatory stuff.
That, however, seems to have been solved by the o.p. and others, for that matter.
Here is a question that I have always struggled with in my vision of returning to a Constitutional State.

Mineral rights, specifically, oil.

Any thoughts?

You know, I think I touched base on that somewhere, it may have been on another thread.

My thoughts on the public lands issue is more socialist leaning than many would think. As of now, the Fed offers leases for exploration for private companies. I have looked into that slightly but if anyone out there has any more in depth analysis I would appreciate that help.

As for mineral rights, that must be still tied to the land title. I see your point and agree with it. For our resources to be squandered and lost to the ownership of just the holder of the deed, is but one of our basic rights though. What you speak of is one of the reasons the Corporatist ran government cannot stand Countries that state the people own the oil. This is why our gov cannot stand Chavez. Their country is not letting the oil companies exploit them.

I would also like to see why, if the oil companies are giving money to the state of Alaska, if that oil is on Federal or State land. The issue you bring up is something that should be researched for this discussion.

When I get a chance, I will do some digging on this issue.

reply to post by endisnighe


Thanks endisnighe for your considered and interesting thread. I would first like to address the title and your hypothetical of a "conservative movement" succeeding. There have been a few self avowed "liberals" or "progressives" in this thread who have suggested that your ideas are more liberal than conservative, or at the very least, similar in their conservatism to ideas found in liberal or progressive movements. I have made this point before in other threads but it is worth restating here; In the United States, if one isn't conserving the Constitution for the United States and declares themselves a "conservative" then just what the hell are they conserving?

I am fairly certain in my assumption that what the O.P. means by conservative is to conserve the Constitution. In this regard, any liberal movement is as equally valid as any conservative movement. Both are simply two sides of the same coin, that coin being the U.S. government, federal, state and local. If there were no one taking a liberal view of the Constitution then there would be no need for a conservative movement. There will always be people taking a liberal view of the Constitution regardless of which Constitution is in place and how carefully it is constructed.

That there will always be liberal views of that Constitution is not a bad thing in and of itself. Progress is necessary and marks the upward surge of any civilization, and this is why many liberals will take on the label of progressive. Indeed, that there is a distinction between "classic liberalism" and modern U.S. liberalism justifies the term "progressive". The primary question between progressives and conservatives comes down to what problems should be addressed by government and what problems should be left alone to be handled by people on a much more individual and local level?

In the most general sense, a progressive will advocate an expanded government to handle the "social" problems while a conservative will advocate a limited government to handle the problems they have been mandated to handle by Constitution. If a "conservative movement" were to succeed then it seems to me that success would be in reigning in government officials who have gone well beyond the scope of their jurisdiction.

How do We the People go about the business of reigning in government officials who are operating outside the bounds of their jurisdiction? Here in lies the fundamental problem and is the surest way in which any conservative movement can succeed. Far easier said than done in today's era of big government where both the so called "conservative movement" and the progressives have both succeeded in expanding government. There is the strange and awkward term of "neo-conservative" being used quite often in today's lexicon that seems to describe progressive Republicans. Of course, "neo-conservativism" is an oxymoron and is as ridiculous as having a progressive-fundamentalist movement.

Terms such as "neo-conservative" are nothing more than phrases of artfulness created to further confuse and confound a person. Even the terms conservative and liberal are terms that have evolved over time and have come to mean something entirely different to people in the U.S. than they mean to people outside of the U.S. and even then, inside the U.S. these terms mean whatever they mean to each person. Hence, we have people who will claim to be "fiscal conservatives" and "socially liberal", whatever that means.

Surely if one is "socially liberal" this must mean they advocate an expanded government to handle the "social" problems we face. If this is true then that advocacy means the creation of government agencies that cost money and necessarily rules out "fiscal conservatism". Unless these people truly believe they can have an expanded government without having to pay for it. Some would say they want to have their cake and eat it too. I use that idiom because it is actually an idiom that states "You can't have your cake and eat it too." I bring it up, and it may seem to be off topic, but speaks to the problem of language in a way that I think is wholly relevant.

One can demonstrably have their cake and eat it too. If one intends to eat cake they necessarily must have that cake first. The correct and proper idiom should then be: "You can't eat your cake and have it too." Yet, take note how many times people will utter this idiom by reversing the logic and in doing so uttering a falsehood. Thus, We the People can not have an expanded government solving "social ills" without paying for that "service".

There are a few phrases in the Constitution that are used to justify progressiveness. The first phrase or clause can be found in the Preamble to the Constitution for the United States. That phrase is:

"...promote the general Welfare..."

To a lesser degree another phrase in the Preamble that seems to justify progressiveness is:

"...insure domestic Tranquility..."

However, the most common clauses used to justify an expanded government can be found in the phrase:

"The Congress shall have power - to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

~U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 18~

And the phrase:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribe;"

~U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 3~

To give a sense of how Article I, Section 8 Clause 18 has become so favored by liberals consider the other popular terms used to reference this Clause; "Elastic Clause", "Basket Clause", "Coefficient Clause" and finally the "Sweeping Clause". Article I, Section 8 Clause 3 has been referred to as the "Foreign Commerce Clause", "The Interstate Commerce Clause" and "The Indian Commerce Clause" all to describe one short and seemingly simple sentence. There is, of course, nothing simple at all about that sentence or the one found in Section 8 Clause 18.

Continued....

reply to post by endisnighe


Continuing...

It has been suggested a few times by other posters in this thread, and of course countless other threads, to read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers to have a better understanding what was meant and intended by any phrase in the Constitution including the two referenced in the previous post. Beyond reading these two seminal works one should also familiarize themselves with Thomas Paine's Common Sense and even further recommended reading would be The Law by Frederic Bastiat.

The Law by Bastiat is a common sense approach to law and its purpose and any one presumed to know the law, (that would would be all of us), should take the time to read this simple document. Of course, Paine's Common
Sense is a must read for anyone advocating modern revolution and why it is necessary, but it should be understood that Paine himself had no idea that his brilliant pamphlet would lead to the movement it stirred and the violent revolution that followed. I am not a fan of violence and while force is sometimes a necessary tool to secure freedom, revolutions by definition need not be violent. Change can happen without the use of violence.

For any serious student of the Constitution, both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist are must reads. As to the two Clauses mentioned in my previous post, the authors of the Anti-Federalist Papers were vehemently opposed to Section 8 Clause 18 and just as strongly opposed to Clause 3. Many of their writings eerily predict an out of control Congress that would gain an ever increasing power by relying upon these clauses. While Alexander Hamilton of the Federalist Papers was most famous for his ardent advocacy of a strong federal government, it is perhaps James Madison in Federalist 44 that makes the strongest and most sound arguments for these clauses.

Madison addresses directly the objection to this clause with a valid question:

Few parts of the Constitution have been assailed with more intemperance than this; yet on a fair investigation of it, no part can appear more completely invulnerable. Without substance of this power, the whole Constitution would be a dead letter.Those who object to the article, therefore, as a part of the Constitution, can only mean that the form of the provision is improper. But have they considered whether a better form could have been substituted?

~Federalist Paper #44-James Madison~

Madison answers this question by suggesting there were four possible methods by which to address the concerns. Those four methods were:

1.) Duplicating the all ready existing clause of the Articles of Confederation that would have prohibited the powers not expressly delegated.

2.) Attempting a positive enumeration of the powers comprehended under the terms "necessary and proper".

3.) Attempting a negative enumeration of the powers, specifying expressly what powers are prohibited, or;

4.) Remained entirely silent on the matter leaving these necessary and proper powers to construction and inference.

As Madison points out, the first method could have either left them in the same position they were already in where the term "expressly" was debated to either be construed so vigorously as to render the government useless, or construed so liberally as render all restriction useless. Madison further points out, that when it comes to the power of Congress that their power can not be effectively used without adopting the doctrine of construction or implication. This doctrine is an important one for all of us who are presumed to know the law.

As to the second method, Madison correctly pointed out that a positive enumeration would have demanded a Constitutional construction so dense and loaded with verbiage, (much as current legislation tends to be) as to render the Constitution an overwhelming text not readily accessible to the common person for who it is intended to be understood. Not to mention the inevitable variance of possibilities when it comes to legislation and its necessity.

As to the third method, Madison again points out the "chimerical" nature of such enumeration while also pointing out that every power not prohibited could easily be construed as a positive grant of power. As to the fourth method, had they Framers remained silent on the issue it would be inevitable that such silence would have only led to an inference of such power anyway. As Madison himself said:

No axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power for doing it is included.

~Federalist Papers #44 - James Madison

I leave the reader to read Federalist #44 in its entirety to better understand what Madison is addressing and how he attempts to answer the concerns of usurpation of government. I have taken the time to speak to these Clauses and Madison's attempt to justify them in my own attempt to illustrate just how difficult it can be to "reinstate the Constitution" as the O.P. has recommended. It can be argued and indeed is being argued, not just in this thread or in this site but by Congress and the other two branches of government that what is happening today is within the bounds of the Constitution.

The question remains is this true? Has Congress remained within its Constitutional boundaries and only acted within their own scope of jurisdiction? The O.P. has simplified this question somewhat, (and by simplified I don't mean to imply over simplified), by asserting that "any and all statutes that restrict or go against the given rights of the States or the Citizens are instantly abolished." As a few posters have pointed out, such a task is easier said than done. I would also clarify that it is not citizens who have rights but all people.

I have further taken the time to frame my posts within the context of these two Clauses of Section 8 from Article I and Madison's attempt to justify them because they seem to speak to a common concern from posters on both the conservative and liberal side of the spectrum, such as statutory construction and the verbiage used to construct it, as well as the subject matter jurisdiction authorized by such statutes, codes, or other forms of legislation.

Continued...

[edit on 3-1-2

[edit on 3-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by endisnighe


Continued...

In insuring ones rights are free of abrogation or derogation, each individual is required to jealously guard those rights and zealously defend them if they ever hope to protect them. Relying upon governments to protect rights is as reliable as expecting the weather to offer up constancy. Governments are institutions that breed ambitious politicians and usurpers. History has shown this to be the case time after time.

The surest and best way to reign in an out of control Congress with bogus legislation is to understand the law and to properly challenge the subject matter jurisdiction. The O.P. is fully aware of the power a jury has to refuse to convict a person charged with a crime where no victim has been shown to exist. There are not enough people that realize this and even so, there are many who would disagree anyway and go along with bogus legislation that seeks to make criminals out of people for engaging in behavior that produces no victim. Part of that problem lies in the fallacy of inventing victim hood where none exists.

There has been some discussion in this thread about existing drug laws and in regards to this issue it should be clear that there have been plenty of juries willing to convict a drug user based solely upon legislation and perhaps their own belief that a drug user belongs in prison. The justification for such legislation lies in the canard that these sort of laws are for their own good, (the drug users), but if a thing is for ones own good, it would be self evident and need no explanation.

This is a battle that will continue to be fought between advocates of liberty and progressives who insist that such positive laws are necessary and proper. In terms of the law, if it is a crime, then this means that some harm came to another and a victim can be produced. Regardless of how "necessary and proper" legislation such as drug prohibition may or may not be, if no victim can be shown then it should be clear to any jury that no crime exists. If a jury decides this and refuses to convict based upon this simple reasoning there is nothing a judge, prosecutor or Congress can do about it, and if juries across the land begin to act in this way it will only be a matter of time before Congress starts reconsidering the prudence of such legislation.

As to the issue of National Banks controlled by Congress; There have been, in the history of the United States three "National banks" established, one exists today in the guise of the Federal Reserve established in 1913. The other two were; First Bank of the United States established in 1791 and lasting through its 20 year charter until 1811, The Second Bank of the United States established in 1816 lasting until 1841.

The First Bank of the United States was proposed by then Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton and was strongly supported by the Northern States who stood to benefit by such an establishment and eyed with great suspicion by the Southern States who had far less need of any centralized banking and were concerned with the motives behind the Northern States and the issue of states rights.

The argument for the First National Bank lied in the problem of that time with the variance in currency and wild speculation by indifferent investors who held no sense of obligation to any nation and found their wealth growing because of uncertain times. It was argued there was a need for a U.S. Mint run by Congress and a National Bank which Congress could use to do business. Along with these two arguments was the argument for a need for an excise tax to fund such a prospect. Hamilton modeled much of his design for the First National Bank after the The Bank of England and functioned as a depository for tax monies collected, making short term loans to the government for necessary costs not easily covered by tax revenues and as a holding site for incoming and outgoing money.

The Bank was a private company, had a 20 year charter that would be up for renewal by Congress at that time, was forbidden to buy any government bonds, the rotation of directors were mandatory, and could not issue notes or incur any debts outside of the capital that bank possessed. Foreign investors were allowed to hold stock in this bank but forbidden to have any privilege of voting and The Secretary of the Treasury had the power to make with drawls of government deposits as well as inspect the books of the bank as often as once a week. Further funding was estimated in order to ensure the paying of state debts due by 1791 and Hamilton proposed raising this revenue through an excise tax on whiskey which led to the now infamous "Whiskey Rebellion".

Of the greatest concerns regarding the establishment of this First National Bank was a monopoly on money and the increased interest rates that would only harm the interests of business rather than protect them which is, arguably, a primary function of government. The establishment of this bank is an excellent example of early Constitutional issues raised about the power of government and what they can and can not do. While Hamilton was obviously in the belief that such an establishment was indeed Constitutional, Thomas Jefferson was vigorously opposed to the establishment of this bank and dubious of its Constitutionality.

In defending its Constitutionality, Hamilton is perhaps the first to offer up the doctrine of corporate person hood as a valid claimant to rights by arguing that what a government could do for a person, which was to grant corporate status, it could not refuse to an artificial person in the guise of business. Since the bank would be privately owned it was a business and entitled to the same corporate privileges as any person. Hamilton further argued that there was no clear prohibition by Constitution to establish a National Bank.

When the 20 year charter for the First National Bank had reached its end in 1811 Congress refused to renew that charter and it was defeated by a vote of 65-64 loosing its charter by one vote. It was five years later that the very same Congress agreed to charter the Second National Bank primarily due to the inflation of that time and because of the War of 1812 Congress was experiencing difficulties financing that war effort.

Continued...

reply to post by endisnighe


Continuing...

The Second National Bank was modeled after the first one but the legality of this bank was challenged and ultimately decided by the seminal SCOTUS ruling made in McCulloch v. Maryland that nullified any state law that contradicted federal laws harmonious with or pursuant to the Constitution. The events that led up to this ruling were filled with rampant corruption in the Second National Bank that led to an over extension of funds which in turn led to a contraction of and calling in of loans that ultimately led to the panic of 1819.

The State of Maryland, in an attempt to reign in the bank attempted to levy a tax on any bank not chartered by the state legislature. This made the Baltimore branch of the Second National Bank liable for a tax of either 2% of its assets or a flat rate of $15,000. The iconic Daniel Webster argued the case in the Supreme Court on behalf of the bank and SCOTUS ultimately agreed with Websters arguments and nullified the tax.

By the time Andrew Jackson was elected President in the early 1830's, he being no fan at all of the Second National Bank and being a famous whiskey drinker was no fan of the First National Bank and its burdensome excise tax on what he considered to be a tax on liquor that was "a necessity of life", as President he initiated an investigation on the bank that concluded that the bank had engaged in attempts to influence the elections of public officers.

There was much political maneuvering between Jackson, his primary opponent in his reelection bid Henry Clay and Daniel Webster. The battle between these political giants led to the formation of the Whig Party by Clay and Webster but in the end, Jackson defeated Clay and was reelected for a second term as President and used his power of veto to confound Congresses efforts to renew a charter to the Second National Bank. Without a charter and very little money in it, the Second National Bank converted to an "ordinary" bank and within five years went bankrupt.

From 1836 to 1913 there were no banks controlled by the federal government. The creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 was primarily a response to the financial panic of 1907 and several panics and bank runs that came before that. There are many threads all ready in existence that deal with the Federal Reserve and its history and dubious expansion so I will refrain from elaborating on that history here. I felt compelled to offer some history to the first two National Banks due to some questions about the O.P.'s suggestion of instituting a National Bank. I thought it prudent to point out that for all intents and purposes this is what the function of the Federal Reserve is and many of us in this thread are well aware of the problems that has created.

I think I understand why the O.P. has suggested what he has, but as for me, I have no love for banking institutions and certainly see no gain in a bank run by the government. There is a need to ensure that Congress return to the task of printing and coining money and that this currency be backed by real wealth rather than issue fiat currency. In order to do this, Congress does not need to control a bank and does not even need to control a Mint to accomplish this task.

As to the O.P.'s third suggestion of instituting a type of regulation on the stock market, there are all ready regulations in place which is why the Securities and Exchange Commission exists. It should be noted that investments in stocks is a speculative act and the idea of regulating speculation is a dubious ambition. The problem doesn't lie in a stock market that is not regulated but rather lies in an economy too dependent upon the success of this stock market. Further, all the regulations in the world won't stop mismanagement and greed from happening.

Most recently we have seen two Presidents, Congress and Chairman's of the Fed attempt to sell the public on a need to bail out companies deemed "Too Big To Fail". The lunacy and ridiculous irony of this notion is that there are anti-trusts laws existing that are presumably there to prevent any company from getting too big to fail to begin with. Because of these anti-trust laws there are well paid officials working inside administrative agencies tasked with preventing any company from becoming too big to fail and it is those well paid officials who are promulgating this propaganda of "Too Big To Fail".

As to the fourth suggestion; I believe the Federal Reserve needs to be abolished as soon as possible and Congress go about the business of coining and printing money themselves and not outsourcing their responsibilities to private individuals who would profit off the debts and suffering of the American people.

As for the fifth suggestion of eliminating all federal agencies that are "null and void in a Constitutional government", I am not clear which ones the O.P. is referring to exactly. There have been some posters in this thread who have argued that income taxation is unconstitutional but this is entirely untrue and Congress, who has the complete and plenary power of taxation, has always had the authority to tax income in one of two ways. They can either tax income directly and follow the rule of apportionment as set by the Constitution or they can tax it indirectly by taxing specific activities and use income as the source of measurement by which to gauge how much tax is owed.

I bring up income tax in regards to the O.P.'s fifth suggestion because I am presuming that some might argue that the administrative agency created by Congress known as the Internal Revenue Service might be considered one of those federal agencies "null and void" but I am not so sure this is true. Indeed, the necessary and proper clause could easily be construed to justify any federal agency not directly mandated by Constitution and no doubt has been used. But, more on this later.

As to the sixth suggestion by the O.P., this is a difficult question. Are the troops we have stationed on foreign soils not needed there? This is such a perplexing and complex issue there is no way I can even begin to address this question given the limited space I have in this field and will have to continue yet again with a new post.

So....

reply to post by endisnighe


Continuing...

Do We the People just pull our troops out of all foreign lands where we are "not wanted"? I have read many threads and posters in this site and numerous other sites insist that we are not wanted in Iraq. While this argument is true it is only a half truth as there are people in Iraq who indeed want us there and have wanted us there long before 9/11. It was after the first adventure in Iraq, or more correctly in Kuwait, when George Bush Sr. encouraged the Kurds to rebel against Saddam Hussein and implicit in this encouragement was that if they did rebel, the U.S. military would be there to back them up.

The Kurds did rebel and while Hussein ruthlessly and mercilessly crushed that rebellion George Bush Sr. did nothing to help and no military personnel were sent to aid in this rebellion. Maybe Bush was wrong to encourage the rebellion to begin with and maybe not but that he did and after the Kurds followed through but Bush Sr. didn't, the genuine sense of betrayal that many Kurds still feel to this day is justified. I am not making a personal argument for the current occupation of Iraq nor am I making any argument against it. I remain, as I have from the very beginning, ambivalent on the matter and truly don't know what to think. I am no big fan of war to begin with and see too much stupidity coming from the act of war, but then again, war seems to be a cyclical inevitability and a tragic fact of life.

I am just not clear on whether or not it is a good idea to have troops on foreign soil even if they want us there. It is a military matter and since our President is charged with being the Commander in Chief, it should be clear that when we elect Presidents while in a time of war or threat of war, it perhaps would be prudent to elect to the Presidency a person capable of acting as a competent Commander in Chief, although throughout much of our history those Presidents who have resided during times of war were not in any regard military experts or renowned strategists of war. I don't know what to say, except I know what Sun Tzu has to say about the matter and that is it is not prudent to allow the civil government and civilians to dictate the strategies of war.

I will address both numbers seven and eight of the O.P.'s suggestion together. I am first uncomfortable with the term "illegal immigrant" as I am not certain how a person can suddenly become "illegal" just by virtue of their residence. That said, every country should have the right to protect their borders and being charged with ensuring domestic Tranquility and promoting the general Welfare it may be prudent to limit the amount of immigration that flows to this country. I doubt this can be done by creating statutes or codes that would seek to regulate this influx of immigration and am more confident that a strict limitation on "social programs" might discourage a large portion of unwanted immigration.

I have all ready read many amendments to this suggestion by the O.P. and this is good, as one of my biggest questions would be; what if I meet the love of my life and she resides in El Salvador or Brazil or Zimbabwe and I want to marry her and bring her back to my home here in the good old U.S.A. Being free and sovereign my first quibble would be why should I have to gain permission from any government to bring the love of my life the woman of whom I have already married or intend to marry just because of the nature of her birth place?

Certainly if my wife wants all the privileges of being an American citizen, i.e. voting and other such privileges, then she needs permission from the government to gain this citizenship and I should certainly, being a citizen myself, be able to sponsor her for that citizenship without forcing her to join the workforce or other such obligations simply because she is an immigrant. This is just one small issue to a much larger issue but others have all ready spoken to this issue and I thought I would add to it by bringing it to a more personal level.

On to number nine of the O.P.'s suggestions. If we are free then we are free and this means that if we want to do business in a foreign land and are welcomed by that country to do business then what difference should this make to a government or the people that government serves? It is interesting that you frame your suggestion in terms of taxation, and either you have implied or I have inferred by this that many corporations or businesses will go abroad to escape oppressive taxation and your solution to this is to impose that same oppressive taxation on them regardless of where they do business. I am not sure I am inferring correctly but this is what I got from this suggestion.

First of all, many corporations don't just move their plants and companies abroad to avoid taxation but also to avoid high costs of labor. This issue of labor is an important one and their has always been a perplexing irony to me that many goods and products are imported from China, a communist country that presumably is communist because it has endeavored to place the ownership of production in the hands of labor, but labor their is cheaper than labor in the U.S.A. I am guessing that this suggestion made by the O.P. has been made due to the effects that "outsourcing" and outright moves by corporations to foreign lands has affected the economy in the U.S.A.

This problem is a hugely complex issue that not only involves corporations but labor unions as well, not to mention unwarranted taxation by the governments, local, state and federal. Corporations are entities that exist by grant of government which is We the People and as such subject to much more than any free and sovereign being is, and should be held to a higher standard because of this. Not just because they are artificial and fictions but because they have the distinct characteristic and possibility of longevity lasting much longer than most individual humans do. A corporation can survive its founders by years, sometimes hundreds of years and because of this will evolve into a beast that needs to be controlled.

The same is true of labor unions being associations or organizations that also exist by grant of statute and must be controlled too. So, again we get into this doctrine of artificial person hood and I again am out of space!

Continued...

reply to post by endisnighe


Continuing...

With the doctrine of corporate person hood I will first point out that there is a mistaken belief that SCOTUS declared a corporation as being the same as person and therefore entitled to all rights any individual has. The Supreme Court has never made any such ruling and what is being referred to in this regard is dicta as opposed to holding. What this means is that the doctrine of corporate person hood is not law legislated by SCOTUS and is being bandied about as if it were, mostly promulgated by corporate lawyers, when it was merely an offhand remark made by a justice not being any part of the actual ruling.

It is however, getting very late. I began replying to the O.P. at around 8pm last night and it is now a little after 3am my time and this is the sixth post I am writing. I never intended to monopolize this thread with so much text and to, what more than likely, seems like a lot of blah blah blah to many readers. I wish I were capable of responding to the O.P.'s suggestions with a simple remark and leave at that, but this is by no mean nor by any stretch of the imagination a simple thread with simple suggestions. This seems to be the nature of endisnighe, whether he has created a thread or simply jumped into a thread created by another, that he will bring up points and speak to issues that require, in my humble opinion, serious responses and considered thought.

I have done my best to respond seriously and with considered thought, but perhaps it is time for me to take a break and thereby giving any reader who actually dared to wade through all I wrote a break as well. When I return I will pick up with the problem of the doctrine of corporate person hood and the nature of statutorily created corporations and organizations and how such entities only further add to the complexity of government and its inevitable expansion. In the end, at least the end of this series of posts, I come back to where I began. Conservative or progressive, a government will always progress towards inevitable expansion and the only possible way to reign in that expansion is through the collective effort of individuals who are willing to reign in out of control governments. Far easier said than done.

Thanks for another great thread O.P. and I will be back, for some that may be taken as a promise and I suppose for others it could viewed as a threat. Either way, I will return.