You either believe in freedom or you don’t. It’s that simple. [More]True enough.
The question then becomes what to do about it. Since the topic here is "civil war," I have a simple question: Who are the leaders we who believe in freedom should follow?
A civil war, by definition, replaces the leadership.
At the time of the War of the Rebellion, they had the Continental Congress and the deliberative and judicial bodies of the several states. At the time of the War of Northern Aggression, they had the CSA.
Anybody see this credibly fleshed out anywhere? If so, please share.
[Via Matthew L]
4 comments:
"Don't follow leaders, watch the parkin' meters" -- Bob Dylan
As Rep. Thomas Massie pointed out in that video you linked to, there's nothing wrong with The Constitution. The Problem is that our current government doesn't follow the Constitution.
So while a civil war might be an answer to a problem, I'm pretty sure its not the best solution to the problem we actually have.
Two possible solutions might be:
1. A truth in Legislation law. A bill that does not clearly state what it does in a concise manner in a preamble written in plain English should not be considered much less passed. And if it were somehow to pass, SCOTUS should have the power to summarily strike it down.
2. A bill should state which part of the Constitution enables Congress to pass it before it can be considered.
The question is, as one of the founders said, how do you force an uncooperative government to limit itself in such a fashion?
#2 above is already a rule:
99 percent of the bills that are presented on the floor of Congress reference the "regulate commerce" clause, but even that has been so bastardized that the original intent is gone.
The "Continuity Of Government" is in itself an abomination of the Declaration of Independence, and antithetical to the citizen's right to alter or abolish. Our current government in its present form is not what the founders planned, but short of overthrowing the tyrannical bastards, and re-declaring our independence in U.S. of A.2, what can one do?
HinMO
Ah, yes! The overworked "rubber band" commerce clause.
During oral arguments before SCOTUS while considering US v Lopez (1995), one of the justices questioned the government's position on the commerce clause. They specifically asked, given the government's interpretation of the commerce clause, if there was any part of life in the USA that was out of congress' regulatory reach. It was reported at the time that the justices were pretty much unanimous in being appalled by the Solicitor General's response. He said "No".
Quoting Chief Justice Rehnquist,
"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."
In Lopez, the court effectively stopped the further stretch of the rubber band saying in effect, this far and no farther. Hopefully, the wave of judges appointed by POTUS 45 will begin to roll back some of the "stretch" that has been going on since Wickard v Filburn (1942).
Post a Comment