From the comments
April 3, 2013 6 Comments
It seems like a lot of conservatives will preach the “small Government”, “individual liberty” rhetoric, but are all too willing to use tax dollars to implement legislation on moral issues when it fits them. In the end it’s either – you are for limited Government or you aren’t. You really can’t have it both ways (not without being a hypocrite at least). Great article.
Leaving aside whether the article was great or not🙂 He makes a very important point. It is one I wanted to raise and sort of chickened out. And yes, I do completely agree with him.
Like the current controversy over marriage- Why is this even in front of the federal government. For government purposes, which in essence means taxes, marriage can be treated as a partnership, with a proviso that a marriage partner cannot be compelled to testify against each other. Other than that the federal government has no real standing in the debate. States are a somewhat different story but as we keep saying, states are a plenary government, they can do anything not prohibited.
Then we come to abortion. There are only two lines where we can draw a definitive line, conception or birth. If we try to draw it anywhere else we have a scale that has no features to hold a definition. There are things that make birth unacceptable, starting with the child feeling pain far before that point, and the fact that we are already seeing babies killed that have survived the abortion. That leaves conception as the only viable line to use, it is also the only traditional and moral point to use. But, again why is this in Washington, abortion is nothing more than a fancy name for infanticide, and the killing of a baby is illegal in every state in the union, which is where crime fighting belongs.
Let’s add this, hate crimes make no sense, we do not know what is in the mind of a criminal. If he/she did the crime, prosecute the crime, if the penalty isn’t high enough to suit, try to get the legislature to make it higher from now on. The founders said all we need to know about this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That covers quite a bit of ground that we hear a lot about lately doesn’t it. Say whatever you want (subject to the libel law, of course, and don’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater) otherwise hurt all the feelings you want, but don’t whine when somebody hurts yours. And do note that not only do I have a right to my religion but I have a right to exercise it as well. I don’t have to leave it in the church.
Then there is this one:
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.
I don’t see how anyone can misconstrue those words but the best analysis I’ve seen come from Tenche Cox, a delegate to the Continental Congress explained it this way in the Pennsylvania Gazette on 20 February 1788 when he wrote:
The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
That’s pretty clear, isn’t it? And it’s not about hunting either, and it’s certainly NOT designed to keep the people’s arms less capable than the military. The founders would have preferred the people’s arms to be superior to the government’s.
But, in truth, this is whistling past the graveyard, the only way to get control of Leviathan is to shut it down, a part time Congress (maybe 30 days a year, maybe less) no staff, and a lifetime limit of say 8 years on any employment with connection to the federal government. And a proviso (in the Constitution, if necessary) that for any new law to be effective it must be accompanied by the repeal of between 50 and 100 laws on the books.
That would be a good start.
- All Federal Gun Laws Are Unconstitutional (freedomoutpost.com)
- Is The Federal Government Supreme? (anationbeguiled.wordpress.com)
- The Founders and the 2nd Amendment (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Conservative ? (nebraskaenergyobserver.wordpress.com)