A government of the people, by the people, for the people

[Foxfyre]

A bit more on the Louisiana Purchase. I'm sure Jefferson probably agonized over that as much as anything in his Presidency. He finally got around the legal technicalities by declaring the purchase a treaty which WAS a prerogative of the federal government.

President Jefferson endorsed the purchase but believed that the Constitution did not provide the national government with the authority to make land acquisitions. He pondered whether a constitutional amendment might be needed to legalize the purchase. After consultations Jefferson concluded that the president's authority to make treaties could be used to justify the agreement. Therefore, the Louisiana Purchase was designated a treaty and submitted to the Senate for ratification. The Senate ratified the treaty October 20, 1803, and the United States took possession of the territory December 20, 1803.
Louisiana Purchase legal definition of Louisiana Purchase. Louisiana Purchase synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So far we have been able to disagree amicably and have conducted a civil discussion on a subject that is not all that easily sorted out and/or fully understood. I would very much appreciate it it if we could please keep it that way Jake (and any others who are inclined to start a food fight.)

Take it up with bripat, Foxfyre. I am fine with a civil discussion. He simply has issues.

The problem with the Constitution and how it is interpreted now is that both parties are about power and not much else. Either the two parties cleanse themselves and reform, or we are in for real problems.

 

[Votto]

When the Supreme Court decided that providing for the general welfare in ways other than described in Article 1, Sections 8 was an independent power, the limitations on the Federal Government were essentially removed. Only way to change that now is an Article 5 convention where the States could reign in the Feds. I don't see that happening in my life time.

We could always start a White House petition.

 

[Foxfyre]

When the Supreme Court decided that providing for the general welfare in ways other than described in Article 1, Sections 8 was an independent power, the limitations on the Federal Government were essentially removed. Only way to change that now is an Article 5 convention where the States could reign in the Feds. I don't see that happening in my life time.

We could always start a White House petition.

Sure. That would be really effective wouldn't it. Not!

But this is the fundamental issue that I see. As long as we allow politicians and their appointees and bureaucrats use our money to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes, we are screwed. It is the most effective blueprint for total corruption both of government and the recipients of the benevolence (make that bribes) ever devised by a government.

Only by restricting the federal government from ANY form of benefit, benevolence, or charity, including that directed at themselves, can we ever hope to stop the headlong rush to national decline, unresolvable debt, and loss of our liberties.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Re: the purchase of Louisiana Territory.

Foxfyre, your suggestion for resolution indicates just how flexible is that wonderful document. Without a doubt the treaty suggestion works but can also be argued a 'big government' solution.

Nonetheless, I think all of us would have approved the purchase.

Otherwise, eventually, we would have had the British in New Orleans and along the Mississippi River blocking American expansion to the Pacific Ocean.

 

[Montrovant]

The state and local government is assumed to be social contract agreed to by the majority of the people. There is much to be debated on the scope of such government, but the Founders assumed no authority over that so long as the local governments infringed on the rights of nobody else. In other words the Commonwealth of Massuchusetts would have no ability to force its idea of good, evil, right, wrong, justice, injustice on the other states. And if the people of a state wanted a Puritanical theocracy, they could have that. If they wanted a wild, wooly hellfire society, they could have that.

The Founders believe there was no freedom at all if people had no ability to get it wrong, to make mistakes, to do it poorly. And they also believed in the vritue of freedom that a free people would eventually work out the problems and injustices and would get it right. But it was their life to live. Their choices to make. And the federal government would have no power over that.

It is assumed to be a social contract? I fail to see how it is any more of a social contract than the federal government, nor do I see a distinction of power imposed simply because of the source of the power.

Clearly the founding fathers did have a problem with state governments doing what they pleased. A state cannot take away your freedom of speech or religion, it can't imprison you without trial, it can't hang you up by your thumbs and roast you over a slow fire. At no time during the entire history of the United States, including the era controlled entirely by the founders, did the federal government see itself as so constrained.

I have to go back to my original question. The federal government is in place in full accordance with the Constitution. So what exactly is it you are proposing?

But as the Founders saw it, the states could (and did) do all those things. The Puritan theocracy that put people in stocks for heresy was perfectly legal under federal law. The federal government was prohibited by the Constitution from doing that, but not the states. The Salem Witch trials were perfectly legal under federal law. The federal government was prohibited by the Constitution from doing that but not the states.

As it was, a free people, unhindered and unpressed by any monarch, Pope, or other central authority, voluntarily dismantled those theocracies, made the burning of witches illegal, etc. etc. etc. The point is, the federal government then, as it was intended to do, allowed the people freedom to form whatever sort of societies they wished to have.

Yes, the Constitution itself is a social contract. One that allows the federal government specific powers and was intended to prevent it from having any other powers. The federal government was to secure our rights to order our own lives as we saw fit and then leave us alone to live them. And that included not dictating what sort of social contract the states, counties, communities, or any other entity would adopt.

I don't think that arguing it should be legal, by federal standards, to put people in stocks for heresy or burn people for being witches is going to help you here.

I also don't think the founders were all of one mind, so whenever I see 'the founders believed in this or that' it annoys me. There's also no way to know how any of the founders would react to our current circumstances. The country and the world are far too different from the founding of the country. Who knows but that some of the founders would agree with how things have progressed?

Finally, the idea that because things aren't being run the way you (or even the founders) would prefer does NOT mean that the people are no longer in control. No individual is representative of all the people of the United States. One person being dissatisfied does not mean the government has failed. It would be more accurate to say that you disagree with the country the people have given themselves.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is assumed to be a social contract? I fail to see how it is any more of a social contract than the federal government, nor do I see a distinction of power imposed simply because of the source of the power.

Clearly the founding fathers did have a problem with state governments doing what they pleased. A state cannot take away your freedom of speech or religion, it can't imprison you without trial, it can't hang you up by your thumbs and roast you over a slow fire. At no time during the entire history of the United States, including the era controlled entirely by the founders, did the federal government see itself as so constrained.

I have to go back to my original question. The federal government is in place in full accordance with the Constitution. So what exactly is it you are proposing?

But as the Founders saw it, the states could (and did) do all those things. The Puritan theocracy that put people in stocks for heresy was perfectly legal under federal law. The federal government was prohibited by the Constitution from doing that, but not the states. The Salem Witch trials were perfectly legal under federal law. The federal government was prohibited by the Constitution from doing that but not the states.

As it was, a free people, unhindered and unpressed by any monarch, Pope, or other central authority, voluntarily dismantled those theocracies, made the burning of witches illegal, etc. etc. etc. The point is, the federal government then, as it was intended to do, allowed the people freedom to form whatever sort of societies they wished to have.

Yes, the Constitution itself is a social contract. One that allows the federal government specific powers and was intended to prevent it from having any other powers. The federal government was to secure our rights to order our own lives as we saw fit and then leave us alone to live them. And that included not dictating what sort of social contract the states, counties, communities, or any other entity would adopt.

I don't think that arguing it should be legal, by federal standards, to put people in stocks for heresy or burn people for being witches is going to help you here.

I also don't think the founders were all of one mind, so whenever I see 'the founders believed in this or that' it annoys me. There's also no way to know how any of the founders would react to our current circumstances. The country and the world are far too different from the founding of the country. Who knows but that some of the founders would agree with how things have progressed?

Finally, the idea that because things aren't being run the way you (or even the founders) would prefer does NOT mean that the people are no longer in control. No individual is representative of all the people of the United States. One person being dissatisfied does not mean the government has failed. It would be more accurate to say that you disagree with the country the people have given themselves.

My goal here is not to earn pats on th back but to get the story straight. The Founders knew about the colonial theocracies. And they knew that if the federal government forbade them, the people had no freedom at all. There is no freedom when the government tells you what you can and cannot do in your own society. The Founders also believed that people with their God given rights secured would eventually get around to doing the right thing. Thus, the theocracies dissolved. The witch burnings and other such atrocities ceased in the face of strong public opinion against them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Founders were not a monolithic unity, Foxfyre. They had difference, some serious ones. Jefferson, Franklin, Allen, Paine certainly did not think as the conventional Christians (Jay and Henry among them) regarding government and religion. For instance, it took Madison and Jefferson two years of delaying tactics to defeat Governor Patrick Henry's desire for a state-established church.

I am not sure how they as a group and as individuals would have reacted to black voting rights, FEMA, HSA, and online pornography. Franklin probably would have liked the latter.

 

[regent]

It started with Teddy Roosevelt turning the Constitution on its head when he declared the government could do anything the Constitution did not expressly forbid. Up until then, every President and Congress had gone with the Founders intent that the Constitution limited government to only what it authorized.

I do think there are enough freedom loving people left in America that we can reverse the current destruction of Constitutional intent and individual liberties. But I do think this is the last generation that will have any power to do that. It does require all of us who care to start paying attention now.

Teddy Roosevelt didn't start this idea, it was started with Hamilton and our first president, Washington and concerned the bank, tariffs, and a host of issues. Hamilton said the government must have the means adequate to its ends. Where, for example, was it written that government must help business, but laws were passed in the Washington adminisration doing just that. Then the Marshall Court, beginning with the second president, Adams, deciding the Supreme Court had the power to decide what the constitution meant, but nowhere was this deciding power given to the Court in the constitution. They just decided it on their very own. Even Jefferson the strict interpreter of the constitution bought Louisiana clearly not authorized by the constitution. And on and on.

First, the Constitution does give the deciding power to the SC. I refer you to Article 3, Section 2.

What you are saying is that the founding fathers, the men who wrote and enacted the Constitution, did not agree with your interpretation.

No, I am saying that the writers of the constitution failed to designate in the constitution that the Supreme Court was to decide the constitutionality of laws, acts of the congress, states or the executive. The wording for that power is simply not in the constitution. The Court under Marshall decided that in the most famous court case, Marbury v. Madison.

 

[Foxfyre]

Teddy Roosevelt didn't start this idea, it was started with Hamilton and our first president, Washington and concerned the bank, tariffs, and a host of issues. Hamilton said the government must have the means adequate to its ends. Where, for example, was it written that government must help business, but laws were passed in the Washington adminisration doing just that. Then the Marshall Court, beginning with the second president, Adams, deciding the Supreme Court had the power to decide what the constitution meant, but nowhere was this deciding power given to the Court in the constitution. They just decided it on their very own. Even Jefferson the strict interpreter of the constitution bought Louisiana clearly not authorized by the constitution. And on and on.

First, the Constitution does give the deciding power to the SC. I refer you to Article 3, Section 2.

What you are saying is that the founding fathers, the men who wrote and enacted the Constitution, did not agree with your interpretation.

No, I am saying that the writers of the constitution failed to designate in the constitution that the Supreme Court was to decide the constitutionality of laws, acts of the congress, states or the executive. The wording for that power is simply not in the constitution. The Court under Marshall decided that in the most famous court case, Marbury v. Madison.

You are correct that the concept was crystalized with Marbury v Madison, but the principle was already in the minds of the Founders just as the Constitution does not specifically specify 'unalienable God given rights' but that is implied in the language of the Constitution itself. The High Court deemed that it could not uphold its sworn duty to defend the Constitution without using judicial powers.

The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society's need for order and the individual's right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government.

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.

Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.

Despite this background the Court's power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. "It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is," he declared.
The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

What the courts, both lower and higher, have subsequently done, however, is to interpret law according to what the individual judges deemed that it SHOULD say rather than what it DOES or DOES NOT say. And in so doing they short circuit the entire process intended by the Constitution.

 

[Montrovant]

But as the Founders saw it, the states could (and did) do all those things. The Puritan theocracy that put people in stocks for heresy was perfectly legal under federal law. The federal government was prohibited by the Constitution from doing that, but not the states. The Salem Witch trials were perfectly legal under federal law. The federal government was prohibited by the Constitution from doing that but not the states.

As it was, a free people, unhindered and unpressed by any monarch, Pope, or other central authority, voluntarily dismantled those theocracies, made the burning of witches illegal, etc. etc. etc. The point is, the federal government then, as it was intended to do, allowed the people freedom to form whatever sort of societies they wished to have.

Yes, the Constitution itself is a social contract. One that allows the federal government specific powers and was intended to prevent it from having any other powers. The federal government was to secure our rights to order our own lives as we saw fit and then leave us alone to live them. And that included not dictating what sort of social contract the states, counties, communities, or any other entity would adopt.

I don't think that arguing it should be legal, by federal standards, to put people in stocks for heresy or burn people for being witches is going to help you here.

I also don't think the founders were all of one mind, so whenever I see 'the founders believed in this or that' it annoys me. There's also no way to know how any of the founders would react to our current circumstances. The country and the world are far too different from the founding of the country. Who knows but that some of the founders would agree with how things have progressed?

Finally, the idea that because things aren't being run the way you (or even the founders) would prefer does NOT mean that the people are no longer in control. No individual is representative of all the people of the United States. One person being dissatisfied does not mean the government has failed. It would be more accurate to say that you disagree with the country the people have given themselves.

My goal here is not to earn pats on th back but to get the story straight. The Founders knew about the colonial theocracies. And they knew that if the federal government forbade them, the people had no freedom at all. There is no freedom when the government tells you what you can and cannot do in your own society. The Founders also believed that people with their God given rights secured would eventually get around to doing the right thing. Thus, the theocracies dissolved. The witch burnings and other such atrocities ceased in the face of strong public opinion against them.

I'm sorry, but isn't telling people what they can and cannot do EXACTLY the purpose of government? Not that the government makes the rules, but that it enforces whatever rules a given society agrees upon? (let's just deal with societies in which the people have say in government). You seem to be advocating, and claiming the founders advocated, anarchy.

No one is going to be completely free. That's just life. However, there certainly are degrees of freedom. Not allowing state-run theocracies =/= total loss of freedom.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

WHEREAS: The Founders of the great United States of America intended that this nation be the first in the history of the world to have a free people who would govern themselves free of the dictates of Monarch, Pope, or any other central government authority, and

Incorrect.

The United States is a Republic, not a democracy; citizens are subject to the rule of law, not men. The people’s will is expressed through their elected officials and the courts, which are the people’s venue where they may petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The American people are indeed subject to a central government authority, to say otherwise is ignorant. It was indeed the Framers’ intent that Americans be subject to the Federal government, as are all the states and local jurisdictions. The fact of this is found in the Supremacy Clause, and subsequent supporting, settled, and accepted Constitutional case law. See, e.g., Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

WHEREAS: The Constitution of the United States was designed to secure the God given rights of the people and otherwise leave them alone to form whatever sort of societies they wished to have, and

Not if those ‘societies’ conflict with the Constitution, or enact measures offense to the Constitution. The Framers were not anarchists, they never authorized a ‘sovereign individual,’ and whatever ‘societies’ the people may manifest, all ‘societies’ are subject to the Federal government, the Federal courts, and Constitutional case law, as mandated by the 14th Amendment. See: Gitlow v. New York (1925).

WHEREAS: The Constitution of the United States was designed to strictly limit the powers of those elected or appointed to federal office, and

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law; that case law both limits and empowers government to enact measures and policies that are necessary and proper, provided they are not offensive to the Constitution. See: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

WHEREAS: The government has assumed powers the Constitution does not allow and that the Founders never intended a central government to have,

Incorrect.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied; ‘but that’s not in the Constitution’ is an ignorant and failed ‘argument.’ See again: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

BE IT THEREFORE ACKNOWLEDGED that in order to preserve this great nation as the Founders intended that it be, the people must rise up and condemn and replace those in government who confiscate property that the Constitution does not authorize, that spend the people's money in ways that the Constitution does not authorize, and that obligate future generations with debt that the Constitution does not authorize.

According to whom, and by what authority?

You need to cite the case law in support of this, otherwise it’s just meaningless, subjective opinion.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

When the Supreme Court decided that providing for the general welfare in ways other than described in Article 1, Sections 8 was an independent power, the limitations on the Federal Government were essentially removed. Only way to change that now is an Article 5 convention where the States could reign in the Feds. I don't see that happening in my life time.

It will happen when the dollar crashes, if the Federal Government survives at all and State boundaries remain intact. And the dollar will most certainly crash in our lifetime.

 

[regent]

I am attempting to focus on this concept of a "freedom loving people" who wish to "govern themselves". I assume from this that you have no problem with the government forcing people to embrace or tolerate and to confiscate property, so long as that is done at the state level.

Under the Constitution, the Congress makes the laws, the executive branch applies the laws and the SC resolve any conflicts. All of the members of Congress have been legally elected, in accordance with the Constitution, as has the President. All of the members of the SC have been appointed in accordance with the Constitution. So it would seem what we currently have meets your definition of a freedom loving people governing themselves, in accordance with the Constitution.

So I have to ask again, what exactly is it you are proposing?

The state and local government is assumed to be social contract agreed to by the majority of the people. There is much to be debated on the scope of such government, but the Founders assumed no authority over that so long as the local governments infringed on the rights of nobody else. In other words the Commonwealth of Massuchusetts would have no ability to force its idea of good, evil, right, wrong, justice, injustice on the other states. And if the people of a state wanted a Puritanical theocracy, they could have that. If they wanted a wild, wooly hellfire society, they could have that.

The Founders believe there was no freedom at all if people had no ability to get it wrong, to make mistakes, to do it poorly. And they also believed in the vritue of freedom that a free people would eventually work out the problems and injustices and would get it right. But it was their life to live. Their choices to make. And the federal government would have no power over that.

It is assumed to be a social contract? I fail to see how it is any more of a social contract than the federal government, nor do I see a distinction of power imposed simply because of the source of the power.

Clearly the founding fathers did have a problem with state governments doing what they pleased. A state cannot take away your freedom of speech or religion, it can't imprison you without trial, it can't hang you up by your thumbs and roast you over a slow fire. At no time during the entire history of the United States, including the era controlled entirely by the founders, did the federal government see itself as so constrained.

I have to go back to my original question. The federal government is in place in full accordance with the Constitution. So what exactly is it you are proposing?

The Bill of Rights originally only applied to the national government not the states. After the Civil War the Court began applying parts of the Bill of Rights to state governments, called, incorporation. The most recent incorporation case applied the Second Amendment to the states. That case was McDonald v. Chicago, 2010. With the McDonald case perhaps all of the Bill of Rights have now been incorporated.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, the military is a Constitutional responsibility of Congress for the purpose of securing our rights--preventing anyone from taking away those rights.

And please try to to focus on the federal government here. Whatever government entities the people put into place at the state, county, and local levels is not the subject of this thread. It is important to make a distinction between various government entities.

I am attempting to focus on this concept of a "freedom loving people" who wish to "govern themselves". I assume from this that you have no problem with the government forcing people to embrace or tolerate and to confiscate property, so long as that is done at the state level.

Under the Constitution, the Congress makes the laws, the executive branch applies the laws and the SC resolve any conflicts. All of the members of Congress have been legally elected, in accordance with the Constitution, as has the President. All of the members of the SC have been appointed in accordance with the Constitution. So it would seem what we currently have meets your definition of a freedom loving people governing themselves, in accordance with the Constitution.

So I have to ask again, what exactly is it you are proposing?

The state and local government is assumed to be social contract agreed to by the majority of the people. There is much to be debated on the scope of such government, but the Founders assumed no authority over that so long as the local governments infringed on the rights of nobody else. In other words the Commonwealth of Massuchusetts would have no ability to force its idea of good, evil, right, wrong, justice, injustice on the other states. And if the people of a state wanted a Puritanical theocracy, they could have that. If they wanted a wild, wooly hellfire society, they could have that.

The Founders believe there was no freedom at all if people had no ability to get it wrong, to make mistakes, to do it poorly. And they also believed in the vritue of freedom that a free people would eventually work out the problems and injustices and would get it right. But it was their life to live. Their choices to make. And the federal government would have no power over that.

Nonsense.

One does not forfeit his civil liberties merely as a consequence of his state of residence; whether one will or will not have his civil rights is not determined by majority rule.

Ideally the states and local jurisdictions should not enact measures offensive to the Constitution. And when they do enact un-Constitutional measures, the people have the right to challenge such measures in Federal court. Those whose civil liberties have been violated can not be compelled to wait until society “eventually work out the problems and injustices.” A civil right delayed is a civil denied.

 

[Votto]

When the Supreme Court decided that providing for the general welfare in ways other than described in Article 1, Sections 8 was an independent power, the limitations on the Federal Government were essentially removed. Only way to change that now is an Article 5 convention where the States could reign in the Feds. I don't see that happening in my life time.

We could always start a White House petition.

Sure. That would be really effective wouldn't it. Not!

But this is the fundamental issue that I see. As long as we allow politicians and their appointees and bureaucrats use our money to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes, we are screwed. It is the most effective blueprint for total corruption both of government and the recipients of the benevolence (make that bribes) ever devised by a government.

Only by restricting the federal government from ANY form of benefit, benevolence, or charity, including that directed at themselves, can we ever hope to stop the headlong rush to national decline, unresolvable debt, and loss of our liberties.

What do you mean? It's their money and their country, not ours.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Still being pretty vague. You would prefer we have no military, for example? You need a central government for that. What precisely is it you want the government to stop doing and which government are you talking about. I know that I live under three distinct governments and my daughter, who lives in he city, lives under four.

No, the military is a Constitutional responsibility of Congress for the purpose of securing our rights--preventing anyone from taking away those rights.

And please try to to focus on the federal government here. Whatever government entities the people put into place at the state, county, and local levels is not the subject of this thread. It is important to make a distinction between various government entities.

I am attempting to focus on this concept of a "freedom loving people" who wish to "govern themselves". I assume from this that you have no problem with the government forcing people to embrace or tolerate and to confiscate property, so long as that is done at the state level.

Under the Constitution, the Congress makes the laws, the executive branch applies the laws and the SC resolve any conflicts. All of the members of Congress have been legally elected, in accordance with the Constitution, as has the President. All of the members of the SC have been appointed in accordance with the Constitution. So it would seem what we currently have meets your definition of a freedom loving people governing themselves, in accordance with the Constitution.

So I have to ask again, what exactly is it you are proposing?

To understand what is being proposed, one must first translate from rightwingese:

"[F]reedom loving people" refers to people of the same race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and religion.

"[G]overn themselves" refers to the ‘freedom’ to establish schools, workplaces, and communities ‘free’ of those not of the same race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and religion, to do so with impunity, without interference from Federal courts compelling jurisdictions to abide by the 14th Amendment. ‘Free’ to conjoin church and state, ‘free’ to codify religious dogma into secular law, ‘free’ to refuse to engage in commerce with people different than they, and ‘free’ to ignore the rule of law.

‘Free’ to violate the right to privacy by outlawing abortion, ‘free’ to violate the equal protection rights of same-sex couples by criminalizing homosexuality, ‘free’ to violate the Establishment Clause by compelling prayer in public schools, ‘free’ to deny immigrants their due process rights by keeping them out of said schools, workplaces, and communities.

It is in essence a variation on the old conservative reactionary theme: return America to an idealized past that never actually existed to begin with. An America that was far from ‘ideal’ for African-Americans, women, and homosexuals, among many others.

 

[rdean]

Corporations are people my friend: Mitt Romney.

 

[JWBooth]

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Tea Party, because of its dysfunctional nature and inability to corral the less reputable elements, has done a great job in diminishing, marginalizing, discrediting, and demonizing itself. Both left and right wing media have been effective in doing so. The Tea Party is obviously not the answer.

The answer is common civic virtue, in which a multitude of Americans exercise thoughtfully their voting rights to elect good, effective legislators. That has not happened in a long time.