Saturday, April 9, 2011

The New Civil War?


Jesse is really good at this stuff.  "State's Rights?  Or a more perfect union?"  And of course, the Jackwagon on MSNBC doesn't challenge that comparison.  I believe we will be a "a more perfect union" when government is smaller on all levels and when government adheres to the original intent of the Constitution.

Jesse wants more jobs.  I think we all want more jobs, but the Obama administration has done nothing that has been historically shown to create new jobs.  We remain mired in a sluggish economy at the whim of those who supply our needs when we should be developing our own resources and exports.  But don't confuse Jesse with the facts.

I understand the Tenth Amendment is de facto repealed since the Civil War, but in reality it still exists in the Constitution.  If Lefties like Jesse want to repeal it, they can go through the amendment process.  The states still retain the rights not afforded the federal government and they are choosing to exercise those rights.  It will not result in a return to Jim Crow.  It will not result in segregation, a loss of (real, not "made up) women's rights.  What it might result in are better schools, more people working, fewer people enslaved to the dole and less opportunity for  the Federal Government to enter into ill-advised war.

Sunday, April 3, 2011

Larry Tribe - Constitutional....Something

Apparently, Larry believes in the "living, breathing Constitution" not The Constitution of the United States.

Look, I'm just a guy.  But I believe I can think critically and come to a logical conclusion.  Larry Tribe is wring here.  If Congress can "compel action due to public necessity", then what are the limits on Congress?  Tribes contempt for original intent is clear here.  That, or he received his sheepskins from boxes of Crackerjack.

According to Thomas E. Woods in Nullification, Madison was very clear in his view of Article I, Section 8.  If the general welfare clause granted the Federal government a general power to do anything that might advance the general welfare, why did the Constitution bother to list specific powers government could exercise?  That is, under the general welfare clause comes 17 specific powers granted to the Federal Government.  Were these suggestions by the framers?  "Hey.  When y'all get this thing goin', you can pretty much do whatever, but here are 17 things you might want to get right after."

Tribe also invokes the Commerce Clause.  Again, according to Woods, "Commerce" only meant trade or exchange, not all gainful activity.  There are no historical references from the Constitutional Convention or writings of Federalists that indicate otherwise.

Tribe is dead wrong here.  If he is not, there is no need for the Constitution as there are no limits to Federal Power.  If the Constitution is to be interpreted in a manner other than literally, there is no need for amendments.  No, the Constitution says what it means and means what it says.  Even a guy like me can figure that out.