Posts Tagged ‘congress’
The beginning of the end – Part II
Three Supreme Court rulings changed our lives, making our Constitution near irrelevant. One gave the Supreme Court unlimited, unchecked power; the other two gave Congress unlimited power.
Constitutional coup
” . . . the discretion of the judge is the first engine of tyranny.”
- Edward Gibbon, “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”
Football and government
The federal government could learn a lot from professional football – teams competing with each other, each team doing all it can to win, referees ensuring they follow the rules, together part of a league whose owners have the final say on the rules and how the league works.
The Supreme Court – omnipotent and divine?
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments to decide if the Second Amendment right of the individual to “keep and bear Arms” applies to the states in addition to federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C.
Government economics and free markets
Can our free market economy survive the federal government? The president and Congress may get to learn what C.S. Lewis meant when he defined experience as “that most brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn.”
Supreme Court – Constitutional guardian or Guardian Council?
Does the Supreme Court submit to the authority of the United States Constitution, as it should? Or, is it complicit with Congress, functioning beyond its constitutional powers?
Free market economy?
Discussing the economy, the President said the private sector is “still nervous about whether they want to go ahead and take the risks that are inherent in a free market system.” But, the private sector is not afraid of free markets, it is afraid of continued government interference and fears how much more it will interfere. The government’s job is to regulate the “playing field” of the markets, not to control and manipulate them.
Spending the people’s money
“Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal
with a big appetite at one end and no sense of
responsibility at the other.”
− Ronald Reagan
Can one person make a difference?
A nation with over 300 million citizens, over 10 million illegal aliens, 1 President, 100 United States Senators, and 435 United States Representatives. Can one person make a difference? No. Not anymore. That time has long since past.
Can we tax our way out of irresponsible debt?
Congress believes irresponsible debt and spending is needed to rectify the problems created by irresponsible debt and spending. Further, it believes raising taxes to pay for its irresponsible debt will actually stimulate spending.
Is the United States an empire in demise?
George Bernard Shaw said, “We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.” What did our Founding Fathers want for this United States of America? Did they want complacency? Did they hope for mediocrity? Did they dream of dependency? Or, did they demand freedom and opportunity; freedom and opportunity at any price. What have we fought and died for this past 223 years?
Roosevelt or Reagan?
Our country’s leaders believe President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal ended the Great Depression and saved the economy. Are they right? Did his New Deal end the depression or even shorten it? Take a moment and consider the Roosevelt logic Congress is using with our current situation. They believe they can fix the economy if they interfere with market forces and spend unprecedented sums of money. But, if all that is needed to end a recession is government meddling and spending, how could we ever get into a recession in the first place?
Who should pay to rebuild following natural disasters?
Did our Founding Fathers intend for the government to take care of us when a disaster strikes? Is the federal government the correct resource for disasters? Is managing the aftermath of disasters a Constitutional responsibility of the federal government? Do individuals or local communities have any responsibility? Is the government the most efficient and cost effective entity to offer aid to communities and help them rebuild?
We need to return to a citizen government
Our Founding Fathers believed serving as President or in Congress was a duty to country, a sacrifice for country, a calling. They did not anticipate Congress becoming a career choice with members subservient to the power of the incumbency and the money it attracts. Rather, the Founding Fathers intended a weak federal government, subservient to much stronger state governments that served a powerful citizenry. Thomas Jefferson resisted all attempts to foster a strong federal government, adamant the power must rest with the people. What went wrong? Does the power rest with the people, as it should? Does Congress do the peoples’ work? The movie Charlie Wilson’s War explains how well Congress tends to the people. Asked by a political activist, “Why do congressmen talk so much and do nothing,” Charlie Wilson responded, “Tradition mostly.” The Founding Fathers intended a citizen government, run by people like you and me, serving our country, doing the peoples’ work, and then going home.
Use as intended and die
Imagine selling a product that kills the consumer if they use it as intended. Then imagine convincing our government to allow it to remain legal. It is a one of a kind product, legal and if used appropriately, lethal. It is cigarettes. We have other products available to us that would kill us if we abused them. But cigarettes alone are the only product with government sanctioning to kill. Does it seem a bit absurd something this dangerous is legal? The validity of the medical data is beyond debate, unless you are a tobacco company executive testifying before Congress; then the data are highly questionable.
