When I first became politically aware as a teenager, Barry Goldwater was running for president. He called his philosophy conservative. He believed in small and obedient government, obedient to the constitution. That notion attracted me and the majority of the 1960s Republican Party and he was the 1964 candidate for president.
Lyndon Johnson (widely known as landslide Lyndon for his 48 vote victory in a Texas Senatorial election where several ballot boxes went missing) did a very good job of convincing the public that if they voted for Goldwater, he would blow up the world and certainly escalate the Viet Nam war. He did such a good job that even Kansas went Democratic that year.
Johnson left office in disgrace for his Viet Nam war mistakes and Republican Richard Nixon won a squeaker in 1968. This was the year of my first vote and I voted for Nixon. He was from the same party as Goldwater and I expected the same philosophy. Boy was I disappointed!
Many people of my generation became disenchanted with the Republicans as a source of conservative thought and action and the Libertarian Party was founded in 1971 as a reaction to Nixon's treachery. Other conservatives stayed with the Republicans out of some misplaced loyalty, true hate for the Democrats or just an example of the power of faith over experience. They are still conservative in the original meaning of wanting a small, obedient government.
Come we now to the present and a small group of war mongers wanted to make a splash on US foreign policy. They adopt the name of neo-conservative for themselves and manage to convince the large number of conservatives in the Republican Party that to be conservative means to do what they say. To be conservative today is to espouse a large and unruly government. Their style of government gets into wars at the drop of hat. It finds reasons to terminate long held civil liberties on lame excuses. It finds no problem in ignoring long held moral values of this nation and engages in massive torture, the disappearing of unwanted folks and all the other trappings of a police state.
Well all you small government conservatives, I ask you, has the Republican Party served you well? Have they kept the government small, kept spending down to a minimum and been obedient to the constitution? Of course not!
Since the Democratic Party is certainly not the party for small, obedient government, what will you do?
The only national party today that advocates what you say you want is the Libertarian Party. When we say we want a small government that will be obedient to the constitution, we mean it.
You should have joined us in the 1970's after the Nixon debacle but you must do it now. There is no other hope for the nation. If you want freedom for yourself and your posterity, join and support the Libertarians. It is the only reasonable alternative.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Mike,
The unfortunate reality is that until we get federal senators back under the thumb of the states (repeal the 17th amendment), it won't matter who is in power. Washington has become a power unto itself. Power will continue to flow in that direction abetted by a truly filthy judiciary.
The call for joining the libertarian party is not one that should be made lightly.
A conservative who joins the libertarian party then has to acknowledge that he or she is giving up on specfic moral perspectives that they might feel belong in government.
As an example, the separation of church and state.
If you accept the 10th amendment, then you accept that states could create (and did created) state supported religion. The question is not one of whether they should. The question is one of ...can they do it ? And a conservative says yes.
If you accept the 10th amendment, then Roe V. Wade does not happen. States then get go choose if they want to legalize abortion....period. Libertarian attitudes of hands off don't make it with many who simply want the right to self-government (even if it means imposing some limits on the people as a whole).
This is why many conservatives will not agree with the libertarians.
SLW
Conservatives will have to make a decision. While wanting freedom for themselves, they also want the government to control others to behave in some socially acceptable way (to their way of thinking).
That just won't work! If you want freedom for yourself, you need to grant similar freedom to others, even if you don't like how they run their own lives. That is just how it is.
You want freedom to practice your religion without interference. How can you expect that if you are using the guns of government to stop others from doing likewise. That is why there are two clauses about religion in the first amendment-no establishment of religion and no prohibition of the free exercise thereof. That includes, for example, allowing Santeria to use Marijuana in their services. It surely does not include allowing any religion to do human sacrifices since that interferes with the rights of others.
I believe that the first amendment restricts state governments just as much as federal government so a weakening of the Federal government would not hurt us. It would allow for competition in governance since a state with bad laws would drive its citizens to other states. We have no restrictions on immigration between states.
There are other ways to establish freedom from government and I will cover them in future blogs.
You said,
"I believe that the first amendment restricts state governments just as much as federal government...."
I say $%^*$## !
The first amendment applies only to the federal government. States had state religions going into the 1830's. If selective incorporation existed then, they would have been forced to shut down. States voluntarily did the right thing and shut them down themselves.
How can you persist in making such statements when you have no backing whatsoever for such a point of view.
Just because you want it to be that way does not mean it is so.
SLW
The source of incorporation, the understanding that the constitution bound the states as well as the federal government was a Supreme Court decision in the 19th century. I will have to do some research and see if the logic was valid.
Yes, I do want it to be so because most individual rights guaranteed in the constitution are quite important. Do you see a benefit in allowing the states to establish a religion, control speech, take property for public use without compensation, etc?
Direct election of Senators rather than legislative selection of Senators reduced the voice of the state governments in DC. It is hard to know for sure how different the overall results would be if the old rule were still in effect. Likely the Tenth Amendment would be violated much less than today.
I personally think that the nature of the two party system does much more damage. People end up voting for Senator and congressmen based more on party than anything else. The politicians respond by being loyal to the party at the expnese of the people.
The doctrine of selective incorporation was not really pushed until the Warren Court. They used (misused) the 14th amendment and the due process clause to basically do anything they want.
It does not matter what I think. What matters is what was real. Again, you have the states in control up until the 14th. For some time after that, until the Warren stupid-ass court decided that the basis for deciding cases was "Is is right ?"....not is it constituional.
But you don't get it both ways. Incorporation homogonizes america. It is why people don't think twice about no-child-left-behind. What about the states like Utah that had to restructure to accomodate all the stupidity in that law and basically reduce the level of education that most students were getting.....
And do I want states empowed to establish religion. Yes. Do I want states to establish religion ? No. But having the power, means they have power in other areas. And it also means they have power to grant to counties and cities according to peoples wants and what-not. And if a city wants to establish a religion...they can (would not be smart....but let's let them run their lives and we will run ours).
This is the basis for the porcipine rebellion. States rights. If you have a homogonized america, then it does not matter where you live. You still march according to D.C.
Again, I repeat that it is a two-edged sword. One I am willing to deal with because it is easier for me to get my mayor booted or my city council changed or my county commissioners changed who will impact my life rather than deal with electing federal officials who have to fight the politics of many different geographies...different cultures....different economic thrusts etc.
They can make stupid decisions too. But it is lot closer to home.
And by the way....we could just as easily write the 1st amendment into our state constitution if we want it there. Or the first 8 amendments. We could do something like the 10th that says the counties have all power not specifically granted to the states.
This is an extension of federalism...and there is some evidence that Jefferson actually was a believer in this.
But selective incorporation was not intended (no way that it can be historically supported) and is the product of a group of liberal justices who have commandered our legal system.
Repealing the 17th will cause confusion and pain to start. Most people will have to wake up to the fact that they will have to take a more active roll in government and that the chance for corruption is greater. We will need to be more diligent. This is the price we will pay to have more freedom and liberties.
MORE FREEDOM AND LIBERTIES !!!!
As to the two party system. I don't see a good alternative that has impressed me yet.
SLW
Here is some information from an article (Constitutional primer #5) that can be found at:
http://www.constitutionalfreedomfoundation.org/Articles/constitutional_primer_14th_amendment.htm
Now let us consider the case of Barron v. Baltimore (mid 1820's). With how often the Court deals with Bill of Rights cases today,
it is interesting to note that it took over forty years for the Court to hear its first Bill of Rights case.
Barron owned a wharf in the Baltimore harbor. The big ships could dock there since his was one of the deepest parts of the harbor.
The city of Baltimore renovated its streets to improve their drainage. However, this changed the normal drainage patterns into the harbor and caused sand and silt to build up at Barron’s docks in such as way that the big ships could no longer dock there, thus diminishing the value of his property.
He sued the city for his loss in value under the takings clause of the 5th Amendment. The city defended by arguing that the 5th
Amendment only applied to the federal government and not lower governmental subdivisions like the city of Baltimore.
In his last written opinion as a member of the U. S. Supreme Court, and on behalf of the unanimous court, Chief Justice John Marshall agreed with the city of Baltimore and held that the 5th Amendment only applied to the federal government. He said that Maryland was free, of course, to adopt a similar provision in its own state constitution if it wished, but that was up to the people of Maryland to decide for themselves.
He observed that since the main body of the Constitution contained several specific prohibitions against the states, all general
prohibitions must be interpreted as applying only to the federal government and not to the states. So effectively, since none of the first eight Amendments dealing with individual rights contained any specific references to the states, they only applied as
restrictions against the federal government.
This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that Madison’s original proposal for Amendments contained some specific prohibitions against the states which were all stripped out of the final version [of the U.S. Constitution].
(Scott's note: the lanquage that was removed apparently included several specific prohibitions on states that sounded a lot like incorporation)
...........
“...The [incorporation] theory does not appear even to have been presented to [the Supreme Court] in the argument of counsel until
1887. It did not receive the support of any Supreme Court judge until 1892. Between 1868 [the date of the Fourteenth Amendment’s adoption] and 1947, only three judges of the Court favored the doctrine, one of whom shortly recanted. On the other side are the large number of judges [thirty-one according to footnote #39], many of them eminent, who listened to argument and voted on the
question. Some of these were mature men when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The reaction of these men, as well as the failure of counsel in the earlier cases even to raise the question, affords ample proof that if the Amendment was designed to
incorporate the Bill of Rights, this was not generally known to its contemporaries.”
Scott again:
It was in 1947 that things started to fall apart. This was with the sorry-assed stupid Warren (Is it right ?...not....Is it
constituional ?) court in control. It has been since that time that things have gone in the take-liberty away direction.
There is an overwhelming body of evidence that says incorporation was never intended. And little to support it except...Yeah, it
ought to be that way.
You said:
"Yes, I do want it to be so because most individual rights guaranteed in the constitution are quite important. Do you see a benefit in allowing the states to establish a religion, control speech, take property for public use without compensation, etc?"
Your argument is not with me. It is with the founding fathers. It was not I who did not incorporate the bill of rights into the states (why have states at all if you were going to do that ?). They did not and they did not on purpose.
Now, if you think you know more than they do, I have a serious problem with your approach.
Just because it makes sense on the surface is the reason most liberals do things (i.e. who could argue with social security...sounds good on paper....most will die before they need it....less than $0.50 for every $100 you make ? O.K. what happened ? But now the status quo is that "it is not broken" (let's not even discuss the constitutionality of the law) and a few tweaks that will take it up over $8.00 for every $100 will solve everything.....and nobody was listening when I screamed it was broken back when it was taking $4.00 of every $100).
No, I go back to the genius of the Constitution and the men who wrote it. If they had wanted selective incorporation they would have included it.
It does not matter what I think.
SLW
Mike,
I am putting forth my argument against selective incorporation as a conservative. I think they are valid and would enjoy a looking at a different perspective. I believe this is the nature of dialogue and discussion. I look forward to your posts.
FYI on a specific point: This does not mean I want religion at the state level. It does mean that if a city council wants to put up a nativity, they have that authority (or The Star Of David or whatever).
I would be very willing to vote for a state constitutional amendment that prohibits the creation of a state religion. But it would be of a very narrow scope and would allow local institutions the freedom to do what the people who elected them want.
If you or I don't like what gets put up.....we move. People have always said you vote with your feet.
SLW
I see the two edges of the principle. More powerful state governments means a less powerful federal government, certainly a good result.
But too powerful a state government is not safe either. Basic freedoms should be guaranteed for individuals from any level of government. Sure, if my state gets crazy, I can move out of the state. But that will probably destroy real estate values in the offending state and I lose my life savings, maybe, in moving out.
I still want basic life, liberty and pursuit of happiness protections AS AN INDIVIDUAL, not as a part of a political group that has power in a state government. That means that I don't want to have to lobby to be a member of a minority religion, for example, even if that lobbying is at the state, county or city level.
Post a Comment