Federalism

Constitution Day and the Continued Tenther Terror

|

September 17 is Constitution Day (thanks, Sen. Robert Byrd!) and that means it's time to take the constitution back, progressive-style!

Mother Jones describes the game-plan: 

[T]his week, the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center and the People for the American Way Foundation, among others, launched a new project called Constitutional Progressives, with the intent of trying to correct the record. Doug Kendall, one of the main instigators of the project and head of the CAC, said in a conference call this week that they've decided to fight back because, "It seems tea party thinks the entire 20th century is unconstitutional."

Mother Jones wrote about fears of a Tea Party takeover of civics classes back in May. 

Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post adds:

[A] coalition of liberal groups has begun making an important, two-part argument: first, that a progressive government agenda is consistent with constitutional values; and second, that the constitutional conservative approach represents a dangerous retrenchment of the government's role.

Marcus really wants her constitution back. Or rather, she wants progressives to be able to lay claim to that holy document as well. After all, somebody interpreted the thing when they passed all that good stuff (during the 20th century) that conservatives hate. Maybe those sombodies were progressives!

Marcus goes on, worriedly:

The constitutional conservative vision…sees a hobbled federal government limited to a few basic activities, such as national defense and immigration. The 10th Amendment, reserving to states the powers not granted to the federal government, would be put on steroids. The commerce clause, giving the federal government the authority to regulate commerce among the states, would be drastically diminished.

Certainly, there's a legitimate debate about the proper role of the federal government and the scope of federal vs. state power. But that is a different argument than the one long thought settled during the New Deal: that the Constitution grants the federal government power to regulate a broad array of activities in the national interest.

Both articles have lists of the the things Tea Partiers will surely abolish if they finish their takeover of America. After all, says the Center for American Progress:

In the Tea Party's America, families must mortgage their home to pay for their mother's end-of-life care. Higher education is a luxury reserved almost exclusively to the very rich. Rotten meat ships to supermarkets nationwide without a national agency to inspect it. Fathers compete with their adolescent children for sub-minimum wage jobs. And our national leaders are utterly powerless to do a thing.

No matter what you think of Tea Partiers, it's frustrating that there's always a convenient no-backsies clause in the progressive constitution. Adding government is the only proper, non-radical interpretation.

Reason on the 10th Amendment and on Tea Parties.

NEXT: Does Disease Cause Autocracy?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Certainly, there’s a legitimate debate” etc.

    I love it when someone starts a sentence that way, because you know that the writer will then proceed to explain that the current debate is illegitimate (except on the writer’s own side).

    1. Aww you totally beat me to the punch on that. Total disingenuous bullshit.

    2. I am more than willing to have a legitimate debate about whether I am 90% right or 100% right. Any other position is just right-wing nutjobbery and is outside the scope of serious conversation.

      1. Total impostor. You forgot to add the part about adulthood.

        1. Shut up and eat your peas! How can you have any pudding if you don’t eat your peas?

  2. I am going to found the American Way Foundation for the People. Our main goal will be to work in counter to the People for the American Way Foundation, those guys just can’t do it right.

    So, who’s in?

    1. How about?

      People for the American Way Foundation for the People

        1. Whatever happened to the Popular Front? Oh, he’s over there. Splitter!

    2. commie-progressive fascist reactionaries!

      1. Good…you’re getting the newsletter .

    3. Where’s the fetus going to gestate? In a box?

      1. It’s symbolic of our struggle against oppression!

    4. How about The American People’s Way of America?

    1. Crap. I wore my orange shirt today.

      1. So you must be North Irish then?

        1. Northern Irish protestants are mostly of Scottish decent.

          My Irish protestant ancestors left Ireland for England probably before those newbs arrived.

          For all I know, they were protestant unionists, but they were probably too poor to give a damn either way.

    1. Rick Perry is only half-right. There is indeed a conspiracy against the constitution…perpetrated across the spectrum by both mainstream “conservatives” as well as their progressive allies.

      1. I thought conspiracies had to be secret?

  3. But that is a different argument than the one long thought settled during the New Deal.

    Let’s not forget that the court in the New Deal era was going against 100+ years of earlier precedent in its broad interpretation of what powers the Constitution granted to the federal government. I like how the debate is only settled when his side wins.

    1. The science law is settled!

    2. 100+ yrs? like the civil war didnt happen?

      1. might [MAKEZ] right!

        1. My Government teacher pulled this card once. After talking about how great the 10th amendment is. ugh.

    3. I like how the debate is only settled when his side wins.

      Ruth Marcus is a woman, but in fairness, you can hardly tell in looking at her pic.

      And you’re right, her biggest concern is that a national interpretation of the government’s role in everyday life would turn out differently than what she thinks it should. Funny thing about that, though, is once those re-interpretations take hold, they tend to hang around for about 70-80 years.

  4. The constitutional conservative vision…sees a hobbled federal government limited to a few basic activities

    Like stuff actually listed in the document?

    WTF insanity!

    1. Commerce and necessary and proper are in the document. What those mean is up to interpretation, and to date your interpretation is the losing one.

      1. Tony FTW, sadly.

        1. “admit” “not” “adjourn” and “thereof” are in there too.

          Just making as strong a point as Tony.

      2. Tony uses the “Butterfly Effect” view of the Commerce Clause:

        If a butterfly shits on the east coast, it is engaged in interstate commerce.

  5. But that is a different argument than the one long thought settled during the New Deal: that the Constitution grants the federal government power to regulate a broad array of activities in the national interest.

    “Settled”???

    Thought settled by who? New Deal Progressives???

    1. There is a consensus.

      1. Yeah, it was settled by “a stich in time saves nine.”

  6. In the Tea Party’s America, families must mortgage their home to pay for their mother’s end-of-life care. Higher education is a luxury reserved almost exclusively to the very rich. Rotten meat ships to supermarkets nationwide without a national agency to inspect it. Fathers compete with their adolescent children for sub-minimum wage jobs. And our national leaders are utterly powerless to do a thing.

    LOLWUT

    1. This is the first I’ve heard about the Tea Party’s plan to ban long-term care insurance. Those sneaky bastards!

    2. I’m surprised some statist scholar hasn’t come out with “proof” that The Federalist Papers were a forgery. Like Lorenzo Valla did (correctly) with the Donation of Constantine.

    3. Just like government regulation kept those infected cantaloupes off the market and no one got sick from them.

      Thanks, government!

      1. Just like the War on Drugs keeps drugs off the street, so the corruption and violations of our civil liberties at least buy us something. Oh wait.

      2. You never hear how we kept other infected cantaloupes off the market. With additional funding and more employees we’ll be able to keep all infected cantaloupes off the market.

        1. Exactly! Just like you never hear about all the police raids that don’t result in rights being violated or dogs getting shot!

          1. well, you do hear about them, just not at reason.com

            that’s why the populace overwhelmingly supports the police.

            it’s why nick gillespie says:

            Most law enforcement people are upstanding in executing their duties (and they welcome and sometimes even insist on surveillance). – Nick Gillespie

            hth

          2. you *do* hear about them, just not at reason.com

            which is fine, it’s not reason’s schtick to point out when law enforcement is doing good, which is most of the time.

            but the truth comes out…

            e.g.

            Most law enforcement people are upstanding in executing their duties (and they welcome and sometimes even insist on surveillance). – Nick Gillespie

          3. well, you do hear about them. it’s why most people, even nick gillespie acknowledge that cops in general are good people doing a good job…

            you *do* hear about them, just not at reason.com

            which is fine, it’s not reason’s schtick to point out when law enforcement is doing good, which is most of the time.

            but the truth comes out…

            e.g.

            Most law enforcement people are upstanding in executing their duties (and they welcome and sometimes even insist on surveillance). – Nick Gillespie

            1. What if their duties are bad? Does that make them bad for executing them?

  7. [A] coalition of liberal groups has begun making an important, two-part argument: first, that a progressive government agenda is consistent with constitutional values; and second, that the constitutional conservative approach represents a dangerous retrenchment of the government’s role.

    And that would make this two-part argument a question-begging one.

    a) The progressive agenda is constitutional,
    b) Ergo, the anti-progressive agenda is unconstitutional.

    Around and around we go,
    Around in the merry-go-round.

  8. Certainly, there’s a legitimate debate about the proper role of the federal government and the scope of federal vs. state power. But that is a different argument than the one long thought settled by Gibbons v. Ogden.

  9. I scanned the C.A.P. piece, and saw nothing about Somalia or roads. They’re getting soft.

    At least they acknowledge that social security withholding is a tax.

    1. someone the other day posted that they had seen the “rare B-side cholera” mentioned in an otherwise standard progressive rant. made me laugh.

      1. B-side cholera? So is it a type of cholera that’s a cover of a more famous cholera, or is it just another single from the same cholera strain?

        1. b-side of an album. everyone always plays the greatest hits “Roads” and “Somalia”

          1. “Police,” “Firefighters,” and “Teachers” are on that playlist too, but they’re more like “Eleanor Rigby” or “Here Comes the Sun” as opposed to “Hey Jude” and “Revolution.”

  10. I take it they won’t be sitting in on Hillsdale College’s course on the constitution this weekend?

  11. I wonder if people like Marcus were writing articles in the 1950’s saying the segregation issue had been settled by Plessy v. Ferguson and people like the NAACP were not having a legitimate debate.

    1. Yes, they were. See Sens. Gore, Fullbright and Byrd.

  12. You guys should stop trying to make the constitution your bitch and argue your policy proposals on their own merits.

    “We want to revert to social darwninism because…”

    “The constitution requires it” is a poor excuse, especially when it clearly doesn’t.

    1. Yeah…go down all the way to the balls.

      Unngh! Yeah!

      1. “All the way” is a bit of an exaggeration.

        1. Not if you work on that gag reflex like we discussed.

    2. Why would higher education be only for the rich? Tea Party higher ed institutions won’t take my money anymore? Would I suddenly lose all my skills in this Tea Party future, thus putting me in some kind odd jobs career? I don’t get it.

    3. “You guys should stop trying to make the constitution your bitch”

      For people that value the Constitution, it’s a key factor in their recognition of the legitimacy of government. If the government wasn’t legitimate, then policy debates would be pointless — it would be much easier to simply revolt and eliminate the ruling class.

    4. “make the constitution your bitch”

      That’s funny, coming from a liberal.

  13. You guys should stop trying to make the constitution your bitch and argue your policy proposals on their own merits.

    You should stop trying to make a mortgage contract your bitch and argue your preference to not let Bank of America foreclose on your house despite your being totally current on payments on the merits.

    1. I’m the only one deferring to legal reality when interpreting the constitution.

      You might as well be commie claiming the constitution requires “to each according to his need.” All you’ve got is pure assertion.

      1. Define “legal reality”, other than “we had power at the time”.

        1. What constitutional case law has decided.

          Let’s make sure we understand there is no “right way” as if the document is magical holy writ. If it didn’t allow the US to enter the modern world, it would have to be scrapped.

          1. Yes, there is actually a “right way” to interpret a written document. If there isn’t, then no written communication is possible. All contracts are meaningless. Every bill passed by Congress can be reinterpreted to mean anything (ObamaCare? We’re reinterpreting it to mandate Kerry Collins being added to Mt Rushmore and doing absolutely nothing else).

            1. All contracts are meaningless.

              Exactly.

            2. I’m willing to claim that the constitution could be interpreted as 10thers and such want it to be. I’m just saying it would be a horrible idea. But as the document–the central governing contract for a nation of hundreds of millions of people–is shorter than a cell phone contract, it’s simply inescapable that parts of it will be open to interpretation.

              You saying “the plain English of the constitution requires X” is just a way for you to claim bonus points for your ideas–which if they’re anything like standard libertarian or tea party rhetoric, are largely ahistorical and radical.

              1. So “interstate commerce” means “anything that might have some impact on any commerce whatsoever, because that could impact interstate commerce” and limited govt is largely ahistorical?

                1. What is so superior about state governments? Do any of you live in a state with small-government radicals in control? I sure do. We’re among the stupidest, poorest, and fattest states, not coincidentally.

                  I’m not gonna say that the CC is exactly as the founders intended, I’m just saying you should ask yourself why it would be better to have looser interstate commerce regulation. What is gained?

                  Besides, this is 2012. I can think of vanishingly few examples of commerce that doesn’t have interstate effects.

                  1. What is so superior about state governments?

                    Laboratories of democracy. Easier to leave. Blacks freed themselves from Jim Crow by leaving the South for cities in the Northeast well before the fedgov got around to doing it decades later.

                    We’re among the stupidest

                    Stop dragging down their average, then.

                    1. So it’s better to let states have Jim Crow laws, forcing (mostly impoverished) blacks to move away if they don’t like it, then have a national standard that says you can’t make racist oppressive laws in any place under the constitution?

                      I fail to see why you’re so sure that giving states more autonomy would lead to more individual freedom. History suggests the opposite is the case.

                    2. So it’s better to let states have Jim Crow laws, forcing (mostly impoverished) blacks to move away if they don’t like it

                      People were freed from it earlier due to federalism than were under court order. True or false?

                    3. And, BTW, the consitution was amended to prohibit things like Jim Crow, not “reinterpreted” – the fact that the fedgov got it wrong earlier is point against you, not for you.

                  2. There goes Tony again, with his secret wish of dismantling state governments and just make America one huge, centrally-governed land mass.

              2. is shorter than a cell phone contract

                Because that is all that is needed to describe the few and well defined limited powers given to the federal government.

                To base most of the federal government on two cherry picked phrases “general welfare… regulate commerce” is beyond disingenuous.

                If four words give the federal government unlimited power, why have a constitution anyway?

                1. So name a successful modern country with a government as limited as you think ours should be. Forget the constitution–it’s a conversation stopper because you can claim it means whatever you want it to. Why would such a “hobbled” federal government be good? The better for states to oppress people uninhibited? That’s mostly what happened when the federal government was weaker.

                  1. Why would such a “hobbled” federal government be good?

                    Because freedom is good. Because liberty is good.

                    Because this country was founded on the principle that a free man who does not engage in criminal activity has to neither ask permission nor take orders from anyone.

                    It was not based upon the principle that every aspect of daily life and economic activity has to be managed by unaccountable bureaucrats, and that one must get permission before doing anything and when it is done it must be done according to policy.

                    No Tony, that’s not freedom.

                    That’s slavery to the State.

                  2. “So name a successful modern country with a government as limited as you think ours should be.”

                    Hong Kong, shithead.

                    1. Okay, so let’s have the US federal government own all the land like it does in Hong Kong then we can have paradise?

                  3. Hong Kong while the Brits were in charge.

                    1. Even with the Chincoms in charge, Hong Kong ranks No. 1 on the Index of Economic Freedom.

                  4. So name a successful modern country with a government as limited as you think ours should be.

                    Proof yet again that Tony thinks all American history began in 1914.

                  5. So name a successful modern country with a government as limited as you think ours should be.

                    Define country.

                    Is the EU a country?

              3. Yes, because it’s ‘radical’ to suggest the federal government shouldn’t spend money it doesn’t have. It’s radical to suggest there is no legitimate reason for federal debt to equal GDP.

                RADICAL!

            3. Hey, don’t laugh; in this day and age, a person who is a 12 stepper and is battling his “disease” every day and quarterbacks his team to a Super Bowl, there can be no question that he is destined for Mt. Rushmore.

              1. it’s not “why are state govt.’s superior” as tony asks, it’s acknowledging that our govt. is STRUCTURED BY DESIGN (see: the constitution) such that the federal govt. is supposed to be very restrained, and state govt.s are where most of the law making, and enforcement is supposed to be handled, with obvious federal exceptions… that are just that… narrow exceptions.

                i personally chose my state for a # of reasons, such as no income tax, and a much more extensive protection of actual PRIVACY than is required at the federal level, since the federal constitution never mentions privacy. MINE does

          2. as if the document is magical holy writ.

            Either you believe in rule of law or you believe in rule of the strong man.

            It is pretty clear you like the latter more then the former.

            No magic needed for that.

            1. Tony’s tongue never gets tired of licking boot.

            2. believe in rule of the strong man.

              Leave Tony’s sex life out of this.

            3. I believe in the rule of law, but am aware that men make law and men are flawed.

              Even the claim that we should trust the wisdom of long-dead founders is highly suspect; they owned people and knew nothing of modernity. They were flawed back then and would be even more flawed today. It’s just a constitution, it’s not magic.

              1. If you don’t like what the law says, change it, don’t just pretend it says what you want it to.

                1. Are you talking to yourself? I’m mostly OK with what case law says about the constitution. (Not so much lately though)

                  1. mostly doesn’t cut it Tony. You either believe what it says means something or you don’t.

                2. If you don’t like what the law says, change it, don’t just pretend it says what you want it to.

                  +1000000

                  The rule of law says change the law. The rule of the strong man says “do what I say”.

                  This is simple elegant proof that Tony’s claim that the he believes in the rule of law is so much hot air.

              2. Tony|9.16.11 @ 1:22PM|#
                I believe in the rule of law, *but*…

                Nuff said, shithead.

                1. men ARE flawed, but when the law is flawed, it is up to men to change the law, not to pretend that the constitution protects something it doesn’t.

                  i am pro-choice, and i wish the constuitution protected abortion , but sorry… roe v. wade is ridiculously bad interpretation. penumbras, emanations, etc.

                  and *if* it’s fundamental conceit was true (medical privacy bla bla) then drug laws would be unconstitutional, but you rarely see roe v waders making that argument

                  1. All of you are assuming that your interpretation is the correct one, but according to most of case law, you’re wrong. So lecture at yourselves.

              3. As long-dead founders were flawed men, their wisdom is suspect, therefore, follow the wisdom of those alive today because they’re perfect. Wow, we can play this game ever generation.

          3. But there is a clearly defined way for the constitution to enter the modern world without scrapping the document. It’s called an amendment. Unfortuntately for those on both sides of the argument, that would require open debate and a clear majority so it’s far easier to get a friendly court to make ridiculously broad interpretations that let you do whatever you damned well please and later courts will consider a settled precedent. I’d prefer a less deferential Supreme Court that errs on the side of caution. If Congress needs a power badly enough that it requires an expansive view of the Constitution, then they should go through the process to expand the Constitution.

        2. It means whatever the guys with guns says it means.

          So if they declare “Congress shall make no law” to mean “Congress can make laws”, or “shall not be infringed” to mean “shall be ignored”, then so be it.

          Might makes right.

          1. Only if the might is in the proper hands, with “proper” being defined by Tony.

            1. The proper hands are those appointed by leaders elected democratically.

              If your ideas aren’t selling in the democratic marketplace of ideas, get better ideas or convince majorities that your anarchic deathscape is something they actually want.

              1. The proper hands are those appointed by leaders elected democratically.

                I’ll remember you said that if Roe v Wade gets overturned or you lose the ObamaCare cases.

                1. I won’t like it but I won’t say it was illegitimate, as if the supreme court didn’t abide by some higher authority I made up in my head.

                  1. “I won’t like it but I won’t say it was illegitimate, as if the supreme court didn’t abide by some higher authority I made up in my head.”

                    The “higher authority” is the Constitution they are supposedly interpreting. If all else fails, read the directions.

              2. your anarchic deathscape

                Ah yes. It always comes back to the straw man argument that limited government means no government.
                That if something is not controlled by government then it will cease to exist.
                That if government does not do something that nobody will.

                And if you protest something being done by government, you do not want it to be done at all.

                So if I oppose the government running all the farms, that means I don’t want anyone to eat.

                1. anarchic deathscape

                  Leave Warty’s college progmetalrock band out of this.

                2. sarcasmic if you don’t want anarchy then what you want is exactly what I do just to different degrees. You want evil slaving taxation to pay for certain things, and so do I. Thus we don’t have any differences except policy differences, which you guys are loath to defend on their own merits so you have to recruit a fantasy version of the constitution to do your work for you.

                  1. “fantasy version of the constitution”

                    If the Constitution doesn’t mean what it actually says what does it mean?

                    1. You’re seriously begging the question PIRS.

                    2. “You’re seriously begging the question PIRS.”

                      You are stating that we should consider “Case law” the final authority. This places judges in the equivalent position of the Pope in Catholic Cannon law. Judges are not infallible. The standard we should be using is the Constitution itself. Not what some random lawyer in a robe says in Miami.

                    3. The constitution can’t interpret itself. You are saying your interpretation is correct and we should just take that on faith.

                    4. If the Constitution doesn’t mean what it actually says what does it mean?

                      It means what the experts say it means. They’re really smart so they know better than we do.
                      We read words like “shall not be infringed” and think they mean “shall not be infringed”.
                      That’s silly talk.
                      The experts will tell you that “shall not be infringed” really means “shall be regulated, limited, reviewed, subject to revocation, and otherwise strictly controlled”

                      See how smart they are? I would have never thought “shall not be infringed” means all that.

                  2. sarcasmic if you don’t want anarchy then what you want is exactly what I do just to different degrees.

                    Wrong Tony. Wrong.

                    I want the government out of the economy. 100% out.

                    That does not mean I do not want the government to protect the borders and punish criminal activity. That would be anarchy.

                    But the government has no business in consensual activity. None.

                    1. That’s asinine sarcasmic. No property then?

                    2. That does not mean I do not want the government to protect the borders and punish criminal activity. That would be anarchy.

                      But the government has no business in consensual activity. None.

                      What about the consensual activity of someone crossing an imaginary line and getting a job?

              3. And if the case law they come up with happens to be Plessy vs. Ferguson are you still OK with that?

              4. The proper hands are those appointed by leaders elected democratically.

                Democratically…kind of like how the constitution is to be amended….and kind of the exact opposite of how the SCOTUS Justices, who reinterpreted the constitution during the new deal, were appointed.

  14. For the love of GOD.. tell me Tony is not real. Please oh please be a sock puppet!

    1. After all this time… I still don’t know. That’s why I never respond to him.

      1. I think he is real. I think him, Orin and Rather (who is apparently the “oh no not this again”, ananopussy franchise) are all sadly real. If you read Althouse or Slate where real liberals hang out, you find that those three are actually thoughtful and tame for liberals.

        1. try democraticunderground.com and the nation.

          even better

      2. Exactly.

  15. It’s “Conftitution”.

    1. What about me?

      1. You’re fo old you can’t fpell.

        1. And it is like four hundred years old and written in Sanskrit. Who understands that?

          1. I know. It’s a dead, uh, LIVING document.

          2. John, on this morning’s thread, I was surpirsed to discover that you did not understand my statement that The Nation is bracing for a repeat of 1978. Particularly because, you, imo, are one of the most informed sports fans here. I was referring to the great collapse of the 78′ red Sox.

            1. I know. I missed that one. I getting slow in my old age. It really is the 1970s all over again.

              1. But, people forget that they won their last 8 and 14 of their last 15 just to tie the Yankees on Sunday, October 1, 1978, forcing the 1 game playoff. October 1, 1978 was a great day in Boston sports history as the Pats beat Dan Fouts and the Chargers at Foxboro in the rain whilst everybody had their ears to their transistors. Funny how much one can regurgitate so much from one’s mid teen years.

                1. People also forget that the Dent homerun only put the Yankees up 3-2. The game ended 5-4. My childhood hero Thurmond Munson drove in Mickey Rivers and Reggie Jackson hit a solo shot to give the Yankees the winning margin. I was at school and missed the Dent homerun. But got home in time to see the Jackson homerun and see Nettles catching Yastrzemski’s pop up to end the game. Great days.

            2. It’s a NY Mets-style implosion and it is painful to watch.

              1. It is wonderful. A nice return to normalcy. Boston has a good basketball and hockey team again and a choking third rate baseball team. It is as it should be.

              2. I would think that a lot of folks would delight in the Sox’ swoon. Schatenfraude and all.

                1. After their fans made total jackasses of themselves in 2004 acting like they were the only long suffering fans in the entire sports world, yeah, a lot of people are going to enjoy this.

                  1. The “long-suffering Red Sox fan” meme was always total bullshit anyway. This is a franchise that, prior to 2004, had several decades of largely successful baseball to its credit and the unfortunate tendency to choke in the clutch.

                    Over the same time frame, Cleveland and Chicago Cub fans have gone through not just choke jobs, but utterly atrocious gameplay to boot. Washington DC has had bad teams in several incarnations. Boston fans crying about being long-suffering don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.

                    The Sox winning the Series was good for people sick of the Yank-Mes, but it got tiresome real quick after ESPN started in with the “Red Sox Nation” silliness and the dewy-eyed “This is for the grandfathers and cousins and college roommates who never got to see a Sox championship” bullshit.

                    1. You said it Red Rocks. You want long suffering, try being a Indians or a Cubs fan or a Phillies fan until about five years ago. Those teams didn’t spend decades not winning titles, they spent decades losing every year. The Phillies made the post season one time between 1900 and 1977. One time, a single trip to the World Series to be swept by the Yankees. The Red Sox in contrast have never lost a hundred games in a season and have had some of the greatest players in history on their teams.

                    2. yea, but it;s one thing to have a team that sux, and you know it sux.

                      the red sox otoh repeatedly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and despite immense individual talents couldn’t (until recently) win a fuckign world series.

                      BUCKNER pretty much defined the suffering of the red sox fan.

                      that kind of shit

                      and don’t get me started on oil can boyd.

                      furthermore, the red sox and yankees have a longstandign rivalry and seeing the yankees beat us over and over with that shit was a lot to take.

                    3. do you have a problem with Oil can?

                      On September 21, 1985, I personally observed Oil can exit Fenway Park from the players’ parking lot after the Sox-Tigers game only to be beseiged by dozens of autograph seekers. He apllied his brakes and told one kid something to the effect that if he had to sign one, then he’d have to sign them all.

                      He then proceeded to sign autographs for each and every kid. It probably held him up 20-25 minutes.

                      It doesn’t make him man of the year or mother tereza, but……..

                    4. I always liked Oil Can too. And I am a Yankees fan. But I am not one of those people who can’t appreciate good players on rival teams. Hell, Jacoby Ellsbury is one of my favorite players in baseball right. Just a hell of a lot of fun to watch no matter who he plays for.

                    5. I agree with both John and Red Rocks.

                      John, imo, the top three one-half seasons in my memory are:

                      1. 1998 Yankees / first half of the season.

                      2. 1978 Red Sox / first half of the season.

                      3. 2007 Colorado Rockies / second half of the season.

                      TIED WITH:

                      1978 Yankees / second half of the season.

                      The 78 Red Sox were 58-20 and 27-4 at home during the first half of the 78 season.

                      The 1998 Yankees were 61-20 halfway through the season.

                      I have deliberately omitted the 2001 Mariners because I did not see enough of their games, except for highlites. No, I do not exclude them because of their failure to get to the World Series as I am talking about the regular season only.

                    6. The 1998 Yankees were amazing. The one like 72 or their first 100 games. No team has ever done that. I loved that team. It was before they got Clemmens and kind of ruined it. That was a true Yankees team. There wasn’t a player on it I didn’t like.

                    7. How could you forget the 1915 Phillies in the World Series? Of course, they lost..to the Red Sox four games to one.

  16. The Paulites have some explaining to do. Apparently the Manelow loves Ron Paul. Whose next, the Diamond?

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/09…..-ron-paul-‘i-agree-with-just-about-everything-he-says’/

    1. Don’t forget Donna D’Errico. That need any explaining?

      1. Fading hot Hollywood starlets never need explaining. Aging queen pop stars, do.

  17. I have little doubt Marcus and the CAP’s tribe of communitarian progressives would not hesitate to disband all the individual states’ legislatures and govern the entire nation from DC.

    “General Welfare, sound the CHARGE!”

    1. You know who else disbanded the state legislatures and ended his country’s centuries old tradition of federalism?

      1. Abraham Lincoln?

        1. Tony’s Dream President?

      2. Centuries old? Decades maybe.

    2. You know who else disbanded the state legislatures and ended his country’s centuries old tradition of federalism?

        1. Maybe but a little further north and east.

            1. I don’t think Uganda ever had a federal system. Good guess though.

              1. ** whispering **

                Are his initials A.H.?

                1. He who shall not be named. But the Nazis hated the federal system and destroyed Germany’s almost immediately upon taking power. The destruction of the German federal system is one of the things that allowed them to set up a totalitarian state.

                2. A.H.?

                  Alexander Hamilton?

                  No really, that was my first thought.

      1. my man’s man putin babieee

    3. Off topic Pro, but I saw this weekend the trailor for Steven Speilberg’s Warhorse. It looks absolutely spectacular. I wanted to see it on Broadway but my philistine wife refused to take anything with puppets seriously. I will be seeing the movie however. And God damn it I will cry. It is World War I, horses, what kind of a monster doesn’t cry over that?

      1. Hell I’ll try any newly released movie about WWI that isn’t “Flyboys.”

        1. It is about a horse drafted for the cavalry. It is supposed to be sentimental and mawkish as hell. But who cares that can be a good thing when well done.

          1. I’ll definitely check it out. If there’s anybody who can (almost) pull of sentimentality, it’s Spielberg.

          2. being an old cavalry trooper, I have to ask: will it feature horse gas masks? That’s one of my favorite weird WWI images from the regimental museum. Horses in gas masks are just fundamentally bizarre.

            1. There are some awesome/creepy photos of dogs with gas masks, too.

              This is the point where I mention I bought a WWI gas mask on ebay once when I was bored.

            2. I think it does, yes.

  18. The constitutional conservative vision…sees a hobbled federal government limited to a few basic activities, such as national defense and immigration, as intended by the men who wrote and ratified it.

    The 10th Amendment, reserving to states the powers not granted to the federal government, would be put on steroids enforced once again.

    The commerce clause, giving the federal government the authority to regulate commerce among the states, would be drastically diminished interpreted correctly.

    Fixed.

  19. Left wing nut job – I like the constitution a whole bunch…especially the parts that are radically be reinterpreted from the actual text and original meaning to give me stuff I want…like the commerce clause.

    1. They can make it mean whatever they want. But they nor no one else would ever interpret the Constitution to enable the government to do horrible oppressive things. That would never happen. Trust them.

  20. Shorter Ruth Marcus,

    The Constitution listed a set of limited and enumerated powers for the government to have, but we think it really meant UNlimited powers.

  21. The commerce clause, giving the federal government the authority to regulate commerce among the states, would be drastically diminished.

    .. and this a bad thing, how?

    So far, the commerce clause has served as nothing but an instrument to criminalize, to make felons out of people doing all types of voluntary activity in various acts/laws/cases

  22. In the Tea Party’s America, families must mortgage their home to pay for their mother’s end-of-life care.

    Someone has to pay for it. Why not the family? Taking out a second mortgage to keep dear old mom alive sounds better than the government’s death panel “advising” you of your options under ObamaCare.

    Higher education is a luxury reserved almost exclusively to the very rich.

    Or to students identified as talented and offered scholarships, or to those willing to take out loans at rates that properly compensate the lenders for the likelihood of default.

    Rotten meat ships to supermarkets nationwide without a national agency to inspect it.

    Why would supermarkets sell rotten meat? Wouldn’t that be bad for business? Couldn’t they be sued?

    Fathers compete with their adolescent children for sub-minimum wage jobs.

    Not if the fathers bothered to learn a trade or trained to enter a profession or started a business.

    And our national leaders are utterly powerless to do a thing.

    Now that sounds like a genuine improvement.

    1. It won’t be the disastrous hellscape it sounds like… because you say so! Freedom! Rah!

      1. That is right Tony. The people themselves are incapable of actually building a decent society. They must have giant government guiding their every move.

        1. The people themselves did build a decent society. Then rightwing crackpots came along and decided we weren’t allowed to have it.

          1. You are not even trying anymore Tony.

            1. We built a decent society through legitimate democratic means. What other way is there?

              1. Tony that society exists without the government. That society exists outside of government. And would exist and thrive if the government were much smaller than it is.

                1. It wasn’t anarcho-capitalist liberty that defeated the Nazis.

                  1. No it was the giant productive power of capitalism that was built outside of government that did it.

                    1. If by “outside of government” you mean “directed by the largest federal mobilization in history” then sure.

                    2. No, it was mother russia.

                  2. Like watching slow-pitch baseball.

                  3. Tony|9.16.11 @ 1:37PM|#
                    “It wasn’t anarcho-capitalist liberty that defeated the Nazis.”
                    What an asinine comment even for shithead.

                    1. That’s because you think you are entitled to add caveats that make your worldview make sense such as “assume no Nazis.”

          2. The people themselves did build a decent society. Then rightwing crackpots came along and decided we weren’t allowed to have it.

            Tony again demonstrates that he believes all American history started after 1914.

            1. What about the time prior to 1914 do you find appealing?

              1. The lack of an overweening federal bureaucracy and a preponderance of high-trust, small scale communities.

      2. I would rather have freedom than slavery. Now matter how cozy the prison.

        1. If you’re gonna define slavery as being taxed to pay for a social safety net, then sign me up for slavery.

          Freedom to be more likely to die by random luck isn’t worth much to me.

          1. Freedom to be more likely to die by random luck isn’t worth much to me.

            Unfortunately you’re also more than willing to determine whether it’s worth it to us, as well.

          2. Apparently there is no such thing as insurance in libertopia…er, the anarchic deathscape.

          3. What’s embarrassing about this Tony is that I’d bet most of the posters here started as “We’ll compromise and work within the system” types and get along with our lives. You know…the moderate republicans that for whom you constantly pine. Government fetishists like you have done nothing but drive people like this…like me…to the fringes!

            Rest assured asshole when you finally get your way most people (Myself included) will be welfare queens like you’ve never imagined. I hope you can import enough people and borrow enough money to realize your dreams….because I ain’t pushin no mo…….now where the fuck is my checkl and health card?!?!

          4. Freedom to be more likely to die by random luck isn’t worth much to me.

            How telling. Apparently Tony believes that economic success and security are purely a matter of random luck.

          5. But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

            1. “Belongs to them” meaning what? They happen to have their grubby hands on it at a specific moment?

              1. No, that they legally obtained with their grubby little hands would be more accurate.

                1. Oh so government decides who owns what.

                  1. Do you own anything, Tony?

                    If so… how did you get all that stuff?

                    1. Judging by his comments, I would assume that he got it by begging the government to take it from those that he thinks can afford it and giving it to him because he thinks he deserves it.

  23. My calendar has no mention of “Constitution Day”. It calls it “Citizenship Day”. The former sounds straight out of the Soviet Union, the latter out of Facist Italy.

    Long live the Articles of Confederation! The constitution is far inferior and only exists because power-hungry politicians realized they had no way of accumulating power under the AoC.

    1. Yeah just what I want for the jackasses in each state to be able to put up trade barriers and have trade wars with each other. The Constitution created a single national market and set the stage for the US to become the richest nation in history. I will keep it thank you.

      1. I’m beginning to think trade barriers would be better than what the interstate commerce clause has given us.

        1. That is our fault not the Constitution’s fault. The document was never intended to mean that. We just made it up out of whole clothe that it did.

          And trade barriers amongst the states would be a lot worse than what we have now. It would destroy the economy.

          1. Regional trade blocks would be the first step toward breaking up the behemoth. Bye New England!

            1. Big free markets good. Small protected markets bad. Free trade between the South and New England is an unqualified good. If you believe otherwise, you are completely ignorant of economics.

              1. Actually, I didn’t say protectionism is good. I said it was better than where we seem to be going (and not better than we were in the last century). Two different things.

              2. You’re operating under the assumption that just because the states could limit trade with eachother, that they would.

                If it would so obviously impoverish them, why would they do that? And even if they did, all you’d have to do is move to another state. Laboratories of democracy and all that jazz.

                The constitution is inherently flawed in that the language in some places is vague enough that, whether you agree with it or not or like it or not, a majority of people have, continue to do so, and will continue to do so into the future, interpret it to give the fedgov ever more power. The articles sound like a much safer bet to me at this point.

                1. Why would they do that? Because people and politicians are corrupt and short sighted. They do at the nation state level all of the time. And there is no reason to believe they wouldn’t at the state level. In fact they were. That was one of the reasons why people junked the Articles of Confederation and accepted the Constitution. They wanted to keep states from engaging in trade wars and wanted one national market.

                  It was an absolute stroke of genius on the Founders’ part. It is absolutely mind boggling that alleged free market libertarians would not see that.

                  1. So the “corrupt and short-sighted” people had a moment of temporary intelligence and passed the constitution?

                    You simultaneously give “the people” credit for agreeing to create and abide by the document, and also villify them as being corrupt and short-sighted. Which is it? Is the only way to not be corrupt and short-sighted to have a centralizing document which puts everyone in the nation at the whim of 9 philosophers? Could there not be any other possible solutions that don’t involve a vast central gov’t (which is the 100% inevitable and unavoidable long-term result of the constitution, or any massively centralizing gov’t)?

                    I’ll take the risk that some states may conduct their affairs poorly, and I can always leave, to having an oppressive and omnipresent fedgov which I can’t escape anywhere.

                  2. That’s why there are constant arguments in libertarian circles about The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers.

                    You go to Volokh and Mises, don’t you? You should know this.

                2. And don’t forget the Articles had absolutely no Bill of Rights and no due process that could later be applied to the States. It would pretty much free the states to do anything they want up to and including declare a dictatorship. No thanks. I don’t want that bet.

                3. You’re operating under the assumption that just because the states could limit trade with eachother, that they would.

                  Well, states can’t lay tariffs on each other, but there’s nothing stopping a state government from implementing some kind of onerous safety regulation on goods that enter the state.

                  1. Well, states can’t lay tariffs on each other, but there’s nothing stopping a state government from implementing some kind of onerous safety regulation on goods that enter the state.

                    Great point. Example: California, and their environmental regs.

                  2. Under my interpretation of the commerce clause there is.

            2. No more maple syrup for the southerners. They can keep their cotton and we’ll just stick to wool!

      2. The US was plenty prosperous compared to the rest of the world for the decade the Articles were in effect. And nice strawman you had there, by the way. Shame you burned it.

        1. Sure we were prosperous. But we got a hell of a lot more prosperous under the Constitution. Further, the Articles were only in effect for a few years. Most of the US wealth in 1789 was built as a British colony with access to trade with other colonies and Britain.

          Look, trade barriers cause poverty. That is true everywhere and every time. Without the Constitution and under the AofC the States would have been able to have trade wars with each other and we never would have had a unified national market. And we would be much poorer for it.

          1. Yea, without the commerce clause giving us free trade, we’d have a situation where companies in WA can’t set up factories in NC due to govt interference.

            1. You are confusing the negative commerce clause, which is one of the keys to our prosperity with the positive commerce clause that has been fucked over beyond recognition in pursuit of federal power. The former is an absolute good.

              1. I compared the risk of protectionism to the risk of the “positive commerce clause”. Saying the former may be preferable is not saying I like protectionism.

              2. No offense John, but it sounds like you’re excusing top-down force from Washington as long as it produces what you consider to be something “good”.

                “Free trade is good. Therefore it is right to force this upon the states whether they want it or not, instead of letting them decide for themselves.”

                1. It wasn’t forced upon the states. The states all willingly signed up the Constitution. And as a result of that got wildly rich in the bargain. It was a smart thing to do at the time. And it would be a mind bogglingly dumb thing to walk away from the Constitution now.

                  There is nothing top down about that. And yes, states, be they regular states or full fledged nation states are smart to enter into larger and larger free markets. And for that reason the Constitution is vastly superior to what came before it.

                  1. If they were smart enough to have free trade as part of the constitution, what makes you think they’d suddenly become stupid if they were allowed to opt-out of the centralizing document and go back to the articles?

                    If the states can’t leave, and are subject to insane SCOTUS decisions because they must adhere to the contitution, then that’s wrong, period. They should be able to peaceably leave.

                    1. Maybe they should be allowed to leave. That is a different debate than whether it is smart for them to leave. It would be economic suicide for a state to leave the US and no longer have open access to the rest of the country’s markets.

                    2. I don’t know; I think some states (like Texas) could hold everyone else hostage with their refineries (for awhile at least) and natgas deposits.

                      Basically, give us free trade, or we cut off the tap.

                      I’m not so sure Mississippi really makes it on their own, since by all accounts some astounding percentage of their people rely on federal welfare to make it through the day.

          2. Sure we were prosperous. But we got a hell of a lot more prosperous under the Constitution.

            This sounds an awful lot like “Well without the stimulus, we would have been worse off!”

            States were more than willing to cooperate under the AoC, as long as they could see benefits to themselves. Look at how the Western Frontier was dealt with at that time, or the land surveying standardization (it is still relevant and in use today, btw). You have no evidence to back up the idea that the US would have devolved into a bunch of protectionist backwaters intent on mutually assured destruction. Maybe SOME places would have. And they would have suffered for it.

            Just like today. There is no federal world government. Yet some countries embrace free trade and some shun it. To pretend that in the absence of a government edict that the default is protectionism is just silly.

    2. *Why oh why couldn’t the Italians just accept faces for what they were…

  24. “The 10th Amendment, reserving to states the powers not granted to the federal government, would be put on steroids.”

    Interesting that Marcus conveniently ignores the best part of the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Individuals have rights! “People” have rights–no matter what the federal government or the States say.

    This is the fundamental reason why Progressives are so hostile to the Constitution–and what it says in plain English.

    They can’t claim it for themselves out of one side of their mouths–and willfully ignore the parts of it they don’t like out of the other.

    Progressives hate that people have rights regardless of what the government says. The government should force the People to sacrifice their individual rights for the good of everyone generally–that’s the practical definition of “Progressive”. The idea that the people have rights–regardless of what the government says?

    They can’t ignore that fact enough!

    1. Politicians sure love the people, it’s those damn pesky individuals that they just can’t seem to find any love for.

  25. In the Tea Party’s America, families must mortgage their home to pay for their mother’s end-of-life care.

    Damn them! Taking out that mortgage drains their estate. The government needs it’s 50% cut when the bitch dies! 50% of nothing is nothing.

    1. And of course the government paying to take care of grandma is different. It is not like they don’t get that money from somewhere. No, government money comes from the great unicorn herd in the sky and is thus free.

  26. Rotten meat ships to supermarkets nationwide without a national agency to inspect it

    That this agency is to act with the sanction of executive power while participation is compulsory for all meat producers and distributors is just part of the assumption, I guess.

    1. What passes for “rotten meat” is a preferred delicacy in numerous Mediterranean countries.

      But “Oh woe unto us, why does Europe have so much more charm and cultural richness?!”

      1. Because of the rich European tradition of swat teams raiding French caves in search of moldy cheese.

  27. In the Tea Party’s America, families must mortgage their home to pay for their mother’s end-of-life care.

    In Progressive America, by contrast, those families have had their paychecks drained by the government to pay for everyone else’s end-of-life care. Whether they have enough of a paycheck left to actually afford a mortgage is, or course, irrelevant.

    They’re much better off.

    1. Duh. That’s what public housing is for.

  28. And it would be a mind bogglingly dumb thing to walk away from the Constitution now.

    For most states, yeah, they’re probably better off in the Union. For a handful, though, its probably a lot more arguable.

    If Texas, for example, could join NAFTA, it might well be better off as an independent nation. I suspect whether it would be better off or not would turn largely on how well it governed itself.

    1. I said the exact same thing to John upthread just a bit. Texas could make it. Mississippi, Arkansas, or West Virginia? Probably not so much.

      1. States like MS, AR, WV… would have to reform their economies and get their shit in order. And it would be good for them.

        The analogy at the individual level is being forced to find your talents and gain honest employment, rather than being a ward of the welfare state. Is it harder? Yeah. Is it better for you and for everybody else? Undoubtedly.

    2. Set up a customs post at the Oklahoma line and see how it works out for you. The US is a self contained market. We have actual consumer demand. The people in Texas have no clue how much they trade with and benefit from the other states. If you set up a national barrier to that, they would be screwed. And there is no guarantee you would get into NAFTA. They other states, assuming they didn’t just come down and bomb the living shit out of you, would be none too happy about Texas leaving the union. It would be very unlikely a free Texas would be getting any favorable trade deals from the remaining US anytime soon. Leaving the union would turn Texas into Guatemala almost over night.

      1. Geez, John, maybe chill a bit?

        Nobody in Texas is going to start a civil war to get out of the union.

        And I seriously doubt Texas would leave the union without getting into NAFTA first.

        It happens to be one of the few states that could plausibly be an independent nation, is all. We’re just having a little counter-factual/hypothetical fun, here.

        Even without a NAFTA deal, Texas would hardly turn into Guatemala overnight. You really have to visit Central America to appreciate how far behind they are economically.

        1. I have visited Guatalmala. And I have also visited the Valley. The Valley isn’t as far ahead as you might think it would be.

          And sure Texas and California and probably Florida could function as independent countries. They would just be a lot poorer doing so.

    3. If Texas, for example, could join NAFTA, it might well be better off as an independent nation.

      They already are, as far as I know, the only state with its own ambasadors.

  29. John seems a mite upset at the thought of any state leaving the union. What’s the matter, if a state leaves they might leave your control as well as Obama’s?

    1. Succeeding would be idiotic and stupid and make the state much poorer over the long run. You like the idea of being poor?

      1. I think the message is, we like the idea of being able to decide to take that risk if we want to, instead of being forced to remain in your union at the point of a gun and having you tell us that it’s for our own good (not that any state right now has popular support for leaving, I’m talking in the hypothetical).

        1. Well, the country had this argument once. It didn’t turn out well for anyone, especially those who tried to leave. Suck it up. No one is going anywhere.

          1. Damn threaded comments. My comment above at 3:00 was meant to be in reply to your statement at 2:45.

            Anyway, I’d also like to point out that Tony constantly uses the, “It’s already been decided” argument. I know you’re worth at least 10 Tonys, so I know you have better ammo than that.

            1. A state succeeding from the union would be stupid and a national tragedy. That is how I feel about it.

              1. I agree it would be stupid (except in some exceptional circumstance which I can’t even begin to imagine). As in most things though, that doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

                1. Succession would only fail due to trade barriers. These barriers can’t be assumed.

                  However, the pragmatic reality is that politicians love trade barriers. This is one of the biggest drawbacks to the nation-state model

              2. Secede, not succeed.

          2. Well, the country had this argument once. It didn’t turn out well for anyone, especially those who tried to leave. Suck it up. No one is going anywhere.

            Under the AoC it never would have been an issue. “Constitutional crises” were a direct outcome of the flaws of the Constitution.

            The territories would have been free to choose their own policies, slavery or no. Slavery was economically wholly unviable by the 1880s EVERYWHERE, and was never viable in the desert Southwest, where the “expansion of slave states” was claimed to be concerned with.

            Slavery would have gone the way of the trireme less than 2 decades later than it did. In fact, entertaining your complaint that states would have erected trade barriers, the far more populous and industrious Northern states may simply have sanctioned the Southern ones by the 1830s to end the practice of slavery. As it was they were forced to trade with the slavers.

      2. Gotcha, so it’s “settled”.

        The country had this argument once, relating to the New Deal. It didn’t turn out well for those who opposed it. Suck it up, and stop trying to ever change things.

        The original debate was about whether the articles would have been better than the constitution, and you’re falling back on the “it’s been decided, so fucking deal” argument, just like progs do with the explosive growth of gov’t. I don’t really consider that a good point.

  30. “”It seems tea party thinks the entire 20th century is unconstitutional.””

    This is essentially the case. And they are right. Next.

    1. But they never get to the next logical step: “The constitution therefore sucks.”

      1. It seems more likely that the 20th century sucked, though admittedly it didn’t suck quite as hard for America as it did for everyone else. Still, any century that gave birth to Hitler, Stalin, -and- Mao is pretty shit.

      2. The constitution DOES suck.

        It’s vague, poorly written, and has more loopholes than a medieval French chateau.

  31. “Fathers compete with their adolescent children for sub-minimum wage jobs.”

    How is this situation avoided under current conditions? Does the federal government prevent grownups from competing with teenagers for minimum wage jobs today? i don’t get it.

  32. John, might the threat of leaving if the fedgov gets bad enough help prevent that?

  33. “If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

    I always wonder how many of the anti-“tenther” folks are actually ignorant enough to believe their own misinterpretations of the Constitution, vs. how many merely feign those misinterpretations in order to make it easier to recruit the ignorant. If you’re already Machiavellian enough to approve of the history of judicial reinterpretation as a way of avoiding the need for democratic amendment, it’s probably easy to approve of lying about those reinterpretations too.

    1. vs. how many merely feign those misinterpretations in order to make it easier to recruit the ignorant.

      ^This. It’s corruption, plain and simple.

      The various reasons given in support of increased government control eventually contradict each other as society and economic conditions change.

      The only constant is the desire to extract money through taxes, crony capitalism, or regulation. Every single instance whereby the extraction of money could be lessened, even by the logical continuation of the same policies that gave rise to the initial collection, is fought tooth and nail.

      It’s all about the money, and nothing else.

  34. Interstate Commerce Clause. We really shouldn’t get in the habit of (or let them get away with) leaving the first word off of it, it only serves their purposes.

  35. Someone already mentioned the EU constitution here, the silence from Tony is deafening, it really is a close as it gets to perfect for him. It even is a brand new and modern document, pity this 50 000 page progressive wonder has not had the desired results Tony…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.