Sunday March 9, 2014
Jump to content
The sheriff's in Oregon are a few among several who have put everyone on notice that they will thwart any attempt to cram unconstitutional laws between the people and their liberties.
There's been a couple in Texas, and I've also heard of this in Vermont, as well, though I don't have any information on those.
Oklahoma and Utah have instituted laws to the same effect.
Are they a flash in the pan? Or, is this finally the head of the people rising up against oppression?
Patience, my friend. I’ve been trying to get the time to answer. I have done a few short things elsewhere; but this requires some work. (:-)
You realize that the states can’t just call a convention. The Constitution says at least 2/3’s of the states must apply to the congress, which then would call the convention. That would not be so easy to get past congress, for they would realize the states would pull their playhouse down. I suspect that the congress would not call a convention until its back was against the wall.
When you say “president would be a member of the most populous party”, that hasn’t always been the case. Nixon won the popular vote, but Kennedy moved into the White House. It’s been that way in many elections.
The more I hear about a triad at the top the less I’m convinced it would work. They would be constantly at odds, and obviously they would hold more power than the current VP. Additionally, they would work for the Pres., and when that happens, you don’t usually have equality. I recognize several of the benefits you’ve presented, but still think those men long ago, who put a lot more time into this, than we have here, called it right.
Regarding what a republic is, it’s my understanding that it is simply representative government, rather than a true democracy, oligarchy or dictatorship. Every nation that depended on a democracy in the past failed. So, the founders formed a “Federal Constitutional Republic” as opposed to a simple republic. Rome had a republic of sorts, and was successful for about 350 years or so, but then it became dominated by a handful of senators and finally by what was to become the emperor. But, in that transition, while not still a republic the rulers kept that illusion, as is being done now.
With our constitution, the committee form of representation fulfills 2/3’s of the government, but the other 1/3rd is in the hands of one man. They did this, recognizing the fallacy of leaving defense and certain necessary functions (Like the treasury, postal service and so forth) in the hands of a capable administrator. This system worked well for about 125 years or so. Then, the ‘progressives’ took over, and its been downhill since then.
So, as interesting as your theories are, I have to opt for the original. But, like you, I think we are with our backs to the wall. If the situation can be saved, it will only be saved if a Constitutional Convention can be called in order to restore the Federal Government as it once was. Not by reinventing the wheel. The only additional things that should take place is limiting the number of departments, limiting the number of things the government should be involved in and limiting the ability of the congress to pass laws that don’t strictly adhere to that constitution. Without that, we slowly drift towards dictatorship.
You might save some lives by doing that; but you might also cost many more. How many would fail to buy that gun to defend themselves with, because of all the red tape? We read often of people successfully defending themselves by killing the would be attacker.
Therefore, how many will die at the hands of a disgruntled employee, an estranged mate or just a burglar because they were trying to dial 911, or waiting for the cops to arrive?
Folks tend to read things through the distortions of rose colored lenses. Meaning they see and hear what they want to hear.
Besides the due diligence he speaks of, and that you see, he also was ripping the associations folks (Both democratic and Conservative) join to bolster their voices. This is a first amendment right, and specifically what the first amendment was created to protect. It Mr. Meszar's desire is to "neutralize" those organizations; and is mustering others to do just that.
Meaning, he is attempting to stifle their first amendment rights, if they exercise those rights through various organizations, of whatever persuasion.
A lot of that money is made here by other illegals or U.S. citizens who are sending money they earn here, to families there. Some of that is saved up to pay for help getting others to the U.S.
Yeah, knew about Maine. I had a friend who lived down the hall in the barracks in Dakota. He had grown up in Maine, and told me much about it; and about all the mind-boggling beauty, the miles of wilderness and the independent type people.
Landmines are like tying a string to your door knob, with the other end on the trigger of a shotgun pointed at the door. People have gone to jail for that. Besides, others stumble into them, like your cattle, your dog and maybe your kids. Not a good idea. Whereas, if you shoot someone who might have been trying to shoot at you, there’s a good chance you won’t go to jail, in this stupid arena we live in, today. It’s all about perception, when it comes to the law.
“we have to find ways to help the poor around the world,” Why do we need to do that, Tom? Don’t get me wrong, I give money to help the poor, and I support missionary trips that help the poor dig wells, build churches and so forth. But, why do we have to find ways to help them? Why not just help them?
“For ye have the poor always with you”
We will always have the poor. The condition won’t be alleviated, even if we give enough to make ourselves as poor as they. Would it not be better to provide a society wherein even the poor can be happy, and feed themselves?
You speak of limiting the poor by use of birth control. I suggest to you that even then, the poor will be with us. And, if you were successful at it, the impact upon illegals coming here would be in 20 to 50 years out.
“Until we do that NOTHING will stop people from coming here illegally.” Sure it is that we could slow it down. It’s been done several times in the last 100 years. Why not look back and review how those actions succeeded.
“Where do they get the money to pay the Coyotes that bring them across the border?” The illegals I’ve talked to tell me that they pool their money within families to send those chosen, while the rest of them send support until they get their feet on the ground, and can start sending money back to Mexico, Asia or wherever.
Ah, OK, that was what I hoped you meant, re the three top men. I don’t see much to argue with on that. It would be appropriate, if we could get it done. Don’t you think it would take that Constitutional Convention to pull that off?
As for the veto exception, I’m not sure that should be in the hands of more than one man. But, I am intrigued by the idea. Also, the fact that the congress works hard on something doesn’t mean it is best for the people, and a veto might be best for the nation. For example, had the president vetoed the health Care Bill, instead of smiling all over himself as he signed it. Now, had you two such veto votes additional, would they have vetoed it? Maybe. It’s still a tossup.
Of course congress is a committee, and that is why the executive branch exists, for they knew that congress should not have the actual control strings of the country, but merely the ability to represent the people, control the purse and impeach. Beyond that, they have not the capacity to affect the daily affairs of the nation.
“if they had the backing of the people who sent them there, and didn't have to worry about elections so much, they wouldn't have to spend so much time grandstanding.” Will that’s nice, but how do we make this shift? I see no mechanism existing, or capable of being created that would achieve this change in congress. Nor, do I foresee how even a Constitutional Convention could bring it about. In theory, of course, but theory and practicality are sometimes far apart. In theory the Constitution guarantees us protection from abuses of it. But, we see that hasn’t worked in the last few years. Practically speaking, the Constitution has been trashed.
And, you would let the congressmen become the ‘Electoral College’ for the 3 top dogs? Hmmm.
“What would we have in Congress? The very best men and women of each viewpoint.” I cannot conceive how you would accomplish that. Guess I’m dense? (:-)) Guess that’s an understatement, eh? And, it would make the executive branch totally subject to the whelms of congress. There goes the idea of 3 equal branches of government.
“See the difference?” I see that you’re striving for a better congress. But, presuming you have the best men there, (Which I doubt greatly) it is still a committee. (:-)). Maybe a better committee, but still a committee. And, yes, with a better base of congressmen, you might get men who would actually adhere to the constitution. (Without that, you have anarchy); and you would need to find a better means of electing the P & 2 VP’s. Otherwise, you have 2 branches and a subservient third branch, which would be totally disastrous for the affairs of state.
Even if it were my family’s land, I’d be tempted to sell, but I wouldn’t. First, the value would be so low, I’d never get half the value of the land and improvements, over all those years, out of it. Next, I’d have my hackles up, and would not let a bunch of thieves and murderers run me off my land.
Land, family, honor and what is right is worth fighting for. I’d probably get tossed in jail for violating some illegal’s rights, but I’d shoot some of them, and scare the rest off. I suspect, in the end, they’d probably get me, or kill some of my family; but I’d not sell out, and I wouldn’t run.
In the old days men, who didn’t want to fight, wisely moved west to new lands that was for the taking. Most of them had to fight then, or move on again. Some that moved on finally figured out that if they wanted to have a life, they had to fight, and eventually did. Some went back East, when the trouble there was settled, to live peacefully. Today, there’s little place to move to. Maybe Iowa or Kansas. But, there you live under the threat of tornadoes. There’s earthquakes in California, blizzards in Dakota and so on.
The ranchers down there, and along the Texas border, have been warned that if they kill someone who is not actively trying to kill them, they will be tried for murder, manslaughter and so forth, or maybe simply prosecuted for violating the civil rights of the illegals, drug dealers and etc.
Fences they cut, climb through, over or under, and landmines are obviously not self protection in the eyes of the government.
The rancher’s plight is really bad, and our government is bent upon helping the thugs and a flood of illegals violate their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But, then we do have a rogue government, don’t we?
Don’t forget, the primary purpose for government is to defend our country. Look at England. During WWII, it couldn’t defend itself. Its government was so weakened by Chamberlain’s ‘weak’ regime that the greatest nation in the world had so weakened itself that it could not counter an upstart like Hitler.
They had to call the old war horse, Churchill, out of retirement to pull the fat out of the fire, which he did, and then they sacked him. They tossed him out on his ear without as much as a thank you, too. But, even Churchill couldn’t have saved them without his successful lobbying the US to help and intervene. And, even that didn’t save their position in the world.
Since then their route has been ever downward. Now, they are a backwater country who can’t decide if they should knuckle under to the EU or not. It’s a half-assed country (Internationally) run by a half-assed government.
Hitler would have conquered them if we hadn’t intervened. No matter how weak we want our government to be towards its own citizens, we still need it to be stronger than a coalition government could ever be.
“… we adopt a system where all parties are represented all the time” I like that idea, but how would you bring that about? And, how would you do it without it being a joke, like the Italian government, which makes England look like a powerhouse.
I disagree with the notion that we don’t need one man at the top. It has worked for 226 years. But, the failure, now, has been that the congress is filled with radicals who want him to succeed against the Constitution, which prevents the system from impeaching him should he go rogue, as Obama has done.
Again, you describe a government ruled by committee, and that is sure fire death to any government. It doesn’t work. Russia tried that, and it resulted in one man scratching his way to the top, to become virtual dictator without any mechanism to remove him. It took them 70 years to shake that plague.
Are you suggesting that we elect 3 to the presidency? If they had equal power, we’d have pitiful control, because two would always gang up on the third, and to do that, they’d compromise on this and that, gaining what neither really wanted.
That is rule by committee, which again, can’t function on a world scale. Which one carries the briefcase with the launch codes? Do they sit in the plane and have an argument when Russian or Chinese warheads are inbound?
Have you played the game risk? It pits the players against one another, but invariably two or three will gang up on the other player(s) until opposition is wiped out, then they fight each other until only the top dog is left. It is world politics in a nutshell. Our politicians would learn a lot from a few rounds of that.
If one was president and the other two were VP’s, then they would be relegated to nothing type jobs, like Biden is now, and you’d still have one man pulling the strings and launching the missiles.
Last login: Wednesday, February 26, 2014