Calling guard dog and others

[Gorgon]

It's been interesting reading all the back and forth. Federalism and small government is something politicians have been talking about for ages, but not unlike campaign finance reform it's not a desire for change that comes from within the system. I suppose it attracts people who don't fit into the established system anywhere else.

 

Is there really a new ideological front here, that is to say does the Tea Party represent a popular movement stirred by the recession and the Obama administration compromised of people who were not politically active before, or not active to the point that they would ever consider going to a rally. How much is genuine and to what degree is it amplified by Fox.

 

To me the fact that they would blunder by launching so vicious attacks on Obama that they could be interpreted as racism either means that political discourse is off the hook and that yelling the loudest means getting the most attention (and the Tea Party is certainly not alone here) or that these people actually aren't as media savey as we would like to think. Maybe it's that they have to tap into anger and outrage to connect with their base.

 

As a protest movement they are free to say things established politicians can't , but in doing so they have also landed the republicans in trouble, and the Republicans must - all things being equal - be their closest allies. This must count against the notion of the Tea Party being their lapdogs.

 

Maybe this is the wave of the future. A rigid two party system can't accommodate much in the way of differing direction and ideologies, and voting gets you practically nowhere as regards exercising political influence. A movement like this on the other hand can affect the system quite effectively.

Edited September 18, 2010 by Gorgon

[Calax]

Ok, GD I wasn't saying that Feds should be big or small in my opening statement, rather that the Constitution (and the apparatus that it describes) wasn't necessarily designed with the current size of the US (both in population, and geographical terms) in mind at all. Similarly they didn't think there would be an internet, telephone, or any other method for information to be transcribed across hundreds of miles of land within seconds. This was mainly to point out that the Constitution isn't a be all end all document that will always be relevant.

 

Ok, so you're saying that the amendments are a part of the constitution, I thought so. Then as part of the protection of civil rights and equity, Education and abortion are fairly within the realm of Feds. Gay Marriage has been a State issue from the beginning and is only really pushing up the ladder in the court system due to a civil rights issue.

 

Financial reform HAS to be done by the feds because they're the only ones allowed to really touch the economy in a meaningful way. California couldn't say "I'll give you 400 billion BisonBills for your toxic loans" to a bank and actually, you know, been able to do anything.

 

Unemployment is everyone's problem, and the feds get blamed so they have to do something.

 

See the biggest problem I can see with your current stance is that rather than being one cohesive nation with a national identity, all of a sudden we're 50 nations, with the same language, money, and a set amount of tithing to a coop defensive force. Nothing more. Also a lot of your problem stems less from the federal government itself and more from the use of the court system (which was set down by Marbury v Madison as having this exact power...) to review laws for constitutionality, and strike down state laws you think are state matters as federally unconstitutional. Thus Abortion, Gay Marriage, and Education (to a degree), have all felt a federal touch via the court system at least once.

 

Had the feds jumped fully into Abortion or Gay Marriage and made a law about it banning it, then my current residence in Iowa wouldn't be able to have gay marriages, and nobody could have an abortion (you know, like they couldn't before Roe v Wade?).

 

Edit for Gorgon:

The Tea Party, from what I can tell, has mostly been played as a cohesive unit by Fox News. I've seen a few interviews in papers that show that they don't have any centralized leadership, nor really any binding issue beyond the financial one. As such they have a diverse grouping that Fox likes to show off (while hushing up their lack of centralization). Fox is probably the only reason the Tea Party is so big, if they hadn't started singing the party's praises then the party probably wouldn't have made itself national and instead been more grassroots instead of "Astroturf" (In a New York Times op-ed column, economist Paul Krugman, wrote that "the tea parties don't represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They're AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey. -taken from wikipedia)

Edited September 18, 2010 by Calax

[Hurlshort]

I really like the new Jon Stewart rally cry "Take it down a notch!"

[Calax]

I really like the new Jon Stewart rally cry "Take it down a notch!"

ok... I'm gonna see if i can find my way to DC for that...

[Oblarg]

I think following the constitution strictly would be a lot more practical if it were more easily amended. As it is, amendments are few and far-between, and it's very hard for a document penned in the late 1700s to remain a practical basis for a government if it were strictly interpreted, given how little it changes. The extent to which this is true is debatable, but you cannot deny that changing circumstances must be reflected in our government.

 

Now, I'm not one to advocate overwhelming gun control, but look at the second amendment - it is a perfect example of an antiquated bit of lawmaking, and one that would have some rather undesirable consequences if it were strictly upheld.

Edited September 18, 2010 by Oblarg

[NexusPrime]

It's been interesting reading all the back and forth. Federalism and small government is something politicians have been talking about for ages, but not unlike campaign finance reform it's not a desire for change that comes from within the system. I suppose it attracts people who don't fit into the established system anywhere else.

 

Is there really a new ideological front here, that is to say does the Tea Party represent a popular movement stirred by the recession and the Obama administration compromised of people who were not politically active before, or not active to the point that they would ever consider going to a rally. How much is genuine and to what degree is it amplified by Fox.

 

To me the fact that they would blunder by launching so vicious attacks on Obama that they could be interpreted as racism either means that political discourse is off the hook and that yelling the loudest means getting the most attention (and the Tea Party is certainly not alone here) or that these people actually aren't as media savey as we would like to think. Maybe it's that they have to tap into anger and outrage to connect with their base.

 

As a protest movement they are free to say things established politicians can't , but in doing so they have also landed the republicans in trouble, and the Republicans must - all things being equal - be their closest allies. This must count against the notion of the Tea Party being their lapdogs.

 

Maybe this is the wave of the future. A rigid two party system can't accommodate much in the way of differing direction and ideologies, and voting gets you practically nowhere as regards exercising political influence. A movement like this on the other hand can affect the system quite effectively.

 

Gorgon, sometimes a change in the system is forced from without, not within. As governments scale in size, they also scale in complexity and money and resource needs. Increasing complexity entails increased energy and resource needs. There is an argument to be made that if a government exceeds its ability to gather money and resources and use them efficiently, a case of diminishing returns, it is too complex and more likely to be incapable of governing effectively. In fact, there is a deep and disturbing danger present in becoming too complex and exceeding sustainability and viability. Too much waste and corruption can kill the society and system. The more complex the system, the more chances for waste and corruption on a greater and grander scale. I suggest you get a chance to read Joseph Tainter's work called The Collapse of Complex Societies.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Complex-Soc...y/dp/052138673X

 

We may be reaching that point here in the US and perhaps some countries of Europe. Despite a trillion-dollar stimulus package and massive construction projects to put people back to work, the economy refuses to cooperate as economists predicted and social problems gradually become worse as unemployment and poverty levels have risen, and critical infrastructure like roads, bridges, sewer systems, railways, etc. have fallen apart. Cost of living is rising fast and oil prices are rising too. There are warning signs ahead. This time is different.

 

What is going on right now is above and beyond parties or political ideologies.

[Guard Dog]

I'm hearing a lot of people say "the Constitution is outdated, it does not refelect modern times, it was never intended for a nation so large and diverse".

 

What then is the remedy? Ignore it? Discard it? Misconstrue and distort it? There has been a lot of the latter to tell the truth. All of our basic rights, endowed by our creator are affirmed in the Constitution. If it can be side stepped, distorted, or ignored then there is no law, no affirmation of rights, and I suggest you begin buying guns. I have made this argument many times over Gun Control, Free Speech, Property Rights, if even one aspect of the Constitution can be ignored does that not render the entire document worthless? Can you not then simply ignore any part of it the government of that day finds inconvienient? Yes, and yes. Even if no more than lip service it paid to it (and when you look a that travesty of justice Obamacare it did not even get that) it is all that stands between us and at best Oligarchy. At worst Dictatorship. In truth I really think that is exactly where we are heading anyway. The American people seem all to willing to surrender their heritage, their liberty, and the freedom and dignity that is their birthright for "free" healthcare, and "green" jobs and homeland security.

 

We will have the government we deserve. If the American people are willing to become slaves to the state, the leftists, liberals, and progressives are more than willing to be masters.

 

For my part, they will have to kill me.

Edited September 19, 2010 by Guard Dog

[Calax]

I'm hearing a lot of people say "the Constitution is outdated, it does not refelect modern times, it was never intended for a nation so large and diverse".

 

What then is the remedy? Ignore it? Discard it? Misconstrue and distort it? There has been a lot of the latter to tell the truth. All of our basic rights, endowed by our creator are affirmed in the Constitution. If it can be side stepped, distorted, or ignored then there is no law, no affirmation of rights, and I suggest you begin buying guns. I have made this argument many times over Gun Control, Free Speech, Property Rights, if even one aspect of the Constitution can be ignored does that not render the entire document worthless? Can you not then simply ignore any part of it the government of that day finds inconvienient? Yes, and yes. Even if no more than lip service it paid to it (and when you look a that travesty of justice Obamacare it did not even get that) it is all that stands between us and at best Oligarchy. At worst Dictatorship. In truth I really think that is exactly where we are heading anyway. The American people seem all to willing to surrender their heritage, their liberty, and the freedom and dignity that is their birthright for "free" healthcare, and "green" jobs and homeland security.

 

We will have the government we deserve. If the American people are willing to become slaves to the state, the leftists, liberals, and progressives are more than willing to be masters.

 

For my part, they will have to kill me.

You know, I don't think that the Canuks, brits, swiss, swedes, or anyone else with socialized medicen has "surrendered the freedom and dignity that is their birthright". Seriously if you're thinking that the suggestion that the Constitution needs to be rebuilt, or considered a living document that can be shifted to suit the times, means that we're going to end up in a hideous place for a government to be, I kindly ask you to step off your horse. There are many governments that aren't based around your sacred document and yet are still fully operational, and in even better positions than ours.

 

Like I said, if we adhered to what you think the Feds should be, we'd give up the identity of a cohesive group and be identified more by our states than by being part of the US. It'd be like the EU mixed with NATO.

[Gorth]

Oligarchy.

That is probably the one thing that the common European fears the most and the reason why there is so much resistance to giving up national sovereignty to a bunch of career politicians in Brussels. The abject fear that big corporations will be able run roughshod over them, ignoring regulations and oversight rules.

 

Lets say company A decides that cancerinogen B makes a wonderful addition to kids toys, because it is much cheaper to manufacture. Today they'll have to convince 25+ governments to lower the consumer protection standards. If Brussels had the power, they would only need one government on their payroll.

 

Yeah, I think most people see the "Eurocrats" as corporate lapdogs not to be trusted, which is why the people vote against the politicians in just about every referendum that they have dared offer the people. People wants countries run by the people and keep a leash on corporations, not the other way around. Such "socialist" thinking is probably anathema to any good capitalist

[Guard Dog]

Seriously if you're thinking that the suggestion that the Constitution needs to be rebuilt, or considered a living document that can be shifted to suit the times, means that we're going to end up in a hideous place for a government to be, I kindly ask you to step off your horse. There are many governments that aren't based around your sacred document and yet are still fully operational, and in even better positions than ours.

 

I'm not saying it will happen but it certainly CAN happen. And right off the top of my head I can think of dozens of modern exampes where individual rights are trampled in other countries without so much as a pause. Now, think this through for a moment. Suppose we were to call a Contitutional Convention today, what do you think the probable outcome of that would be? Heck Calax, if you and I were the only delegates to attend do you think that with our poltical differences we could come up with a new constitution we could both live with? I've been trading posts with you for years now and I think well of you but personal amicability does not ensure political compromise. Now take you and I out of the mix and add hundreds of strangers, many of whom are suspicious of each other for no reason other than that there politics ARE different.

 

 

 

Like I said, if we adhered to what you think the Feds should be, we'd give up the identity of a cohesive group and be identified more by our states than by being part of the US. It'd be like the EU mixed with NATO.

Not at all. You are making the same assumption that a strong central government is needed for our national idenetity. I do not believe that would be the case at all. Our national identity does not come from some joint fealty to Washington, but from our shared history, culture, language, values, etc.

[Guard Dog]

People wants countries run by the people and keep a leash on corporations, not the other way around. Such "socialist" thinking is probably anathema to any good capitalist

Yet they continue to vote in governments that do precisely the opposite of that. It hit the news here a little while back that the Obama admin tried very hard to keep the BP Oil Spil quiet, and tyhe was slow to do anything about it or about BPs handling of it. Then it's revealed that he accepted almost $100k in capaign contributions from BP. In fact a reporter was fired for pointing that out. I laughed for a week when I heard that. Here is the "hope" and "change" everyone voted for. Hows that all working out?

 

Like I said, we will have the government we deserve and the first step to Oligarchy comes when the ruling class no longer believes it is accountable to those they represent. In the US we passed that point earlier this year. In Eurpoe they are doing it now with the EU.

Edited September 19, 2010 by Guard Dog

[Calax]

Seriously if you're thinking that the suggestion that the Constitution needs to be rebuilt, or considered a living document that can be shifted to suit the times, means that we're going to end up in a hideous place for a government to be, I kindly ask you to step off your horse. There are many governments that aren't based around your sacred document and yet are still fully operational, and in even better positions than ours.

 

I'm not saying it will happen but it certainly CAN happen. And right off the top of my head I can think of dozens of modern exampes where individual rights are trampled in other countries without so much as a pause. Now, think this through for a moment. Suppose we were to call a Contitutional Convention today, what do you think the probable outcome of that would be? Heck Calax, if you and I were the only delegates to attend do you think that with our poltical differences we could come up with a new constitution we could both live with? I've been trading posts with you for years now and I think well of you but personal amicability does not ensure political compromise. Now take you and I out of the mix and add hundreds of strangers, many of whom are suspicious of each other for no reason other than that there politics ARE different.

And do you think that the original framers didn't go through the same thing on a smaller level? Of course, it also helped that they weren't beholden to the popular vote and particular interest groups on everything. And they were all of basically the same socio-economic level. If we were to make a pool of framers who fit within the same profile of the originals we'd get a significantly different document today, and if we did it with the congress in it's 20th century incarnations, it'd flounder for years until finally it's passed with only 1/3rd of what was proposed in there and of that the president throws a line-item veto in that chops it in half again(GW was infamous for that), or a signing statement that makes it a hollow thing.

 

Of course, the silly thing about all this is that if we were to go through a social upheaval like a revolution, we'd be able to push one out pretty quick that was fairly inclusive. See:South Africa

Like I said, if we adhered to what you think the Feds should be, we'd give up the identity of a cohesive group and be identified more by our states than by being part of the US. It'd be like the EU mixed with NATO.

Not at all. You are making the same assumption that a strong central government is needed for our national idenetity. I do not believe that would be the case at all. Our national identity does not come from some joint fealty to Washington, but from our shared history, culture, language, values, etc.

But with the national cohesion being minimal between each state, particularly in terms of laws on different things, slowly the states would drift apart and get their own cultures. I mean hell, even now politicians refer to different areas as the "real" america, and the south has it's own culture when compared to the north east, mid west, west coast, and south west. Not to mention Hawaii and Alaska.

 

We'd be linked in the same way that people link themselves to Christianity. Patriotism/nationalism probably wouldn't exist as much except under attack from the outside, because the laws governing each different state would mean that slowly the states would have different cultures that were constantly diverging. Utah would be TOTALLY mormon from top to bottom (to hell with the establishment clause in that state), Texas would be a pile of gun happy cow boys etc (apologies for massive generalization). Hell even now states have almost gone to war with each other over such petty things like bridges. Can you imagine a friggin holy war between Utah and those not of the true faith and who support gay marriage?

[Walsingham]

GD, I'm taking no offence at fact that you didn't address my key point because you've had so many to talk to at once. However, I'll put it to you again, slightly differently.

 

1. Macroeconomic/macrosocial.macroclimactic currents, and events do happen. ONLY unified large governments can hope to apply sufficient focussed leverage to redress these once they are apparent. HOWEVER I mention this only to highlight that I accept as sound your counterargument that they haven't the wit to do so. I choose not to believe that, but it's eminently debateable.

 

2. It is all very well to suggest that large governments are bound by rules of size and complexity. I agree. But to deny that societyies and nations are not seems self-contradictory. The fact is that we are interconnected, and rules in one state have effects in another. For the simplest argument consider drinking ages. When I was young I recall this was a problem because it caused rat runs across state boundaries. This got fixed by consensus in most cases. But I use it to illustrate the concept simply. Tax law, environmental regulation, the internet... county hall can address these how?

 

[leading on to the next point, not aimed at GD]

 

3. Gorth suggests that a multiplicity of agencies is less corruptible. to an extent I follow his logic. However, my experience with big companies and small government is that the big companies bully, cajole, and bamboozle local councils with laughable ease. Ditto small countries, from what I read. It therefore becomes more time consuming to reduce multiple agencies, but easier in each instance. I despise the EU concept, but I can't deny that they've taken strong action on Microsoft where no-one else would.

 

~

Which brings me back to my central attitude: democratic government is not a wolf at the door. It is our guard dog. It is our servant. Neglect it, starve it, treat it incoherently, and it becomes dissociated from us. Once dissociated it it is prone to all manner of misbehaviour. But the solution is not to replace it with something so small it can't function, like a weiner dog. The solution is the hard one of being well informed, and participating, and regularly rubbing its nose in messes when it fouls the carpet.

[Gorth]

3. Gorth suggests that a multiplicity of agencies is less corruptible. to an extent I follow his logic. However, my experience with big companies and small government is that the big companies bully, cajole, and bamboozle local councils with laughable ease. Ditto small countries, from what I read. It therefore becomes more time consuming to reduce multiple agencies, but easier in each instance. I despise the EU concept, but I can't deny that they've taken strong action on Microsoft where no-one else would.

Not suggesting that it is less corruptible as such, just suggesting not to underestimate the power of perception. The further away the man on the floor is removed from decision making, the more he is prone to resent the decision makers. The last time Danish police opened fire on people in the streets (since 1945) to control the crowds was after the politicians decided that the Maastricht treaty referendum needed a "re-run" because they didn't like the way people voted the first time.

[Rostere]

All of our basic rights, endowed by our creator are affirmed in the Constitution.

 

Wow. This sentence really proves some people take a random piece of old legislation too seriously.

[GreasyDogMeat]

All of our basic rights, endowed by our creator are affirmed in the Constitution.

 

Wow. This sentence really proves some people take a random piece of old legislation too seriously.

This sounds like something Obama would say. The Constitution is a bit more than a 'random piece of old legislation'. It certainly is for most Americans anyway (the ones that aren't ruining the country anyway).

[Oblarg]

All of our basic rights, endowed by our creator are affirmed in the Constitution.

 

Wow. This sentence really proves some people take a random piece of old legislation too seriously.

This sounds like something Obama would say. The Constitution is a bit more than a 'random piece of old legislation'. It certainly is for most Americans anyway (the ones that aren't ruining the country anyway).

 

Oh come on, I doubt obama would **** all over the constitution in that manner.

 

That said, I don't like the implication that the constitution is divinely inspired - to me, that's just as dangerous as disregarding it altogether. America is not a theocracy.

[Calax]

All of our basic rights, endowed by our creator are affirmed in the Constitution.

 

Wow. This sentence really proves some people take a random piece of old legislation too seriously.

This sounds like something Obama would say. The Constitution is a bit more than a 'random piece of old legislation'. It certainly is for most Americans anyway (the ones that aren't ruining the country anyway).

Ok, Obama wouldn't be calling it a "random piece of old legislation". Among other reasons, doing so is political suicide by ANYONE.

 

BUT! That does not mean that the Constitution isn't wrong, or that it is some sacred thing that should be adhered to so strictly that there is 0 wiggle room. ANY rule if adhered to religiously and to the letter perfectly will become the most uptight and ultimately useless thing on the planet because it will invite ways for people to abuse it.

 

Hell, one of the articles in the main body of the constitution deals specifically with the purchase and sale of slaves!

 

And before anyone suggests "Lets amend that sucker!" these are the last five amendments

 

# Twenty-third Amendment (1961): Grants presidential electors to the District of Columbia. (Full text)

# Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964): Prohibits the federal government and the states from requiring the payment of a tax as a qualification for voting for federal officials. (Full text)

# Twenty-fifth Amendment (1967): Changes details of presidential succession, provides for temporary removal of president, and provides for replacement of the vice president. (Full text)

# Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971): Prohibits the federal government and the states from forbidding any citizen of age 18 or greater to vote on account of their age. (Full text)

# Twenty-seventh Amendment (1992): Limits congressional pay raises. (Full text)

 

The first two I don't know like anything about, but 25 was in direct response to JFK's death, 26 was due to Vietnam having 18 year old men going to war when they couldn't even vote, and 27... I think that had been sitting around since the bill of rights days and only got under way due to a grad student.

 

So basically, people only amend the constitution when the issue is extremely pressing and current. Asking for a full string of amendments to make it a bit more up-to-date is going to be like asking young earth creationists to read an evolutionary biology text book and ace a series of exams.

[Rostere]

All of our basic rights, endowed by our creator are affirmed in the Constitution.

 

Wow. This sentence really proves some people take a random piece of old legislation too seriously.

This sounds like something Obama would say. The Constitution is a bit more than a 'random piece of old legislation'. It certainly is for most Americans anyway (the ones that aren't ruining the country anyway).

 

Oh come on, I doubt obama would **** all over the constitution in that manner.

 

That said, I don't like the implication that the constitution is divinely inspired - to me, that's just as dangerous as disregarding it altogether. America is not a theocracy.

 

What I'm trying to say is that anything will get old in time, and that every intrepretation of any text will be just that, an interpretation. I bet the Bible and the Quran were progressive in their legislation when they were originally written, however today they're mostly used by backwards people who would rather go back to the Dark Ages. It is very dangerous to speak so highly of texts, be it the Bible or the American constitution, and that's not only because it might look silly (like in this instance ). In the end they are just pieces of paper and it's people's mutual agreement over "basic rights" and their individual ethical inclinations that matter. There is nothing special with any such agreement over "basic rights" compared to any other.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Do you understand rule of law or not? Law doesn't work when judges decide what they want the law to mean, that's tyranny of the judiciary, not democracy or rule of law.

[Oblarg]

Do you understand rule of law or not? Law doesn't work when judges decide what they want the law to mean, that's tyranny of the judiciary, not democracy or rule of law.

 

This isn't a world of extremes. There is room for interpretation without the original law losing relevance.

 

Either the constitution needs to be more easily amendable or it has to be interpreted fairly loosely, if our government is to function smoothly.

[Wrath of Dagon]

No, the government needs to do what's it's authorized to do, unless they obtain the authorization needed in the way prescribed. Saying "there's room for interpretation" is really just an excuse for judges to legislate, and puts no limits on the power of the government, which is what we have now. And I don't agree the constitution needs to be easily amended. A major change in the way government function should require something like 70% consensus, which is about what it would take.

[Calax]

No, the government needs to do what's it's authorized to do, unless they obtain the authorization needed in the way prescribed. Saying "there's room for interpretation" is really just an excuse for judges to legislate, and puts no limits on the power of the government, which is what we have now. And I don't agree the constitution needs to be easily amended. A major change in the way government function should require something like 70% consensus, which is about what it would take.

It takes a lot for something to be "legislated" by the courts (assuming you want to call it that). Given there first has to be a plantiff who feels he's been slighted, and then it has to be determined that that was in fact a constitutional issue, and then they have to fight it out all the way to supreme court, and then the court has to decide to hear it.

 

It's not just

"HEY ANTON! I bet ya 2 cases of beer we can't make people walk on their hands for 15 seconds a day because it's "constitutionally required"!"

 

"YOU'RE ON CLARENCE!"

[Gfted1]

It takes a lot for something to be "legislated" by the courts (assuming you want to call it that). Given there first has to be a plantiff who feels he's been slighted...

 

You were correct right up to this point. As we can see by the example being played out in California, a judge does in fact have to power to completely ignore the legal state constitution and issue a ruling (re-allowing homosexual marriage) based on nothing more than his feelings on the matter.

[Calax]

It takes a lot for something to be "legislated" by the courts (assuming you want to call it that). Given there first has to be a plantiff who feels he's been slighted...

 

You were correct right up to this point. As we can see by the example being played out in California, a judge does in fact have to power to completely ignore the legal state constitution and issue a ruling (re-allowing homosexual marriage) based on nothing more than his feelings on the matter.w

his personal feelings about the fact that it was a matter of equality, and even then it was appealed so it's moved up the ladder.