Comments on: An IDIOT’S Guide to the Obama Agenda http://illinoisconservative.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/an-idiot%e2%80%99s-guide-to-the-obama-agenda/ Illinois Conservative Action Network Tue, 22 Dec 2009 05:51:59 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Fenton Burroughs http://illinoisconservative.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/an-idiot%e2%80%99s-guide-to-the-obama-agenda/#comment-433 Fenton Burroughs Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:10:02 +0000 http://illinoisconservative.wordpress.com/?p=418#comment-433 Most problems are simply solved after the morass of irrelevant symptoms are distilled out. A simple analysis of laws passed by Congress, candled against the Constitution, reveals the key component of failure. If there was a block to filled out on each piece of Congressional legislation which required identifying where in the Constitution the legislation was permitted, in most cases, the block would be blank. As a result, no matter how well intentioned these unauthorized laws may be, such Congressional legislation better represents anarchy rather than respect for the rule of law. The paradox is that most Americans if asked will reject anarchy as a form of government, but on the other hand, voted the anarchists into the majority last November to enable anarchy to persist. We can all argue about the details, but clearly the Constitution was the principle casualty. Most problems are simply solved after the morass of irrelevant symptoms are distilled out.

A simple analysis of laws passed by Congress, candled against the Constitution, reveals the key component of failure.

If there was a block to filled out on each piece of Congressional legislation which required identifying where in the Constitution the legislation was permitted, in most cases, the block would be blank.

As a result, no matter how well intentioned these unauthorized laws may be, such Congressional legislation better represents anarchy rather than respect for the rule of law.

The paradox is that most Americans if asked will reject anarchy as a form of government, but on the other hand, voted the anarchists into the majority last November to enable anarchy to persist.

We can all argue about the details, but clearly the Constitution was the principle casualty.

]]> By: lucychase http://illinoisconservative.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/an-idiot%e2%80%99s-guide-to-the-obama-agenda/#comment-432 lucychase Wed, 10 Jun 2009 02:58:09 +0000 http://illinoisconservative.wordpress.com/?p=418#comment-432 That's actually my favorite amendment - I wish they'd invoke it more often. I see the President starting to do that - backing off of certain state laws, for instance, when his people have no constitutional basis for getting involved. I think he's very aware of the difference between state and federal jurisdiction, and I like that. As far as the comment goes, I didn't mean that the reevaluation was supposed to generate case law. I just meant that when we needed an amendment, we amended the constitution. I agree that the Supreme Court justices shouldn't "legislate from the bench". I just don't believe that's what's on the agenda. Every President knew that was inappropriate, no matter what his party or idealogy was. And I definitely don't agree that the President doesn't love the institutions that define America, or that the majority of his thoughts were influenced by the minority of his acquaintances. In my head, that's kind of silly. Do you not have faith in what you say? Would you advocate having a President that was swayed by political pressure if he believed that what he was doing was right and the majority of the voters agree with him? He's not doling out misfortune. He's asking us for ideas on solving problems so everyone will be happier. Good luck with getting everyone to agree on the best way to do things. Someone is inevitably going to be unhappy, and this year, it's the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" crowd with the sideblinders on who don't quite understand what's broke in the first place. Last year, apparently it was the "If it's broke, fix it" crowd. Give it a chance. If it doesn't work, then holler. That’s actually my favorite amendment – I wish they’d invoke it more often. I see the President starting to do that – backing off of certain state laws, for instance, when his people have no constitutional basis for getting involved. I think he’s very aware of the difference between state and federal jurisdiction, and I like that.

As far as the comment goes, I didn’t mean that the reevaluation was supposed to generate case law. I just meant that when we needed an amendment, we amended the constitution. I agree that the Supreme Court justices shouldn’t “legislate from the bench”. I just don’t believe that’s what’s on the agenda. Every President knew that was inappropriate, no matter what his party or idealogy was.

And I definitely don’t agree that the President doesn’t love the institutions that define America, or that the majority of his thoughts were influenced by the minority of his acquaintances. In my head, that’s kind of silly. Do you not have faith in what you say? Would you advocate having a President that was swayed by political pressure if he believed that what he was doing was right and the majority of the voters agree with him?

He’s not doling out misfortune. He’s asking us for ideas on solving problems so everyone will be happier. Good luck with getting everyone to agree on the best way to do things. Someone is inevitably going to be unhappy, and this year, it’s the “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” crowd with the sideblinders on who don’t quite understand what’s broke in the first place. Last year, apparently it was the “If it’s broke, fix it” crowd. Give it a chance. If it doesn’t work, then holler.

]]> By: jerrymcdaniel http://illinoisconservative.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/an-idiot%e2%80%99s-guide-to-the-obama-agenda/#comment-431 jerrymcdaniel Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:06:13 +0000 http://illinoisconservative.wordpress.com/?p=418#comment-431 One of my problems is citizens who do not understand the difference between federal, state and local government and their proper sphere of responsibility. Most of your comments are valid to a degree when discussing state governments, but not when discussing the federal government. Ex., your last comment "The Constitution rules, and when something isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, fairness and justice in general rule. It is a document that has historically been reevaluated as new issues came up." <blockquote>“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.” ~Amendment 10, U.S. Constitution</blockquote> If the Constitution can be "reevaluated" and changed without formal amendment, as new issues come up, then we do not have a Constitution. One of my problems is citizens who do not understand the difference between federal, state and local government and their proper sphere of responsibility. Most of your comments are valid to a degree when discussing state governments, but not when discussing the federal government. Ex., your last comment

“The Constitution rules, and when something isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, fairness and justice in general rule. It is a document that has historically been reevaluated as new issues came up.”

“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.”
~Amendment 10, U.S. Constitution

If the Constitution can be “reevaluated” and changed without formal amendment, as new issues come up, then we do not have a Constitution.

]]> By: lucychase http://illinoisconservative.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/an-idiot%e2%80%99s-guide-to-the-obama-agenda/#comment-430 lucychase Tue, 09 Jun 2009 07:42:54 +0000 http://illinoisconservative.wordpress.com/?p=418#comment-430 "The Founders believed that the legitimacy of government comes from the will of the people. Obama believes that the interests of the people are served only by the properly directed power of government." Right. Government, properly directed, can actually serve the people instead of frustrating them. "The Founders believed government should be the servant of the people. Obama believes the people should be the willing servants of the state." Right. The government and the people should work together to get things done. "The Founders believed that rights are endowed by God, equally to all humans. Obama believes rights can only be granted by the state." Right. Human rights are God-given, and American rights are constitution-given. (Hopefully they're the same thing.) "The Founders believed that everyone should be free to pursue their own economic best interest. Obama believes that government should plan and direct all significant economic activity to insure an even distribution of wealth." Right. Since everyone can't run the country's financial system at once, we set up a system that does that for us. "The Founders believed liberty to be the highest of man’s aspirations. Obama believes community to be the highest of aspirations." Right. We should all be free to live our lives in whatever community we choose. "The Founders believed the Constitution should be the “supreme law of land” and all judges should be bound by its precepts. Obama believes judicial opinions based on subjective values of fairness and justice should be the supreme law of the land. He believes the Constitution to be an antiquated document whose meaning changes with each passing generation. It does not need to be amended; its meaning can be adjudicated." Right. The Constitution rules, and when something isn't mentioned in the Constitution, fairness and justice in general rule. It is a document that has historically been reevaluated as new issues came up. So what did you say your problem was? “The Founders believed that the legitimacy of government comes from the will of the people. Obama believes that the interests of the people are served only by the properly directed power of government.”

Right. Government, properly directed, can actually serve the people instead of frustrating them.

“The Founders believed government should be the servant of the people. Obama believes the people should be the willing servants of the state.”

Right. The government and the people should work together to get things done.

“The Founders believed that rights are endowed by God, equally to all humans. Obama believes rights can only be granted by the state.”

Right. Human rights are God-given, and American rights are constitution-given. (Hopefully they’re the same thing.)

“The Founders believed that everyone should be free to pursue their own economic best interest. Obama believes that government should plan and direct all significant economic activity to insure an even distribution of wealth.”

Right. Since everyone can’t run the country’s financial system at once, we set up a system that does that for us.

“The Founders believed liberty to be the highest of man’s aspirations. Obama believes community to be the highest of aspirations.”

Right. We should all be free to live our lives in whatever community we choose.

“The Founders believed the Constitution should be the “supreme law of land” and all judges should be bound by its precepts. Obama believes judicial opinions based on subjective values of fairness and justice should be the supreme law of the land. He believes the Constitution to be an antiquated document whose meaning changes with each passing generation. It does not need to be amended; its meaning can be adjudicated.”

Right. The Constitution rules, and when something isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, fairness and justice in general rule. It is a document that has historically been reevaluated as new issues came up.

So what did you say your problem was?

]]>