Post by Godot showed up on Jan 23, 2010 16:58:34 GMT -5
Here is what I believe needs to be changed:
Article I, Section 8, Powers of Congress: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
I don't lightly suggest a constitutional amendment to Article I, because its part of originalist interpretation throughout the document that the writers gave some matters first place because first meant most important.
And this is the second power listed in a list of 18, so the Framers considered this damn important.
But the amendment process itself exists because the Framers recognized that sometimes their own ideas would no longer be relevant or could even be harmful. The end of slavery, women voting--why, I doubt they even considered the second, but they knew that they wouldn't know. Ya gotta love thew way these guys thought. They were a bunch of freaking Hari Seldons. Mmmmph, end of digression.
The time is long past to consider revoking this power, or diminishing it, or limiting it. The Democrats are Lovecraftian cosmic horrors of spending--in a way I almost admire the sheer, gibbering need of Democrats to devour more and more, I guess the horror fan in me finds that part of them fascinating, like watching the Thing propagate across hosts. The Framers, while many of them wrote of the dangers inherent in the spending power, I think never guessed the country would be invaded by Spenders summoned by the Necronomicon.
But the Republicans never reverse course, and that's what we need. The status quo on spending is unsustainable, even without continued spending growth. We could have 6 years of 6% quarters going forward and not make a dent in the debt and deficit, or their growth, and such quarters are nowhere in sight, anyway. It's only a matter of time until inflation, big time, smacks us all upside the head. I think it is already, isn't it? Who isn't paying more at the supermarket? I think this would be a winning plank politically, in part because it is accessible in such everyday terms--who would not think, "that makes sense, since when do I have unlimited power to borrow on my credit? Or act like it's unlimited, anyway?" At the same time it demonstrates principled intellectual heft. It also happens to be the right thing to do, which is why I suggest it at all.
The main wave politically now, what the majority of people want, is to stop Obama/Pelosi/Reid (and their masters, like Soros, the big unions, and the UN). Republicans who are mostly if not all conservative are going to win big numbers on that alone--against, not for. But Reagan was a man of ideas, and addressed complex particulars. If we really want to return to our Reagan roots, that means considering bold, legal, and always constitutional action to further conservative principles--but still, bold. Although such furthering of conservatism is by nature 80% defense against anarchists in one form or another, since true conservatism envisions society taking care of itself without government intrusion in all but a few spheres of action.
And in the long run, it pays off politically to really be the party of ideas, as long as those ideas lawfully serve the principles of liberty.
Article I, Section 8, Powers of Congress: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
I don't lightly suggest a constitutional amendment to Article I, because its part of originalist interpretation throughout the document that the writers gave some matters first place because first meant most important.
And this is the second power listed in a list of 18, so the Framers considered this damn important.
But the amendment process itself exists because the Framers recognized that sometimes their own ideas would no longer be relevant or could even be harmful. The end of slavery, women voting--why, I doubt they even considered the second, but they knew that they wouldn't know. Ya gotta love thew way these guys thought. They were a bunch of freaking Hari Seldons. Mmmmph, end of digression.
The time is long past to consider revoking this power, or diminishing it, or limiting it. The Democrats are Lovecraftian cosmic horrors of spending--in a way I almost admire the sheer, gibbering need of Democrats to devour more and more, I guess the horror fan in me finds that part of them fascinating, like watching the Thing propagate across hosts. The Framers, while many of them wrote of the dangers inherent in the spending power, I think never guessed the country would be invaded by Spenders summoned by the Necronomicon.
But the Republicans never reverse course, and that's what we need. The status quo on spending is unsustainable, even without continued spending growth. We could have 6 years of 6% quarters going forward and not make a dent in the debt and deficit, or their growth, and such quarters are nowhere in sight, anyway. It's only a matter of time until inflation, big time, smacks us all upside the head. I think it is already, isn't it? Who isn't paying more at the supermarket? I think this would be a winning plank politically, in part because it is accessible in such everyday terms--who would not think, "that makes sense, since when do I have unlimited power to borrow on my credit? Or act like it's unlimited, anyway?" At the same time it demonstrates principled intellectual heft. It also happens to be the right thing to do, which is why I suggest it at all.
The main wave politically now, what the majority of people want, is to stop Obama/Pelosi/Reid (and their masters, like Soros, the big unions, and the UN). Republicans who are mostly if not all conservative are going to win big numbers on that alone--against, not for. But Reagan was a man of ideas, and addressed complex particulars. If we really want to return to our Reagan roots, that means considering bold, legal, and always constitutional action to further conservative principles--but still, bold. Although such furthering of conservatism is by nature 80% defense against anarchists in one form or another, since true conservatism envisions society taking care of itself without government intrusion in all but a few spheres of action.
And in the long run, it pays off politically to really be the party of ideas, as long as those ideas lawfully serve the principles of liberty.
