Agreed!Why is it, the very people saying they are FOR the
Constitution -- are indeed the very one trampling all over it?
I always love letters like this that seem to deliver such sage advice at first
glance, but with a moment's reflection, then the reader realizes that the writer
presented us with a pablum that is devoid of specificity and in reality says
nothing of substance.I am sure those of the Tea Party will interpret
this to mean that we should do what the Founding Father's wanted, but in a
complex, industrialized, digitized world that they would fail to understand,
what does that mean? Men with an 18th century understanding of
science, government and political economy are ill-equiped educationally and
experientially to lead us now, no matter how much foresight they may have
displayed in creating this remarkable experiment we call America.
"evil hidden forces" in WashingtonThere are no evil hidden
forces. They are clearly out in the open. And we have learned to accept
them.The evil force is money. Our congress is bought and paid for
by those with the money. Corporations and unions have paid for laws that will
benefit them.Until you take the money out of the law making process,
only those with Money will benefit.
And just what should they cut? FEMA? Social Security? Medicare? The Centers
for Disease Control? Highways? Defense? There's a tiny group of
Americans who have nearly half of all the money in the whole country. Some of
them are making ten to a hundred times the salaries they were making forty years
ago. And they've twisted the system so that they pay less in taxes than they
ever did less, even, than the poor do. Why does no one, including
the Deseret News, have the courage to say we should tax them?
Interesting that the letter espouses both amending the Constitution and then
abhors the possibility of a Constitutional convention to consider broader
changes. There has been a national debt every year of our existence. Why an
amendment now? We need a Congress that does it job to control spending and set
a tax rate that pays for services we demand.
LDSLiberal: Both parties trample the Constitution, mostly by ignoring it.
IMHO, the liberals do it best in their Robin Hood approach.JustGordon:
True principles, ie, not spending more than you have, know no time limits. It
is up to us to apply those principles along with the understanding we've
developed over the past 221 years.JoeBlow: Bingo!
RE: JoeBlowYou say "there are no evil hidden forces". Then two
sentences later you declare the evil force is money. Looks like both sides of
your mouth are working quite well this morning. One thing you have right, the
pursuit of money is killing our nation, from the bottom where mothers leave
their children to work, all the way to the top where almost all congressional
decisions are based on money.
Is the constitution hanging by a thread yet?
If congress, as the letter suggested, would pass budgets only allowing us to
spend what we took in, the dems would increase their ever-present demagogueing
about how the repubs were trying to wreck the economy and throw granny over the
cliff.Since they are devoid of ideas that actually work, their only
hope of holding onto power is to falsely demagogue against anyone or anything
that opposes them.
opinionated.I said there are no evil HIDDEN forces. A point I
clearly made.May want to seek to understand before commenting.
Maybe we should try repealing the 17th before we add a BBA. Get back to the
basics and it may fix itself.
JustGordon... If our Founding Fathers had such an inability to understand our
"complex, industrialized, digitized world", then how on earth, did
George Washington warn us against political party spirit, excess debt,
sectionalism, and permanent foreign alliances? It sounds to me like we should
have taken their advice rather then dismiss them, like you seem so willing to
T-Jeff, I hope you are speaking of imposing term limits in the Senate and
Congress when you say repeal the 17th amendment (which doesn't speak to members
of Congress). To simply repeal the whole thing could create far more problems
than it would solve. Before it was ratified state legilatures would frequently,
if not usually appoint or elect the state's senators. The 17th amendment is the
result of significant fraud that frequently occured under that model. Fraud and
bribery were common; the interests of the people were often not considered at
all. You remember Illinois' governor Rod Blagojevich, I hope. There is enough
fraud in Washington today without reopening that avenue.
I don't know how many times I need to say this, but federal spending amounts to
nearly 25 percent of GDP. Republicans seem to believe that all this government
spending happens in a vacuum. But like it or not, those government expenditures
(directly or indirectly) support millions of jobs and a multitude of businesses.
If we simply slash away, guess what? We will send the economy into a death
spiral. Unfortunately, we have financed this economic support with debt instead
of taxes. This started about 30 years ago with Reagan's tax cuts.The
only way out of this mess is a balanced approach. Yes, we need to reduce our
debt. But we can't just pull $1 trillion out of the economy in one fatal fit of
knee-jerk conservatism. We need to raise taxes substantially and cut
expenditures judiciously. Everything proposed so far by the misnamed Tea Party
would be disastrous.
If John McCain were in the White House right now, this "editorial"
would have never been written.
T-Jeff | 8:33 a.m. Sept. 6, 2011 Uinta Basin, Utah Maybe we should
try repealing the 17th before we add a BBA. Get back to the basics and it may
fix itself. ================= Thanks for proving my
earlier point.Why do Tea Partiers who "SAY" they are
Defending the Constitution -- turn an about face, and become the very 1st guys
in line shouting Changing it?[i.e., Repealing of the 14th, 16th, and
17th Ammendments - and adding their OWN -- like Balanced Budgets, and Definition
of Marriages, ect.?]This is Why the Constitution will hang by a
thread.Some people don't Believe in it.So - when they disagree with
it, they are out constantly trying to change it to suit they own agendas -
rather than just learning to live within it.As a Miltary Veteran, I
swore the oath to Defend the Constitution to my dying breath.Follow
it, and Leave it ALONE!
While sounding good in theory, a balanced budget would be a disaster to the
economy. It wouldn't work in today's world.
With three hundred million people, why can't we find honest and patriotic
@T-JeffI really don't see how the direct election of senators is the
cause of America's problems.The founding fathers initially had them
indirectly elected becaues they didn't trust the population would be intelligent
enough to understand the issues to elect the right people. With the flow of
information we have through Internet, TV and radio, that no longer applies.If the problem is you think the people have made bad decisions by
electing people with a D after their name, wouldn't the old Book of Mormon
principle apply of we picked our leaders, so it's our own fault?Would you really trust the Utah Legislature with their track record of trying
to hide things (GRAMA law earlier this year, Utahns for Ethical Government) to
pick our senators? I would much rather have my voice directly heard
and reap the consequences of that.
Worf I was about to leave this thread alone. It is more of the same and I am
bored with it. You though asked an intriguing question, one which I think is the
crux of the issue. Our current political parties are the problem. To be more
specific they are going farther and farther into the extreme ends of their
movements. In other words liberals are becoming more liberal and conservatives
more conservative.This extremeification of our parties is allowing
the more, shall we say, devoted followers of the party, to take over convetion
and only elct leaders that follow their own brand of politics. The battle lines
become hardened and neither side dares consider the other to have any good
ideas. It is my expreince that the best people know when they see a
good idea no matter the source and run with it! However these good people would
never be elected in todays climate. The solution though is simple enough. It is
to change dramatically the current formula by throwing in a new third party. A
party that is focused on reason more than rhetoric.
Its easy to tell when a conservative is speaking, he will rail about government
and then say we should support the Constitution. Conservatives,
having found an easy way to change the Constitution, dont want anyone else
messing with it. Nothing in our world has changed in the last 200 years, we are
still just people going about the daily tasks of living. Heaven forbid that
someone would think it might need updating from before. Oh, the
conservative method of changing the Constitution, its easy, they just change the
meaning of words.
To T-Jeff | 8:33 a.m. Sept. 6, 2011 Uinta Basin, Utah Maybe we
should try repealing the 17th before we add a BBA. Get back to the basics and it
may fix itself. -------------------Repealing the 17th
Amendment is one of the worst things that can be done. We have enough problems
with corrupt politicians as it is. I do NOT want to give a corrupt political
machine the right to appoint my Senators (and just look at the antics of the
just-past legislature to see the havoc and corruption they would cause).
Some of you are not understanding the purpose of the Senate or the 17th
Amendment. The People have the US House of Representatives. This is why we have
direct votes. The Senate was for States and standing up for States' Rights. That
all changed with the 17th Amendment. Don't know why everyon is after
T-Jeff on this one. it MAY solve some issues but perhaps not all. The falacy that a BBA would fix anything is just that. The problem with the
Tea Party is they back an "original" Constituteion but fail to define
"original" since the Constitution has been ratified several times
after the Constitutional Convention even by those who wer einvolved in creating
it. Makes no sense. Mechanisms were in place to ratify it and change as the
@SuperArcher,The purpose of the Senate had nothing to do with States
rights. The Madison plan, had it been fully adopted, would have essentially
done away with States altogether. The Senate, if anything, was to ensure the
minority (e.g. the smaller states) still had voice.Under the
Constitution, the States are not enumerated ANY rights, it in facts limits them.
The closest they have to rights is what is specified in the 10th Amendment.
Looking at the Preamble, We the People formed the National
Government, which then empowered the States Governments. This is further shown
by the Supremacy clause found in Article VI.
Our state legislature is extremely corrupt, and there is no way I would allow
them to choose anything for me, especially someone to represent this state.
Given that public record proves the states have satisfied the two thirds
requirement to cause a convention call, (see foavc.org),how can the author
seriously suggest the Constitution be obeyed then urge it not be. If the states
apply the Constitution mandates a convention call. The author says we should
ignore this. He then rails against members of Congress doing the very thing he
publicly supports. Frankly, I don't understand his position and should not
therefore be heeded.
LDSliberal @ 12:09 amBecause the consitution is not the communist
manifesto. If you read the constitution you will understand that they are
LDSliberal.The 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments were only ratified by
10 states which makes them void.
Where does it say that we the government can do invase searches against it's
citizens on a permanent basis? If the government can't even uphold the
constitution how do you expect anyone else to?
I'm trying to imagine what we'd do in our business if we couldn't borrow more
than we take in. No company lives this way, otherwise we couldn't make
investments. Few families live this way, otherwise we wouldn't have homes, cars,
or advanced degrees that require borrowing beyond our immediate means to pay.
The notion of a BBA is an artificial limitation that leaves gov't powerless to
respond to changing environment.
Please...."true principles" to those of us who are not LDS, those are
code words...what they actually mean no one has ever said. How about
@ Politicallyminded: Unfortunately none of the things you mentioned have
anything to do with a complex industrialized world that is flat - but not in the
way they would think of flat...and as for digitized...I am sure they would be
thinking of fingers...not encrypted information for computers to process...nor
did Washington conceive of war as fought by drones thousands of miles away with
soldiers sitting in armchairs possessing more accurate firepower than he
possessed at Valley Forge. And of course with France the only ally
we had in the Revolution and at the time of those words, still a monarchy, a
monarchy just like the one we had over thrown, I am sure the historical context
of his comments are just that...limited by his experience and the horizon of his
limited 18th century experiences. So you say he would not have approved of us
helping Britain and France in WW I or II and that NATO is forbidden by his
observation? Please!You delude yourself into making them more than
what they were. What about their protection of slave ownership and limiting
voting to those who possessed land?
I never stated that he would have disapproved of us helping during the World
Wars, that was quite a leap that you made. When it comes to his other warnings,
I stated that he warned us of excess political party spirit, which has created
an inability to compromise and make the right choices for our country. Can you
say that we do not have a political divisions in our country that were created
by excess party spirit? Do we not have individuals that vote party line for no
other reason then the fact that it is their party line? I also simply stated
that he warned us against excess debt; our debt has had an enormous impact on
our ability to function as a power on the world stage. We are facing a financial
crisis that has had a disastrous effects on us, yet you claim that Washington
basically had nothing to offer us. I am simply stating that you are wrong. He may not have had the ability to know about what kind of warfare,
technology, encryption, or even what kind of world would exist, but he DID know
what would cause us trouble, and it has.
"I am sure those of the Tea Party will interpret this to mean that we
should do what the Founding Father's wanted, but in a complex, industrialized,
digitized world that they would fail to understand, what does that
mean?"It means that the same aspects of human nature that the
Founders correctly diagnosed, and set out to keep their influence on government
in check, are (surprise!) still there. This Tea Partier doesn't
believe we should just mechanically "do what the Founders wanted."
However -- unless and until we change the Constitution, as there is occasionally
good cause to do when conditions warrant -- we are governed by laws consisting
of words that only have legitimate force because they express the consent, of
the people who enacted them, to be governed by laws that had a specific,
particular meaning. If that meaning can be discerned (and this is true more
often than not, if you're not actively trying to fudge), then you follow it.
Or, if enough of us decide that they really are out of date in an
industrialized, digitized, etc. society -- you change them.This
really is not that hard. Ambiguity is often the last refuge of a would-be
"And they've twisted the system so that they pay less in taxes than they
ever did less, even, than the poor do."And there's what we're
up against. Willful ignorance in low, but too widespread, places. The United States' tax code is more progressive than virtually any developed
country. That is, a larger share of this country's revenue comes from the rich,
than almost anywhere else.The poor pay no income taxes. The payroll
tax goes directly to fund their own retirement -- and doesn't even cover full
freight for that, with higher-income earners making up the difference. The poor
(and much of the lower middle class) pay virtually none of the federal
government's general costs. A disproportionate share of their spending is on
un- or lower-taxed goods (like food, rent, and utilities. The basic fact is
that because America lacks a VAT, lower-income Americans face a far lower tax
burden than do their counterparts in the supposed European and Canadian
socialist paradises. Now, you may think the rich can, or should,
pay more. But if you're going to make that case, please do try to make it based
on an occasional true fact.
Anti Bush-Obama 3:22 p.m.:Have you even read the Communist
Manifesto, or are you just repeating what some radio jock told you? You keep
saying that "liberals" keep trying to quote it and pass it off as the
Constitution. Do you have any evidence of that?
"The only way out of this mess is a balanced approach. Yes, we need to
reduce our debt. But we can't just pull $1 trillion out of the economy in one
fatal fit of knee-jerk conservatism."Agreed. Which is why
conservatives have proposed to pull the unsustainable spending out of the
economy gradually -- rather than waiting for the bond markets to it out all at
once. Which is what will inevitably happen, if we follow the Democratic
approach of making token cuts and raising taxes on only a handful of unpopular
people."We need to raise taxes substantially and cut
expenditures judiciously."To paraphrase Bill Clinton,
"it's the spending, stupid." Spending has increased *a lot* more than
taxes have decreased. You need to clarify
"substantially." You'd have to near double income taxes --
*everybody's* income taxes, not just taxes on The Rich(TM), to fix things. Got
an extra thousand bucks lying around at the end of each month? Me neither. We can't tax ourselves out of this one. Math is math (hard though it
may be to Malibu Barbie, and to the average Democratic senator). And calling
Tea Partiers names won't change that.
Interesting comments on this article. I never knew that following the
constitutional process to amend it or repeal and amendment was trampeling on the
Constitution and threatening to make it "hang by a thread". And,
thanks for the news that balanced budgets can't work today. Somehow states
manage just fine, but not the national government. I suppose it will be even
better now that we have an example of no budgets as the nation was governed
under the last two years of Ms. Pelosi. Incredible how this modern world
provides such valuable insights.Re: Darrel if you read the
discussion with regard to the selection of Senators at the convention, I think
you see the reason was not a distrust of the people, but the fact the Senate was
to represent the States, while the House represented the people. Certainly,
this was the purpose which Madison approved of this change to the document that
Anti Bush-Obama | 3:26 p.m. Sept. 6, 2011 Washington, DC LDSliberal.The 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments were only ratified
by 10 states which makes them void. ===================== Haha, hardy Har-Har!You don't the the Supreme Court would have
rolled over and missed something like that, not once...but 3 times? Pah-leez!Wait...Wait...Don't tell me, yet another
"Conspiracy"....right?Look - When you get back to reality,
let's have a discussion.I'm not about to dive into a debate with someone
who makes things up.BTW - You think lunatic fringe Republicans
trying to invalidate existing Constitutional Ammendments, are going to muster up
2/3 of Congress to accept their Balanced Budget, Definition of Marriage,
Definition of Immigration, and every other "problem" they see by
constantly changing and tweeking the U.S. Constitution rather than just passing
laws deemed "Constitutional"?I ask again....Who is
TRAMPLING the Constitution?
By legalizing slave labor, making it illegal for women to vote, and by leaving
us even more vulnerable to corporations? Please no.Also, what's
funny to watch is to see the tea party folks scream about following the
constitution. Only to see them insist on the continuation of tax subsidies, tax
breaks, and other costly handouts to their wealthy friends.
At least a couple of you understand what the 17th is about. Until it was
instituted the Senate was created to represent a State's interests and Senators
were picked by state legislatures. The House was created to represent the
People's interests and were elected directly by the people of their districts.
The Framers of the Constitution were smart enough to know that a direct election
of Senators would throw the balance of power out of whack. They meant for
States to have a say in how things are ran but with the acceptance of the
progressive 17th amendment the Senate was turned over to The People and each
state gained two more "Representatives". Small states and the people
that live in them lost any equality they had with large states and Senators
learned they could buy the people's votes just like the Representatives could.
All they had to do was go along with whatever spending was popular, even if it
was against their state's interests.
I suppose I would fit someone's definition of a Tea Party member since I don't
want the government to spend more than it takes in and I expect it to stay
within the confines of the Constitution as it was written. Since we are all
equal in this country I don't believe the rich should pay any more taxes than
the poorest man can afford to pay and I don't believe the Federal Government
should be attempting any social engineering by granting subsidies or tax breaks
to anyone. Rich or poor, black or white, are we not all equal?
"Also, what's funny to watch is to see the tea party folks scream about
following the constitution. Only to see them insist on the continuation of tax
subsidies, tax breaks, and other costly handouts to their wealthy
friends."Not a fan of subsidies, but as part of my continuing
project to educate liberals in the concept of logic -- can you please explain
what is inconsistent between "following the constitution" and having
deductions in the tax code?
Subsidies are not the same as duductions duckie, logic is based on knowledge.You are stealing my money and giving it to farmers because they can't
compete in the world market of farming. If they didn't mostly vote republican it
probably wouldn't bother me so much.Here's our conservative future:
No public schools, no post office, NO UNIONS!, the wealthy don't pay taxes, toll
roads everywhere, lots of hunger and sickness from poverty, a few jobs building
taller walls in those gated communities, no jobs with health insurance, 14 hr
work days 29 days a month, pay by the gallon water meters in your front yard
from a French private company, child labor, adults and thier children selling
gum in the street to foreign tourists and acidic dark air from people burning
trash to stay warm and no EPA to care. Oh it will be great. I can't wait so I'm
moving to Columbia without a penny to my name.
Those who tell tales of people starving if "some rich guy" isn't
forced to pay for their food, their medicine, their housing, their
transportation and their retirement are just story tellers. Chances are that
their jobs depend on that "rich guy" paying more than his share.
Chances are that WE pay their salary, even though they might claim that they
work for the "government", as if the government had money of it's own
to pay anyone!Prices are high because government protects us from
ourselves - in other words DuPont protects us from the dangers of Freon (that it
sold for almost three decades - until the patent ran out) by making another
Patent Protected type of Freon - all with the blessing of the regulatory
agencies.The Constitution, if followed, would prevent that.
Representatives would listen to the people. Senators would watch out for their
State. The President would execute all laws passed by Congress and the Court
would never have another 5:4 decision.Democrats would be thrown out.
Republicans would be thrown out. Politicians would be replaced by Statesmen.
"The United States' tax code is more progressive than virtually any
developed country. That is, a larger share of this country's revenue comes from
the rich, than almost anywhere else."And thank goodness for
that, Duck. "The farmer will see his government supported, his
children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the
contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent
from his earnings.--Thomas Jefferson 1811"Senators learned they
could buy the people's votes just like the Representatives could. All they had
to do was go along with whatever spending was popular, even if it was against
their state's interests."T-Jeff, you make it sound like it is
almost too bad that we (the people) have the vote at all. I mean, after all, if
we are so easily bought. . . But if your theory is correct, wouldn't
we vote in state representatives only if they would appoint senators that would
give us whatever spending was popular? And when you get right down
to it what is wrong with people expecting spending that is popular?
@Darrel:"Under the Constitution, the States are not enumerated
ANY rights, it in facts limits them. The closest they have to rights is what is
specified in the 10th Amendment."The rights of the federal
government are supposedly enumerated. All other rights not so enumerated are
Some people just don't get the concept of what the Constitution is. They think
that citizens can make demands on the government at any time for anything, and
because they are "the people" mentioned in "We, The People",
that the government MUST do what they demand.That is NOT correct.The Constitution limits the powers of government to those things
authorized when the Constitution was ratified and amended. NO PERSON, nor group
of people can demand that the government do anything that is not explicitly
allowed by the Constitution. If the government did ANYTHING not allowed, it
would be in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. If the people asked the
government to do something that is against the Supreme Law of the Land, they
would be asking the government to break the law.The President signed
into law legislation clearly in violation to the enumerated duties listed in the
Constitution when he signed the Health Care Act. Those members of Congress who
voted for it clearly violated the limits placed on them. Those citizens who
demanded it encouraged lawlessness. Fortunately, 59% of the people told Mr.
Obama to NOT sign the Act. He didn't listen.
Well Richards, your interpretation of the Constitution remains wrong. It is a
theory you (and others) have, that's for sure, but, obviously wrong. But don't take my word for it. It's right there in the Constitution. Article 3
Section 1 to be precise.
We have been easily bought, Mark. At least until some fiscally responsible
people recently got together when the government bailed out a bunch of bankers
with the taxes our children will be paying for years and said "No
more!".We would vote for local legislators based on local
issues. Who they would vote into the Senate would be a secondary issue. If we
are going to directly elect them then why have a Senate at all? The Presidents
of late are avoiding the "advise and consent" clause by filling any
controversial vacancies when the Senate is in recess anyway. The Senate has
become a potted plant that takes up space and sucks up oxygen. Just eliminate
them. For that matter, this President has even conducted war without even
bothering to notify Congress and Congress did nothing about it. Congress is
worthless and the Constitution is meaningless. Maybe we should quit pretending
it means something and just dump it all and appoint a king every few years. For
you, it's just a popularity contest anyway. As for your Article 3
comment, I suppose you think the Court can do no wrong and was correct in its
Dred Scott decision?
Wow T-Jeff, for me it's just a popularity contest eh? And you are basing that
opinion on exactly what? Not that it's any of your business, but I have a fine
history of voting for candidates that do not win. Hardly do I base my vote on
who is "popular". I wonder if you can say as much. From your comment about how easily we are bought out, can I assume you would
be comfortable with removing the vote from the people? You have a low opinion of
the constitutionally based government. It sounds like you would much prefer to
have the decisions of who leads us made by our "betters". As far as people voting for local politicians based on local issues: why
would you assume this? Do you not think people are sophisticated enough to
recognize that their local politicians would be determining their senator? If it
is about who can buy the voters with the most, as you believe, well . . .My comment on scotus had nothing to do with if I agree with their
decisions, but, rather, the fact that they have the final say on
constitutionality. And guess what? I win.