It looks like the general terms of the political debate between Left and Right are framed for the foreseeable future. We on the Right will argue the current administration’s policies are reckless on several counts; fiscal irresponsibility chief among them. The Left will slander us as racists, homophobes, xenophobes, misogynists, Islamaphobes, and whatever else they can pull out of their Politically Correct handbook of imagined horrors.
As one small example of what to expect, take the comment left on my March 26 posting by someone named Richard. At first I couldn’t figure out where he saw ‘bitterness’ and ‘anger’ in my writing style. ‘Sarcasm’ maybe - but ‘bitterness’ and ‘anger’? I have determined to be entertaining in this project (at least for those of you who share my sarcastic sense of humor). ‘Bitterness’ and ‘anger’ would never serve that goal. Then I started drafting this post, and ... I got it – I understood Richard. Poor, poor, Richard. His reasoning seems to be: LibertyAtStake opposes the policies of a president who happens to be black (well, half black, to be precise); therefore LibertyAtStake is a hate filled racist. The pathetically fallacious reasoning identifies Richard as a person in desperate need of public assistance designed for low IQ individuals.
I couldn’t explore this topic any better than Mark Davis does in this Dallas Morning News opinion piece - The dubious logic linking Tea Parties to racism.
The truth, of course, is the Left has launched this coordinated mass slander campaign because they are panicked by fear of the growing power of the T.E.A. Party message. And slander is the only card they have left, because they know they will lose on the merits of the arguments the T.E.A. Party patriots bring up – e.g. fiscal irresponsibility, government overreach, respect (or lack thereof) for the Constitution. The fun part is the T.E.A. Party Express is even now bearing down on them; and their panic should only mount as the climactic day of April 15 nears.
So, with apologies to renowned hippie and accomplished songwriter Neil Young, and also The Daily Caller’s Anchorman, I have adapted and modified certain famous song lyrics to stoke the fear now already growing in Progressive hearts.
“Ms. Palin and pitchforks coming,
We’re finally on the march.
This summer I hear the drumming,
No-vemb-er TEA Par-ty.”
===
The really good thing about the Left pursuing its unhinged slanderous narrative is the Left will be self-disqualifying itself from participation in the substantive public debate. IOW – the only discussion that matters now is between the right and the center. This discussion is coalescing around a realistic action plan that has two prongs:
Legislative Prong
1. Win back the House of Representatives in November 2010.
2. Use the power of the Appropriations Committee (“power of the purse”) to deny funding to newly created ObamaCare bureaucracies, or any of the many other abuses perpetrated by the Progressives in this session. (My personal favorite: The ‘If It Says Czar in the Job Title, It Is an Unpaid Volunteer Position’ Act of 2011.)
3. In November 2012 elect a president who respects the limits of the Constitution and/or a veto proof 2/3 congressional majority that also respects the limits of the Constitution.
4. Completely repeal ObamaCare in 2013. Begin governing the country within the limited government framework established by the Constitution, in 2013.
Constitutional Prong
1. Challenge the constitutionality of the ObamaCare individual mandate in federal court. This Washington Times article provides a balanced report of the current status.
2. Dust off the 10th Amendment, and pass ‘Nullification’ laws in individual state legislatures. The Tenth Amendment Center is leading the charge.
There has also been some lively, patriotically motivated, discussion of possible Constitutional amendments. Since there are now 27 Amendments, the proposals are usually framed as the “28th Amendment.” Search the Internet for “28th Amendment” and you can perform your own comprehensive review. Some of the proposals include prohibiting individual purchase mandates (surprise, surprise); and old chestnuts like term limits, and balanced budget dictates.
What surprises me is the lack of serious talk about calling a Constitutional Convention. This seems to me to be an egregious lack of imagination. Really – let’s think outside the box for a minute, people. The Founding Fathers, in their infinitely amazing brilliance, gave us a methodical and organized process for periodically refreshing the relevance of the Constitution. It’s called Article V:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
“…or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States…”
If I’m reading the public mood accurately, getting 34 state legislatures on board to convene a meeting on the subject of Constitutional amendments is not so far-fetched. I could see it being pulled together in a year’s time, or less. Maybe some enterprising state-level professional politician could start a Facebook page, or something.
I’m thinking about making my next post a careful examination of amendment proposals that could be introduced and debated in such a convention.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
These ideas are brilliant, even if they should be obvious. Thanks, L.A.S., this has been a very encouraging post for me. I like the idea of a constitutional convention. I posted the nullification act on my blog, I was that impressed with it. And I look forward to your post on constitutional amendments to consider.
ReplyDeleteNow, I've thought of another firewall idea to get rid of Obamacare. If, after the 2012 elections, we have a conservative congress and a conservative president, but in the Senate we can't stop the Dems from filibustering a repeal bill, then we could maybe starve the bill out of existence. What I mean is, the new Conservative President could openly encourage the States to pass Nullification acts, and refuse to enforce Obamacare.
By the way, I've got an amendment I've been thinking about for several years. I'd like to bounce it off your head, see what you think about it.
ReplyDelete"The Revenue Amendment."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Section 1.
The United States government shall raise revenue by requiring from each state a given percentage of its total revenue. This given percentage of state revenue shall be fifteen percent the first year after the adoption of this article. Following this, congress shall each year set the percentage for that year, but under the following provisions:
The percentage level may never exceed twenty percent, unless two-thirds of the legislatures with their governors give consent, which consent shall only be effective for the duration of the year before it is again required;
The percentage level may never be raised without two-thirds vote from congress, including the first year of the adoption of this article;
No parliamentary maneuvers, including the filibuster, may be used in either house to block a majority of that house from lowering the percentage level;
The percentage level may only be set in increments of one tenth of a percent.
Section 2.
The total revenue of each state shall not include money refunded to the people or other taxed entities thereof, provided that the refund is proportionately equal to each taxed person and entity.
Section 3.
All other means of raising revenue, including taxation, tariffs, fees, and fines, are hereby prohibited to the United States government.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What this amendment means: all federal taxation will cease. No more IRS, no more withheld income on our paychecks. Taxation will only occur at the state and local levels. The federal government will collect its revenue by requiring a percentage of each state’s revenue. Now, of course, state taxes will go up to compensate, so theoretically on paper this does not change tax levels – but in practice it does. Taxation is controlled at the state level: the levels and methods. And the level of competition between states to be friendly to business (and individuals) is suddenly heightened. We already see people leaving places like New York and California and moving to Florida and Texas, due mostly to oppressive tax policies in the former states. The effects of this will increase drastically, forcing state run by progressive statists to catch up with reality and lower their taxes.
It is said that congress has the purse strings… they can starve something by refusing to fund it. Well, they sure have done a lousy job there. This amendment would put some of that “purse string power” into the hands of the states. If a state government decided to collect only ten billion dollars in a given year (and refund the excess to its people), and the tax percentage of that year was twenty percent, the federal government would only collect two billion from that state, leaving the state to work with an eight billion dollar budget.
Perhaps the numbers of fifteen and twenty for percentage levels in the proposed amendment are inappropriately low or high; if so they can be altered before the amendment is submitted; the main thing to note is the principle of the amendment.
Consider the Revenue Amendment submitted for general consideration.
ReplyDeleteThanks! Glad to know it catches your interest. And feel free to modify it however you see fit, or come up with one yourself that borrows ideas from here; Whatever the form, I think that the basic idea of Federal revenue coming entirely from state revenue is worthy of discussion. I think it has some advantages over the "Fair Tax" (which is itself also a good plan, I think).
ReplyDelete