If this is the case, then we need an Act of Congress to establish a strict definition of what "rich" is. I suggest that a "rich" individual is one who has an adjusted gross income equal to that of the unmarried Member of Congress having the lowest AGI. A "rich" couple would be a couple having an AGI equal to that of the married Member of Congress whose income, when added to that of with his/her spouse, has the lowest AGI. Then all Members of Congress would be "rich". Just a thought
Thankfully, there will probably be no vote on this mess before the August recess. That's something the House leadership was hoping to get through so that the members couldn't be influenced on the issue by their constituents when they got home. Write, call or fax your congressman NOW before the break. More importantly, find out when his/her office hours in his/her district will be during the break. Show up there...in groups if possible...and let him/her know that you've read at least part of the bill and that you don't like it. If you haven't read any of it yet, start with page 16 and decide if you'll really be able to keep your present plan if you like it. Then go to page 425 and find out about the required "counseling" and what it really means. Continue to about page 454. You might need some medical care when you seel what they have in mind for you once you hit 65 and what you can expect if you live beyond your average life expectancy. This plan really does smack of Soylent Green in places...you might just want to rent a copy of that movie too.
Would Thomas Jefferson be accused of making terroristic threats(?):
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Recall all of the threats, plays, books, and even some small films that fantasized about the assassination of George Bush. Some even called openly for it. Were they terroristic threats? Yet, the left delighted in them.
Sadly, this anger is going to grow. Live_free stated, perhaps in momentary anger, compelling and tragic potential and personal reasons that might drive someone over the edge. The fear should be that there are people out there who don't need that much.
B. In the long run we need a Constitutional Amendment that 1) imposes term limits - 12 years aggregate maximum in Congress and 2) ..and this is distasteful...publically funded Congressional and Presidential campaigns. The Founders thought that biennial elections would refresh the House on a regular basis(Senators were appointed by state legislatures). They never envisioned career politicians. Public funds for campaigning and making eligible any candidate who qualifies for the ballot will encourage qualified 3rd party people to run. Limiting camapign expenditures to those funds will eliminate the currupting influence of PACs, 527s, and the like. Further, the Amendment should require that ALL campaign workers be paid and paid with those funds. This will limit the influence of ACORN-like groups. Special interests could still run advocacy ads but not use those ads to endorse a candidate...there is already a similar clause in McCain Feingold. I could write an essay on this and it's perhaps needed to explain it fully but I hope I've done an adequate job of starting some thinking here.
A. Several good points here and in the replies below. The biggest reason independents have difficulty getting elected is (no big surprise) money. It takes money to get any message out and the dominant parties control the lion's share of it. In the short term we need to elect responsible people who are committed to the restoration and preservation of the Constitution. This won't be easy - it'll require considerable reformation in both of the parties. The Dems, being in power and with control over most of the media, will be content to stay their current course and blame everything on George Bush...look for them to continue blaming him for whatever the situation is next year. The best chance of a short term reform in either of the parties is with the GOP though any current office holder who voted for big spending and the limitation of liberties will have a hard time selling the point that he/she has seen the light. Still, the best chance is there and I would hope that the country will use the next election to put the proverbial Fear of God into any sitting office holder. For a list of those who need such treatment go to gradegov.com.
By refusing to review the Chrysler case, the Supreme Court has abdicated its position as the ultimate protector of the Constitution. The deal is patently unconstitutional, as are many of the things the government is now getting away with. I would urge anyone who has not done so to read The Federalist Papers. Eighteenth century grammar, usage, punctuation, and sentence structure can make them a challenge but it will be well worth the effort. The essays made the basic case that the federal government would never be able to accumulate inordinate power because the real power ultimately rested with the people and the states and, thus, would be prevented from doing so. A careful read of their reasoning and a comparison of it with what is now happening will show that the accumulation of power that Jay, Hamilton, and Madison said could not happen is indeed happening and precisely because the states and the people have had that "real power" taken from them. It was taken by a series of amendments and power grabs that have nullified the Federalist's arguments.
The man with the Electric Strawberry on his right shoulder has a point. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, our own government was locking up newspaper reporters and editors just for reporting things the feds found offensive and which they labeled seditious. Still, by the standards of the day, Sam Adams was certainly a seditious fellow. Xin Loi
The 17th Amendemst is also aproblem because, Senators no longer represent the states but rather national organizations (i.e., the political parties) and the interests that fund them with campaign money from all over the country. An example is Dodd in Connecticut. He's very unpopular there right now and can't raise any campaign money but has already collected something like $500,000 from interests outside thee state.
The largest impediment to this movement to reaffirm the 10th amendment is the way the SCOTUS has defined the federal govt's power to regulate commerce. The original intent of the commerce clause was to make commerce consistent (in the 18th century, to "regulate" was to "make consistent"). SCOTUS, in a 1942 ruling about a farmer raising wheat to make his own bread, declared that even though he had no intention of selling or trading the wheat, or introducing it into commerce in any way (inter- or intrastate), the very fact that he'd raised it effected commerce and so the govt could control it. The argument probably went something like: Well, if you raise your own wheat for flour, you won't be buying flour that WAS in the commercial sector thus effecting commerce by lowering demand. Most of the attempts to restore the 10th amendment deal with articles produced within a state that and are intended to stay there....so, no federal control should apply. Substitute "wheat or flour" for "article" in the previous sentence and you have the gist of the reason why the attempts are long shots.
Gee, and I wore my Gadsden Flag t-shirt. The country is getting downright Stalinist isn't it?!
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Medley