"...the Vice-President is shopping a draft plan to pay $9,000 per child of taxpayer dollars to families of married parents where the wife stays home..."These people aren't simply pushing economic and social policies to help young families - economic policies are just the most effective means of coming up with schemes for duping We The People into enabling them to do what they want to do, to us, while calling it 'Conservative'.
But what's it conserving?
 |
| Pro-Regressive T.R./Wilson 'Conservatives'! |
Government that isn't limited to upholding and defending the individual rights, property, and lives of its people from enemies foreign and domestic (See Article 1, Section 8), can only expand what they do care about - government power and grift - by reducing the scope of the American citizen's individual rights, property, and lives, and they are more than willing to sacrifice what is rightfully yours, to satisfy their lust for power and prestige.
Those who support these measures while calling themselves 'Conservative', are clearly not seeking to conserve the American Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and that understanding which made them possible. So again: what are they trying to conserve?
 |
| This is what should be conserved! |
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.", and years later as President, he said in his Veto Message of March 3, 1817,
"...I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated. The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation within the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States..."Neither do these 'Conservatives' of today, want anything to do with conserving what Thomas Jefferson understood about the purpose of government under our constitution, as he too warned that:
"It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights... Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power... Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:388 "Neither does it appear that today's 'conservatives' would want anything to do with conserving what President Franklin Pierce understood to be the purpose and scope of our system of government, as he said after vetoing an appropriation to assist the mentally ill,
"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity," adding, "To approve such spending would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."The same goes for President Grover Cleveland, who famously vetoed numerous spending bills, while similarly saying,
"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."Today's 'Conservatives' truly do not want to conserve what originally made our form of government, really and truly a uniquely American one. What they do want to conserve, is what began to emerge a century after our Declaration of Independence was signed, and our Constitution was written and ratified, when, even though Article 1, Section 8, of our Constitution remained the same, those who desired to use government power to 'do good!' for 'the common good!', felt hampered by the understanding of those documents, and as I noted back in 2010, they wanted "change!". The first chip in the integrity of our Constitution, came, tellingly, in the same type of infrastructure bill that James Madison vetoed nearly a century earlier:
"...Something had changed, and Wilson was the first (to Teddy Roosevelt's frustration) to be able to truly capitalize upon it. This breach in understanding is clearly visible in how the Federal Road program had come to be, in view of an earlier SCOTUS ruling:This is the ugly falsehood of 'Progress' that today's 'Conservative' wants to conserve, holding that term up as a figleaf to cover their desire to regress society back to that point in the past - before The United States of America - when government's powers were not limited, and when those in power could do as they willed to do to their own people, for the 'common good'. These people are 'T.R./Wilson Conservatives', and they are seeking to conserve and call 'progress', the same bi-partisan assault that Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson launched against the original American understanding of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", just over a century ago."In the 1907 case Wilson v. Shaw, the U.S. Supreme Court officially gave Congress the power "to construct interstate highways" under its constitutional right to regulate interstate commerce."The SCOTUS 'gave' congress the power? Which Article of the constitution do you find that in? But that is the typical top-down view of pro-regressivism (and what lawyer and judge doesn't see themselves as being at the top?). In the SCOTUS decision which opened the way for these bills, Justice Brewer admiringly references a previous case favoring railroads, that asserted,"It cannot at the present day be doubted that Congress, under the power to regulate commerce among the several states as well as to provide for postal accommodations and military exigencies, had authority to pass these laws."Cannot be doubted? How is it that James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, not only doubted that congress had such power, but clearly expressed those reasons for them in his veto of just such a bill under the same guise? Something changed... what was it?"
It was that Pro-Regressive attitude that Calvin Coolidge was calling out in his speech on the Inspiration of the Declaration of Independence, as:
"...About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers..."These 'T.R./Wilson Conservatives' will cheer on whatever 'benefit' seems likely to lure the unwary into further eroding the Constitutional protections for our inalienable rights, in hopes of fully transforming the Rule of Law, into a Rule of Rules, and they intend to be the ones with the power to make up the rules that you will have to live by.
Don't fall for it. Again.
No comments:
Post a Comment