-Caveat Lector-
William Hugh Tunstall wrote (with snippage):
The Family Leave Act was an excellent idea.
Also, the Clinton administration attempt to get a national health
insurance program going.
MJ:
How is socialism compatible with a Nation founded upon LIBERTY,
FREEDOM and an individual's RIGHT to his OWN life? Can you cite
any Constitutional authority for this?
It is unfortunate that so many are SCARED of these ideals.
William Hugh Tunstall wrote (with snippage):
But perhaps President Clinton's greatest contribution during
the past eight years has been his willingness to insure that
some of the more draconian social measures of the Republican
party were not signed into law.
MJ:
Can you elaborate? I thought the Duopoly were pretty consistent
with one another -- you have the 'well to the left Ds AND the just
to the 'right' of them Rs (yet still 'well to the left').
Regard$,
--MJ
Our Unconstitutional Congress
by Walter E. Williams
Stephen Moore, director of fiscal studies at the Washington-based
Cato Institute, spoke at Hillsdale College. His comments were
published in Imprimus. Reading through his remarks, one can
safely conclude that today's Washington politicians, compared
to those of yesterday, are constitutional cowards and rogues.
In 1794, James Madison, disapproving a $15,000 appropriation for
French refugees said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on
that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress
of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their
constituents." That Congress should heed the Constitution was
forcefully restated two years later by Virginia's Congressman
William Giles when he condemned a disaster relief measure
saying it was neither the purpose nor the right of Congress
to "attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what
the Constitution and their duty require."
This kind of constitutional respect was also found in the White
House. In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill to help
the mentally ill, saying, "I cannot find any authority in the
Constitution for public charity. . . . [and 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." President Grover Cleveland
vetoed hundreds of congressional spending bills because, as he
often wrote, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation
in the Constitution."
The Constitution enumerates what Congress can do: establish Post
Offices, raise and support an army and navy, declare war and
conduct a few other activities related mostly to national defense.
To my knowledge, the Constitution has not been amended to
authorize Congress to spend money for farm subsidies, bailouts,
Social Security, welfare, not to mention midnight basketball
and tennis court and swimming pool construction.
Congress has found ingenious ways to subvert constitutional
limitations; one of them is the "interstate commerce clause."
In a recent case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Scalia
asked the Justice Department's Solicitor General to name a
single activity or program that our modern-day Congress might
undertake that would fall outside the bounds of the Constitution.
The stunned Clinton appointee could not think of any. The Framers
would cringe at that response.
The bottom line conclusion is that we have a corrupt Congress
and White House aided and abetted by a derelict Supreme Court.
While they do their mischief, we're being led down the road to
serfdom. But what can we do about it? There are drastic measures
suggested by people like Thomas Jefferson, who said, "Rebellion
to tyrants is obedience to God." Jefferson added that, "The tree
of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood
of patriots and tyrants."
However, before we even think about drastic measures, we have
to own up to the fact that politicians are a relatively small
part of the problem. After all what would we do, as voters, to
a congressman, like William Giles of yesteryear, who respected
the Constitution and condemned fire relief payments because
they exceeded congressional authority? What would we do to a
President who took Franklin Pierce's position that there's no
constitutional authority for public charity? We'd run them out
of town on a rail. Our kind of Congressman or President is the
person who "cares" and has the deepest contempt for constitution
limitations.
None of this means that we're going down the tubes as a great
nation right away. After all when the Titanic struck that
iceberg, everything was okay . . . for a while.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
