Third Party & Independents: Archives

Call me a cranky libertarian conservative, but just once I would like to hear a candidate for president answer a question by saying, “Sorry, the Constitution limits the role of the federal government — the issue you’re asking about is one for the states or the private sector, not Washington.”

We hear a good answer, the average voter hears “this guy doesn’t care about my problems!”

I could not agree more. The first question in any policy discussion should not be how we should do something, but whether we should be doing it at all.

In my fiscally conservative heart, I want to believe that Republicans want to hold the line but are terrified to be portrayed as nasty old meanies who want to starve widows, orphans, and people on fixed incomes.

So Democrats say we need to increase spending by one hundred gazillion dollars for education at the federal level. Instead of asking why we should spend any more at all, Republicans demand we only spend fifty gazillion. Democrats then accuse Republicans of slashing funds to education.

And the band plays on.

Actually, this is exactly what the Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik has been saying for months, except the big media has a blackout on the guy and wouldn’t even mention him getting arrested for crossing police lines at the debate:

http://badnarik.org/newsfromthetrail.php?p=1390

Truly scary times we live in when the media is in the pockets of the Republicans and Democrats.

Awesome! I have been saying this kind of stuff on this board for months, and the usual response is something like “Well the constitution is designed to further the people’s welfare. Since “insert huge government program” is for the people’s welfare, it must be constitutional.”

With the ridiculous expansion of the commerce clause and the government’s spending/taxing power there is absolutely nothing our national goverment cant and wont do. The limitations on the powers of the federal goverments spelled out by our framers have been amended without the process by politicians eager to please voters and judges too cowardly to say STOP. From social security to the department of education to funding for medical research- these things are outside the scope of the national government’s power under the constitution- and yet, because people like these programs, they refuse to talk about how our constitution has been torn to shreads. Shame on them.

Great point. I think Bush should debate Nader on prime time tv to thrash out some of the issues Nader has brought up recently.

Call me a cranky libertarian conservative, but just once I would like to hear a candidate for president answer a question by saying, “Sorry, the Constitution limits the role of the federal government — the issue you’re asking about is one for the states or the private sector, not Washington.”

I swear I heard Kerry say that about Bush’s gay marriage amendment. And wasn’t VP Gore saying that in 2000 when the the GOP had the US Supreme Court overrule the Florida State Supreme Court?

I didn’t hear Kerry mention that, though I did hear him drag Cheney’s daughter into the fray (and hasn’t apologized for it yet). Though I do disagree with the amendment personally.

As for the US Supreme Court, they did what they were suppose to do, uphold a section of the constitution that the Florida Supreme Court violated with their ruling.

Ironicaly the same clause that Bush is trying to override with the Marriage amendment.

Strike that last part, I was thinking wrongly. It isn’t the same part, the Marriage Act attempts to override the state’s must approve each other’s legal agreements part, the Supreme Court was protecting the 14th amendment.

While I agree local government may be able to do a better job, I was reminded of a conversation I had a few years back with a black friend who grew up in Texas in the 40’s and 50’s

Segregation created the condition that blacks were subjugated to schools without books, without teachers and sometimes without classrooms.

The involvement of the federal government in ecucation has increased the literacy rate in America to the 97th and 98 th percentiles. If education is so messed up, how come more people read now than ever before?

I’m not saying the federal gov’t has all the answers or is the best answer, but is this view based on reality?

wow. GREAT post, kudos to the author (one of the first truly independent articles in this section in awhile).

The problem is, as long as George W. Bush can get votes by promising to ammend the Constitution on an issue that should be the realm of the states, and as long as Kerry can get votes by promising federal tax dollars to localized special interest programs, we won’t have an honest discussion about what the role of the federal government SHOULD be. As sad as it is to say, what politician in modern America would approach the issue of federal over-reach responsibly and honestly when they can get more votes by promising rainbows and moral certitude on issues that were never meant to be the purview of the federal government?

…and just to add another comment, they shouldn’t be saying “I can fix it” OR “My opponent can’t”, as was pointed out by Jacoby (tho I loathe him, being from Boston ^^), the HONEST, Constitutional answer is that this is simply not within the realm of power granted by the Constitution. But again, how many votes is that decent, honest answer going to gain in modern America? None. Period.

I didn’t hear Kerry mention that

Here’s Kerry’s statement from the last debate, Rhinehold.

Now, with respect to DOMA and the marriage laws, the states have always been able to manage those laws. And they’re proving today, every state, that they can manage them adequately.

As for the 14th amendment, that was such a crock. It’s pretty clear that it was the US Supreme Court that violated article 2 of the Constitution by overriding the state’s authority to choose electors.

It’s really not the federal government’s business to interfere in how the states count their votes. That’s a state problem that should have been settled by the state.

I don’t want to refight 2000, but seems odd you’d write a pro-states rights article, then defend a pretty flagrent violation of them by the federal government.

I would like to point out that sadly, but not surprisingly, not one person has actually come to the defense of the flagrant unconstitutional powers the federal government has tacitly assumed over the last 70 years. This is typical of today’s political discourse- the two major parties have decide to make this a non-issue, so these real intellect and structural concerns can just be ignored by people- who can look at our arguments as curiosities of crazy libertarians who actually believe the constitutional limits mean something. So lets get back to debating who can spend more money on federal education programs, which are nowhere authorized by the constitution. Or, we can talk about which kind of Stem Cell research should be funded by the federal government (embryo or adult), not pointing where the governments get authority to be doing that kind of stuff in the first place. Or, we can argue about who can fix social security, without noting that the federal government has no authority to set up a retirement system… I can go on, but I think everyone gets my point and will now proceed to ignore it.

Read the ScrappleFace.com about Bush REINTRODUCING THE DRAFT.

A witty and thoughtful site.

Kerry implies that the draft might be necessary. Bush says there will be no draft while he is president.

AP

Sorry, but you didn’t get the point of the essay at all I’m afraid. I am not ‘stumping for states rights’, I am arguing that the constitution needs to be upheld as the law of the land. All of it.

One of the amendments to the constitution is the 14th amendment that dictates that all people must be treated equally under the laws in place. This is a good and proper rule of law, one I support wholeheartedly as I’m sure you do to.

There is no where in the constitution that the federal government has any say in how the states choose their government officials, including the electoral college. As far as the federal government is concerned, they can be appointed (which nearly happened in 2000 in Florida, remember).

However, the federal government is required to uphold the 14th amendment, and did so when it was violated by the Florida Supreme Court in the 2000 election.

If the Florida Supreme Court had decided to recount the votes and when counting to only count black votes as 1/2 a vote instead of a whole vote, you would (rightfully so) be one of the first screaming for the US Supreme Court to step in. Yet you say that they have no right to stick their nose in how Florida counts its votes. It most certainly DOES when it causes one vote to be counted while another identical vote to not be counted, which is what was going on. They were attempting to discren ‘intent’, had differing standards depending on the time of day or who was counting on what a legitimate vote was, and only a handful of counties were selected to have these votes count, making the ones from other counties not count even though they may have been identical.

It was a FARCE that Al Gore should never have started.

I also don’t want to get into a fight with you on the election, mainly because if you believe what you are stating you believe that there is little rational discourse with you. The facts are the facts and the constant whining I hear from the left on the issue nauseates me to no end. No only do their unacceptance of the rule of law cause division in the country on an unprecidented scale, but it also causes other countries who may not know the whole story or understand the politics behind it, to look down on the US and it’s leader when we should be presenting to the world a united front in the simplest things as electing our president. Something even Richard Nixon could understand, yet Al Gore couldn’t.

2 other states had smaller margins of victory, but because Bush lost them he didn’t contest. Al Gore attempted to skirt the laws in place because he felt that he could manipulate the vote and come out the winner of the election. The Florida Supreme Court in a misguided attempt at ‘fair play’ ignored the realities of the 14th amendment and the US Supreme Court, as it is required to do, stopped them from doing so, protecting the equality of the votes that were cast.

We also know that the recounts asked for would have resulted in a larger Bush victory, so that attempt to say he wasn’t elected is a tantrum of a spoiled child who did not get his way.

That’s your answer? It sounds like you’re letting your hatred of the left get in the way of your support for the Constitution.

How do you figure? The US Supreme Court upheld the constitution as it should have. A applaud it. How is that ‘getting in the way of my support for it’?

I used to be a fan of Mr. Spock on Star Trek, but it always annoyed me when he would say something like “impact in 6.5 seconds.” Such precision is impossible in any practical sense and it is illogical to pretend otherwise. Elections are practical events. There is no way to measure the metaphysical will of the people or know the intent of every voter. We have a ballot. That’s it. If it can’t be interpreted expeditiously to the satisfaction of a reasonable person, it must be discarded. The challenge is to judge all ballots by the same standard. Presumably, stupidity is normally distributed, so comparable numbers on all sides will spoil their ballots. We can’t be more precise than the underlying data will allow.

If result was really in such dispute In Florida, the Constitutional thing would be to for that state to send in no results and throw the election into the House of Representatives, where each state would have one vote. Bush would have won this too.

The Gore team knew this. That is why they threw the 2000 election issue into the courts. They wanted to recount until they won. The usual way you get hanging chad or a dimpled chad is when someone tries to push through two or more ballots at the same time. You may not want to count every ballot when you have potential voter fraud and you certainly don’t want to count and recount until you have enough of them.

How do you figure? The US Supreme Court upheld the constitution as it should have. A applaud it. How is that ‘getting in the way of my support for it’?

The US Supreme Court violated article 2 of the Constitution by interfering in the way the state chose its electors.

As far as the federal government is concerned, each state’s electoral process should be a black box. If there’s a problem, then the state’s legal and legislative system should sort it out.

Article. II. Section. 1. Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

No, AP. The Supreme Court did not violate Article II Section 1 Clause 2 in any way.

If the choosing of an electoral college elector violates the constitutional rights of the citizens of the state, that is unconstitutional.

Let’s try again in a way that you will agree with. Let’s say that Florida has in law that electors are determined by everyone having a single vote as they are now. However, when the voting is over and they are starting to count, Cathrine Harris had decided that they were only going to count Black votes as 1/2 and Latino votes as 2/3 of a vote. This is unconstitutional. According to you, Florida would be within it’s rights to do this since they are the ones who are responsible for how they choose their electors, but they can not do so in a way that violates the 14th amendment.

I’m really not sure why this is so hard to understand, the US Constitution is the law of the land and it is pretty clear that people have to be treated equally under the law.

According to you, Florida would be within it’s rights to do this since they are the ones who are responsible for how they choose their electors

Absolutely. And if the residents of Florida don’t like it, they can take legal action through the state court system to send Harris to jail, and then proceed to have the votes counted “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”

Knowing that the individual states were really prickly about their rights when the Constitution was written, I’m pretty sure that’s how the founding fathers interpreted it.

Excellent post, Rhinehold. I don’t often agree with your responses to other people’s posts, but you were dead-on with this one.

Rhinehold
“Will anyone hear it?”
- Nope! The sheeple will keep voting away their Constitutional rights so that they can keep getting their freebies and false promises.

Great post!