Support limited gov’t, individual freedom
Published: September 17, 2009
The focus of our Founding Fathers was to establish a government of limited power, allowing the maximum in personal freedom. James Madison’s statement, “The essence of government is power; and power, lodged as it must in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse” is so relevant today.
We have in this upcoming election the opportunity to reverse a tremendous increase in government power and decrease in personal freedom.
At the statewide level, we have three men who are staunch supporters of limited government and individual freedom. This slate consists of Bob McDonnell, Bill Bolling and Ken Cuccinelli, who are running for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general, respectively. Our incumbent congressman, Eric Cantor, has also demonstrated his adherence to the above noted principles of government.
We Virginians vigorously need to support the above candidates at the polls in November as a first step in the process of returning our nation, state and county to the principles intended by the heroic founders of this great country.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
WayneS, although I respect your right to hold your opinions and write them, I disagree with them. In my view, every law that Congress enacts is presumed to be constitutional. If in your opinion it is not constitutional, it is you who must challenge it and prove to the federal courts your point of view. That is our constitutional system. Many people do it. It then becomes the burden of the federal courts – ultimately the US Supreme Court if necessary - to determine whether or not the challenged law is constitutional or not. You may disagree with their decision but that is irrelevant. Clearly, our founders set it up that way and did not leave it up to any individual to decide it. You say “Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding…” however you are absolutely wrong. Under our Constitution Supreme Court decisions have complete and the only standing. Until a law is passed you have the right and duty to argue as you will and do, but once a law is passed your opinion does not matter. Your only option is to bring suit and to let the federal courts decide the question.
Opa: My belated response (I have been out of action for a few days).
I think you are approaching the whole “government power” issue from the wrong side. I (and the guy who wrote most of our Constitution) see the “general welfare” clause as being restrictive, NOT expansive.
It was the intent of our founding fathers to limit the powers of the federal government, not to expand them or to put in to place mechanisms by which said powers could be expanded uncontrollably. Thus, it should be YOU, and other people who WANT the government to control our lives, who explain and justify to ME the constitutionality of speending federal tax dollars to fund such things as the NEA, ACORN, federal welfare programs, farm subsidies, bank bailouts, bailouts of large corporations, affirmative action programs, medicaid, medicare, social security, etc. etc. etc. It is not I who should be asked to prove they are not constitutional.
I will ask that you confine your justifications and explanations, to the actual, original intent of the Constitution, to the extent it can be determined by those who wrote and ratified it. To aid you in that effort, and help get you started, I hereby offer a couple of quotes from James Madison, the primary author of the document:
“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 also,
“With respect to the words “general welfare,“ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
Mr. Madison obviously intended for the promotion of the “general wlefare” to be that which would be allowed under the specific powers, and only those specific powers, granted the government by the people in the Constitution itself. Totalitarian/expansionist Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding, a fair portion of the activities currently being undertaken by the federal government are not theirs to undertake; the power to address, or not address, such issues lies with the states, or the people.
I do not pretend that the reality of our current situation does not exist, but I am free to lament the vast and unhealthy expansion of its powers our federal government has brought about. And I am free to fight any further expansion with every fiber of my being.
eyesis..Since I was on aprevious page my last remark was referring to payment of taxes on illegals. Just clarifying
Good question, eyesis but I’ll bet my last nickel you never get a straight answer.
en pointe is actually a ballet term to describe on toe.
Brewer, OK. But I for one do not understand your point. Anybody can argue anything. I believe the point is the validity of the argument. “Silent prayer came up as two people mention separation of church and state, (me) being one of them.” I do not understand that comment or its relevance. I know of no reason why any student can’t sit down at the lunch table and say out-loud any prayer her/she wishes. What makes you think otherwise?
Further, let a student sit down at the lunch table in the school cafetria and say his/her prayer out loud, and see how long that practice lasts.
I used to the word interpret vice misunderstanding on purpose, to see if people are reading.
Can you or I win an argument is not and never will be the point. The point is to make people think, and come to their own conclusion, point of view, after seeing several opposing views expressed.
Silent prayer came up as two people mention separation of church and state, you being one of them.
Brewer, I don’t believe anybody said you are “interpreting” anything. You may “argue” whatever you care to, but the important point is can you win that argument? Yes, silent prayer does equal religious freedom. But what has that to do with anything being addressed herein? There is no law that limits a student or others to silent prayer in school. No, freedom of speech incorporates silent thought and a whole lot more. But, I have no right to speak whatever is in my mind without exception to a captive audience. If you think freedom of speech means you can speak whatever you want, to whomever you want, whenever you want you are incorrect.
I am interpreting nothing. I merely said “it could therefore be argued”.
But to your point. Does silent prayer equal religious freedom?
Does freedom of speech equal silent thought only?
Advertisement