Just about the same time we became complacent about our duty to maintain political vigilance, which ramped up considerably right after the Civil War. The federal government threw the immigration gates open during the war to attract those who would fight for the Union in exchange for citizenship. Millions flooded in, and those gates weren't slammed shut until 1924. By then, the US had lost its northern and western-European cultural foundation and became as much southern and Eastern-European.
Don't think the federal government was an innocent bystander in this demographic--and power--shift. DC played a central role in consolidating power into the central government's grubby paws. The Founding Fathers had engineered the Constitution so as to fracture power and to keep it local. Their reasoning was that a balance of power among the various political institutions would promote oversight; and, keeping power local would keep it nearest to the citizenry who were expected to maintain constant vigilance.
At the time (late 18th c), western Europe was in the process of transitioning away from the traditional monarchy to the new Nation-State-form of political organization, with huge, and heavily-bureaucratized central governments. These were supported by income taxation, regular censuses to account for all able-bodied males, universal manhood conscription, standing armies, rigidly-defined and patrolled borders, and the regimentation and subordination of the individual to the state through inculcated nationalism and militarism. In return, the state granted universal manhood suffrage, conferred citizenship, and paid for universal primary education. For Europeans, it seemed like a fair exchange. Go figure.
But, our governmental architecture went contrary to this newfangled European trend. Our new Constitutional order made our country a weak, confederational republic, at best, with considerable oversight granted to the states; so, the turd in the punchbowl was...States' Rights. States' Rights was incredibly effective in keeping the federal govt. from growing from 1788-1861. Thus, if our government was to keep pace with western Europe, States' Rights had to go. The slavery issue became the key, since Southerners had long relied on States' Rights to justify slavery...all the interested 'BigGov' players had to do was to keep pushing the South till no other solution sufficed except war.
The Civil War was a convenient 'five-fer':
it solved the issue of slavery once and for all.
it destroyed the issue of States' Rights, because thereafter, no one could say the words states rights without being shellacked as a racist, thus introducing racial animosity.
it accustomed people to the notion of an income tax (which was first used during the war); and that Amazon River of cashflow is critical to the BigGov that relies on it to create more bureaucracies, to grow even bigger, and to control ever-greater chunks of our lives.
it taught the government a valuable lesson: if it wants to diminish civil rights, fomenting a war is the most convenient way to do it.
and finally, it taught the government that the best way to aggrandize its own size and power is to import a new, previously-unknown immigrant group to pit against--and destabilize--the established citizenry. Because these waves of newcomers are less and less likely each time to possess the language, culture and racial background of the previous arrivals, the government keeps the populace continually off-balance; and moreover, it allows elected officialdom to see themselves as the rulers of this chaotic, 3rd-world riffraff, rather than the public servants of the citizenry.
Interesting explanation. Care to elaborate on solutions to the current problem of gross gov't power and overreach and how to turn back the power to the people?
Sadly, the 'Overton Window' will only ever ratchet leftward, toward anarchy and dissolution; and, it does so inexorably, and for a reason. People become complacent, lazy, new generations don't read the owner's manual on civic responsibility, educational systems become insidious hotbeds of indoctrination and agitprop, new and ever-more exotic waves of immigrants are imported to corrupt the cultural reverence for civic virtue, and so forth.
Therefore, to answer your question: we can't restore the Framers' original intent, or at least, it's unlikely to happen. As I mentioned in my previous post, the federal government is an active conspirator in its own power-grab; it did this by turning States' Rights into the villain of the story when it became forever synonymous with, and irrevocably damaged by, its association with pro-slavery; and so, it's unrealistic to expect the federal government to ever voluntarily relinquish power that it's worked so hard to seize.
But, to make matters irreversible, Congress passed the 17th Amendment in 1911 (during the heyday of Progressivism) that called for the popular election of senators. Previously, senators were elected by state legislatures, which gave the states a considerable choke-hold on federal growth and power. Thus, one of the Founders' mechanisms for fracturing power had been neutered. And today, leftist mobocrats are undermining the last manifestation of state power by demanding the dissolution of the magnificent Electoral College, itself.
But, in reality, States' Rights was actually one of only 3 bulwarks against BigGov tyranny.
The second bulwark was the Supreme Court. BigGov fantasizers worked feverishly after the Civil War to ensure that the Supreme Court achieved and maintained a favorable 'loose interpretation' opinion on Progressive, collectivist and statist issues brought before the bench. In other words, activists wanted the SCOTUS to err on the side of granting, rather than withholding, power from Washington, DC.
Once again, the Civil War proved to be seemingly purpose-built, by providing the BigGov statists their justifications for the 'extreme measures' the Radical Republicans found 'necessary' for dealing with 'stubborn and intractable' ex-Confederates during Reconstruction; as well as providing a fig leaf of rationalization to the justices who ignored violations of Southerners' civil rights because of 'the temper of the times', or expediency, or some other self-serving horseshit.
And the third, and final, bulwark against BigGov tyranny is the American citizenry themselves who, literally armed with their Second Amendment, form the last line of defense when all else fails them. And, it looks like all else has been failing and falling like dominoes, since 1865. Teach your children the critical importance of political virtue; and never, under any circumstances, give up your guns.
Appropriate punishment would make constitutional overreach less attractive to all of them and cut the recidivism rate for the individual perpetrator to zero.
Yes, completely agree. It rages me out that people don't care that those who execute and administer our laws (that can ruin a citizen's life permanently) aren't subject to the harshest of penalties for abusing their power.
Thought experiment: Let's say you're working in the previous administration and Hillary and Valarie and Rod and James try to recruit you to assist in their little 'insurance package.'
Who do you tell? How do you stop it? The media was complicit, the IGs, the Speaker of the House, the neutered Senate, the AG, DNI, all of them were either inept, ignorant, or complicit. Tell the wrong person and you get 'metoo' through the media and your life wrecked over bullshit. Tell the 'even more wrong' person and you join the Clinton Body Count. So how could anyone stop it?
I think everyone that rode out the Steele Dossier deserves to die for their crimes. All of them, especially the participants in the Dept of Justice but I'd settle for purging the FBI. It starts with Lisa and Stronk but goes all the way to McCabe's wife.
Line them up, put them in front of a 105 Howitzer and fire for effect.
They swore an oath to the constitution and they have broken that oath. Should result in removal and a lifetime ineligibility for any other representative position.
Are you saying there is some context where it is OK to violate someones constitutional rights? You clearly dont understand how rights work. Nobody gives or takes those, they just are. The fact you consider rights open for debate shows you lack even basic understanding.
Violation of rights under color of law does not equal the natural limitations of natural rights to provide for the equal right of all others to exercise their equal rights. Your examples are stupid; is it on purpose?
I see the problem. You've made the unwarranted, unvalidated assumption that I am including in "violating Constitutional rights" the abridgement inherent in emergency orders, e.g. public health orders. That is, for sure, a place where context matters; that has its limits, and the governors (e.g. Whitmer/Cuomo/Newsome and NOT Noem) are fast running out of rope, because they have arrogated to themselves limitless authority to abridge citizens' rights on the basis of their feelings and fears. They have an obligation to the common weal that exists in tension with their obligation to not only refrain from infringing but to protect natural rights. When in doubt, any individual's personal interpretation of "common weal" is subordinate to natural rights. But, obviously, the People give their consent to limited infringement on their rights under certain circumstances (e.g., pandemic). If the governors overstep, they get push back; that's happening now. They could serve their states better by identifying explicit criteria and daily updates to those criteria, by which they would make decisions about extension, amendment, and termination of their public health orders. To the degree which their citizens understand and agree with those criteria, the governors will enjoy the authorizing inherent in the will of the people.
Now, back to the meme; I was specifically referring to the violations of Constitution rights comprised by illegal search and seizure, and violations of due process regarding the mandate to divulge all evidence, including exculpatory, perpetrated by members of our Federal law enforcement agencies and DoJ, in the course of the MYE and CFH investigations (mostly CROSSFIRE HURRICANE).
When did politicians become our rulers rather than our servants? Honest question
That is the complicated, fascinating, maddening question of American history.
Just about the same time we became complacent about our duty to maintain political vigilance, which ramped up considerably right after the Civil War. The federal government threw the immigration gates open during the war to attract those who would fight for the Union in exchange for citizenship. Millions flooded in, and those gates weren't slammed shut until 1924. By then, the US had lost its northern and western-European cultural foundation and became as much southern and Eastern-European.
Don't think the federal government was an innocent bystander in this demographic--and power--shift. DC played a central role in consolidating power into the central government's grubby paws. The Founding Fathers had engineered the Constitution so as to fracture power and to keep it local. Their reasoning was that a balance of power among the various political institutions would promote oversight; and, keeping power local would keep it nearest to the citizenry who were expected to maintain constant vigilance.
At the time (late 18th c), western Europe was in the process of transitioning away from the traditional monarchy to the new Nation-State-form of political organization, with huge, and heavily-bureaucratized central governments. These were supported by income taxation, regular censuses to account for all able-bodied males, universal manhood conscription, standing armies, rigidly-defined and patrolled borders, and the regimentation and subordination of the individual to the state through inculcated nationalism and militarism. In return, the state granted universal manhood suffrage, conferred citizenship, and paid for universal primary education. For Europeans, it seemed like a fair exchange. Go figure.
But, our governmental architecture went contrary to this newfangled European trend. Our new Constitutional order made our country a weak, confederational republic, at best, with considerable oversight granted to the states; so, the turd in the punchbowl was...States' Rights. States' Rights was incredibly effective in keeping the federal govt. from growing from 1788-1861. Thus, if our government was to keep pace with western Europe, States' Rights had to go. The slavery issue became the key, since Southerners had long relied on States' Rights to justify slavery...all the interested 'BigGov' players had to do was to keep pushing the South till no other solution sufficed except war.
The Civil War was a convenient 'five-fer':
it solved the issue of slavery once and for all.
it destroyed the issue of States' Rights, because thereafter, no one could say the words states rights without being shellacked as a racist, thus introducing racial animosity.
it accustomed people to the notion of an income tax (which was first used during the war); and that Amazon River of cashflow is critical to the BigGov that relies on it to create more bureaucracies, to grow even bigger, and to control ever-greater chunks of our lives.
it taught the government a valuable lesson: if it wants to diminish civil rights, fomenting a war is the most convenient way to do it.
and finally, it taught the government that the best way to aggrandize its own size and power is to import a new, previously-unknown immigrant group to pit against--and destabilize--the established citizenry. Because these waves of newcomers are less and less likely each time to possess the language, culture and racial background of the previous arrivals, the government keeps the populace continually off-balance; and moreover, it allows elected officialdom to see themselves as the rulers of this chaotic, 3rd-world riffraff, rather than the public servants of the citizenry.
Interesting explanation. Care to elaborate on solutions to the current problem of gross gov't power and overreach and how to turn back the power to the people?
Sadly, the 'Overton Window' will only ever ratchet leftward, toward anarchy and dissolution; and, it does so inexorably, and for a reason. People become complacent, lazy, new generations don't read the owner's manual on civic responsibility, educational systems become insidious hotbeds of indoctrination and agitprop, new and ever-more exotic waves of immigrants are imported to corrupt the cultural reverence for civic virtue, and so forth.
Therefore, to answer your question: we can't restore the Framers' original intent, or at least, it's unlikely to happen. As I mentioned in my previous post, the federal government is an active conspirator in its own power-grab; it did this by turning States' Rights into the villain of the story when it became forever synonymous with, and irrevocably damaged by, its association with pro-slavery; and so, it's unrealistic to expect the federal government to ever voluntarily relinquish power that it's worked so hard to seize.
But, to make matters irreversible, Congress passed the 17th Amendment in 1911 (during the heyday of Progressivism) that called for the popular election of senators. Previously, senators were elected by state legislatures, which gave the states a considerable choke-hold on federal growth and power. Thus, one of the Founders' mechanisms for fracturing power had been neutered. And today, leftist mobocrats are undermining the last manifestation of state power by demanding the dissolution of the magnificent Electoral College, itself.
But, in reality, States' Rights was actually one of only 3 bulwarks against BigGov tyranny.
The second bulwark was the Supreme Court. BigGov fantasizers worked feverishly after the Civil War to ensure that the Supreme Court achieved and maintained a favorable 'loose interpretation' opinion on Progressive, collectivist and statist issues brought before the bench. In other words, activists wanted the SCOTUS to err on the side of granting, rather than withholding, power from Washington, DC.
Once again, the Civil War proved to be seemingly purpose-built, by providing the BigGov statists their justifications for the 'extreme measures' the Radical Republicans found 'necessary' for dealing with 'stubborn and intractable' ex-Confederates during Reconstruction; as well as providing a fig leaf of rationalization to the justices who ignored violations of Southerners' civil rights because of 'the temper of the times', or expediency, or some other self-serving horseshit.
And the third, and final, bulwark against BigGov tyranny is the American citizenry themselves who, literally armed with their Second Amendment, form the last line of defense when all else fails them. And, it looks like all else has been failing and falling like dominoes, since 1865. Teach your children the critical importance of political virtue; and never, under any circumstances, give up your guns.
Is there an instance where the people have successfully done this? (Serious question, not being a smart ass.)
Since the punishments became wimpy.
Appropriate punishment would make constitutional overreach less attractive to all of them and cut the recidivism rate for the individual perpetrator to zero.
They have our best interests at heart though!
Now give them your guns you fucking BIGOT!!!!!
When we let them
Yes, completely agree. It rages me out that people don't care that those who execute and administer our laws (that can ruin a citizen's life permanently) aren't subject to the harshest of penalties for abusing their power.
We may be starting to care again. They hope not.
I believe the reward was supposed to be some length of rope ...
"Asking for a fren. Thx."
Obviously, but those in power tend not to punish themselves. So, we have to do it for them.
Same concept.
I find no such Red Blood Black Heart movement. We could use one.
Water the tree
Thought experiment: Let's say you're working in the previous administration and Hillary and Valarie and Rod and James try to recruit you to assist in their little 'insurance package.'
Who do you tell? How do you stop it? The media was complicit, the IGs, the Speaker of the House, the neutered Senate, the AG, DNI, all of them were either inept, ignorant, or complicit. Tell the wrong person and you get 'metoo' through the media and your life wrecked over bullshit. Tell the 'even more wrong' person and you join the Clinton Body Count. So how could anyone stop it?
I think everyone that rode out the Steele Dossier deserves to die for their crimes. All of them, especially the participants in the Dept of Justice but I'd settle for purging the FBI. It starts with Lisa and Stronk but goes all the way to McCabe's wife.
Line them up, put them in front of a 105 Howitzer and fire for effect.
Ask Mike Rogers.
The problem w/the 105 is identifying the dead. Gallows are better.
Section 242 of Title 18, it's punishable up to death.
Removal from office.
They swore an oath to the constitution and they have broken that oath. Should result in removal and a lifetime ineligibility for any other representative position.
Are you saying there is some context where it is OK to violate someones constitutional rights? You clearly dont understand how rights work. Nobody gives or takes those, they just are. The fact you consider rights open for debate shows you lack even basic understanding.
You waive rights when you break the law. It's up to the people to determine what laws are acceptable for their society.
Violation of rights under color of law does not equal the natural limitations of natural rights to provide for the equal right of all others to exercise their equal rights. Your examples are stupid; is it on purpose?
I see the problem. You've made the unwarranted, unvalidated assumption that I am including in "violating Constitutional rights" the abridgement inherent in emergency orders, e.g. public health orders. That is, for sure, a place where context matters; that has its limits, and the governors (e.g. Whitmer/Cuomo/Newsome and NOT Noem) are fast running out of rope, because they have arrogated to themselves limitless authority to abridge citizens' rights on the basis of their feelings and fears. They have an obligation to the common weal that exists in tension with their obligation to not only refrain from infringing but to protect natural rights. When in doubt, any individual's personal interpretation of "common weal" is subordinate to natural rights. But, obviously, the People give their consent to limited infringement on their rights under certain circumstances (e.g., pandemic). If the governors overstep, they get push back; that's happening now. They could serve their states better by identifying explicit criteria and daily updates to those criteria, by which they would make decisions about extension, amendment, and termination of their public health orders. To the degree which their citizens understand and agree with those criteria, the governors will enjoy the authorizing inherent in the will of the people.
Now, back to the meme; I was specifically referring to the violations of Constitution rights comprised by illegal search and seizure, and violations of due process regarding the mandate to divulge all evidence, including exculpatory, perpetrated by members of our Federal law enforcement agencies and DoJ, in the course of the MYE and CFH investigations (mostly CROSSFIRE HURRICANE).
I was right, you are clueless