Balkinization  

Monday, October 10, 2016

Will the U.S. Survive the 2016 election (continued)?

Sandy Levinson

So, last night's "debate" featured one candidate saying that her opponent was not fit to be President, which is surely true, and the other indicating that he would, if elected, use all the power at his disposal to jail Secretary Clinton, who is actually a "devil."  So I continue to wonder what the concessions will look like on November 8.  Can Secretary Clinton really call on all of us to be good sports and rally round a sociopath who is indeed not remotely fit to be President?  That conclusion is now attested to by an ever increasing group of Republicans, some of whom took longer to reach this conclusion than others, but who have nonetheless reached it.  She said at the conclusion of the last debate that she would accept the voters' verdict, but one must truly ask why, if in fact it is the case, as it surely is, that he is a sociopath who should not be let within 100 yards of actually legal authority.  And, of course, no one--and I mean literally no one--believes that the sociopath could possibly gain even close to majority of the popular vote.  Any win continues to be dependent on our insane system established by the Framers in 1787 partly because of mistrust in ordinary Americans and at least as much to reward slaveowning states and otherwise removing any incentive for those elites controlling state government actually to let their citizens vote.

One might rely on supporters of Secretary Clinton to be at least supine, if not "good sports" in accepting a victory by the sociopath.  But that is surely not the case with that portion of the sociopath's constituency that is in fact thoroughly deplorable.  In a new book that I edited, just published by the University Press of Kansas, Nullification and Secession in Contemporary Constitutional Thought, Jared Goldstein of the Roger Williams School of Law has an absolutely superb essay analyzing the constitutional theories of various militia and similar movements, including that of the Bundys (the son of whom is currently on trial for occupying federal lands in Oregon).  Anyone reading his essay must realize, first and foremost, that members of these groups are absolutely serious in believing that they are devoted to the one true Constitution that has, in their view, been systematically violated by those actually running the contemporary United States.  And, unlike those on the left, they have guns that they see as essential tor existing an oppressive government.  The sociopath who claims to represent the Republican Party (and who, of course, received a record number of popular votes on his way to the nomination) is playing to far more than simply the "alt right" view of the United States.  He is giving aid and comfort to what might well be called "insurrectionism."  That is surely one of the meanings of his support for the Second Amendment, which the far right recognizes has precious little to do with individual "self-defense" and everything to do with mounting an uprising, similar to that of the America secession of 1776 (and, of course, the unsuccessful secession of 1861).  Even in the extraordinarily unlikely event that the sociopath emerges as a "good sport" and congratulates former Senator and Secretary Clinton on winning a well-run race, will the "deplorable" who continue to support Trump regardless of any evidence that might suggest his unfitness for office simply decide to wait for 2020?  Or will at least some of them be tempted to engage in guerrilla warfare against a government they view as illegitimate (and, of course, encouraged to do so by the tax-avoiding sociopath who proclaims that any money he might otherwise have ponied up would simply be wasted)?  Several years ago, a number of people, including some within the government, were so bold as to suggest that the principal terrorist threats to the US came from white Americans affiliated with the far right.  (Just think of Timothy McVeigh.)  That, of course, was not "politically correct," so those suggestions were modulated and all of our attention was focused by those who claim to be critics of "political correctness" on the threat coming from Muslims.  We may have the opportunity to test the empirical truth of these varying claims following the Trump defeat.

Two final points, for what they're worth.  First, we should resist responding to the sociopath's threat last night to make sure that Secretary Clinton would be jailed by proclaiming that this was absolutely unAmerican, that we decide our differences by ballots and not by jailing our opponents.  With respect, try telling that first to Eugene V. Debs and then to the various Communists who were jailed in the heyday of the Red Scare following World War II.  Debs remains the most significant American socialist leader in our history, and the response of the egregious Woodrow Wilson, backed by a unanimous decision written by Oliver Wendell Holmes (which never once mentioned Debs's name or gave any clue as to who he actually was), was to jail him for ten years.  The underrated Warren Harding pardoned him and invited him to the White House!  None of the various jailed Communists had the luster of Debs, but jailing them was surely not our finest hour.  What is different about last night is that a truly major party candidate was threatened with imprisonment by her sociopathic opponent.  We certainly shouldn't take that threat lightly in terms of revealing ever more about the sociopath's (and his supporters' ) conception of politics, but let us refrain from adopting a view of American exceptionalism that denies the reality of Debs and the Communists.

Secondly, the sociopath revealed his complete and utter ignorance of the way our constitutional system works (for better or worse) not only in his suggestion that as President he could assure the appointment of a special prosecutor who would be devoted to putting Secretary Clinton in jail, but also, and just as revealingly, by his repeated insistence that Sen. Clinton surely could have gotten rid of the carried interest provision of the tax code if she really wanted to.  She reminded him not only that her name was on 400 pieces of legislation, but also, more importantly that individual senators, whatever their ability, don't have magic wands that can assure that their desires are translated into public policy.  She noted, for example, that the Senate was Republican for 4-1/2 years of the time she was in the Senate; moreover, and just as importantly, the President, with his veto power, was also a Republican.  Only a completely ignorant person could believe that the failure of Sen. Clinton (or any other senator) to achieve all of her policy goals is evidence of her own failures of nerve.  But, of course, what is being projected is not only the Republican candidate's complete and utter ignorance of the basics of the American political system but also his inner authoritarian narcissism.  No doubt he does believe that if only he were president, then everyone would bend to his will--and we know from the tapes what that means for many women.

It does appear that we are likely to escape the catastrophe of a sociopathic president.  But, as I've suggested on previous occasions, that should not in the slightest truly reassure us that we have a healthy political (or constitutional) system and that the aftermath of the election won't simply be continued gridlock (unless, of course, the Republican Party is truly destroyed, as they deserve to be, by a wave election that gives Democrats both the House and the Senate as well), but also violence by would-be constitutional "patriots" who reject in toto the legitimacy of the American national government.  Indeed, the breaking of gridlock via a two-year period of disciplined Democratic hegemony in Congress, assuming that in fact is possible given fractures within the Democratic Party itself, might well be to encourage insurrections by those who take seriously the claims by Rudy Giuliani, some ostensible Evangelical leaders, and others that this is literally the last opportunity to stop America's fatal decline.

As always, I am allowing comments.  But, as is frequently the case, I'm not in the least interested in whether you share my views of the Republican candidate or his opponent (or, indeed, the likelihood of the electoral outcome next month).  The one and only thing I'm interested in reading comments about is whether you find it truly over-the-top to suggest the empirical consequences of a Clinton victory, especially if brings Congress in its wake, for at least some significant (and armed) portion of the sociopath's "base."

Comments:

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

The threat of an insurrection is extremely remote. Our police state and military are too institutionalized (professional) and well equipped for this to be a real possibility. The farcical Bundy episode in Oregon was a small example, and undoubtedly a genuine threat would be dealt with far more severely. A far bigger concern owing to the factors you mention will be an attempt on the life of President Clinton. True believers will see it as the ultimate patriotic act. That is why his rhetoric about putting the devil in jail is so dangerous.
 

Let me be brief.

I do agree that "insurrection" and the like does not seem realistic but that lone incidents -- including against public figures -- is a concern. Ask Gabrielle Giffords. Or, the survivors of the federal judge killed. The person there is deranged. But, that is motivated by various things. And, as with some attacks on abortion clinics, a lone person or group "justified" in their eyes is possible.

I think Sandy Levinson's tone is somewhat over the top (but see today's Dorf on Law about "sociopaths seeking power," but even a fraction of his concerns is deeply troublesome. But, such lone incidents and a general continuance of some minority that deems the system illegitimate with a Trump as a savior is a fear. That general ethos is going to result in hard and fast results, just like "locker room talk" of a certain quality tends to as various reports have shown.
 

"Any win continues to be dependent on our insane system established by the Framers in 1787 partly because of mistrust in ordinary Americans..."

Perhaps the rise of Mr. Trump indicates that the system the Framers established and their mistrust of ordinary Americans isn't insane at all. Perhaps the deconstruction of some of that system into a more directly democratic one was the insanity.
 

I agree with Prof. Tamanaha.
 

If you're entitled to diagnose one candidate, despite lack of psychiatric training, and never having examined him, surely we're entitled to convict the other without a trial. Sauce for the goose, and all that. I'd suggest you reflect upon the ugly history the left has of deploying diagnosis of insanity against its enemies, and relent from this. We know where this sort of "othering" leads, and the left is doing a LOT of "othering" (Deplorables!) right now.

In any event, speaking as one of your deplorables, (Wearing the shirt right now, as a matter of fact.) the only way Hillary has to worry about insurrection is if she makes the mistake of thinking winning control of the Executive, and part of the Legislature, entitles her to seat the Supreme court as a constitutional convention and ratifying body, all in one.

The willingness of Democrats to pass the ACA on a straight party line vote is, admittedly, not promising in this regard. Neither is her expressed determination to erase the 1st and 2nd amendments. But I'm not going to just assume she's stupid enough to provoke the people that much. At least not inadvertently; If she does it, she'll have thought it through, and done it deliberately.

I discuss these facts because, of course, they are highly relevant to whether she will face insurrection after the election. It's up to her, and how she behaves. Her simply being elected won't cause it.

Further, I'll note that, the last time the militia movement was a big thing in the US, back in the late 80's and early to mid 90's, it was a result of substantial provocation. Democrats don't like to remember this, but the last time gun control was a big thing, the government was literally BURNING PEOPLE ALIVE.

If that sort of behavior returns, so will the militia, and insurrection will become a live issue. If she's got the sense to go slow, and only do things within the normal limits of democracy, no way.


 

It took more than "ordinary Americans" for Trump to be the candidate of one of the major parties of this country. Don't think the increase of democracy, which still has various checks, is the problem here. And, ultimately, the people at large is going to play a major role here, if only because of their numbers.

 

Sandy: Anyone reading his essay must realize, first and foremost, that members of these groups are absolutely serious in believing that they are devoted to the one true Constitution that has, in their view, been systematically violated by those actually running the contemporary United States.

Don't you? Anyone who can read the English language and has read the Constitution knows this.

[Trump] is giving aid and comfort to what might well be called "insurrectionism." That is surely one of the meanings of his support for the Second Amendment, which the far right recognizes has precious little to do with individual "self-defense" and everything to do with mounting an uprising, similar to that of the America secession of 1776 (and, of course, the unsuccessful secession of 1861).

Actually, our armed revolutionary founders who drafted the Second Amendment viewed the right primarily as a means to maintain an armed citizenry able to wage armed revolution against a tyrannical government. Politically incorrect, I know.

You know what is even more politically incorrect? If they had a chance to observe our current government, which has a far more comprehensive and complete control over our lives than King George ever had over colonial America, folks like Thomas Jefferson would be more likely than our modern militia movement to call for armed revolution.

Even in the extraordinarily unlikely event that the sociopath emerges as a "good sport" and congratulates former Senator and Secretary Clinton on winning a well-run race, will the "deplorable" who continue to support Trump regardless of any evidence that might suggest his unfitness for office simply decide to wait for 2020? Or will at least some of them be tempted to engage in guerrilla warfare against a government they view as illegitimate...?

There is no evidence that the militia movement would revolt to overturn an election of someone they hated or considered to be a threat to the Constitution. Otherwise, the revolution would have started after the 2012 election.

Now, if Obama declined to accept the election of Trump and attempted to stay in office past his term of office, that might start an armed revolution.
 

Sandy: First, we should resist responding to the sociopath's threat last night to make sure that Secretary Clinton would be jailed by proclaiming that this was absolutely unAmerican, that we decide our differences by ballots and not by jailing our opponents.

Trump never made such a threat.

Trump clearly and calmly stated: "If I am elected, I am going to instruct my Attorney to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation." Then Trump laid out a rather good indictment for felony obstruction of justice based on Clinton's destruction of emails under a preservation order of Congress and the subject of multiple FOIA lawsuits.

In her rebuttal, Clinton falsely accused Trump of lying, attempted to change the subject by telling viewers to go to her website for "fact checking," then concluded: "It's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of law in our country."

Trump quickly replied: "Because you would be in jail."

The audience erupted in applause and cheers.

https://youtu.be/thaNhEAKF_U

Before the first debate, I recommended that Trump pledge to bring the Clintons to justice if elected in order to unite the conservative voters who have serious and well-deserved reservations about the Donald. You apparently have no clue about the outrage among voters at the double-standards, self-dealing, corruption and increasing lawlessness of our ruling class. That audience cheering Trump was hardly filled with Clinton's "bucket of deplorables." Unfortunately, it took a Clinton dirty trick to prod Trump into going nuclear, but better late than never. Trump's pledge has gone viral in conservative circles and social media.

Finally, Clinton's case is in no way analogous to Eugene Debs. Your dowager queen in waiting is part of the political ruling class who violated at least three provisions of the Espionage Act, committed at least four counts of perjury to Congress and obstructed justice, then the administration which employed Clinton declined to prosecute her for crimes for which they routinely throw the book at others.
 

Of course Bart's spewing falsehoods about subjects he's ignorant of. I'll take the conclusion of a career GOP federal prosecutor/FBI chief with a history of independence over a local defense attorney whose noted partisanship has led him into ideologically informed conclusions equally bold and laughably wrong on this site.

Bart tells us about the widespreadness of public outrage. We actually are going to have a measure of that in about a month.
 

"Perhaps the deconstruction of some of that system into a more directly democratic one was the insanity."

Trump's rise is so far only to the nominee in a two party system that the Founders did not create, in fact they hoped to avoid it. And it's the antithesis of greater democracy, a small percent of voters participate in the primaries and caucuses.
 

"Neither is her expressed determination to erase the 1st and 2nd amendments"

Exact quotes? I imagine what you'll supply are what any non partisan would recognize as a different, reasonable interpretation of those Amendments which, of course, through your partisan extremist filter becomes "erase."

As to 'burning people alive,' you mean white people. When they burned those poor PUSH people in Philly I don't remember any right wing militia response...

 

Trump's incessant sniffing at the debate, his roaming inability to stand still, his meandering, abrupt changes of subject mid sentence, and angry outbursts. All classic symptoms of cocaine abuse. This could also explain his impulsive behavior assaulting women.
 

"a far more comprehensive and complete control over our lives than King George ever had over colonial America, folks like Thomas Jefferson would be more likely than our modern militia movement to call for armed revolution. "

The chief concern of the Founders was not how active the government, but that it wasn't *ours.* Taxation without representation was the cry. There's as many complaints in the Declaration about George *blocking* government action than there is about the Crown's actions.
 

Treating "Sovereign Citizen" nutjobs as Constitutional theorists is an interesting choice.

It is not, however, the kind of choice that makes me take you seriously.
 

Mr. W: I'll take the conclusion of a career GOP federal prosecutor/FBI chief with a history of independence over a local defense attorney whose noted partisanship has led him into ideologically informed conclusions equally bold and laughably wrong on this site.

No need to repeat my detailed indictment of Hillary Clinton for the crimes I noted above. The facts and the law as it is written speak for themselves.

Since that last discussion, I would note that we now know more about the crackerjack investigation of the career professionals at the FBI from their compelled releases of information on Friday afternoons. These whiz kids provided immunity agreements to everyone on Clinton's staff before agreeing to allow them to destroy their laptops and all the evidence on them. The G-Men also allowed two boxes of Clinton emails to mysteriously disappear while in their custody. In never occurred to the Bureau to investigate Clinton and her coconspirators, er... staff for perjury and obstruction of justice without a referral by Congress, which they are now studiously ignoring. SOP of the world's finest law enforcement agency.

You may commence your defense of the indefensible until Sandy pulls the plug on comments.
 

BD: "a far more comprehensive and complete control over our lives than King George ever had over colonial America, folks like Thomas Jefferson would be more likely than our modern militia movement to call for armed revolution. "

Mr. W: The chief concern of the Founders was not how active the government, but that it wasn't *ours.*


Try reading the Declaration of Independence's list of grievances against the King (not Parliament). Taxation without representation is buried at the end of a long list of examples of executive despotism.
 

Julie Silverbrook posted this recently:

https://juliesilverbrook.com/2016/10/09/the-founders-on-character/

She's generally a good go to when wanting to feel better about civics. I want to be like her when I grow up. OTOH, she was feeling a bit depressed on her birthday the other day & watched "Princess Bride" to cheer herself up.
 

I don't have to defend the 'indefensible,' no one does: because a career GOP official with decades of federal law enforcement experience already determined there wasn't even enough to warrant a charge to even have to defend against.
 



"try reading the Declaration of Independence's list of grievances "

And you'll see what I said: as much complaints about England blocking government action as complaints about government action.

As to taxation without representation being at the end, that's exactly where one would expect a money quote .


 

I find it genuinely interesting that Mr. DePalma, who, to his credit, is not supporting the sociopath, is nonetheless fully accepting of the view that our current government is basically illegitimate and that it would be quite reasonable for patriotic citizens to engage in insurrectionary acts.

I sincerely hope that I am being over the top in my concerns. They are of a different dimension from my repeated critiques of the Constitution, because I'm calling "only" for a new constitutional convention and not for any kind of insurrectionary actions. With regard to Joe's typically thoughtful post, by "insurrectionary" I certainly don't mean a genuine declaration of rebellion, etc. (As it happens, my wife and I saw Sean O'Casey's The Stars and the Plough on Friday night, about the Easter Rebellion in Dublin 100 years ago, which was a disaster for the rebels even as the clumsiness of the British overreaction helped instill ever greater hostility that led to the Irish civil war in the /20s. There can be little doubt, I think, that the clumsiness of the Clinton Administration re the Branch Davidians in Waco helped to inspire Timothy McVeigh. For better or worse, the Obama Administration handled the Bundy "insurrection" with kid gloves, though there can be no doubt whatsoever, if one is not living in a parallel legal universe, that Cliven Bundy is a tax cheat who should in fact be forced to pony up, as would be done if he were an "ordinary" scofflaw.

A final point: Just as I'm not interested in debating the merits of my referring to the "sociopath," I'm also not interested in personally debating why I don't share the ominous perception of Secretary Clinton. What I'm interested in is the degree to which these various perceptions are widely shared and what the consequences are for the operation of our faltering political system, including the possibility of forms of "insurrectionary violence."
 

All the following involve obstruction of effective government:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing a Judiciary

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever

 

"Mr. DePalma, who, to his credit, is not supporting the sociopath"

with respect, this is debatable

BTW, Michael Dorf was himself a top debater, so knows for what he speaks.

I'm not sure actually the contours of "etc.," but do think Sandy Levinson's rhetoric, if I might call it that, sounds a bit over the top.
 

Sandy, I think you've pointed out many less than defensible facets of our constitutional system, providing a valuable counterpoint to the usual lazy Founders worship in our political culture. But I'm not sure our political system is faltering. We're highly polarized and our system does slow down under such conditions, but that's better than a system that changes too fast and easily. It looks like the GOP will be repudiated for it's crazy choice and while many won't like it, they felt much the same way in 92, 08 and 12. These people are by the vast majority phoney tough, not crazy brave.
 

Sandy: I find it genuinely interesting that Mr. DePalma, who, to his credit, is not supporting the sociopath, is nonetheless fully accepting of the view that our current government is basically illegitimate and that it would be quite reasonable for patriotic citizens to engage in insurrectionary acts.

Two of your three comments are correct.

I do not support the fascist.

I believe that the current progressive government is unconstitutional and moving steadily toward dictatorship, or what Jack is generously calling "presidential governance."

However, I do not (yet) support armed revolution, which by reason and necessity needs to be an absolute last resort. For nearly a century now, our democracy and our courts have failed to check the expansion of government power beyond all constitutional bounds. To my mind, this leaves a constitutional convention enacting fundamental constitutional reform as the last best hope of restoring our classically liberal republic.

I'm also not interested in personally debating why I don't share the ominous perception of Secretary Clinton.

That is a shame. I am genuinely curious to hear the reasons why professors of law can justify voting for an obvious felon as POTUS. Such an act would decidedly not be to your credit.
 

Mr. W: All the following involve obstruction of effective government

Actually, all of the grievances which you quoted involved an executive imposing absolute rule (the exercise of legislative, executive and judicial power) over America.

How, then, do you believe the revolutionaries who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence would view our absolute bureaucracy?

Be honest with yourself.
 

Assuming Trump loses, we can look forward to more of the same in 2020. Just wait until the extreme right-wingers (the majority of today's Republicans) choose Tom Cotton as the nominee. He's no less a sociopath than Trump.
 

"As to 'burning people alive,' you mean white people. When they burned those poor PUSH people in Philly I don't remember any right wing militia response..."

I'm sure you're very well connected with the militia movement, and are well aware of their complaints. [/sarcasm] But that's not the impression I got living close enough to the Nichols' farm that the traffic backed up past my house when the FBI moved in.

Certainly, the militia didn't do anything in that case. It was early in the growth of the militia movement, (It took a lot of atrocities to get citizens thinking they might need to fight their own government.) and over before anybody had a chance to do anything. But it has been regularly cited in the usual list of atrocities.
 

"Actually, all of the grievances which you quoted involved an executive imposing absolute rule (the exercise of legislative, executive and judicial power) over America."

They involved the thwarting of laws passed and action taken that the colonists wanted passed. While the Declaration spoke of the King and Crown it was of course also referring to Acts of Parliament as well. It wasn't a legislative v executive battle, it was a 'our legislature where we're represented' vs 'the Crown and Parliament's rule where we aren't' battle. This also answers your question: I think they'd be fine with our government as long as they recognized that We the People directed it. And this speaks to Sandy's point: you've conceded that all of the things you, and the right wing extremists Sandy points to, hyperbolically complain about as tyranny could be reversed via our political processes. A willing new executive could reverse most 'decrees' and a willing Congress could overturn or defund everything else. The real problem you and they have is your political inability to elect those. In short, the majority of the people don't want what you're selling. Not being able to convince a majority of your peers is not grounds for revolution.
 

"obvious felon"

Obvious to country defense lawyer who has never tried a federal case and whose partisan blinders have led him to bold pronouncements here which were then demonstrably and laughably wrong. Not obviously to the Republican career federal prosecutor/law enforcement official who had access to all the facts. Law profs are hardly fools to align with the latter.
 

"I'm also not interested in personally debating why I don't share the ominous perception of Secretary Clinton."

Not that unusual a stance to take, when you're set on a position that isn't really defensible. If you're actually capable of diagnosing sociopathy at a distance, you're undoubtedly aware that it's a defense mechanism. Sad thing about defense mechanisms, of course, is knowing that's what they are doesn't make them go away. I feel for you.

" There can be little doubt, I think, that the clumsiness of the Clinton Administration re the Branch Davidians in Waco helped to inspire Timothy McVeigh."

Close, but not quite. (And "clumsy" isn't really the right word to use when speaking of an atrocity.) They actually waited to let the justice system, including Congress, have a crack at righting the wrong. So the Clinton administration might have gotten the ball rolling, (Really, the Bush administration before it; The fiery end may have happened on Clinton's watch, but Waco started under Bush.) but it was the Republicans with their white-wash hearings that blew the last chance to stop it, by persuading them that neither party was interested in justice.

Thinking about it, the ineffectual Republican Congress does make this dynamic look plausible.

Clinton has set a number of goals that are, from the perspective of a large fraction of the population, not merely bad, but constitutionally prohibited. Gun control, censorship of political speech, continuing to assert federal control over areas where the states are sovereign. She's likely to pursue these goals even though they are widely hated, and even though she won't have any legislative basis for her initiatives.

So, pursuing widely hated policies, and without the cover of formal legitimacy. She's going to meet resistance. Unfortunately, as we saw at Waco, and in the Elián González case, the Clinton's do not respond well to resistance.

In the case of resistance to gun control, leftwing doctrine is that the resistance is inherently violent, and properly met with violence. Which is, of course, the exactly wrong way to persuade gun owners that they're not facing a government they ought to be armed against. I could easily see an escalation over the course of the Clinton administration. culminating in Waco-like atrocities. It seems to be very easy for gun controllers to slip into atrocity.
 

"I'm sure you're very well connected with the militia movement, and are well aware of their complaints"

Your quite the King of presumptions on little basis, that's true, but you might be surprised how familiar or knowledgeable I am here. But we have a record here, don't we? You've brought up Weaver and Waco before, but I can't recall you bringing up PUSH.
 

It's interesting to me how much gun rights extremists like Brett's concerns overlap with groups like BLM: they're both worried about what they see as heavy handed, unnecessarily violent law enforcement activity. If only the two sides thought about that kind of thing for the other side more (and in fairness to BLM the level of LE harassment for urban blacks is probably exponentially greater than that for suburban and rural gun owners).
 

"It's interesting to me how much gun rights extremists like Brett's concerns overlap with groups like BLM"

I recall back in '94, when we were having a militia protest at the capitol building in Lansing, Michigan. You'd never have known from the media coverage that there was a black militia group from Detroit involved; They media were very careful with their camera angles to not photograph them. The "racist militia" narrative was too important to let facts get in the way.

I would never say that BLM has no legitimate complaints. That's not the problem. The problem is that they're using them to push an illegitimate agenda, driving the police out of gang infested cities. Why? Because the organization has been captured by the predators that make those cities hell.

You doubt that? Look at what happened in Charlotte recently. Riots and looting. Are the civil rights marchers famous for their looting sprees? No. This isn't how people fighting for civil liberties behave. It's how criminals behave. Criminals who've taken over what might have started out as a legitimate civil rights movement.

It's not an accident that, with plenty of people wrongly killed by the police, they keep picking people like Michael Brown to organize around, thugs who were legitimately killed. They don't want the real problem resolved, so they can't present it in a way that might result in agreement and a solution. (Which is why they react so violently to "All lives matter.") Rather, they want to use the problem as a pretext for ridding themselves of police interference in their predation, and for getting in some looting along the way.

It's somewhat similar to the Bundies, actually. They had some legit complaints, but in the end it really was about using the legit complaints to justify criminality. Movements often get hijacked by people who have other motives, and see in the movement a cover for what they really want to do.

The problem here is that the Clinton administration is, predictably, going to provide a LOT of people with legitimate complaints. But legitimate complaints of the sort the left is not inclined to acknowledge. It's probably going to get ugly, Hillary is not nearly as easy going as Bill was.
 

It should be pointed out that the "militia" described by Brett in his recent comments is not the same as the "Militia" provided for in the Constitution.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], Brett's proudly wearing his "Deplorables" shirt is truly redundant.
 

I would gladly concede that, Shag. I am on record as saying that the appropriate response for the state governments to the militia movement would have been to say, "Fine, you're the militia. Look in your copy of the Constitution, it says right here we get to appoint your officers and require you to undergo training as specified by Congress. Report Monday for training."

I guarantee the movement would have shrank significantly.

However, a nit-pick: The "Militia" is divided into two parts, the "organized" militia, and the "reserve" militia, and the militia movement certainly was part of the latter.

Oh, and you do realize that people wear these shirts in a sense of irony, right?
 

SPAM I AM!'s 7:03 PM comment includes this:

"Actually, our armed revolutionary founders who drafted the Second Amendment viewed the right primarily as a means to maintain an armed citizenry able to wage armed revolution against a tyrannical government. Politically incorrect, I know."

This is factually incorrect and the Constitution does not support armed revolution against the states or the central government. SPAM I AM! has made similar statements in past threads, where he has been challenged and has conceded his error. In a more recent post, SPAM I AM! states:

"However, I do not (yet) support armed revolution, which by reason and necessity needs to be an absolute last resort."

If and when he does, then he'll be in violation of the Constitution and in effect a domestic terrorist. Consider how vulnerable America would be to its external enemies if there were such an armed revolution.

 

Brett's retort:

"Oh, and you do realize that people wear these shirts in a sense of irony, right?"

fails to recognize the sense of literal irony. Perhaps Brett should update his comments photo to display his shirt.

As to the Constitution's reference to "Militia," Brett's concept of the "reserve" militia is not specified. Also, Brett fails to reference the powers of the Central Government regarding the "organized" state militias. And keep in mind the powers of the states and under certaincircumstances the Central government in putting down insurrections by Bund-y type militias.
 

It would be absurd and pointless for the Constitution to authorize armed revolution against the government it set up; A government which actually needed to be overthrown would never comply with such a clause.

So, instead, they prohibited the government from taking such actions as would be necessary to prevent the public of being capable of such an overthrow. That clause serves two purposes: Both to enable revolution if needed, and to signal, by it's determined violation, that it may be needed.

Sandy himself, by the way, can set you straight on how ill informed you are about the purposes of the 2nd amendment. He doesn't much like the amendment, but he doesn't pretend it means something different on account of that. From his own "The Embarrassing Second Amendment:

Story wrote, "as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power by rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
 

No, Brett, Sandy can't set me straight on the 2nd A and in fact he may disagree with your construct of his view. What did Heller (5-4) and McDonald (5-4) have to say about your construct? Apparently Brett - and SPAM I AM! - believe that their respective Bund-y type militias can come to the self-defense of the entire nation under the Constitution via armed revolution against a state or the central government. Fail and you're traitors. Do Brett and SPAM I AM! want blood in the streets? In an earlier thread they said they did not. But Brett and SPAM I AM! are not known for consistent positions. They are outliers (aka out-and-out-liars). A reminder to them: 18 US Code Section 2385, Advocating overthrow of Government.
 

"t would be absurd and pointless for the Constitution to authorize armed revolution against the government it set up;"

I agree. Remember the original Constitution in Art I and II puts the militia into service of the federal government when needed. To me the 2nd Amenment makes clear its purpose: national security (a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state). It reflected a choice to go with citizen militias over a federal standing army as the regularly constituted means of national defense. Heller's 'individual right of armed self defense' ain't in there at all.
 

Mr. W. noted some possible overlap between different groups.

I recently read "Do Guns Make Us Free?: Democracy and the Armed Society" and some of that was raised, including discussing the Occupy Movement. The book is an expansion of an Atlantic article and that and others can be found here:

https://www.mica.edu/About_MICA/People/Faculty/Faculty_List_by_Last_Name/Firmin_DeBrabander.html

The book was interesting and covered things from a philosophical perceptive, including going into principles of Locke and so forth. It suggests yet again the different ways "original understanding" can influence modern day thought.
 

"did Heller (5-4) and McDonald (5-4) have to say about your construct?"

In the Heller case, both factions on the Court, the minority, AND the majority, pretended to engage in originalism. The minority pretended in the cause of abolishing the right altogether, the majority in the cause of preserving it in some small, unthreatening measure. Neither were open to upholding it in the form it was intended, a right of ordinary citizens to be armed comparably to soldiers.

But it is quite easy to document from sources prior contemporary to it's adoption that this IS, in fact, the right that was guaranteed.

"Fail and you're traitors."

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason." Yes, it is a given that, if you revolt against the government, and fail, you're screwed. That is among the reasons the Declaration of Independence states that revolution isn't to be engaged in lightly.

That it's risky to revolt is no good reason for the government to push it's populace to the edge of revolt, and count on their prudence to protect it.
 

Mr. W: [Y]you've conceded that all of the things you, and the right wing extremists Sandy points to, hyperbolically complain about as tyranny could be reversed via our political processes. A willing new executive could reverse most 'decrees' and a willing Congress could overturn or defund everything else. The real problem you and they have is your political inability to elect those. In short, the majority of the people don't want what you're selling. Not being able to convince a majority of your peers is not grounds for revolution.

The Constitution established a representative democracy to enact law, taxes and spending; executive departments to execute those laws, taxes and spending; and courts to judge cases and controversies. Separation of powers.

Under the current unconstitutional government, an absolute bureaucracy exercising all powers of government decrees the vast majority of our laws and has now arrogated the power to rewrite and provide arbitrary dispensations from the laws of Congress. The representative democracy is reduced to supplementing the law and theoretically acting as a check on bureaucratic dictatorship. Problem is that the Constitutions checks and balances meant to limit the power of the representative democracy now keep it from checking the power of the absolute bureaucracy. To the extent that they are even aware of the decrees of the bureaucracy, a majority of the people electing a simple majority of elected representatives cannot stop the bureaucracy.

In Federalist 47, James Madison writes concerning the necessity to separate the powers of government to stop the tyranny of absolute power. While conceding the Constitution and its state counterparts allow a limited overlap in powers between the branches, Madison states:

No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal constitution therefore really chargeable with this accumulation of power or with a mixture of powers having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch10s14.html

Now, imagine what Madison would think of our absolute bureaucracy.
 

Brett: It would be absurd and pointless for the Constitution to authorize armed revolution against the government it set up; A government which actually needed to be overthrown would never comply with such a clause.

I would cite the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As the Declaration of Independence noted, one of the powers enjoyed by the people is to remove a government infringing upon its rights:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


 

Federalist 46:

"The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."

The Second and Third Amendments provided a check on federal military power, the second providing (like juries) a means for the people to take part. As with juries, "the people" here acted thru states, governors being the head of the militia of each state "officered by men chosen from among themselves" -- cf. how juries vote for who speaks for them as well.

The Constitution being for governing, not anarchy, this would generally be used to advance its ends -- Art. 1, sec. 8 provides Congress the power to call forth the militia for various purposes with the states having a role in training etc.

Still, there was some understanding that state militia would provide a check against federal tyranny. As with 1775, if the people of the states used their natural right to rebel, it would be a revolution. But, I think the right to do so was implied, it is in effect a 9th or 10th Amendment right (see, e.g., Akhil Amar -- http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1850&context=facpub). The Declaration of Independence set forth such a right and it was retained by the Constitution.

As Amar also notes, however, this was sort of downplayed, including that potential role for state militia, after the Civil War. Plus, as with there, a rightful election is not "tyranny," nor is various things believed to be, even if you are among those who think every justice just pretended to follow the Constitution in certain cases. Still, if states (going by the "collective rights" view) will have militia above and beyond federal "troops," there is always a potential there. It is a sort of check.
 

"The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

And that hasn't happened. Congress can overturn or unfund any extant regulation. All bureaucratic administrative decisions are subject to being overturned by Art III courts. So Hamilton would be satisfied.
 

Madison
 

" a rightful election is not "tyranny,""

I agree. If Hillary, upon being elected, restricts herself to the actual powers of the office she has achieved, then even if I don't like what she's doing with it, that won't be tyranny.

The problems start when she begins using some of the 'exploits' that have been developed to work around the Constitution's division of powers. Such as using a majority on the Supreme court to 'amend' a Constitution which can only legally be amended by formal amendments ratified by the states.

Or having the bureaucracy start using threats of abusive enforcement to compel private sector institutions to attack enemies of the state.

It's not that she's automatically a tyrant just by being elected. It's the things she is likely to do, in many cases has promised to do, that are tyrannical.

 

Mr. W:

Absolute power is one body of government exercising all three of the powers of government, not necessarily all government power. One body of government can exercise absolute power even when another body of government concurrently retains one these powers. For example, the Roman Senate retained legislative powers during periods where a dictator or Caesar exercised absolute power. Parliament retained its legislative powers while King James II was exercising absolute power, before Parliament waged an armed Glorious Revolution to depose the king and restore the separation of powers.
 

There are things Trump is likely (or might) do & along with his personal character [https://juliesilverbrook.com/2016/10/09/the-founders-on-character/], various views (on free speech, presidential power, torture, etc.), lack of experience, lack of basic knowledge of things someone should know to be POTUS etc., some favor another candidate, including the lesser known conservative option on the ballot (or open to write-in) in over thirty states. ymmv, of course.


 

"One body of government can exercise absolute power even when another body of government concurrently retains one these powers."

That's an equivocation, the powers of Congress and the judiciary aren't concurrent to the executive's, they're super ceding and superior. Congress can overrule the bureaucracy and unfund it and the judiciary can, and commonly does, reverse their administrative decisions. A 'dictator' so overruled by regularly democratically elected and/or independent legal officials is no dictator at all.
 

Mr. W: the powers of Congress and the judiciary aren't concurrent to the executive's, they're super ceding and superior. Congress can overrule the bureaucracy and unfund it and the judiciary can, and commonly does, reverse their administrative decisions.

Are they superior in actual practice?

Under a perversion of the checks and balances, 41 progressives in the Senate can filibuster and 1 progressive in the White House can veto any attempt by Congress to reverse overrule the bureaucracy. Thus, it takes an effective supermajority of Congress to overrule the bureaucracy. What changes this hurdle from difficult to essentially impossible in practice is the establishment of both parties is progressive, lies during the campaign that they will curb the bureaucracy and then defers to or expands the bureaucracy when in government.

The progressive judiciary has all but removed themselves from a role in overruling the bureaucracy, routinely deferring to the bureaucracy's own interpretation of its powers under the law and findings of fact. The small handful of cases you have offered in the past generally fall into one of two categories - the court temporarily enjoining the bureaucracy pending litigation of a case and the court reversing a bureaucratic decree because the bureaucracy did not follow its own procedural rules.

As a result, Congress and the courts have overruled only a tiny fraction of one percent of all the absolute bureaucracy's decrees.
 

Your first paragraph simply repeats your common whine that 1. It's hard to change things in our system and 2. your ideas aren't popular in our two major political parties. That's hardly dictatorship.

While it's hard to overturn an ALJ's resolution in an Article III court it happens. Do you really want to challenge that I could rather easily find examples? Social security disability and unemployment lawyers make a living doing this.
 

"Your first paragraph simply repeats your common whine that 1. It's hard to change things in our system and 2."

You seem not to want to accept the significance of the difference between it being hard to do things, (The model the Constitution set up.) and hard to stop things from being done.

By allowing law-like rules to be instituted without legislative actions and the accompanying democratic safeguards, and instead requiring legislative action to STOP such rules, a system where it's hard to press on the accelerator has been transformed into a system where it's hard to press on the brakes.

A system where you need multiple super-majorities to change the Constitution, has become a system where you need multiple super-majorities to UNDO changes.

That's a big difference.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

"change the Constitution"

Let it be noted that Brett here repeatedly uses "change" to mean some illegitimate changing understanding of the reach of open-ended, vague text/meanings beyond the amendment process. But, the meaning of the Constitution changes in various respects, and the Framers understood this would occur as experience and knowledge developed.

This also could at times not require different branches, though eventually they would have to go along and some checks were present. For instance, the Constitution gives the executive certain discretion over certain matters. The meaning of that discretion has always been in significant degree a matter of who held the office.
 

Brett
Our system makes it hard to make any change-whether it's to pass or repeal what's passed. Its supposed to make us think hard and have widespread agreement about both, because both, not just one, are big deals.
 

Action or inaction can be equally bad or good.
 

You seem not to want to accept the significance of the difference between it being hard to do things, (The model the Constitution set up.) and hard to stop things from being done.

"The" is misleading. The Constitution also expanded national power, making it easier to do things in various respects. Down to the amendment process, which used to require unanimity that now is mere supermajority. The set up of federal courts, which provide "democratic safeguards" (as Mr. W. repeatedly has noted) also in a fashion expands the reach of the national government, state courts likely acting differently.

And, there always was some administrative state in place & other "law-like" procedures allowed. One person once quipped that every private on KP duty is an executive, deciding what exact procedures to chop potatoes. Things expanded over the years as we now are over 300 million etc., but there remains checks. There is no "dictatorship" etc. there & Mr. W. is to my lights not missing anything.
 

"Thus, e.g., a supermajority passes PPACA but it needs some tweaks in part to clean up some text, which is standard stuff in law-making. But, they can't do it since a majority in the House and only 50+ senators & the President agrees. 60 votes already was necessary the first time around; this is only to tweak it. So, there is greater pressure to work with the admittedly rough at some points (though again, legislation ALWAYS was rough, since the legislative process requires compromises that papers over some problems) by executive action."

Basically, this is just an excuse. You can't get changes you want to it, because a legislative majority now thinks it should be repealed, not just "cleaned up". So you're fine with the bureaucracy promulgating rules that violate the law that was actually passed. But, look, that you can't do what you want within the Constitution doesn't automatically entitle you to circumvent it.

"Our system makes it hard to make any change"

No, it used to. Now 5 judges in black robes can make the change, and it takes multiple super-majorities to reverse it.

That's the essence of the problem: They've found work-arounds for the veto points, 'amending' by judiciary fiat, legislating by bureaucracy. So that now the veto points, instead of stopping changes, stop efforts to prevent changes.

Anyway, we're diverging from what Sandy wanted to discuss.

I'm the kind of guy he probably wants to hear from. Life member of the NRA, was involved with the Michigan Militia, planning to vote for Trump. If there's going to be an insurrection after Hillary's elected, I'd be in on it. (Maybe in the sidelines, I'm getting on in years.) So, to reiterate:

I won't regard Hillary winning the election as cause for insurrection. Unlike Sandy gaming out ways to overturn the election if it didn't go the way HE wanted, I'm willing to accept democratic outcomes I don't like.

But I could easily see Hillary engaging in actions which would revive the militia movement, and an outside chance of her provoking insurrection. Not because we don't like her policies, though we don't. Because she's almost certainly going to pursue them by extra-constitutional, and unconstitutional, means.

Because the left has gotten too convinced it's entitled to prevail, and that if the rules don't permit that, so much for following the rules. And it's very unlikely she'll have the House in her corner, she'll be doing well to get a bare majority in the Senate. By the rules, that means she's going to be very limited in what she can accomplish. And she's not going to be willing to be limited.

So she'll break the rules. Count on it.
 

Brett quotes a comment I deleted after Mr. W. quickly responded.

Reject the "excuse" claim. Law-making requires compromise and workable rules, including letting a majority of both houses tweak something that already -- after an extended period of creation with both sides involved & compromises made -- was passed by sixty votes in the Senate & a majority in the House.

Nor, am I "fine" with something that "violate the law." My comment there is if you are going to inhibit good legislating in this way, imperfect workarounds will result that are messy. Serious legislating is something one party respects more these days than the other. This isn't the same as accepted actual violations, which YET AGAIN are checked in various respects, including judicial review.

As to repeal, it's typical for new legislatures to disagree with things passed by those of the opposite party. But, Republicans realize the popularity of various aspects of the law, plus their alternatives repeatedly are bad policy. So, other than show repeal votes, their actions there have been limited. Plus, yes, our system has checks and balances, including presidential vetoes to prevent quick repeal of past legislation.

====

"the left has gotten too convinced it's entitled to prevail"

Whatever this means. In the last few decades, Republicans and Democrats controlled the various branches of government in alternating fashion to some degree.

Trump is the one with the big dreams here. He is the one -- not Clinton who long term was about change within the system, working with both parties to do so (while in the Senate, she impressed many Republicans in the process) -- who says "trust me, I will get things done, don't tie me down with too many rules when I negotiate and do my magic." But, since you are as you said in the past a 'conservative,' you yet again focus on Hillary Clinton.

If Trump won, he is likely to also have Republican control of the House and Senate. Who is more likely to be limited in the long run? I would say the one who at most has the Senate on her side, probably with very little to spare, dealing with a few pretty conservative senators in the process. If "the rules" and checks are what we REALLY concerned about, that should matter.

He'll break the rules. But, you don't care much about that, apparently, since you keep on talking about her all.the.time.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Mr. W: Your first paragraph simply repeats your common whine that 1. It's hard to change things in our system and 2. your ideas aren't popular in our two major political parties. That's hardly dictatorship.

Our Constitution grants all power to enact law, taxes and spending to Congress subject to a presidential veto. The division of powers between a bicameral Congress and a President is meant to make it hard to exercise government power by requiring a supermajority consensus to accomplish. The unconstitutional progressive state creates an unaccountable absolute bureaucracy to impose most law by decree and abuses the separation of powers to protect those decrees from reversal by our elected representatives. The latter is completely at odds with the purpose of the former.

The establishments of our major political parties are completely invested in the progressive political economy. It enables them to wield far more power than the Constitution allows and sell influence for party and personal profit. Thus, I agree with you the limited government I prefer and the Constitution requires is highly unpopular with the major party establishments.

As you well know, a dictatorship is an executive which imposes law by decree. Our absolute bureaucracy fits that definition perfectly.
 

"My comment there is if you are going to inhibit good legislating in this way, imperfect workarounds will result that are messy. "

Yeah, and if you're going to put money in banks, people will rob them. So? The people opposing your "good legislating" don't AGREE that it's good legislating. From their perspective, the Democrats are inhibiting good legislating by preventing the ACA from being repealed!

"If Trump won, he is likely to also have Republican control of the House and Senate. Who is more likely to be limited in the long run?"

Trump, no question. He'll be spending 4-8 years of constant war with the bureaucracy. It would leap to anticipate Hillary's every whim, the way Obama only had to 'joke' about his enemies being audited and it happened.

Further, like anyone with a D after their name, Hillary won't be subject to impeachment. Trump has no such protection, if he messes up, every Democrat and a significant faction of Republicans will be eager to boot him out of office.

And, finally, the media will actually be interested in digging into every detail of what Trump is up to, and exposing anything wrong he does. Hillary they'd spend all their time shielding.

Absolutely, if you want a President who's limited and accountable, Trump is your man.
 

"Now 5 judges in black robes can make the change, and it takes multiple super-majorities to reverse it."

Like Heller and MacDonald?

When a court intervenes they do so on the grounds of enforcing the super majoritarian Consttution. You just think they're wrong.
 

"Our Constitution grants all power to enact law, taxes and spending to Congress"

And so it is. Delegation doesn't contradict that, nor does interpretation when applying the law.
 


As you well know, a dictatorship is an executive which imposes law by decree.

Wrong, it's unchecked rule by decree. You're elevating a separation of powers idea into a test of dictatorship. Idiosyncratic at best
 

"Delegation doesn't contradict that"

Delegation exactly contradicts that.
 

Mr. W: Delegation doesn't contradict that...

Where precisely does "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States..." and "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be invested in one supreme Court, and such inferior courts..." permit Congress to create an absolute bureaucracy?

You crossed the line into completely willful denial of reality some months ago.
 

As long as I retain the power to overturn him and he must abide by my general directions my delegation to my butler to make day to day decisions means no loss of my powers
 

And btw this does relate to Sandy's point, which is about people being hyperbolic about 'the death of our Republic' and tyranny as the result of elections not going their way. It's that kind of nonsense, hyperbolic rhetoric that motivates extremists who reason that extreme times call for extreme measures. It's not just uncommonly silly and demonstrably wrong, it's dangerous. For the most part we're still easily one of the most free for most people nations on or in the history of the earth. We're free to speak out even in nearly libelous fashion against our elected officials here every day. Try that in a real 'dictatorship.' We're free to move anywhere tomorrow if we want. Try that in a real dictatorship. We have amazing economic freedom, there's hoops to jump through but they don't stop most of us from most transactions we want. We've largely overcome the stains of legal prejudice based on race, gender, religion and sexual orientation that upended our most basic values for so long. People bellyaching over minimum wage laws and insurance rate regulations as if they are the second coming of Ceasar are in an insane, Princess and the Pea place. And I mean this for that type on the Left too, the Jill Stein folks who thinks we're in an unprecedented corporate death grip. Get real people, stop the drama.
 

The formerly exclusively legislative power was delegated to the bureaucracy, which is to say, the executive branch. Now that it has been delegated, every individual instance of over-riding the executive's use of the legislative power requires either the executive's consent, or an extraordinary majority.

So this isn't at all like a servant you can fire at any time by your unilateral decision. It's more like giving your lawyer power of attorney and waking up one day to find out he's been sleeping with your wife, and isn't really interested in handing your assets back over to you.
 

Mr. W: As long as I retain the power to overturn him and he must abide by my general directions my delegation to my butler to make day to day decisions means no loss of my powers

Let's run with that analogy.

Let's say you delegate to your butler the ability to decide what you can and cannot do each day.

The butler is a health nazi and forbids you from eating junk food.

In order to overrule the Butler and allow you to get a Big Mac today, you (as the House of Representatives), Brett (as the Senate) and I (as the President) have to agree. I hate McDonalds and veto your trip.

You are still living under the decree of the butler.
 

Both of your analogies fail because there is one people and one Congress that collectively represents them. The more proper analogy is that the Lord of the manner won't overrule the butler unless he's 66% the butler is wrong. That he rarely, but sometimes does, overrule him isn't proof the butler is supreme, it's more likely the butler is rarely so obviously wrong.

Of course even this analogy, deadly as it is to your claim of dictatorship, gives up too much, because Congress regularly changes, alters, adds to and overrules regulations every time they pass new legislation. Every Farm Bill, Energy Bill, tax code, results on changes to the CFR. So the closer analogy is the Lord is regularly giving guiding directives, sometimes different than the previous ones, but once given allows the butler to implement them-until the next directive! A person who would think the butler, not the lord, is 'in charge' here would be either a lunatic or someone with a serious grudge against the butler.
 

66% sure
 

Mr. W: We're free to move anywhere tomorrow if we want. Try that in a real dictatorship.

You can only move to places the government zones as residential and does not otherwise conflict with an environmental stricture. This is actually a fraction of the national territory.

You can also only move to places you can afford. If government mandates limiting the supply of housing and raising the cost of housing put the cost of a starter home out of your reach, you rent or live on the street.

We have amazing economic freedom, there's hoops to jump through but they don't stop most of us from most transactions we want.

You cannot work in any professions, the government bureaucracy and an increasing number of vocations without gaining government mandated credentials and licenses, often requiring the expenditure of tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. Entry into this work is increasingly limited to the upper middle class and wealthy.

On the other end of the earning scale, you are forbidden from working for less than the government's minimum compensation mandates (wages, benefits and time off). If you do not have the skill set to produce more goods and services than the cost of the mandates, you cannot steal a job and are forbidden from earning a living and being able to start a family.

You cannot operate a business without obtaining licenses and permits, paying special business taxes and minimum compensation mandates for employees, and then following volumes of regulations often applied in an arbitrary fashion. This is why the number of start-up businesses has cratered bellow the number of business failures for the first time in American history.

This only scratches the surface of the abridgments of our economic freedom.

Get real people, stop the drama.

You peasants, I mean "deplorables" and "losers", report to your respective buckets and be happy with your lot.
 

Yeah, and if you're going to put money in banks, people will rob them. So? The people opposing your "good legislating" don't AGREE that it's good legislating. From their perspective, the Democrats are inhibiting good legislating by preventing the ACA from being repealed!

I put forth a view of legislating that could apply to both parties -- in some other case, Republicans could be in that position. I'm against bank robbery; yes, I do think what they were doing was bad if not criminal. Republicans can formulate a repeal. Dems are not filibustering to stop them. A veto doesn't refute my concerns.

Trump, no question. He'll be spending 4-8 years of constant war with the bureaucracy. It would leap to anticipate Hillary's every whim, the way Obama only had to 'joke' about his enemies being audited and it happened.

Why exactly would Trump not have, taken your assumptions for granted, such a complacent bureaucracy put in place too? He appoints and the Republican Senate confirms. But, yet again, you are SELECTIVELY CONCERNED about governmental power. That isn't at the end of the day your biggest concern. It's "THE LEFT!"

You just skip over and over again replying how Trump by word and deed is more authoritarian than Hillary Clinton. How this is the DRAW of his campaign. It is pretty glaring. You simply did not explain how a Republican House and a barely Democrat Senate is going to give HRC less problems than Trump and a Republican Congress. The answer might be you cannot reasonably do so.

Further, like anyone with a D after their name, Hillary won't be subject to impeachment. Trump has no such protection, if he messes up, every Democrat and a significant faction of Republicans will be eager to boot him out of office.

Bill Clinton was impeached. He was and is a Democrat. The Republican House is if anything more likely to impeach today. What the heck are you talking about? As to Trump, if he is elected, he will have elective legitimacy. Republicans NOW are very wary to go against his supporters who are a strong faction of their electorate. Why would they not be more so once he gets the elective legitimacy of being elected? Getting enough Republicans to actually convict, especially if he helps them sign into law stuff they like, will be hard. But, partisan blinders blind.

And, finally, the media will actually be interested in digging into every detail of what Trump is up to, and exposing anything wrong he does. Hillary they'd spend all their time shielding.

Hillary Clinton and her husband has been investigated by the media for decades. Again, if you weren't biased, if you didn't care about either side, you'd see this.

Absolutely, if you want a President who's limited and accountable, Trump is your man.

It helps when you ignore all he says and the power of the office that would provide him broad powers to do what he says. You go out of your way to defend him. Thus, by any normal usage, he repeatedly lies, much more than even the average politician. But, you tried to spin it, saying his usage of language was somehow special. If this sort of lawyer-like spin was used to defend a Democrat, your would be sneering.
 

Mr W: Both of your analogies fail because there is one people and one Congress that collectively represents them.

You really should pay more attention to Sandy's posts.

We are an extremely diverse people with a wide variety of interests.

Representing us, we have a bicameral Congress - a House which proportionately represents local interests and a Senate which represents the geographic interests of the states. Then we have a president who represents a national coalition of interests making up a plurality to a majority of the population. All three of these elected bodies have to sign off on overruling your butlers decrees running your life.

I am still vetoing your trip to McDonalds.

Because you are irritating me, I am also considering working with the butler to reinterpret your delegation to allow the butler to decide when you are permitted to go to the toilet. If you do not shut up and start towing my line, you better stock up on adult diapers!
 

The burdens of complying with the regulations you list are simply minimal for most people, not much more difficult than getting a government ID, which I'm assured is easy for all.
 

"We are an extremely diverse people with a wide variety of interests."

If that's true in the way you mean then your three is no better than my one. But since your talking about just the legislature which has been entrusted, the better analogy is my one who must be 66% sure before overruling the butler.

He doesn't overrule the butler much, because he doesn't have the time or expertise to do what he does, and we're he to try it himself much wouldn't get done or would be done poorly.
 

"This is why the number of start-up businesses has cratered bellow the number of business failures for the first time in American history."

Businesses everywhere are hurting, from libertarian Singapore to socialist Scandanavia.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Another to point out is Brett and Bart's prejudice toward government inaction over action rests on the assumption that laws reflecting their axioms will be firmly in place before such a rule goes into effect. So for example, imagine 33% of the public blocking the enactment of the myriad property protecting laws!
 

The formerly exclusively legislative power was delegated to the bureaucracy, which is to say, the executive branch. Now that it has been delegated, every individual instance of over-riding the executive's use of the legislative power requires either the executive's consent, or an extraordinary majority.

There was always a bureaucracy basically since that is what is necessary in any sizable institution. George Washington's army had a bureaucracy. And, not only the executive branch -- each branch has a bureaucracy in various instances.

And, the courts, including by a single judge, repeatedly "overrides the executive's use of legislative power" here. Agency law carefully sets up procedures for this. Finally, a myriad of decisions are made by the bureaucrat below; the executive itself, even the secretary of some department, can't deal with every thing there.

Finally, Congress itself repeatedly changes the law, including current regulations in place. Simple majorities are required to do this and vetoes are relatively rare. The system in place makes it hard to do this in various respects, as intended, but there still has been loads of laws over the years that did this. Many of them probably beyond the understanding of all but experts on the nuances of legislation but they count too.
 

"inaction over action"

depends on the ox, probably
 

Given the fact that the 2000 election was stolen fair and square in Florida by one of the candidate's brother, and that the Supreme Court then engaged in . . . well you know to install George Bush and that there certainly were shenanigans in Ohio in 2004, Eli is somewhat worried about the Russian effort on behalf of Mr. Trump. And yes, remember that Roger Stone organized the demonstration in the Board of Elections in Florida.

So yes, there is no reason to believe that Trump and the Republicans are going to allow a fair election.
 

Mr. W: The burdens of complying with the regulations you list are simply minimal for most people, not much more difficult than getting a government ID, which I'm assured is easy for all.

The regulatory burden on the economy is roughly $1.8 TRILLION per year...

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2502883

And $13,000 in lost income per person.

https://www.mercatus.org/publication/cumulative-cost-regulations

The average person may not have to comply with the regulatory kudzu, but they are most definitely paying in lost income and jobs.


 

Joe: There was always a bureaucracy basically since that is what is necessary in any sizable institution.

We are not discussing the bureaucracy necessary for carrying out the laws of Congress or the missions the Constitution provides the executive.

We are discussing an absolute bureaucracy decreeing enforcing and adjudicating a maze of regulation dwarfing the U.S. Code.
 

BD: "This is why the number of start-up businesses has cratered bellow the number of business failures for the first time in American history."

Mr. W: Businesses everywhere are hurting, from libertarian Singapore to socialist Scandanavia.


There are no free market nations left, most certainly not Singapore.

Every single progressive nation on Earth is in some stage of economic, labor and fiscal implosion. Secular stagnation is the progressive term for the failed state they cannot understand because they will not consider that their preferred political economy is the problem.
 

"The regulatory burden on the economy is roughly $1.8 TRILLION per year...

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2502883And $13,000 in lost income per person.

https://www.mercatus.org/publication/cumulative-cost-regulations"

Good Lord, if we're going to go with what Mercatus and the CEI assumes I could counter with an organization whose 'studies' 'show' unicorns are killed by the free market.

"an absolute bureaucracy" whose regulations can be 1. reversed by a newly elected executive, 2. overturned or unfunded by Congress, and 3. overturned by the judiciary.

Bart has an insane concept of 'absolute.'

"There are no free market nations left, most certainly not Singapore."

And the Marxist refutes the failure of ostensibly Marxist nations by saying 'there are no true Marxist nations!' Notice how Bart is the mirror image of these Leftist extremists.

Now, an honest analyst wouldn't compare real world examples to unicorns that don't exist, he'd identify what is desirable, note it can be measured as existing more or less (though never ideally) in the real world, and then see if there is a correlation between what how close a nation is to what's desirable and success. So Singapore might not be pure, but it certainly has *less* of what Bart thinks ails the world, so it should then have *less* of the bad stuff Bart complains about. But such analyses escapes Bart, and most Austrians frankly, because it might not come out the way it's *supposed to.*






 

Not to mention that Bart is an idiot.
 

instaeasy review
have Your Instagram liking, comment and engage automaticlly
instaeasy review
instaeasy review
engaging with audience 24 hours a day instaeasy review
instaeasy review
InstaEasyinstaeasy review
instaeasy review
Luke Maguire
instaeasy review
instagram auto engagement tool
instaeasy review
the worlds leading instagram tool
instaeasy review
Make money made easy
instaeasy review
Thanks for reading
 

"There was always a bureaucracy basically since that is what is necessary in any sizable institution."

Joe, you're conflating a bureaucracy with a regulatory state. No, there was not always a bureaucracy with quasi-legislative powers, writing the vast majority of our 'laws'. That's a relatively new development.
 

Sandy occasionally provides a quote of NYTimes columnist David Brooks with approval, while making it clear that he is not too thrilled with Brooks. Brooks' column yesterday titled "Donald Trump's Sad, Lonely Life" closes with this:

"On Nov. 9, the day after Trump loses, there won’t be solidarity and howls of outrage. Everyone will just walk away."

While Brooks was not directly responding to Sandy's question in this post, it does so indirectly.

SPAM I AM! still thinks The Gilded Age were America's best days. Brett in the past has referenced the Roaring Twenties as America's best days. Trump talks about making America great again without a time frame of when he thinks America was great. They are reminders of past - and future - Moe, Larry and Curly and Larry "Three Stooges" festivals.
 

Mr. W:

Singapore is a centrally planned, corporatist economy which is dependent on free trade to market its goods.

http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020412f2.htm
 

Mr W:

Here are some more studies estimating the cost to the economy of regulation, starting off with the government:

https://www.sba.gov/advocacy/impact-regulatory-costs-small-firms

http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports/Cost-of-Federal-Regulations/Federal-Regulation-Executive-Summary.pdf




 

"Brett in the past has referenced the Roaring Twenties as America's best days."

It's sad when the memory goes, and imagination starts filling in the gaps.
 

Brett, it's your memory that's gone. Go back into the Archives of this Blog. But I recall many statements you have made on this Blog and other blogs, e.g., your going international after your failed marriage, and the benefits of going international.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], as I recall it was Groucho Marx who said "The memory is the second thing to go." And a wiseacre asked "What's the first?" to which Groucho responded "I forget." Was it hair in your case?

But seriously, based upon the combination of Brett's comments at this Blog, I suspect he thinks America's best days were before Brown v. Bd. of Educ. (1954) when Brett might have bee a wee-wee lad.
 

Brett, I see you didn't refute how the executive could be overridden by the acts of a single judge and has in many cases. Mr. W. continues to be correct.

Joe, you're conflating a bureaucracy with a regulatory state. No, there was not always a bureaucracy with quasi-legislative powers, writing the vast majority of our 'laws'. That's a relatively new development.

It is not denied that as the country expanded from three million to 333 million or whatever it is that the scope has expanded as it must.

But, the bureaucracy always included "quasi-legislative powers," that is, general rules were in place, but the specific application of them -- like the policies of George Washington's troops -- was applied by those who carried it out. Bureaucrats. This requires specific rules, "quasi-legislative" in character.

Put aside "relative new development" at the very least amounts to when Shag was still wearing short pants. And, even before that -- we are talking about the modern administrative state having its roots in the late 19th Century at the least. Finally, I don't think you are saying a somewhat smaller range of executive "tyranny" or "dictatorship" (such as over military mattes) is okay. It wasn't present on that level either, then or now.
 

Those interested in the Administrative State discussion might be interested in Ira Rubenstein's "The Future of Self-Regulation is Co-Regulation" available on SSRN. It's 23 pages in length. The abstract and link are available at the Legal Theory Blog. I've got it on my desktop and will get to it later today.
 

Back to the subject at hand...

Those of you who have seen the movie Gangs of New York may recall this classic scene where the natives and the Irish immigrants were manufacturing votes for sheriff by voting multiple times:

https://youtu.be/p56Ok2ahtYk

Note the Trump campaign commercial before the Youtube clip/

Apparently, this voter fraud is still going on in NYC:

https://youtu.be/jUDTcxIqqM0

This Project Veritas clip of the admissions of the Democrat NYC Elections Commissioner already has over 600k hits at Youtube and is making the rounds in conservative media.

At a Trump campaign rally, a woman fearing voter fraud told Mike Pence that she is "ready for a revolution of Hillary gets in."

https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/785950864200441856

That is about the sum total of the reports of revolution if Clinton wins election.

A Clinton plurality win would create resignation, alienation and anger; but I am not seeing a revolution.


 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Joe: But, the bureaucracy always included "quasi-legislative powers," that is, general rules were in place, but the specific application of them -- like the policies of George Washington's troops -- was applied by those who carried it out. Bureaucrats. This requires specific rules, "quasi-legislative" in character.

The progressive "administrative state" decreeing laws enforceable against the citizenry started at the end of the nineteenth century and was dramatically expanded under the New Deal. Laws enacted by Congress or the rules imposed by the President as CiC for the good order and discipline of the military are not analogous.


 

We see Bart use the usual GOP dodge re the military. For the record the DOD is the single largest employer of federal employees, and the current GOP platform is to increase the amount of taxpayer dollars shoveled to this bureaucracy.
 

Singapore is, according to the conservative American Enterprise Institute, the 2nd most economically free nation in the world.

http://www.heritage.org/index/

But for Bart it's a 'centrally planned, corporatist economy.' Bart is advocating we stop riding horses and start riding unicorns.
 

"A Clinton plurality win would create resignation, alienation and anger; but I am not seeing a revolution."

Not the win by itself. She might provoke one with her subsequent actions, though. I don't suppose Bush the elder set out to create the militia movement, but he did. Hillary makes no secret of despising a large segment of the population. The real question is what that's going to lead her to do.
 

Brett, I think some of what you complain of is actually agencies trying to apply extant laws. When the Dept of Ed has a law like Title IX that says you can't discriminate 'based on sex' and they get a complaint from a transgender person arguing they're being discriminated against because they aren't conforming to sex roles, it's not obvious whether them making a ruling that such situations trigger the law is a case of them 'legislating' or applying existing law. Reasonable people can disagree here I think.

And I'm not sure that if we scoured the administrative history of things like land claims settlement or Reconstruction agencies if we wouldn't find examples of what looks like that kind of thing.

But I'd concede that the kind of quasi legislative agency action you're talking about did considerably ramp up around the turn of the last century and then on. I just don't see reason for much concern there, for two reasons. One I don't see any 'loss' of power of Congress as they have to provide guiding directives that courts can and do enforce on the agencies and they can ultimately overrule or defund if they want. I think they honestly don't want to much though, because of my second reason, which is how else would these kind of things that the majority of the public want done get done other than delegation to full time experts?

Take environmental laws. We want endangered species protected. But it's an ever changing, complex thing as to which species need what protections when. Are legislators supposed to review the biological and ecological background for every proposed endangered animal and vote on what specific ones get what protections when? At the speed Congress gets things done we'd be missing quite a few species before they even held a vote! It's only sensible to give them a general goal and guidelines, delineate tools and processes, and let the boys in Fish and Wildlife take care of that, subject to Congress or the Courts intervening in any specific instance there's disapproval of a specific action.

And I think what's said about that applies to most other examples of quasi legislative activity.
 

Hillary makes no secret of despising a large segment of the population. The real question is what that's going to lead her to do.

She referenced a fraction of a fraction (using by her own words, very rough estimates, half of his supporters, which amounts at most 20% or something even if "supporters" here is used loosely -- like is Paul Ryan much of a 'supporter'?) having deplorable beliefs. As they do. I figure things like Trump's views on women are something she finds real distasteful or some of the racism of some of his supporters.

Yes, like "the militia movement" cited, this might lead to some bad results. Not sure if this means we shouldn't deplore such things. And, if we take Trump's words at face value, though Brett doesn't use the same standards, seems like we should worry what "that's going to lead him to do." Rules are different for him though.
 

as I said, Mr. W., depends on what ox is being gored
 

Mr. W: I'm not sure that if we scoured the administrative history of things like land claims settlement or Reconstruction agencies if we wouldn't find examples of what looks like that kind of thing.

I would recommend Jerry Mashaw's Creating the Administrative Constitution. His argument that a handful of attempts by the tiny government bureaucracy to enforce vague laws of Congress constitutionally legitimized the later progressive absolute bureaucracy is unconvincing.
 

Mr. W: Take environmental laws. We want endangered species protected. But it's an ever changing, complex thing as to which species need what protections when. Are legislators supposed to review the biological and ecological background for every proposed endangered animal and vote on what specific ones get what protections when?

Yes.

We elect a Congress to determine whether a law is needed and then enact that law. Congress is free to consult with the bureaucracy to make these determinations.
 

You're eliding my entire argument about why that would be a disaster.
 

Mr. W:

Am I really supposed to take seriously an argument that Congress not adding a smelt or a rodent to the Endangered Species Act would be a disaster?

Remember our earlier discussion of how the government keeps people from living where they wish. Exhibit 2 after zoning is the ESA.
 

This is just a policy disagreement with what a majority of Americans want. But I'm glad you concede your way is unworkable (that's a feature not a bug for you, but not for most Americans)
 

Bart's answer reveals something important.

One rightfully will scratch their head over extremists using overheated rhetoric to describe the formalistic difference between a legislature consulting and voting with a likely deference to an agency and the delegation to the agency with a guiding principle and authority to overturn. Crossing that formalistic line is tyranny? But the formalism arguments are just props, Trojan horses. It's just policy disagreement really. Bart and his ilk think they don't like much of what the majority of Americans ask their government to do. They're not successful in persuading this majority, so they hope to thwart it by imposing a formalism they hope will render the government ineffective in realizing the policy preferences of most of us. Hopefully one can understand how most Americans are not looking to make their government more ineffective in pursuing whatever goals it chooses.
 

Mr. W:

You really do not see the fundamental substantive difference between Congress consulting with the bureaucracy, then making a decision whether to enact a law, and allowing the bureaucracy to decree law on its own?
 

By coincidence, the author of "Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging" has written a post of his own.

Mr. W.'s comment does have a bit of "Wild Life America" to it -- we here have an important example of an overheated extremist's rhetoric in action. It is an important moment of social science field research!"

Anyway, it's useful -- if a bit tedious at times -- to get such points of view.
 

"You really do not see the fundamental substantive difference between Congress consulting with the bureaucracy, then making a decision whether to enact a law, and allowing the bureaucracy to decree law on its own?"

A body that has an agency come in and make recommendations and then deferentially approves them and one that just empowers the agency to make the changes itself while retaining oversight and ultimate authority are different in only the most formalistic of ways, not functionally. The only real difference is the former would be certainly less effective in realizing the recommendations.
 

Can we be clear here?

Brett writes:

I could easily see Hillary engaging in actions which would revive the militia movement, and an outside chance of her provoking insurrection. Not because we don't like her policies, though we don't. Because she's almost certainly going to pursue them by extra-constitutional, and unconstitutional, means.

Because the left has gotten too convinced it's entitled to prevail,


and:

The problems start when she begins using some of the 'exploits' that have been developed to work around the Constitution's division of powers. Such as using a majority on the Supreme court to 'amend' a Constitution which can only legally be amended by formal amendments ratified by the states.

In other words, if she appoints Justices who rule in ways that do not accord with what Brett and his militia buddies think is the correct interpretation of the Constitution, they may take that as a justification for insurrection. This is plain thuggery. "See it my way or get shot." It's ugly and violent.

And having written that he claims it is "the left" is "too convinced it's entitled to prevail."
 

BD: "You really do not see the fundamental substantive difference between Congress consulting with the bureaucracy, then making a decision whether to enact a law, and allowing the bureaucracy to decree law on its own?"

Mr. W: A body that has an agency come in and make recommendations and then deferentially approves them and one that just empowers the agency to make the changes itself while retaining oversight and ultimate authority are different in only the most formalistic of ways, not functionally. The only real difference is the former would be certainly less effective in realizing the recommendations.


What makes you think that Congress will defer to the agency rather than the citizenry who are affected by the proposed laws?

What makes you think that agency's proposed laws will gain the supermajority consensus to pass through the House, Senate and White House?

Unlike our absolute bureaucracy, Congress and the President are accountable to the voters.

THIS is why the founding fathers of progressivism were very clear that the purpose of the absolute bureaucracy was to avoid the democratic system with its consensus building and accountability. Their view of the common man and woman was the same as Hillary Clinton's - buckets of losers and deplorables.
 

BD: "You really do not see the fundamental substantive difference between Congress consulting with the bureaucracy, then making a decision whether to enact a law, and allowing the bureaucracy to decree law on its own?"

Mr. W: A body that has an agency come in and make recommendations and then deferentially approves them and one that just empowers the agency to make the changes itself while retaining oversight and ultimate authority are different in only the most formalistic of ways, not functionally. The only real difference is the former would be certainly less effective in realizing the recommendations.


What makes you think that Congress will defer to the agency rather than the citizenry who are affected by the proposed laws?

What makes you think that agency's proposed laws will gain the supermajority consensus to pass through the House, Senate and White House?

Unlike our absolute bureaucracy, Congress and the President are accountable to the voters.

THIS is why the founding fathers of progressivism were very clear that the purpose of the absolute bureaucracy was to avoid the democratic system with its consensus building and accountability. Their view of the common man and woman was the same as Hillary Clinton's - buckets of losers and deplorables.
 

To be clear, toad, I've no interest in pretending that the Constitution is a blank slate onto which it is legitimate to write anything you please, and what to write is always and only just an ordinary policy disagreement. It is quite possible for the judiciary to be suborned into adopting 'interpretations' so unreasonable that no citizen is in any way obliged to accept their legitimacy, and Hillary is publicly committed to selecting justices who will adopt at least a couple such 'interpretations'.

The Constitution sets out in article V the procedures for amending it. Selecting judges who will pretend it means something different is not among them. If, God forbid, an actual amendment repealing the 1st and 2nd amendments were to be properly originated by Congress or Convention, and ratified by enough states, that would be one thing. But just picking some corrupt judges who are willing to sophistry them away. Forget it, that's revolution time.

And spare me your theatrics about thuggery; Government is violence. If Hillary sets out to disarm us 'deplorables', she will not do so by means of sweet reason. She'll threaten to kill us if we don't submit. As, for instance, the Davidians were killed. It is only fair of us to make it clear we'd respond in kind.
 

Ah yes. Law-abiding militia types.
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home