American history has always been a fight between gov't (Democrats) and freedom (Republicans). Accordingly, Democrats (called Federalists in the beginning) originally wanted a powerful gov't, including a powerful Supreme Court, while Jeffersonian Republicans wanted the opposite having observed that powerful gov't was responsible for the mass slaughter that had always characterized human history. Since the last Century (the 20th) was the bloodiest in history, reasonable people assume the Republicans were right. Moreover, they assume that the same totalitarian megalomania that naturally leads big govt to mass slaughter, makes them, at best, wholly incompetent at less deadly or even benign enterprises. And, this is not to mention the massive inefficiencies that normally handicap any huge bureaucratic monopoly not directly accountable to constituents or consumers, that often will lack a clear organizational purpose and discipline.
Here's what the Republicans said about the Supreme Court in 1787: "This power in the judicial, will enable them to mold the gov't, into almost any shape they please." In fact, 150 years later Thurgood Marshall, a Supreme Court Justice said, "you can do anything around here you want as long as you've got 5 votes for it." Eventually, that included ordering 40 million abortions even though such a thing was not remotely imagined, let alone spoken of, in the Constitution. When trying to explain how abortion could be derived from language in the Constitution the Court merely expressed its vague feeling that abortion was good, the Constitution was good, and so therefore the Constitution supported abortion. The Democrats wanted a gov't by men who openly scoffed at the Constitution and their oath to preserve, protect, and defend it, while the Republicans wanted a gov't by impartial law.
This rather short journey toward judicial, Democratic, irrational monarchy started when the Constitution was ratified, but picked up steam when Jefferson (whose small gov't philosophy defined America and prevailed until 1932) was elected President in 1800 over his hated Democratic opponent, John Adams the incumbent President. Adams, who rode around in regal horse drawn carriages reminiscent of George 111, was derided as a royalist or monarchist. He appointed several Democratic "midnight"Justices of the Peace, but the appointment process had not been fully completed when Jefferson took office. Marbury, one of the Justices, sued for his appointment. The case came before John Marshall, the Democratic Chief Justice who was afraid to finalize the appointments in fear that Jefferson would simply ignore the writ to finalize the appointments and thereby weaken the power of the Democratic Court.
Instead, Marshall, a brilliant Democratic schemer, ruled that the enumerated powers expressed in the Constitution did not allow him to make the appointment, and to do so would have been contrary to the Constitution. It was a huge case, the most important in American history according to Justice Rehnquist , in that it dramiticially, although not quickly, established the Court's authority to rule on what was not Constitutional, and by extension, what was Constitutional. In time, it came to be that any law passed by any legislature and any action by any citizen, abortion for example, could be overturned or affirmed as unconstitutional or constitutional regardless of whether that law or action was intented to be governed by the Constitution. In sum, one non-elected branch of gov't, accountable to no one, with only nine members, all of whom had lifetime appointments, then had more power than was ever imagined in what was supposed to be a free Republican country established for the express purpose to limiting gov't and promoting freedom.
If Justice Rehnquist retires this summer, as is widely anticipated, a battle royale will ensue. It will be the same battle that Jefferson fought against Adams to keep America free from Democratic gov't. We should expect a long, bloody, and heroic battle from the Republicans who know that this may be their last best opportunity to ever take back America from the Democrats who maniacally, reflexively, and eternally have wanted more and more power further and further away from the people and their frequently elected legislatures.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

9 comments:
Why did you delete my comment stating that I would post my response later?
Ted,
Okay, I am ready to dissect your opinion. The title is good, mediocre at best. May I suggest that you replace Democrats and Republicans with liberals and conservatives since some Republicans are liberal and that some Democrats are conservative. So here is how I am going to do it. I am going to take it from the left vs. right, so no one is misrepresented.
First sentence:Democrats (government) and Republicans (freedom). I hope you mean to write this in the time frame of now, because I can remember when many conservative Republicans and Conservative Democrats denied the rights to women, African-Americans, Native Americans, Latinos and immigrants in general. I would like to know what your definition of freedom is. Anywho, if you are speaking in this time frame, well uh...yea. I think you need to rearrange somethings here. Speaking in terms of the present, the government under this Administration has grown dramatically, and our freedoms are constantly under attack. Under Bush the government has increased: Dept. of Homeland Security and not to mention all of the other bureaucracies such as the TIA/IAO. Don't forget the PATRIOT ACT, the ACT that destroys and limits freedoms when its main objective is to protect them. Now, the liberals. Liberals, as a whole (that means excluding some radicals) have always stood up for the inherent civil liberties of each man, woman and child. Example, the "rogue" organization that is the ACLU. Outcry about the Patriot Act from many leftists orgs and leftists in general and one Senator at the time of the ACT's inception. Now you are entitled your banal cliches, but it just brings us back to conservatives, Republicans in this case. Let's throw the free market enterprise in here as well. The Republicans have received more corporate handouts than the democrats. Government to the highest bidder if you will. Is that freedom? Tobacco and Pharmacrats paying off officials so they can do more damage? Last time I checked, when business and government combine, it is a characteristic of fascism and that the government is for the people not people with money pouring out of their pockets. I am not saying conservatives/Republicans are fascists by no means, but something to think about. So here we have Republicans who expand government, trump on freedoms, and screw the American people over by yielding to corporations who do more harm than good.
Now, you seem to have your political party history confused. Democrats were not known as Federalists, but known as Democratic-Republicans. The Dem-Repubs later became the Democrats. Federalists were then the National Republicans (1828). Federalists wanted a strong central government. Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican. Not a federalists. You are simply criticizing yourself. You have this all jumbled, rewrite it, I don't need to waste my time on historical mishaps.
Putting the historical mistakes aside, I will address some points that are not related to history, but that are merely talking points.
The Supreme Court cannot order abortions. You are making it seem as if women are picking from the Wendy's menu. Who ordered these abortions? Actually abortion can been seen in the language of the Constitution. 14th Amendment. How does the Court say that abortion is good? That is such a weak argument. Screw semantics, look at what you are saying. The last sentence of the second paragraph: please. Who has again and again protected our constitution? Not Republicans. Who trampled on the Constitution to degrade people and arrest people and brand them as Communists for their own political gain?
"This rather short journey toward judicial, Democratic, irrational monarchy started when the Constitution was ratified, but picked up steam when Jefferson..." Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican. Democratic Republicans are now known as Democrats. Your whole argument is out the window. So Jefferson's small government philosophy defined America, but he was a Dem-Rep (now Dem Party). So by criticizing the Democratic Government you are criticizing Jefferson whose very words you are using to support your argument.
John Marshall was a Federalist, not a Democrat. See above for historical accuracy.
Adams was a Federalist.
James Madison (Sec. of State) refused to honor the Appointment
Thomas Jefferson was an Anti-Federalist.
Marshall was one of the midnight judges.
Marshall was a Federalist.
It is quite obvious that you know nothing about history.
Exactly PoliShifter. Yea, why aren't the Republicans pro-choice, and why aren't they for gay marriage, if they respect freedoms so much?
Well, how I see is that Republicans only have a narrow view of what freedom is: My way or the high way.
Oh yea, Ted, I really enjoy the last sentence, makes no sense at all. I think you are missing a few words there.
Why did you delete my comment stating that I would post my response later?
********it was personal between us so it didn't seem worth taking up other peoples' time with
Ted,
Okay, I am ready to dissect your opinion. The title is good, mediocre at best.
*******unless you have evidence to support what you say it is merely an insult and not worth the time to say it.
May I suggest that you replace Democrats and Republicans with liberals and
conservatives since some Republicans are liberal and that some Democrats are conservative.
*******I figure that since Democrat and Republican are the names you face in the voting booth they are the only important names, especially since they are almost interchangeable with liberal and conservative anyway?
So here is how I am going to do it. I am going to take it from the left vs. right, so no one is
misrepresented.
******no idea what you mean??????
First sentence:Democrats (government) and Republicans (freedom). I hope you mean to write this in the time frame of now,
*******if you read the article about which you are supposedly responding you will see the time frame is all of US History and that it is referred to many times????.
because I can remember when many conservative Republicans and Conservative
Democrats denied the rights to women, African-Americans, Native Americans, Latinos and immigrants in general.
******yes all agree but so what???
I would like to know what your definition of freedom is.
*********it is defined in the article many times?? freedom and gov't are, generally speaking opposites. The article gives you much detail on this, and in the first paragraph too; I have referred you there several times already??
Anywho, if you are speaking in
this time frame, well uh...yea.
********1787 - 2005
I think you need to rearrange somethings here. Speaking in terms of the present,
******why, since the article was about all of history not just the present???
the
government under this Administration has grown dramatically,
*******don't you know that the gov't is under the Constitution not the administration??
if the administration could do what it wants you'd have Social security reform conservative justices, fair tax, tax reform etc etc.etc.
and our freedoms are constantly under attack.
********a silly girlie feeling with no evidence!!!
Under Bush the government has
increased: Dept. of Homeland Security
******yes since the homeland suffered the worst attack(9/11 in NYC) in US history- isnt thinking fun?
and not to mention all of the other bureaucracies such as the TIA/IAO.
*********I assume a monkey would understand that having information about terrorists, when the terrorists have said that it is their religious obligation to launch a nuclear attack against us, is a good thing. Would you rather that we try to be ignorant of terrorists as they attempt to launch a nuclear attack against us?? I'm thinking you are very very stupid or a terrorist yourself, or just very young???
Don't forget the
PATRIOT ACT, the ACT that destroys and limits freedoms when its main objective is to protect them.
********more girlie name calling with no evidence whatsoever. Would you rather that we be unpatriotic when we are about to be attacked???
Now, the liberals. Liberals, as a whole (that means excluding some radicals) have always
stood up for the inherent civil liberties of each man, woman and child.
******yes it startled with the Jeffersonian Republicans and the Bill of Rights; so civil liberties are inherently Republican.
Example, the "rogue" organization that is the ACLU.
******yes they defend Nazi and NAMBLA and many thoughtful people think they are crazy. When children get molested their civil liberties are not protected by liberals!
Outcry about the Patriot Act from
many leftists orgs and leftists in general and one Senator at the time of the ACT's inception.
*****you forgot to say how you conclude that by making a nuclear attack more possible our civil liberties are protected??
Now you are entitled your banal cliches,
******you forget to give an example???
but it just brings us back to conservatives,
Republicans in this case. Let's throw the free market enterprise in here as well.
******you forgot to say what "here" refers to???
The Republicans have received more corporate handouts than the democrats.
******no facts no evidence so why bother? I could say the Democrats are stupid, but without evidence it is a meaningless thing to say; a school yard insult from a school girl. You seem brainwashed. You are a true believer. You see no need for facts, example or logical reasoning. This is why we think Democrats are essentially dumb
Government to the highest bidder if you will. Is that freedom?
******Highest bidder?? Evidence example logical thinking??? I could say gov't to the lowest bidder but without evidence both statement are 100% meaningless.
Tobacco and Pharmacrats paying off officials so they can do more damage?
********evidence example logical reasoning. I could say SEC and FDA attacking business but without evidence both are girlie name calling.
Last time I checked, when business and government combine, it is a characteristic of fascism
*******when gov't owns and controls business it is called Socialism, fascism or communism; it is ultimately what the Democrats want since they have always stood for bigger government (therefore against America) no matter how big gov't gets.
and that the government is for the people not people with money pouring out of their
pockets.
******no idea what your point is or what evidence you have to support your conclusion??
In court the facts come first. Conclusions come after facts and are drawn from the facts.
I am not saying conservatives/Republicans are fascists by no means, but something to
think about.
******well it Democrats spied for the Communists; were caught and executed for it, if KGB recruited among liberal Democrats and Democrats admit to being for govt and against freedom there is very little to think about.
So here we have Republicans who expand government,
********from Jefferson on Republicans have been against govt?? This is perhaps most obvious fact of American history. And if you in your twisted way think they are for gov't then in your twisted way you should love them???
trump on freedoms,
********evidence??
and screw
the American people over by yielding to corporations who do more harm than good.
********more harm then good?? if they were gone we'd all be dead tomorrow. This is about as obvious as the nose on your face. If you can't understand that you are near retarded or very very young. I'm hoping young because I don't want to be insulting a retarded person.
Now, you seem to have your political party history confused.
******and you have evidence????
Democrats were not known as Federalists, but known as Democratic-Republicans. The
Dem-Repubs later became the Democrats. Federalists were then the National Republicans (1828). Federalists wanted a strong central government. Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican. Not a federalists. You are simply criticizing yourself. You have this all jumbled, rewrite it, I don't need to waste my time on historical mishaps.
*********it is not a waste, it is very important to see that throughout American history the Democrats (called Federalist at the time) were for bigger gov't just like George111 and Napoleon while the Republicans were for freedom from gov't. Jefferson hated the Federalist because they wanted powerful big socialist gov't which is exactly the opposite of what he wanted for America. At his inaugural address when Jefferson was trying to be nice he said "we are all Republicans we are all Federalist" He openly and always referred to himself as a Republican so there is not a question about what his label was.
FYI Jefferson's philosophy of freedom came to define America for all political parties until 1932, that is why the Democrats try to claim him, although it is obviously stupid given that Adams and the Democrats were/are for gov't while Jefferson was against it.
Putting the historical mistakes aside,
******I hope you've got your mistakes clarified now???
I will address some points that are not related to history, but that are merely talking
points.
The Supreme Court cannot order abortions.
******abortions shot up from almost 0 to 1 million a year as soon as the Court ordered it
You are making it seem as if women are picking from the Wendy's menu. Who ordered
these abortions?
*******as I said, The Supreme Court
Actually abortion can been seen in the language of the Constitution. 14th Amendment.
*******if that was true I'm sure you'd show how? Doesn't it tell you something about yourself that you refer to the 14 amendment but don't show what language in the 14th you're talking about? It amounts to plain lying or perhaps is evidence of your brainwashed state?.
How does the Court say that abortion is good?
******if after ROE abortions shot up from near 0 to 1 million it must have been them, unless you think they put something in the water in 1973 ??
That is such a weak argument.
********what is "this"????
Screw semantics, look at what you are saying. The last
sentence of the second paragraph: please. Who has again and again protected our constitution? Not Republicans.
*******I think it is the Republicans but without evidence it is utterly meaningless. One has to support his position with evidence. Is that so hard to understand?? Do you see why Democrats are thought of as the Dumb people?? Facts come before Conclusions. If you are arrested tomorrow for murder will you want your attorney to present facts in your defense or will you be content to let the jury hear just the prosecutions facts?
Who trampled on the Constitution to degrade people and arrest people and brand them as
Communists for their own political gain?
********please tell me who and when and then I can answer you. Without names, times places it is too silly, elementary school.
"This rather short journey toward judicial, Democratic, irrational monarchy started when the Constitution was ratified, but picked up steam when Jefferson..." Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican.
********you may think so but he thought of himself as a Republican and opponents as monarchist, royalist, fascist, socialists, Caesar's.
Democratic Republicans are now known as Democrats.
********that is very very stupid given that Democrats today stand for bigger gov't above all else while the Democrat- Republicans were a direct descendant of the Republican Jefferson who believed in limited gov't above all else.
Your whole argument is
out the window.
******now do you understand??
So Jefferson's small government philosophy defined America,
********exactly and exclusively until 1932 when Roosevelt won and came under the influence of the Communists during the Depression when many had given up hope that freedom and capitalism could work.
but he was a Dem-
Rep
*******as I said, according to Jefferson he was a Republican and I guess he knows better than you or who ever is feeding you your girlie man history. Why not try reading a book about history yourself???
(now Dem Party). So by criticizing the Democratic Government you are criticizing
Jefferson whose very words you are using to support your argument.
*******I hope you get it now???
John Marshall was a Federalist, not a Democrat. See above for historical accuracy.
*******get it now???
Adams was a Federalist.
James Madison (Sec. of State) refused to honor the Appointment
Thomas Jefferson was an Anti-Federalist.
Marshall was one of the midnight judges.
Marshall was a Federalist.
*******isn't it reveling how a brainwashed Democrat will assume he knows history with so much certainty that he doesn't even bother to read it. This is why we say the dumb people gravitate toward the Democrats.
--
Posted
PoliShifter said... The Court doesnt perform abortions. People do.
********the Court must be deeply involved since after Roe the number of abortions shot up from near 0 to 1 million per year.
And since when did laws prevent anyone from doing any thing?
*******if there were no laws tomorrow, civilization would end tomorrow
Republicans are about freedom?
I guess you are not referring to NeoConservatives (GW Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Kristol, etc).
*********I am generally speaking of Republicans since Jefferson forward
They call themselves Republicans are not about freedom what so ever. They are about limiting freedom (Patriot Act 2).
*******fighting the war on terror is limiting freedom??
You say Republicans are about freedom? Then why aren't they pro-choice?
******the same reason they are not pro choice about killing a two year old
9:39 AM
Roe v Wade didn't "order" 40 million abortions. It permitted women to have them.
*****yes, it permitted them and immediately 1 million per year showed up to kill their babies. Order, permit, enable, encourage, who cares? Because of it 1 millions babies are killed each year.
Would you prefer 40 million unwanted kids instead? 40 million, mostly little bastards who
would likely grow up without fathers? The fall in the crime rate starting 18 years after Roe is likely the result of Roe.
*******what we would prefer, dummy, is a loving Republican culture wherein people had sex when they were in love and wanted kids, not a hip hop liberal Democratic culture where women are whores, babies are killed, and those who survive are raised in broken homes. Get it now?? Some points are so simple that even Demcorats should be able to understand them.
Your problem is that you cannot see the differences between things that are different. Your mind is like an out of focus lense.
*******if that was true I'm sure you'd provide an example.
To "permit" is not the same as to "order". You don't understand the concept of freedom.
******if the Supreme Court permitted armed robbery tomorrow, and tomorrow there were 1 million armed robberies you would not quibble about whether they were ordered or permitted would you?
No "babies" were killed by abortion, but many have likely been spared from being killed.
******you forgot to explain what you mean??
You don't know the difference between a baby and an embryo.
******a partial birth is usually performed on the back of a babies head
If you think there ever has been or ever will be a culture where people have sex only when they want children, you don't have a clue about human nature.
*******before the Supreme Court ordered up 1 million abortions per year sex was connected to love. I realize that liberals and feminists need to destroy love so women can be free.
Post a Comment