Tuesday, November 8, 2011

The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions...

Cross-posted at the Left Coast Rebel

The above quote, which in its entirety is, "The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local—or seemingly passive—their individual origins," was written by Judge Laurence Silberman, a Reagan appointee, regarding today's D.C. federal court ruling upholding the Constitutionality of ObamaCare.

Question: If the right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local—or seemingly passive—their individual origins, as the judge so eloquently puts it is in fact the new dynamic of our once-free nation, then what protects us from tyranny?

What if Congress deems that unabridged free speech (aka "hate speech" in progressive land) is a national problem requiring a "national solution?" How about the current madness surrounding obesity? Gun ownership? Private property rights? The list goes on.

Why did the Founding Fathers even give congress enumerated powers? Do you know what enumerated means?

Why even bother?

Why not just be ruled by our "betters" in Washington D.C. at every point in our lives at the barrel of a gun?

Remember this?


It all makes sense now. Welcome to tyranny. It's been a long way coming.

9 comments:

  1. .

    "Why did the Founding Fathers even give congress enumerated powers? Do you know what enumerated means?"

    Oh sniffle sniffle ...

    Constitution Of USA,

    Amendment IX

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    "Why not just be ruled by our "betters" in Washington D.C. at every point in our lives at the barrel of a gun?" Oh piffle.

    Freedom ain't free. So pay your taxes. It is called being a part of our society. We all benefit from open society. It has allowed USA to achieve liberty for its people.

    Ema Nymton
    ~@:o?
    .

    ReplyDelete
  2. Progressive statists love sheeple like Ema.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I must reserve comment as I wish to reflect on the Constitution as written and the process by which we choose our representatives.

    The judge's comment should be considered in the total context of what a representative democracy is, as defined by the Constitution.

    This very thought provoking post requires, IMHO, more than just a cursory consideration or superfluous judgement of the judge's statement.

    I have not watched the video yet as I am unable to do so at my present location. So... perhaps my caution in unjustified.

    ReplyDelete
  4. les,
    "The judge's comment should be considered in the total context of what a representative democracy is, as defined by the Constitution."

    i say:
    "The judge's comment should be considered in the total context of what "free will" is, as defined by the Constitution."

    this is an argument of "free will" vs "determinism" first of all, not of representative government or the election process.

    every application of either principle can be enforced by representative government.

    ReplyDelete
  5. And I say the Congress of the United States is the representative government.

    At least that is how the constitution defines it. And with in that framework we should govern.

    Regulations are a necessity but should reflect the will of the people.

    Apples and Oranges don't mix well, so to speak. Liker I said time for refection.

    ReplyDelete
  6. les,
    "Regulations are a necessity but should reflect the will of the people."

    that is a deterministic statement.

    the foundational basis of any democratic decision is that the voter votes his conscious, thus expresses his free will. and if free will is not allowed to be expressed in any role a person has taken on then he is not abiding by the principle of free will that you say you are an advocate of. and that includes our representatives.

    and representatives can never reflect the will of the people. they can only reflect the will of the majority of the voters. he will always go against the will of the minority of the voters.

    and reread Ayn Rand on this.

    "The [U.S.] Constitution is limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

    in other word, the federal constitution regulates the federal government not the people.

    and if you had read my answers to the questions you said that you would like to hear in a previous post you'd see where i'm coming from.

    ReplyDelete
  7. griper - in all seriousness...

    Representative Government {The Ayn Rand Lexicon}

    The theory of representative government rests on the principle that man is a rational being, i.e., that he is able to perceive the facts of reality, to evaluate them, to form rational judgments, to make his own choices, and to bear responsibility for the course of his life.

    Politically, this principle is implemented by a man’s right to choose his own agents, i.e., those whom he authorizes to represent him in the government of his country. To represent him, in this context, means to represent his views in terms of political principles. Thus the government of a free country derives its “just powers from the consent of the governed.” (For the basis of this discussion, see “Man’s Rights” and “The Nature of Government” in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.)

    As a corroboration of the link between man’s rational faculty and a representative form of government, observe that those who are demonstrably (or physiologically) incapable of rational judgment cannot exercise the right to vote. (Voting is a derivative, not a fundamental, right; it is derived from the right to life, as a political implementation of the requirements of a rational being’s survival.) Children do not vote, because they have not acquired the knowledge necessary to form a rational judgment on political issues; neither do the feeble-minded or the insane, who have lost or never developed their rational faculty. (The possession of a rational faculty does not guarantee that a man will use it, only that he is able to use it and is, therefore, responsible for his actions.)

    Hm... The last sentence kind of sums it up.

    Applicable {and descriptive) to both the government (representatives) and the governed those who elect them).

    ReplyDelete
  8. “Open Mind” and “Closed Mind” (The Ayn Rand Lexicon)

    [There is a] dangerous little catch phrase which advises you to keep an “open mind.” This is a very ambiguous term—as demonstrated by a man who once accused a famous politician of having “a wide open mind.” That term is an anti-concept: it is usually taken to mean an objective, unbiased approach to ideas, but it is used as a call for perpetual skepticism, for holding no firm convictions and granting plausibility to anything. A “closed mind” is usually taken to mean the attitude of a man impervious to ideas, arguments, facts and logic, who clings stubbornly to some mixture of unwarranted assumptions, fashionable catch phrases, tribal prejudices—and emotions. But this is not a “closed” mind, it is a passive one. It is a mind that has dispensed with (or never acquired) the practice of thinking or judging, and feels threatened by any request to consider anything.

    What objectivity and the study of philosophy require is not an “open mind,” but an active mind—a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them critically. An active mind does not grant equal status to truth and falsehood; it does not remain floating forever in a stagnant vacuum of neutrality and uncertainty; by assuming the responsibility of judgment, it reaches firm convictions and holds to them. Since it is able to prove its convictions, an active mind achieves an unassailable certainty in confrontations with assailants—a certainty untainted by spots of blind faith, approximation, evasion and fear.

    “Philosophical Detection,”
    Philosophy: Who Needs It, 21

    http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_nonfiction_philosophy_who_needs_it

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.