Some thoughts on Broun

Senator David Shafer posted an interesting account of Congressman-elect Paul Broun’s previous campaigns. Shafer calls his victory a “testament to perseverance.”

I hope the new Congressman will follow the four way test on his website asking himself questions like…

  • Is it constitutional?
  • Is it a proper function of government?
  • It is something we really need?
  • Is it something we can afford?

These questions do not get asked enough, if it all.

The pandering to the religious right bugs the hell out of me. But I think the limited government minded individuals among us should give him the benefit of the doubt.

61 comments

  1. ConservativeCaucus says:

    “The pandering to the religious right bugs the hell out of me.”

    I may be the only one… but that comment made me chuckle. It is a brilliant play on words.

    Jason, I too disdain pandering to the religious right. As politicians sharpen their messages, I believe it is harder and harder to determine whether someone is pandering or speaking their beliefs. It is quite possible for politicians to hold views that are friendly to the religious right, but others have mastered the language of appealing to that group.

    All that being said, I am someone who is probably considered part of the Christian right. I am also low taxes, limited government guy as well.

  2. Burdell says:

    Basically, pandering to -anybody- is what bugs me. If Broun follows the wisdom of those four questions, he won’t be doing any pandering at all.

    Would it be fair to judge his application of these questions by comparing his future voting record to Ron Paul’s?

  3. Federalist says:

    I have a problem with this moron determining whether or not something is, or is not, constitutional. That is for the courts to decide, and to think forrest gump could make such distinctions is asinine. The rest is fine, but I am pretty sure that Broun does not know what he is getting into. He can pander all he wants to the people at home, but when he gets to D.C. and becomes the least ranking member of the minority party and is told how to vote, not given floor time, and people realize that he will be the most ineffective congressman to walk the halls of congress…his days will be immediately numbered. Seriously, I doubt that he could win a Republican primary election. Do not even get me started on a General Election. There are just over 500 days left in his legislative career…mark my words.

  4. jsm says:

    “That is for the courts to decide”

    I gotta call BS right there. The courts are necessary only when a law’s constitutionality is challenged, as part of checks and balances. Legislators should know and understand the Constitution and incorporate that knowledge into what they do. If legislators merely made whatever laws they desired without consulting the Constitution, the courts would constantly be striking them down, and the system would be more inefficient than it is now.

    Like them or not, the four questions Broun lists are good ones for all legislators.

  5. profg says:

    Thank you, jsm. I think the more people call “Federalist” on his bull statements, the more folks will come to realize his chosen nickname doesn’t fit him at all.

    “The term ‘federalism’ is used to describe a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). Federalism is the system in which the power to govern is shared between the national & state governments, creating what is often called a federation. Proponents are often called federalists.” (Thank you Wikipedia.)

    Having taught Constitutional Law, I’m more and more amazed at how little “Federalist” knows about the basic law of our land.

    BG

  6. Federalist says:

    Thankyou “prof” g. Like you really studied poli. sci. You got your “PhD” from a website. I taught constitional law too, needless to say my area of expertise is in political theory/philosophy. Where did you teach again? Broward Community College? there are a number of ways to determine these facts, congress can pass any law that it likes. Unfortunately when congressmen take constitutionality into consideration, proposals to ban flag burning and gay marriage come up. Like I said, it is for the courts to decide the consitutionality of a law. On your “campaign “you always brought up justices “legistlating from the bench.” and legistlators pretending to be chief executivesm,…well if seems as if you believe that there is no reciprocity in these relationships. You, Bill Greene, are just an advocate for a right wing agenda and only care about the system if it works in favor of your political positions. You should be ashamed of yourself for smearing the title of professor. Read the federalist papers, not wikipedia. I should have made my name publius,…but I did not think anybody would get that, and now I know you would not have gotten it “doc.”

  7. Lee Benedict says:

    Fed: “congress”, “congressmen”, and “federalist papers” are proper nouns, and therefore are to be capitalized.
    Let’s not get involved in a pissing contest about who taught political science and where one went to school. Remember, Bill Clinton went to Yale and taught “Constitutional Law” and we all know how…”intelligent” he is and to what regard he has for the Constitution. Oh yeah, Joycelyn Elders apparently went to medical school.

  8. Federalist says:

    I do not capitalize words on blogs, it is not journalism. Clinton is a genius, literally. You may think little of him, but then again you probably voted for W,…who is quite literally a standard deviation below the average intelligence of a homo-sapien. Knowing the constitution, understanding constitutional law (cases that you agree with or not) as should be the prerogative of any professor of the subject, and having regard for it are all different. What did clinton do that disrespectful to the constitution?

  9. profg says:

    “Fed,” you’re about as much a “Federalist” as Judge William West was. Not that you would get that, Mr. Philosopher.

    You obviously know nothing about me, and refuse to identify yourself, but you have no problem tossing out baseless invectives galore. You are a nattering nabob of negativism, wherever your posts appear on this blog. You claim to have taught, but your lack of writing skills tells me that you’re either dishonest or were a poor academician (or both). And your misunderstanding of the separation of powers speaks volumes about your academic skills.

    It’s true that I am an advocate for a conservative agenda. I believe that such an agenda is the right course of action, and I’m willing to debate the merits of those actions. YOU, on the other hand, aren’t willing to logically debate anything, apparently.

    “Fed,” why not try to discuss — calmly and rationally — the actual issues being bandied about here, instead of acting like some old man on his front porch, yelling at the neighborhood children, “You kids get off of my grass!”

    BG

  10. Federalist says:

    that was humorous, you used the word rational as a description of a debate you would like to engage in. I do not reveal my identity because this is an online blog, i do not have to. again, and I am certain that you have not read, or would remember, but i refuse to write anything other than dialogue on blogs. How dare you call me an anti-federalist. True, I call you a Nazi from time to time, but that has merit. You’re precious conservative agenda is reminiscent of that held by the national socialist circa 1940. Why don’t you just stop now, solicit some more contributions for your PAC, go start a jonestown with your family, try to use terry schaivo’s death to solicit some money, and be gone. You agenda is done, sir.

  11. Donkey Kong says:

    Federalist,

    “Seriously, I doubt that he could win a Republican primary election.”

    I think we could consider the runoff to be a Republican primary election. It was an R vs R, and Broun kicked some tail. Yeah, it was unique with the Democratic voters, but still, this is a somewhat stupid claim following Broun’s victory over another R.

  12. Thadius says:

    Federalist,

    As always you hamstring any thoughts you present by avoiding the semblance of logical thought and neglecting even the most basic journalistic courtesy.

  13. profg says:

    “Fed,” I’m calling you William West from now on. Just because (a) it’s true, and (b) it sufficiently grates on your nerves. πŸ™‚

    You’d better check your history, Mr. West. The National Socialist agenda circa 1940 was a far cry from the morally-focused limited-government conservative agenda I advocate. Go back to your porch to yell at the kids.

    BG

  14. Federalist says:

    I have never heard you advocate a conservative agenda. you abide by the leadership principle, glorification of the state, racism, irrationalism, anti-communism, and elitism. Calling me Mr. West does make me angry…especially coming from a man no better than Benedict Arnold. You, sir, have turned your back on America. Say what you like about me, criticize me, hell call me a bleeding heart liberal…for you sir support an agenda aimed at benefiting a few elitists. You have never advocated a policy that would benefit the people of this country, nor has Paul Broun (to say something aimed at the topic of this thread.) Hide behind your emotionally charged propaganda, I, and unfortunately only few, stand firmly before reason.

  15. Lee Benedict says:

    Fed: Did you pay attention to the 10thCD campaigns AT ALL? I have seen Bill at many an event and I cannot fathom how you can say, and post on the World Wide Web no less, that Bill abides by glorifying the state, racism, irrationalism, elitism. I have heard him advocate a conservative agenda; low taxes, law and order, security…
    Now I really don’t know if you are just spouting off to get a charge out of people, or if you really believe the crap that you post. And William, your last post was thee most illogical, nonsensical, diatribe of gobbledegook leftist crap that would have made Marx happy.

  16. profg says:

    Mr. West, you couldn’t be more wrong about almost everything you wrote (except the part about anti-communism, which I will gladly admit to), which leads me to believe (again) that you haven’t got a clue what any of them-thar high-falutin’ words you’re spoutin’ actually mean.

    You stand not before reason, but far behind it. Or should I say, you have left it far behind, apparently many years ago. If you refuse to actually discuss issues from a logical stance, you have already shot yourself in the foot, and I won’t bother with you.

    Take a stand, Mr. West. Stop hiding behind inanities. I don’t even believe you taught kindergarten, much less constitutional law.

    BG

  17. profg says:

    Jason, I don’t advocate sacrificing essential liberty for temporary security. I advocate abiding by the law of the land — the Constitution — according to its original intent. If we do that, we’ll keep both liberty and security.

    BG

  18. SugarHillDad says:

    Fed- You are starting to sound as stupid as GOPeach. Your statement, “You have never advocated a policy that would benefit the people of this country, nor has Paul Broun…” is moronic. You may not like Congressman Broun but you have no factual ability to make the statement. First of all the Good Congressman is a Doctor making his chosen profession an attempt to be a benefit the people of this country. Secondly, Congressman Broun has always been an advocate of our Constitution and has given of his time and energy to do his part to protect it. But you would not understand that. Mr. Green, you are wrong about Feds academic skills. He spouts off as if he is a Professor at the highest level of academia. I do not mean to poke at your profession but you know what they say, “Those who can’t work teach.” Again not to poke at you Bill. But I am poking at you Fed. BTW I know you (Bill) personally and think you are of the highest caracter and integrity. You are probably one of the few teachers that I would have enjoyed having. In closing Fed you should probably go back to warping the minds of impressional youth and take your education (that could not hold a candle light to G W Bush’s) and put it to use.

  19. Federalist says:

    I can understand why nobody understands half of the comments that I have posted. You get your ideas of governance from the bible…that pointless fiction that is spouted by neocons like greene. They take advantage of your beliefs to get votes,…and when you disagree with his position you become unpatriotic, unamerican, yadda yadda yadda. I certainly doubt that you will wake up from your intellectual coma, these blinds have been pulled over your eyes since reagan was in office. Something tells me that broun became a doctor to make money rather than to help people. I am certain that this is true of his new venture. that david koreshesque pathetic excuse for an america, bill greene, was doing the same. I am still curious as too how much of those campaign contributions were pocketed. Afterall, we are talking about a “man” who used terry schaivo’s death to solicit political contributions. these men are merely privateersman, with out a care for the common man. this may be my, oh I don’t know, thirty-some years of teaching locke and the consitution (Jason Pye), but the consitution was not based on natural law…it was founded on the basis of a social contract, of the law’s of society (common law). sugarhilldad, warping the minds of impressional youth? did you see that garbage video that greene’s son put together? just because I taught students to think and analyze, rather than follow and advocate, does not make me a bad teacher, or a poor workman. that little comment you made can only apply to the public school teachers that the right-wing has worked so hard to sabatoge. Of course you would like greene’s style of teaching. His kids are homeschooled, and probably read mein kampf every night before bed time. christian education is a joke, human education is responsible.

  20. Jason Pye says:

    John Locke and the theory of social contract go hand-in-hand. It is evident in the Bill of Rights (the epitome of it is 9th Amendment, which is all but ignored by people like yourself).

    I am not surprised you deny the correlation between Locke and the Constitution, you’re a leftist.

    Please tell us, where did you teach Constitutional law?

  21. Federalist says:

    where did you derive such a statement as “you deny the correlation between Locke and the Constitution?” the constitution was not derived from natural law, but locke did not create the idea of natural law or common law. If anything I believe in Locke’s words more than most people in this forum…I do not think that god should be in government, anywhere. Laws and morals do not come from religion, they come from a reasoned examination of the consequences of an individuals actions within the social structure. The bill of rights is a great thing, but it was not necessary. The provisions of the articles of the constitution provided enough protection, and as anybody that has studied this history would know,…the bill of rights was a ploy to manufacture consent for the successful ratification of the constitution. I do not deny the locke-constitution correlation…but one of the things that right-wing nut jobs, like you and david koresh (bill greene), forget is that the constitution was created by intelligent men who derived the concepts captured in the contract from many many other people: like Adam Smith, Montesquieu, even Aristotle (who thought democracy to be a pervisity), etc etc. Conservatives have attacked the philosophies of these men for years, and still claim to support the ideology. Just look at the recent immigration debate…what do you think smith or locke would have said? Locke actually addressed the issue in his second treatise of government, and i am certain that smith would argue to tear down all immigration laws and allow for the free flow of labor and commerce amongst various nations. I taught at the university of chicago, then at boston college, then back at chicago, only to finish my career at oregon. I got my phd from chicago, not a website. this was back in the 60’s too, before those crock website schools and peanut stand phd programs sprang up for disgraces like bill greene to claim some sort of intellectuall credibility. That is why I hate bill greene so much, not because of his ideology so much, but because he went from candidate forum to candidate forum flaunting the fact he was a doctor of philosophy. Any true patron of the halls of academia would be embarassed beyond tempation to resort to a virtual school like miami christian university…and unacreditted, website college.

  22. Jason Pye says:

    First of all, I’m not a conservative. I am a firm believer in the harm principle and natural rights (negative liberty), which are things that conservatives, at least in the sense of the religious right, do not value. I deeply value the contributions to political philosophy of classical liberal philosophers.

    The Constitution’s foundational principle is natural law. I think that is self-evident.

    Just look at the recent immigration debate

  23. Federalist says:

    I write, on weblogs, in dialogue. This is not journalism, nor is it any other form of formal writing. Like I said, in regard to the bill of rights, it was used only to get the constitution ratified. I think you agree with me on that point, but assuredly you can see that the protections provided in the constitution were all that would be necessary to gaurd against the oppression of liberty and usurping of various powers. In regards to negative liberty and the constitution, Berlin would go on about this for weeks, or natural law and the constitution, i understand were you are coming from…i have heard this, well not a million times, but from the brighter students I have had the pleasure of teaching. Given the language used in the “papers” i have yeilded on the side of positive liberty. It may sound cynical, but given the religious views of the creators of the consitution (not the delegates who merely attended the convention), and how much of locke’s writing was borrowed by jefferson…i keep coming to the conclusion that the goal was to coax the masses to put the state before the church, or religion for that matter. This goes for science as well. I do not know who you are Jason Pye, but I admire your intect.

  24. profg says:

    Mr. West, for your information, I taught at Florida International University, the state university in Miami. I have also taught courses at Florida Atlantic University, Barry University, Broward Community College, Florida Memorial College, and Verity Education. I have taught such courses as Introduction to International Relations, Introduction to Comparative Politics, Comparative European Politics, American Government, Politics of the Soviet Union, Soviet Foreign Policy, Introduction to Political Science, World Prospects and Issues, Issues and Problems in International Relations, Issues in American Politics, State and Local Government, Political Theory, and Constitutional Law.

    While I earned my ABD in International Relations from FIU, a fully-accredited institution, my Ph.D. in theology was earned from Miami Christian University, a state-approved (but Dept. of Education-unaccredited) theological institution, which was authorized to operate by the Florida Department of Education’s State Board of Independent Colleges and Universities (now the Commission for Independent Education) under Florida Statute 246.084. (Note to Mr. West: NOT a “website college,” but an actual physical institution.) My MA in Poli. Sci. was earned at UNC-Greensboro; my BA in Poli. Sci. was earned at UNC-Asheville; my AA in Liberal Arts was earned at Brevard College. I also attended courses at Reformed Theological Seminary in Atlanta, a fully-accredited private graduate seminary in Atlanta, but for enrichment, not a degree.

    As for your contentions that the creators of the Constitution pulled almost entirely from Locke and Smith, I certainly disagree. Many, if not most, of the foundational ideas of our Constitution – laying out a constitutional, decentralized, confederative (states’ rights), popular, representative republic – are qualities which our well-read founding fathers, steeped in Biblical upbringings, knew that pre-Kings Israel of the Old Testament possessed. Israel had a constitution, which took form first as S

  25. Federalist says:

    I agree, but I also know, as you assuredly do, that, with the exception of hamilton, the rest of the federalist were, for the most part, heavily in debt. In addition to this, the states that were created by the federalists were founded as commonwealths. There was a certain caution that these men took with excessive wealth. As a person who promotes natural law, you must understand that excessive “ownership” runs contrary to the laws of nature. For any land, crop, or harvest that will not be consumed or left to rot, has no legitimate claim upon it. I am not an advocate for the redistribution of wealth…but I also do not forsee a future for a country that is financially controlled by a select few heirs of some industrial empire. Labor is almost a thing of the past. Today’s fortunes are not created by hard work, only smart work. There is something wrong, though, when a man like Warren Buffet can make $47 million/year and be taxed at only 17%. Individuals should be allowed to make all the money that they can, with in the bounds of the law. My spirit requires me to state that my previous statement only works if the laws are just and in sync with the capitalist spirit. There must be a protection from the unnecessary penalizing of the masses for the financial protection of the few. I.E. a progressive income tax, or some other tax that will require proportional taxation required for maintenence of an individuals level of income.

  26. Jason Pye says:

    I agree, but I also know, as you assuredly do, that, with the exception of hamilton, the rest of the federalist were, for the most part, heavily in debt. In addition to this, the states that were created by the federalists were founded as commonwealths.

    I hate Hamilton as much as you hate Bill Greene. I think Hamilton’s influence on Washington set the country off on the wrong foot from the beginning.

    There must be a protection from the unnecessary penalizing of the masses for the financial protection of the few. I.E. a progressive income tax, or some other tax that will require proportional taxation required for maintenence of an individuals level of income.

    I’m sorry, but that is a load of crap. Penalizing the masses? Almost half of the country pays no income taxes. An income tax is nothing more than theft, glorification of the state and Marxism.

    As for your contentions that the creators of the Constitution pulled almost entirely from Locke and Smith, I certainly disagree. Many, if not most, of the foundational ideas of our Constitution – laying out a constitutional, decentralized, confederative (states

  27. profg says:

    Yeah, yeah, don’t make be go all James Madison and Patrick Henry on you, Jason. πŸ™‚

    I never said the founders opened a Bible and started copying it onto parchment, to be put in the National Archives, for Nicolas Cage or someone to discover down the road. I said that, “Many, if not most, of the foundational ideas of our Constitution… are qualities which our well-read founding fathers, steeped in Biblical upbringings, knew that pre-Kings Israel of the Old Testament possessed.”

    Surely you know that the Treaty of Tripoli is not our foundational document… πŸ™‚

    BG

  28. profg says:

    P.S. Don’t forget Holy Trinity Church v. United States (1892): “These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.

    Yikes, Barry Lynn must be clinching right about now…

    BG

  29. Federalist says:

    I hated having taxes taken from me as much as the next. The state must continue. In order for the state to continue it must be financed. Printing out money does not work, just look at what happened to the former soviet states, post wwii germany or italy. Taxation is requisite, at least for a government as we still can legitimate. I only propose a progressive income tax, this would tax all income, earned or not. An infrastructure must exist in order for individuals to attain and amass wealth. Employees must be educated, be healthy, get to work, manufacture, distribute, sell, or provide a service. Transportation is necessary to all of this, as are hospitals to provide healthcare, and schools to educate, etc. This is true for all consumers of a particular good or service. It is my belief, as well as those that created the progressive income tax, that taxes should be proportional to the amount, and cost, of the infrastructure required for them to maintain their wealth. It is not theft. It may be argued that since the money is taken from your pay, then it is theft…but this is exactly what happens when your wages/salary are garnished because you can not be “trusted” to “buck up. Hey koresh, the bible did not teach those men anything of value. They did not believe in monarchy, except for hamilton (constitution monarchy though). Just as any individual that is not attached to the bible can see that the “rules” set forth, with the exception of some of the moral garbage, were set forth for the sake of the people that made the bible up. It is not hard for a group of con artists to get together and convince a group of people that they need to live a certain way or else they will live in an everlasting hell…like david koresh did!

  30. profg says:

    Yikes, Mr. West, you’re a Marxist goofball. I guess I never realized it before. That must be why you won’t debate the actual issues. Bye.

    BG

  31. Federalist says:

    I am no goofball. Actual issues?! no wonder you could only garner 1600 votes in that election. I am no marxist…what tax is more democratic than the progressive income tax? the fair tax? I have heard of your support for that ficticious plutocratic idea of a tax policy. Typical losing con, when reason starts to butt in the debate you resort to calling people commies or terrorists. Here is something you might be able to wrap that “brain” of yours around…what did jesus say about taxation? pay them. Curious, how else do you want to fund this little war you believe in so much? add to the deficit? that would be the typical republican position on that matter.

  32. Jason Pye says:

    what tax is more democratic than the progressive income tax?

    Ahhh, yes…”democratic.” Surely, as someone who calls himself a federalist, you must be familiar with Founders thoughts on factions (Federalist 9 and 10). No faction has a right to deprive an individual or a group of individuals of any right(s).

    “Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” – James Madison, from Federalist #10

    Curious, how else do you want to fund this little war you believe in so much? add to the deficit? that would be the typical republican position on that matter.

    I don’t support the war, though I did at one time. That statement could be easily turned around on you and Democrats, who seek to expand the welfare state. A recent report shows that we are facing more than $40 trillion in unfunded liabilities in Medicare and Social Security.

  33. Federalist says:

    The comment about funding the war was directed at greene. In the matters of taxation, though, no faction is depriving any other of their property or rights. As our society has evolved, and the founders knew that it would, government has had to keep up with it. The constitution was made very flexible, and the application of security extends to economics as well as physical bodily harm. Furthermore, taxation was one of the many reasons the articles of confederation were abandoned. the articles did not provide for a uniform code of taxation…sure it allowed all of the states to levy taxes, but the irregularities made interstate commerce more of a burden than a blessing. In regards to federalist 10, madison (with the consultation of hamilton) ensures to bloody end to our democratic republic, all if requires is pluralism and the fueling of faction. how often are majorities really formed in the united states? Almost never. The coalition of interests that have to be rallied to form a majority is far too cumbersome in this country of 3000+ interest groups, political parties, party factions, etc. The small republics referenced by the federalist were so small and weak that majorities were easily created, and they would eventually lead to the destruction of their respected republic. Montesquieu spoke of this quite often. Taxation is required for a government to exist, unless it is full blown communist government (then it arguable will continue to tax, seeing as no state has ever passed the dictatorship of the proletariat). I think it is important to remember that we are a country of great politics and petty men, unlike the republics of ancient history. We have no, and should have no, heroes…so everybody is a hero in some manner. How many heroes are there in America,…really? When everyone is a hero, nobody is a hero. Taxation, to get back to the topic of discussion, is necessary though. Sales taxes are regressive. I yield on the side of democracy at every turn, and when a tax will hurt more people than it will help…i forsee a problem. In addition to that, I fear a drop in demand for goods, an added sense of frugality if you will, if a sales tax were implemented. As you know, frugality is not a trait common to the american people,…we are a people who love excess and comfort.

  34. Jason Pye says:

    The constitution was made very flexible, and the application of security extends to economics as well as physical bodily harm.

    HA! The hell it was. It’s flexible in the sense of Article V processes (amending the Constitution). The idea of flexibility was created by progressives who could not pass Constitutional amendments to achieve their goals.

    I yield on the side of democracy at every turn, and when a tax will hurt more people than it will help…

    We are not a democracy.

    In regards to federalist 10, madison (with the consultation of hamilton) ensures to bloody end to our democratic republic, all if requires is pluralism and the fueling of faction. how often are majorities really formed in the united states? Almost never.

    I think that is a load. Madison wasn’t speaking only in terms of private factions, he was clearly speaking in terms of legislative power to rob minorities of their rights.

    Taxation is required for a government to exist…

    Unlike most of my libertarian counterparts, I do agree that taxation has to exist, at least in some form. But a progressive income tax only punishes success and rewards failure.

  35. Federalist says:

    You obviously have a certain bitterness towards the ends of these men. What part of the constitution (with exceptions to requirements to hold office) are actually written with straight forward vocabulary. (i.e. the executive oath, Article I, Section 8). How does a progressive income tax punish success and reward failure? That is moronic. How many people try to fail only so that they do not have as much in taxes? Furthermore, as I mentioned before, income maintence…not redistribution. What fault is there in that rational? We are a democratic republic. My explanation of the mischeif of factions applies to congress as well. It only fails when party responsibility is introduced to mix…and as we saw last November, any responsible party platform will only go up in flames. Furthermore, what minority has been robbed of their rights, legislatively, that will not have their rights restored by the courts? The tyranny exhibited by legislative action is only temporary. (i.e. gay rights, voting rights, civil rights, due process, etc.) I am the first to respond when rights of individuals are trampled on, that is why I am a card carrying member of the ACLU. As everyone should be…except for GOPers (taking away rights of minorities has been their prerogative since “conservatisim” was taken away from Goldwater and given to Jerry Falwell)

  36. Tommy_a2b says:

    Federal- You are a bag of wind. You must have absolutly nothing better to do with your time then spout this crap while you collect social security. Notice I called you Federal not what you call yourself. Isn’t there a game of Bingo somewhere you could go play?

  37. Federalist says:

    The libertarian thing was joke. Screw you tommy. What is so leftist about my views on the constitution? this is a matter of relativism, and is why these debates continue. As you may know there were a number of “federalist papers” that were written by people other than jay, hamilton, and madison. These papers conflicted with the advertising plans of the authors, arguably, and were left out. Better Holmes or Souter than Scalia. The only thing we can know about the “original intent” is what the founders wrote, I think you skipped a few of those articles if you seriously think that you are correct on all of these matters. No responsible academic would look to one source, especially primary sources. There have been two dozen excellent works written about the federalist’s intent, not just the papers. Yes there are only about two dozen,…the other thousands are leftist and right-wing garbage aimed to claim “ownership” over the architecture of our government. Also, tommy, why don’t you get out of parent’s basement, get off the box, and read a book. You bill greene supporters are as stupid as you are weak.

  38. Jason Pye says:

    Better Holmes or Souter than Scalia.

    Give me Janice Rogers Brown.

    I’d much rather have some that believes in natural rights over someone that believes my rights come from government.

    The Founders were clear on their intent. Their belief in natural rights and law is so transparent. You must be blind to ignore it.

  39. Donkey Kong says:

    Tommy: “Federal- You are a bag of wind. You must have absolutly nothing better to do with your time then spout this crap while you collect social security. Notice I called you Federal not what you call yourself. Isn

  40. Federalist says:

    When did I ever come out against natural rights? It is when “sub-categories” of these rights are made up and politicized that gray areas are created. Life, Property, and liberty are all I care about…but to enjoy the protections of government, something is required. Requiring payment, in the form of taxes, is not an infringment of your right to property. Janice Rogers Brown is brilliant, her nomination was rightfully held up…she is an ideologue.

  41. Federalist says:

    Just thinking a minute ago about this wonderful exchange. I am starting to think that we, Jason and I, are speaking past each other. It is apparent that the only natural law (justice) that you are referring to are the theories of justice proposed by Locke, and not by the others that subscribed to this theory of jurisprudence (i.e. aristotle, aquinas, hobbs, aurelius, etc.) or other positivists and normative theorists.

  42. Jeff Emanuel says:

    Rugby, is there a more accurate symbol of personal property than money? It’s quite a stretch to argue that money — the representation of property itself — is not property.

  43. Jeff Emanuel says:

    Money is not abstract in the least; money is the physical representation of property itself.

    Here’s a thought — you give me all of your physical money, and go ahead and be as abstractly wealthy as you like. Good deal?

  44. rugby_fan says:

    Jeff;

    What is a dollar? It used to represent an amount of gold, but now it just represents perceived value against other currencies that are based on perceived values.

    I don’t wish to give you a dime good sir! I quite like living in the abstract.

  45. Federalist says:

    Perceived values? Come on rugby fan, they are not perceived. There are a limited amount of dollars, and it is all backed by the strongest, most important, economy the world has ever seen. In regard to taxation, Jason. With the exception of protecting you life, liberty, or property (and considering you are a libertarian). If you do not pay taxes, should you be allowed to enjoy any of the services that government provides, or infrastructure provided by the government (ie schools, roads, various other transit, public broadcasting, parks, and depending where you live utilities)?

  46. GOPeach says:

    He’s in!

    It’s official –
    CONGRESSMAN PAUL BROUN-

    He swore in on C-Span at 6:30 PM.
    John Lewis – welcomed him and said his dad was a democrat State Senator. ( everyone laughed)

    Then Jack Kingston welcomed him and said –
    : his daddy raised him RIGHT! Everyone laughed …

    Then Congressman Broun thanked everyone for
    the warm welcome and he was a bit overwhelmed with campaigning last week and swearing in this week. In a special election, there is no time to catch your breath….

    We need to keep him in prayer…. big adjustment – from physician to congressman in 1 week.

  47. Jace Walden says:

    Hopefully he won’t let Kingston rub off on him…then he’ll have gone from Physician to Congressman to Psuedo-Conservative who preaches fiscal discipline then pisses on the taxpayers while on the appropriations committee.

Comments are closed.