Apparently, you’re new here. Because, anachronism precisely explains the PP genre of front page posters.

Or, do you think everything should be “free,” RL?

Okay, these didn’t instantly come to mind, but took a little noodling. I’m no apologist for Fredericks, even though it really is the only newspaper in North Fulton. On the other hand, for a bunch of ostensibly freedom loving people to start demanding that someone else do something with their own time and money, seem a bit anachronistic.

I thought blaming it on Jenny was a theory. I didn’t realize it was the real reason. Thanks for clarifying. Not filing is not an excuse for me to beat up on him. I had not mentioned his campaign either positively or negatively until I wanted to know why the campaign wasn’t following the law.

Maybe if he hired Jenny back, he would be able to comply, and get a few more votes?

I wish he could have gotten the disclosure in on time, but no one really cares about his disclosure. It is just a convenient excuse to beat up on him, by people who are unwilling to address the larger issues he is raising. But primarily they care because they anticipate that he hasn’t raised as much as the “Big 5″ and they want to be able to point that out as if how much money you raise is some indication of how right you are on the issues. (The inverse relationship is more likely true.) Sorry if I’m not buying following the letter of the law protestations from people who ridicule following the Constitution.

I wasn’t making an argument, I was just pointing out facts on you should not rely on “original intent.” The original intent of our founding fathers was laid out in the articles of confederation. It established the name of the confederation as “The United States of America,” but also preappoved the provinces of Canada as states into the confederation. The continental congress changed the rules of the game by scrapping the articles and adopting the constitution.

The system that you champion, that I agree with for the most part, allows the federal government to conduct it’s business and the states to conduct their business. States may enact whatever laws they see fit pertaining to running for the office of Governor of that state. According to the Constitutions of the United States and of Georgia, we have at least one candidate who appears to be making up the rules as he goes.

I’m not saying it’s always wrong to change the rules of the game. I prefer the constitution to the articles of confederation. We would just like a good explanation on why it’s OK to change them in this case.

Now that I have indulged your whim to discuss history, can you please explain why Ray has not filed his disclosures yet?

I don’t need definitions of conservatives, republicans, or others. I have my own, thank you. I don’t need complaints about motor voter or the seventeenth amendment. I’d like to discuss the topic at hand, if you can. So far the silence has been deafening.

Your argument is a common one. Since there was slavery, property ownership requirements to vote, etc. at the time of ratification then we no longer want what was originally intended. But many of the things you mention were changed by Amendment. (For the record, as a conservative who is not a democrat [small d], but a republican [small r] a strong case can be made for restricting as opposed to expanding the franchise. This has historically been the conservative position. It is why we opposed Motor Voter for example. The 17th Amendment that enacted the direct election of Senators was a huge mistake. But I digress.) But that is just the point. They bothered to actually amend the Constitution. They didn’t just ignore it.

The point is not to recreate perfectly society as it was in the late 18th Century. Such is neither posible nor desirable. The point is that for the Constitution to mean anything, it has to be interpreted in light of the intent when it was enacted. (Just as, for example, the Bible must be interpreted in the manner in which it was intended, not by having modern mores and values read into it in hindsight.) If instead the Constitution is interpreted by whim of the Judicuiary for example we have lawlessness. It amounts to changing the rules in the middle of the game.

One of those original intents was clearly the doctrine of “enumerated powers.” The historical evidence for this is abundantly clear. I could provide qoute after quote, source after source, to prove this. If people want the government to do more, they should focus on the local and state level. If they feel it must be done at the federal level then they should at least be intellectually honest enough to first seek to amend the Constitution, not pretend that enumerated powers doesn’t exist or explain it away with hand waving and voodo language.

If someone would like to make the historical case against enumerated powers (or states rights as a means of enforcement) as the original intent then I would be more than happy to hear it. But “Run away! Run away! There be extremists!” or “Na na-na na-na. Look at the evil extrenmist” is not an argument.

I’m not so sure you want to go with just original intent as your prevailing view of why things should be constitutional. The constitution is a very important document and it is a firm building block of our nation. However, it is not the only thing that shapes our nation and amendments have been added that change the original intent of our forefathers. The views of the country have changed in some areas. Many constitutionalists want to harp on article one section eight of the constitution as far as powers granted to congress to control the scope of their actions. They almost never bring up article three section one. The SCOTUS has made rulings that I don’t agree with, but I recognize their authority to set precedent and judicial review. Judicial review was not set into the constitution, but it was discussed in the convention.

The original intent of our forefathers was that men who owned land could vote, women couldn’t, and it was OK to own slaves. The number of representatives in the house was one per thirty thousand. U.S. Senators would be elected by the state legislature of each state and by the people. The original intent was to have the Vice President as the first runner up to the President. The original intent was that one could serve as President as many terms as the people elected them (via the electoral college.)

As our society changes and grows, so will cases that come before the SCOTUS and we may have amendments offered up that get passed. Those rulings and amendments will have just as much scope in determining how of our nation functions as the original intent as our founding fathers. You could still hold the attitude that you are right and the other 99% of us are wrong. And that is your constitutional right to do so.

I believe that we should follow the constitution, not because the original intent of many things contained therein were perfect, but because we all need to play by the same rules and not make things up as we go along.