Monday, January 7, 2013


Everybody knows what a placebo is right? A pill or procedure that does absolutely nothing, but we are supposed to be convinced it is working wonders.

Kind of like the Republican Party.

They keep talking a good game- and have since 1988- but accomplish nothing.

They held the House, the Senate and the White House for 6 years.

6 YEARS!!!!

And government got bigger, along with the debt. Abortion is still legal, along with a host of other things they supposedly are against. But it's not there fault. It's the Democrats.

Don't take my word for it; spend a few minutes with talk radio.

I have become convinced that talk radio is our circus, designed solely to keep possibly expatriating Republicans on the ranch. Keep us convinced that the Republicans are doing their best and are deserving of our complete support.

And they cave again.

Just like on the 'Fiscal Cliff', when it comes time for the debt ceiling they will fold with the best of intentions. The debt ceiling will go up, debt will increase, spending will increase and taxes will rise again.

All things we sent them to Washington to OPPOSE.

I have faith in some of the younger members; ones who are now holding their first elected office- like Rand Paul- but the old timers have learned the ropes. When to speak out and when to act. Or not to.

Just start making real noise about a new third party; one to represent the people of this country, not the people and the companies sucking at the government teat, and watch the words fly. The only time most of these idiots can quote Ronald Reagan is when they say one of two things: 'Never criticize a fellow Republican', and 'we don't need a third party; we need a revitalized Republican Party'.

Just about the only two things President Reagan ever said that I don't agree with.


Anonymous said...

We have a 3rd party ~ they're called lobbyist. They spend their days (years), influencing legislators and regulatory agencies to add more pork for the private sector companies and advocacy groups they represent. It's no wonder the government keeps getting bigger and bigger. Term limits would eliminate this 3rd party from having such an influence since it takes them years to convince Washington to their way of thinking.

An Edjamikated Redneck said...

Term Limits is a Great start.

But we need to remove the power from Washington by enforcing the 9th and 10th Amendments, and then the politicians will limit themselves.

engelj06 said...

The problem is that the 9th and 10th amendments are broad and it's easy to claim they don't apply. Obviously the commerce clause is the biggest example of this.

Side note the 9th amendment was initially the basis for Roe v Wade

An Edjamikated Redneck said...

But has the Supreme Court ever decided an argument that hinged on a Tenth Amemdment/ Commerce Clause conflict?

My guess is no. Wickard v. Filburn should have raised a Ninth Amendment argument, but didn't.

I would also argue that an amendment that specifically limits the power of the federal govenrment cannot be overly broad, especially when opposing an overly broad interpretation of a Federal Power.

engelj06 said...

Wickard was the first one and I'd argue it falls under the 10th. The main issue was defining just what interstate commerce entails. The problem is as the country and times changed the definition of interstate commerce changed.
A good case that I can't remember the name of centered on a state attempting to ban semi trucks of a certain weight. Part of the courts decision rested on the fact that state B banning those trucks effected the markets in state A and C since the trucks had to take longer routes to avoid state B.
I will admit the commerce clause has been abused (ie the attempt to use it as the basis for gun free zones) but to me it is the biggest example of a 10th amendment problem.
The 10th amendment grants the states powe that us not specifically granted to the Feds. Commerce is one of those powers but how should commerce be defined?!? Obviously how it was defined in 1800 verses 2012 is going to be drastically different due to technology etc

An Edjamikated Redneck said...

Wickard involved an individual farmer growing grain on his own land for his own use; the state, which I think was Ohio, did not figure into the case. Nowhere in the constitution does the Federal Governemnt gain an enumerated right to control what legal crop I grow on my property for my own use.

according to Wikipedia, the case was on First and Fifth Amendment grounds? I'll have to re-read it to find out if Wiki is correct or not.

The truck zone case is interesting. If the basis was for safety, and involved Federal roads, then the state should lose.

But if it involved weigh and road damage on state owned roads, the State should win on 10th Amendment grounds.

Read what the Federalist Papers has to say about the Commerce Clause; see what the Framers felt should be the position of the Federal Government in interstate commerce. That shluld be teh definition of Commerce in today's courts, not the hacked up definition the New Deal created.

engelj06 said...

The commerce clause issue popped up in the wickard case. I'm not sure if it was the main basis for a ruling but it was used in law school as the first example if the modern commerce clause.
They framed it as even though you are growing crops on your own land for you own consumption you can still affect grain costs for the entire country. That case to me is a bad one to use because to me it involves the war restrictions that were in place.
The truck case I believe rested on that a state would have to prove that the law was integral to a significant state interest in order to defeat the effect it would have on interstate commerce.
As far as using the federalist papers 2 things: 1 it's just one opinion of the framers (imagine if we only used Obama's opinion lol) second we go back to our old living breathing document debate

An Edjamikated Redneck said...

Just one OPINION OF The FRAMERS is exactly my point.

The men who wrote the Constitution are best to interpret what the document means.

And we have had the 'living breathing' argument before. I also believe the Constitution to be a living breathing document. But it is changed with the will of the people, as it has 17 times in the last couple of hundred years.

The idea that the Constitution lives and breathes through the will of the Judiciary is an elitist concept; one that says that the populace doesn't know any better, and has to be lead.

Remember what the Constitution is: a Contract between the governed and the governing, and for the governing to unilaterally make changes in the contract invalidates it.