[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
If you don’t like how much power the federal government has, you and I are in the same position – but the problem didn’t start with this President. Go back to Wickard v. Filburn and the New Deal, and move on from there…
DPH wrote:
one could argue that it goes even further back than that…
the move toward a BIG CENRTALIZED GOVERNMENT started at least as far back as the introduction of the federal income tax…[/quote]
Very true – we should probably look at the Reconstruction Congress as the starting point, but I’m comfortable that the tipping point was the New Deal (or maybe the WWI Wilson programs – that would be an interesting analysis).
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Historically, and by philosophy, the Democratic socialist agenda allows less freedom and less power for the individual American than the Republican agenda.
Where the living hell have you been the last decade or two? “Historically” has taken it up the ass with no vaseline.[/quote]
Hahaha. Exactly, that’s the problem. Small government conservatives are a minority in their own party now. But that’s not the same issue as an executive that thinks it answers to no one but the voter every four years, which is what I’m talking about here.
If you don’t like how much power the federal government has, you and I are in the same position [/quote]
Really? You seem to use legalese and the opinions of that gang of Kool-Aid drinkers over at National Review to justify even the grossest abuses of this presidency, while giving occasional lip service to Bush wasting our money.
If you don’t like how much power the federal government has, you and I are in the same position
Really? You seem to use legalese and the opinions of that gang of Kool-Aid drinkers over at National Review to justify even the grossest abuses of this presidency, while giving occasional lip service to Bush wasting our money.[/quote]
Agreed. I am now confused because anytime I speak on the power increases of the federal government, BB is usually one of the first to imply that I am wrong on the issue followed by a 5 page blog insert. Now we agree? Could have fooled me.
If you don’t like how much power the federal government has, you and I are in the same position
GDollars37 wrote:
Really? You seem to use legalese and the opinions of that gang of Kool-Aid drinkers over at National Review to justify even the grossest abuses of this presidency, while giving occasional lip service to Bush wasting our money.[/quote]
Just because you and I don’t share the same opinion on the importance of legal definitions w/r/t laws – see, our difference on torture – don’t think I’m a big-government type. I’m much more comfortable with Reagan’s governing philosophy than with Bush’s.
You’ve simply chosen to define your opposition to “big government” with regard to the War on Terror – and not even necessarily with respect to American citizens. If you want to get me going, let’s discuss regulatory power, the scope of the Commerce Clause, or the rulemaking authority of “expert agencies”.
Agreed. I am now confused because anytime I speak on the power increases of the federal government, BB is usually one of the first to imply that I am wrong on the issue followed by a 5 page blog insert. Now we agree? Could have fooled me.[/quote]
I only tell you you’re wrong when you imply there has been a large change when there hasn’t been - like, for instance, with searches.
A lot of people just assume the government has less power than it does under current legal understandings. I concern myself with expansions of power and with abuses of power – less so with scary stories about libraries.
Agreed. I am now confused because anytime I speak on the power increases of the federal government, BB is usually one of the first to imply that I am wrong on the issue followed by a 5 page blog insert. Now we agree? Could have fooled me.
I only tell you you’re wrong when you imply there has been a large change when there hasn’t been - like, for instance, with searches.
A lot of people just assume the government has less power than it does under current legal understandings. I concern myself with expansions of power and with abuses of power – less so with scary stories about libraries.[/quote]
I don’t know anything about a news story on libraries, but I do know it pays to think about how this power can be abused…instead of sitting around waiting for someone to actually go there. By then, it will be too late to do anything about it.
I don’t know anything about a news story on libraries, but I do know it pays to think about how this power can be abused…instead of sitting around waiting for someone to actually go there. By then, it will be too late to do anything about it.[/quote]
That’s true enough – but if you’re worried about abuse of power, there are plenty of abuses that are actually occurring – look at IRS rules (essentially, guilty until proven innocent), drug law property seizures, RICO prosecutions, regulatory takings of private property via essentially outlawing development on it via various environmental regulations, or many, many other examples. Those are a lot scarier than having random snippets of data aggregated by a computer, or the possibility that you may have your library records searched.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Agreed. I am now confused because anytime I speak on the power increases of the federal government, BB is usually one of the first to imply that I am wrong on the issue followed by a 5 page blog insert. Now we agree? Could have fooled me.
I only tell you you’re wrong when you imply there has been a large change when there hasn’t been - like, for instance, with searches.
A lot of people just assume the government has less power than it does under current legal understandings. I concern myself with expansions of power and with abuses of power – less so with scary stories about libraries.
I don’t know anything about a news story on libraries, but I do know it pays to think about how this power can be abused…instead of sitting around waiting for someone to actually go there. By then, it will be too late to do anything about it.[/quote]