Thread: Publius Huldah - WHY REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS SELL US OUT

WHY REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS SELL US OUT

By Publius Huldah
January 27, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

It is a cliché to speak of “spineless Republicans”-google spineless republicans and you will see. They talk “conservative” when they campaign; but once in office, they go along with the progressive agenda. That agenda is to grow the federal government until it controls every aspect of our lives.

Why don’t they oppose the progressive agenda?[1]

Rush Limbaugh says they don’t oppose it because they want to be invited to the right parties and praised in the liberal media.

But on this, our Rush is wrong. Rush is a man of Principles; but he doesn’t understand the Constitution. So he doesn’t see that the spineless ones also don’t understand it; and that their failure to oppose the progressives stems from their lack of any Standard to guide them.

In other words, the spineless Republicans don’t know what the alternative is to the progressive agenda. They don’t know that Our Constitution created a Congress with limited and enumerated powers. They don’t know that the President’s powers are “carefully limited; both in … extent and …duration”[2] They don’t understand that limited civil government is morally superior to a fascist dictatorship. Since they don’t understand these things, they are buffeted here and there by winds which progressives blow.

Spineless Republicans are “nice.” They are “patriotic.” And that’s it. But they are men of straw because they stand for nothing. They have no Standard to guide them. So they go with the flow.

There IS a Chart and Compass for Us to Embrace

Which would Make Us Strong & Bold!

Daniel Webster [3] reportedly said:

We may be tossed upon an ocean where we can see no land nor, perhaps, the sun and stars. But there is a chart and a compass for us to study, to consult, and to obey. The chart is the Constitution.

The Bible, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are the Rock on which Our Country was built. Courage and Strength arise from faithfulness to Fixed Principles. It is the man with no Principles who is blown here and there by prevailing winds.[4] Strong People – people who are able to stand alone and speak Truth – are strong because of their uncompromising adherence to Principles.

Anyone who is willing to make the modest effort required to obtain a working knowledge of the Constitution would become able to stand up to the progressives and defeat them. But we must first root out of ourselves the false notion that our own ideas on what the federal government should do are “important”! We must learn that in such matters, we must adhere to a Standard - the Constitution - which transcends our own precious selves with our “views,” “opinions,” and “thoughts.” This is what Daniel Webster is telling us.

Politicians May Not Substitute Their Personal Views for The Constitution!

This is what our Framers said:

“…whensoever the general government [federal government] assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force…” Thomas Jefferson, The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, 1st Resolution.“…On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed…” Thomas Jefferson’s letter of June 12, 1823 to William Johnson (6th para from end)“…the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defence of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and power into one body…” Thomas Jefferson’s letter of Feb. 2, 1816 to Joseph C. Cabell (1st para). [boldface added]

The Economics Department at George Mason University provides these quotes (among others) on its page, Constitutional Limitations on Government:

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” --Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817“We must confine ourselves to the powers described in the Constitution, and the moment we pass it, we take an arbitrary stride towards a despotic Government.” -- James Jackson, First Congress, 1st Annals of Congress, 489“[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.” -- James Madison, Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 6, 1788“The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” -- James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond,1821.


Do you see? Politicians, judges and officers have NO RIGHT to implement their own ideas of what the federal government should do.

BUT TODAY, EVERYONE DOES WHAT IS RIGHT IN HIS OWN EYES.[5]

Today, it doesn’t occur to us that we must look to the Constitution to see what the federal government is permitted to do. This was illustrated on Greta van Susteren’s show (Fox News) when she asked her guests whether a legislator should vote his conscience or the way his constituents tell him to vote.

On December 18, 2009, Dick Morris mentioned that Sen. Ben Nelson (D.) was under pressure from his constituents to oppose the healthcare bill. Greta (a lawyer) asked Dick whether Nelson was “elected to exercise his judgment as to what is the best thing to do, or was he elected … to carry out what the voters want.”

Dick answered that if it is an issue “where … the voters are not as … informed as he might be … he might say, I'm going to exercise my better judgment. But when you're dealing with something as intimate as … health care … when your constituents … are saying … don't do this, you ought to listen.”

On February 26, 2010, Greta asked Charles Krauthammer (a lawyer) whether people we send to Congress should “vote their conscience or ours?” Krauthammer answered, “that's the great question since Edmund Burke. He thought you should represent your conscience or your conception of what the national need is.” Krauthammer went on to say that he thinks Obama is “allowed to go ahead” with health care, and that he respects “the president's right or ability or notion that he needs to act in the national interests as he sees it.”

Do you see? None of them understand that it is a politician’s sworn duty to obey the Constitution

regardless of what he thinks or his constituents want. Van Susteren, Morris and Krauthammer thus display the existentialist mindset: That there is no objective standard outside of our own subjective “views”; and the one with the power gets to decide for all of us on the basis of his subjective views.

But that is precisely what Our Constitution was designed to protect us from: individual men imposing their subjective views on the rest of us. That is why the powers which Our Constitution does grant to the three branches of the federal government – legislative, executive, and judicial – are strictly limited and defined.

In Federalist No. 78 (5th para from the end), Alexander Hamilton addresses the precise issue raised by van Susteren. After stating the principle that the people have the right to change the established Constitution, he says:

...yet it is not to be inferred from this principle, that the representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents, incompatible with the provisions in the existing Constitution, would, on that account, be justifiable in a violation of those provisions; or that the courts would be under a greater obligation to connive at infractions in this shape, than when they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body. Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act...

Do you see? But those three don't see; and with their words, they undermine Our Constitution, the concept of Enumerated Powers (that the federal government may do only what the Constitution permits them to do), and the Rule of Law (that the people in the government must obey The Constitution - not the "momentary inclination" of their constituents or their own “conception” of what is right.

Ignorance is destroying us.

© 2012 Publius Huldah - All Rights Reserved

Endnotes:

1- Some Republicans are not spineless – they are committed Progressives.
2- James Madison, Federalist No. 48 (5th para).
3- The quote is generally attributed to Daniel Webster. If you see it in an online scholarly collection, please send the link.
4- Senator Bob Dole (R) illustrates this. He carried the Tenth Amendment in his pocket; yet one of his proudest achievements was passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act! Where does the Constitution authorize Congress to make that law?
Speaker John Boehner doesn’t know that the Constitution sets the agenda for the Country; and that it is the enumerated powers which limit Congress' spending. That is why he can’t control the spending even though the House Republicans have the power to do it now.
5- See Judges 17:6 & 21:25. This part of the history of the Israelites shows that when there were no judges to teach and enforce The Law, everybody did that which in his own eyes seemed right, and the Israelites suffered dreadfully. But when they had a good judge who enforced The Law (e.g., Deborah), they were able to defeat their enemies and then enjoy peace (5:31). Do you see the parallel?
Publius Huldah is a retired attorney who now lives in Tennessee. Before getting a law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge). She now writes extensively on the U.S. Constitution, using the Federalist Papers to prove its original meaning and intent. She also shows how federal judges and politicians have ignored Our Constitution and replaced it with their personal opinions and beliefs.h

E-Mail: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Publius Huldah -- Why Republican Politicians Sell Us Out

It is a cliché to speak of “spineless Republicans”-google spineless republicans and you will see. They talk “conservative” when they campaign; but once in office, they go along with the progressive agenda. That agenda is to grow the federal government until it controls every aspect of our lives.

The optimum word here is spineless "politicians" ( birds of a feather flock together). We elect them to to their job for our Country, you know the protect and serve one. They take the pledge to the Oath of Office, not to the "corruption of which is thee" but guess what we get!!!! We have a nest of them now, we may need to call terminex. 535 job openings in 2012 and a couple in the big house..wouldn't it just be easier to arrest them all for dereliction of duty?????

Saturday, January 28, 2012
Bill which would require drug testing welfare recipients pulled after amended to include legislators
Madison Ruppert, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

In a classic show of political hypocrisy, Indiana State Representative Jud McMillin pulled his bill which would have created a pilot program for the drug testing of applicants for welfare after it was successfully amended to require drug testing for lawmakers as well.

“There was an amendment offered today that required drug testing for legislators as well and it passed, which led me to have to then withdraw the bill,” MicMillin, a Republican from Brookville, and sponsor of the original legislation, said.

McMillin seems to be taking the stance that this legislation with the amendment intact would not survive a constitutional challenge. This is based on a ruling handed down by the Supreme Court in 1997 which prevented drug testing political candidates. They ruled in Chandler v. Miller that drug testing for political candidates was unconstitutional and thus struck down a Georgia law.

However, this is hardly applicable given that they would not be requiring political candidates to be tested, instead they would be requiring the individuals who had already been elected and were receiving government funds to be tested.

Speaking to the Huffington Post, McMillin stated, “I’ve only withdrawn it temporarily,” claiming that his original bill was painstakingly crafted to pass challenges on its legality and constitutionality.


This claim is quite questionable given that just last year a federal judge struck down a Florida law which would require across-the-board drug testing of anyone and everyone who even applied for welfare, citing Fourth Amendment concerns.

McMillin claims that his bill would not be struck down on similar grounds because the legislation creates a “tiered screening scheme” which allows people to opt-out of the random drug tests, although the consequences for doing so are unclear.

It seems quite unlikely to me that anyone would choose to get drug tested if they didn’t have to, as I don’t know of too many people who like to take time out of their day to experience the painful nature of government bureaucracy while urinating in a cup, likely under the watchful eye of someone intended to prevent people from sneaking in someone else’s urine.

McMillin’s legislation would apparently only require screening for those who declined random tests if they arouse “reasonable suspicion,” which could be anything from demeanor to criminal history to missing appointments at the welfare office.

One must wonder what exactly constitutes a demeanor that raises a reasonable suspicion. Could the demeanor of someone who appreciates their privacy and thus opts-out of random drug testing constitute reasonable suspicion?

McMillin’s legislation is not alone, indeed legislators have pursued drug testing for welfare recipients and applicants in over 30 states, as well as in Congress.

Some proposed bills have even gone as far as going after individuals who claim unemployment insurance or food stamps.

This is part of a broader trend of criminalizing people long before they have done anything wrong. The most disturbing incarnation of this can be seen in the public school system and in the technology known as “threat assessments” which seem like they were taken directly out of the pages of Philip K. Dick’s short story "Minority Report."

The Huffington Post, as they are so quick to do, makes this into a partisan issue with Republicans crusading for drug testing and Democrats making up the laudable opposition.

However, I do not think that this is something which can be boiled down to parties, and indeed I find that doing so is nothing more than a distraction from the much grander scale of this trend.

It is also an attempt by the notoriously biased Huffington Post to glorify Democrats while demonizing Republicans.

My readers are likely well aware of the complete sham that is the two-party system (better characterized as a two-party dictatorship), along with the fact that at the end of the day these two parties serve the same exact interests.

All one must do to realize this is look at the continuity of agenda between presidential administrations, something which I covered briefly in the first episode of End the Lie Radio, and which I will be covering in greater detail in coming installments.

The amendment to the drug testing legislation was introduced by Indiana State Representative Ryan Dvorak, a Democrat from South Bend.

“After it passed, Rep. McMillin got pretty upset and pulled his bill,” Dvorak said.

“If anything, I think it points out some of the hypocrisy,” he rightly noted, adding, “If we’re going to impose standards on drug testing, then it should apply to everybody who receives government money.”

This only seems logical to me, as ultimately there is no difference between the government funds given to a State Representative and those given to the recipient of welfare.

All of it is paid for by the taxpayer, so why should the poor and disenfranchised be forced to sacrifice their dignity and privacy, while those who receive a lot more money do not?

Dvorak shares my impression of the Chandler v. Miller case, saying that McMillin was incorrect in believing that testing the legislature would be somehow unconstitutional given that the Georgia law was targeting candidates on the campaign trail and not people who were already in office.

McMillan claims that he is going to introduce a new bill this Monday which includes lawmakers as well, adding that he doesn’t have a problem with getting tested himself.

This begs the question: why pull the legislation in the first place?

McMillan’s actions represent the all-too-common double standard held by legislators wherein the American people must submit to laws which they do not.

Even more importantly, there is no significant evidence to support the contention that people receiving welfare or unemployment are more likely to use drugs, or that random drug testing would help prevent such a thing.

I find it laughable that a supposed Republican would be introducing a bill that would actually greatly increase government spending. It would be quite interesting to see if he has any ties to the corporation(s) that would get the contract for all the testing.

If anyone has any more information on this legislation or similar bills being pushed or you just have some thoughts to share on the topic please email me at: admin@Endthelie.com

This article first appeared at EndtheLie.com

Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The Lie and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. Madison also now has his own radio show on Orion Talk Radio from 8 pm -- 10 pm Pacific, which you can find HERE. If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him at admin@EndtheLie.com


Activist Post: Bill which would require drug testing welfare recipients pulled after amended to include legislators


Oh know say it isn't so

Do you see? None of them understand that it is a politician’s sworn duty to obey the Constitution

I totally disagree. I believe at least 98% of all of the members of Congress and the Senate, plus Obama and his Dept Secretaries fully understand what their sworn duty is. I believe they simply don't give a damn. And why should they? They no longer represent the people of the US. They represent the special interests that have bought their votes and support. Via lobbying and a corset of campaign funding laws so loose Madam Albright could fit in without holding her breath, we now have a system of legalized bribery that I believe will ultimately be the death of this nation.

Even Jack Abramoff now admits how lobbying has corrupted all of Washington.