| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Marginalizing the Tea Party |
| 2011-07-04 |
| Our nation confronts a challenge this Fourth of July that we face but rarely: We are at odds over the meaning of our history and why, to quote our Declaration of Independence, "governments are instituted." I'm not a historian, but I think E. J. overstates his case. Only divisions this deep can explain why we are taking risks with our country's future that we're usually wise enough to avoid. Arguments over how much government should tax and spend are the very stuff of democracy's give-and-take. Now, the debate is shadowed by worries that if a willful faction does not get what it wants, it might bring the nation to default. Somehow, a minority will rule? Who set the budget at $4.3 trillion? Who passed the "Stimulus"? The minority is the only one being hard-headed? When Obama can only find $775 million out of $1,500 billion to cut? Whether they intend it or not, their name suggests they believe that the current elected government in Washington is as illegitimate as was a distant, unelected monarchy. It implies something fundamentally wrong with taxes themselves or, at the least, that current levels of taxation (the lowest in decades) are dangerously oppressive. And it hints that methods outside the normal political channels are justified in confronting such oppression. Partially true, mostly false, and possibly true if dead people continue to vote several times. In the long list of "abuses and usurpations" the Declaration documents, taxes don't come up until the 17th item. The very first item on their list condemned the king because he "refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good." Note that the signers wanted to pass laws, not repeal them, and they began by speaking of "the public good," not about individuals or "the private sector." Laws. Equality before the law. Not management by fiat by Czars and bureaucrats. Equality, not exemptions from Obamacare for the favored few. They knew that it takes public action -- including effective and responsive government -- to secure "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Their second grievance reinforced the first, accusing the king of having "forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance." Again, our forebears wanted to enact laws; they were not anti-government zealots. Some laws, E. J. Isn't it possible over the last 225 years we have enacted too many? This misunderstanding of our founding document is paralleled by a misunderstanding of our Constitution. "The federal government was created by the states to be an agent for the states, not the other way around," Gov. Rick Perry of Texas said recently. I assume he meant for the things the States could not do for themselves, like raise an Army and Navy, facilitate interstate commerce, to name two. No, our Constitution begins with the words "We the Like Obamacare, for the general welfare! How about liberty from government decrees about health care? We praise our Founders annually for revolting against royal rule and for creating an exceptionally durable system of self-government. But if we pretend we are living in Boston in 1773, In the echo chambers of the media, all are nodding their heads in agreement by this point. |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #8 the states gave up their representation and their rights The political machines that owned and operated the state governments weren't concerned about "states' rights". Most of the 'states rights' have been hobbled by the judiciary, using inventive interpretations of things like the commerce clause, in the latter half of the twentieth century with little noise from the Senate because those in the office were more interested in promoting the agenda of the courts than the integrity of the Constitution. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-07-04 16:02 |
| #7 Nervertheless - the states gave up their representation and their rights - even to make stupid, corrupt, moves like that - when they ratified the 17th. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2011-07-04 13:23 |
| #6 ^^^^^That |
| Posted by: S 2011-07-04 11:00 |
| #5 When the states ratified the 17th Admendment making senators elected directly by the people - they essentually gave up their representation and states rights. Comparing how IL filled the vacant seat when Obama became president with the manner that MA filled the seat of the deceased Kennedy, we might be able to grasp why the 17th Amendment was passed. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-07-04 09:51 |
| #4 E.J. Dionne (D- hack) is one of those reliable weathervanes of Donk politics. You can bet if he's against something, it's likely good for America. If he has advice for the GOP or Tea Party, do the opposite |
| Posted by: Frank G 2011-07-04 09:41 |
| #3 Don't forget that the original Consitution had the State Legistatures electing the Senate and not direct representation. There was a very good reason it was setup that way - so the states can assert their rights. When the states ratified the 17th Admendment making senators elected directly by the people - they essentually gave up their representation and states rights. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2011-07-04 09:41 |
| #2 E. J. Dionne is not just being foolish, he's desperate. He sees the writing on the wall in the 2012 election. Not just that Bambi could go down, but the Dhimmicrats could lose the Senate and more Dems could leave the House. Why, imagine what a President Bachmann could do in such a situation. Dionne has imagined precisely that, and he's scared silly. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2011-07-04 09:39 |
| #1 No, our Constitution begins with the words "We the Preferred Politician People" not "We the States." As usual the man is full of himself. There was no plebiscite for ratification. If he continued to read the document it required ratification by states. Article 7 - Ratification The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. The document still requires that states ratify any Constitutional amendments, although that approach has been undermined by the judiciary which has decided simply to 'redefine' by interpretation what the printed words say thus usurping the states. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-07-04 09:02 |