""Those of us who really yearn for a return to first principles,
the natural law, the Constitution, a government that only has
powers that we have consented it may have... are frustrated by the
choice between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney," says Judge Andrew
Napolitano" (HT - Zach Weissmueller and Matt Welch).
Not me. If he had said "mildly unenthused in my greedier moments" instead of "frustrated" perhaps he'd describe me. Then again, in the pundit's eyes we are always on the brink.
Although I'm not too keen on the whole "natural law" thing. Perhaps that accounts for the difference. Something tells me that's not it.
Friday, August 17, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Natural Law:
ReplyDeleteTooth and claw.
Natural law = error has no rights. Not keen.
ReplyDeleteThe reason behind limited government is the protection of the rights of the minority against the will of the majority but there comes a point where the rights of the majority must be protected against the will of the minority, or a balance must be found. The constitution wasn't a suicide pact.
ReplyDeleteDaniel, you are honestly saying that you think the political process has done a good job narrowing it down to two different paths for America to take? I'm not kidding, this is the most inconceivable post you've ever written, in my mind.
ReplyDeleteIt's one thing for you to think it's OK for the president to blow up people on a secret list with drones. Yet you're saying you don't even think someone who cares about the Constitution should have an option once every four years to vote for someone who is explicitly against that? That's how confident you are on that score, that it shouldn't even be a big deal in the election? Instead, we should argue about whether the top tax rate will be 35 vs. 39 percent, or whether the Northern Gateway pipeline will be approved?
You can vote for Gary Johnson, right?
DeleteI'm not sure what you mean. No I don't think people have some kind of right to vote for a guy that agrees with them.
Should I have the option of voting for someone that isn't yapping about how we need to balance the budget right now? Because that's more important than drones to me and yet everyone in the field is obsessed with the deficit.
*to have the opportunity to vote for a guy that agrees with them.
DeleteDaniel, you might ask if you disagree because you do not yearn for these things. You seem okay with the New Deal and permanent inflation, which sit uncomfortably with an 18th century reading of the 10th amendment.
ReplyDeleteI don't see how it sits uncomfortably with an 18th century reading of the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment is a lynchpin for the whole Constitution - it's critically important.
DeleteDo you mean it sits uncomfortably with Peter St. Onge's reading of the 10th amendment?
That may be true, but that's not a reading that I'm particularly concerned about in forming my own views.
If you actually believe the New Deal is consistent with original intent on enumeration then, yes, we would have trouble discussing the subject.
ReplyDelete