"The American public are armed but realistically have a snowballs chance in hell of overtaking government with force."

The hyperbolic rhetoric hurts our cause. Well, you and I may not have the same cause. My view is we have a gov't with separation of powers and an executive branch intentionally not empowered to make laws or declare war. This became a model for other countries. It's tough to make work, though, b/c the nature of the job of president attracts charismatic people with a vision for what's best. When things happen, the charismatic leader sees the limitations as an impediment to progress. For reasons I don't understand, maybe because of the appearance of political factions (parties), Congress and the judiciary fail to provide a long-term check on exec power. It's a serious problem, but there are no devils or saints in the story. Demonizing one person, esp with over-the-top rhetoric, doesn't help.

At the core of the problem, maybe, is people have come to think of the gov't as something that should get involved when they need all kinds of problems way outside the original purview of gov't. Maybe they'd psychologically like to have the ups-and-downs of their life governed by a single leader. The notion that "the public are armed" is pointless b/c most people don't see the problem; they don't see how turning over a series of small things to the gov't leads to big problems in the long run. They're not even thinking for going for their guns. If people voted and donated based on liberty issues, politicians would deliver in an instant.

On top of this long-term trend that's been going on for 100 years, we are in the midst of a revolution in production as amazing as the industrial revolution. It's another strain with new sets of problems and opportunities; all of them provide reasons for the gov't and exec branch to get involved in peoples lives.

This is all scarier than the extremist ranting. We've had that all my life, and no one president has destroyed the US of a sudden. But we keep on with the extremism, perhaps in an effort to get the attention of people in their busy lives. Troubled people carry on getting fired up. And we keep slipping in little ways here in and there into a country with more gov't intrusiveness.

I do too... Especially TR. Forward thinking, pro America, Pro-industry, looked at what he got handed by the former admin...

In that vein, I feel sorry for Rand Paul (OK, taking liberties there) when he (or whoever) takes over for ol' Potus. How would YOU like to face *this* kind of backwards-twisting convoluted mess?

I agree with Lincoln and Roosevelt.

Some would say since the "progressivism" of T. Roosevelt. Some say the federalistic power grab of one A. Lincoln.

We're sinking in the morass of more a$$ and its been going on for a long time... while it's hard for people to look back in theor own recent history (too hard for those who do not have minds) we can see where this thing, started in the best of ideal, was coming apart within 100 years.

And now we have an enemy of the constitution and of our nation in charge, and people look blindly and nod, or give placebo "if only someone would do something" comments, but honestly, no one will stand up and do what our *real* patriots did 234 years ago, and as such, we really **are*** f'ing doomed.

Am I wrong?

I don't think you are off base at all. I have been suggesting this for years. It doesn't make any sense to pass a law that has obvious potential to violate the supreme law of the land and then wait for someone to be "damaged" in order to bring a case before the court because "now they have standing!" If ever there was a new law that did need to be written...

Historically, there have been Constitutional Amendment drives or even statutes that Congress cannot exempt itself from the laws or regulations that it enacts. They have never been successful.

That is kinda what I was asking. Philosophically - and staying within the system as it exists - it would seem to me that one of the 'solutions' to our current problems might lie in making what we have actually 'work'. If all laws/regualtions/directives had as part of the design of their being legally valid the requirement that they had to be Constitutional...we would all be vastly better off.

This - it would seem to me - could be proposed as a Constitutional Amendment. Am I off base, here?

Jan

There is a procedure in the House (if enough members vote for it) to force an inquiry into the Bill's constitutionality. They just do not care anymore.
Regs are a different matter. Often bills like ACA and Dodd Frank bills are filled with "goodies" and the rest is just directing an agency to carry out the directives. It is hugely tyrannic and outside of separation of powers. Cowardly.

Hello jlc,
Unfortunately our system does not require a constitutional test beforehand... However there was an attempt to require bills to include a clause citing its authority in the Constitution.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...
Regards,
O.A.

you have a great idea, here! without a "test case",
new laws *and regulations* should have to pass a
review by the pertinent supreme court (State or fed)
before becoming active. this might warrant a separate
post, and discussion on its own! -- j

"That our country could only exist under judeo-christian values and its morality" Who ever said that? I sure did not. What I implied is that it is silly to assume that what the founders believed to be morally right and ethically responsible was not affected by their religious beliefs. I never remotely implied that America could not have been born if it were not for Christianity.

A country without a King. And a country without a Pope.

Agree, but adjust your quote as you will, without an unchanging God and His law, "morality" is whatever someone decides it is.

It was "moral" for the Romans to force guards to commit suicide if their prisoners escaped.

It was "moral" for the Japanese commanders to have their soldiers act dead and wait for Americans to walk past, then commit suicide by pulling a hand grenade and killing Americans.

I grew up Methodist and that particular church is highly platonic.
I grew to realize they are wrong and have since embraced individualism.

Treason is something very worth enforcing. It is one the very few things I can see as cause for taking a life. As Rush's transcript aptly pointed out, our system was established for a people who hold liberty in reverence. The only thing preventing a tyrant - which is what O is - from doing what we are seeing is fear or reprisal. The American public are armed but realistically have a snowballs chance in hell of overtaking government with force. Better to lop off the head of the serpent then sacrifice using a valid charge of treason what is left of legitimate freedom loving Americans who cherish their birthright.

That said, I'd fire the shot in the firing squad.

"He has aided the enemy during a time of war (punishable by death in the military)."
The obsession with individual politicians rather than the trends is bad for the cause of liberty. Extremism is even worse.

Some would contend that America has been in the decline since FDR (74 years and counting).

Personally I think treason should be the charge followed by execution. He has sworn an oath to be true to the Constitution. He has blatantly failed to even attempt to honor that oath. He has betrayed out soldiers (including the one being held in Mexico) by his actions. He has aided the enemy during a time of war (punishable by death in the military). He has disregarded law on a variety of levels including immigration. I can go on an on.

This man does not deserve a slap on the wrist, he deserves to forfiet his existence. Just my opinion.

""shame on you" doesn't work with k and db"
I'm guessing name-calling, giving negative Gulch brownie points, and sticking out or biting one's tongue at you doesn't matter either. I can't believe anyone does it when arguing a point.

It begins with a question I'd like to understand better: Is there any supposed mechanism to prevent exec overreach or does the system rely purely on balance of powers and morals of the people elected?

It goes into a thing blaming President Obama for the problem, which I think is nonsense _except_ for the part about using the IRS on his political enemies.

Then he goes into stuff that should appeal to those with psychological depression.

He says Congress should impeach President Obama. I'm not knowledgeable about whether impediment is the right vehicle, but I completely support Congress asserting its power and stopping executive over-reach. When the president says if Congress fails to make laws, the Exec Branch will have to make them and enforce them, Congress needs to say NO WAY.

Either it's going to be Civil War in our country or we're going to have to find a billionaire benefactor for purchasing the Island of New Atlantis and buy the Cargo Ship. I don't see any improvement in our government this November that's going to to make our lives any better.

Christianity was dominate religion and controlled or at least heavily influenced the governments in Europe. Why don't you actually read some history.

Yep all the above, but christianity killed the Greek tradition of reason and logic in Europe, which was most important for the US.

lol... yes, I would encourage that. You only live once and it's YOUR life.