Here Is An Argument For The GOP To Articulate

Posted on | March 23, 2010 | 31 Comments

by Smitty

Irrespective of the details of the ObamaCare legislation, the ugliness, the kickbacks, the foul propaganda directed against citizens, there is the fact that the spirit of the Constitution has been trampled.
Somebody, say, Fred Thompson, needs to cut a brief ad describing how legitimate legislation works, and how this monstrosity has played out.
The notions in the founding documents need re-emphasis, and the seemingly obvious point that ObamaCare, like the income tax, will not be seen as legitimate by those who’ve sworn “to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic“, until such time as this fundamental alteration in the fabric of the country occurs according to Article V.
I’ve sworn that military oath repeatedly these last couple of decades. My loyalty is to the Constitution. A century of Progressivism and “settled law”, plus $3, is worth coffee at Starbucks to me.

Category: Health Care

Comments

31 Responses to “Here Is An Argument For The GOP To Articulate”

Jaymienj
March 23rd, 2010 @ 10:37 pm

Smitty, this is brilliant. I hope the powers that be are paying attention. And if they’re not, smack ’em hard and make ’em pay attention: the usual oh-well-it’s-too-late-to-do-anything BS crap the GOP usually pulls when the Dems dump on the Constitution, WON’T PLAY THIS TIME.
Jaymienj
March 23rd, 2010 @ 5:37 pm

Smitty, this is brilliant. I hope the powers that be are paying attention. And if they’re not, smack ’em hard and make ’em pay attention: the usual oh-well-it’s-too-late-to-do-anything BS crap the GOP usually pulls when the Dems dump on the Constitution, WON’T PLAY THIS TIME.
RightGirl
March 23rd, 2010 @ 10:55 pm

Jesus Smitty, the GOP couldn’t articulate the fact that today is Tuesday! You’re hoping for a lot. Get ready to be sadly disappointed, especially given the current lot of Republicans.

RG
RightGirl
March 23rd, 2010 @ 5:55 pm

Jesus Smitty, the GOP couldn’t articulate the fact that today is Tuesday! You’re hoping for a lot. Get ready to be sadly disappointed, especially given the current lot of Republicans.

RG
Wondering Jew
March 23rd, 2010 @ 11:29 pm

Amen to that!

It can’t be stressed enough for those who somehow dismiss the Constitution as antiquated. It is a remarkable fact of our history, that we swear loyalty to the Constitution of the United States. And if the government of the United States transgresses that Constitution, we do not owe it our loyalty.
Wondering Jew
March 23rd, 2010 @ 6:29 pm

Amen to that!

It can’t be stressed enough for those who somehow dismiss the Constitution as antiquated. It is a remarkable fact of our history, that we swear loyalty to the Constitution of the United States. And if the government of the United States transgresses that Constitution, we do not owe it our loyalty.
Thrasymachus
March 23rd, 2010 @ 11:40 pm

The problem with resorting to the Constitution is that as far as the people in power are conserned, the Constitution means what they want it to mean, and this has always been the case. Every few years the Constitution gets a major overhaul from the judiciary, and all the time they are saying this or that is constitutional or unconstitutional, and pulling these conclusions right out if thin air. Most of what liberals have done in the last 60 years has been based on judicial fiat- or “constitutionality” as they have come to call it.
Thrasymachus
March 23rd, 2010 @ 6:40 pm

The problem with resorting to the Constitution is that as far as the people in power are conserned, the Constitution means what they want it to mean, and this has always been the case. Every few years the Constitution gets a major overhaul from the judiciary, and all the time they are saying this or that is constitutional or unconstitutional, and pulling these conclusions right out if thin air. Most of what liberals have done in the last 60 years has been based on judicial fiat- or “constitutionality” as they have come to call it.
Now there is a fine idea « The Daley Gator
March 23rd, 2010 @ 6:51 pm

[…] 23, 2010 · Leave a Comment Hats off to Smitty, of The Other McCain, to come up with an idea this great! Irrespective of the details of the ObamaCare legislation, the ugliness, the kickbacks, the foul […]
Mark in Spokane
March 23rd, 2010 @ 7:39 pm

Great plan, Smitty. Conservatives need to be proactive in getting the message out about the health care “reform” bill and what this law is doing, how it is contrary to our own traditions of republican (with a small “r”) constitutionalism, and what a nightmare it is going to be on the ground. Your plan is an excellent beginning. I hope it gets off the ground.
Mark in Spokane
March 24th, 2010 @ 12:39 am

Great plan, Smitty. Conservatives need to be proactive in getting the message out about the health care “reform” bill and what this law is doing, how it is contrary to our own traditions of republican (with a small “r”) constitutionalism, and what a nightmare it is going to be on the ground. Your plan is an excellent beginning. I hope it gets off the ground.
Adobe Walls
March 24th, 2010 @ 12:39 am

I’ve read/heard that up to 38 states will intending or perhaps considering suing over the constitutionality of HCR. Isn’t that the magic no for a constitutional convention?
Adobe Walls
March 23rd, 2010 @ 7:39 pm

I’ve read/heard that up to 38 states will intending or perhaps considering suing over the constitutionality of HCR. Isn’t that the magic no for a constitutional convention?
smitty
March 24th, 2010 @ 12:59 am

@adobe,
I think it’s foundational. The threat of Article V is more important and useful than the costly, uncertain convention itself.
smitty
March 23rd, 2010 @ 7:59 pm

@adobe,
I think it’s foundational. The threat of Article V is more important and useful than the costly, uncertain convention itself.
Reason TV: 3 Reasons Obamacare won't Reduce the Deficit | The Lonely Conservative
March 23rd, 2010 @ 8:22 pm

[…] let’s not forget the completely abominable methods employed to pass this legislation. AKPC_IDS += "18275,";Popularity: unranked [?]Possibly Related PostsMarch […]
jefferson101
March 24th, 2010 @ 1:25 am

I offered my service back in 1969, and was declined, since they didn’t like my hearing. Such being the case, I never took the “Military” version of that Oath.

However, when I applied for financial aid (read “Student Loan”) later that same year, I got to swear that I would “Bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and Defend it against all enemies, Domestic and Foreign”.

My old Daddy snickered his backside off, because he said it sounded a whole lot like I was Enlisting, to him.

I have to suspect that I would have been this way anyway, but having taken an Oath to do so, what choice would I have? Since I’m not a Liberal, I figure that my Sworn Word means just what I said it meant.

They may find me dead in a ditch some day, but I’ll wager that I’ll be in the middle of a fairly large pile of brass when they do.

Heh.
jefferson101
March 23rd, 2010 @ 8:25 pm

I offered my service back in 1969, and was declined, since they didn’t like my hearing. Such being the case, I never took the “Military” version of that Oath.

However, when I applied for financial aid (read “Student Loan”) later that same year, I got to swear that I would “Bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and Defend it against all enemies, Domestic and Foreign”.

My old Daddy snickered his backside off, because he said it sounded a whole lot like I was Enlisting, to him.

I have to suspect that I would have been this way anyway, but having taken an Oath to do so, what choice would I have? Since I’m not a Liberal, I figure that my Sworn Word means just what I said it meant.

They may find me dead in a ditch some day, but I’ll wager that I’ll be in the middle of a fairly large pile of brass when they do.

Heh.
Joe
March 24th, 2010 @ 1:42 am

I second the nomination of Fred Thompson!
Joe
March 23rd, 2010 @ 8:42 pm

I second the nomination of Fred Thompson!
young4eyes
March 23rd, 2010 @ 8:45 pm

Which version of the Constitution have you sworn allegiance to?
The Constitution as it was originally written or the amended version?
Is it possible that the Constitution as it was written was un-Constitutional?
I ask because I wonder what those who wrap themselves in the cloak of Constitutional integrity really mean?
And while you’re at it, why don’t you paint us a picture of what your Constitutionally idyllic nation would look like?
young4eyes
March 24th, 2010 @ 1:45 am

Which version of the Constitution have you sworn allegiance to?
The Constitution as it was originally written or the amended version?
Is it possible that the Constitution as it was written was un-Constitutional?
I ask because I wonder what those who wrap themselves in the cloak of Constitutional integrity really mean?
And while you’re at it, why don’t you paint us a picture of what your Constitutionally idyllic nation would look like?
smitty
March 24th, 2010 @ 1:53 am

@Y4E,
Amendments become part of the Constitution, so your attempt at a distinction is disinformation.
The idyllic nation is ‘e pluribus unum’, not ‘screw pluribus: unum’.

A libertarian Fed, properly concerned with international and interstate issues, and not tampering with individual citizens. IOW, a meaningful 10th Amendment.

The reason why this is an idyllic vision is that the 16th & 17th Amendments and Federal Reserve Act, the trio of 1913 disasters, have ripped fiscal control from the States.

The Nude Eel, the Greatly Indebted Society, and this ObamaCare travesty are about impoverishing and breaking the country in the name of some Progressive Ponzi swindle.

So the sleeping giant comes fully awake and crushes these threats, or we all just say ‘two tears in a bucket’ and drink your kool-aid, Y4E.
smitty
March 23rd, 2010 @ 8:53 pm

@Y4E,
Amendments become part of the Constitution, so your attempt at a distinction is disinformation.
The idyllic nation is ‘e pluribus unum’, not ‘screw pluribus: unum’.

A libertarian Fed, properly concerned with international and interstate issues, and not tampering with individual citizens. IOW, a meaningful 10th Amendment.

The reason why this is an idyllic vision is that the 16th & 17th Amendments and Federal Reserve Act, the trio of 1913 disasters, have ripped fiscal control from the States.

The Nude Eel, the Greatly Indebted Society, and this ObamaCare travesty are about impoverishing and breaking the country in the name of some Progressive Ponzi swindle.

So the sleeping giant comes fully awake and crushes these threats, or we all just say ‘two tears in a bucket’ and drink your kool-aid, Y4E.
Roxeanne de Luca
March 24th, 2010 @ 4:19 am

One has to admire Smitty for dealing with Young4Eyes with such restraint and class.

This red-head, however, has no such self-restraint and must ask: Young4Eyes, are you stupid or mad in the head?

Which version of the Constitution have you sworn allegiance to?
The Constitution as it was originally written or the amended version?
Is it possible that the Constitution as it was written was un-Constitutional?

The “Constitution as written” and “the amended version” are exactly the same thing. As the original Constitution has an amendment process, swearing an oath of loyalty to that document also requires swearing an oath of loyalty to all duly enacted Amendments. Obviously.

As for the original constitution being unconstitutional… I almost wet myself laughing at the thought of a young, idealistic liberal, head in the air, thinking oh so grand thoughts, in his oh so enlightened mind, and, after asking himself if white is really black, and before contemplating whether or not he really exists, positing that the Constitution may have violated itself. That, Young4Eyes, is only possible in dirty, adult versions of School House Rock. Clear?
Roxeanne de Luca
March 23rd, 2010 @ 11:19 pm

One has to admire Smitty for dealing with Young4Eyes with such restraint and class.

This red-head, however, has no such self-restraint and must ask: Young4Eyes, are you stupid or mad in the head?

Which version of the Constitution have you sworn allegiance to?
The Constitution as it was originally written or the amended version?
Is it possible that the Constitution as it was written was un-Constitutional?

The “Constitution as written” and “the amended version” are exactly the same thing. As the original Constitution has an amendment process, swearing an oath of loyalty to that document also requires swearing an oath of loyalty to all duly enacted Amendments. Obviously.

As for the original constitution being unconstitutional… I almost wet myself laughing at the thought of a young, idealistic liberal, head in the air, thinking oh so grand thoughts, in his oh so enlightened mind, and, after asking himself if white is really black, and before contemplating whether or not he really exists, positing that the Constitution may have violated itself. That, Young4Eyes, is only possible in dirty, adult versions of School House Rock. Clear?
Roxeanne de Luca
March 24th, 2010 @ 4:23 am

Er… penultimate paragraph should commence with “Swearing an oath to”. Mea culpa.
Roxeanne de Luca
March 23rd, 2010 @ 11:23 pm

Er… penultimate paragraph should commence with “Swearing an oath to”. Mea culpa.
Lipton T. Bagg
March 24th, 2010 @ 6:07 am

@Smitty, please take a look at a blog I wrote entitled “Welcome To My (Your) Nightmare – Your Privacy, Gone!”. If you didn’t have enough reasons to hate HCR, here is one more good one.
Lipton T. Bagg
March 24th, 2010 @ 1:07 am

@Smitty, please take a look at a blog I wrote entitled “Welcome To My (Your) Nightmare – Your Privacy, Gone!”. If you didn’t have enough reasons to hate HCR, here is one more good one.
~ Obama’s Disregard For the U.S. Constitution: How He Does It, and Why « Critical Political Thinking
March 26th, 2010 @ 2:46 pm

[…] Nancy -‘The News Slows, People Forget’ -Oh, Canada? -Rep. Thaddeus McCotter Remains A Favorite -Here Is An Argument For The GOP To Articulate -Senator DeMint Invokes John Paul Jones -Repeal And Replace: Balancing Tactics And Strategy – Does […]