The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Whittle Explores The General Welfare And Commerce Clauses, The Peanut Butter And Chocolate Of The Left

Posted on | October 28, 2011 | 10 Comments

by Smitty

Click to enjoy:

Yet another polished exposition from Bill, this time the specifics of how the context of two tiny phrases in the Constitution have been used substantially to obviate the rest of the document.

Watch, but more importantly, share with those who are still semi-conscious about the current danger to all we hold dear.

Via Ken Gardner this post at Heritage points out that revenues at the Treasury are relatively constant, compared to the malignant tumor-like growth of spending. This is the issue: federal growth, in terms of debt, deficit and over-regulation of the economy. This is why presidential candidates who are not discussing the amputation of vast swaths of Leviathan are not terribly impressive right now.


10 Responses to “Whittle Explores The General Welfare And Commerce Clauses, The Peanut Butter And Chocolate Of The Left”

  1. Anonymous
    October 28th, 2011 @ 4:49 pm

    Now that I understand. The have a seat clause comparison was truly inspired.

  2. Mike
    October 28th, 2011 @ 6:46 pm

    This guy is good. And another good teacher of the Constitution was/is Micheal Badnarik, the former Libertarian candidate for President a few years back.

  3. Quartermaster
    October 28th, 2011 @ 6:53 pm

    Well put. Given the people that we will have to chose from for the Presidency, the country is choosing lawlessness. We need a meat ax taken to FedGov to return to the rule of law. Only Ron Paul is talking that talk. Alas, Cain isn’t, and Mittens Romney is an establishment kinda guy and would not even think of doing such a thing.

    To bad. The founders had such high hopes, but the fallen state of man won’t allow for anything but decline.

  4. Charles
    October 28th, 2011 @ 7:21 pm

    The idea that every stupid idea must be unconstitutional is an old canard, that 222+ years of contrary experience should disabuse.

  5. Anonymous
    October 28th, 2011 @ 7:58 pm

    Every stupid idea isn’t unconstitutional to be sure but every unconstitutional idea is usually stupid in whole or in part.

  6. richard mcenroe
    October 28th, 2011 @ 8:20 pm

    Much like not all Democrats were slaveholders but all slaveholders were Democrats.

  7. Adjoran
    October 28th, 2011 @ 9:03 pm

    Big cuts are required, and that means reforming entitlements AND taking a machete to the federal bureaucracy, starting with recent and superfluous departments like Education, Energy, and HUD.  You know it, I know it, heck, even Harry Reid knows it has to happen.

    But saying it upfront isn’t going to elect any Republican.  The mushy middle swing independent voters aren’t exactly sharp thinkers, which is why they swing back and forth and ended up supporting Obama in the first place.  They are susceptible to the demagoguery of the Democrats on this sort of thing – how do you think Clinton got reelected?

    I’m not saying our nominee should lie – but he cannot be so specific as I was in the lead paragraph.  Another Obama term kills the economy, we won’t have 2/3 to override his vetoes.  Besides, the real heavy lifting on cuts is going to have to be led by Congress anyway.

    You don’t win by scaring the mush-minded middle voters, though.  They are sold on “cutting spending” and “reducing debt” but they haven’t realized what it means, exactly, yet.

    The next President is going to be a one-termer, most likely.  The mess Obama’s made of the mess we were already in has dug a deep hole and the prescription for getting out of it is pain.  Pain doesn’t sell real well.

  8. Anonymous
    October 28th, 2011 @ 9:38 pm

    Euphemisms are your friend, and not sharing all the truth you have isn’t lying. Keeping the mushy middle fat and dumb is what makes them happy, I say we give’em what they think they want. Congress can cut but, it will take the president and congress together to reduce regulations and for that to be effective in the medium to long run that means abolishing the agencies and Departments. If the president is fighting that, it won’t happen. I wrote a comment a month or so ago outlining some unscrupulous methods for doing that. In brief you must hollow them out from the inside reducing their effectiveness and diminishing the constituencies that support them. The denizens of most of the regulatory agencies such as the EPA are infested with Bolsheviks who have completely taken over the hosts, the only way to destroy the infestation is to destroy the host.

  9. Adjoran
    October 29th, 2011 @ 4:16 am

    I don’t disagree.  It would be hard for a Republican President to resist cutting the government, at least now that’s it is 40% more than we can afford.  It’s cut, or Greece.  I just worry that we play into the Democrats’ scare tactics when we talk too specifically about this stuff now, or insist the candidates put forth plans.  Notice most have some plan now to reform taxes and regulations and “create jobs” but the nuts and bolts of entitlement reforms which are necessary and spending cuts which are necessary remain unmentioned.

    And it would be painting a target on our candidates to demand it.  But even the most liberal of the likely nominees, Romney, made his fortune by buying into failing companies and turning them around.  In almost all cases, that mean cutting costs, and “cutting costs” means employees since they are the most expensive item on most balance sheets.  So shutting down departments and implementing layoffs of federal employees isn’t something he would have some failing of fortitude doing.  I think they will all make the needed changes if Congress passes them, and I think a Republican Congress will pass them.

    My optimism is based solely upon the lack of alternatives for even a short term fix.  Even the Democrats might consider doing the right thing, but in the end they can never admit their entire philosophy is based on fallacies.

  10. Anonymous
    October 29th, 2011 @ 12:18 pm

    I question whether Romney’s penchant for cutting in the private sector would transfer to government. The cutting of staff in businesses if done properly makes for more efficiencies and greater profits which increases the power of the executive. The size and scope of the executive branch extends and enhances the reach and power of the president. For a president who still believes that government is an overall force for good giving up that power to “do good” will be difficult. A majority of Americans think the federal government wastes at least 50% of every dollar it spends, I’ve no doubt (depending on ones definition of waste) that 50% is too low. For someone suffering from delusion that he can fix that by making government more efficient, reducing the “tools” at their disposal would prove impossible.

    However you are absolutely correct in your point that revealing how much cutting and elimination will be necessary will need to be done deftly.