The Federal government is a guy you gave a special power of attorney to empowering him to handle a few specified functions, and specified that you have delegated nothing else. He immediately starts trying to expand his powers beyond those few specified powers, and argues with you over whether or not you had delegated the powers in question. (Seriously, what person tolerates his attorney arguing over the limits of a power of attorney?)That oligarchy doesn't sound very good.
I prefer a republic.
Great video and posted at a good time of the year.
Thanks, CA!
Not with an unchecked judiciary....which is what we have.Can a people delegate certain limited specified powers to a government and enforce those limits?
TW, I sure respect your experience and insight from your posts, but damn I hope you're wrong.The Federal government is a guy you gave a special power of attorney to empowering him to handle a few specified functions, and specified that you have delegated nothing else. He immediately starts trying to expand his powers beyond those few specified powers, and argues with you over whether or not you had delegated the powers in question. (Seriously, what person tolerates his attorney arguing over the limits of a power of attorney?)
Then, you finally intervene and tell him, "Hey, man, look, I never authorized you to do anything but these specific powers; I'm revoking the power of attorney," he takes an iron pipe and beats you unconscious. You wake up in the hospital, realize you have been beaten so badly your leg had to be amputated, and your attorney screams at you, "If you had not been disloyal to me, this wouldn't have happened. You (the principal) have betrayed me the attorney. The personal injury is all your fault, you traitor."
Can a people delegate certain limited specified powers to a government and enforce those limits? The US example, unfortunately, proves this is not the case. Like Frankenstein's monster, once created, it acknowledges no external restraint and will murder its creators if need be.
Maybe my Democrat friend is right. The best a people can do is select the most benevolent dictator they can find and then live with the consequences, hoping they are not too bad. Maybe, given human nature, that is really as good as it gets.
I hope I am as well. In this climate, when any officeholder at the Federal level insists that we respect the limits the Constitution places on the authority of the general government, and that person is derisively labelled "obstructionist" and a member of the "do nothing" crowd, people applaud. When an officeholder runs roughshod over those limits, people are pleased.TW, I sure respect your experience and insight from your posts, but damn I hope you're wrong.
True. When a Federal judge declares the Virginia Constitution unconstitutional, and quotes the Declaration of Independence to justify it, we have a problem. That is the grossest disloyalty and insubordination by a public servant. She should have been impeached and removed (and if possible, prosecuted) before the echoes faded from her gavel.Not with an unchecked judiciary....which is what we have.
Confederate Constitution said:Any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting solely within the limits of any State, may be impeached by a vote of two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature thereof.
In the US, the growth and power of the federal government increases a bit with every new generation with the addition of the major leap that took place in the 1860's and a big step maybe in the 1930's. Each new generation lives under more government and as a whole, are fine with and come to expect additional government during their lifetime.
Jefferson foresaw this.Thomas Jefferson said:"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground."