Skip to content

Goodie… birther running for Senate in Arizona

February 17, 2010

J.D. Hayworth is a birther. I suppose I knew this and hadn’t really thought about it. I recall him saying something about there being serious questions about Obama’s birth certificate on the radio sometime around Christmas. He was filling in for Rush I think.

more

-elsewhere-

This will take some of the shine off Scalia with the “states rights” crowd – There is no right to secede. Scalia is one of the brighter bulbs on the Supreme Court so I suppose he may know what he is talking about.

McCain to debut a new Contract with America?
He is so unpopular with so many conservatives that I don’t think he is the man to lead this charge.

G.O.P. Hopes for Senate Control Face Hurdles
– Stranger things have happened but honestly I will settle for a split where one senator isn’t the crucial vote on whether or not a bill advances.

8 reasons to vote for J.D. Hayworth. I’m not sure what happened to 9, and 10.

9. He was involved in the Abramahoff scandal, and refused to return the money even after Abramahoff was convicted.
10. He diverted millions of dollars from his PAC to his wife.

It isn’t my business but I think the credentials for running for Senate should be a little more than “he isn’t John McCain”.

Themes running together today. The Classic Liberal has a how to list for secession. I am not a secession supporter and I find the idea that the 9th and 10th amendments support it laughable. Same with nullification. That’s me though. I like being an American and am in no big hurry to tear the country apart.

and another reason to say goodie – competing conservative manifestos. This will certainly help break the democrats stranglehold on power.

Some comments on the Contract from America –

* Amending the constitution to require a balanced budget and a two-thirds majority for any tax hike. (this hasn’t worked well in WA or CA. does anyone know anywhere it has worked well)

* Permanently repealing all tax hikes scheduled to begin in 2011. (support)

* Requiring every bill in Congress to be made public seven days before any vote can be taken and all government expenditures authorized by any bill to be easily accessible on the Internet before the money is spent. (support)

* Requiring each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (stupid. that is the purpose of the necessary and proper clause)

* Permitting all health insurance plans to be sold anywhere in the United States through the purchase of insurance across state lines. Allow small businesses and associations to pool together across state lines to buy insurance. (Steps on that whole states right thing doesn’t it?)

* Adopting a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and “replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words — the length of the original Constitution.” (stupid. The UCMJ is longer than the original Constitution too. Should we scrap it also?)

* Imposing a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (I don’t think this has worked well in areas where it has been tried)
* Allowing Americans to opt out of Social Security and Medicare and instead put those same payroll taxes in a personal account “they own, control and can leave to whomever they choose.” (support)

* Preventing any regulation or tax on the Internet. (support)

* Improving education by eliminating ineffective and wasteful programs, giving parents more choices from pre-school to high school and improving the affordability of higher education.

* Authorizing the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition. (support)

* Prohibiting the Federal Communications Commission from using funds to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. (support)

* Creating a Blue Ribbon task force that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs. (support)

* Blocking state and local governments that receive federal grants from exercising eminent domain over private property for the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues. (there is that pesky states rights conundrum again)

* Preventing the EPA from implementing costly new regulations.

* Placing a moratorium on all earmarks until the process is fully transparent. Also requiring a two-thirds majority to pass any earmark. (mainly support but it seems to violate article 1 of the constitution)

* Making all lawmaking regulators, including presidential appointed czars, be affirmatively approved by Congress and signed into law by the president.

* Audit the Federal Reserve System. (support)

* Making sure the federal government does not bail out private companies. The government should also immediately divest itself of its stake in the private companies it owns from recent bailouts. (This sounds good but I know it is just waiting to bite people in the ass)

* Amending the constitution to require congressional term limits. No person shall be elected to the Senate more than twice or to the House of Representatives more than four times. (support)

* Making all regulations “sunset” after 10 years unless renewed by congressional vote. (stupid, beyond stupid.)

* Broadcasting all non-security meetings and votes on C-SPAN and the Internet. (support)

Advertisements
14 Comments leave one →
  1. February 17, 2010 8:45 am

    I’m not sure how a legitimate case arguing that secession is not a right could be made. I mean … Is the State the sovereign, or are we sovereign as individuals? Does the State grant rights or do we have rights because we are human? If we have rights because we are human, then we have the right of free association. If we have the right of free association, then we have the right to secession.

    I’m not ready to endorse secession, but it’s certainly an worthy option on the table. But philosophically it’s a very important topic, because saying we don’t have the right to secession is in essence, saying we don’t have the right to be free.

    I also support third parties because a) I don’t prescribe to the hive mind, and b) I believe more competition will produce better long-term results. After all, isn’t it obvious the 2-party monopoly has failed?

    The commerce clause was intended to “make regular” trade between the individual states. At the time, some states had central banks that inflated away the value of their money and wouldn’t accept any other form of payment. Other states erected high tariffs against the other states. Etc. So no, that doesn’t interfere with the independence of the states. It simply promotes free trade.

    I also tend to think the competing manifestos is a good thing too! More competition = more choice = happier people = better long-term success. The old top-down, centralized planning of the movement has tremendously failed! Sure, it helped get Republicans elected, but has done nothing to advance the return to our representative republic and its constitutionally limited government.

    Hey, I understand … I’m a conservative heretic wherever I go … I’m just grateful people at least listen to what I have to say. Well, Mark Levin Fan banned me. 😯

    • jenn1964 permalink*
      February 17, 2010 9:25 am

      Necessary and proper clause first. If you read the contemporaneous writings of the founders (unlike a lot of others I am pretty sure you have) the modern usage of the necessary and proper clause was envisioned. It cause Thomas Jefferson a great deal of concern.

      Secession – That’s a complicated issue, the people are sovereign but under our system they execute that sovereignty through the ballot box, not secession. In any case I think even in the Civil War the secessionists were a minority. I know in the Revolutionary war that independence was not overwhelmingly embraced. Writings at the time address the fact. Are those people also sovereign? Or do they get overlooked by the secessionists?

      • February 17, 2010 12:07 pm

        All people are sovereign. Do you have the right to force me to live in Washington? Do I have the right to force you to live in Michigan? Do you have the right to force me to live in the United States? If so, how? What gives you such a right? The government cannot have a right that you don’t have. Anything else is a political construct.

        What if Michigan had a revolution and went hardcore socialist? Would the government have the right to force me to stay here? If so, where do they get that right? The barrel of a gun?

        And I think it makes sense that keeping trade among the states regular makes sense and doesn’t violate anyone’s rights.

      • John David Galt permalink
        February 20, 2010 4:06 pm

        No one who knows what he’s talking about can possibly accept the modern Supreme Court’s “interpretation” of the “elastic clause”. Every federal law and every federal program must be authorized by one of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8; and Federalist #41 proves that “promoting the general welfare” is NOT really one of those powers. The 9th and 10th Amendments are there to make this fact explicit: the 9th says that the list of enumerated powers is exhaustive, while the 10th says that the list of individual rights (Article I, Section 9 and the first eight amendments) is not exhaustive. Thus any topic not mentioned in the Constitution is either a state power or an individual right, not a federal power.

        The 16th Amendment, which allowed the federal government a much bigger purse, has unfortunately enabled subsequent Congresses to bribe states into letting Congress usurp state powers, but the 16th did not authorize this, it just provided the money to make it possible. The Supreme Court still can and should put a stop to the practice.

        When authorities in any branch of our government won’t follow the Constitution, it doesn’t mean the Constitution says whatever they tell us it says — it means they should be in jail for violating their oaths of office.

    • jenn1964 permalink*
      February 17, 2010 9:32 am

      As far as competing manisfestos. It’s a mistake because it can fracture the conservative vote. They need to start working together.

      More competition = more choice = happier people = better long-term success is a market fallacy. Often more competition just means shoddy goods and unhappy consumers and market dominance by one major player that enjoys an effective monopoly if not a legal one. There is a point of equilibrium where more becomes bad. Much like the Laffer curve says that there is a point of equilibrium where governement revenues are maximized based upon the tax rate. Go any higher on taxes and you lose money, go lower and you lose money. It doesn’t say low taxes are always better.

      • February 17, 2010 12:18 pm

        Contrary to popular belief, the right has always been at odds with each other. There’s the classical liberals like me, the social conservatives, pro-war conservatives, conservatives in name only …

        If you ask me, we either trust ourselves as “we the people,” or we don’t, thus preferring some form of central planning even in the free political process.

        Hey, you and I disagree from time to time … but so what? Are we doomed? Destined to be mortal enemies? Two people with no hope?

        Or in spite of some differences here and there (like secession), are we both heading in the same direction, and therefore on the same team?

  2. February 17, 2010 11:39 am

    I’m not even going to start on the secession argument, as I’ll end up here all day (not that that’s a bad thing ;)) but as far as Hayworth is concerned, the birther crap sucks, and you make some strong points as far as his candidacy and how it should require not being McCain, but as an AZ resident… I just want McCain out. I’ll take Hayworth over McCain any day of the week. Hayworth is at least good on the border issue, as well as a big pro-military spending guy. He’ll also be consistent on health care and states’ rights. All Senators come with hiccups, but I think his are less significant than McCain’s. I’d love a better candidate than either of them, but this is a classic fruit-of-the-poison-tree scenario, and I have to go with the one that’ll give me food poisoning as opposed to the one that will eventually kill me. Melodramatic, sure, but I stand by my hyperbole :).

  3. February 17, 2010 11:40 am

    “how it should require not being McCain”

    Meant to say “how it should require more than not being McCain”

  4. jenn1964 permalink*
    February 17, 2010 12:53 pm

    @CL

    I’m not saying that all conservatives have to agree on all issues. Obviously we (conservatives) don’t. My point is that by not cooperating and developing a certain core set of principles it makes it more difficult to achieve anything.

    I don’t think you’re argument regarding your ability to leave a state is really equivalent. That is you dealing with your own personal situation. The relationship between Michigan and the United States is a compact between two groups of people. This is where a lot of libertarian thinking breaks down. They take the idea that the people are sovereign to mean the individual is sovereign. In my reading that was never the intent of the founders. They envisioned a social contract in which the government derived it’s power from the consent of the landed class (that is even spelled out in the Constitution) but they only gave consent. Initially there wasn’t even a popular vote for President, just the electoral college.

    @GS

    I understand your point about wanting McCain out, I just wonder if you are trading up or down. Not being a resident of AZ it’s not my call, but Hayworth would sure give me pause. Isn’t there a stronger candidate out there?

    • February 17, 2010 7:21 pm

      There are certainly better possible candidates, but they’re unlikely to get RNC support, or even Tea Party money. Trent Franks, for example, is an (R) Congressman from AZ whom I would love to see step up for the Senate, or Jay Tibshraeny or Al Melvin from the State Senate. I like Chris Simcox personally, but I just don’t know enough about him on issues besides border control. Like I said, besides the “birther” issue, which to me is goofy but containable, Hayworth is better than McCain on virtually every other issue. I’ll take a little crackpot to get someone who is vested in Arizona rather than the national scene and getting along with the New York Times.

    • February 18, 2010 9:29 am

      A government by consent of the people means that the individual is sovereign and that a government exists only as far as we consent to it. So if say, the people of Michigan wish not to consent to the federal government, they have no moral duty to do so. Hence, the right to be free of that government … secession.

      Consent: to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield.

      Look at it in the extreme … Tomorrow morning we wake-up, the dollar is worthless, riots break out in major cities, President Obama declares martial law, suspends the 2010 elections … establishing a dictatorship.

      Do you still believe you, I, or anyone else doesn’t have the right to be free of the federal government?

      Side Note: The reason behind the “landed” class is because at the time, it was the best way to insure voters were actual citizens. Voter fraud has existed as long as voting itself.

      • jenn1964 permalink*
        February 18, 2010 9:49 am

        Madison (and possibly Jefferson) would disagree with you about the individual having ultimate sovereignty. Madison would definitely disagree about both nullification and secession.

        Look at it in the extreme … Tomorrow morning we wake-up, the dollar is worthless, riots break out in major cities, President Obama declares martial law, suspends the 2010 elections … establishing a dictatorship.

        This is the same argument made against Bush for 8 years. My response is the same as it was then. If that happened he would be breaking the law. He should be arrested. There would be no need for secession. The likelihood is extremely low however. Didn’t happen during the civil war. Didn’t happen during WWII. Didn’t happen during the great depression. There is no reason to suppose it would now.

        Even if you try and use Nazi Germany as a model it fails. They elected their dictator willingly knowing full well what his plans were.

  5. February 18, 2010 7:42 pm

    If the individual isn’t sovereign, then our rights aren’t inalienable and instead granted by the State. If rights are born of the State and not of God or nature, then like King George’s Parliament, sovereignty rests in Parliament, not the individual. So if all of this is true, then the following words are meaningless:

    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    During President Thomas Jefferson’s administration, some of the New England states threatened to secede over the Louisiana Purchase. President Jefferson responded by saying:

    “Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the Western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the Eastern.”

    Our country was founded on natural law, not positive law. There isn’t a natural law argument available against secession. I’ll end my part of this discussion here. Thanks for the healthy debate!

Trackbacks

  1. Justice Antonin Scalia Talks Seccession

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: