Comely Resistance
Patriot askedeth: “What do you think of this article?”
Thinker102 answerdeth, following an excerpt from the article: ********The warriors would not even know who their counterparts are. The only thing binding the participants together would be a shared belief—in the God of the Bible and our Christian civilization, in these United States, in strictly limited government and Free Enterprise, in the country that minded its own business; that walked softly but carried a big stick, where private property is sacrosanct.**********
Problem is, the closer you follow the bible, the more of a totalitarian state you wind up with.
The reasoning in this paragraph and some of the ones that follows seems very much like that behind the OK city bombing. Carried to the extent advocated, this creates a climate of fear for *everybody*, which ultimately destroys, not builds.
And…
…`Communists’? Uh…dead and gone with the cold war, at least in the US.
This guys diagnosis is off, and his proposed cure is worse than the disease.
elderly male followed with: This Screed reminds of certain aspects/requirements for a former job I held. The training, if one did not have it already, required one to write two essays: one, to slant or justify a certain position on a subject which would be given; two, then criticise or rebut that original position based upon a defined change in Policy. Put another way; justify ANY one position given to you then REWRITE the same thing based upon new instructions given to you. I’m sorry to say I was better at doing this than I would have liked to be, i.e., at the top of my form I could write Communistic crap almost as well as some of the Party Hacks.
I chimed in with: “I have argued that collectivism was (and is) fundamentally incompatible with the vision that undergirded this country’s founding. The New Deal, however,inoculated the federal Constitution with a kind of underground collectivist
mentality. The Constitution itself was transmuted into a significantly different document…1937…marks the triumph of our own socialist revolution…Politically, the belief in human perfectibility is another way of asserting that differences between the few and the many can, over time, be erased. That creed is a critical philosophical proposition underlying the New Deal. What is extraordinary is the way that thesis infiltrated and effected American constitutionalism over the next three-quarters of a century. Its effect was not simply to repudiate, both philosophically and in legal doctrine, the framers’ conception of humanity, but to cut away the very ground on which the Constitution rests… In the New Deal/Great Society era, a rule that was the polar opposite of the classical era of American law reigned.”
So saideth Janice Rogers Brown, one of the Judges in the middle of the current Filibuster fight in the Senate. (The looming ‘Nuclear Option vote’ — which is one to override a ruling of “What, are you joking?” by the Senate Parlimentarian on the question of whether a Judicial Filibuster is Unconstitution– were it to be done under a blind vote, would fail.)
1937 being the year the Supreme Court started ruling FDR’s programs Constitutional. (I believe there was a relatively dramatic shift by one of the Supreme Court Justices from generally holding the programs unconstitutional to holding them constitutional… pressured by the looming crisis over FDR’s fairly odious Court Packing Scheme — I don’t know… That probably is a good year for some to start in with the date that everything went to Hell and we became defacto Communists and the Court became “Activist Judges”. Probably sooner… Turn back the clock to the McKinnley Administration.)
Uncle Blabby followed with: Mention the Rooseveltian threat to take the Court to 15 members and every Journalistic Protagonist?? will immediately thunder forth how because of this action THE PEOPLE TURNED AGAINST ROOSEVELT AND HIS PFOUL SCHEME PHALED! Crap! I say again, Crap! What actually happened is as you said, one of the Justices, a former Conservative, changed his vote to Roosevelt making the Court 5/4 in Roosevelts favor, the result being there was no longer any reason to “pack the court”. I have also forgotten what caused the Justice to switch his vote but it was BECAUSE of Roosevelt and something he influenced in someway. I remember seeing in an historical document somewhere, I’m too lazy to look it up again, a Newspaper headline reading, “A Switch in Five Saves Nine”, a pretty good headline, at that!
And elderly male finished with: He misquoted the phrase, it should read, “A Switch In Time Saves Nine”. Look in Public Choice, Springer, Vol 113, pages 301-304. Abstract Title reads, A Switch In Time Saves Nine, Institutions, Strategic Actors, and FDR’S Court-Packing Plan, by Carson, Jamie L. and Kleinerman, Benjamin A.
Lead-in as reads, “long heralded as a misuse of Presidential Power that nearly undermined our constitutional ….”
Then reads, “Using an analytic narrative framework, we offer an alternative theoretical account of the events and argue that Roosevelt used the proposal to obtain his immediate goal: a shift in policy direction of the Court. Our framework is supported with historical evidence suggesting that all of the actors… etc, etc.”