|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 13, 2014 2:50:59 GMT
In his recent book, America the Beautiful, Dr. Ben Carson draws a parallel between the Boston Tea Party of 1773 and the modern Tea Party movement that began in 2009:
I believe this makes for a very good (and fair) comparison; and especially the part about how the Tea Partiers of the late eighteenth century were portrayed by their detractors as mere "extremist, fringe individuals."
Comments?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 13, 2014 14:44:10 GMT
I don't buy it because the truth is that the Boston Tea Party was really about the drug trade. The British became "addicted" to the caffeine in tea when international trade with southern Asia (where tea originates) was established. Much of the British empire was based upon dealing in drugs from tea to opium historically. Tea will only grow well in subtropical and tropical locations and the British colonial expansion into India was to be able to grow tea because China had a monopoly on tea prior to that. British colonializm of subtropical and tropical locations in the Americas was with the intent to grow tea because the distance to England and shipping costs was far less than importing tea from Asia.
The long sea routes imposed a lot of cost on the price of tea by the time it reached America and added to that was taxation but Americans had a solution. Coffee, rich in caffeine, came from the Americas so the "drug" was much more reasonably priced. We wanted the "drug" but because of the much lower costs of coffee over tea the colonialists rejected "British tea" at the Boston Tea Party and instead the United States became a nation of coffee drinkers because coffee was much less expensive when compared to tea (that the British had monopoly control over).
It really was a "drug war" at the time over the drug caffeine and nothing else.
An interesting side note is that caffeine can be toxic and lead to death if consumed to excess while marijuana, a prohibited substance, has no toxicity level. The human body will only absorb a limited amount of THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) and then simply rejects any above that level and that is well below any possible toxic effects. It also limits how "high" a person can become on marijuana so no matter how strong or how much marijuana a person consumes they can only get so high before the stop getting any higher oncee the body begins rejecting any more THC. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 13, 2014 14:51:23 GMT
One point if interest related to the British imposition of taxes on tea was that it was to fund British military interventionism around the world.
I don't see the Tea Party today opposing US military interventionism or the taxation to support it. If they did then they would be advocating huge cuts to the Defense Department's budget.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 13, 2014 22:43:38 GMT
One point if interest related to the British imposition of taxes on tea was that it was to fund British military interventionism around the world.
I don't see the Tea Party today opposing US military interventionism or the taxation to support it. If they did then they would be advocating huge cuts to the Defense Department's budget.
The colonists were not represented--repeat, WERE NOT REPRESENTED--by the Brits. Therefore, to be taxed to pay for the military policies of a foreign government is not at all analogous to being taxed to pay for the military policies of one's own government. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 13, 2014 22:54:18 GMT
I don't buy it because the truth is that the Boston Tea Party was really about the drug trade. The British became "addicted" to the caffeine in tea when international trade with southern Asia (where tea originates) was established. Much of the British empire was based upon dealing in drugs from tea to opium historically. Tea will only grow well in subtropical and tropical locations and the British colonial expansion into India was to be able to grow tea because China had a monopoly on tea prior to that. British colonializm of subtropical and tropical locations in the Americas was with the intent to grow tea because the distance to England and shipping costs was far less than importing tea from Asia.
The long sea routes imposed a lot of cost on the price of tea by the time it reached America and added to that was taxation but Americans had a solution. Coffee, rich in caffeine, came from the Americas so the "drug" was much more reasonably priced. We wanted the "drug" but because of the much lower costs of coffee over tea the colonialists rejected "British tea" at the Boston Tea Party and instead the United States became a nation of coffee drinkers because coffee was much less expensive when compared to tea (that the British had monopoly control over).
It really was a "drug war" at the time over the drug caffeine and nothing else.
An interesting side note is that caffeine can be toxic and lead to death if consumed to excess while marijuana, a prohibited substance, has no toxicity level. The human body will only absorb a limited amount of THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) and then simply rejects any above that level and that is well below any possible toxic effects. It also limits how "high" a person can become on marijuana so no matter how strong or how much marijuana a person consumes they can only get so high before the stop getting any higher oncee the body begins rejecting any more THC. Let us leave aside, for the moment, your revisionist views as concerning the roots of the rebellion. More to the point: How would you respond to Dr. Carson's analogy to the different phases of the movements? Oh, I should add that Dr. Carson continues: |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 14, 2014 2:10:41 GMT
One point if interest related to the British imposition of taxes on tea was that it was to fund British military interventionism around the world.
I don't see the Tea Party today opposing US military interventionism or the taxation to support it. If they did then they would be advocating huge cuts to the Defense Department's budget.
The colonists were not represented--repeat, WERE NOT REPRESENTED--by the Brits. Therefore, to be taxed to pay for the military policies of a foreign government is not at all analogous to being taxed to pay for the military policies of one's own government.
The British government was the recognized political authority over the American colonies and was not a "foreign" government. It required funding to protect the American colonies as well as the many colonies of the British Empire at the time.
It is true that the colonists were not really represented by the British government but then again the American People are not represented by the Tea Party movement either and support for the Tea Party movement is on the decline today.
www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/10/16/Pew-poll-Tea-Party-support-hits-all-time-low/UPI-63141381973633/
It appears that the more that Americans learn about the Tea Party movement based upon the actions of those in Congress like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul that claim to represent the "movement" the less Americans like the movement.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 14, 2014 2:32:32 GMT
I don't buy it because the truth is that the Boston Tea Party was really about the drug trade. The British became "addicted" to the caffeine in tea when international trade with southern Asia (where tea originates) was established. Much of the British empire was based upon dealing in drugs from tea to opium historically. Tea will only grow well in subtropical and tropical locations and the British colonial expansion into India was to be able to grow tea because China had a monopoly on tea prior to that. British colonializm of subtropical and tropical locations in the Americas was with the intent to grow tea because the distance to England and shipping costs was far less than importing tea from Asia.
The long sea routes imposed a lot of cost on the price of tea by the time it reached America and added to that was taxation but Americans had a solution. Coffee, rich in caffeine, came from the Americas so the "drug" was much more reasonably priced. We wanted the "drug" but because of the much lower costs of coffee over tea the colonialists rejected "British tea" at the Boston Tea Party and instead the United States became a nation of coffee drinkers because coffee was much less expensive when compared to tea (that the British had monopoly control over).
It really was a "drug war" at the time over the drug caffeine and nothing else.
An interesting side note is that caffeine can be toxic and lead to death if consumed to excess while marijuana, a prohibited substance, has no toxicity level. The human body will only absorb a limited amount of THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) and then simply rejects any above that level and that is well below any possible toxic effects. It also limits how "high" a person can become on marijuana so no matter how strong or how much marijuana a person consumes they can only get so high before the stop getting any higher oncee the body begins rejecting any more THC. Let us leave aside, for the moment, your revisionist views as concerning the roots of the rebellion. More to the point: How would you respond to Dr. Carson's analogy to the different phases of the movements? Oh, I should add that Dr. Carson continues:
Actually the fact that the Boston Tea Party was really based upon a "drug war" is very well documented historically. It is typically ignored because most people don't consider caffeine to be a drug because it's legal but it is a very powerful drug. Be that as it may I still find Dr. Carson's claims to be absurd.
Remember there was no Tea Party Movement in 1773 and there wasn't even a division of "loyalists" and "patriots" in existance at the time. Everyone was a "loyalist" as virtually one contemplated a revolution against England or American independence at that time.
There were no demands for "less central government, more local rule, or more responsibility" and there was no "Tea Party movement" in 1773. The Boston Tea Party was nothing more than a few radicals committing an act of vandalism as a political protest. They weren't even an organized group much less a group with established princples of government.
Of course there is no relation between the tax issues then and today. The issue with taxation in 1773 was "no taxation without representation" but today the People in America have representation with one exception. Foreign immigrants in the United States are taxed but not represented. If the Tea Party movement today was addressing the issue of "taxation without representation" the would be demanding the Right to Vote for immigrants living and working in the United States.
Those participating in the Boston Tea Party didn't object to the tax itself but instead they objected to the fact it was imposed without their consent of their representatives.
We can note, as Dr. Carson also points out, that generally great movements start out small and grow but the opposite is happening with the Tea Party Movement. It started out much larger and has been losing support ever since.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 14, 2014 2:40:27 GMT
By the way the "fires of revolution" were actually ignited with Thomas Paine's pamphlet Common Sense published on January 10, 1776. Few Americans supported independence for the American colonies before that time. In just a few short months it turned Loyalists into Patriots and it provided the arguments for self-rule in America.
The Tea Party movement is an anti-tax movement that supports fiscal irresponsibility, generally with an anti-black, anti-Hispanic, anti-poor, anti-worker, anti-women, pro-corporate, pro-wealthy, and pro-militarism agenda which has absolutely nothing in parallel with the American Revolution (except the bad parts). |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 15, 2014 3:17:19 GMT
The colonists were not represented--repeat, WERE NOT REPRESENTED--by the Brits. Therefore, to be taxed to pay for the military policies of a foreign government is not at all analogous to being taxed to pay for the military policies of one's own government.
The British government was the recognized political authority over the American colonies and was not a "foreign" government. It required funding to protect the American colonies as well as the many colonies of the British Empire at the time.
It is true that the colonists were not really represented by the British government but then again the American People are not represented by the Tea Party movement either and support for the Tea Party movement is on the decline today.
www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/10/16/Pew-poll-Tea-Party-support-hits-all-time-low/UPI-63141381973633/
It appears that the more that Americans learn about the Tea Party movement based upon the actions of those in Congress like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul that claim to represent the "movement" the less Americans like the movement.
Since the colonists were not represented by the British crown--by your own admission--the former did very well, I believe, in throwing off the yoke of the latter. As to Ted Cruz and Rand Paul: I seriously doubt that Ted Cruz will end up as the Republican candidate for president in 2016 (although he may very well remain a Texas senator for quite awhile). And, even if he were (somehow) to secure the nomination, it is doubtful that he could win enough independents' votes to win the general election, in my opinion. However, Rand Paul--whose isoltionist foreign policy is at odds with my own preferences--is quite another matter. He appears to be the leading Republican candidate, according to the polls that I have seen. (True, it is still 2 3/4 years until the general election of 2016; so it is really too far out for those polls to be very meaningful now. But I would certainly not count out the man. And if he were to win the nomination, he could probably prove to be a fairly formidable general-election candidate.) |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 15, 2014 3:24:52 GMT
By the way the "fires of revolution" were actually ignited with Thomas Paine's pamphlet Common Sense published on January 10, 1776. Few Americans supported independence for the American colonies before that time. In just a few short months it turned Loyalists into Patriots and it provided the arguments for self-rule in America.
The Tea Party movement is an anti-tax movement that supports fiscal irresponsibility, generally with an anti-black, anti-Hispanic, anti-poor, anti-worker, anti-women, pro-corporate, pro-wealthy, and pro-militarism agenda which has absolutely nothing in parallel with the American Revolution (except the bad parts). I agree with the observations contained in the first paragraph (as concerning Thomas Paine's pamphlet, Common Sense). As to your observation that the modern Tea Party (ostensibly) "supports fiscal irresponsibility, generally with an anti-black, anti-Hispanic, anti-poor, anti-worker, anti-women, pro-corporate, pro-wealthy...agenda," that sounds very much like the talking points of a committed leftist; and not at all like the conclusions of a self-proclaimed "libertarian." (By the way, one strand of the Tea Party is, indeed, libertarian; whereas another strand is more in line with traditional American conservatism.) And as to the part about its (allegedly) being "pro-militarism": Would that it were so! I am far more militaristic, in my own views, than the Tea Party tends to be. In fact, much of it is quite isolationist (or "non-interventionist," as those of this persuasion prefer to phrase it). |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 15, 2014 10:38:16 GMT
By the way the "fires of revolution" were actually ignited with Thomas Paine's pamphlet Common Sense published on January 10, 1776. Few Americans supported independence for the American colonies before that time. In just a few short months it turned Loyalists into Patriots and it provided the arguments for self-rule in America.
The Tea Party movement is an anti-tax movement that supports fiscal irresponsibility, generally with an anti-black, anti-Hispanic, anti-poor, anti-worker, anti-women, pro-corporate, pro-wealthy, and pro-militarism agenda which has absolutely nothing in parallel with the American Revolution (except the bad parts). I agree with the observations contained in the first paragraph (as concerning Thomas Paine's pamphlet, Common Sense). As to your observation that the modern Tea Party (ostensibly) "supports fiscal irresponsibility, generally with an anti-black, anti-Hispanic, anti-poor, anti-worker, anti-women, pro-corporate, pro-wealthy...agenda," that sounds very much like the talking points of a committed leftist; and not at all like the conclusions of a self-proclaimed "libertarian." (By the way, one strand of the Tea Party is, indeed, libertarian; whereas another strand is more in line with traditional American conservatism.) And as to the part about its (allegedly) being "pro-militarism": Would that it were so! I am far more militaristic, in my own views, than the Tea Party tends to be. In fact, much of it is quite isolationist (or "non-interventionist," as those of this persuasion prefer to phrase it).
Let's review some fact about the Tea Party (or at least the Tea Party Patriots that I receive emails from) and state/federal agendas and actions by "identified" Tea Party Politicians.
1. Fiscal irresponsibility
The Tea Party opposes collection of enough taxes to fund the expenditures of the federal government which dramaticaly increases the national debt which is fiscally irresponsible. The Tea Party movement is an anti-tax movement and not a fiscal responsibility movement.
2. Anti-Hispanic and Anti-Black
2.a. At the federal level of government Tea Party members of Congress seek to impose virtually impossible financial conditions to prevent the eventual citizenship of "illegal" Hispanic immigrants living in the United States and still support quotas that severely restrict Hispanic immigration to the United States. Statistically our immigration laws overwhelmingly target Hispanic people in denial of legal immigration.
2.b. At the state level of government Tea Party politicans support voting laws that overwhelmingly target low income Hispanic and black citizens to disenfranchise them from their Right to Vote. These laws generally do not address any problem related to voting such as the Voter ID laws that address a non-existant problem as the case of voter identification at the polls. For example Texas passed a voter identification law and yet only four cases of voter identification fraud at the polls were documented between 2004 and 2010. The negative impact of these laws has been estimated to be that millions of poor African-American and Hispanic citizens will be disenfranchised from voting while no identifiable problem exists.
We can certainly refer to the simple fact that the Republican Party, where the Tea Party is the most extreme, is anti-Hispanic and anti-Black based upon the simple statistic that people in those demographic groups are highly opposed to their political agenda. About 95% of Blacks and 75% of Hispanic citizens vote against Republican candidates which is very surprising when it comes to Hispanics that generally have very conservative political ideologies. If the Republican Party was not anti-Hispanic and anti-Black there would be more support by these demographic groups but they are the ones subjected to the political agenda and are highly opposed to the Republican and Tea Party Republican agenda.
3 Anti-Poor
Tea Party Republicans call for slashing of welfare assistance that mitigates the effects of poverty as opposed to addressing poverty where decreasing the poverty of the people would reduce the necessary expenditures necessary to mitigate the effects of poverty. They advocate elminating the welfare while ignoring the poverty and that is an "anti-poor" as it adversely effects those living in poverty in America.
4. Anti-worker
The Tea Party continues to support favoritism in our tax codes for investors and their "unearned" income over workers and their "earned" income where "earned" income is taxed at twice the tax rates when compared to "unearned" income. Imposition of double the tax rates on workers that pay taxes on earned income reflects an anti-worker political agenda.
5. Anti-women
Tea Party Republicans continue to support laws that prevent abortion predominately by denying access predominately with laws that target the closure of abortion clinics. This laws are not about the medical welfare of the woman as they are not being defined by medical dangers but instead only target abortion clinics. Women have a Constitutional Right to have an abortion (re Roe v Wade) so not only is this anti-women but also anti-Constitution. At least one extremist in the Tea Party movement have called for the repeal of spousal rape laws. The also seek to deny women contraceptive medical insurance benefits based upon the religious beliefs of other people ignoring the fact that whether a woman chooses to use these benefits does not in any way infringe upon the right of a person to not use contraception insurance benefits based upon their religious beliefs.
6. Pro-corporatism (corporations)
Tea Party Republicans support special tax codes for corporations that impsose substantially less taxation on corporations when compared to small sole-proprietorships. A sole proprietor with a net income of $100,000 pays at least $37,000 in federal taxes while a corporation with the identical $100,000 in net income only pays a maximum of $22,000 in federal taxes.
7. Pro-Wealthy (crony capitalism)
The Tea Party continues to support tax codes where the highest income households in America have the lowest tax burden relative to income in America while the lowest income households have the highest tax burden relative to income in America when all state and federal taxation is addressed.
8. Pro-militarism
The United States military can easily defend itself without the massive US military we have today. There is no need, for example, of 13 carrier fleets to patrol all of the international waters around the world. Not a single nation even has one "carrier fleet" comparable to a US carrier fleet and the United States could easily defend itself from any sea-borne invasion with 5 carrier fleets even though we can to defend ourselves in both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. The United States could easily have the finest, best trained, and well equiped military in the world for less than 1/2 we spend on our military and yet Tea Party Republicans have never advocated any significant (as in double-digit) reduction in our military budget.
ADDITION
9. Anti-Constitution
Many Tea Party Republicans claim that restrictions being imposed upon the Freedom to Express Religious beliefs is a violation of the Rights of the Person. Freedom of Religion is based upon the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person but an Inalienable Right cannot infringe upon another person's Inalienable Rights. Freedom or Religion cannot infringe upon the Right of the Person to be afforded equal protection under the law as protected by the 14th Amendment. Freedom to Exercise an Inalienable Right cannot allow infringements upon the Inalienable Rights of another Person under the US Constitution. We also seen numerous cases of Tea Party Republican advocating state nullification of federal law in direct violation of the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. Federal laws, under the US Constitution, are supreme over State laws and state laws cannot nullify a federal law.
*** *** *** *** ***
Of course the statement my opinion " sounds very much like the talking points of a committed leftist" that is of course false. My condemnation of the Tea Party movement is far more scathing than that of any "leftist" I'm aware of. I'm far more committed to laisse faire capitalism (that opposed corporatism and crony capitalism), the Inalienable Rights of the Person, responsible reduction in the size and scope of government by addressing problems as oppose to symtoms, non-interventionist foreign policy, and compliance with the US Constitution than any "lefist" I'm aware of. When it comes to "talking points" a liberal might rate a 5 in addressing Republicans and the Tea Party and I clearly rate about a 10. I see the Tea Party as nothing more than advocacy of Wealthy WASP Male domination that has been "traditional government" in the United States.
No, the "Left" doesn't come anywhere close to my condemnation of the extremists in the Tea Party movement or the Republican Party. They can't because the Left supports many of the samethings as the Right where I condemn both. Remember that the "Left" doesn't typically advocate the elimination of the Capital Gains tax (I do) although they want to increase the rates. It really is true that generally Democrats and Republicans are opposited sides of the same coin and I condemn both.
No one is more opposed to both Democrats and Republicans than I am. Several of my condemnations of Tea Party Republicans can also be associated with Progressive Democrats.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 15, 2014 18:24:41 GMT
I agree with the observations contained in the first paragraph (as concerning Thomas Paine's pamphlet, Common Sense). As to your observation that the modern Tea Party (ostensibly) "supports fiscal irresponsibility, generally with an anti-black, anti-Hispanic, anti-poor, anti-worker, anti-women, pro-corporate, pro-wealthy...agenda," that sounds very much like the talking points of a committed leftist; and not at all like the conclusions of a self-proclaimed "libertarian." (By the way, one strand of the Tea Party is, indeed, libertarian; whereas another strand is more in line with traditional American conservatism.) And as to the part about its (allegedly) being "pro-militarism": Would that it were so! I am far more militaristic, in my own views, than the Tea Party tends to be. In fact, much of it is quite isolationist (or "non-interventionist," as those of this persuasion prefer to phrase it).
Let's review some fact about the Tea Party (or at least the Tea Party Patriots that I receive emails from) and state/federal agendas and actions by "identified" Tea Party Politicians.
1. Fiscal irresponsibility
The Tea Party opposes collection of enough taxes to fund the expenditures of the federal government which dramaticaly increases the national debt which is fiscally irresponsible. The Tea Party movement is an anti-tax movement and not a fiscal responsibility movement.
2. Anti-Hispanic and Anti-Black
2.a. At the federal level of government Tea Party members of Congress seek to impose virtually impossible financial conditions to prevent the eventual citizenship of "illegal" Hispanic immigrants living in the United States and still support quotas that severely restrict Hispanic immigration to the United States. Statistically our immigration laws overwhelmingly target Hispanic people in denial of legal immigration.
2.b. At the state level of government Tea Party politicans support voting laws that overwhelmingly target low income Hispanic and black citizens to disenfranchise them from their Right to Vote. These laws generally do not address any problem related to voting such as the Voter ID laws that address a non-existant problem as the case of voter identification at the polls. For example Texas passed a voter identification law and yet only four cases of voter identification fraud at the polls were documented between 2004 and 2010. The negative impact of these laws has been estimated to be that millions of poor African-American and Hispanic citizens will be disenfranchised from voting while no identifiable problem exists.
We can certainly refer to the simple fact that the Republican Party, where the Tea Party is the most extreme, is anti-Hispanic and anti-Black based upon the simple statistic that people in those demographic groups are highly opposed to their political agenda. About 95% of Blacks and 75% of Hispanic citizens vote against Republican candidates which is very surprising when it comes to Hispanics that generally have very conservative political ideologies. If the Republican Party was not anti-Hispanic and anti-Black there would be more support by these demographic groups but they are the ones subjected to the political agenda and are highly opposed to the Republican and Tea Party Republican agenda.
3 Anti-Poor
Tea Party Republicans call for slashing of welfare assistance that mitigates the effects of poverty as opposed to addressing poverty where decreasing the poverty of the people would reduce the necessary expenditures necessary to mitigate the effects of poverty. They advocate elminating the welfare while ignoring the poverty and that is an "anti-poor" as it adversely effects those living in poverty in America.
4. Anti-worker
The Tea Party continues to support favoritism in our tax codes for investors and their "unearned" income over workers and their "earned" income where "earned" income is taxed at twice the tax rates when compared to "unearned" income. Imposition of double the tax rates on workers that pay taxes on earned income reflects an anti-worker political agenda.
5. Anti-women
Tea Party Republicans continue to support laws that prevent abortion predominately by denying access predominately with laws that target the closure of abortion clinics. This laws are not about the medical welfare of the woman as they are not being defined by medical dangers but instead only target abortion clinics. Women have a Constitutional Right to have an abortion (re Roe v Wade) so not only is this anti-women but also anti-Constitution. At least one extremist in the Tea Party movement have called for the repeal of spousal rape laws. The also seek to deny women contraceptive medical insurance benefits based upon the religious beliefs of other people ignoring the fact that whether a woman chooses to use these benefits does not in any way infringe upon the right of a person to not use contraception insurance benefits based upon their religious beliefs.
6. Pro-corporatism (corporations)
Tea Party Republicans support special tax codes for corporations that impsose substantially less taxation on corporations when compared to small sole-proprietorships. A sole proprietor with a net income of $100,000 pays at least $37,000 in federal taxes while a corporation with the identical $100,000 in net income only pays a maximum of $22,000 in federal taxes.
7. Pro-Wealthy (crony capitalism)
The Tea Party continues to support tax codes where the highest income households in America have the lowest tax burden relative to income in America while the lowest income households have the highest tax burden relative to income in America when all state and federal taxation is addressed.
8. Pro-militarism
The United States military can easily defend itself without the massive US military we have today. There is no need, for example, of 13 carrier fleets to patrol all of the international waters around the world. Not a single nation even has one "carrier fleet" comparable to a US carrier fleet and the United States could easily defend itself from any sea-borne invasion with 5 carrier fleets even though we can to defend ourselves in both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. The United States could easily have the finest, best trained, and well equiped military in the world for less than 1/2 we spend on our military and yet Tea Party Republicans have never advocated any significant (as in double-digit) reduction in our military budget.
ADDITION
9. Anti-Constitution
Many Tea Party Republicans claim that restrictions being imposed upon the Freedom to Express Religious beliefs is a violation of the Rights of the Person. Freedom of Religion is based upon the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person but an Inalienable Right cannot infringe upon another person's Inalienable Rights. Freedom or Religion cannot infringe upon the Right of the Person to be afforded equal protection under the law as protected by the 14th Amendment. Freedom to Exercise an Inalienable Right cannot allow infringements upon the Inalienable Rights of another Person under the US Constitution. We also seen numerous cases of Tea Party Republican advocating state nullification of federal law in direct violation of the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. Federal laws, under the US Constitution, are supreme over State laws and state laws cannot nullify a federal law.
*** *** *** *** ***
Of course the statement my opinion " sounds very much like the talking points of a committed leftist" that is of course false. My condemnation of the Tea Party movement is far more scathing than that of any "leftist" I'm aware of. I'm far more committed to laisse faire capitalism (that opposed corporatism and crony capitalism), the Inalienable Rights of the Person, responsible reduction in the size and scope of government by addressing problems as oppose to symtoms, non-interventionist foreign policy, and compliance with the US Constitution than any "lefist" I'm aware of. When it comes to "talking points" a liberal might rate a 5 in addressing Republicans and the Tea Party and I clearly rate about a 10. I see the Tea Party as nothing more than advocacy of Wealthy WASP Male domination that has been "traditional government" in the United States.
No, the "Left" doesn't come anywhere close to my condemnation of the extremists in the Tea Party movement or the Republican Party. They can't because the Left supports many of the samethings as the Right where I condemn both. Remember that the "Left" doesn't typically advocate the elimination of the Capital Gains tax (I do) although they want to increase the rates. It really is true that generally Democrats and Republicans are opposited sides of the same coin and I condemn both.
No one is more opposed to both Democrats and Republicans than I am. Several of my condemnations of Tea Party Republicans can also be associated with Progressive Democrats.
I shall not even attempt the verbosity that might be required to address each of your points (such as they are), point-by-point. But here are just a few random observations: (1) You made note of the Tea Party Patriots. That is certainly one Tea party group. There is also the Tea Party Caucus; the Tea Party Nation; the Tea Party Express; and many others. These do not all agree with each other, except for the core principles of lower taxation and smaller government. (2) It is nowhere engraved in stone--or in the US Constitution, for that matter--that spending for domestic entitlement programs must continue to escalate, ad infinitum, on autopilot; and that the Congress is entirely impotent to do anything about this. Fiscal responsibility--not fiscal irresponsibility--dictates that this must cease, posthaste. (3) Your equating the desire of many of us--including almost everyone associated with the Tea Party--to enforce American immigration law, and thereby to assert our national sovereignty--with being "anti-Hispanic" is much more in line with a mere talking point than it is with anything of substance. (Of course, you have previously indicated your disregard for the very concept of national sovereignty, declaring, instead, that only the individual may claim sovereignty.) (4) Your breezy reference to the 1973 Court decision, Roe v. Wade, appears to imply that you equate all SCOTUS rulings with the dictates of the US Constitution. If the High Court were infallible in its constitutional edicts, we should celebrate Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857); Plessey v. Ferguson (1896); Korematsu v. United States (1944) ; and, more recently, Kelo v. City of New Haven [Connecticut] (2005). (5) I disagree with the libertarian-leaning wing of the Tea Party--and with you, also--as regarding military spending. For one thing, the numbers typically tossed around, as concerning American military spending vis-a-vis the military spending of all other countries, usually takes those other countries at their word, as regarding this matter. But I would imagine that China spends a great deal more on its military than it officially acknowledges. And the US needs to do much more than just have a military adequate to serve as a self-defense force, in the case of an attack upon the American mainland. It needs also to be able to defend its international interests--including those in the Pacific (where China is now trying to block out the US) free of any sense of intimidation. This requires an exceedingly strong American military; which I thoroughly support. (6) I believe I have noted previously on this board--in other threads--that I am an enormous supporter of the doctrtine of nullification, as championed 200 years ago by John C. Calhoun. I know that I have made a point of this on other political forums. The left (obviously) does not respect the Tenth Amendment; so I see no reason for me to respect the so-called "Supremacy Clause." Or the High Court's (infinitely expansive) view of the Commerce Clause, or...hey, don't get me started! |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 16, 2014 12:52:24 GMT
Two quick points.
First of all "government" has no Rights as Rights are only inherent in the individual Person. National "sovereignty" is based upon the Right of Sovereignty of the Individual Person. The Right of Sovereignty is the Right of Self which is the fundamental Inalienable Right form which is the foundation for all other Inalienable Rights of the Person.
Next is that I find all split decisions of the US Supreme Court to be fundamentally flawed. In all split decisions at least one Supreme Court Justice puts forward arguments that the law or action violates the US Constitution and I side with the minority in these cases. I oppose all laws and actions based upon dubious Constitutional grounds and split decisions alway reflect laws or actions that are of dubious Constitutionality. For example in the famous case of Dred Scott v. Sanford we can note it was a split decision (7-2) and he should have been freed because the decision resulted in a clear violation of the Rights of Dred Scott as a Person that we freely acknowledge today.
I have long advocated a Constitutional Amendment that would require the unanimous consent of the Supreme Court to uphold any challenged law or action based upon Constitutionality. It isn't a "perfect" solution but it is the most pragmatice means of ensuring that the Constitution is not violated.
We can note that "Obamacare" would have been declared unconstitutional under my criteria and "Legal Tender Currency" (i.e. Federal Reserve Notes) would also be unconstitutional. Of course Roe v Wade struck down abortion laws even though it was a split decision but under my criteria the abortion laws would have been struck down if even one Supreme Court Justice had ruled against them based upon the US Constitution.
I don't argue against any Supreme Court decision that strikes down laws or actions as being unconstitutional nor would anyone that supports the maximum protections of the Rights of the Person protected by the US Constitution.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 17, 2014 1:12:02 GMT
Two quick points.
First of all "government" has no Rights as Rights are only inherent in the individual Person. National "sovereignty" is based upon the Right of Sovereignty of the Individual Person. The Right of Sovereignty is the Right of Self which is the fundamental Inalienable Right form which is the foundation for all other Inalienable Rights of the Person.
Next is that I find all split decisions of the US Supreme Court to be fundamentally flawed. In all split decisions at least one Supreme Court Justice puts forward arguments that the law or action violates the US Constitution and I side with the minority in these cases. I oppose all laws and actions based upon dubious Constitutional grounds and split decisions alway reflect laws or actions that are of dubious Constitutionality. For example in the famous case of Dred Scott v. Sanford we can note it was a split decision (7-2) and he should have been freed because the decision resulted in a clear violation of the Rights of Dred Scott as a Person that we freely acknowledge today.
I have long advocated a Constitutional Amendment that would require the unanimous consent of the Supreme Court to uphold any challenged law or action based upon Constitutionality. It isn't a "perfect" solution but it is the most pragmatice means of ensuring that the Constitution is not violated.
We can note that "Obamacare" would have been declared unconstitutional under my criteria and "Legal Tender Currency" (i.e. Federal Reserve Notes) would also be unconstitutional. Of course Roe v Wade struck down abortion laws even though it was a split decision but under my criteria the abortion laws would have been struck down if even one Supreme Court Justice had ruled against them based upon the US Constitution.
I don't argue against any Supreme Court decision that strikes down laws or actions as being unconstitutional nor would anyone that supports the maximum protections of the Rights of the Person protected by the US Constitution.
To assert that government "has no Rights" (caps in original) is, essentially, to advocate anarchy. Of course our government has rights. No, not the rights of a Hobbesian-like Leviathan state; but the rights granted in the US Constitution. I am not sure how you may reason that laws regulating abortion would have been struck down, even absent Roe v. Wade. I am intrigued, however, as regarding your view about the necessity of a unanimous SCOTUS decision to uphold any law under challenge. Frankly, I had never considered this possibility. I will have to think about it. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 17, 2014 12:59:36 GMT
To assert that government "has no Rights" (caps in original) is, essentially, to advocate anarchy. Of course our government has rights. No, not the rights of a Hobbesian-like Leviathan state; but the rights granted in the US Constitution. I am not sure how you may reason that laws regulating abortion would have been struck down, even absent Roe v. Wade. I am intrigued, however, as regarding your view about the necessity of a unanimous SCOTUS decision to uphold any law under challenge. Frankly, I had never considered this possibility. I will have to think about it.
Understanding that the "sovereignty of a nation" is established the "sovereignty of the person" really isn't that hard. We need only refer to the document that established the political ideology of the United States.
Government has "Powers" and not "Rights" and those powers are based upon the consent of the governed. There is a caveat which is that the people can only delegate those powers that they have based upon their inalienable Rights. The individual has the Inalienable Right of Self and inherent in that is the Inalienable Right of Sovereignty of the Self. A nation obtains sovereignty based upon the cumulative Inalienable Right of Sovereignty of all Persons living within the territory of the nation.
It is the understanding of this simple principle that provides guidance when we address issues of what government can and cannot do. The powers of government cannot exceed those of the cumumative powers of the people and can only be established by the consent of the people.
For example using this understanding then capital punishment cannot exist as no person has the Right to commit the premeditated killing of another person. We don't have that "power" as a person and cannot delegate it to government.
When we look at the abortion laws we have to address the word "person" which is exactly what the US Supreme Court did in Roe v Wade. What we must also understand is that adjudication before the Court is based upon an adversarial process and that in Roe v Wade both sides of the "argument" agreed that there were no examples where the term "person" was applied prior to birth historically. The "defense council" for the abortion laws admitted that they could not present legal precedent in establishing personhood of the fetus. In short there was no precendent for considering the "preborn" to be a person. The "Woman" was unquestionably a "person" and had the Inalienable Right of Sovereignty of the Self that other "persons" could not violate with laws that prohibited abortion (i.e. her having a procedure done that affected her body but did not affect another person's body).
There are arguments for establishing "personhood" of the "preborn" and new legal precendent can be established to recognize the "personhood of the fetus" and, in the United States, that would have to be done by the Supreme Law of the Land (i.e. by US Constitutional Amendment) but there are numerous considerations in doing this.
For example if "personhood" is granted to the "fetus" then what is the limitation upon the Inalienable Right of Sovereignty of Self of the fetus? The Right of Sovereignty of the "fetus" and the "woman" cannot conflict with each other because an Inalienable Right, by definition, cannot violate the Inalienable Rights of Another Person. So is the individual "Sovereignty" of the fetus and the woman established at the umbilical cord that connects the woman and the fetus? If so the woman can have the umbilical cord cut at "her end" as that falls within the authority of her personal sovereignty. Of course if that happens the fetus dies and effectively "abortion" has occured.
No matter how we address the fetus and the woman there is a paradox from an Inalienable Rights perspective because of the conflict between the Rights of the Person. The "fetus" has a "Right to Eat" but does not have a Right to demand the woman feed it. An Inalienable Right cannot impose an involuntary obligation upon another person.
Ultimately we end up with a case where the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Rights of the Person must be limited for pragmatic reasons based upon compelling arguments which is actually what the Supreme Court decided to do in it's Roe v Wade decision. Even though the "fetus" was not a "person" at natural viability it was a "potential person" (i.e. it would be a recognized person outside of the womb). In it's decision the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right of Sovereignty of the woman was addressed where during the first trimester she had complete Freedom to Exercise her Inalienable Right of Sovereignty over her own body (i.e. abortion on demand) but by the third trimester where the fetus became a "potential person" her Freedom to Exercise her Right of Sovereignty was greatly diminished. Only if a case of a serious threat to her health or life was extablished based upon a medical opinion would allow her to obtain an abortion.
Personally I've reviewed this issue for a long time and I can't see any other pragmatic resolution to the paradox between the woman and "baby" in her body. Regardless of whether we address a fetus at viability as a "person" or a "potential person" the compromise by addressing it based upon the Freedom to Exercise an Inalienable Right is unchanged. Prior to natual viability there isn't an argument at all for "personhood" as there is no possibility of Individual Sovereignty of the "preborn" as they cannot live unassisted outside of the womb.
Ultimately regardless of whether Roe v Wade exists the same conclusions are reached based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person.
*********************************************
When you ponder the idea of requiring unanimous consent you can address it on this thread where I actually provided the text of a Constitutional Amendment.
worldpf.com/thread/275/constitutional-amendment-protect-rights
|
|
