.gif)
From League of the South:
Is the Constitution Really Inimical To States Rights? - Part Twelve
Al Benson, Jr.
Another prominent Virginian that had problems with the Constitution was Richard Henry Lee. He wrote a letter to Governor Edmund Randolph which was intended for the Virginia Gazette which, for some reason, they could not print. It ended up being printed in the New-York Journal in December of 1787. Mr. Lee seems to have had the new constitution fairly well figured out. He wrote: "The establishment of the new plan of government, in its present form, is a question that involves such immense consequences to the present times, and to posterity, that it calls for the deepest attention of the best and wisest friends of their country and of mankind; if it be found good after mature deliberation, adopt it, if wrong, amend it at all events, for to say (as many do) that a bad government must be established for fear of anarchy, is really saying, that we must kill ourselves for fear of dying...If with infinite ease a convention was obtained to prepare a system, why may not another with equal ease be procured to make proper and necessary amendments? Good government is not the work of a short time, or of sudden thought."
In other words, let us not rush into this thing. Let us take our time and if we are going to do it, then do it right.
We've noticed in the recent mid-term elections that the Republicans definitely gained enough in House seats that they could impede the Marxist agenda o the present Democratic administration. Yet they seem reluctant to do so, especially at the leadership level. The Republican House leadership is more than willing to compromise with the Democrats so as not to impede their Marxist agenda, and we are forced to conclude that, at root, both parties have the same collectivist mindset regardless of Republican rhetoric to the contrary. Our uninformed, and mostly public school-educated electorate has yet to be able to discern the difference between what the politicians do and what they say. The concept of checking voting records against political verbiage has yet to occur to most. Hence the charade will continue no matter who is in office.
But Lee saw problems with the way the new government had been set up. He wrote: "In the new constitution, the president and senate have all the executive, and two thirds of the legislative power. In some weighty instances (as making all kinds of treaties which are to be the laws of the land) they have the whole legislative and executive powers. They jointly appoint all officers civil and military, and they (the senate) try all impeachments either of their own members or of the officers appointed by themselves." Does anyone remember the impeachment proceedings against William Jefferson Clinton, also known as "Slick Willy?" The House did its duty and found him guilty on two counts if I recall correctly.
When the impeachment process moved over to the Senate, they refused to do their duty and began to come up with all manner of reasons why they could not vote to impeach Clinton. In his interesting book Sellout--The Inside Story of President Clinton's Impeachment author David Schippers noted the attitude of the Senate leadership when Rep. Henry Hyde sought to pass the impeachment proceeding along to the Senate. Schippers stated: "(Trent) Lott leaned back in his chair with a power lean that said 'I'm in charge.' I'll never forget the very first words out of his mouth: Henry, you're not going to dump that garbage on us." So much for senate backbone when it came to doing the right thing (something Mr. Lott was never noted for anyway). They, from the leadership on down were not about to "get their hands dirty" by doing what was right. This is exactly the sort of thing that Richard Henry Lee was concerned about, and, all amendments to the contrary, this situation has remained unchanged from day one!
Lee accurately observed that: "It cannot be denied with truth that this new constitution is, in its first principles, highly and dangerously oligarchic; and it is a point agreed that a government of the few, is, of all governments, the worst. The only check to be found in favour of the democratic principle in this system is, the house of representatives; which I believe may justly be called a mere shread or rag of representation: It being obvious to the least examination that smallness of number and great comparative disparity of power, renders that house of little effect to promote good, or restrain bad government."
In other words, the House, all by its lonesome, is no match for the combined power of the president and the Senate. I think our present situation in Washington more than bears this out. The current Marxist administration, through its flunkies in the Senate, manages to stop any meaningful reform presented by the House to curtail the leftward impetus of this government.
Moreover, as previously mentioned, the House is beset with a group of Republicans whose worldview is little different from that of the socialist Democrats. Both of these political parties have been infiltrated by a coterie of individuals with power and influence in many areas and which is, in effect, an oligarchy. This oligarchy controls both houses of Congress, much of the media, our "educational" system, and the office of president-and no one will get close to the White House without their tacit approval.
Real representation for the average man is a myth. All we get are a lot of "conservative" rhetoric, coupled with lots of socialist action, which we are told by the managed media is "good for us." Actually, it's much better for the politicians and their corporate fascist friends in big business than it is for us. However, we are then told by the so-called conservatives that if we just "get back to the Constitution" all will be well. Seems to me that if we do that, we are just starting the cycle all over again with no remedy for the problems.
It's quite revelatory that Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, and a host of others all told us at the beginning that if this constitution was enacted this is exactly what we would get. No one listened. How do you like it?
History has vindicated the Anti-Federalists and their position and made prevaricators out of those who told us how wonderful the new constitution would be. Maybe we need to begin to wake up and smell the coffee--if they haven't outlawed it before we get the message!
Is the Constitution Really Inimical To States Rights? - Part Twelve
Al Benson, Jr.
Another prominent Virginian that had problems with the Constitution was Richard Henry Lee. He wrote a letter to Governor Edmund Randolph which was intended for the Virginia Gazette which, for some reason, they could not print. It ended up being printed in the New-York Journal in December of 1787. Mr. Lee seems to have had the new constitution fairly well figured out. He wrote: "The establishment of the new plan of government, in its present form, is a question that involves such immense consequences to the present times, and to posterity, that it calls for the deepest attention of the best and wisest friends of their country and of mankind; if it be found good after mature deliberation, adopt it, if wrong, amend it at all events, for to say (as many do) that a bad government must be established for fear of anarchy, is really saying, that we must kill ourselves for fear of dying...If with infinite ease a convention was obtained to prepare a system, why may not another with equal ease be procured to make proper and necessary amendments? Good government is not the work of a short time, or of sudden thought."
In other words, let us not rush into this thing. Let us take our time and if we are going to do it, then do it right.
We've noticed in the recent mid-term elections that the Republicans definitely gained enough in House seats that they could impede the Marxist agenda o the present Democratic administration. Yet they seem reluctant to do so, especially at the leadership level. The Republican House leadership is more than willing to compromise with the Democrats so as not to impede their Marxist agenda, and we are forced to conclude that, at root, both parties have the same collectivist mindset regardless of Republican rhetoric to the contrary. Our uninformed, and mostly public school-educated electorate has yet to be able to discern the difference between what the politicians do and what they say. The concept of checking voting records against political verbiage has yet to occur to most. Hence the charade will continue no matter who is in office.
But Lee saw problems with the way the new government had been set up. He wrote: "In the new constitution, the president and senate have all the executive, and two thirds of the legislative power. In some weighty instances (as making all kinds of treaties which are to be the laws of the land) they have the whole legislative and executive powers. They jointly appoint all officers civil and military, and they (the senate) try all impeachments either of their own members or of the officers appointed by themselves." Does anyone remember the impeachment proceedings against William Jefferson Clinton, also known as "Slick Willy?" The House did its duty and found him guilty on two counts if I recall correctly.
When the impeachment process moved over to the Senate, they refused to do their duty and began to come up with all manner of reasons why they could not vote to impeach Clinton. In his interesting book Sellout--The Inside Story of President Clinton's Impeachment author David Schippers noted the attitude of the Senate leadership when Rep. Henry Hyde sought to pass the impeachment proceeding along to the Senate. Schippers stated: "(Trent) Lott leaned back in his chair with a power lean that said 'I'm in charge.' I'll never forget the very first words out of his mouth: Henry, you're not going to dump that garbage on us." So much for senate backbone when it came to doing the right thing (something Mr. Lott was never noted for anyway). They, from the leadership on down were not about to "get their hands dirty" by doing what was right. This is exactly the sort of thing that Richard Henry Lee was concerned about, and, all amendments to the contrary, this situation has remained unchanged from day one!
Lee accurately observed that: "It cannot be denied with truth that this new constitution is, in its first principles, highly and dangerously oligarchic; and it is a point agreed that a government of the few, is, of all governments, the worst. The only check to be found in favour of the democratic principle in this system is, the house of representatives; which I believe may justly be called a mere shread or rag of representation: It being obvious to the least examination that smallness of number and great comparative disparity of power, renders that house of little effect to promote good, or restrain bad government."
In other words, the House, all by its lonesome, is no match for the combined power of the president and the Senate. I think our present situation in Washington more than bears this out. The current Marxist administration, through its flunkies in the Senate, manages to stop any meaningful reform presented by the House to curtail the leftward impetus of this government.
Moreover, as previously mentioned, the House is beset with a group of Republicans whose worldview is little different from that of the socialist Democrats. Both of these political parties have been infiltrated by a coterie of individuals with power and influence in many areas and which is, in effect, an oligarchy. This oligarchy controls both houses of Congress, much of the media, our "educational" system, and the office of president-and no one will get close to the White House without their tacit approval.
Real representation for the average man is a myth. All we get are a lot of "conservative" rhetoric, coupled with lots of socialist action, which we are told by the managed media is "good for us." Actually, it's much better for the politicians and their corporate fascist friends in big business than it is for us. However, we are then told by the so-called conservatives that if we just "get back to the Constitution" all will be well. Seems to me that if we do that, we are just starting the cycle all over again with no remedy for the problems.
It's quite revelatory that Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, and a host of others all told us at the beginning that if this constitution was enacted this is exactly what we would get. No one listened. How do you like it?
History has vindicated the Anti-Federalists and their position and made prevaricators out of those who told us how wonderful the new constitution would be. Maybe we need to begin to wake up and smell the coffee--if they haven't outlawed it before we get the message!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment