Looks like the votes are in . . .

[88GT]

While I wish he hadn't voted the way he did in a couple circumstances, I do know that his votes were derived out of direct concern for our own community, as we have a GM plant in Fort Wayne.

So what you're saying is that he voted according to a special interest and not according to the parameters outlined in the Constitution governing the jurisdiction and authority of Congress? But it's okay because he was concerned about some people losing their jobs if their company's sh*tty business practices led to no business at all?

Just beautiful.

 

[Rich.Carpenter]

Didn't read the rest of the thread. I'm just disgusted with Coats winning, and by such a wide margin.

I'm thoroughly convinced that he won on name recognition only. I swear, if people are just going to vote blind or just pick the guy who dresses the best, I wish they would just stay home.

 

[WabashMX5]

Didn't read the rest of the thread. I'm just disgusted with Coats winning, and by such a wide margin.

There's another way to look at it, if the GOP will have the brains to read what it really means. Every other candidate was well to the right of Coats -- meaning that a strong 60% majority of GOP voters wanted someone more conservative. Yes, the conservative vote was fractured, but there's still a strong message there for those willing to see it....

 

[bwframe]

That myopic view is what got us here in the first place.

Please explain!

 

[88GT]

Please explain!

1. Minimizing the big picture to a single issue--in this case, RKBA--can lead to a gun-friendly politician who has not problem with the rest of the liberal agenda. I'm not familiar with him, but based on the comments here, it would appear that Elsworth is a perfect example. Pleasing grade from the NRA, yet wouldn't think twice about casting votes in other areas that further erode our liberties.

2. This is the most important one: The notion that Republicans are somehow different than Democrats these days is laughable. It's precisely because the Republican machinery focused solely on getting Rs elected that it neglected to pay attention to who/what those Rs really were. Instead of backing candidates with strong conservative platforms, the RNC and its ilk backed watered-down, spineless, middle of the road candidates because they were more concerned with getting a win that fair and Constitutional representation. As long as an R won, they didn't care what that R stood for.

Well, most of America thought differently, and when the time came to vote, they either voted for the third party (a vote cast based on platform) or the D (a vote cast as a big FU to the Republican machinery). Either way the end result is a foreign socialist a$$hat for a pres and a Congress headed by idiots drunk with power.

It's not about getting the Dems out or Republicans in. It's about getting the right kind representation, Constitutionally based representation. Period. At this point, if we can't get it right completely, I'd almost just as soon run, instead of walk, the other direction and get it over with, whatever "it" turns out to be.

 

[Rich.Carpenter]

2. This is the most important one: The notion that Republicans are somehow different than Democrats these days is laughable. It's precisely because the Republican machinery focused solely on getting Rs elected that it neglected to pay attention to who/what those Rs really were. Instead of backing candidates with strong conservative platforms, the RNC and its ilk backed watered-down, spineless, middle of the road candidates because they were more concerned with getting a win that fair and Constitutional representation. As long as an R won, they didn't care what that R stood for.

However, at least during the current administration, the Republican party is more united than ever. What has done us in is the overwhelming majority of Democrat representation in Congress plus the White House. I would never expect nor desire that the entire Republic party vote the same way, yet that is exactly what's been happening this past year. Unfortunately, they were so outnumbered that they couldn't withstand losing even a single vote, purchased by the opposing side.

In other elections, you're right. However, this time thinking Dems out and Reps in is a pretty safe bet.

 

[bwframe]

1. Minimizing the big picture to a single issue--in this case, RKBA--can lead to a gun-friendly politician who has not problem with the rest of the liberal agenda.

If we allow our 2nd Amendment rights to be compromised, the rest doesn't matter. We then have no "teeth."

It's not about getting the Dems out or Republicans in. It's about getting the right kind representation, Constitutionally based representation. Period. At this point, if we can't get it right completely, I'd almost just as soon run, instead of walk, the other direction and get it over with, whatever "it" turns out to be.

The all-or-nothing crowd always finishes with nothing. Exempt, in their minds, a reason to whine that it won't go their way.

I don't care for a lot of Republicans. I care for Coats even less. However, right now, this year, we must break the Democratic control of Congress. Or it will break us.

 

[88GT]

However, at least during the current administration, the Republican party is more united than ever. What has done us in is the overwhelming majority of Democrat representation in Congress plus the White House. I would never expect nor desire that the entire Republic party vote the same way, yet that is exactly what's been happening this past year. Unfortunately, they were so outnumbered that they couldn't withstand losing even a single vote, purchased by the opposing side.

In other elections, you're right. However, this time thinking Dems out and Reps in is a pretty safe bet.

My point addressed exactly how we got to be the minority. Unification doesn't help after we've lost all those seats.

And, slightly off topic, I do expect representatives to vote the same way every time. With regards to Constitutionality, there is only one right answer. It is that black and white.

If we allow our 2nd Amendment rights to be compromised, the rest doesn't matter. We then have no "teeth."

Practically, you're correct. But that only applies in a SHTF fo time scenario and only if the people are willing to exercise them. And you're a fool if you think that a government that uses its power to strip us of all the other rights is going to be satisfied with allowing us to keep that one. If we allow ANY right to be compromised, we have no teeth. We've abdicated our power to the government. No amount of pro-RKBA legislation in the world can counter a life of slavery.

The all-or-nothing crowd always finishes with nothing. Exempt, in their minds, a reason to whine that it won't go their way.

Some of us all-or-nothing crowd don't appreciate the "let's play nice and compromise" crowd deciding for us which rights we're okay with flushing down the toilets. We're not whining about things not going our way; we're b*itching about the spineless weasels who thought they could buy a little security with our liberties.

I don't care for a lot of Republicans. I care for Coats even less. However, right now, this year, we must break the Democratic control of Congress. Or it will break us.

I don't disagree on some level. But you missed my first point entirely. It doesn't matter if the elected moron in office has a D or an R behind his name. If he's a socialist plick, we're still gonna get screwed. Voting Republican doesn't ensure a damn thing, except setting the stage for the blame game down the road when they pull the same crap the Dems have.

We're not magically going to reverse this socialist tendency in Congress just because the Rs field a bigger ball team.

 

[hornadylnl]

The only time the repubs seem to have a conservative message is when they are out of power. Once back in control, they try to out democrat the democrats. They regained power in 94. Didn't take them long to forget what conservatism means.

 

[Rich.Carpenter]

And, slightly off topic, I do expect representatives to vote the same way every time. With regards to Constitutionality, there is only one right answer. It is that black and white.

Uh, no, it's not. Do you honestly believe that every possible issue is spelled out specifically in the Constitution?

 

[level.eleven]

The only time the repubs seem to have a conservative message is when they are out of power. Once back in control, they try to out democrat the democrats. They regained power in 94. Didn't take them long to forget what conservatism means.

Try being a Libertarian. Every time the R's get the boot they magically discover liberty and limited government. It happens every time...I simply laugh, then grind my teeth because that option was available for a long time from a different party.

Do you think we would have been treated to the comedy gold (GOLD JERRY!) that is Glenn Beck calling himself a Libertarian if McCain were your ruler?

 

[88GT]

Uh, no, it's not. Do you honestly believe that every possible issue is spelled out specifically in the Constitution?

Uh, yes, it is.

With every vote there is a single standard against which to judge the possible choices: How does this affect the individual and his ability to exercise his full complement of freedoms? With rare exception, anything that has an adverse effect deserves only one answer.

Oh, I take that back. There's a second question (actually, it should be asked first): does the federal government have the authority and jurisdiction to enact this piece of legislation based on the limited scope of its enumerated powers as set forth in Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America?


It really is that simple.

 

[photoshooter]

Actually there are two glaring loopholes built into the Constitution (Thanks to Alex Hamilton and his buddies):

The Interstate Commerce clause and the General Welfare Clause.

Those two seem to make sense - but get abused over and over by both sides.

 

[mk2ja]

While I wish he hadn't voted the way he did in a couple circumstances, I do know that his votes were derived out of direct concern for our own community, as we have a GM plant in Fort Wayne.

So what you're saying is that he voted according to a special interest and not according to the parameters outlined in the Constitution governing the jurisdiction and authority of Congress? But it's okay because he was concerned about some people losing their jobs if their company's [bad] business practices led to no business at all?

Just beautiful.

Well, that's not what I said. Your interpretation and re-wording of what I said contains wording that I condone his vote on those matters; I explicitly do not. Lay off, brother. I said I didn't want him voting that way; I'm on "your team".

Uh, yes, it is.

With every vote there is a single standard against which to judge the possible choices: How does this affect the individual and his ability to exercise his full complement of freedoms? With rare exception, anything that has an adverse effect deserves only one answer.

Oh, I take that back. There's a second question (actually, it should be asked first): does the federal government have the authority and jurisdiction to enact this piece of legislation based on the limited scope of its enumerated powers as set forth in Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America?


It really is that simple.

We had an interesting debate not too long ago about the now-enacted legislation about employees storing guns in their locked cars while at work. The debate was whether the property owner had the right to set policy on his own property or whether the individual was protected from anti-gun policies by the second amendment. On the one hand, if I start a business, I should have the right to declare what is acceptable on my property; on the other, when it affects and controls my employees even while they aren't on my property, I'm clearly overstepping. I know that I personally concluded it was a reasonable compromise to allow individuals to store guns in their own locked cars even on employer property, but I'm not sure if the Constitution directly answered that question in a non-conflicting, black and white, manner.

Your thoughts on that issue, if I may ask?

 

[88GT]

We had an interesting debate not too long ago about the now-enacted legislation about employees storing guns in their locked cars while at work. The debate was whether the property owner had the right to set policy on his own property or whether the individual was protected from anti-gun policies by the second amendment. On the one hand, if I start a business, I should have the right to declare what is acceptable on my property; on the other, when it affects and controls my employees even while they aren't on my property, I'm clearly overstepping. I know that I personally concluded it was a reasonable compromise to allow individuals to store guns in their own locked cars even on employer property, but I'm not sure if the Constitution directly answered that question in a non-conflicting, black and white, manner.

Your thoughts on that issue, if I may ask?

Happy to oblige.

The property owner should have full and unfettered control to set whatever limits and regulations he wants regarding his visitors.

2nd amendment rights (or any of the others, for that matter), do not apply when you cross someone else's property line. Period. As a free individual you have a choice whether to accept the restrictions imposed by the property owner or not. If not, you have no right to be on the property if he asks you to leave because of your failure to abide by his wishes.

If it makes it easier, replace "employer" with private citizen. If you can justify infringing on the employer's property rights, then you have justified infringing on the private citizen's rights. Which ultimately means that any of those inalienable rights supercede private property rights. Wanna burn a cross in your neighbor's yard as part of your religious belief? Go ahead. Practice of religion trumps private property rights. Wanna have a PETA rally on the property of a slaughterhouse? No problem. Right to peaceably (I know, a stretch for the PETA example) assembly is greater than property rights. Do you honestly support those examples of the exercise of an individual's rights over property rights? If you don't contradict yourself, you have to say 'yes.'


The problem is that we've twisted inalienable rights to mean something they are not. The BoR is a limit on government. Not the individual. There is no absolute exercise of rights by any one person, because to allow it necessarily means someone else's rights are being trampled. (The obvious exception is what you do on your own property). Theoretically, I should have the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason. And in a truly free country, I could. Government can't, because government is supposed to protect everybody equally. And government-sanctioned or government-sponsored discrimination is clearly not equal protection. But the individual? Every right in this world to be a flaming bigot. Which includes telling you to leave your firearms somewhere else.

 

[Prometheus]

Actually there are two glaring loopholes built into the Constitution (Thanks to Alex Hamilton and his buddies):

The Interstate Commerce clause and the General Welfare Clause.

Those two seem to make sense - but get abused over and over by both sides.

Loophole? BullS^&*

The general welfare clause is a declaratory clause meant to further define the Eighteen (18) specific things Congress can do. It does not grant any further powers.

Interstate commerce was meant to AID the flow of goods and services. Not control them.

This is just like "Executive Orders". An EO is for ordering more paperclips or ink. Not for making law. Want proof? Read the Constitution. Article one is very clear:
"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Where in that does it say "the President can make law"? It doesn't.

F' the black robed tyrants on the USSC. For 80 years all this crap was unheard of! Not until the tyrant Abraham Lincoln came to power was such insanity even considered.

We are way over the edge.

Someone said the country "will be broken"... I've got news for you, it IS broken.

We are Greece from a couple years ago. It's game OVER already. Electing a few RINOs isn't going to do jack for the cause.

 

[88GT]

Loophole? BullS^&*

The general welfare clause is a declaratory clause meant to further define the Eighteen (18) specific things Congress can do. It does not grant any further powers.

Interstate commerce was meant to AID the flow of goods and services. Not control them.

This is just like "Executive Orders". An EO is for ordering more paperclips or ink. Not for making law. Want proof? Read the Constitution. Article one is very clear:
"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Where in that does it say "the President can make law"? It doesn't.

F' the black robed tyrants on the USSC. For 80 years all this crap was unheard of! Not until the tyrant Abraham Lincoln came to power was such insanity even considered.

We are way over the edge.

Someone said the country "will be broken"... I've got news for you, it IS broken.

We are Greece from a couple years ago. It's game OVER already. Electing a few RINOs isn't going to do jack for the cause.

Could you explain further. (I'm not arguing. This is one area of constitutional law I haven't dipped my toes.) Or direct me to a good source.

 

[Prometheus]

Could you explain further. (I'm not arguing. This is one area of constitutional law I haven't dipped my toes.) Or direct me to a good source.

What better place than the Constitution itself. All of congresses power is listed in Section 8. Read the entire thing, and see if you can justify healthcare (or anything else) by the listed 18 powers Congress has authority over.

Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

 

[mk2ja]

What better place than the Constitution itself. All of congresses power is listed in Section 8. Read the entire thing, and see if you can justify healthcare (or anything else) by the listed 18 powers Congress has authority over.

Ahh.. interesting.

I listened to Glenn Beck's book Arguing With Idiots on a recent road trip. One thing he pointed out was that, even though it says "provide for the common defense and general welfare", the next four words tell EXACTLY to what it applies: "the United States".

Whenever the framers wanted something to refer to THE PEOPLE, they clearly said so.

• The Preamble to the US Constitution: "We the people..."
• The First Amendment: "... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government..."
• The Second Amendment: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..."
• The Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons..."
• The Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be held..."
• The Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
• And, perhaps most importantly... The Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

When referring to the government or country as a whole, they clearly said so. And that is exactly that the General Welfare Clause does.

So, clearly, it isn't talking about the Welfare/Healthcare systems we have and/or will have, but rather to the welfare of the country as a whole.


Thanks for copying that excerpt from the Constitution into the thread. I hadn't actually read it before. I really need to read the whole thing. Perhaps I'll do that next weekend.