“I saw people like Mitt Romney and Orrin Hatch…. as…people who say the right things; people who are gods unto themselves; people who simply want the rest of us to go back to sleep; they’re taking care of things.”

You hit that nail right on the head.

and is now busily putting others to sleep–

so he can collect dividends while they are sleeping–

something like that–

I don’t know–

but there is something familiar about Hatch.

I had a life-altering experience, due to some very serious health issues–

don’t need to go into it, but let’s just say that my life did a 180 turnaround. No, I wasn’t doing drugs and committing adultery before this crisis, far from it.

But I was ‘asleep’. Fast asleep in a comfy culture, my inherited and much-loved LDS culture.
There are aspects of that culture that are dear to me, still–but I found when I woke up that many of the things I held to be valuable weren’t any longer.

Quite suddenly, the words of prophets that I had never considered so strongly before leaped out of the pages at me in neon. Even more suddenly, the Book of Mormon spoke to me as never before. I found myself hungering for it and for a deeper relationship with God than for that “comfort” I had found in the culture.

Then I discovered that there were many still sleeping peacefully within the culture, some of them very benign and gentle creatures, others less than benign and less than gentle–

and I saw people like Mitt Romney and Orrin Hatch and a member of my bishopric as . . . fatal saints–

people who say the right things; people who are gods unto themselves; people who simply want the rest of us to go back to sleep; they’re taking care of things.

This is a dramatic entry to make on a blog where nobody knows my name–

I live far from Utah, and I have nothing to do with Hatch, but I’ve seen his name and picture in LDS book catalogs; he does some kind of music thing with Janice Kapp Perry, correct? Or he did, before I woke up out of my slumber–

and I suspect he is one of those who has fallen asleep in Zion, lulled gently by the prosperity and the acceptance of those around him who reward him with votes.

Like a member of my bishopric who has his own doctrine for everything . . . but has figured out a way to backpedal quickly when the bishop (astute and not asleep) comes near–

scary person/people, these comfy, secure Mormons, these pseudo sleeping Christians.

I’ll face Lamanites myself–

Interestingly enough, Heber J. Grant 7th LDS church president opposed the 21st amendment which repealed the 18th amendment. (prohibition)

It would be my recommendation that you load your intellectual weaponry with truth-piercing understanding of our Glorious Constitution. Otherwise, you may find the ammunition provided by media pundits will do no more than expose your unprotected flanks.

Moving on… First let me say that I’ve never once put marijuana or any other illegal drug in my body. Heck, I’ve never even had a sip of coffee. (I say this in case people try to accuse me of doing drugs). Ron Paul points out that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to have a drug war or make any drugs illegal. He’s right. I challenge anyone who reads this to cite which of the enumerated powers that congress has to legislate what we put into our bodies. Hint… read Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution (they don’t have the power to legislate drugs). Ron Paul points out that the drug issue should be dealt with at a state level (look at the 10th amendment if you don’t understand). He also points out that alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana and yet society has been led to believe that alcohol is ok legally while marijuana isn’t.

Ask yourself this question- Should alcohol be legal? If you answer yes to this then logically you’ll have to answer that so should marijuana. While it’s true that in some cases marijuana is a gateway drug to other, more serious drugs- why draw the line there? It’s not like people under the influence of marijuana are going out driving recklessly or being uncontrollably abusive. It’s not a physically addictive drug like alcohol or nicotine (also gateway drugs). Yet, oddly, society (more like the government) decided to draw the line there. Also, does it make sense that doctors can prescribe serious drugs like morphine to their patients but will be tried as criminals if they prescribe a mild drug like marijuana???

My own choice and opinion is to leave any potentially unhealthy substance out of my body. But I don’t believe it’s the role for government to force others to live by a dietary code- prescribing what they may or may not put into their bodies. In my mind for someone to do drugs or drink is a crime…but it’s a crime against themselves. They shouldn’t be punished unless they violated someone else’s life, liberty or property by committing that act. I’d like it if everyone ate organic and ate meat sparingly but I’m not trying to pass laws to enforce my dietary code on others. That would be immoral.

As far as prostitution goes-I don’t think Ron Paul has ever officially made statements about it (I could be wrong). I’m definitely opposed to it on a state level for moral and logical reasons. But the federal government has no authority making laws about prostitution (article 1, section 8 & 10th amendment).

Ron Paul is not an isolationist anymore than George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, or James Madison were:

“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.” -George Washington’s Farewell Address

“Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none. -Thomas Jefferson”

“She [America] has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings … . … Wherever the standard [flag] of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all; she is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force … . She might become the dictatress of the world; she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.” -John Quincy Adams

“There is one and only one legitimate goal of United States foreign policy. It is a narrow goal, a nationalistic goal: the preservation of our national independence. Nothing in the Constitution grants that the president shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader. He is our executive; he is on our payroll; he is supposed to put our best interests in front of those of other nations. Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the president of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to ‘uplift’ their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their people, or even to defend them against their enemies.” -Ezra Taft Benson (America at the Crossroads, August 30, 1969.)

“If you like small government you need to work hard at having a strong national defense that is not so militant. Personal liberty is the purpose of government, to protect liberty – not to run your personal life, not to run the economy, and not to pretend that we can tell the world how they ought to live.” -Ron Paul

These great statesmen all have one thing in common. They’re not isolationists (being opposed to friendship, trade or any relations at all with foreign nations) but they are non-interventionists. There’s a big difference. Right now, to the contrary advice of the founders and other REALLY SMART people, we have adopted an intrusive and aggressive foreign policy.

No, Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He wants to extend diplomatic friendship and trade with all nations but he doesn’t feel it’s right for our nation to police the world or nation-build.

Though in rough draft form, & more sections to this on going series are on the way, it has a lost of historical sources to consider.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=JustinMartyrJr&view=videos

Senate passage of the D.C. House Voting Rights Act is assured, partly because under the Act’s terms, Utah, which has two Republican senators, will be awarded a fourth House seat. The state came close to qualifying for a fourth after the 2000 census and, because it is growing like Jack’s beanstalk, would have been awarded a fourth after the 2010 census. But why wait for 2012? The Constitution, that cobweb, is all that stands between Utah and instant gratification. So for the first time in 96 years, the size of the House will be permanently increased, by two members, to 437. Last year, as a senator, Barack Obama supported the act, so when it flutters onto his desk, he will sign it, although a veto would seem to be required by the recent oath he swore to defend the Constitution from threats, presumably including Congress.

Hatch needs to be sent home in shame.

FWIW, Abraham Lincoln, arguably our best president, didn’t appear to think the Constitution was sacrosanct.

The Constitution doesn’t mention entangling alliances exactly. It talks about what we as a country are allowed to do. But if the requirements of a treaty or an alliance would require the federal government to do something in a manner that does not follow the Consitution, then the treaty/alliance is unconstitutional.

NATO (which I think is actually a bunch of good countries) is an example. The NATO alliance requires that if one of us are attacked, we must all go to war against the aggressors. This seems like a reasonable requirement.

But the Constitution clearly states we cannot go to war without a declaration from Congress.

So, if one of the NATO countries is attacked (say, Poland) we go to war without a declaration from Congress and we have violated to Constitution.

And John, the idea that the interpretations change as society changes began with The New Deal (FDR). It was just an excuse to get around the Constitution to institute socialist ideals. We do not allow the Constitution to grow and change through interpretation. We change it through amendments.

But politicians find it too difficult to get their own agendas pushed through by amendment, so they just “interpret” it away.

We’ve had this discussion on other articles on this site. My opinion is that there is “honest difference of opinion” and there is “malicious interpretation” which means that if you spin it right and sell it to enough people, then you can do anything you want and you don’t need to worry about the Constitution.

Unfortunately, in most cases only God and time can tell the difference.

I don’t claim that my views closely mirror those of the founders and, frankly, I’m sure you have all done quite a bit more research into the matter than I have (I read some of the Federalist Papers in High School, that’s about it).

It’s interesting that you bring up the Bible. In my discussions here and elsewhere regarding the Constitution and the meanings thereof, I’ve thought that the arguments made by strict constructionists remind me of the arguments of biblical inerrantists. There doesn’t seem to me to be one true interpretation of the Constitution or any individual clause. This speaks to me of the complexity and originality of the document and the genius of the men who made it. It also speaks to me of their foresight, in creating a document whose interpretation could change over time in some ways while maintaining its integrity. At least, that’s how I understand it all happening.

Regarding our expeditions into empire making, I can’t say I am for it; but its been our policy since the 1950′s. I don’t think the founders would be opposed to treaty making (since it is in the Constitution), but, of course, they would caution us about it.

Regarding the bailout, I don’t much like it, but the original National Bank (idea of Hamilton) provides precedent for it. That’s what Marshall originally invoked the elastic clause for.

(ps. I learned all that from Wikipedia. Your mileage may vary, but I am willing to be taught).

In my district in California, we have congressman Jerry Lewis. He’s a republican and a snake. He also voted in favor of the bailout. And he got reelected. Congress supposedly has a 10 percent approval rating, but when it comes to cleaning up congress, nobody seems to want to start in their own yard. It’s everyone else’s congressmen who are the problem. Why doesn’t everyone just vote against the incumbent, if for no other reason, than because he (she) is an incumbent? I voted for the Democrat opponent. There were no other candidates. And Connor, I know . . . I voted for an evil, but in this instance, I feel justified. We need to clean house and this is one way to do it.

BTW, I totally agree with your post about choosing between the evils. You spoke my words exactly. I voted for Ron Paul in this election. He was an official write-in in California, as you probably know.

Jay

I understand your point that certainly the Founders were a diverse group of thinkers with many on-record, unresolved disputes. I used to get more hung up on that, but the more I read of their writings the more I feel that citing that argument too often obscures the fascinating number of things that *so many* of those leaders popularly considered U.S. “Founders” were in near-complete agreement on — not the least of which was the rejection of the evils of meddling Empires in the affairs of people that they did not representatively govern (arguably the central basis for the Revolution and ‘Founding’) and the rejection of totalitarian regimes and measures. It is frightening that so many in U.S. Federal government leadership today try to argue *for* both of these things.

But, partly due to your comment, when I post in the future I’ll try to be less lazy and more specific in citing Washington or Franklin or Madison or Hamilton or whoever rather than glibly claiming general “Founder” philosophy. I happen to be of the opinion that lots of what those leaders ‘agreed to agree upon’ was marvelously inspired … and further that even when they vehemently opposed each that those disputes are often very insightful and enlightening. It doesn’t lead me to believe that their thoughts are pointless or outdated. It doesn’t convince me that you can claim general “Founder” agreement for *any* position you choose to espouse.

In a related vein, there are those that make masterful arguments about the absurdity of the Bible — showing how certain passages directly contradict each other and concluding it is useless to use it as guidance for anything. I’m of the opinion that there is more to the Bible than that and I’ve come around to thinking the same of the writings and documents of the Founders. They might be imperfect, they might sometimes contradict one another, but man! there is some good stuff in there if you are willing to take a look and give it a chance.

So, all that said, what is your actual take on ‘Empire’, ‘Entangling Alliances’, and the ‘Socialist’ bail-out. Simply trying to argue that maybe not *every* person considered a “Founder” would have 100% opposed these things doesn’t seem to further the discussion much . . .

When our elected leaders don’t represent us well – when they take lightly or even abuse the trust and responsibility given them – then it behooves those who notice to clearly explain to their fellow citizens in what ways that trust has been abused lest the general populace fall again for the shrewd campaigning of those who have grown used to an uniformed and unenlightened electorate.

I agree with most of the posters here that it seems hypocritical of Senator Hatch to try to drum up patriotic fervor for principles I don’t feel he truly espouses.

In all the years I’ve heard him speak (sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing) I feel like his long and tireless battle fighting desecration of our flag is the perfect example of his flawed service. It sounds patriotic, it is steeped in great media imagery, but at core it contradicts much of what I believe our nation was founded upon with regard to freedom, liberty, expression, and the reasonable powers of the State. Further, not only is it needlessly divisive but his attention to the issue comes at the obvious expense of his ability to address other issues of much greater importance to the people he was elected to represent.

You may try to link Colonel Oliver North to the Patriot Act.

Jay

I felt it could be possible he could author portions of it, since by logic no 800+ page bill could have been authored by one person in the timeframe of between 9/11 and when it was passed some 4 weeks later.

To my horror, my searching showed me that no one was claiming authorship, and no one could cite me an author. Any research on my part was showing signs that the PATRIOT Act was written years in advance of 9/11, and was sitting on a shelf just waiting for the day when Americans would be afraid enough to pass it sight unseen.

I thought it fair enough to write a personal letter to Orrin, and ask him two simple questions: Who wrote the PATRIOT Act, and when was it written?

He responded to me by mail. He said simply that it was passed on such and such a date by the vast majority of voters.

I wrote back saying he had NOT answered my questions. He responded back to me again giving more jumbled spin, but in a word admitting the Act was written up before 9/11, but still not suggesting a single name of authorship.

Orrin is at the very least a King of Spin, at the most he is more likely an arrogant liar and a foe to the Constitution. At least that has been my experience in the letters I have written to and received from him.