So my question is, how will your vote help preserve the freedoms of this country?

Charly, when I am brought to the feet of our Lord for my judgement I am confident that he cares greater towards what I voted for, above who I voted for.

It’s self evident from the scriptures that it’s greater to vote on princple than popularity.

-Hyrum Smith, History of the Church, Vol.6, Ch.15, p.323

Anyways, Thomas Jefferson wrote that quote in reference to Shay’s Rebellion, a small uprising in Massachusetts. The point is that we can find tidbits of what the founding fathers have said and twist them to many different meanings. This quote by Jefferson suggests that every twenty years or less, we ought to have little rebellions that spill the blood of patriots and tyrants to bring injustices to attention. This would be justification for small attacks that bring attention to injustices.

In Timothy McVey’s case, he was putting the spotlight on an injustice he saw. The planners of 9/11 are in the same boat. Jefferson was saying that the majority of citizens cannot be fully informed about everything and these skirmishes must happen to bring attention to injustice. If we would pay attention to why people do what they do rather than escalate the violence on the premise that they hate us for our freedoms, we might have a different outcome.

Or. . . we can see that the founding fathers’ words can be interpreted to justify many objectionable actions by the government or anyone.

“The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The past which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independent 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & What country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

We should have thought of Tommy Jeff before reacting to 9/11 the way we did.

I may be wrong but Hamilton and Jefferson disagreed over the interpretation of those very words from practically the time that they were written. There isn’t any doubt that the elastic clause was a compromise which implies from the beginning that there was a variety of interpretations.

I suppose my point is that your “simple” explanations are just as much an interpretation as anybody’s “complex” explanation. So I don’t see why I should value yours over mine a priori.

I don’t know that even Hamilton would have supported what the government is doing today. Regardless of the variety of opinions in crafting the Constitution, we are left with the words that ultimately were agreed upon. As Jefferson said in that quote above, it becomes our responsibility to understand why those specific words were chosen.

Different delegates to the convention may have wanted one thing or another, or may later have been more persuaded to promote a specific ideology (as evidenced by the Hamilton/Jefferson clash), but what matters is the specific words they agreed upon, and the debate that happened around those words.

Why must we create “one, true meaning” today?

Simple statements have simple explanations. Again, I think there is stretching room in application of those specific provisions, but it becomes absurd to try and expand the definition of a word or clause to apply to something radically different from what the Founders ever intended.

Having the division between Hamilton and Jefferson before us, is it reasonable to say that there was a variety of approaches to the Constitution and the meanings to be derived therefrom from the very beginning? Why must we create “one, true meaning” today?

The Cato Institute, with whom I don’t always agree, put out this article a few days ago, addressing the issue:

The federal government has no constitutional authority to spend taxpayers’ money to buy distressed assets, much less to take an ownership position in private financial institutions. And Con­gress has no constitutional authority to delegate nearly plenary legislative power to the Treasury secretary, an executive branch official.

Congress can proceed only from legitimate authority, not from good intentions alone. That means we must find a constitutional pedigree for each proposed law.

One possible rationale for the bailout is the all-encompassing commerce clause. As the country grew and some people came to believe that most of its problems required national regulatory solutions, Congress sought to find a specific constitutional power that would justify an ambitious federal agenda. The commerce clause became the vehicle of choice.

Yet that is not why the clause was written into the Constitution. Under the Arti cles of Confederation, the national government lacked the power to regulate interstate commerce. Each state was free to advance local interests and to create barriers to trade without regard to possible prejudice to out-of-state interests. That process devolved into what Justice William Johnson, concurring in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), characterized as a “conflict of commercial regulations, destructive to the harmony of the States.”

The solution: a constitutional convention at which, according to Johnson, “If there was any one object riding over every other in the adoption of the Constitution, it was to keep the commercial intercourse among the States free from all invidious and partial restraints.”

Instead of serving as that shield against interference by the states, the commerce power has become a sword wielded by the federal government in pursuit of a boundless array of regulatory programs. That financial markets are interstate does not authorize the federal government to do anything and everything to manage those markets. The commerce power is to “regulate,” but commerce is not regulated by eliminating private risk and substituting tax-funded handouts to favored economic actors. The Framers who crafted the commerce clause could not have intended to empower Congress to give an executive official virtual carte blanche over all financial institutions.

Moreover, it is not a commerce clause argument to say that Congress created the mess and, therefore, Congress can do whatever it wants to fix the mess. Legislators’ misdeeds do not ipso facto justify the socialization of private banks, brokers, mortgage companies, and insurance companies-and who knows where it stops.

Even if Congress could defend the bailout as a means of preventing interstate impediments to commerce, that would not legitimize any and all means.

We would do well in such circumstances to heed the words of Thomas Jefferson:

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

Looking through Madison’s Notes, I doubt you’ll find any advocacy in the debates for using the commerce clause to nationalize a portion of the financial industry, prop up private companies, socialize the losses, and privatize any gains.

Principle it is!!

I believe that we can always choose, no matter what artificial limitations are proposed. You can vote third party, or write in whatever candidate you want.

Strategically, that’s not an effective vote. But I believe voting is more than playing a game—I think it’s a declaration of who I support, who I think is worthy of office, and who I think will do a good job.

When we vote on strategy, politicians use strategy to their advantage. They’ll use negative campaigning, leak information, pander to specific audiences, keep an eye on polling, etc. This, I believe, leads them to abandon principles and craft their message in the most appealing package, in order to win the votes of all those who are looking for the person who has the “best chance” of winning.

That’s not my America.

I’m talking about for the election cycle. There are candidates that fit the bill out there – such as Ron Paul. What if, through the process, they are eliminated and there are no candidates that you really favor? Are you not to pick the least of two evils at this point since you cannot choose the candidate you favor?

To Joe’s point, it is a shame for people to vote the poll. What do the polls really mean? I saw a headline today that said Obama was ahead by 6%. Is this of the total population or of the battleground state where it really matters? I don’t think he is ahead by that much here in Arizona. Also, the poll has a margin of error of 2.9%. So he is ahead from anywhere between .02% to 11.8%. These articles sway voters negatively by causing underdog fans to stay home or even vote the other way.

Joe, does it really matter if 6% more of the American population prefers Obama if less than 100% vote and the president isn’t elected by a simple majority?

I just read John Quincy Adams’ quote, “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

I still don’t know if he truly is all that behind, and I don’t know how I’ll be voting on the 4th, but your post made me think harder about it.

Emigrate?

So what is a voter to do if the masses have selected marginal candidates for the issues of today?