The Rabid Conservative

Think Right, Act Right, Be Right.

Pelosi’s Win Spinning

with 7 comments


The Dems absolutely hate the idea of a federal republic because it takes power from Washington and keeps it in the hands of the individual states or the individual citizens.


There has been a lot of analysis (ad nauseum, actually) regarding the 2009 election, about whether it was a Democrat victory – the beginning of a GOP revolution, a referendum on President Obama’s first year, etc etc.

But the thing that I found most amusing was Nancy Pelosi’s remark about how it was a Democrat win because [they] "picked up votes".  And to that end, she’s right, the Dems added two to their number in the House majority – a majority that is whipping the rest of the House Dems into supporting the Nationalist Health Care Malform Bill.  And while I won’t go into the particulars of that 1900 pages of bureaucratic rubbish today, I must say that, yes, with Pelosi having a chance that the bill could be defeated in the House, she needs every vote she can muster.  So, when the delta is at about ten votes, two votes are important.

But aside from that, there’s one other angle that I’ve not heard the pundits discuss – and one that the Democrats in Washington seem to give very little care – the autonomy of the State and how this past election affects that dynamic.

Consider the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution:

IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

X: 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.

The Dems absolutely hate the idea of a federal republic because it takes power from Washington and keeps it in the hands of the individual states or the individual citizens.  The Dems want a stronger central government to control what the states and the people can do, rather than leaving them to govern themselves, as the Founders intended.

There are scores of violations of these two amendments that have allowed for inappropriate growth of government.  Using the federal court system to override the decision of people, such as Prop 8 in California (which was decided properly) and or 1972’s Roe v. Wade decision (improperly overriding Texas law) are clear if we apply the Ninth Amendment properly.  Implementing exorbitant government programs and regulating behavior through these programs violates the Tenth.  And all of these things are issues that should be left to the Several States or the People.

So when Nancy Pelosi gets the word that the Virginia and New Jersey will have GOP governors, she could care less.  Pelosi and her liberal bunch don’t care about the rights of the Several States (unless they are in alignment with the liberal agenda).  Liberals seek to subvert the power of the States in favor of their agenda – using the power of federal government to override the will of the people.

It’s quite interesting to see that when decisions are left to the people, such as recently demonstrated by Maine’s voters over Question One, exercising a People’s Veto (something that I like, BTW), the rights are preserved in the hands of where they should be – with the people, first.

Pelosi doesn’t believe this. 

BTW – Had Virginia and New Jersey’s gubernatorial races gone Democrat, we would have heard from Pelosi and her ilk that this was a clear referendum that the liberal policies are what the people wanted.  But they certainly don’t believe it to be true with GOP wins.  The spin on this one is pretty high for sure.

Advertisements

Written by The Rabid Conservative

November 5, 2009 at 12:26 pm

7 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I guess that is why the conservative want to take my rights away through state tort laws. They can better influence the politically controlled FDA through corporate money. I guess in this one instance conservatives believe a larger federal agency will do a better job then citizens.

    http://robertsfight.wordpress.com/

    Mark Baird

    November 5, 2009 at 10:52 pm

  2. Mike – I read over your blog site and I’m sorry for your loss – I truly am. But what I detect here is this “evil corporations controlling government cry” by which the left wing often uses when it doesn’t agree with something in government. We see it quite often when the oil companies are demonised for rising gas prices or the insurance companies are vilified when the costs of health care go up. So, rather than addressing the more complex problem, it’s easier to demonize Wall Street executives.

    The point of my post here is that, by default, Democrats prefer a strong government. They want to use the power of government to mandate that individuals and corporations bend to their will. But what you bring up here is the rare instance when a federal law is in play that goes against liberal agenda, such as what the Defense of Marriage Act does.

    The Founders did not believe in zero federal government – that was the reason for the Constitutional Congress of 1787. They did understand that there were things within the power of centralised government that were in everyone’s interest. This is why murder one is a felony – because killing someone in premeditated malice is not in the interests of the Union.

    I oftan roll my eyes when I hear complaints about a government agency being influenced by industry when, in fact, this is how the liberal agenda operates when it suits their purposes. With this “Medical Device Safety Act”, it would seem that all this would do would hand power of uniform regulation of medical devices from the FDA to trial lawyers (not the common people – but to the legal industry) since the laws would be subject to individual verdicts and precedent. (not to mention that I would hardly trust a trial lawyer suing a corporation – in the interests of lining his own pockets – to understand that the benefits and dangers of medical science go hand in hand).

    Again, I’m sorry for your loss. But this Act seems to be nothing more than anti-corporate populism, shrouded in the image of looking out for the people.

    Rick

    November 6, 2009 at 12:45 pm

  3. I can see that you are a thoughtful man and I appreciate that. Does the fact that this has a “liberal” label on it somehow filter what you see as it does with me at times when I see the word “conservative”?

    “(not to mention that I would hardly trust a trial lawyer suing a corporation – in the interests of lining his own pockets – to understand that the benefits and dangers of medical science go hand in hand)”

    First, I do not make the assumption that all corporations are evil as you do with lawyers. I also do not make the assumption that all corporations are good. This is your truth. It is your story, it is your bundle of thought. A bundle of thought that impacts how you see and filter the world just as my story filters and colors my world.

    Are what you are saying is that you do not trust juries, you do not trust the common man? We can not be trusted?

    Second, I understand that the benefits and dangers of medical science go hand in hand. I had no problem when my son died even with the first small recall of his device but when the second major recall happened I had begun to wonder if in fact there was some cover up. It does not pass the smell test.

    Third, while I may be a pragmatic moderate I am a firm believer in the power of federalism. It has the same power to make us better as does capitalism and democracy (the wisdom of a diverse crowd). Juries, while not perfect, are the best vehicle for finding the truth and seeking justice. It is unfortunate that you do not believe this. It seems that if you believe in the power of the free markets and democracy you would believe in the power of juries.

    Unfortunately I wish I could speak to the specifics of my case but I can not. If the wheels on a car fell off four times out of every hundred cars and caused you great harm or death and the corporation knew about this but did not inform you what would you do?

    If the state provides a drivers license to a person because they proved they were safe and then kills you through negligence what would you do? Do you treat corporate responsibility different then individual responsibility?

    Fourth, are what you are telling me is that state tort laws serve no benefit to society?

    Fifth, is this not the free market operating here? If you believe greed is a good thing in the free markets then why do you condemn it with trial lawyers if in fact greed is what drives a majority of trial lawyers.

    Government is the realm of legality, society is the realm of conscience. The approach to truth is a communal process, no single individual can find it alone and impose it on others. (This is the beauty of our system of government.) Laws by themselves, the constitution by itself, cannot bring justice.

    Truth is discovered and justice is something you feel. All of the neat tidy logic and reason do not make for the truth, let alone justice.

    I trust a diverse crowd of people with good information to make the correct decision over a set of experts any day. This is why our free markets work so well.

    Truth can not be found in doctrines, ideologies, sets of rules, or stories, Each one of those is made up of thought.

    The founding fathers understood this. Once that is understood a person can begin see and appreciate what they gave us.

    Have we become a society of cynics driven by our egos and fed by other egos on cable news and radio rather then curious skeptics? Have we become a society of cynics that fear the great diversity of this world or skeptics that find this diversity something that strengthens all of us?

    Truth is something that is discovered.

    Mark Baird

    November 7, 2009 at 8:31 am

  4. Your comments regarding what truth is, to me, are nothing but relativistic nonsense. Truth is not classed as “your truth”, “my truth” or something to be discovered through some sort of “communal process”. Truth just is and it’s most often right in front of our faces. The problem is that, typically, humans disregard truth when it furthers their own desires. Liberals do this quite often because they seek to mold truth to their whims. In a Biblical sense, they do what is “right in their own eyes”.

    The Founders very much believed that truth was not something based on random thought, but they believed that truth was found in very simple sources, such as the Bible. Yet today, liberalism seeks to expunge the Bible because the Bible does not go along with the liberal agenda. Because of this, liberals supplant sources of absolute truth by saying they are “someone’s thought”.

    So I don’t accept your position on the definition of truth. It’s not the relativistic nonsense that you indicate here.

    >>Are what you are saying is that you do not trust juries, you do not trust the common man? We can not be trusted?

    Don’t go putting words in my mouth, Mark! I do have a bitter and contemptive disgust for the legal profession, but much of what is labeled “legal” and “illegal” is done without the consent of the common man. This is why gay marriage is legal in certain states, even though it’s never been voted by the people of those states – it was passed through judicial activism (lawyers), and through legislators (again, mostly made up of lawyers). I am far more comfortable with the common man speaking up on a topic than I am with lawyers mandating through legislative or judicial fiat.

    My problem with tort law in this country comes from the kinds of cases one might read on Faces of Lawsuit Abuse. (www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org) Torts provide a safety net when corporations and individuals act inappropriately, but when we see the proverbial “spill hot coffee on my lap and suing for millions because the cup didn’t say ‘hot coffee'” or the fact that if a person sues another in this country, the defendant will automatically pay $50k for his defense, well, the system is far more damaging than helpful.

    Or do you believe that the wingtipped charletan injury lawyers on latenight TV are really good people, out helping the common man?

    Finally, I’m a conservative and yes I’m biased and filtered; I’ll admit it. But then, I’ve not seen one liberal idea that hasn’t been steeped in mind numbing idiocy.

    Thanks for writing and reading The Rabid Conservative.

    Rick

    November 12, 2009 at 2:13 pm

  5. The system has a lawyer for the plaintiff (the evil one) and a lawyer or lawyers for the defendant.

    There is one judge, the referee, and twelve citizens called the jury.

    Each side tells their story and presents their facts. When each side has completed their arguments and presented all of their facts the judge tells the jury the laws that must be applied when deciding the case.

    The jury then moves to deliberate the case in private amongst themselves

    It is the jury that the Republicans, the US Chamber of Commerce and big business are really complaining about, the common man, you and I. Do they not believe we are not capable of making decisions about how to live our lives, that we are not capable of governing ourselves, that we are not capable as fully informed citizens to make decisions about the conscience of our community? Is this what we believe? I would argue otherwise.

    Our Founding Fathers recognized the collective wisdom and judgment of its citizens and also understood that of each of us unconsciously seeks those bits of information that confirm our underlying intuition. This is why the founding fathers gave us a system that allows for dissent. This confrontation forces us, the majority, to interrogate our own positions more seriously.

    • A jury is made up of local citizens who are in the best position to evaluate how the conduct at issue compares with the standards of the community in which they live.

    • The jury system is spontaneous, it is not known in advance preventing any undue influence on the members of the jury.

    • Jurors are not paid by either side.

    • Jurors complete their service and return to their private lives when the trial has ended. Judges are often on the bench for many years leaving them vulnerable to influence.

    • While it may be easy to find one judge that is out of touch with the community, it is much harder to find a jury of citizens that will come to an outrageous result.

    So I ask you, what other place is there to better discover the truth? What other institution in this country does the common man have access to then a court out his backdoor?

    The Founding fathers wanted to create a framework that would allow society to orient itself through dictates of conscience. This framework forces each of us into a communal process of finding the truth, an approach to truth that is experienced. An approach to truth that is more than dogmatic belief or a truth inferred from logical arguments. Are these principles and values something that we truly believe in our hearts as the best approach to society?

    America is a nation formed by a set of ideals. America is composed of ideas of freedom, liberty, independent thought, independent conscience, self-reliance, hard work, and above all justice. It is a country that was formed from the injustices thrust upon the people and yet we want to deny ourselves the opportunity to seek justice, to seek the truth.

    That is the strength of our Democracy, the people and our access to the courts out our back doors. The ultimate power of the people can be found as close as the nearest court house. If our laws start to deny society this process of truth then the law is in danger of becoming no less a tyrant. Our founding fathers understood this which is why they gave us this tool of Democracy, the jury system. Are we to deny the wisdom of our fathers?

    I will conclude with a quote from Thomas Jefferson, a powerful statement about the soul of America. “I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but people. And if we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy is not to take the power from them, but to inform them by education.”

    I believe in the power of the people in the free markets. I believe in the power of an informed citizen in Democracy and yes, on juries.

    My gut tells me that all of this is over blown based on mans tendency to exaggerate the evils in this world.

    While not perfect I believe in juries. They may not be perfect but they are the best we have just like the free markets, they are not perfect but they are the best we have.

    Mark Baird

    April 15, 2010 at 8:17 pm

  6. “Truth is not classed as “your truth”, “my truth” or something to be discovered through some sort of “communal process”.”

    Does this mean you believe in a king that sets the conscience of society and that it is not a “communal process”?

    And let’s talk about the founding fathers. We can start with Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson had this to say about our political parties.

    “Both of our political parties, at least the honest part of them, agree conscientiously in the same object – the public good. One side…fears most the ignorance of the people; the other, the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove.

    So, do we fear the ignorance of people?

    He also had this to say.

    “In every free and deliberating society, there must, from the nature of man, be opposite parties, and violent dissensions and discords; and one of these, for the most part, must prevail over the others for a shorter or longer time. Perhaps this party division is necessary to induce each to watch and related to the people the proceedings of the other.”

    So why did our founding fathers gives us this system of government, forcing us, the majority, to interrogate our own positions more seriously?

    If the truth was found in the bible then why give us the system we have?

    So what is the true soul of America? Is it a neurosis of materialism or this Utopian pursuit of consumerism.

    Mark Baird

    April 15, 2010 at 8:42 pm

  7. “My problem with tort law in this country comes from the kinds of cases one might read on Faces of Lawsuit Abuse. (www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org)”

    I good show you many cases where people that were harmed did not sue. Again people have a tendency to exaggerate the evil in this world. I do and well as everyone else. I fully understand how the game is played.

    What percentage of all lawsuits are frivolous? What percentage of all medical malpractice results in a lawsuit? What is the average payout?

    Who sides with the plaintiffs more in med mal lawsuits, a panel of experts or juries? What percentage of doctors are responsible for 45% of all malpractice?

    And what was the final payout for that hot coffee case?

    Mark Baird

    April 15, 2010 at 8:51 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: