02 February 2011

What The Founders Intended Matters


I'm sure everyone reading this knows that a federal judge has, this week, ruled Obamacare unconstitutional. In his ruling Judge Vinson made the following observation:

"It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power” [Lopez, supra, 514 U.S. at 564], and we would have a Constitution in name only. Surely this is not what the Founding Fathers could have intended." 

With various leftist historians and other misinformed folks attacking the "Tea Party", while ignoring the increasing lawlessness of the current administration, one thing is becoming crystal clear - The Tea Party's vision of America is much closer to the Founders' vision than is the current administration's. By the way, approximately 2/3 of the American people agree with Judge Vinson. You can read the full text of the ruling here.

Yes, a proper and accurate view of history will influence your political philosphy - which is how it should be, not the other way around.

11 comments:

Michael Aubrecht said...

"Yes, a proper and accurate view of history will influence your political philosphy - which is how it should be, not the other way around."

Someone needs to tell that to Glenn Beck. (The "and accurate" part that is). :)

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Hey Michael. As I've pointed out before, no one is 100% correct when it comes to historical *facts*, etc. Beck's mistakes are magnified due to being on the radio 3 hours a day and an hour of TV. I doubt anyone could experience that kind of exposure without mistakes. That being said, I believe overall, his interpretation of history has, for the most part, correctly influenced his political philosophy. He's a conservative/libertarian, which is what the Founder's philosophy was. Not a perfect match, but close.

Michael Aubrecht said...

True to a point, but when you routinely misquote history in order to support a political agenda, you are guilty of spreading fraudulent information. Although ALL of the talking TV-heads are guilty of this, Beck is by far the worst of all and has completely destroyed his credibility. I also wouldn’t use the term “conservative” to describe the Founders. They were far from what a modern-day conservative is and would likely despise ALL of the parties as every-single one of them has drifted WAY off their course.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

"when you routinely misquote history"

Again, if you or I were on for 4 hours a day - and under the scrutiny he is - I'm sure we'd make our share of mistakes as well.

I would find it hard to characterize him as "losing his credibility" as he's one of the most popular talk radio personalities on air (and on Fox). Credibility within certain segments, yes of course - Olberman, Matthews, et al, and other progressives. I've found him to be right much more often than he is wrong. And let's not forget that he is not a professional historian. He's first and foremost a commentator and entertainer.

"I also wouldn’t use the term “conservative” to describe the Founders. They were far from what a modern-day conservative is"

You're using 2 different terms here - "conservative" and "modern-day conservative." If, by "modern-day" you mean "neo-conservative", I would agree. But, if by conservative, you mean those who sincerely hold to the bedrock principles of limited government and individual liberty, I could not disagree more.

Bringing political "parties" into the conversation complicates things a bit. I'm differentiating between conservative principles and political parties.

Both by grandfather and father were lifelong liberal Democrats - they thought the Kennedys walked on water (Ted being the exception - he didn't do too well in water), but were either of them alive today, they would not recognize what the Democrat Party has become. They are nothing more than socialists.

Douglas Hill said...

I take it neither of you are part of the pc "No Labels" genre?

I think the Founders might be considered classical liberals, although my understanding is that they preceded the phrase. I like to think of myself as the same, and prefer to think of myself also a "preservative" as opposed to as conservative.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Hey Doug - the "No Labels" folks are leftists who want to hide their identity. Weasels.

Classical liberal would be accurate, for the most part.

Clint said...

I won't get involved in your discussion here, except to say that I just ran across your site and I love it. I look forward to visiting often and reading your many posts. God bless!

Oh, BTW---If you get a chance, check out my blog entry for 1-11-11

Clint said...

sorry, should be 1-17-11.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Thanks Clint - welcome aboard!

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Clint - did you mean the 1/17/11 post?

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Clint - got it, thanks. Very good!