We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I'm paranoid? Really? I am not fretting here about some remote and
unlikely possibility. We are not speaking here of "slippery slopes" or
in terms of "what comes next?"
We are instead objecting to a black-letter law spelled out for all to see in the very first piece of legislation you're proposing.
Right out of the box. The state here -- Pelosi, Reid, Obama -- are
claiming that they can imprison people for behavior that has never
before even been hinted as being a crime, on the theory that such
behavior constitutes unpatriotic economic behavior which is detrimental to the state's balance sheets.
Think about what a broad, all-encompassing term "economics" is. 80%
of our waking hours are spent in economic activity of one sort or
another. The state here is asserting the right to imprison people
for behavior they consider not actually morally reprehensible or
harmful as other crimes are, but instead merely detrimental to the
Great Push Forward, the state's master plan of economic health and
Right out of the box they propose sending people to jail for acting as economic subversives and economic traitors and yet I am, somehow, paranoid if I point out that the first step here is to reduce human freedom and increase state power.
And this is just a down-payment, remember. This is merely the first
of many freedoms you previously believed sacrosanct to be lost.
Seems as though Obamacare, hell all of Obama's agenda, is vulnerable to being challenged as unconstitutional. What say all you constitutional scholars out there? It may finally be the conservatives turn to use the courts to make policy.
Of course, if Obama gets another Supreme pick it could result in "court packing" a la FDR's Second New Deal. Let's hope that Obama's Second Stimulus goes the way of FDR's blocked, Second New Deal. 2010 is our opportunity to begin, finishing the job in 2012.
Most of the Dems' agenda for the last 80 years has been unConstitutional. It was Republicans more than Democrats who supported federal civil rights legislation and actions in the 20th Century, up until Lyndon Johnson turned civil rights into a giveaway program. It has been mostly Dems who have wanted higher taxes and more programs, more restrictions on major liberties like running a business or freedom of religion in public. They have hidden their assault on freedom as being "for the children, for the poor, for the workers" and by advocating lesser liberties like sexual license and "recreational" drug use.
Good news: the only way a conservative Supreme justice will leave now is deceased.