Hamilton also, foolishly, believed the federal government would always remain limited by the constitution. This is the context for the "oligarchy" he envisioned. (Versus a "monarchy")

No romanticizing here - our seminars discuss how state autonomy was abused early on, as well as how federal power was abused thereafter, and still today. It's important to understand how Progressivism was able to take such a hold.... A legitimate reaction to abuses by States against the others. But.... This is not about states' rights. It's about balanced government. And it's a reality that can be achieved, making both ends of the political spectrum happy with relative autonomy in their cultural and fiscal priorities.

As soon as I saw that Mr. Willing had a new blog up, I just knew that Lyle would be the first to comment and low and behold...

LOL! You are right Hoffa

I expected it too

Striking a blow for Freedom by leading the "I won't pay" movement while demanding everyone else pay him.

Navy? P-3 Orion?

? What are you referring to?

@Mr. Willing -

I believe Tim Scott is referring to Lyle's military record.

Gotcha :)

Also, one more thing Edward: if you think the federal government is corrupt and overly onerous, I would bet that stronger state government would equal the same thing. Politics back then and currently is about power brokerage---not the benefit of the regular citizenry, the average Joe. The founders were group of wealthy men who wanted to maintain their wealth, and find a legal way to protect it from government seizure. Not a bad idea given the times; but had nothing to do with giving average citizens a voice--AKA democracy.

Unfortunately, that's a common, but incorrect interpretation of "states rights." slavery violates the equal protection, association, and many other elements protected by the constitution. The problem was a cultural understanding in some circles of what constituted humanity, which was resumed in the original documents.

Again, there's nothing in this movement to say "States' rights" is the issue. It's BALANCED GOVERNMENT. They are EQUAL entities, with different purposes. The only superseding powers where federal law would trump state law is in matters violating constitutionally protected rights, or where states attempt to take on the functions reserved to the federal government by the Constitution.

My goal with FI, and the goal of our members and our Board is to propagate a new and more accurate view. To proactively communicate a message of BALANCED government, over the simplicity of "states rights." the states do NOT have the power to overrule the federal government.

Except in cases where the federal government is functioning beyond its constitutional capacity. ;) Texas' defunding of Planned Parenthood, the federal "punishing" of this policy, and Texas'stepping up to the plate to fill the void with their own finding is a perfect example of a State taking control of its own affairs in a fair, and legal, and practical way in TODAY'S society, not just pre-1800

*which was PRESUMED in..... Tablet typo. :p

@DJ, regarding strong state government.... You're right. I'm for limited government all around. But logically, a strong federal government does nothing to disengage an onerous local or state government, it merely compounds the problem.

Limited, constitutional federal government allows the states to develop their own Consevative (or Liberal) policies as they see fit. Massachussetts could make itself as liberal as they wished, but Nth Dakota can determine its own fate as well. If the government becomes too onerous, people can vote with their feet, and cross the border. It's never been easier to do so than it is today.

The founders never envisioned that DJ.

Your view and understanding of Constitutional history, what led to it, and what informed their principles is severely flawed, and missing a number of links. You would benefit from our balanced, honest seminars.

This is the OPPOSITE of what the founders envisioned.

Centralization of policy is the problem. The Feds are very good at a few things. The rest were left to people, or to the states for a reason. If a government becomes dangerous to personal liberties, Hamilton even viewed one entity as being a course of redress against the other. It was a great balance. After 60-70 years it became better, but soon unravelled into progressive, centralized, "onerous" federal AND state government.

Note: this post only addresses one side of the diamond. There are many factors to effective, limited government on all levels. Future posts, and our seminars, will discuss these others

Texas being able to defund Planned Parenthood and re-outlaw interracial marriage if they choose to do it.

No Randy, Texas does not have the right to discriminate and violate equal protection in the Constitution based on race. I see where you're going with this. I won't bite.

I didn't minimize it DJ. Please do not marginalize my larger point inaccurately to make yours. It was wrong, and most of our founders felt the same way. Some not so much. But fortunately, the system they created was able to be used positively to force the end of slavery and actually recognize that all men (literally, human men) were created equal, as was inherent throughout the constitution. And no, the idea of humanity began to thaw in the early 1800's when the African slave trade was banned in the U.S, and England. Over the coming years, slave trade with Brazil and other countries was banned as well. The southern Democrats were the source of suppression until the 1950's. Thank God for civil rights recognition, but just as I feel a cultural change will be needed to outlaw abortion, so civil rights for all races took a cultural development to be fully recognized.

We are discussing law here. You brought up the slavery issue, and racial suppression which was outlawed, but still an issue. Why? Cultural problems. Thats different than law. So no, I'm not "minimizing" anything when I say cultural development was needed to recognize what the law already did.

@DJ Bradley -- Women are still waiting, despite 'equal protection'.

I accept those with different philosophy as well, and I appreciate your civility. :) I'm sure we'd do great over coffee. It's boring talking to someone you always agree with!

But I too have arrived at my place by studying intensely. I have been interested in these subjects since I was 8 yrs old, no lie. I have been politically active for over 12 years now, and I still believe what I always have. Only now, I've come to know WHY I do. I briefly questioned my principles as I was raised while in college. I realized the reality and pragmatism of Conservative philosophy.

I am a master at objectivity when needed, so it's not merely my upbringing any more than I could say it is yours. :) the key to discussing these issues is keeping the discourse civil, and respecting each other as much as possible.

I believe you have done that.

Quickl clarification..... 8+12 doesn't make me 20. Lol I became "active" as a sophomore in College, opposing the two party system with a third party candidate. ;)

I actually disagree. We have the right of grievance, online representation to speak out, and I'm astounded at how homeless people can make it from state to state. Certainly a poor family can.

There's no guarantee of liberty or happiness, DJ. Only the right to pursue it. Tis might be the single largest difference in our philosophies

@Edward -- Suppose my family has been in this state since 1860 and I don't want to move? Why should I have to if the US Constitution guarantees me certain rights? The way it works is that states pass unconstitutional laws (because they can) and some brave person takes the case to SCOTUS eventually.

@Randy

I said if you don't like a state you can move. If your basic rights in the Constitution are violated, then the Feds have jurisdiction.

You keep setting up a straw man to make your points, and it's failing you. Your own analogy collapses on itself and actually makes MY point.

There's no "using" of the judiciary. It is meant to be an interpretation in unique circumstances when there's a conflict on a lower level. Unfortunately, the judiciary has been overwhelmed by activist judges who invest new "implications", and this is precisely the inspiration for this organization. "intent" is an ambiguous word, unless you understand the context, personal thought process and world in which the articles and amendments were drafted.

BTW, the Founders' intent was to create a system where the majority didn't have absolute rule. In the same way, the balance of state vs federal must be restored, to protect the rights and privileges of a minority state.

To protect the rights of a minority state so it can then, in turn, oppress its own minority. Your personal thought processes are showing, Edward.

Actually a randy, your lack of a logical argument and accurate reading what I'm saying is showing, bud.

I feel very confident in my ability to understand the truth. I feel bad for someone who can't even accurately interpret a Patch blog. Lol

@Mr. Willing -

Perhaps you should help Randy1949 understand instead of insulting him with sarcasm. How does the old saying about catching more flies with honey go again?

For someone who's confident in their position, you seem awfully dense and somewhat insecure. Perhaps a different approach would help to further your cause…

I'm just sayin!

Another friendly Hoffa observation!

James, I didn't insult Randy, and I'm wondering why you jumped to insuktinme multiple times with your false humility? Again, you're doing nothing but puffing up your own ballon of... Whatever. I don't even know what it is. Dense? Insecure? Unamerican? Ok, James. You win.

Btw, sarcasm is a method of dealing with someone making a false, and usually insulting statement. It's fire with fire without actually setting fire. Don't suggest me new methods, and if you want to avoid reducing this conversation to a ridiculous level, then I'd suggest making your insulting suggestions privately. My email is Edward.willing@att.net

@Edward Willing -- Rather than counter my argument, you attacked my reading comprehension and logic. Some people might find that insulting.

What makes you think Hoffa's humility is false? (Other than it's Hoffa.) He is actually a genius at making an argument without going below the belt. You should take a page from his book.

Thanks Randolph, I appreciate that! :-)

And I wish to apologize and retract the observational insults that I leveled at Mr. Willing. Having taken the time to actually read through all of the comments posted, as opposed to the mere skimming I previously did, I know realize that perhaps I just wasn't attuned or accustomed to Mr. Willing's confrontational style of debate. I don't believe that the words he chose against Randy1949 were meant to be taken in a personal context, as such usually are here on the Patch boards and as I originally interpreted them as being. As Randy points out, an attack upon one's logic and reading comprehension as opposed to a counter-point argument does indeed appear to be prima-facially personally insultive - especially against someone who has earned the respect of the Patch community as Randy1949 has. But I now see that wasn't Mr. Willing's intent at all. If anything, I believe he was more or less being emphatic.

With that being said, I still personally prefer a different style/approach to debate myself, but to each their own. I should not try to impose my preferred style upon anyone else, and my attempts to do so were clearly erroneous, and for that, I apologize.

Good day to all!

Thanks Randy. I'll remember that the next time you insult me. ;)

*ping!*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Well, my best friend is. But I didn't say it first. :p

While mine do. I concede many conservatives don't study the other sides when coming to a conclusion.

FI is actually incorporating abuses of liberty in their material so people can understand the arguments of the Progressive side. Systematic philosophy, if you will. :)

@JRH -- What? Tars Tarkas not perfect? He certainly was 'four-armed'.

@Randy1949 -

Don't get me wrong, Tars was close, but this is about as perfect as it comes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaZpHSnjprI

"perfect"? No. "most perfect union"? Yes.

And a heck of a lot better than what we have now.

@Edward -

And capable of becoming such once again, I hope ;-)

You might find his explanation of 'original meaning' v 'original intent'(founders Intent) helpful. In the case of the commerce clause, per article, founders intent = original meaning = original intent.
I have not found a cogent article that refutes the body of evidence that this author presents. If anyone could point me to any writings designed to refute the specific evidence embodied in this article, I would appreciate it.

I found the second article very constructive and it articulated well what I've tried to say before. The first article seemed to be a linguistic exercise. :) but helpful material, thanks!

It is true, that "progressive" is quite ironic when much of it doesn't progress from a solid starting point we all share, but rather tries to rewrite it, and views our founding as fatally flawed to begin with.

Patrick, I do understand your desire to solve political gridlock. However, my experience overseas has been that many foreigners see the American system as more decisive and faster to evolve. Even with the political structures you suggest, they are prone to votes of no-confidence, snap elections, and shifting/disintegrating coalitions. Note in the current Republican primary elections to the great dismay of many that the nomination process is now elongated because of the use of proportional voting in many states' primaries to chose convention delegates. I'd propose our gridlock is less about the government structures we've been discussing and more to do with gerrymandered districts, an almost anonymous/politically risk-free filibuster in the US Senate, pervasiveness of money in the system, and the unfinancially constrained political promises made to an electorate of which about half no longer pay federal income taxes.

Patrick, the jury is still out on the EU. Largely an evolving economic arrangement since WWII, in the 60's beginning to be seen as a needed counter to US power, but it's debated in Europe whether it should be the US of Europe. Witness the Greek bailout discussions, it still apppears the elites favor political union much more than the general populace. So, is Europe rapidly evolving, benchmarking the US, or both/neither? Many Europeans I have known admired both the US economy as well as our often relatively rapid changing society, and there is a great attraction to be able to directly elect the nation's top executive. Interestingly, there is a great variance of political structures between the various individual European nation-states. Also worth considering, when the Japanese first modernized they benchmarked the British parliamentary system and to a lesser extent German political-economic ideas. In occupied post-WWII Japan the US changed the Japanese upper house into more of a Senate-like body and away from a House of Lords, but otherwise left the parliamentary system and monarchy in tact. I am open to your idea of trying proportional multi-party systems here. We already see proportional systems bering used in some state primaries. Perhaps it would be most logical to experiment at the state level. We already have one state with a uni-cameral, and couple that are NOT winner-take-all in presidential elections. Maybe Wisconsin would be a good place to start?

However, get rid of gerrymandered districts, anonymous filibusters, execssive non-transparent money, and smarten up the electorate a bit and things would run a lot better, and more closely to as originally intended.

Eric must live in one of those alleged "safe districts". Meanwhile, ebcause of the system we have, Wisconsin is in play, Iowa swings both ways, Ohio gets attention and some western states with lower populations are more important than in YOUR proposal. There's no debate about that, because we have seen how changes to primary systems create these problems as experiments for the larger system

I actually agree wi this. Theres been studies that show if the tax burden was shifted locally, and the federal government was reduced to basic constitutional functions, it would save more money, keep responsibility local and accountable, and be more efficient and effective. I would pay higher property taxes if it meant my federal government was doing less, and my local and state governments were doing it instead.

The obfuscation that results in overblown additions to schools, uncontested raises for public employees, additions to staff that go unnoticed, single source bidding, sweetheart contracts handed out to past employers, etc. needs to stop so that people pay attention to what's being spent on what by whom. Until they start to feel the results of those decisions (and the ones they make themselves in the voting booth) that won't happen.

Except that lowering federal and state income tax and shifting the burden to local property tax eventually forces the elderly from their homes when income no longer matches assessed value.

I doubt that most people's income matches the assessed value of their houses, Randy. I know mine doesn't. I assume you mean their income doesn't meet the cost of the property tax bill.

If we continue to spend as if it doesn't matter on the local level, perhaps that may be an issue. Moving everything over to a user tax would effectively remove any constraints at the local level, unless we want to start charging user fees for those services that are now being covered partially by property taxes - which is another option. Call a cop, get a bill. Garbage gets picked up, get a bill. Rescue squad or fire department shows up at your house, get a bill that covers the entire cost. Send your kid to school, get a bill.

Of course if it's never going to be about containing costs and always about covering more and more expenditures, someone's going to suffer one way or the other. NIMBY isn't an acceptable proposition anymore.

No, randy, it doesnt. And because this wasnt a full blown discussion on the matter, you're ale to take advantage of the vagueness in my argument. I didn't say it should all be property taxes, bud. ;) in fact, some states havea. Great system where the taxes are phased into and out of the demographics that actually are users of public services. Maybe this could be a new article I could post.

Thanks for the idea, Randy. :)

@Bob McBride-- Well, as you no doubt know, my property tax bill approaches one-third of my yearly income, so this is a subject I'm a bit touchy on.

I agree that the school levy is out of hand, especially for the results achieved lately, but I don't think we solve it by making teaching less attractive to bright, talented people. It's been a while since I sat in a class room, but from what I remember, the teacher is 95% of whether a student learns or not.

Randy, are teachers the only thing we spend money on in the educational system? Do you think they'd refuse to come work at a place that had a utilitarian cafeteria rather than one that looks like something the Bartalotta's would be proud to operate? How about a music wing that doesn't look like one of Saddam's palaces? Think a teacher would balk at a school that didn't provide that? That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. It's got nothing to do with teachers. It's got to do with people giving the go ahead to anything that has the word "School" attached to it because the amount of skin they have in the game is minimal.

The same goes for the other examples I give which come pretty much straight out of the community I live in. They're not made up, they happened and continue to happen. Again, as long as it can be spread around enough so that virtually nobody notices (unless the make a conscious effort to keep an eye on those things), it never stops.

Instead of worrying about teachers, take a long hard look at some of the other stuff going on in your community. I'll guarantee it won't take you long to find similar stuff out there. But if the only incentive that'll get you and folks like you to take a look at it is to take the subsidies out of it and apply the actual cost to your property taxes, maybe that's what we need to do.

@Bob McBride -- Of course teachers would come to work at a school without a Five-star cafeteria. What music wing that looks like Saddam's palace? Waukesha South barely tunes their pianos anymore.

I suppose things might be a little better at West or even North, because that's where all the McMansions are and the kids have to go to a cheery building, right?

So why are we attacking teacher compensation? A good teacher -- one who doesn't kill any possible love of learning -- can make up for a classroom with a few water-stains on the ceiling tiles. A bad one can make you want to play hooky from a palace.

But your remark about skin in the game makes me think of the recent blog about 4-K in the Elmbrook school system. Not surprisingly,the ones for it are the parents of pre-school children and the realtors. Retirees are less convinced.

@Randy1949 -

Disagree - attitude, discipline, and a desire to learn is "95% of whether a student learns or not," and such is formulated long before a student even enters a classroom. The teacher merely guides the student in what to learn and provides support when obstacles in the internal process are encountered, and provides an assessment to both the students and their parents, otherwise, most learning is actually self-accomplished.

Randy, you want to make this about teacher compensation rather than address the waste that goes on at the local level, which is what I'm referring to. You're having your multi-million dollar mulligan to address the compensation issue - not the most cost effective of efforts, but then again maybe that explains why you can't be bothered with the other stuff. It doesn't all rise to that level, but it adds up.

I'd suggest you attend a couple of meetings just to see what goes on, how decisions are made, the kinds of procedures that are followed (or aren't' as the case may be) and the ease with which $10s or 100s of thousands of dollars are spent on stuff most people aren't even aware of. Probably wasting my time doing so, but so be it.

Or keep griping about teacher compensation. It's becoming part of the background noise for me at this point.

@Bob McBride--I wasn't the one who made it about teacher compensation. It was the collective bargaining limitations in Act 10 that made some people focus on teacher compensation as the cause of runaway school levies and have people referring to teachers as 'union thugs'.

I'm in the Waukesha School district and in that lucky area that gets to attend South Campus if we had any school age children anymore. Something tells me the real frills are going to the western areas of the district with the new real estate developments and parents who want all the fancy stuff for their kids. I think I'll have as much influence at a school board meeting as in an election.

Rather than assume something else, Randy, I'm going to assume you meant to comment in some other thread than this one, initially.

I'm still confused as to how a property tax levy can be 1/3 of someone's income if they own a home. A mortgage payment, maybe, but I'm trying to figure out the math on even the highest mill rate in Milwaukee (greendale?). How does that work? I'm not doubting, just confounded

As a man who preaches like an optimist, and lives like a pragmatist, I pay my taxes and accept some compromise in how a community spends its money.

What I don't understand is how this battle became an us vs. teachers war, when it's not at all. If anything, the one soft spot for government spending among conservatives has been on our children. But the reality is that we simply could not afford it. When a family makes less money, they must spend less. When the family makes more, they can spend more.

I think police, teachers and firemen could make more. I'm all for it... Based on merit, not seniority. ;)

Been, your interpretation of Dr Nerenz' quote is just as seditious. And ridiculous. It's an observation, psychological, about two groups of people, from a man who has a doctorate in the field.

And no, the Constitution has never been, and never can be a "living document." only a minori on the supreme court have ever thought so. If it is a "living document" there's no point in having one. We might as well be ruled by federal statues alone.

Being a "living document" allows anyone who agrees with you to undermine its authority. So you're saying "no thank you" to yourself.