Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Obama Threatens Action in Libya
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 819063" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>In a certain way I would agree but more to the core, they abdicate that duty for purely political reasons. In the current climate they can let someone else make the hard choices and then stick their finger in the air to measure the political winds and just follow that lead thus avoiding the blame at the end of the day. Now you could translate that into "$$$$$$" as the final answer and thus why in the big scheme of things this is correct.</p><p> </p><p>My wife and I became friends with the late Congressman Larry McDonald in the 70's and until his death and he use to say this about the typical Washington politician as to what their purpose in life was.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Larry also use to tell everyone to send letters to Washington but instead of Washington put Disneyland East and if you always put in the correct zip code it would make it. After some time many of us got a do-better letter from the Washington DC postmaster that if we didn't stop this, our mail would not be delievered. Larry found out the post master was acting on behalf of a few Washington politicos who didn't appreciate our brand of saying the king had no clothes!</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>The first question is a given so that's settled but the other question is, what difference does it make? Depends of whether you like to see a society governed by whims of the moment or by rules more set in stone that you can trust in or at least offer an illusion of trust. To me this is the crisis of the social contract and in many respects of whether we follow Hobbes or Locke and somehow divide Rousseau into either one that wins the day. Or from a completely American POV, this again is the great battle between Jeffersonianism and Hamiltonianism and Hamilton or Hobbes has been winning the day for a long time towards a monarchial social contract. One can live under a benevolent monarch and do quiet well but if the king has the divine right, what other than violence of the masses puts the king in check if he become malevolent? </p><p> </p><p>In another thread it was mentioned about the so-called "Star Chamber" and from an anti-monarch POV, it was Henry the VIII who took the Star Chamber proceeding as a useful tool to by-pass the common law courts. Movies aside, this Star Chamber became the legislative or adminstrative courts we have today but we just don't call it Star Chamber anymore. One is called IRS Tax Court for example and any common law pleading in such settling is out of order. Adminstrative Courts are under the Executive authority and thus in the Hobbesian/Hamiltonian framework, a monarchial proceeding if you will. </p><p> </p><p>In 1955', the University of Chicago published a book by Milton Mayer entitled "They Thought They Were Free" which is a study on the german people from 1933' to 1945' based on their experience in Germany under Hitler. The University of Chicago has posted <a href="http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">excepts from page 166 to 173</span> </a>on their website and in the matter of your 2nd question, it is worth consideration while pondering the answers.</p><p> </p><p>Even with the Constitution and all it's seemingly restricting limitations, America is not nearly as "bound down" as even some of our forefathers thought is was. Even Jefferson once in the seat of power himself realized he wasn't nearly as "bound down" as he had assured others that it would be. One IMO could argue that the precedent for much of the federal Presidential overstepping these days are in fact rooted back to Jefferson himself. The question is, at what point do we understand that Hobbes and Hamilton have won the day and send the Congress and Supreme Court home? Save lots of money and trouble and besides to quote the question you posed, "What difference would it make?"</p><p> </p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/peaceful.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":peaceful:" title="Peaceful :peaceful:" data-shortname=":peaceful:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 819063, member: 2189"] In a certain way I would agree but more to the core, they abdicate that duty for purely political reasons. In the current climate they can let someone else make the hard choices and then stick their finger in the air to measure the political winds and just follow that lead thus avoiding the blame at the end of the day. Now you could translate that into "$$$$$$" as the final answer and thus why in the big scheme of things this is correct. My wife and I became friends with the late Congressman Larry McDonald in the 70's and until his death and he use to say this about the typical Washington politician as to what their purpose in life was. Larry also use to tell everyone to send letters to Washington but instead of Washington put Disneyland East and if you always put in the correct zip code it would make it. After some time many of us got a do-better letter from the Washington DC postmaster that if we didn't stop this, our mail would not be delievered. Larry found out the post master was acting on behalf of a few Washington politicos who didn't appreciate our brand of saying the king had no clothes! The first question is a given so that's settled but the other question is, what difference does it make? Depends of whether you like to see a society governed by whims of the moment or by rules more set in stone that you can trust in or at least offer an illusion of trust. To me this is the crisis of the social contract and in many respects of whether we follow Hobbes or Locke and somehow divide Rousseau into either one that wins the day. Or from a completely American POV, this again is the great battle between Jeffersonianism and Hamiltonianism and Hamilton or Hobbes has been winning the day for a long time towards a monarchial social contract. One can live under a benevolent monarch and do quiet well but if the king has the divine right, what other than violence of the masses puts the king in check if he become malevolent? In another thread it was mentioned about the so-called "Star Chamber" and from an anti-monarch POV, it was Henry the VIII who took the Star Chamber proceeding as a useful tool to by-pass the common law courts. Movies aside, this Star Chamber became the legislative or adminstrative courts we have today but we just don't call it Star Chamber anymore. One is called IRS Tax Court for example and any common law pleading in such settling is out of order. Adminstrative Courts are under the Executive authority and thus in the Hobbesian/Hamiltonian framework, a monarchial proceeding if you will. In 1955', the University of Chicago published a book by Milton Mayer entitled "They Thought They Were Free" which is a study on the german people from 1933' to 1945' based on their experience in Germany under Hitler. The University of Chicago has posted [URL="http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html"][COLOR=red]excepts from page 166 to 173[/COLOR] [/URL]on their website and in the matter of your 2nd question, it is worth consideration while pondering the answers. Even with the Constitution and all it's seemingly restricting limitations, America is not nearly as "bound down" as even some of our forefathers thought is was. Even Jefferson once in the seat of power himself realized he wasn't nearly as "bound down" as he had assured others that it would be. One IMO could argue that the precedent for much of the federal Presidential overstepping these days are in fact rooted back to Jefferson himself. The question is, at what point do we understand that Hobbes and Hamilton have won the day and send the Congress and Supreme Court home? Save lots of money and trouble and besides to quote the question you posed, "What difference would it make?" :peaceful: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Obama Threatens Action in Libya
Top