Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General "Reagan Principles"

Ardy,

I think the proof is in the pudding that we've surrendered so many rights and/or allowed government to do what it wishes without consequent that contitutional issues raised regarding activities and actions taken by the government (all branches) is obvious. The Constitution has no viable meaning to those in government.

Wow, things moved quickly today. My only response, Senator, is demonstrate to me any of the preceding assertions that I made that are factually inaccurate. As I often say, I am willing to accept assertions that are based upon facts, but so far you have not offered any facts to refute my previous assertions. I am always willing to engage in debate when it is based upon something that is verifiable. Remember Reagan's nostrum, "Trust, but verify"?

It may be more accurate to say that the constitution tends to mean what ever those in power want it to mean. But perhaps that is a little off topic for this thread.

In my concept the line of discussion that I am participating in went like this...

Opening assertions about Reagan's legacy
some dispute about the true nature of that legacy
senator proposing that Reagan exemplified the central tenet of conservatism... IE fewer government programs
I proposed missile defense as a new Reagan program
Senator replies that defense is exempted from the drive to reduce government programs.
and I want to investigate the logical consistency of senator's proposal by examining borderline situations ...IE could we consider it a defense of the nation to address a threat of a severe plague or pandemic? And then to refine my argument and push the discussion closer to the borderline I raise the issue of a pandemic caused be terrorism. Then to further muddy the clarity of the issue I propose that the pandemic may have been caused by terrorist, but we are not sure.

And so I ask a simple question... where is the clear borderline of constitutional authority in the context of defending our nation.

Further, I raise the issues of governmental responses to diseases such as polio and small pox. Now my OPINION is that the founding fathers had very little understanding of modern medicine and diseases and so they did not write the constitution with this question in mind. I think if they did have the knowledge we have of infectious diseases, that they would think it is a good thing for the government to work to eliminate these plagues upon our population if that were something that the federal government was particularly and exclusively well suited to do. And in the case of both small pox and polio, a hit or miss personal medical response is not extremely effective in eliminating the disease. And so I imagine that our founders would agree that such a "defense" of the health of the population was a legitimate extrapolation of the principal they enunciated in the constitution.

But
I also do not think that the founders explicitly considered the case i have raised. And for that reason I feel confident that the narrow constructionist reading of the constitution should prohibit government involvement in these activities. And if all of that is true, then I think that our conservative supreme court should clarify that issue so that we as a nation could debate the constitutional issue and finally resolve the issue by constitutional amendment... or failure of same.

An alternate way of beginning the debate would be to send a case testing the constitutionality of social security to the SCUS. Hopefully, conservative presidential candidates would take a public position encouraging the supreme court to revoke social security immediately . And conservative candidates could have a litmus test for future court appointments similar to their current test regarding the abortion issue. Conservative candidates would make it clear that they will only nominate jurists who are committed to saving our republic by overturning Social security.

If conservative candidates would clearly enunciate those values, I think it would quickly clarify public support for the fundamental tenets of conservatism as they have been described in this thread.

Which of the following is inaccurate:
1) budget deficits soared to record heights.
2) the national debt doubled, as a percentage of the economy.
3) the 1980s chalked up the slowest growth of any decade in the post-World War II era.
4) during the 1980s, most of the country's income gains went to the top 1 or 2 percent of households (note, not a percentage, since they pay less of a percentage of taxes than the 98% of the population below them. Under Reagan, the middle three quintiles saw a net increase in taxes).

On another thread I posted a link to an excellent article that demonstrates that the preceding argument (a favorite of anti-tax zealots) is patently misleading. The following makes the same point: Is it Really So Tough to Be Rich?
Moving on...
5) the median real wage failed to grow during the decade of the 1980s.
6) average annual GDP growth during the Reagan 80s was lower than during the Clinton 90s or the JFK-LBJ 60s!

One of the great tenants followed by the Founders is the notion that only those with a real capital investment in the State should be allowed to participate in the governance of the state.

The conservative canonization of Saint Ronald totally ignores one important fact: As soon as he left office it was revealed that he was suffering from advanced Alzheimer's Disease. This horrible disease does not appear overnight. It progresses slowly and inexorably over many years. Many of Reagan's staff members and associates have admitted that he never recovered mentally from being shot on March 30, 1981. That left almost his entire 8 years in office with America being "run" by a man who often thought he was playing the role of President for a movie!

The only reason he wasn't retired for his failed mental health was that he never really was running things to begin with. His handlers knew that he could function as figurehead and conservative icon perfectly well, even if his brain was a swiss cheese.

So who of his, pardon the term, handlers, a term that has become a bit unsavory in the GOP press, should be deified. Nancy's psychic?

No wonder he was so enamored by such unscientifically supportable programs as Star-Wars, which was no more than a boondoggle, that the scientists were clever enough to put to their research interests, and a destruction of the ABM treaties, for a glorified mystical Raygun, that remains part of the Feith-based "defense system". I understand the beauty of the concept that is: With this we can be global a$$holes, and they cant do anything to us.

Things have evolved around this, and there is more realization that with assymetrical warfare we can still be punished for our actions, and that oceans never really protected us anyway.

So Reagan's policies resulted in 911.

TAT

No truer words, but unspeakable.

The causes of 9/11/2001 go back more than a century.
I don't share the Islamo-fascist fearmongers' opinion that 911 was set in motion with the birth of the Prophet Muhammad (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him, his family, companions and descendants), but neither do I put the blame on Ronald Reagan,(may the Judeo-Christian God's peace and blessings be upon him, his family, companions and descendants - except for that traitor Ron Jr.)

If the human race is to successfully get through this dangerous time without nuclear holocaust, cooler heads will have to step up and prevail.

While I agree with your last post, Fermi, we should tease that apart a little. What were the "causes" of the 9/11 attacks? I would posit a few, but I am open to additions, corrections, deletions:
1) general instability in the Middle East
2) a perception of inferiority in the Arab world
3) American support of suppressive regimes
4) American funding of jihadists
5) American military presence in "holy lands"