This morning I came across something that impressed me a fair amount:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/10/MN4V17BCF2.DTL
In a bill passed by the Legislature earlier this month, the state is asserting that guns manufactured in Montana and sold in Montana to people who intend to keep their weapons in Montana are exempt from federal gun registration, background check and dealer-licensing rules because no state lines are crossed.
“It’s a gun bill, but it’s another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of the state of Montana,” said Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who signed the bill.
A Democrat is wanting more state control instead of federal legislation? That is awesome.
On the other hand, Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, seems to think that winning is more important than being able to live with himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy48BKd-1TI
Haven’t the Republicans traditionally stood for character and scruples?
Now, I am not a Libertarian. If you are, you are welcome to vote for me and help this party, but we are not going to build the party around Libertarian ideas. I am a Ronald Reagan, Strong Thurman, Lindsey Graham, Carol Campbell Republican. And winning matters to me. If it doesn’t matter to you, there’s the exit sign.
We can see how well that worked with McCain. Why don’t we return to some decent standards? I’ll get back to this a little further on.
When Ron Paul said the war in Iraq was illegal, I disagreed.
He disagreed? Has Lindsey Graham read the constitution lately?
Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
…
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
If we recharter the military every year or two, does the review get around this requirement? That is what our government leaders currently believe.
If you continue reading the Constitution:
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
So… what is a militia? According to the Constitution they are to be trained by the individual states. I was unable to find a specific definition for the word at http://dictionary.law.com (there are often different definitions for legal purposes than for common), but Webster (Revised, 1913) says:
1. In the widest sense, the whole military force of a nation, including both those engaged in military service as a business, and those competent and available for such service; specifically, the body of citizens enrolled for military instruction and discipline, but not subject to be called into actual service except in emergencies.
If the men are being called for emergencies, then it is reasonable to assume that they have regular jobs as well. Since the militia is comprised largely of men who are being called away from their jobs, it really should be to defend their homes or those of their neighbors. We intentionally break this loyalty with professional soldiers by transferring them to new locations periodically.
What do you think? Am I misinterpreting the Constitution? Or are we overstepping the bounds to have a standing army, especially with soldiers stationed overseas?
Thomas Paine (who was a pain to many people but was highly influential in the creation of the United States government) said:
> Not a place on earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but to trade with them.
While we are discussing Republicans, Democrats and their views, why don’t we find out what the difference is between a Republic and a Democracy. These are words that I look up for fun whenever I see a new dictionary. Almost without exception they are defined as each other in modern editions. If they are the same, why do we have a class of politicians who call themselves “Democrats” and another called “Republicans”?
The Army Training Manual (No. 2000-25, 1928-1932, since withdrawn) provides these next three quotes:
The didactic method concerning facts of history, social changes, economic development, and basic principles of our Government will be used without discussion and without argument, special emphasis being given to the fact that the United States is a Republic, not a democracy.
> Democracy,
:
A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic... negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Result is demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of (1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights. Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy. Atwood.
There are some Libertarians who are more Republican than men like Mr. Graham. Winning is not everything, and harping on the subject is not going to make them win. Being right matters a great deal also.
The other men I talk to who are a part of the Republican party agree that a lot was sacrificed to nominate McCain for the presidency. It was an attempt to take the middle ground and it failed. We need to aim once again for less spending, less taxes, and fewer regulations. Those used to be the ideals of the Republican party, and they are the reason that the Libertarian party is gaining popularity now. If you want the vote of the Libertarians, Mr. Graham, return to those core issues.
Incidentally, the Army Training Manual does define militia. It calls it the National Guard, which is now being used for [international missions](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17971410/). We are doing things wrong. I'm afraid Ron Paul has more right than a large portion of the rest of the Republican party.