http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams.html

I've been too busy to complete and post it, but I've been working on a ditty about this, with my own thoughts. Whether Williams has nailed it or not, there is a growing divide in this country that concerns me deeply. We've lost the ability to compromise, and the current bitter rhetoric being spewed by Gore and Bush supporters toward each other concerns me as well.

And another thing.

What Williams doesn't cover in detail is what I've been harping on: the loss of the rule of law in this country. One of the most significant indicators of this is Richard Cohen's column earlier this week declaiming that, if the House of Representatives should get involved and name Bush as President, it would cause a "constitutional crisis."

(Sorry, I can't find the link to Cohen's column at the moment.)

Uh ... no, it wouldn't. He's got it precisely BACKWARDS.

In fact, as I've said before, the Founders intended that the legislature, and NOT the courts, would have the final say-so over elections. They set it up that way on purpose: they wanted ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, who are directly answerable to the people in the next election, to settle disputes.

It's very telling that Americans (particularly *liberal* Americans) have become so used to the courts deciding controversial issues that there are some who really believe what Cohen says, when in fact, the opposite is true. The "constitutional crisis" would arise if the SUPREME COURT were to select the President.

(Fortunately, that's not likely with the current conservative-leaning Supreme Court, but it needs to be pointed out.)

That's not a Gore v. Bush thing, either, because both sides have been playing that game. I disagree with Bush's court actions to stop the hand counts just as much as I do with Gore's constant legal maneuvering.

Taking evidence of fraud or gross negligence in the actual vote count to court is one thing. Using the courts as a vehicle to get elected is another entirely. It needs to stop.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

Answers

Not a big problem most of the "court efforts" are staging to reassure the forces of both sides that "everything possible is being done". In a way, its better because a silly as the suits about 17,000 votes vs. 6 Million cast is, as stupid as trying to make people believe that the upscale voters in Palm Beach "weren't heard or counted" is, and as idiotic as some of the law suits are,,,,,,,,,it won't matter. The Courts can't be pressured. The Supreme Court has told Florida, "You will justify any overturning of Sauls decision or else.". The SC is the reviewer and arbiter of Law. No Court under its jurisdiction and No Judge takes the verbiage of a SC decision lightly in any Case much less this on. Florida will do a giant head fake ala: Pontius Pilate and Bush will be sworn in come Jan. 2001. All the Democratic Leaders will be there except maybe albore. Clinton will be there as the Power is transferred. By March, worries about the new Baseball season and the Hockey and Basketball finals will blot out the Florida mess. Ads about losing those ugly extra 10 pounds before summer will appear and gasoline will drop in price back to 1997-8 levels (1.10-1.35) as the newspapers forget the "energy crisis".

Spring will end the need for heating oil and with any luck, Bin Ladin will be in a US Prison. Albore will get two books rushed into press while he runs around the country on fund raising efforts to pay off any remaining campaign debts then take his new job as E.O. of "Greenies B Us".

In every crisis, the "Real People" come out and stand behind the middle road. The "Unpleasantness Between the States" was the last possible crisis of a magnitude large enough to end the Republic. Since then: WW I and II with the "Isolationists" and America Firsters, the anti-globalists, the anti-Nukers and all the rest of the "Issues" groups have never had enough power to pull the MIDDLE to anything resembling a "Constitutional Crisis". Even the Great Depression didn't create the numbers needed because FDR blunted that by recalling the Great American Mantra: "Tomorrow Will Be Better because We will make it Better". We solve problems from the Bottom UP. That was what Gary North and the rest of the Nay Sayers of Y2k forgot.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

Stephen:

I think that two things are feared in this action.

1) The people will wonder why they even bother to vote if the legislature can do whatever they want anyway.

2) A precedent will be established wherein other states would do the same. In fact, tit-for-tat is already being considered:

This could mushroom

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

Stephen:

I just now took the time to check out the Williams op-ed piece. He wouldn't be using emotionalism too much, do you think? Count how many times he uses the adjective parasitic and who he sees as parasitic in each instance. Yep...sounds like a piece that encourages unity.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

Uh, that link to the Williams' article gave me an article entitled "Losing the Race".

I didn't see the word "parasitic" once.

I'm confused; what was the article supposed to be?

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

Patricia:

It still gives ME the Nation Divided stuff:

A nation polarized

http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- WE'VE HAD close presidential elections before, but this one is emblematic of dangerous, unbridgeable and growing gaps among the American people. Some of this can be seen by examining a map showing U.S. counties won by George Bush and those won by Al Gore.

In general, the densely populated counties along the East and West coasts, Midwestern counties mostly along the Mississippi River and a smattering of counties in the southwest were won by Gore. But if the election were to be decided by who won the greatest number of the nation's 3,142 counties, Bush would have bested Gore by at least 2,500 counties.

While who won how many counties is irrelevant to the presidential selection process, it says something about the degree of national polarization. What are the characteristics of counties won by Bush versus those won by Gore? The values, politics and religion of the counties in the southern, western and rural sections of the country, won by Bush are not like those in the mostly coastal, highly populated counties won by Gore. The Bush counties are: more conservative and respectful of traditional values, pro-life, and more religious, and they have less social pathology such as high crime, illegitimacy and deviancy. Counties won by Gore tend to be just the opposite.

By no means do Americans who voted for Bush enthusiastically and unequivocally support the values expressed in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, but they are not nearly as parasitic, interventionist and contemptuous of the principles of liberty as Gore supporters.

The constitutional provisions created by the Framers to protect us against the interventionist and parasitic classes have long been under siege and are severely weakened. The Bill of Rights, election of senators by state legislators and other protections against mob rule have been weakened or eliminated. Limitations on the power of the central government, through the enumerated powers and separation of power doctrines, have also been severely compromised. Constitutional protections against parasitic plunder, through its prohibition against direct taxation (no income tax), have been abolished.

Thomas Jefferson gave voice to our most important protection in his First Inaugural Address in 1801, saying, "If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

The right of secession was taken for granted in the founding of our country, and it wasn't only a Southern idea. Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts was George Washington's chief of staff, his secretary of war and secretary of state, and later a Massachusetts congressman and senator. In 1803, Pickering wrote, "The principles of our Revolution (of 1776) point to the remedy -- a separation -- for the people of he East cannot reconcile their habits, views and interests with those of the South and West."

Irreconcilability faces us today. There's one group of Americans who does not wish to bother anyone but wishes to be left alone. Another group of Americans wants to plunder and control the lives of others. This latter group of Americans shows no sign of letting up, much less retreating. A return to rule of law and constitutional government or separation are the only peaceful solutions. Separation and independence don't require that liberty-loving Americans overthrow the federal government any more than it required George Washington to overthrow England or his successor secessionist, Jefferson Davis, to overthrow Washington, D.C.

So here's my question: Should we Americans continue to forcibly impose our wills and values on one another, or should we part company and be friends?

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

Words fail me.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

I would rather part company and be friends than to have others ideolgy forced upon me,I guess I'm one of those Americans who does not wish to bother anyone but wishes to be left alone.Is this too much to expect or demand?

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

Patricia:

Of particular note is this one: Constitutional protections against parasitic plunder, through its prohibition against direct taxation (no income tax), have been abolished.

THIS was presented by the person who suggested that tax protestors weren't welcome on this forum.

At the end of the day, I agree with you that, "You just can't make this stuff up."

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

Anita:

Wait a minute! The tax protesters are claiming this prohibition has NOT been abolished. Here is somone lamenting that it HAS been abolished, and you label HIM a tax protester too! You need to make up your mind!

I've always enjoyed Walter Williams' viewpoint although sometimes (and this is one of them) I don't entirely agree with him. Here, he seems frustrated because he wants smaller government and lower taxes and more personal freedom hassled by fewer regulations.

OK so far. But he seems to have come to the conclusion that the "parasite" mentality cannot be reconciled with freedom, so we have no real choice but to watch as our original freedoms and protections are steadily eroded away by those who "want to plunder and control the lives of others."

I think this is a bit overboard. Yeah, there are some for whom power is irresistible, and of course they are the ones with power, so we all suffer. But mostly, I think its the Law of Unintended Consequences, and people with YOUR best interests in mind are working to make YOUR life better, willy nilly and whether you think it's better or not. Trust me, they say, you don't WANT to be permitted to do that. It's not good for you.

And I think secession is not the answer, because maybe we can part company, but we cannot be friends. Those who want to impose their will on others will STILL want to impose. If Williams is right that these issues cannot be reconciled, it necessarily follows that friendship is ruled out for that very reason. We need to compromise better.

Incidentally, it's enlightening to read the well reasoned opinions of Williams or Sowell, both conservatives, and compare them with someone like Cal Thomas, also a conservative. Williams and Sowell discuss things like the proper role of government in society, and the appropriate (and inappropriate) solutions to social problems.

Cal Thomas might start out talking about these things, but he's hard put to keep on track and always seems to end up ranting and drooling about KILLING UNBORN BABIES, and clearly his mind is long lost.

I'm convinced that if only we didn't suffer the people Cal Thomas is writing to, we might not have the "irreconcilable" problems Williams is bemoaning. Maybe Cal Thomas and his fellow Bible Belchers really DO need their own private theocracy, where they can righteously oppress each other to their hearts' content.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

Wow. I post an article to spur discussion and am identified with it, plus scolded for posting a link to a "tax protester" (which Williams is not).

I didn't say I agreed with everything Walt said, and I don't. The issue was the DIVIDE between rural and urban, conservative and liberal. That's what concerns me, and as I pointed out above, the fact that the two sides can't seem to compromise: it's either ALL their way or the highway. That doesn't make for a constructive democracy.

Maybe I need to put it in plainer English: stuff like this concerns me. (And stuff like JJ Johnson's "Nation Divided" over at Sierra times scares me.) I post it as a launching point for further discussion.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

Anita,

1) The people will wonder why they even bother to vote if the legislature can do whatever they want anyway.

They can't do "whatever they want;" for one thing, they can't change the laws that were in place for a given election, once that election has occurred.

But Anita ... this is part of the "divide" that I was talking about and what I mean by the "rule of law." This is going to sound high-falutin', but I believe it with all my heart: a republic CANNOT *overlook* or *ignore* those laws that that happen not to be popular. The way we're supposed to do it is to pass better laws.

I'm talking about something here that goes way, way beyond the election. It strikes at the heart of my conservatism: that either we are a republic in which law is king, or we bow to every whim of public opinion. The latter course will *inevitably* lead to division.

(If not outright anarchy.)

2) A precedent will be established wherein other states would do the same. In fact, tit-for-tat is already being considered ...

So be it. If the people in those states don't like it, they can throw their legislators out in the next election. Or, Congress can introduce a Constitutional amendment making the elections conform to the "will of the people."

That's how it's SUPPOSED to work. And if there is "tit for tat" in this case -- say, Florida's legislature gives its slate to Bush, but some other legislature (in a state that Bush won) decides to give its slate to Gore, that's their choice. If the people of that state don't like it, they won't survive the next election.

Again: that's how it's SUPPOSED to work, and you won't hear a word from me. I'll take Gore in a *HEARTBEAT* if, in return, I see a shift in power away from the judiciary and back to the legislative.

In a skinny HEARTBEAT. :)

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

Sigh. That's what I get for writing when I'm too tired to think straight.

What I just said sounds like I prefer legislative selection to a popular vote. Of COURSE I don't mean that. I was talking about the legislature's right to intervene when the result of a Presidential election is in question. Now THAT, they DO have the right to do.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

I read Flint's posting on the demographics of this election some time ago and just laughed.

Around here the PhD in Engineering is Republican and for Gore; the zoologist is for Gore; the BS Forestry is Republican and for Bush; the Criminal Justice major is for Gore; the BS Engineering & BA English is Democrat and for Gore; the two high school grads are Republican and for Bush; the Marine Biology major is Republican and for Gore; and we are all rural and all have farms in addition to paying jobs.

I'm not sure the demographic 'facts' are any more accurate than the predictions of who won the election Nov. 7th. I think the person who indicated those red/blue maps of the USA should be various shades of purple was correct. The distinctions between rural and urban, college graduate or not, etc. are not as clear cut as some people seem to think.

What I am wondering is how some of my friends who are on the 'very conservative' side will react if the Florida legislature does indeed pick Electors and other States follow Florida's lead. Will anyone bother to vote for Presidential Electors ever again? What would be the point?

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

Wait a minute! The tax protesters are claiming this prohibition has NOT been abolished. Here is somone lamenting that it HAS been abolished, and you label HIM a tax protester too! You need to make up your mind!

Actually, Flint, when I saw all these negative qualifiers, it was unclear in my mind where the author was going.

You may be correct, but let's look at this one:

Constitutional protections against parasitic plunder, through its prohibition against direct taxation (no income tax), have been abolished.

It's clear in my mind that the author feels that the constitution protected SOMETHING. It's just unclear in my mind exactly WHAT was protected.

We have "AGAINST parasitic plunder"...[parasitic plunder being the thing protected]

Then we have "prohibition against direct taxation, with a qualifier of (no income taxes)", which seems to imply that there has been a constitutional protection against income tax [although the way it's phrased, one could also conclude that there has been a constitutional protection against NO income tax].

Then there's "have been abolished." So did we abolish the prohibition against direct taxation, or didn't we? Abolish indicates to me [did away with], and prohibition indicates to me [not allowed]. So we did away with what wasn't allowed?

I'm with Stephen on this one. NEVER think when you're tired.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

Anita:

I see you don't read the Walter Williams editorials very often. Why am I not surprised (smile).

Williams' position is that the original US Constitution prohibited something called a "direct tax". It does say that, but the courts have wrestled from the beginning with exactly what kind of tax impelementation that might be an attempt to describe. Eventually, the USSC decided that it at least included an income tax, which was therefore prohibited.

So when we decided to have an income tax, it became necessary to pass a Constitutional Amendment (the 16th) overriding the previous prohibition. That is, we abolished the prohibition against an income tax. Indeed, taking all court decisions into account, we have abolished any prohibition against *any* kind of tax, and the "direct tax" words of the US Constitution currently have no meaning and apply to nothing, as far as I can tell.

Tax protesters find this hard to accept, but Williams is not a tax protester. Williams considers what we have done to be regrettable, a movement in the wrong direction. Tax protesters claim that what we have done is imaginary, and pretend we never did it!

Pam:

Those weren't MY demographics, they were compiled from exit surveys. Of course they are general trends, not hard and fast rules. This means the exceptions don't quite outnumber the instances. That's statistics for ya!

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

Flint:

Thanks for the clarification. You're right. I never heard of this guy. JewishWorldReview isn't on my reading list. I get reports of Dr. Laura, Ann Coulter, and George Will on occasion, but rarely do I need to dirty my mouse finger by actually clicking on that site. My day isn't long enough to get through all the LIBERAL sites I want to read. If anything significant is said on these CONSERVATIVE sites, I'll hear about it....or did you think I hung around on fora like this because I enjoyed the company?

J

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

Anita:

I had never heard of JewishWorldReview myself, but Walter Williams' editorials show up in my local newspaper maybe twice a month, so I was familiar with what he writes.

I know your schedule is busy, but you might follow that link up there and peruse Williams' and Sowell's writing for, oh, long enough for you to get a blinding headache. Might take 30 seconds or more...

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000