Didn't many of the founding fathers - including George Washington - own slaves. So they weren't really that great believers in liberty or freedom unless you were a landowning white man.

Also the main reason the US won the war of independence is because they hooked up with that monarchist dictatorship France - against Britain (which while certainly not perfect) was at least a parliamentary democracy. The same dictatorship their own people overthrew 13 years later. So not exactly as glorious a victory as its made out to be.

So lets not gloss over history - as there are two sides to the story. If the US had remained British slavery would have ended there in the 1820s - not 1865!

PS Good luck to Ron Paul in Maine - the only decent guy left in the race. The prospect of Santorum and his crpyto fascist ideas scares the hell out of me.

Since when has the US chosen allies based on the quality of freedom, liberty and democracy in those countries? Diplomacy and politics are generally blind to those factors.

Remember the photo of Rumsfeld smiling next to Sadam Hussein? (or was it George H. W. Bush? I forget.)

"Liberty", "freedom" and "democracy" are purist abstractions. The business of building and maintaining a world power are much more complex than all of that.

For Parsifal: There is video!




http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/...ven-try-to.html

That they believed in the necessity of a constitution doesn't mean that they believed in the necessity of the constitution. My overarching point (although perhaps not clear) was that there's very little that suggests they would support the position of the constitution being a rigid and unyielding document. As you yourself mention there's mechanisms in place to change the constitution. There was and still is a sense that the constitution was created as something akin to a living breathing document that would and should evolve with the people.


I'd contend that looking at modern American politics and the modern world there's every reason to believe that the founders would construct an entirely different document to the one originally written (in fact there's a case to be made that they wouldn't even support the union). Although 'the founders' covers such a broad group of individuals it becomes difficult to apply the term universally in situations like this.

The issue of the role of the judiciary is infinitely more complicated than any of this though and truth be told I don't really have the time to devote to it. It is an interesting debate though and when I have more time I'll come back to it.


But the objection there may very well have less to do with the role of the Supreme Court and much more to do with the consequences of their judgement.


This is true. However I suspect the primary objection would arise from the selective nature of when the American government (and to be fair governments in general) take note of those abstractions.

I disagree. The rigidness and unyielding nature are necessary for the avoidance of arbitrary justice. The concept that the constitution means something other than that which it says is contrary to the goal of allowing people to know where they stand before the law. There is all the difference in the world between amending the constitution in accordance with a specified procedure in a fashion which is transparent and predictable, and judges determining evolution on the basis of their personal prejudices. The amendment mechanism allows for changing the document to meet changing times, but until that process is applied, the document must be applied rigidly, unyieldingly and impartially.




Most of what they would dislike about modern american politics is prohibited by the constitution. The problem lies in congress massively overstepping its authority, and in the supreme court taking upon itself supremacy and then using that supremacy to act in ways and in permitting congress to act in ways which the constitution does not grant them the power to do. These are failings of the people involved though, and it is hard to see what could have been changed to prevent that.

You're misunderstanding the point I'm making which is that the constitution was never designed to be a document set in stone that would not or could not yield to public demand. You're mistaking my suggestion that they wouldn't be against the constitution evolving, growing and changing with the people as a universal endorsement of Supreme Court decisions and its not the same thing. It's more a comment on this idea that it says it in the constitution so that's the way it is, should be and always will be.


There's a much more base issue that needs resolving within American politics that the constitution spectacularly fails to deal with because its a centuries old document. You have to remember that when the union was formed and the constitution written it was done so with the belief that the sheer size of the country and the diversity of states would make it impossible for factional politics to dominate. Since then though the states have become much less diverse (politically and economically) and modern technology has allowed for factionalism to not only take root but dominate modern politics. There's also something to be said for the way national issues now dominate debate ahead of local or state issues. This factionalism results in a situation where vocal minorities begin to wield far too much power at the expense of the majority something that the founders were almost universally opposed to. Its fascinating to me that the Tea Party for example invokes the founders because in large part they would diametrically opposed to what the Tea Party was doing – perhaps not in terms of political ideology but certainly in terms of methods and goals.

Ultimately you have issues like Congress and the Supreme Court overstepping their bounds (although I'm not entirely comfortable with that description) because there's no longer a clear or coherent majority voice or way of defining that majority voice. Absolutely everybody claims to speak for the majority now and its just not possible for the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street etc. etc. to all speak for the majority simultaneously.

The very base upon which the union was formed and the constitution was written has fundamentally changed over the past century and absolutely none of the structures or rules have changed with it.

And not the executive branch?

A fascinating read.

Why 2012 is the Republicans' Last Chance - New York Magazine

Ugh what a terrible article full of empty rhetoric and no substantive arguments written by a democrat cheerleader who for some reason can't stop seeing things from racist perspective.

Both political parties are disgusting, the system is rotten to the core. Get off your high horse Jonathan Chait.

Hes the type of journo who cares more about the political fight than actually putting the US back on a sustainable path. "Us versus them", "left vs right"...its a fake choice Obama=Bush=Romney

Where do you live?

Even if some of what you say is true, you get tiring after a while.
At least the other nutjob on here is entertaining at times.

...is that a threat or do you want to take me out?



Name-calling... *yawn*

Nutjob for what? Not wanting to go to war which would ensure we stay the most hated people on earth and being very pissed off at a corrupt bankrupt system that will make me a debt-slave for the next 50 years?

If you're in NYC I'll be glad to meet you for a coffee. (I'll buy)
(That's not a "coffee date" mind you. )

Pot. Kettle. Black.

??? ???

Google it.

It could help me understand where the hell you're coming from.

So its Super Tuesday and the Republican race is basically guaranteed to keep rolling on almost regardless of the results. And the 'anyone but Romney' crowd have now set their sites on an (almost) mathematically impossible brokered convention. Not that they're getting desperate or anything...

Projected results so far:

Newt Gingrich will win his home state of Georgia
Mitt Romney will win his home state of Massachusetts as well as Vermont and take a default victory in Virginia (Romeny and Ron Paul were the only ones on the ballot).
Rick Santorum is on course to win Tennessee and Oklahoma

Still four states left to call and they'll probably all go to one of Romney or Santorum from the looks of things. Not that any of this really matters since these are apparently all proportional representation states so who knows what this ends up doing to the actual delegate counts.

Meanwhile Obama held a press conference tonight as well and at fleeting moments in it probably reminded Democrats why they nominated him four years ago.

In fairness, whilst it's mathematically impossible for anyone other than Romney to win before the convention, it's very, very possible to end up with a brokered convention. Indeed, that appears to have been Ron Paul's strategy all along: he's making sure his supporters are the actual delegates. In caucus states that means he gets a lot of votes in the first round of the convention (no matter whether he actually won the vote in that state), but perhaps more importantly, gives him a lot of potential support once all the delegates are released in the subsequent rounds.

In the meantime, the GOP base is losing its mind.

Georgia goes to Gingrich - and apparently he has a chance in Mississippi and Alabama, which along with his original win in South Carolina makes him the voice of the Republican Deep South.

Santorum takes Oklahoma, Tennessee and North Dakota, and runs Romney very close in Ohio.

Romney, like last time, is only able to win when he's able to massively outspend his opponent.

Given what we've seen so far it looks like whoever wins the Republican nomination will turn the presidential race into a very dirty campaign with lots of lies, deceptions and misinformation.
I don't think that any of them is qualified to be president of the United States.

I said it before but the more the Republicans implode in these primaries the better it is for Obama's re-election.

Oh, the Obama team is very aware of that. They're jumping with glee!

I'm just very apprehensive about how nasty it's all going to get.

When evil wants power it will stop at nothing.

It's already gotten nasty.

It will get worse when evil smells blood closer to the trough. Just look at who is funding these guys.
(Lord of the Rings comes to mind)

Okay

Did I just read a post saying "Democrat Party". bwahahaha Oh, man.

Anyway, the Republican Party is DOA. They're going to have to splinter. They're too crazy, with too many groups all vying to take it over. They've never progressed, and it's going to continue to cost them. Couldn't have happened to a bigger bunch of morons.

I must admit that it's been entertaining.

Its unlikely.

I'd agree that its conceivable that Romney will fall short of the delegate count needed to end this before the convention but I suspect in that scenario we'll end up with Romney announcing a VP that'll be able to secure him the delegates he'll need which will end any talk of a brokered convention. Indeed if you believe the political rumour mill he's already been in talks with Ron Paul about doing just that setting up a Romney/Paul ticket which would be bizarre on almost every level.

But even if that doesn't happen the chances of the Republican's seeing a properly brokered convention are slim to say the least. Assuming he doesn't completely implode between then and now Romney is going to be the only one who can lay any legitimate or viable claim on the nomination. Its not going to get to the convention and result in anyone else getting the nomination – the party hate's Gingrich, is terrified of Santorum and Paul (albeit for dramatically different reasons). And as desperate as the Republican's are I don't believe they're anywhere near desperate or crazy enough to nominate someone from the floor. Although I'm sure the networks would love that...


The problem is that the Republican Party don't know what they stand for any more and they haven't known for sometime. Arguably outside of Ron Paul absolutely no one in the Republican primaries is actually campaigning for something. They're all campaigning against everything basically and it results in the ungodly mess we're seeing now. The Democrats would be in the exact same position if they didn't have an incumbent running.


I'm not sure that it is and I'm not sure the Democrats are as privately overjoyed about all of this as they might appear to be publicly. Its going to be incredibly difficult for them to motivate their base to turn out in the general. The less than enthusiastic reaction to Obama's first term was always going to make that difficult but the Republicans imploding and being seen as having absolutely no chance of winning makes it even harder. In truth the best thing that could happen for the Dems right now is that the Republicans somehow end up nominating Santorum because he's just about the only person the left is actually afraid of – not in terms of his ability to win but the doomsday on social issues that would follow him actually winning the Presidency.


They don't have the splinter but they desperately need a new figurehead. They've basically been without a unifying force within the Party since Reagan and now that's finally boiling over as its threatened to do for at least a decade now (if not two). Of course I don't know who the unifying force within the Party could actually be (certainly its no one running this time around) but I'm sure there are people out there...

I don't remember the Democratic primaries four years ago getting quite this nasty.

Four years ago the Democrats were choosing between candidates they really liked (Clinton and Obama). This year the Republicans are choosing between candidates they really hate (Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul).

It's an age-old problem that America can't get its best to run for public office.

The field wasn't as crowded and they weren't looking for a nominee to run against an incumbent. Having said that they got pretty nasty at least by the standard of the Democratic Party which is never quite as openly hostile as the Republican Party. Also there weren't 600 Democratic debates four years ago...

And of course there's the fact that the big ideological battle of the Democratic primaries four years ago was which historic moment would it be – the first viable female nominee or the first viable black nominee? The sense of impending history kept things sane. Or at least relative to what we're seeing with the Republicans now.

Also it was four years ago.


I'd dispute that the Democratic Party was choosing between nominees they liked. Part of the reason Obama was able to get traction is because large sections of the Democratic Party hate(d) Hillary Clinton and didn't want her to be the nominee. Had Clinton been a more universally popular figure within her own party or at least a less divisive one then she would have swept to victory in the Democratic primaries four years ago like she was supposed to. Although again its fair to say that the Dems weren't as openly hostile about their dislike as the Republican Party has been this time around.

Of course gazing into the crystal ball suggests that the nomination process four years down the road is going to blow this one out of the water. At least it will be if we assume Obama wins a second term. It'll just be a giant free for all on both sides. And it'll be a free for all on the Republican side with actual viable candidates which should make things even more fun.

Hey, Ezra. This may make you chuckle. I was most amazed because the first time I saw it, I forgot what BLR meant and missed the intro, so I thought "I'm crazy, and I'm right" was really something he said. Sad when you can't tell.

Rick Santorum, really?

I puked on the pizza.

OMG!

Oh indeed. Can you imagine?

From the Democrats:
Gov Andrew Cuomo (New York)
Sen Mark Warner (Virginia)
Gov Martin O'Malley (Maryland)
Sec Hillary Clinton (New York)
Gov Brian Schweitzer (Montana)
Gov Dxxxx Patrick (Massachusetts)
Sec Kathleen Sebelius (Kansas)

From the Republicans:
Gov Chris Christie (New Jersey)
Gov Mitch Daniels (Indiana)
Sen Rand Paul (Kentucky)
Gov Bob McDonnell (Virginia)
Gov Jeb Bush (Florida)
Sen Marco Rubio (Florida)
Rep Paul Ryan (Wisconsin)

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46718912

Nassim Taleb (Author of "Black Swan" book on risk) says "the only candidate who understands the problem and he trusts is Ron Paul"



but ofcourse here anyone who actually figured out that Mitt=Rick=Bush=Obama=Newt and isn't distracted by class warfare rhetoric or catholic contraception debates is a "naive nutjob."

So? Who is Nassim Taleb? A guy who wrote a book?
(I've been thinking about writing a book. )

ofcourse he's just another guy with an opinion, but my point is he's DEFINITELY not a nutjob. in my (and alot of other people's) opinion he is highly credible.

And so is Paul Krugman.

You probably said that to provoke, but I'd gladly step into your trap.

Paul Krugman is wrong on everything, if you listened to keynesian nutjobs like him you'd be broke! (oh wait, we did - and we are! 15trn and counting, 1.2trn deficts!) Krugman is the guy who says we need an alien invasion or a WAR to stimulate the economy by conscripting people to build weapons using freshly printed government money, what a dickhead.

I now assume you're some kind of government beancounter, because they're the only economically ignorant people that want to hear what the Krugman Keynesians say.

Deficits, debts don't matter! we can just print bernanke bucks and grow rich like that! stimulus stimulus stimulus!

Krugman is an apologist for a failed economic doctrine and the central planners we have. he never predicted any of the crises, and can't see any bubble until after the fact.

socialist/fascisct central planning doesn't work you nutjob Parsifal, look at the evidence. soviet union is the US's future, wars->famine->economic collapse.

LOOOOOOOOL Krugman "Nobel Prize" hahaha almost as funny as Barack "lets now attack Africa" nobel peace prize" Obama

The issue is that the constitution should not evolve, it should be amended throught the clearly defined procedure. When judges/justices can invent things in the constitution that are not written there and which have not been passed by the approved means then there can be no justice, and that is something that the writers of the document would have abhorred. The document is not and should not be preserved in aspic for all eternity, but it should change through specific acts of constitutional means, not at the whim of 9 lawyers (even if one of them is an intrisically wise latina) in Washington.



The founders understood that the best defence against the tyranny of the majority/active minority was a severely limited government. If the different arms of government were to operate within their constitutionally mandated bounds then they would be unable to impose their opinions on the people.



The tea partiers are perhaps the least dishonourable in this respect, as they are at least arguing for the return of government to its bounds. If they get their way then government would be less able to impose anyone's preferences on the rest. compared with their critics, that makes them angels and far closer to the ideals of the revolution.



There are wonderful things called elections. They work quite well, if combined with the acceptance that winning them gives you the right to nudge things a little but not to impose your every whim on the nation.



There is a mechanism for changing them. That the pace of change has been slow is indicative of a lack of popular will. That said, when amendments like the 17th and 22nd are passed, it shows the dangers of letting little minds tinker with what is fundamentally a fairly good document. Just count yourself lucky that you don't suffer the EU constitution.

I'm sorry, but that is a mind bogglingly flawed comment. Very few delegates have actually been won so far. Between states which have yet to vote, and states which have voted but not awarded the actual delegates yet, there are easily three quarters, if not more, of the delegates not yet committed. Bear in mind that the delegate tallies the networks quote are estimates, and when actual delegates are picked could end up some way off reality.. Say Gingrich loses both Mississippi and Alabama today, and decides to drop out, it is quite possible (although not the given that everyone seems to assume) that his support could swing behind Santorum. The resulting momentum could then sweep him to the nomination. Not a certainty, I'd go so far as to say not likely, but definitely not inconceivable, let alone impossible.





Even if Gingrich were to win both Mississippi and Alabama, (and the polls don't suggest that that is a certainty), the near three way tie (all three candidates within the margin in Alabama, Gingrich and Romney basically tied with Santorum close i Mississippi) in both states would make it very hard for him to make that claim stick.



The problem for santorum is his pisspoor behind the scenes work. He ran Romney close in Ohio but didn't have people on the ballot in half the districts so Romney gets twice as many delegates. He didn't even try for the ballot in Virginia so Romney hoovers up. (And it doesn't bode well for his converting caucus wins like Kansas, North Dakota and if it counts as a win Iowa into delegates.



Romney is able to outspend his opponents everywhere, so it is hardly determinative. Romney is winning, including in places he doesn't actually win, because his campaign is ruthlessly efficient. His people are doing the nuts and bolts stuff well which means that he will pick up a lot of delegates by default. He had names on papers all across Ohio so he gets twice as many delegates as Santorum despite edging him 48-47. He gets on the ballot in Virginia so he basically cleans up because Santorum and Gingrich supporters aren't stupid enough to vote for Ron Paul. Romney is also winning the religion wars. He has the mormons in his pocket, is competing for the evangelicals, and is carrying the Catholics (despite both of his opponents being catholic.)

He's also tending to win the "somewhat conservative" voters. Gingrich has carried them in the states he has won, but pretty much everywhere else they've gone for Romney. It's this, that makes me think that Gingrich withdrawing wouldn't actually give Santorum the boost that many suggest. Romney would probably pick up nearly as many votes as Santorum, and in some states that could be the difference between proportional division and winner (Romney) taking all.

I'm not sure that I'd agree with that. I agree that Romney winning it before the convention is the most likely outcome, and even if he falls slightly short, he will probably be close enough to win in the end anyway. I don't see any VP moves from him as likely though because in his case it would be portrayed as arrogance/overconfidence by his opponents and probably backfire. There are a few rumours that Gingrich will cut a deal for a Gingrich-Perry ticket, and he would certainly have the least to lose/most to gain, but even that just doesn't ring true to me, I just can't see Perry wanting to be number 2.

There is a realistic prospect that they will arrive at the convention with Romney some distance short. Ron Paul will probably end up with a lot more delegates than the networks are saying. By all accounts, his campaign have been the most diligent in swotting up on the actual delegate awarding mechanisms (in a lot of states this actually occurs several stages after the primary/caucus) and have been working hard to get a lot of their people elected to these county/state conventions. This could mean that the final delegations are disproportionately peopled by Paul supporters, and in many cases they are only bound for the first ballot.

This is not to say that Paul will suddenly achieve a majority, he won't, but it could focus minds on stopping him, and if the battle has run all the way to the convention, it might be easier to get the other three campaigns to unite behind someone else. The Republicans have got quite a few serious candidates who opted out, but with Obama seemingly struggling to raise anywhere near the sums previously suggested, one of them might be tempted back in.

I'd say it's 2 chances in 3 that Romney wins a majority before the convention, the superiority of his machine is vast. 1 chance in 5 that it goes to someone completely new at the convention, and the other 13/100 that Romney hasn't a majority but is close enough to win it anyway.



This tells us that you have a poor memory, but little else.



It's more a case that the media were getting tingles up their legs about Obama, whereas this time round they're trying to create a bloodbath.



That falls into the conceit that Krugman won a Nobel prize. There is no Nobel prize for economics. What Krugman's accolytes dishonestly try and pass off as a Nobel prize is actually the "Sveriges Riksbank Prize".

Just for the record I think you probably emphasised the wrong word there (I would have gone with not).

On the whole though I don't think anyone has suggested that support of Ron Paul instantly makes you a nut job but rather a blind and unquestioning support of Paul and a complete parroting of more than a few of his positions makes you a nut job. I think some of Paul's economic plans are good but I also happen to think that some of them are beyond terrible and when you get away from his economic policy he falls apart completely.


Still haven't taken the time to correctly identify what socialism and fascism are and for some reason you seem to think they're interchangeable. They aren't.


Again you're mistaking (or misrepresenting) my belief that the founders would want the constitution to be a document that changes, grows and yes evolves with the people it is supposed to serve as an endorsement of any and all Supreme Court decisions. It is perfectly possible to believe that the constitution should be a living breathing document without fully endorsing any and all decisions passed down by the Supreme Court.


I'm not sure its right to say that the founders believed limited government to be the best defence against tyranny and factional rule. Madison placed much more emphasis on the separation of powers than limited government when it came to counteracting factional rule and tyranny. He firmly believed that you needed each of the three branches of government to be strong and independent from one another so that they were able to keep one another in check. He also believed that the sheer size of the union and the diverse make-up of it would stop factional rule from being an issue but that theory falls apart in the modern age.


Not sure I agree with this description at all. If the Tea Party were to get their way then government would become about enforcing their views and ideology on everyone else and shutting out any contradictory views or ideology. That's why I say the founders would be so against what they're doing.


Elections that huge numbers of people don't vote in because they become alienated and isolated from the process which hyper focuses on pre-selected wedge issues designed to motivate a political base. But that's another issue.

My much wider point was that we now live in an age of political action groups and special interests that all inevitably claim to speak for the majority which is inherently impossible and that these groups all exert far too much pressure and influence on the political process in the name of the majority. Or the best interest of the majority.


In this instance though its not just about changing the constitution but the entire political structure and the mechanisms and rules of it.


It depends on how far ahead he is going into the convention, where the momentum is and ultimately who he gave the VP slot to.


That's a particularly childish and desperate distinction to try and make at this point.

So you've changed your mind about the validity of the claim: "in my (and alot of other people's) opinion he is highly credible." about Nassim Taleb and saying that it's a worthless claim?
After all, every name that you mentioned is in a lot of other people's opionions highly credible (whether you like them or not).

You don't like Keynesians? Well, from the looks of things Europe declared war on Keynes and Keynes is winning.
In the US, Republicans lambaste President Obama's stimulus package as a failure and insist on bone-crunching budget-cutting. If you want to know how well that works, look at Europe especially Greece and also Ireland. And, as in the rest of Europe, austerity in the middle of recession has made matters worse - just as John Maynard Keynes predicted. I hear that Sweden is doing pretty well though. The "capitalist" rescue packages are more abut saving French and German banks than saving Greece. Contrast the still-shrinking economies of Europe with the stirrings of recovery in the US, and you can feel lucky if you're an American and a beneficiary of President Obama's stimulus.

The Second Amendment comes to mind. The right-wing justices sure mangled that one. It's really all about power and the right-wing gun lobby and not really about interpreting the original intent of the authors of the Constitution.


Oh really?
Have you been following the Republican primaries? Have any of the candidates said anything yet that is true?



Worse than the 18th? And I thought that you're an "individual rights" advocate.

Sweden cut its taxes in the 90s and got its fiscal house in order and paid down its debt.

"The "capitalist" rescue packages are more abut saving French and German banks than saving Greece. "

Exactly right about saving FRA/GER banks, but they are socialist bailouts not free market capitalism! Bailing out bankrupt banks is precisely the keynesian socialist crony corporatism I am against. The banks need to fail, the PIIGS need REAL defaults. (Greece just wiped 107bn of debt, in exchange for 130bn of new ECB/IMF debt! Wtf kind of default is that when the debt INCREASES after the default!? Greece will default again. The Greek people are being made debt slaves to save the EU Banking system.)

The US is seeing the effects of the trillions in stimulus, but this is a temporary illusionary recovery. People are just spending more borrowed money, eventually that money has to be paid back. All we're doing is borrowing more money to buy stuff from China, hardly economic growth. You can see by our record trade deficits, it shows the US is not producing what it needs instead it is just sending more dollars overseas going deeper into debt. If the economy was actually growing, people would be producing more stuff and the trade deficit would be shrinking. Also you can blame Keynesianism for record gasoline and food prices, I don't feel lucky about inflation since I'm not a profiligate debtor and instead am trying to actually save money.

The US is doing a Greece. Greece spent alot of borrowed stimulus money on useless crap in the 2000s and it looked great, until the creditors woke up and stopped lending. The same will happen to the US when eventually the Chinese/Japanese will stop lending. THen we'll either have to monetise the debt and kill the dollar with inflation or have severe cuts in Gov't spending which will have short term pain but long term will be healthy. OBviously politicians will choose to inflate like Weimer Republic, which will cause starvation and economic collapse.

Unless you're Krugman and believe interest rates can be 0% forever just like housing prices never fall. Typical short term bubble mentality. If rates rise to 5%, the US gov't will have to spend all its tax revenues paying interest which will cause a massive crisis.

This sums up Keynes imo. Keynes on why economists only look at short or medium-term: "In the long run, we're all dead".
What a disgustingly arrogant, dangerous and selfish statement. Well done Keynes, after 70 years of following your deficit spending/print money/bailouts/socialist fascist central planning we've reached the "long run" and have trillions and trillions in debt which can never be paid back and we have governments who use your vooodoo theory to justify trashing the currency to ensure that all of us suffer for government idiocy.

[quote name='Mister R' date='Mar 14 2012, 00:23' post='1875960']Again you're mistaking (or misrepresenting) my belief that the founders would want the constitution to be a document that changes, grows and yes evolves with the people it is supposed to serve as an endorsement of any and all Supreme Court decisions. It is perfectly possible to believe that the constitution should be a living breathing document without fully endorsing any and all decisions passed down by the Supreme Court. [/quote]

No, you are pretending that a document which evolves at the whim of the unelected and unaccountable is the only alternative to a document which cannot be changed in any way, shape or form regardless of circumstance. Individual decisions, whether in isolation or collectively are irrelevant to the principle.

[quote name='Mister R' date='Mar 14 2012, 00:50' post='1875974']
I'm not sure its right to say that the founders believed limited government to be the best defence against tyranny and factional rule. Madison placed much more emphasis on the separation of powers than limited government when it came to counteracting factional rule and tyranny. He firmly believed that you needed each of the three branches of government to be strong and independent from one another so that they were able to keep one another in check. He also believed that the sheer size of the union and the diverse make-up of it would stop factional rule from being an issue but that theory falls apart in the modern age. [/quote]

Seperation of powers is a fundamental limit on government.

[quote name='Mister R' date='Mar 14 2012, 00:50' post='1875974']
Not sure I agree with this description at all. If the Tea Party were to get their way then government would become about enforcing their views and ideology on everyone else and shutting out any contradictory views or ideology. That's why I say the founders would be so against what they're doing. [/quote]

That's a pretty distorted view of what they are/were about.

[quote name='Mister R' date='Mar 14 2012, 00:50' post='1875974']
Elections that huge numbers of people don't vote in because they become alienated and isolated from the process which hyper focuses on pre-selected wedge issues designed to motivate a political base. But that's another issue. [/quote]

The choice not to participate is still a choice.

[quote name='Mister R' date='Mar 14 2012, 00:50' post='1875974']My much wider point was that we now live in an age of political action groups and special interests that all inevitably claim to speak for the majority which is inherently impossible and that these groups all exert far too much pressure and influence on the political process in the name of the majority. Or the best interest of the majority. [/quote]

They have the opportunity to offer an alternative.

[quote name='Mister R' date='Mar 14 2012, 00:50' post='1875974']
In this instance though its not just about changing the constitution but the entire political structure and the mechanisms and rules of it.[/quote]

The others are defined in the constitution.

[quote name='Mister R' date='Mar 14 2012, 00:50' post='1875974']
It depends on how far ahead he is going into the convention, where the momentum is and ultimately who he gave the VP slot to.[/quote]
If Romney makes a VP announcement before he officially has the nomination, it backfires. If he tries to sign up one of the other two, they announce it and he's hit.

[quote name='Mister R' date='Mar 14 2012, 00:50' post='1875974'
That's a particularly childish and desperate distinction to try and make at this point.
[/quote]

No, it's an observation of fact. He claims a distinction which is not legitimate.

That's because the priority is and has always been "the project". Greece, Ireland and no doubt Italy, Portugal, Spain if necessary will be saddled with as much debt and future poverty as is necessary to avoid admitting that the whole single currency/ever closer union project is against the interests of the people.



It is also the slowest recovery in living memory.

The Keynsians always ignore the fact that every penny they spend is a penny that cannot be spent by those with an interest in ensuring that it is spent wisely. Keynsian stimuli at the moment are even more stupid because with sovereign debt at current levels, short term spending increases financed by borrowing will lead to increased costs for borrowing leaving less to spend than before.