Ha what an idiot. 1791 size. Right. People in 1791 didn't even want "1791 size." Not that you even know what that means let alone the implications of it.

But to answer your self question.

Advocating that a minority dictate to the majority in order to reach some fantasy land utopia from the past sounds a whole fucking lot like fascism to me. And that is of course what you are arguing in this thread

"Minority dictate to the majority"

No. Not minority dictating to the majority. The minority protecting itself from the majority, and also protecting the majority from itself. I'm talking about restraining the federal government to its constitutional limits whether the majority likes it or not. This is America. The majority does not rule, the Constitution does.

"One great object of the Constitution was to restrain majorities from oppressing minorities or encroaching upon their just rights."

-President James K. Polk

The majority of Americans have been blinded by propaganda. They don't know what's right or wrong anymore. This amount of spending is a crisis that must be resolved as expeditiously as possible whether the majority likes it or not.

Yes, and the idiot who believes modern government can operate in "1791 size" under a system where a federal dog catcher would be appointed by the president, has not been touched by any propaganda. You sound like a soviet commissar. Is that lost on you?

And yet the Constitution couldn't prevent Polk from infringing upon the rights of all those Mexicans living in the territories the United States forcibly seized from them.

Or, for that matter, the many slaves who Polk owned.

"No. Not minority dictating to the majority. The minority protecting itself from the majority, and also protecting the majority from itself. I'm talking about restraining the federal government to its constitutional limits whether the majority likes it or not. This is America. The majority does not rule, the Constitution does. "

And the thing is, Chaiman Mao, you don't decide what the limits of the constitution are, since Marbury v Madison, the Supreme Court does.

@ SantaClausowitz

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I'm not deciding anything, dipshit. The Constitution is pretty clear on how big the federal government can be.

@ ckroberts

"And yet the Constitution couldn't prevent Polk from infringing upon the rights of all those Mexicans living in the territories the United States forcibly seized from them."

Well, maybe the Mexicans shouldn't have killed/captured American soldiers who were minding their own goddamned business on the American side of the Rio Grande. You kinda forfeit your rights when you start shooting at Americans. Under your logic, the Japanese should have been protected by the Constitution during WWII.

Gunfighter, there was "American side of the Rio Grande" because that was at best disputed territory. No one at the time or since would have called it undisputed American territory. Also, everyone also knows that Polk was going to ask Congress for a declaration of war anyway; a skirmish was just the cause he seized on. And even if that was entirely just cause, which it wasn't, that doesn't make it an acceptable reason to claim a third of Mexican territory. What did all the Indians in California and New Mexico have to do with the Mexican Army fighting American soldiers on disputed soil in Texas?

Santa - Keep it to the forums, please. Stop PMing me.

@Gunfighter06

"Under your logic, the Japanese should have been protected by the Constitution during WWII."
Well, in WWII, the USA never seized any land, so it's a different situation.
Of course, carting American citizens of Japanese descent to concentration camps (not death camps, admittedly, but still) because they were "potentially dangerous" was wrong. They should have been protected by both the constitution, and the laws.

Also, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." suggests that, indeed, the federal government has only the rights given to it in the Constitution. The Constitution has amendments for a reason, no code of law can be permanent.

The Japanese Americans should certainly have been protected by the Constitution. The Japanese Japanese (as in soldiers of the Japanese military) should not have been. That's where they made mistakes.

I agree. I would also like to mention that most members of the war had very nasty containment and/or death camps. Noone is exempt, from the major powers.
Yeah, well, those were protected by the Geneva convention. And honestly, I have no complaints about treatment of those, since I have no information.

@ckroberts ... Polk and everyone else with half a penny in the South owned slaves. Get over it.

"Apparently I'm a fascist for trying to reduce the government to its 1791 size and my complete opposition to corporatism and authoritarianism."

What? In 1791 we didn't even own Florida. Or half of Maine. The Bill of Rights wasn't even ratified until December of that year. It's... it's just ridiculous to do what you're saying.

@ ckroberts

"And even if that was entirely just cause, which it wasn't, that doesn't make it an acceptable reason to claim a third of Mexican territory"

I disagree. Mexico rolled the dice with America and Mexico lost. To the victor go the spoils. Maybe they should have thought about the possible repercussions before they spurned our diplomatic olive branches and launched unprovoked ambushes on American soldiers in disputed territory.
________

@ phil_a_s et al

I'm not implying that the Japanese Americans should have been interned. In fact, that's exactly the kind of police state BS that I am staunchly opposed to.

@ Invictus

"It's... it's just ridiculous to do what you're saying"

It's equally ridiculous to argue that the current amount of government is legal, sustainable, or necessary.

Not equally, no. That argument is wrong and dangerous, but still a legitimate one to make with reasonable arguments to back it. Yours is sheer lunacy. In 1791 we didn't even have a navy.

Bo, I don't quite know what you mean. In what sense am I under it?

Gun, the USA started a fight with Mexico by intervening in an attempted secession movement. It's as if the British had landed troops in South Carolina during the Civil War, fought with the Union Army, and then seized all of New England. It's transparently unjust.

Both houses agreed to the Republican budget at austere levels 6 months ago but the Republicans deliberately refused to conference until after the govt shutdown. The dems only blame is that they are fractured and a bunch of pussies. We should not be surprised that representatives from a party that runs on govt is dysfunctional is fucking up the govt. It isnt even for the full year and it doesnt address the looming debt ceiling. If Republicans have issue with the law, pass a new law... seeing as they cant, apparently it is acceptable to fuck up the country and economy... what a cluster fuck... all on the Republicans...

haha government

@ ckroberts

That's a BS comparison. America helped liberate the oppressed people of Texas and subsequently asserted our claim on the disputed border with military force. The Mexicans attacked first and we responded, except we didn't stop until we got to Mexico City. We won fair and square.

"Oppressed people". You mean the slaves?

"The Mexicans attacked first and we responded, except we didn't stop until we got to Mexico City. We won fair and square."

The Japanese can say the same thing about the invasion of China in '37.

@ckroberts ... George Washington owned slaves, though even he admitted he wished it would be abolished. Jefferson had slaves. Madison had slaves. Monroe had slaves. Jackson had slaves. Martin van Buren had slaves when he wasn't in office (at which time he resided officially in New York). Harrison owned slaves. Tyler owned slaves. Polk, as you said, had slaves. Taylor had slaves. Andrew Johnson and Ulysses S. Grant had slaves before abolition.

The only Presidents that didn't own slaves were John Adams (Massachusetts), JQ Adams (Massachusetts), Fillmore (New York), Pierce (New Hampshire), Buchanan (Pennsylvania, and some yet dispute this). These four were each from and residing in the North.

On the other hand...

EVERY SOUTHERN PRESIDENT HAD SLAVES.

It says nothing about them. It just means that they, like most every other President in this country's history, had quite a bit of money. Andrew Jackson was born poor but had plenty of money after the war. Andrew Johnson was born poor but made quite a career before becoming the President after Lincoln. They had the money to buy slaves and they, like other plantation owners of the South, bought slaves in varying numbers.

You claim that Polk was violating the Constitution. Maybe he was. But the constitutionality of slavery was resolved by the Three-Fifths Compromise and was not revisited again until the Dred Scott case when it was painfully clear that slavery would not last much longer. It doesn't take anything more than middle school US history to know this.

He was a wealthy Southerner, and if that to you means that everything he did should be discredited because he owned slaves, then you are discrediting the other names I listed along with his. Good luck convincing people of that.

Gunfighter,
The US wanted to expand into Texas because southerners wanted to expand slavery, and it's not a coincidence that the push for Texan independence came very soon after Mexico abolished slavery. The only "oppressed people of Texas" were the Indians that the US and Mexican governments both treated terribly and the black slaves, most of whom the Anglo settlers brought with them. Independent Texas even required free blacks to specifically petition for permission to not be kicked out of the country. There's a reason the strongest voices against war with Mexico were also the strongest voices against the expansion of slavery.

And it doesn't matter what claim you assert -- I can claim property on the moon, that doesn't make it legal or mean that anyone else has a right or responsibility to recognize it. But even if we concede that the Rio Grande territory is legitimately Texan and thereby US territory, it doesn't make seizing the rest of the Southwest legitimate. It's not a schoolyard fight. Forcibly obtaining territory has no place in a representative government, and it remains a stain on America's past.

It's bizarre to me that you start this thread talking about being a libertarian who wants a small government, yet you defend a war of conquest by a stronger power against a weaker. The two are mutually exclusive.

Bo, I do appreciate the explanation, although I was aware of those facts before I read your post (I have a bit of a background in history). I don't quite agree with your argument, though, that it doesn't say anything about them. If everyone murdered their way to the presidency, you wouldn't say, Well, that's politics! You would consider presidents the way I consider slaveholders: at best, flawed men unable to overcome the evil of the world in which they live.

But for our purposes, you more importantly misunderstand the point I was making in objecting to Gunfighter's use of James K. Polk, who was in addition to a slaveholder but a warmongering tool of the slave power who, despite claims that he represents some ideal of small government or minority rights, ran roughshod over them as he made the central government more powerful.

Polk is a bad example of protecting minority rights. So, for that matter, is the Constitution, at least to a degree. In my more cynical moments I agree with Lysander Spooner, damning the Constitution either because it proved unable to stop slavery or it actively allowed it, either of which make its usefulness and merit unclear.

Wahhhhhh.....some people in non-essential jobs don't get to go to work tomorrow...and the world will move on with a yawn. Soon Congress and the Senate will pass funding for the Federal Park system, thus making that a non-issue. Military is getting paid. SS checks with go out, etc...Essential services will continue.


As for the rest...too fucking bad. Just like Sequestration, Americans are about to find out the the government spends a whole fucking lot of money on shit that people don't notice and DO NO NEED.

As for who doesn't get to go to work tomorrow and not get paid...oh, how about *millions* of Americans that are suffering under an Economy that is being destroyed by excessive taxation and regulation, which has driven millions of jobs overseas. THOSE people don't get to go to work tomorrow or get paid because our government has so fucked up the economy and the business climate that jobs have disappeared. Government fucks private workers all the time....so now a few non-essential paper-pushers don't go to work and don't get paid (bullshit...those pussies in Congress will give them back-pay....something that does NOT happen when private industry workers lose their jobs, by the way...)

So....who gives a fuck. Keep the government shut down for a year....trust me, America will survive and be stronger for it in the long run. We'll find out what truly is *essential* and fund that with singular funding bills. As for the rest...FUCK EM.

No, Polk didn't protect minority rights. Who, though, was the last one that did? Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson obviously did. Jackson could be argued. A few others. Lyndon Johnson was probably the last one that actually gave a damn about minority rights.

Slavery and murder are on different moral compasses - were, I should say. Slavery was at his time acceptable in that region. We may not understand *why* but we do understand that it just was. Socialization is a powerful thing. Sure, they were flawed, but we watch racism and sexism and classism every day and don't do shit, so we're flawed too in our own special way.

I can agree in saying that Polk isn't a good example for Libertarians, but to say that he's some evil character that shouldn't receive credit for being the only President I can think of off the top of my head that accomplished each of his major agendas without failure in the a single term is ludicrous.

Wow... as comedy, that was pretty good, Krelin... only I think that was serious... truly scary...

josunice....yup...dead serious. The government is soooo bloated and fat with useless bullshit that NOBODY WILL MISS.

Essential services will either be funded, or will move to the private sector.

It's time for fiscal responsibility...and if it takes a government shut down to figure out what we NEED...and what is BULLSHIT...then I'm all for it.

Tell me....YES OR NO...has taxation and government regulation driven jobs overseas? Can you at least admit that in part? Or are you such a political leftist hack like the other Demopukes around here that you can't have an intellectually honest thought?