The Law That Governs Government

dieseldiva

Veteran Expediter
Excellent article with a link to a free pamphlet that looks interesting. (haven't read it yet)

September 24, 2011
Conservatives, Sisyphus, and the Renewed Constitutional Movement

By Mark J. Fitzgibbons

The key to saving America and its exceptional nature is in the math, but it's also very much about the law. More and more people are coming to understand the inextricable link between the decline of American exceptionalism and government lawbreaking.


Rasmussen polling shows that only 28 percent of Americans believe that government operates with the consent of the governed. Consent of the governed, of course, is one of the main principles of the Declaration of Independence.


Gallup polling has shown that for two decades, Americans who self-identify as conservatives outnumber liberals two to one. Liberals, however, have disproportionate control of government.


Based on the math, it is an inescapable conclusion that conservatives are doing something wrong.


The intellectual underpinnings of the conservative movement, which began in the 1950s, were expressed by first-generation conservatives Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley, Jr. and the movement's earliest high-profile political leaders, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. The foundations of the conservative movement were grounded solidly in Madisonian liberal constitutionalism.


First-generation conservatives reacted to the post-Wilson/Roosevelt America that had shifted away from principles of individual liberty and property rights and towards big-government statism. The early conservative movement also battled big-government, establishment Republicans, epitomized by Nelson Rockefeller, over the heart and soul of the Republican Party.


Conservatives have had a problem governing because, for the most part, statists control the halls of government power. Statists therefore control the levers of the law, and they have turned the law against constitutional principles.


Unless we reclaim the rule of law, conservatives will forever be like Sisyphus, the king in Greek mythology punished for eternity to push a rock uphill, only to watch it roll back down over and over again.


To coincide with Constitution Day, but with themes intended to influence the 2012 election and beyond, second-generation conservative Richard Viguerie and I released a 63-page e-pamphlet titled "The Law That Governs Government: Reclaiming The Constitution From Usurpers And Society's Biggest Lawbreaker."


We present two major themes about the renewed constitutional movement, which is heavily influenced by the Tea Party.


The first theme of the pamphlet is that Americans, and particularly people who self-identify as conservatives, are coming to a defining understanding of the Constitution as the law that governs government. We've learned the hard way that the Constitution does not run on automatic pilot. It must be enforced on government.


This view of the Constitution as the law governing government is anathema to the political establishment. The political establishment shows great contempt for the Constitution as law that governs it.


Thomas Jefferson referred to the Constitution as "the chains" that bind mischief. When the Constitution is viewed as the law that governs government, as opposed to a more malleable compact or a whimsical "living document" that is not law enough to secure liberty, the second theme of the pamphlet is better understood.


The second major theme of "The Law That Governs Government" is that government is society's oldest, largest, and most pervasive lawbreaker -- so much so that there is no close second. Once we understand that government is society's biggest lawbreaker, we approach political solutions much differently.


While more and more people are coming to realize that government is society's biggest lawbreaker, our language hasn't caught up. Unlike lawbreaking in the private sector, where there are well-known terms to identify violations of law, we have no real terms to define all the different forms and levels of government lawbreaking.


We tend to say things like "noncompliance with the Constitution" or "no one is above the law" when referring to government lawbreaking. Our lexicon does not reflect the level of protections we need against government lawbreaking. Leviathan has become public enemy number one, but we don't have a poster for that.


The irony is that government claims to operate under the rule of law, yet it is nonetheless society's biggest lawbreaker. The law has become dictatorial and authoritative. It is now used to reduce liberty, not secure it. The law has become a big slap in the face to Americans.


Government is society's biggest lawbreaker because it has set itself up that way. Government has injected itself into private affairs in the name of regulating public matters. It is everywhere, so it has the greatest opportunity for lawbreaking. Government has all but eliminated its systems of checks and balances. It rigs the rules to protect its lawbreaking.


Our pamphlet has an appendix with over 200 items of government lawbreaking, most of them recent. The examples are diverse and range across federal, state, and local government lawbreaking, yet these examples don't even scratch the surface of all the ways that government breaks the law.


Mark Levin's bestselling book Liberty and Tyranny is a brilliant explanation of how and why conservatism is truly based in constitutionalism. The Constitution is law. Law, properly understood and exercised, is the foundation of securing freedom.


The law is therefore central to liberty and American exceptionalism. The left has manipulated and misused the rule of law as a means to violate our paramount law, the Constitution. If we reclaim the Constitution as the law that governs government, we are on the road to restoring American exceptionalism.


We have a window of opportunity to save America. The Tea Party and constitutional conservative movements have risen for a reason. We have great purveyors of conservative ideals, such as American Thinker and others. We have some, but not enough, candidates for elected office who actually make the Constitution a priority in their campaigns.


This is a credible thought: President Obama may be the last president of the progressive era in America, or the last president in the American era of the world. The window is now.


Our 63-page pamphlet goes into more detail, and it provides questions to test candidates about the Constitution and their fidelity to it. Above all else, the pamphlet is about what James Madison in Federalist 44 calls the "remedy obtained from the people," as if he knew we'd be at this moment.


The pamphlet does not have copyright restrictions; people may download it for free, copy it, and share it with or without attribution. The message is important enough to us that we aren't concerned with who takes credit.


Page Printed from: Articles: Conservatives, Sisyphus, and the Renewed Constitutional Movement at September 24, 2011 - 10:53:38 AM CDT
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Good find .... although placing neocon Mark Levin on such a pedestal, sort of dulls the otherwise bright glow .....
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Funny, I was wondering the same about you!
Actually, I'd say I'm fairly or relatively familiar with it.

So, let me see if I understand this ... and please correct me if I am inaccurate:

Is it your premise then, that Mark Levin is not a neocon ?
 

dieseldiva

Veteran Expediter
Actually, I'd say I'm fairly or relatively familiar with it.

So, let me see if I understand this ... and please correct me if I am inaccurate:

Is it your premise then, that Mark Levin is not a neocon ?

That is correct, he is not a neocon. He's conservative.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Far as I know, Levin is a loud and proud self-proclaimed Reagan Conservative. Yet, Reagan was a neocon. Reagan never succeeded in eliminating a single government program, much less an entire agency, and federal spending increased exponentially under his watch. That's neoconservatism at its finest right there.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I understand what a "neocon" is. I wonder why today's "liberals" are not called "neoliberals" There idea don't even come close to the "liberal" ideas that formed this Nation. In fact, in my opinion, today's. "neolibs" idea mirror the ideas that we got rid of in our revolt against England. They believe in government control of the People. That is EXACTLY what the liberals that fought England were opposed too.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I understand what a "neocon" is. I wonder why today's "liberals" are not called "neoliberals" There idea don't even come close to the "liberal" ideas that formed this Nation. In fact, in my opinion, today's. "neolibs" idea mirror the ideas that we got rid of in our revolt against England. They believe in government control of the People. That is EXACTLY what the liberals that fought England were opposed too. The idea that the People held the power and that the People should control said government was a very liberal idea at the time. It seems that it still is. It is surely in grave danger from the "neolibs" like Obama and Co.
 

dieseldiva

Veteran Expediter
Far as I know, Levin is a loud and proud self-proclaimed Reagan Conservative. Yet, Reagan was a neocon. Reagan never succeeded in eliminating a single government program, much less an entire agency, and federal spending increased exponentially under his watch. That's neoconservatism at its finest right there.

And he will be the first one to tell you that Reagan wasn't perfect.
 

skyraider

Veteran Expediter
US Navy
Neoconservatism

A neoconservative (also spelled "neo-conservative"; colloquially, neocon) in American politics is someone presented as a conservative but who actually favors big government, interventionalism, and a hostility to religion in politics and government. The word means "newly conservative," and thus formerly liberal. Many neocons had been liberals in their youth and admired President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 2010 the highest priority of the neoconservatives is to increase military action by the United States in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and to expand it to an American confrontation against Iran; in 2011 their goals include supporting a military attack on Libya, continuing the Afghanistan War indefinitely, and even suggesting military action against Syria.

Neoconservatives tend to oppose the appointment of social conservatives to high governmental positions, such as nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Neoconservatives support candidates who are liberal on social issues instead.

The defining position of a neoconservative is advocacy of an American foreign policy that seeks to install democracy in other nations. That reflects both their emphasis on foreign policy and their downplaying the significance of the differences in cultures and religion around the globe. The neoconservative position was discredited in the failure of democracy in the Iranian elections of 2009.

The neoconservative movement emerged in the mid 1970s, played a limited role in the Ronald Reagan Administration, and then had a voice in the Defense Department under the George W. Bush Administration after 9/11. Candidates favored by neoconservatives for president in 2012 include Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Mike Pence and, to a lesser extent because she pulls support away those candidates, Sarah Palin.

Some prominent spokesmen include Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Pipes, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Perle, Robert Kagan, Christopher Hitchens, Stephen Schwartz, Elliott Abrams, Ben Wattenberg and Carl Gershman.

In contrast to traditional conservatives, neoconservatives favor globalism, downplay religious issues and differences, are unlikely to actively oppose abortion and homosexuality. Neocons disagree with conservatives on issues such as classroom prayer, the separation of powers, cultural unity, and immigration. Neocons favor a strong active state in world affairs. Neocons oppose affirmative action with greater emphasis and priority than other conservatives do.
############# I'm so happy I looked this up#######:rolleyes:

View attachment 2776 there will not be a test on this.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
So where does Levin stand on Libya?
Heheheh .... very good question ....

Seems our little would-be Constitution-perverter Mr. Levin is a big fan of Mr. Obama's and Hillary's actions in that regard apparently ....

..... a singular fact that one would think ought to at least cause .... a few raised eyebrows ..... :rolleyes:

Oh yes, Levin is a conservative through and through alright ...... a true neoconservative ....

Apparently, the OP is unaware of the complete repudiation and smackdown that Tom Woods delivered to Levin, on Levin's twisted views of the Presidential War Powers and Libya - something that is fairly unsurprising, since Levin - unlike Woods - fails to link to, and document, both sides and the full exchange, presumably in order to make it appear as though he is "winning" .... totally hilarious.

Of course, Woods being a man of integrity, who is willing to honestly debate and let his position stand up to scrutiny against the position of his opponent, links both sides, and delivers the full picture and where things end up ultimately - all of which can be viewed at the link below.

Be forewarned - Mark Levin is taken out behind the woodshed, stripped to his undies ..... and just *****-slapped silly:

Levin/Woods Debate on Presidential War Powers

Rand Paul similarly addresses Mark Levin's position (which is essentially the same as Obama's) here:

Sen. Rand Paul Responds to President Obama's Address

And g - if you want to understand exactly how eagerly certain folks mindlessly suck up the Constitutionally-misinformed pablum that this nasty little man dishes out, check out the first post at the following link:

Listen & Learn: Mark Levin on Libya and War Powers Act

.... might just be a wise thing, if one is looking to be "schooled", to choose one's "teachers" with some degree of care ....
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
I understand what a "neocon" is. I wonder why today's "liberals" are not called "neoliberals" There idea don't even come close to the "liberal" ideas that formed this Nation. In fact, in my opinion, today's. "neolibs" idea mirror the ideas that we got rid of in our revolt against England. They believe in government control of the People. That is EXACTLY what the liberals that fought England were opposed too. The idea that the People held the power and that the People should control said government was a very liberal idea at the time. It seems that it still is. It is surely in grave danger from the "neolibs" like Obama and Co.
This is exactly correct ..... ;)

I often shudder when I hear many ignorantly referring to certain political/philosophical positions as "liberal" .... probably as much as I do when similarly hearing certain political/philosophical positions described as "conservative" .....

One has to wonder exactly what these (so-called) "conservatives" think it is that they are conserving ...... it's almost as though history, for them, begins in 1950 ....
 
Last edited:

dieseldiva

Veteran Expediter
Heheheh .... very good question ....

Seems our little would-be Constitution-perverter Mr. Levin is a big fan of Mr. Obama's and Hillary's actions in that regard apparently ....

A singular fact that one would think ought to at least cause .... a few raised eyebrows ..... :rolleyes:

Oh yes, Levin is a conservative through and through alright ...... a true neoconservative ....

Apparently, the OP is unaware of the complete repudiation and smackdown that Tom Woods delivered to Levin, on Levin's twisted views of the Presidential War Powers and Libya - something that is fairly unsurprising, since Levin - unlike Woods - fails to link to, and document, both sides and the full exchange, presumably in order to make it appear as though he is "winning" .... totally hilarious.

Of course, Woods being a man of integrity, who is willing to honestly debate and let his position stand up to scrutiny against the position of his opponent, links both sides, and delivers the full picture and where things end up ultimately - all of which can be viewed at the link below.

Be forewarned - Mark Levin is taken out behind the woodshed, stripped to his undies ..... and just *****-slapped silly:

Levin/Woods Debate on Presidential War Powers

Rand Paul similarly addresses Mark Levin's position (which is essentially the same as Obama's) here:

Sen. Rand Paul Responds to President Obama's Address

And g - if you want to understand exactly how eagerly certain folks mindlessly suck up the Constitutionally-misinformed pablum that this nasty little man dishes out, check out the first post at the following link:

Listen & Learn: Mark Levin on Libya and War Powers Act

.... might just be a wise thing, if one is looking to be "schooled", to choose one's "teachers" with some degree of care ....

So now the thread is not only about you wanting a debate on Mark Levin's conservatism but in addition, you'd like to debate Mark's debate with other people.......and in the meantime you want to throw in a few of your typical slams of other members. I won't take time for your 3rd grade games. Everyone has an opinion and is entitled to it, including Levin.

The original topic was about what I saw as a good article (to which you agreed) and access to a pamphlet that looked to be informative as well.

As far as choosing teachers, you might take another look at your following of Ron Paul. You're just as blind about him as you accuse the rest of us as being about others.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
So now the thread is not only about you wanting a debate on Mark Levin's conservatism but in addition, you'd like to debate Mark's debate with other people.......
Not at all - in fact, it's quite the reverse: I simply made a comment about the reference to Mark Levin in the article you quoted, in terms of the effect it had on me.

You apparently couldn't tolerate that ..... and then proceeded to throw the door wide open, assuming a position contrary to mine, and challenging me on it .....

... and you figure it was me that wanted to debate ..... seriously ?

and in the meantime you want to throw in a few of your typical slams of other members.
Uhhh .... where did I slam other members ?

Quite to the contrary, in fact, I agreed with LOS's commentary on neo-liberals.

I won't take time for your 3rd grade games.
Okay ..... so ... I guess it's game over then ?

Actually, the above statement of yours is the equivalent of a 3rd grade game, the premise of which I believe is: "I'm-going-to-take-my-ball-and-go-home" .... :rolleyes:

Everyone has an opinion and is entitled to it, including Levin.
Certainly ..... one is even allowed to embrace opinions that are entirely contrary to the Constitution - like Levin does (and Obama ... and countless others ....)

Good point - glad you brought it up.

The original topic was about what I saw as a good article (to which you agreed) and access to a pamphlet that looked to be informative as well.
Yup - and you managed all by your lonesome (by responding to a comment I made), to steer it in an entirely different direction.

Of course, had you said nothing on the matter and just ignored it, no response would have been made by me.

As far as choosing teachers, you might take another look at your following of Ron Paul. You're just as blind about him as you accuse the rest of us as being about others.
I might actually be a little more familiar with Dr. Paul (and a few other folks you might have heard of :rolleyes:) than you realize - for one thing, my former business partner met with Dr. Paul fairly regularly, in a lobbying effort (that I as part of at the time) to reform the federal government. The genus of that was more than 20 years ago.

So please don't presume to lecture me about blindly following Dr. Paul - my familiarity with him runs just a little bit deeper than occasionally listening to him on the radio or tv ....

A posited "analogy", if false, is not necessarily analogous ....
 
Last edited:

dieseldiva

Veteran Expediter
I might actually be a little more familiar with Dr. Paul (and a few other folks you might have heard of :rolleyes:) than you realize - for one thing, my former business partner met with Dr. Paul fairly regularly, in a lobbying effort (that I as part of at the time) to reform the federal government. The genus of that was more than 20 years ago.

So please don't presume to lecture me about blindly following Dr. Paul - my familiarity with him runs just a little bit deeper than occasionally listening to him on the radio or tv ....

A posited "analogy", if false, is not necessarily analogous ....

A friend of a friend (or business partner).......when you get that private meeting with him let me know, I might want to tag along and take notes.
 
Top