Comments on: Britain’s membership of the EU is in the American interest… so what?

By: Paul Marks

Paul Marks — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:35:23 +0000

Yes – the Consitutional limits on spending and regulation are gone.

Instead of SPECIFIC spending powers with the “common defence and general welfare” being the PURPOSE of the spending powers (which then follow in Article One, Section Eight) now the govenrment can spend any amount on anything – a so called “general welfare spending power”.

And on regulations the words “regulate interstate commerce” have been ripped from their context (and from 18th century English) and used to justify TENS OF THOUSANDS of pages of Federal regulations (controlling just about everything).

As for the financial system……

The Australian comparison is actually instructive.

Mr Gray could tell us exactly when Constitutional Amendments were passed allowing the government of Australia to adopt welfare scehmes (it did not have these powers in 1901).

No American can name the date of the Amendments to the United States Constitution allowing it to spend and regulate the way it does.

Because THESE AMENDMENTS DO NOT EXIST.

That is the nature of the problem.

I may not like how the Constitution of Australia has been changed – I do not like it.

But it was changed by the people after debate and vote. That is NOT the case with the American Consitution – which was not lawfully changed, it was SUBVERTED.

The United States is basically controlled by a “liberal” elite (centered on the Harvard Law School) who dominate the education system (teacher training and so on), the media, and the law (including Constitutional law).

This is not true in (for example) Texas – but it is true at the Federal level.

If secession is not the answer.

What is the answer?

By: Laird

Laird — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 00:12:27 +0000

"The US Constitution may not be perfect but it's better than what we have now." – Frank Zappa

By: Julie near Chicago

Julie near Chicago — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 00:10:40 +0000

Paraphrasing Pres. Reagan: “My country has left me.”

Paul–thank you, in the name of my country: “Old America.”

. . .

Although there are still many Americans who are citizens thereof — I don’t think we’ll be able to retrieve our country either.

Still — to give up is to be certain of failure. Whereas if we fight on….

I do wish, for the sake of MY country, that you British would leave the EU altogether.

By: Nick (nice-guy) Gray

Nick (nice-guy) Gray — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 23:44:05 +0000

Sometimes the mere threat of successful secession can cause bouts of reasonableness. Here in Australia we have a program which talks about the history of mining. At one time WA might not have joined the rest of Australia, except that the goldminers around Kalgoolie (many of them from the Eastern States) threatened to secede and form a new state, splitting WA in two. The government of Western Australia gave Women the right to vote, in an effort to water down the proposal. It worked. Women gained the vote, the state stayed together, and W.A. joined the commonwealth.
Of course, that’s history now.
My preferred option is one I call Co-Autonomy. I want shires and counties and cantons to be strong, with people able to choose to be citizens, or not. If you chose to be a citizen, for eleven months of the year, you would do some form of community service in lieu of taxes (militia, fire brigade, road patrols, etc.). For one month of the year, you would be a part of the government of your county, voting on all county matters.
That would be how you keep government small- by time-sharing it. State and Federal affairs could be by delegates to conferences, chosen by seniority from the citizens. I haven’t worked out all the details, but this would take the pork-barrelling out of politics.

By: Paul Marks

Paul Marks — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:41:30 +0000

Mr Gray.

You may be right about Stalin being rational – evil, but rational.

As for secession.

I believe that the United States of America has been a great force for good in the world.

But can it be seriously said that the limited government of the Constitution has not been replaced by something wildly different?

“Conquered” – the States have already been conquered, by stealth.

What secession is, is an effort to become unconquered (independent) no longer conquered.

If you have alternative plan to roll back the Federal government to its Constitutional limits (for example so that the “common defence and general welfare” is the PURPOSE of the SPECIFIC spending powers listed in Article One, Section Eight – not a “catch all” “general welfare spending power”)then please explain it.

I am not being a smart a…. I actually mean “please explain it”, I WANT TO BE WRONG.

I want there to be an alternative to secession.

By: Nick (nice-guy) Gray

Nick (nice-guy) Gray — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 02:23:18 +0000

Paul Marks- re. ‘rational leftist’. I think that Stalin was a cold-blooded, rational, leftist. His campaigns were planned carefully- not for him the spiels that Hitler could give to his speeches!
As for what such a person would think about secession- not for any part of his country, but if you want to become weak states that he can easily conquer later, go right ahead!

By: Laird

Laird — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 02:01:14 +0000

Paul, I would suggest that it’s an oxymoron.

By: Paul Marks

Paul Marks — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:19:06 +0000

I agree with your first two lines Antoine.

But I am not sure what a “rational leftist” is.

By: Antoine Clarke

Antoine Clarke — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 21:33:08 +0000

The UK is better off out of the EU.

It seems to me Texas would be better off outside the USA.

And in both cases, rational leftists ought to agree.

By: Rhukatah

Rhukatah — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:38:06 +0000

I think that you’d have heard US diplomats say the same thing about Britain in the EU in any presidential administration.

From a realist perspective, British membership in the EU is in the US’s interest because the more countries there are in the EU, the more likely the whole project will suffer institutional paralysis. Institutional paralysis is good for the US because it precludes the possibility that Europe will ever emerge as a rival for control of the North Atlantic. The primary strategic goal of US foreign policy since 1946 is maintaining unchallenged dominance of all the world’s oceans. American dominance of the oceans means that if there is another global conflagration, all the damage caused by conventional warfare will be done to Eurasia.

Confining all but a fraction of a percent of the property damage from the 20th century’s wars to Eurasia worked out very well for the United States.

By: Andrew Duffin

Andrew Duffin — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 13:12:39 +0000

@Anthony: “On the one hand, I have no vote in the matter”

Neither have we!

That is one of the problems.

Signed,

A UK citizen

By: Paul Marks

Paul Marks — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:15:52 +0000

The United Kingdom government should allow individuals and private associations to trade with individuals or private associations in any other part of the world.

As for NAFTA – Kingsley, as Julie and others have pointed out….

It is later than you think – the efforts of Barack Obama (and so many others) have done and will do much more damage than you seem to (yet) understand.

If the United States is to have any real future, this regime must go – and I see no practical way to get rid of it.

Hopeing for change in January 2017 is much (much) too late.