This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Rep. Foxx on 222nd Anniversary of Constitution


WASHINGTON, D.C. Sept. 17, 2009 Today is the 222nd anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution, also known as Constitution Day. U.S. Representative Virginia Foxx made the following statement
on the occasion of Constitution Day:

“More than two centuries ago 39 patriots put their names to a document that changed the course of history. This document chartered a lasting experiment in democracy and put our nation on the path to becoming the world’s strongest and freest democracy.

“Our Constitution remains the foundation of our unique system of government and individual liberty. It is a resilient and timeless charter. It is a towering achievement in the cause of freedom. It is, above all, a monument to America’s founding ideals.

“As a member of Congress it is an honor and sacred duty to protect and uphold the Constitution. I hope that many Americans will find the time this week to read our Constitution and be reminded of our many freedoms, of the genius of checks and balances and of the privilege it is to be an American.”

Note: The Constitution can be read Constitution onlineat the National Archives’ web site. Any 5th District constituent who would like a hard copy of the U.S. Constitution can contact Foxx’s office at (866) 677-8968.

58 comments:

Gregg said...

Wouldn't be nice if Obama held the same view?

guy faulkes said...

I fear that Mr. Obama's opinion of the Constitution is one of opposition as he apparently thinks it is an impediment to his policies.

Blogger said...

Obama, like many arrogant progressives has declared that it is a living document, i.e. a work in progress. Unfotunately, he may be the one who gets tp appoint justices who agree.

David said...

What's your basis for those statements? Any specifics?

Blogger said...

David, save me time and Google "Obama calls constitution a living document."

David said...

Obama said in his book "that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world." So now women can vote and Blacks are worth more than 3/5 of a white person. That seems reasonable to me. I also believe we should scrap the electoral college. I see no justification for it.

Sarkazein said...

David- I believe Obama also said the Constitution didn't allow for enough equal distribution of wealth, or something along those lines. In other-words, the US Constitution does not allow for enough Communism.

David said...

Do you know the exact quote? I believe that communism refers to common ownership of all property and a one party system. As for equal distribution of wealth, I believe the current concentration of wealth in a few hands is the greatest threat to our democracy. This much money in a few families and corporations is corrupting the political process. We now have the best government money can buy - and it sucks. Thomas Paine wrote about this problem in "Agrarian Justice." Ben Franklin argued "that no man ought to own more property than needed for his livelihood; the rest, by right, belonged to the state.According to James Madison “There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by … corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses.” John Adams wrote that when “economic power become concentrated in a few hands, then political power flowed to those possessors and away from the citizens, ultimately resulting in an oligarchy or tyranny.”
I agree with them.

Sarkazein said...

David- If wealth becomes the property of the government and can de distributed as it sees fit, then that wealth is common property. Obama believes the US Constitution falls short in his desire to re-distribute wealth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4&feature=related

David said...

So what's your evidence for that assertion?

Sarkazein said...

” John Adams wrote that when “economic power become concentrated in a few hands, then political power flowed to those possessors and away from the citizens, ultimately resulting in an oligarchy or tyranny.”-David


"a few hands" could mean the government. "power flowed away from the citizens"...obviously the government is the benefactor of power. If Adams is not talking about government tyranny, then what?

Sarkazein said...

"So what's your evidence for that assertion?"-David

Are you asking- other than his own words?

David said...

Do you not believe that some resources should be common property? How about clean water, air, and National parks? Traditionally, the airwaves of broadcast media have been considered common property. All the BLM lands out west and the National forest lands are common property. Four of our orignal states were incorporated as Commonwealths. Our national highway systems belong to all of us. That in itself is not the Communist system that everyone seems to use as a generic boogyman, without understanding what it means.

David said...

Yes, what were the exact words?

Sarkazein said...

David- Those items you mentioned are governed property and not common property, except for the air, and it is government regulated now to the point it is being taxes.
For most of the items you mention, one must obtain government permission to use or access. Even your own "property" is not your property anymore. If you don't pay the property taxes it will be taken by the government. The property is never paid for as the taxes accrue every year.
If you don't pay your income taxes the Federal government can take your house and your freedom.

David said...

How is "governed property" different from common property? And no one needs permission to go on the highways or national forest lands. National parks, yes because some money must be collected for services such as cleaning up after slobs, maintaining trails, etc. Anyone can fish in trout streams but if there were no license money there would be no trout. But there is no charge for swimming in creeks. Same thing with property taxes. Would you like to live in a place with no schools for kids, no fire protection, no way to dispose of dangerous garbage and trash, no ems, no libraries, etc etc? I don't mind paying taxes that provide such valuable services, do you?

Nobody said...

"As for equal distribution of wealth, I believe the current concentration of wealth in a few hands is the greatest threat to our democracy."

I've heard liberals whine about this so much. It made me wonder, what if they could accomplish, in an instant, complete redistribution of wealth. Think about this for a minute. Let's imagine, tomorrow, all wealth in the United States is equally redistributed in the country. Every person receives exactly their "fair share" of the total wealth as it exists today. What do you think would happen in the next 5, 10, 20 years? I'll bet conservatives will figure this out. I'll bet liberals will stare blankly at the screen. Anyone care to comment?

David said...

You must think Thomas Paine, James Madison, and Ben Franklin are liberals? I agree. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence were and still are extraordinarily liberal documents. If we had completely equal distribution of wealth, and no regulations, we would end up with someone figuring out how to steal more than their share. There is always a mafia, or an Enron, or Sacs Goldman to take advantage of the system to get rich. I have no problem with people who work hard and get rich. But I do have a problem with people who are filthy rich because they have every advantage our country and society gave them, and they think they deserve it all. Do you really think those rotten bankers who almost destroyed our economy deserve 5 million dollar bonuses?

Reader said...

The ones who had nothing to begin with, will again have nothing. The ones who had wealth, will have more. Just because some people are given things, doesn't mean they know how to manage it. That's what the Parable of the Talents tries to explain.

David said...

I think the ability to become successful is about 1/3 work, 1/3 talent, and 1/3 luck. The people who are very successful often minimize the part that luck plays in their success. The people who are not successful often overplay the role of luck. But no one gets rich by them selves. We all depend on a stable society and economy to give us a chance.

Nobody said...

Thomas Paine, James Madison, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson WERE liberals -- 18th century liberals. Times have changed. What was liberal in the 18th century is today's conservative. Most of the founding fathers agreed with persons like John Locke and Adam Smith. Jefferson borrowed heavily from Locke in writing the Dec. of Independence, especially the whole rights thing, you know, life, liberty and property. Those guys really supported the idea that government didn't have the right to take the property of an individual, hence the American Revolution. Jefferson admired Smith's Wealth of Nations, referring to it in private letters as one of the most influential economic works. They also feared giving too much power to any government. One of my favorite Jefferson quotes - "That government is best which governs least." They (founding fathers) realized that any government has people in it, and all people face the temptation of corruption and wished to limit government's power. It would seem that today's liberals have forgotten this sage advice, and are perfectly content to let government have powers far beyond what was originally intended.

Nobody said...

"If we had completely equal distribution of wealth, and no regulations, we would end up with someone figuring out how to steal more than their share."
Wow. This statement alone is mind-numbing. You have demonstrated incredible bias here -- all successful people are dishonest, liars and cheats. As long as you hold this view, then you cannot possible encourage anyone to work hard in life. Do you have children? Is it your intention to tell them either to not try in life or to be dishonest in life?

Sarkazein said...

"How is "governed property" different from common property? "-David

I can sell, improve, harvest, mine my property. Governed property I can't. They can keep me off of it, yet make me pay for it's upkeep. They can sell it, and I won't see a penny of it. I usually have to have permit or permission to use it. Unless I want to walk down the Interstate, I have to pay for a licensee If I do walk down the Interstate, I will be arrested.

My point is, the term "common property" is a feel good Utopian term and in reality doesn't exist.

Anonymous said...

"And no one needs permission to go on the highways..."

I think I'll repeat this statement to a guy I know who just had his license suspended.

Sarkazein said...

David-

Liberal in our Founder's time meant Liberty. And it was Liberty for the individual, not liberty for the government to take a wealthy person's property and give it to a slacker.

Wealth may be a third luck, maybe more, maybe less.
But, often it is risk. The risk is assumed by the individual or individuals and the lenders in some cases. Wealth is also a gamble. Many have become wealthy by investing a small amount of money. As soon as the Liberals are successful in vilifying this, and not allowing it's reward or loss, all will be poor.

Ben Franklin said;" Sloth makes all things difficult, but industry, all things easy. He that rises late must trot all day, and shall scarce overtake his business at night, while laziness travels so slowly that poverty soon overtakes him."

" There is no kind of dishonesty into which otherwise good people more easily and frequently fall than that of defrauding the government."-Ben Franklin

Sarkazein said...

"He that lives upon HOPE will die fasting."-Benjamin Franklin

David said...

Nobody, Adam Smith recognized that there must be limits to natural liberty when an individual's liberty threatens society -He wrote "Such
regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respect
a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the
natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as of the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty, exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed"

brushfire said...

Sarkazein - Our system is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." We do have control over the government if we choose to be involved in the political process. I would rather the power to control my life be in the hands of officials who must answer to the electorate, than in the hands of corporations such as Exxon and Enron and AIG and on and on and on.

David said...

Nobody - Do you truly believe that there are no greedy rapacious unethical people with the will and the power to take advantage of societies benefits and rob us blind? Consider the following - Bernie Madoff, Ken Lay, Jack Abramoff, and all of the following for a start. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/30/business/main5197668.shtml

David said...

Anonymous - The guy who had his license suspended can still use the highway - he just can't operate a motor vehicle. He can still ride with you or catch a cab or a bus.

oatz said...

Why not add Jim Deal to that list?

David said...

Sarkazein - Can you explain how risk does not involve luck? And please don't get the impression that I am against hard work. But I see people every day who work incredibly hard all their lives and get screwed by fat cats in expensive suits. I grew up with mountain folks who worked all day every day in service jobs and worked in their fields when they got home and pinched pennies and did without. Now I read about jerks who have incomes of half a million dollars a year and don't want to pay taxes. Let's be honest, a kid who comes from a poor family in Ashe county does not have the same opportunities to succeed that George W. Bush had. But the Bush family fortune was made on the backs of all the people who worked for them. And with the complicity of the Bin Laden family and other members of the corrupt Saudi regime. So why shouldn't they pay more in taxes to give others a chance to get ahead?

Blogger said...

David wrote: "Do you truly believe that there are no greedy rapacious unethical people with the will and the power to take advantage of societies benefits and rob us blind?"

Always David. From the beginning of time. But we don't want to turn our government upside down to deal with the avaricious ones. We don't want to throw the baby out with the bath.

We have dealt with greedy people before. We don't need to "remake America" (Obama's words) in order to fix the problem.

Liberal POV said...

David

Terrific posts please continue posting here!

Sarkazein said...

" I would rather the power to control my life be in the hands of officials who must answer to the electorate,..."-Brushfire

Thanks just the same, I would rather have control over my life and my trust would be in the Almighty.
You can have bureaucrats appointed by elected officials controlling your life if you must. The problem is...they want to control everyone's life, eliminating my choice.
If the control laws only controlled those wanting to be controlled by the government (remembering that all elected officials will not be your choice) and they left me alone, and I didn't have to pay for your HDTV...fine.

Sarkazein said...

"...and rob us blind? Consider the following - Bernie Madoff, Ken Lay, Jack Abramoff, and all of the following for a start."-David


I was not required by law to deal with any of these guys. A hedge fund manager advised me years ago o stay away from Enron...I did.

Sarkazein said...

Sarkazein - Can you explain how risk does not involve luck?-David

I wrote in my comment, risk involves some luck sometimes.
The Left wants us to be out of luck. A risk I won't take.

David said...

Come on Sarkezien - " The left wants us to be out of luck"
That is a meaningless statement . What is the left? Are you talking about everyone who disagrees with you on any issue? Every person who votes differently from you? And what does it mean by saying "they" want us to be out of luck.
Wouldn't you rather discuss ideas? For instance - How much regulation is appropriate when it comes to banks and financial institutions that can potentially destroy our economy if they fail?

Gregg said...

"Luck is the intersection of opportunity and preparedness." - Some (unknown) smart cat

Sarkazein said...

David-

The US Declaration of Independence uses the words "...the pursuit of happiness". This is for the individual, not a collective happiness as we are all different and there can be no collective happiness as proven by this blog site and others. If the Left (you) are successful in taking the individual out of the process, and making it so that everybody BY LAW has to be a part of a collective happiness as defined by people I disagree with, then we are SOL.
"Common property, the greater good, forced sharing of the wealth" etc"... this is you the Left. The Left wants me to have less choice (less freedom) other than killing my pre-born of course.

Nobody said...

David,
Nice copy and paste. Can you explain it? More than anything else, Smith proposed the idea that the government should stay out of direct involvement of the economy. That was the overriding theme in his work. You may extrapolate a single quote to substantiate your preconceived notion that government must now dominate our economy, but this is not what Smith argues for. Do you hate bankers? I suppose you keep your money in a mattress. You seem to want to blame them solely for the recession, but that is simplistic thinking. Many people point to the initial financial crisis beginning with the housing collapse and toxic mortgages which destroyed banking. Some have suggested that these loans were made to less-than credit worthy individuals under pressure from the government because liberals such as yourself have developed this "fair share" theory. In other words, the government got involved in the economy, with disastrous results. Government should stay out of the economy as much as possible. When laws are broken, prosecute, fine and imprison the offenders. The individuals you name -- Lay, Madoff and Abramoff -- all have something in common -- they were prosecuted and punished. What ever happened to William Jefferson? How about Charlie Rangel? Would these people be mentioned by you as shining examples of the benefits of letting government and those in it play a larger role in the economy?

Sarkazein said...

David-
IF there was a way where you could be a government ward, and I was not forced against my will to be a ward controlled by the government, and I didn't have to pay for your care and handling by my earnings being taken from me and put into your care and handling, I would be fine with your chosen way of life. I am willing to pay for the military and civilian defense of your perceived right to be a government ward. I don't want to pay for your necessities of life without the benefits of marriage or adoption, or you having to mow my lawn and clean up around the house.

Nobody said...

"Let's be honest, a kid who comes from a poor family in Ashe county does not have the same opportunities to succeed that George W. Bush had. But the Bush family fortune was made on the backs of all the people who worked for them. And with the complicity of the Bin Laden family and other members of the corrupt Saudi regime. So why shouldn't they pay more in taxes to give others a chance to get ahead?"
Great, another liberal who cannot let go of their BDS and their love affair with Michael Moore. Why not make a similar statement about the Kennedy family fortune? Rich liberal = good; Rich conservative = lying, cheating SOB. How simplistic. To answer your question at the end of that quote -- they do pay more in taxes. Do any amount of reading on who pays taxes in this country. You might be surprised.

Sarkazein said...

Nobody-

The mortgage market causing the problem yadayada

If the Left (David) can not realize where loaning money to a bordello with 13 year olds as part of the stable is high risk then there is little HOPE.
In Houston, bordellos are constantly opening and closing. Often the Madam is jailed and the stable deported or arrested. The "mortgage" tends to go in to default as Harris County's 15 cents an hour doesn't go far.
Far-fetched you ask. No, these ACORN people were unsurprised, had answers available, and were doing business as usual.
Where in the US Constitution is the government allowed to house hookers? Even though this comes closer to the pursuit of happiness than free health-care for slackers.

brushfire said...

What I seem to hear from many of you is that you are resentful that you must pay taxes to pay for institutions and programs that help other people. Is that correct?

guy faulkes said...

Most of this is posted on a previous thread. Sorry, but I chose the wrong thread the first time.

No Brushfire, we want to follow the constitution (the point of this thread).


The Constitution is the charter or contract that gives the government the right to exist. This charter is very specific as to what powers the government actually has. The Bill of Rights were primarily considered to be rights granted to the people by the Creator and immune from infringement by the government. These amendments also indicate powers not specially given to the government are retained by the states and the people. Subsequent amendments further limit the power of government. Redistribution of wealth is not a power given to the government. Taxes are only to fund those limited powers given to the government. Entitlement programs are not covered.

Sarkazein said...

Brushfire- As long as you realize in your statement you write: "... resentful that you must pay taxes to pay for institutions and programs that help other people" the key words being MUST PAY then in my case you are right.
If a "program" pays someone to be a slacker, or an "institution" teaches liberalism, I don't want to MUST PAY for it.

David said...

How about health programs such as the polio research and vaccination programs? Is that a fair use of tax money? How about programs that provide food to kids at school, is that a reasonable use of taxes?

David said...

For a final note - I despise paying tax money that goes to bonuses for filthy rich bankers, corrupt war profiteers such as Halliburton and KBR, and benefits and salaries that go to hateful politicians who spread divisiveness and meanness. I am more than happy to pay for any programs that help people get educated and healthy. I believe in E Plurbus Unum, united we stand, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This has been a good way to spend a rainy weekend and thanks for the civil discourse. Now back to another work week.
Peace

Sarkazein said...

"How about health programs such as the polio research and vaccination programs? Is that a fair use of tax money? How about programs that provide food to kids at school, is that a reasonable use of taxes?"-David

NO. I don't think Jonas Salk had a GS rating. The food program proves Benjamin Franklin's quote about ripping off the government.

Sarkazein said...

David-

Your tax money shouldn't go for bonuses for the rich, on that we agree. Haliburton is providing a service and being paid by a Democrat controlled Congress under a Democrat President.

Liberal POV said...

Sark

What priorites you have?

Sarkazein said...

POV-

My biggest priority is finding a way to send my hard earned money to crack heads, slackers and no-loads.

Liberal POV said...

Sark

Is that what you call the working poor that washed you dish at the restaurant, cleaned your hotel room, or put the roof on your house?

Gregg said...

David, on your "final note":

I'm with you on giving "bonuses for filthy rich bankers". Maybe we shouldn't bail them out. Maybe we shouldn't help them get "filthy rich" by funding all their loans with taxpayer money, loans based on inclusiveness and affirmative action. No need to worry if the borrower can't afford a new house, "the taxpayers got our back". So no tax money to bankers, we agree. If they have to compete, make wise loans and excel in the marketplace of ideas then let them get as rich as humanly possible...and then some.

You know what? This "Haliburton" bogey man is getting old. The premise has been turned upside down and accepted. Now it's such a loaded word everyone runs from it. They accept the upside down premise. Not me. I love Haliburton! Where would we be without them? Really, ever think about it? We sit in our cozy easy chairs and never realize the incredible job at hand. Not the hearts and mind stuff nor the kill the enemy thing. The nuts and bolts. The infrastructure. This is part of waging war. The Constitution doesn't just allow for such events, it requires our leaders to protect us from our enemies. There aren't a lot of entities that can even do the job. You literally may have listed the only two. The job was bid on, contrary to popular opinion, but it was the entire package of work. That's the way it's always been done. The job was not a "no bid contract". Dick Cheney did not profit one dime. The allegation is juicy but try and make the case. When Dick Cheney left Halibuton he wasn't all that well liked, anyway. He made tough calls including a merger. It's not like he was lining the pocket's of "his buddies". Just more juicy juice. He liquidated all his stock, and I believe it would be a felony if he didn't. His assets were in a blind trust. The brave people that work for Haliburton put there lives on the line. They take enormous risks to make things work against unbelievable challenges. The cost is high because of these risk, the capital of billions of dollars and the expertise that is unique in the world. Haliburton has affected ALL of our lives for the better, find some other reason to hate Cheney.

"politicians who spread divisiveness and meanness", you gotta be kidding. That's just more meaningless feel good crap. Whose more divisive and mean than Democrats? Pelosi denigrating protesters as Nazi's, Dick Durbin comparing Bush to Pol Pot, Harry Reid calling Bush a looser, John Kerry saying our soldiers were "terrorizing women and children", Van Jones saying Republicans are "assholes", Howard Dean saying he hates Republicans and all they stand for, John Murtha accusing the since exonerated Haditha soldiers of killing in "cold blood", Al Gore calling bloggers "digital brown shirts", Maxine waters with her "Neanderthal" comment, etc. and on and on. It's Jimmy Carter who is making a mockery of honest debate by interjecting race. Obama looks sincere in his speech saying he wants to work with Republicans but it's BS. He acts insulted when Joe Wilson shouts "You Lie" but then uses the same term in the same paragraph in the same speech in the same hallowed chamber. That's just the public officials. Remember the typical Bush protest? It's Democrats on this very blog who constantly tell us how evil we are. It's Democrats that foment this resentment towards achievement. A resentment of which nothing good can possibly come. It's Democrat's that want to divide us on race and be judged, not by the content of their character, but by the color of their skin. Look no further that Skip Gates or Rev. Wright.

Why don't you stand over here with us liberty lovers who care about the truth more than ideology?

Sarkazein said...

"Is that what you call the working poor that washed you dish at the restaurant, cleaned your hotel room, or put the roof on your house?"-POV

Yes, if they do crack, don't show for work, get fired, and sit home during the day watching the shyster commercials trying to figure out who to sue for their problems.

guy faulkes said...

Why don't you stand over here with us liberty lovers who care about the truth more than ideology? - Gregg

Because the left cares about ideology more than truth, even to the point they cannot recognize the truth.

Every long time conservative blogger on this site has changed his mind on an issue during debate, usually with another conservative member. The left does not debate. They use talking points.

guy faulkes said...

I thought you might want to see what the person that very well may be our President had to say abut the anniversary of the Constitution.

"Today marks the 222nd anniversary of the formation and signing of our Constitution. The United States Constitution is one of the greatest founding documents in history because it charted a bold new path in the realm of political theory. Not only does the Constitution establish checks and balances within the federal government, it also divides power among the federal government, the states, and the people. The Founders understood that it is the nature of government to grow at the expense of the people’s liberty; and with that in mind, they established a form of government that would be limited in scope and power in order to maximize power to the people.

Today, let’s also take the opportunity to thank our armed forces. The weight of defending our liberty rests on their shoulders, and because of their efforts and sacrifice, we can celebrate the 222nd anniversary of the formation of our Constitution."
- Sarah Palin