Why I'm Libertarian and a Constitutionalist

Please head over to the Humble Libertarian and read my latest guest post on why I am both a libertarian and a constitutionalist.

It begins:

I am a libertarian, and I am a constitutionalist. But should I be? Not that I shouldn’t be a libertarian. I am sure most of the readers here at THL would maintain that we should all be libertarians. But should I- being a libertarian- also be a constitutionalist? I contend that I should for good reason.

First, let me note that I in no way want to give the impression that a libertarian must be a constitutionalist. Many true libertarians shun the Constitution (and sometimes the very existence of government altogether), and I can sympathize with their reasoning. However, I would like to explain why I personally feel comfortable as a libertarian and a lover of the Constitution.

Read the rest here.

Taking the "Neo" Out of "Conservative" by the Southern Avenger

I listen to each of the Southern Avenger's video posts on his youtube channel as they are released. It has been a wise investment of time. I rarely am in disagreement, find them quite thought provoking, and appreciate the detailed analysis.

Checkout his recent entry about my mortal enemies: the Neoconservatives.

Bring Our Marines Home by Patrick J. Buchanan

Bring Our Marines Home by Patrick J. Buchanan--A fantastic article by my favorite paleocon.

He concludes:

With the exception of the Soviet Union, few nations in history have suffered such a relative decline in power and influence as the United States in the last decade. We are tied down in two wars, are universally disliked and are running back-to-back deficits of 10 percent of gross domestic product, as our debt is surging to 100 percent of GDP.

A strategic retreat from Eurasia to our own continent and country is inevitable. Let it begin by graciously acceding to Japan's request we remove our Marines from Okinawa and politely inquiring if they wish us to withdraw U.S. forces from the Home Islands, as well.

Harold Ford Jr. Should Look to the GOP

Even if you are not from Tennessee or New York, chances are that you have heard of Harold Ford Jr.'s possible Democratic primary challenge in New York. And if you watch the Colbert Report you have probably seen the recent interview in which Colbert gave the former candidate for Tennessee senator quite a hard time. This hard time stems from both Ford's relatively little time spent actually living in New York and his recent change of heart on a number of positions.

When running for senator in the Great State of Tennessee, Ford positioned himself as a true Southern Democrat, boasting of his pro-life and pro-traditional marriage positions. Now as a potential challenger in New York, Ford claims he has always been pro-choice and has recently had a change of heart on gay marriage that has positioned him left of President Obama himself.

I don't blame Ford. He comes from a family of political opportunists and is making the best of a situation put in front of him. Never being a principled man, I don't expect anything different from him now.

What suprises me is his desire to run as a Democrat. Even if he is now pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, he could still run to the right of Scott Brown--the GOP's latest poster boy. Since the Republican Party is so willing to compromise principle for the sake of a win, surely they would back Ford in New York.

Mr. Ford, you are barking up the wrong tree. The GOP loves running liberals for office. Just look at the '08 presidential ticket. Let them know you are fine with bombing brown people and the GOP will have its supporters sending you money and supporters in no time.

Morgan Freeman on Black History Month

Here is a clip of my favorite actor Morgan Freeman talking about his distaste for Black History Month.



Hat Tip: The Humble Libertarian

The Inalienable Right To Secede by Scott Lazarowitz

The Inalienable Right To Secede by Scott Lazarowitz-I thought this was a good article.

He notes:

Within the inalienable rights to life and liberty, as recognized in the Declaration of Independence, is the right to independence. People have a right not to be compelled to be dependent on the federal government’s monopoly of territorial protection and jurisdiction. If people within a particular territory have a right of independence and a right of self-determination, then they have a right to secede from the federal “union.” This is reinforced by the Declaration of Independence, which states that “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” And Thomas Jefferson later noted, “...If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation....to a continuance in the union....I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate'...”

Enumerated Powers Act: A Step in the Right Direction

My attention was recently drawn to some good news. Though it's not the first time it has been proposed, I can't remember seeing such support for the Enumerated Powers Act in the past. Today, the senate version has 22 co-sponsors, while the house version boast 60 co-sponsers of its own. Sadly, it is only Republicans who have thrown their support behind the legislation thus far, but Democrats should remedy this lack of support quickly as S. 1319 and H.R. 450 are a huge step in the right direction.

If you are unfamiliar with the legislation, here is a basic rundown.

The Enumerated Powers Act would require each bill that goes before Congress "to contain a concise explanation of the specific constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act." If an explanation cannot be provided, a point of order is called in which the chamber must acknowledge that constitutional authority could not be found for the proposed legislation.

I see two major benefits of this bill. First, it will cause lawmakers to reevaluate what they think about constitutional authority. They must actually turn to the document in their law-making process and see if their actions are constitutional or not. (A novel, I know!) Second, if they refuse to submit to constitutional law-making, it is brought to the attention of everyone as a point of order is called. Image these words: "The senator would like to propose the follow legislation even though he lacks any constitutional authority to do so."

In essence, unconstitutional bills will be noted as such for the record, the public would be made aware of constitutional infidelity, and the sponsor would be exposed on the chamber floor.

The bill wouldn't stop the passage of unconstitutional bills, but it will expose unconstitutional bills in a way that is currently lacking. Hopefully, this exposure could lead to a lesser volume of unconstitutional proposals.

Of course, the likelihood of the Enumerated Powers Act passing is slim, especially lacking Democrat support. But who knows in the current climate? If one where to say just a little over a year ago that a bill to audit the Federal Reserve would experience massive bipartisan support and make it out of committee, one would be laughed at as a fool. But we now see what has happened with H.R. 1207.

What stands in the way? Our elected officials hate to the constraints of the Constitution, and as we have failed to hold them accountable, they know they can get away with their infidelity to the rule of law.

But, like I said, the times are changing. So lets see if we can get our elected officials to support the Enumerated Powers Act.