What's the worst thing conservatives have to fear?

Boy do I wish I had more time to think about and discuss this more!

I believe Nixon was the first really corrupt president (of modern times) who had little concern for serving the public and great concern for retaining power. I think Ike, Kennedy, and even Johnson were sincere public servants who were not above grasping at perks – but Nixon was a power hungry bag of hate who lived to exercise corrupt power and punish with impunity.

I believe most of following presidents were more servants like the ones I listed above except that (omitting Ford and Carter) they all had a strongly held belief that to best serve the nation THEY should retain power. They held a strong self bias supported by strong justifications but they did try to play by the rules and do good while doing well. (I can remember resenting Clinton for his belief that his ideals made him an ideal president despite his trustworthiness issues – how quaint that seems now! Most since him have been worse!)

The Orange Menace (as some doper named him) was an aberration who’s type must be protected against and opposed on all fronts. But he might yet serve a purpose – even while rotting away in prison (which is far too unlikely for my taste).

Trump might make Biden a better president than he would have otherwise been. Biden is old and has too short a time frame to waste any of it on self promotion. I believe that for the first time in decades the situation demands strong and beneficial leadership to accomplish mighty things. This might be the most important four (dare we hope?!?) or eight years of this century for our nation.

Biden does not want to build monuments to his ego, he wants to leave a legacy of service and accomplishment. For that to happen we only need one thing – for Mitch McConnell to be visited by three ghosts; the ghost of legislative sessions past, the ghost of . . . . .

If Biden could just have a reasonable opposition party to compromise with we will enter a new age of growth, prosperity, and security. If it didn’t sound so current day GOP-- I would want all obstructionists to be banned from the realm or burned at the stake (their choice). It seems to me NOW is our best opportunity to have a government that truly serves the people and I only hope that Trump can further divide the Republican party so the 2022 mid terms give Biden a majority he can do good through.

Sorry- I think I got way off point there.

No argument from me there.

It’s not a question of whether a specific cabinet department is explicitly provided for in the constitution (none are, but Art II section 2 provides for departments in general). It’s a question of whether the government was granted the power to do whatever the federal law attempts to do. I would say the USCG has two functions, a pure military function, and a law enforcement function.

As a military service the USCG contributes to the common defense of the United States. It operates as part of the Navy of the United States during wartime and special situations, and as a sort of reserve force otherwise. Article I section 8 grants Congress the power to raise taxes for the common defense, to provide and maintain a Navy, and to govern/make rules for naval forces. Article II section 2 designates the President as the commander of the Navy, and by extension, the USCG when operating as part of the Navy.

Unique among military services, the USCG also operates as federal law enforcement. Hence its organization under the Department of Homeland Security (in peacetime). In this role, as with all federal law enforcement agencies, the USCG derives its power to enforce federal law directly from the President. The President, in turn, is granted exclusive power to enforce laws by Art. II section 1, which vests the executive Power in a President (the executive power being the power to literally execute the law, therefore encompassing law enforcement). Article I section 8 grants Congress the explicit powers to, among other things, set (customs) duties, to regulate foreign commerce, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, define and punish piracy and felonies committed on the high seas. Congress also has the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those powers, or even for carrying into execution the President’s executive power. I say the establishment of a department for enforcing federal law on the high seas and waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction falls within Congress’s powers.

My opinion is that the second amendment is a restriction on the federal government’s power to regulate the militia. The fear behind the amendment, at least as I interpret it, is that the federal government would disarm the states by (pursuant to Congress’s power to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining” the militia) mandating that no militia member may keep and bear instruments of war. The combined militias of the various states were intended to be a constant check on the federal government, specifically the President and his federal army. If Congress disarmed the various state militias, who would stop the federal government from turning tyrant? So the second amendment was supposed to close that loophole by preventing the federal government from disarming the people.

Today, the (constitutional) militia is defined as a) members of State Defense Forces, the National Guard, or the Naval Militia, and b) all able-bodied men between the ages of seventeen and forty-five. There are exemptions, notably all active duty armed forces. 10 U.S. Code § 246, 247. Not like I think the federal government gets to define the “militia of the several States”, but most states define their militias the same way. In a complete mockery of the second amendment’s intent, current law exploits another constitutional loophole and allows the federal government to literally draft all of the well-regulated militia members into the army, then ship them overseas for active duty. I think that’s technically constitutional.

But as a holdover from the second amendment, I would say banning militia-grade weapons (as a regulation of the militia) is unconstitutional. The idea is that the federal government can’t ban weapons that would be appropriate for militias to use… against a rogue federal government or invading force. As written, I say weapons of mass destruction (nukes, chemicals) could be banned by federal law, artillery and automatic weapons could not.

Note that I said federal bans. I also think the states get to decide who goes in their militias. I also don’t “incorporate” the bill of rights against the states. If a state wants to disarm its own populace, or disband its own militia, or only allow military grade weapons for actual national guard units as part of a legitimately well-regulated militia, one that meets Congress’s standards, that’s perfectly constitutional in my eyes. I personally think this latter option is the ideal one.

In practice weapons bans are proposed as exercising power to regulate commerce among the several states, not the power to regulate the militia. I would not go so far as to extend this power to intra-state transactions or manufacture (even narrower than United States v. Lopez, 1995; such that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban would not survive a court challenge), but that’s my opinion.

I was speaking of the federal government as a whole, not the judiciary in particular. If we’re getting into particulars, I had Congress in mind. The Constitution prohibits states from entering into compacts with each other unless Congress provides permission. Congress has plenary power over interstate commerce, including navigation of waterways. Congress has plenary power over printing of money and naturalization law. &etc.

~Max

Amen.
It’s possible (R.) might fear that sorta stuff.

Oops - should’ve deleted the “and access to NYC” :scream: phrase in the previous quotebox. :wink:

Bumping up the corporate tax rate to 28% I’m sure hit a nerve with one or two conservatives. I guess this gofdless socialist would like it more around 35.

IMHO, another reason conservatives fear liberalism so much is because liberalism doesn’t really have a defined end point - no real finish line.

With conservatives, it’s pretty clear - many want America to return to something like the 1950s. That may be repugnant, but at least it’s familiar, since it’s already happened before.

With liberalism, though, people have no idea where it is going to go. If it’s already gone from A, B,C to D, E, F…then what does X, Y Z look like? Once liberalism achieves a goal, it promptly moves on to the next goal. Even some liberals probably have only a vague idea where liberalism is headed next. What is unfamiliar is often much more frightening than what is familiar.

Remind you of anything?

It was at Hassan-i Sabbah’s death that he uttered the aphorism for which he is best known: “Nothing is true. All is permissible.” The orthodox Muslim historian Juvaini adds that as soon as these blasphemous words passed his lips, “Hassan’s soul plunged to the depths of Hell.”

According to a guy on right wing radio this morning, Biden and the other socialists want civil unrest (like we’re seeing in Minnesota) because they want citizens to be afraid. Then they can get a national police force and take away our guns. When the citizens (who just want to live their lives, raise their children, and be left alone) are afraid, it will be pretty easy transitioning to a North Korea-like regime. Do you think most North Koreans believe all that crap about their “leader?” Of course not. They’re afraid. That’s what Biden wants. And the host must muttered, “yes, but the question is whether we will stand up and fight against this threat.”

I don’t know that it’s their worst fear - but a Dallas Morning News/UT-Tyler poll shows Matthew McConaughey (not yet a declared candidate for governor) beating Greg Abbott. Close to a third of Republicans say they’d support McConaughey.

:smiley:

And of course the whole purpose of spreading this nonsensical narrative…is because they want citizens to be afraid.

Alright alright alright…Cool!