That brings to mind that the current conservative disenchantment with government dates to the Warren court’s several decisions that many conservatives felt overturned the will of the majority by judicial fiat. Since Marbury v. Madison dates from after the ratification of the Constitution, I often wonder if the original framers would have placed bounds on the Supreme Court if they had forseen the impact of judicial review. Like maybe authorizing Congress to enact by a very large supermajority (90%?) statute law overturning Supreme Court rulings.
Err, can’t they just make new law?
Admittedly it’s more difficult if the judgement was based on constitutional principles, but only by about 33%.
They call this a Constitutional Amendment.
The thing that irks me is, clearly, you can see in the past that certain things, like illegalizing alcohol, required a constitutional amendment to be legal, and avoid being overturned by the supreme court (in heory). But now, the entire FDA operates under a set of majority votes.
ETA: So, clearly, the federal powers have expanded.
Your post proves my point perfectly. You are asserting that the people that felt the government was tyrannical under Bush had good reason to worry, but those that feel the same way about Obama are hysterical fools.
Aren’t you?
It’s more comforting to assume that if your life sucks, it’s because someone is actively working to make it so, not just because you’re a loser with piss-poor luck that a non-existent God wouldn’t give a hoot about.
Like this?
If you’re referring to constitutional amendment, that not only has to pass both houses of the legislature but also be ratified by the states. This was deliberate- the Constitution was meant to be hard to amend, in order to avoid things like the 18th/21st Amendment flip-flop. The Framers wanted the Constitution and the Federal government to have the inertia of an oil tanker doing a 360-degree turn. Which is why although they apparently wanted an independent judiciary, they’d probably be appalled that a 5-4 court majority could revolutionize society.
Yes. Why pretend the sides are equal? Accusing Bush of things he’s guilty of and fearing he’ll go even farther is entirely different than accusing Obama of things he isn’t guilty of and accusing him of going even farther than that.
OK, Bricker, the people who were calling for the assassination of Bush are clearly a valid comparison to the people calling for the assassination of Obama. But what made you think I was talking about those people when I said “the people calling for Bush to be impeached”?
While you’re at it, you could also point out examples of serious candidates for high office, or invited speakers at organized political rallies, encouraging violence against Bush and his administration.
Because – until called on it – the discussion’s unstated implication was that this kind of behavior was disturbingly new. It’s a different argument to say, “Look at these unhinged folks that think the government is tyrannical!” than it is to say, “Look at these unhinged folks who think the current administration is tyrannical – don’t they realize it was just the last President, and not this one?”
You also made reference to the people who were calling for the Presidnet to be assassinated, contrasting them (in the present) with the past supposedly more peaceful criticisms of Bush:
(emphasis added).
I don’t agree that Sarah Palin has encouraged violence against Obama and his administration.
So I agree that I don’t have examples of serious candidates for high office, or invited speakers at organized political rallies, encouraging violence against Bush. And I don’t agree that you have such examples about Obama.
I’m not in the US, but this is exactly my view on the government in Australia. I honestly feel that politicians do not give the tiniest shit what individual constituents think, and when it comes to election time it’s a choice between two identical candidates from the two “Major” parties, a Greenie, a Christian, a Single-Issue candidate for an issue you don’t really care about (or disagree with), and two people you’ve never heard of.
And if you live in a “Safe” seat for a particular party (where the vast majority of people in that electorate nearly always vote for the candidate of a particular party) and you support another candidate, you’re wasting your time showing up to vote.
So yeah, whilst I wouldn’t go so far as to call the Government “Tyrannical”, I can absolutely see why so many people have virtually no faith in the Government.
From the Right? Hardly. I went though eight years of the same craziness when Clinton was in office. Clinton is having the military dump M16s at sea to replace them with AK-47s as part of the plan to deliver America to the UN New World Order! The markings on the backs of highway signs are markers for UN invasion routes! Clinton killed Vince Foster, and many others! The Right always thinks that a Democrat in high office is a Communist, the Antichrist, plotting to sell America to Mexico or some other crazy fantasy. And when a Democrat is President, that extends to the whole government.
Yes, yes.
And when a Republican is in office, the Left thinks he’s a fascist, chomping at the bit to destroy the Constitution and set up a Christian theocracy; the United States of Jesusland is just around the corner.
And the difference, of course, is that for the Republican, it’s all true.
I got it.
This is probably the most honest statement I’ve read thus far in this thread.
Free speech zones, wiretapping, appointing people who think AIDS can be cured by prayer or who cover up the breasts of female statues. Lying to Congress and the public to get into Iraq. Come on; we just had eight years of Bush doing everything he could to hack away at civil rights, privacy, and shove religion on everyone.
Although the OP uses “tyrannical” in the title, the OP seems to be more about people not trusting or having faith in the government. The latest polls show that number to be about 80% of all Americans.
This is not just “the right”.
I have to run now, but if someone can link to that poll, perhaps there is more info as to specifically why people don’t trust the government. Getting into a pissing match about Bush v Obama isn’t really productive.
The power of the federal government is no less now that a majority of congressmen have a D next to their name, as does the chief of state. The only reason to be worried less about tyranny of the government would be if the D’s were acting any different.
Thankfully, things have improved in some ways. The feds aren’t dicking with California’s medical marijuana any more; Guantanamo Bay should be closing; DADT seems like its on the way out.
But we’re still fighting two wars in the Middle East. The President recently signed an extension of the Patriot Act. He also approved the assassination of an American citizen.
I’m no fan of Bush, and on some important things, Obama isn’t acting all that different. If you were worried about an abuse of federal power under Bush, I find it hard to believe you can say with a straight face you aren’t worried about the same under Obama.
This.
The vast majority of people that are now claiming Obama will impose Marxism were not worried about Bush’s power, and the vast majority of people who screamed that Bush was a fascist hegemon-wannabe are not worried about Obama. (See, e.g., Trihs, Der)
Ah, see, that’s my problem…scope. Amateur Historian…it all repeats over and over and over again. And 50 years is only a long time on an individual level. Its a very short time if you are looking at History or Sociology or political patterns and starting from the fall of Rome.