The View From 1776

Did The Constitution Create A Government Of Limited Powers?

Professor Walter E. Williams provides an answer.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/01 at 12:20 AM
  1. Obama's self-chosen disability.....

    Deterministic systems, ideological symbols of abdication
    by man from his natural role as earth's Choicemaker,
    inevitably degenerate into collectivism; the negation of
    singularity, they become a conglomerate plural-based
    system of measuring human value. Blunting an awareness
    of diversity, blurring alternatives, and limiting the
    selective creative process, they are self-relegated to
    a passive and circular regression.

    Tampering with man's selective nature endangers his
    survival for it would render him impotent and obsolete
    by denying the tools of variety, individuality,
    perception, criteria, selectivity, and progress.
    Coercive attempts produce revulsion, for such acts
    are contrary to an indeterminate nature and nature's
    indeterminate off-spring, man the Choicemaker.

    Until the oppressors discover that wisdom only just
    begins with a respectful acknowledgment of The Creator,
    The Creation, and The Choicemaker, they will be ever
    learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.
    The rejection of Creator-initiated standards relegates
    the mind of man to its own primitive, empirical, and
    delimited devices. It is thus that the human intellect
    cannot ascend and function at any level higher than the
    criteria by which it perceives and measures values.

    Additionally, such rejection of transcendent criteria
    self-denies man the vision and foresight essential to
    decision-making for survival and progression. He is left,
    instead, with the redundant wreckage of expensive hind-
    sight, including human institutions characterized by
    averages, mediocrity, and regression.

    Humanism, mired in the circular and mundane egocentric
    predicament, is ill-equipped to produce transcendent
    criteria. Evidenced by those who do not perceive
    superiority and thus find themselves beset by the shifting
    winds of the carnal-ego; i.e., moods, feelings, desires,
    appetites, etc., the mind becomes subordinate: a mere
    device for excuse-making and rationalizing self-justifica-
    tion.

    The carnal-ego rejects criteria and self-discipline for such
    instruments are tools of the mind and the attitude. The
    appetites of the flesh have no need of standards for at the
    point of contention standards are perceived as alien, re-
    strictive, and inhibiting. Yet, the very survival of our
    physical nature itself depends upon a maintained sover-
    eignty of the mind and of the spirit.
    Posted by Jim Baxter  on  08/01  at  10:33 AM
  2. I enjoyed Jim's thought provoking post, but as I read, these apochryphal images came to mind and, in a way, validated his assertions:

    Think Ted Kennedy: "The carnal-ego rejects criteria and self-discipline for such instruments are tools of the mind and the attitude. The appetites of the flesh have no need of standards for at the point of contention standards are perceived as alien, restrictive, and inhibiting."

    Jimmy Carter: "He is left, instead, with the redundant wreckage of expensive hind-sight, including human institutions characterized by averages, mediocrity, and regression."

    President Obama: "Until the oppressors discover that wisdom only just begins with a respectful acknowledgment of The Creator, The Creation, and The Choicemaker, they will be ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth."
    Posted by bill greene  on  08/01  at  10:50 AM
  3. The Walter Williams column is nonsense.

    Presidents are, in fact, credited with deficits or surpluses during their reigns, irrespective of the fact that Congress originates the bills, because he has a veto pen, and in the case where the President's party has the majority in one or both houses, has the bully pulpit to cajole his party into passing legislation that meets his "criteria" (Jim Baxter's favorite word in the English language.)
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/01  at  12:06 PM
  4. There will then, according to Jay, be absolutely no question that Obama and the Democratic congress are responsible for the trillions of dollars being "created" to stimulate the economy. The scope of the numbers are mind-boggling. This current increase dwarfs past evils. America's deficits and debt have consistently ballooned for decades--(ever since Woodrwow Wilson gave us the income tax?) but what is happening now is truly alarming.

    In any case, Prof. Williams does not speak "nonsense." Technically, there can be no spending without Congressional authorization, regardless of veto and jaw-boning executive power.
    However, the problem is not that simple. Republicans may have been more fiscally responsible than Democrats during the last 50 years--but not by much. Government has simply gotten too big, does too much, does things poorly, and is bankrupting the nation.

    The present system in Washington is broken. Corruption and cynicism reign. Prof. Williams is right in suggesting that a strict adherence to the Constitution's limits on government power is the answer to reigning in the excesses.
    Posted by bill greene  on  08/01  at  04:55 PM
  5. SOCIALISTIC SYSTEMS WORK WELL WITH BEES AND ANTS...

    The Creator, who made each of us in His own image as earth's Choicemaker, and endowed each individual with the gift of Choice, requires that we produce a society and a government based on His endowments of each individual.

    Any other system will fail. Always has. Always will. An ego can't replace God's gifts to each unique individual person.

    Obama is a typical, run-of-the-mill pragmatist: always learning but never learn. A man of cheap words but not of deeds of character. A loser.

    Too much slack...
    Posted by Jim Baxter  on  08/01  at  08:11 PM
  6. I concur with the idea that The Creator made each of us in His own image as earth
    Posted by bill greene  on  08/01  at  09:26 PM
  7. Bill,

    I agree with your thesis that there are many genetic differences between peoples, particularly those who have been isolated for centuries. Whether those differences are the reason some societes "prosper" (become industrialized) and other do not, is another question. To test that hypothesis, you would have to take young children out of thoses societies and raise them here and see whether their performance was the result of nurture or nature.

    I do not agree with your thesis that the first European people to come to this continent were "hardy." If you read the history of the first boatloads who came over, you will find that they were generally unprepared, and most of them ended up dead.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/03  at  08:30 PM
  8. Jay--My direct ancestors were on those first few boats and they were hardy--Indeed, they were among the hardiest of the hardy--they survived!

    And it was those survivors who populated the New World. They were not only uniquely endowed with the enterprising spirit and initiative to seek a new life, but they, by surviving the trip and the first few winters, became selected for physical hardiness.

    The people who set forth for America were perhaps simply among the most enterprising Europeans. But Those who survived were also among the very hardiest. A good combination to found a new free nation!
    Posted by bill greene  on  08/03  at  10:06 PM
  9. YEA, Bill! A very good response.

    I would, however, caution you on the possibility of a genetic factor makng some possible, and others incapable of producing a free society and Nation.

    I prefer to assume that no such genetic factor is an issue. God does not play 'favorites' or excuse some for physical reasons. All/each one will be held responsible and liable for the results of their choices. And, that includes the duty to send missions into lacking areas, to make known the Creator and His Word, Criteria, and plans for their future. Having done that, "they are without excuse," if they persist in their carnal-ruled ways.

    That is one of the excusing justifications put forward on behalf of homosexuals. "Not guilty - it's in the genes"
    Posted by Jim Baxter  on  08/04  at  12:13 AM
  10. Jim--I agree, and am a true democrat with a little "d" -- However, the Europeans who left the pomp and closed societies of Europe were the ones making the right decision--those who stayed behind made the wrong decision. They all had the choice. God didn't play favorites--but the individuals showed by THEIR CHOICES who was favored and who was not.

    So, the ones opting to leave were somehow "different." There is an element impacting the tendency for risk taking in genes, and perhaps free will is stronger in some than others. We all know people who are social--and have to be with many others for company, while others are loners, self-content to be alone, or live in a remote cabin on the frontier. I'm not suggesting its IQ, but some form of EQ that may have self-selected those who came to America.

    Lena Horne touched on it when asked what she thought of Frenchmen. She replied, "All the brave ones died in the war, the smart ones went to America, and we have what's left!"
    Posted by bill greene  on  08/04  at  07:12 AM
  11. "...the smart ones" live by criteria man cannot invent. The Bible.

    Thus, it is truly a matter of pre-chosen criteria that makes a difference from person to person. And, none is smarter than that.

    The same God that created the universe created human in His image. Thus, we are eligible for a personal-fellowship relationship with Him. Unless we choose otherwise, and choice is the result of criteria - not brains or genes alone.

    Joel 3:14 Psalm 25:12 kjv
    Posted by Jim Baxter  on  08/04  at  09:52 AM
  12. Jim--Those pioneers who came to the New World were not just the most enterprising Europeans, and by surviving, pretty darn hardy, but they were also very religious people.

    The Puritans in England had demonstrated their grit and confidence in their Maker by demanding more freedom for the common people throughout the 17th century. And it was their Faith--their chosen criteria that only God was Supreme, and that He alone reigned over all mortals, even the Kings--that empowered them to face off and risk their lives by denouncing the royalty.

    John Cooke, a farmer's son who got through the bar, as a lawyer, led the prosecution that found Charles I guilty and had him beheaded. When the Restoration turned the tide back to the aristocracy, Cooke was tried and, as a commoner, sentenced to be hung, drawn and quartered. But, faced with such a horrible death, he stepped off the gallows, saying, "It matters not what they do to my body. God will put the pieces together again."

    In that century, the Puritans in England, buttressed by such extraordinary Faith, did more for liberty than probably any other group in history. Of course many left and came to America where they got instant liberty. A great book on this subject is Geoffrey Robertson's "The Tyrannicide Brief."
    Posted by bill greene  on  08/05  at  05:27 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.