Quote of the day—Robb Allen

Arguing with @csgv about constitutional law is like arguing with Stevie Wonder over color palettes.

Robb Allen (@PantsFree)
Tweeted on April 17, 2013
[I strongly suspect this was in regard to this conversation Linoge was having with CSGV.

While there is a lot of truth to what Robb and Linoge are saying it’s also true that the U.S. Constitution deliberately gave the Federal government more power than it had. The Articles of Confederation before it did not give it enough power and failure was imminent. So there is a grain of truth in the CSGV saying, “… the Union could only be preserved by strengthening the federal government”.

What the CSGV appears to completely overlook is that while the Constitution increased the power of the Federal Government it also severely limited it’s powers. Those limits are mostly ignored now and again one could argue failure is at least foreseeable if not imminent.

However in the present case the solution is not more power. As President Reagan said, “… government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.”—Joe]


9 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Robb Allen

  1. Yup, that was the conversation that kicked off the quote, but it was many, many, many other conversations that indicated CSGV true intent. They mean “The Constitution gave the federal government 100% control over everything” by their statement, overlooking the limited powers parts they so despise.

    Most Gun Control groups have a first principle of statism / collectivism. Their disdain of firearms has nothing to do with safety or ‘the children’ and everything to do with the fact that individuals own firearm while collectivists are herded with them. Because it goes against the *very basis* of all their beliefs, they will fight against them regardless of facts, historical documentation, and reality.

  2. Actually, the Federalists were OK with an overly strong Constitution. They wrote it, and inflicted it on the country as a coup d’ tat.

    Jefferson and the Anti-Federalists forced the Bill of Rights on that document, after Hamilton’s little adventures with big government.

    Jefferson also redefined federal court districts in order to have an excuse to fire most of the Federalist appointed judges, with the Federalist judges that tried to punish Burr for shooting Hamilton getting special attention.

  3. Speaking of Hamilton, it’s interesting to read his proposal to the Convention. (You can find it in Madison’s “Notes of debates…”. It went nowhere at the time — but by now, the actual practice, even if not the letter, pretty much matches what Hamilton proposed. Key phrases include “…Legislature of the United States with power to pass all laws whatsoever” and “The Senate to consist of persons elected to serve during good behaviour” (i.e., for life). Sounds familiar?

  4. Yeah I’ve argued with him too. I couldn’t get him to admit that the Colonists were part of the British Empire before they created the US. Yeah….

  5. Patrick Henry, “him” who? Robb Allen? Linoge? Alexander Hamilton?

  6. “… the Union could only be preserved by strengthening the federal government”.

    As if strengthening the federal government, once, over 200 years ago is now to be taken to mean that constant, never ending strengthening of the federal government is therefore necessary. What sort of mental dysfunction is required to make a person believe that?

    • The same mental dysfunction that causes 90% of politicians to enter politics.

      • Roger that! My father taught me a long time ago that anyone who WANTED to be a politician shouldn’t be, and the people who didn’t WANT to be politicians were the ones we should be electing. (See George Washington). Unfortunately, we end up with the first, and not the latter. We have far to few men who want to serve the people, and far too many who wish to serve themselves.

  7. Oh, I will never disagree that the Constitution strengthened the Federal Government, especially given that the government that preceded it could hardly be termed a “federal government”, and thus any such federal government would be stronger than the nothing before it.

    My disagreement stemmed from their argument that “strengthened the federal government” and “limited the federal government” are mutually exclusive. Obviously they are not, and even the most basic reading of the Constitution would reveal that, even without delving into the whys and wherefores.

    Anywise, less a conversation, more of a drive-by; I’ve had CSGV blocked, and they me, ever since they got their account suspended during their mass Twitter outing/harassment spree. But sometimes I see other people engaging them, and the reflex to point and laugh is just too much to overcome ;).

Comments are closed.