American Idiot

Left Coast Rebel points out that two thirds of Americans can't name a single Supreme Court Justice.

I'd like to turn this issue on its head and ask why should the whims of Justices be so important in our lives that we should need to know their names. The Constitution set out rights of individuals and restrictions on the powers of government to meddle in our lives. I think the founders would be horrified to learn that Washington power is so all-encompassing in our daily lives that we follow every Presidential and Congressional election and every Supreme Court nomination as if our livelihoods depend on them (which they do, in Obama Nation, of course!).


Anonymous said...

The founders were shaped by their experiences and environment. They would take a look at the quality of citizenry in America today and would not be pleased what their freedom had wrought. They'd be horrified by the Rolling Stones, they'd be disgusted by the liberals, etc. The founders did not make decisions based on the reality of our country today. If they were to do so, I can assure you they'd be so disgusted with the populace and state of music, porn and literature they'd be different.

What I'm trying to say is your argument is moot. It's another time, place and you can't say what the founders would think today. No siree!

Zeke said...

@anon: You vastly underestimate the quality of our porn.

W.C. Varones said...


Yeah, because ignoring the founders and the Constitution is working out SO well for us.

It's incredibly arrogant and naive to think that we don't have anything to learn from those who came before us. Just because they didn't have iPods doesn't mean they don't have relevant wisdom and experience in human nature and government.

Corruption and tyranny are not exclusive to the 21st century. If you read some Jefferson, Franklin, and a little later Andy Jackson, you'd be amazed at the wisdom of their words and how applicable they are to Obama Nation.

JenO said...

I would tend to think since the founding fathers chose to replace the more states right oriented Articles of Confederation with the Constitution, which allows a much larger role for a centralized government, that maybe the idea that the founding fathers were all gung ho for states’ rights and a weak federal government is a bit over exaggerated by some.
I would think that libertarians would see the Constitution as a step backwards from the Articles of Confederation and would not have been supportive of the founding fathers or the change. It seems to me that although we are not abiding 100% by the original intent of the Constitution that we are a lot closer to it then what some groups out there are currently aiming for.

Anonymous said...

"Corruption and tyranny are not exclusive to the 21st century. If you read some Jefferson, Franklin, and a little later Andy Jackson, you'd be amazed at the wisdom of their words and how applicable they are to Obama Nation."

Outside Independence Hall when
the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended,
Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin,
"Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded,
"A republic, if you can keep it."

Amen - to keep it, due dilligence is required.
Fear to do ill, and you need fear nought else.

W.C. Varones said...


Some libertarian purists may prefer the Articles of Confederation, but most libertarians I know just want to get back to the Constitution.

While the Constitution has more central power than the Articles had, it still enshrined strong individual rights and states' rights.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That's a pretty strong statement.

Now leftist politicians and judges have gotten around that by twisting the Commerce Clause. They claim that since the federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce, everything that anyone does somehow affects interstate commerce, so the government can do whatever it wants with no limitations.

Merely going back to a less insane interpretation of the Commerce Clause would be a huge step in the right direction.

Happy Super Tuesday!