pudge's Journal: Erm

Today in the same breath someone, to me, attacked Bush for violating the Constitution, and not supporting Social Security enough.

Apart from the fact that the "raiding" of Social Security actually makes the S.S. Trust Fund more solvent and is a good investment (as it is guaranteed safe by the Constitution, and earns interest), and apart from the fact that Congress controls that more than Bush (and that it has continued under the Democrats) ... there's also the fact that Social Security is an unconstitutional violation of our rights, as per the Tenth Amendment.

Feel free to complain about violations of the Constitution. But don't do so while propping up OTHER violations of the Constitution. It makes you look like you don't care about the rule of law.

And don't argue with me about the Tenth Amendment. No one who understands the Tenth Amendment can honestly say it allows for Social Security, unless from the position of arguing that we are not under the rule of law, but the rule of men, and I reject that premise out of hand.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

I think...

[Bill Dog]

...by "violations of the Constitution" they mean violations of today's erosion of and warping of the Constitution. Afterall it's a living, breathing, evolving, blah blah blah whatever else document. You and they are simply using a different set of interpretations of the Constitution as the reference point. And you reject theirs as invalid, and vice-versa. Things have skewed far enough, by those who want America to be something completely different, that there is no common foundation upon which to base a dis

Re:

[pudge]

You and they are simply using a different set of interpretations of the Constitution as the reference point. And you reject theirs as invalid, and vice-versa.

The difference, of course, is that their position is, literally, logically and morally unsustainable.