The Ati-thesis , Marxism

"By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation, extracting the surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production.[3] Friedrich Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, argues that state capitalism would be the final stage of capitalism consisting of ownership and management of large-scale production and communication by the bourgeois state.[4]"

Quoted from Wikepedia

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Hermain Cain, The United States Constitution, and The Elephant's New Clothes.

It seems that racial politics has descended like a fog over the national mind set with few willing to take to task the policies of the Republicans black candidate, Herman Cain. Meanwhile the left up the ante with pretenses that portray the right but are even more blatantly ugly expression of racism than giving a pass to Cain on his policies and his response to a character challenge which would never be granted by the right to a white candidate.

I thank John K W for being the lone voice in the over crowed scene willing to say that the emperor has no clothes. John's view is well researched and based in true constitutional conservatism and so with John's permission, I am re-posting this comment found on As Maine Goes, with a few minor edits of parts that do not pertain to a more general audience. These are questions and arguments that should be part of our national debate:

Does Herman Cain propose to have the federal government enter a State, declare a geographical area or areas to be “opportunity zones”, and then allow the people and businesses within these zones to be free of taxes which people and businesses a block outside the zone will be forced to pay? 

If the answer is yes, would Herman Cain’s proposal not violate the very intentions of our  founding fathers written into Article 1, Section 9, Clause 6 of our Constitution and be granting preferential regulations of commerce?
How about that part of our Constitution which requires direct taxes to be apportioned and indirect taxes to be uniform “throughout the United States”? Does Mr. Cain not know these provisions were put into the Constitution to forbid the federal government from picking winners and losers via taxation? Is it not a fact that Herman’s “opportunity zone” tax policy would violate the very intentions for which the rule of apportionment and rule of uniformity was put into our Constitution?

And how about Herman Cain even suggesting to have the federal government enter a State and use its power to meddle in a State’s internal affairs and commerce? Is his proposal not in direct defiance of our Founding Father’s intentions which are summarized in Federalist No. 45?

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

And if the above is not clear enough that our founders intentions were to forbid the federal government from entering the States and interfering with their internal affairs and commerce, what part of the Tenth Amendment does Mr. Cain not understand which was specifically adopted to protect federalism and a free market system?

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.

Finally, if the above parts of our Constitution are not clear that Mr. Cain’s proposal is sugar coated tyranny wrapped in Orwellian Newspeak as being "opportunity zones", let us recall what our very own Supreme Court stated shortly after the Tenth Amendment was adopted:

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable
Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void. ____ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

So, once again I ask the questions, why is it that our “conservative” talk show hosts [Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Doc Thompson, Neal Boortz. Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, or any media personality on FoxNews] avoid taking Herman Cain to task for proposing to allow the federal government to enter a State, designate a geographical area an “opportunity zone”, and then allow people and business inside that zone to be free of taxes which people and businesses a block away will be forced to pay by the federal government. Why are our “conservative” talk show hosts not siding with our founding father’s rejection to allow Herman Cain to pick winners and losers or grant preferential regulations to a State or individual? Why do our “conservative” talk show hosts not defend our founding fathers and our Constitution, intended to create and protect a free market system, and preclude Herman Cain from picking winners and losers?

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

No comments:

Post a Comment