Joe Miller (Alaska Senate Candidate) and the Constitution

[Alferd_Packer]

Some of Joe's ideas

Miller acknowledged that he supports abolishing the Department of Education because it is not authorized in the Constitution, but he said the idea is no more extreme than what was proposed by President Ronald Reagan while he was in office.

The woo is strong in this one.

He called the idea of a living, changing Constitution “bullcrap,” and said he would support an amendment for term limits as well as an amendment repealing the 17th Amendment, which allows for the direct election of senators by the public rather than by state legislatures.

source

No wonder he's slipping in the polls.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

From the same article

Miller also talked about the need to acknowledge states’ rights when discussing his acceptance of farm subsidies on Kansas property he owned in the ’90s.

The candidate said he was basically forced by federal government to accept the money, which also defined what he could grow there, a system he said creates inefficiencies and could be improved if states only gave farm subsidies as they see fit.

The USDA forced him at gunpoint to grow soybeans.

 

[Greg_in_CO]

What is the basis for this fixation on States' rights by the wingnuts? What if they don't like a newly passed law at the state level? Turn to the judiciary? But that would mean invoking activist judges!

 

[drkitten]

I wonder how he feels about the Air Force, which is also not authorized in the Constitution.

 

[drkitten]

What is the basis for this fixation on States' rights by the wingnuts? What if they don't like a newly passed law at the state level?

Then they'll fixate on the "rights of the individual," and call upon the Fed to enforce them.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is a bit of a tangent, but I wonder if people decrying "big government" aren't longing for the days of the Articles of Confederation (or even the Confederacy!).

We've got a population of over 300 million, the largest economy in the world, and a federal system that maintains a huge infrastructure, provides some basic safety net (well--not healthcare), and has become the de facto world cop (with huge military commitments--spending roughly what the entire rest of the world combined spends on their militaries).

We will never not have a "big government".

[It's amazing Miller doesn't consider the Constitution to be a living, changing document, but that he's in favor of any amendment.]

 

[DavidJames]

This is a bit of a tangent, but I wonder if people decrying "big government" aren't longing for the days of the Articles of Confederation (or even the Confederacy!).

I think what they mean by "big government" is government controlled by the other party. More specifically, Republicans only complain about big government when Democrats are in control of the government.

 

[Beerina]

Some of Joe's ideas



The woo is strong in this one.



source

No wonder he's slipping in the polls.

But the idea of a "living, changing Constitution", changing because of interpretation, rather than amendment, is bullcrap. And is dangerous.

And a number of people want to abolish the Department of Education because it's a twin intrusion -- many union jobs (government union jobs) as well as injecting attitudes that big government is a good thing.


So...he may be a jerk, but these reasons aren't it.

 

[Beerina]

I think what they mean by "big government" is government controlled by the other party. More specifically, Republicans only complain about big government when Democrats are in control of the government.

That both parties spend hand-over-fist I see as part of the problem. Some of the Republicans are having problems in primaries vs. Tea Party precisely because Republicans half the time don't "get it" w.r.t. taxing and spending.

November's coming!

 

[Ladewig]

That both parties spend hand-over-fist I see as part of the problem. Some of the Republicans are having problems in primaries vs. Tea Party precisely because Republicans half the time don't "get it" w.r.t. taxing and spending.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Republicans are more into borrow and spend than tax and spend - but your accusation is appropriate.