Poll

How much freedom should people have?

100% no government interference of any kind
75% mostly free but government takes some of your freedoms (ability to discriminate or create hateful exhibitions)
50% regressive government control of much of your life possibly through state religion
0% total control by a government or other entity. No personal decisions allowed or made. Completely at the mercy of government

Author Topic: Freedom  (Read 10366 times)

Offline TobusRex

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 8849
    • View Profile
Re: Freedom
« Reply #30 on: April 02, 2015, 11:49:55 PM »
Palin has an IQ of 125. That is well short of my IQ and several other posters in this forum, all of whom I would expect to be more competent than Sarah Palin at ANYTHING. 125 isn't bad...it's better than 95.2% of the population. She'd probably fare pretty well in my "system", but no way somebody with merely a 125 IQ should be governor. Mayor of a small city, tops. Another link on the page below says Obama is likely in the 120-130 range. That's probably a bit low, he scored better than 98.8% of other applicants on the LSAT, which puts him roughly at 140. Kind of low for a President, if you ask me, but probably much higher than the previous guy.

http://www.kidsiqtestcenter.com/sarah-palin-IQ.html

Regarding Sarah's approval rating..you can see from the excerpt below she is a very unpopular figure in Alaska.

"Raleigh, N.C. – PPP's newest Alaska poll finds that voters in the state continue to hold a very dim view of Sarah Palin and any aspirations she might have about running for President in 2016. Only 36% of voters in the state have a favorable opinion of Palin to 55% who view her negatively. Just 20% would like to see her make a bid for the White House, compared to 74% who think she should sit it out. There's actually almost as many Democrats- 17%- who want Palin to run as there are Republicans- 23%- suggesting there are as many Alaskans who want to see her run for the entertainment value as because they actually want her to be President."

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/sarah-palin/

Have you got to get rid of all your knowledge and all your common sense to save your soul? - Clarence Darrow

Offline ViseGrip

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 36931
    • View Profile
Re: Freedom
« Reply #31 on: April 02, 2015, 11:52:54 PM »
Quote
I think the government should only be staffed with professional bureaucrats with high IQs and years of training and experience.

This may be the best argument against big government you have offered us to date.

Exactly. God forbid somebody competent does the job, right?

William F. Buckley, Jr once said he would rather be governed by the first hundred names in the phone book than by Harvard graduates. And I couldnt agree more.

Buckley went to Yale.

Dumbass.


Sometimes Tobus... you get all heated up and prematurely postulate....

Allow me to educate you. Here is his quote:
Quote
I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/william_f_buckley_jr.html#j8QwjLhYHpl5ueJg.99

Yes he did go to Yale, but his quote was about Harvard. And yes I misquoted the number but not the school or the message.

 But I wont take the low road with name calling..... I'll just let your post stand there for all to see.
"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all that want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics" -Thomas Sowell

Offline TobusRex

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 8849
    • View Profile
Re: Freedom
« Reply #32 on: April 03, 2015, 12:06:33 AM »
You still aren't getting it Visegrip. Buckley was just bagging on Harvard, not making some sort of profound observation.  That's like an OU graduate saying "I'd rather give control to 400 random people in the phone book than the faculty of the University of Texas".

I did about 30 seconds of research on Buckley after I read your comment. Granted it's not nice calling somebody a dumbass, and for that I do apologize, but it was pretty dumb to throw that quote out there as supporting your position when Buckley was just taking a humorous swipe at his college rivals. Think about it... he SPECIFICALLY called out Harvard despite the fact that there aren't two thin nickels difference between Harvard/Yale academically.

Have you got to get rid of all your knowledge and all your common sense to save your soul? - Clarence Darrow

Offline ViseGrip

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 36931
    • View Profile
Re: Freedom
« Reply #33 on: April 03, 2015, 12:10:41 AM »
You still aren't getting it Visegrip. Buckley was just bagging on Harvard, not making some sort of profound observation.  That's like an OU graduate saying "I'd rather give control to 400 random people in the phone book than the faculty of the University of Texas".

I did about 30 seconds of research on Buckley after I read your comment. Granted it's not nice calling somebody a dumbass, and for that I do apologize, but it was pretty dumb to throw that quote out there as supporting your position when Buckley was just taking a humorous swipe at his college rivals. Think about it... he SPECIFICALLY called out Harvard despite the fact that there aren't two thin nickels difference between Harvard/Yale academically.
If you think he thought there's very much difference between Yale and Harvard... go read God and Man at Yale... He was contemptuous of all elitist educations. And particularly the Ivy league.
"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all that want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics" -Thomas Sowell

Offline Cougar1

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 22854
    • View Profile
Re: Freedom
« Reply #34 on: April 03, 2015, 06:57:34 AM »
Palin has an IQ of 125. That is well short of my IQ and several other posters in this forum, all of whom I would expect to be more competent than Sarah Palin at ANYTHING. 125 isn't bad...it's better than 95.2% of the population. She'd probably fare pretty well in my "system", but no way somebody with merely a 125 IQ should be governor. Mayor of a small city, tops. Another link on the page below says Obama is likely in the 120-130 range. That's probably a bit low, he scored better than 98.8% of other applicants on the LSAT, which puts him roughly at 140. Kind of low for a President, if you ask me, but probably much higher than the previous guy.

http://www.kidsiqtestcenter.com/sarah-palin-IQ.html

Regarding Sarah's approval rating..you can see from the excerpt below she is a very unpopular figure in Alaska.

"Raleigh, N.C. – PPP's newest Alaska poll finds that voters in the state continue to hold a very dim view of Sarah Palin and any aspirations she might have about running for President in 2016. Only 36% of voters in the state have a favorable opinion of Palin to 55% who view her negatively. Just 20% would like to see her make a bid for the White House, compared to 74% who think she should sit it out. There's actually almost as many Democrats- 17%- who want Palin to run as there are Republicans- 23%- suggesting there are as many Alaskans who want to see her run for the entertainment value as because they actually want her to be President."

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/sarah-palin/

I see you didn't comment on Bush.

Quote
Gov. Sarah Palin, a Republican, has earned 89% and 93% approval ratings in two recent polls
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-06-21-state-bipartisanship_N.htm (NOTE: This was while she was Governor, not AFTER the Democratic attack machine went after her. I stand by what I said.

Her IQ you said was 125. You have no proof of that, do you? She could be well smarter than you but that's not the point. She was still a more popular and effective Governor than anyone else at the time and utterly destroys your proposition, as does Bush, but I understand you can't admit it.
“Once abolish the God and the government becomes the God.”

― G.K. Chesterton

Offline TobusRex

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 8849
    • View Profile
Re: Freedom
« Reply #35 on: April 03, 2015, 07:48:32 AM »
Feel free to believe what you wish Cougar.  Anybody not wearing GOP glasses can tell you that Palin is a simpleton. Granted a 125 IQ is nothing to sneeze at and people with lower IQ's than that have accomplished great things but those people worked assiduously. Palin is intellectually lazy. She dislikes reading. She dislikes being corrected. She's an ignoramus and seemingly proud of it. She's so intellectually lazy that she couldn't be bothered to simply brush up on current events before her disastrous Katie Couric interview.

Regarding Bush, I did obliquely mention him. I stated that Obama probably had an IQ of around 140 and that he was smarter than the "previous guy". That same website that rated Palin also had GW listed at 125. I think that MAY have been his IQ before becoming an alcoholic reduced his brain to mush. Anyway we all saw what a disaster the Bush presidency was.

Lastly you stated how wildly Palin was loved in Alaska, I showed numbers which showed she is unpopular in the state. The numbers YOU are using are dated prior to her disastrous run with McCain. They are also before the people of the state REALLY got to see Palin for what she is...a moneygrubbing media whore. The Kim Kardashian of politics, but if possible even more vapid. KK may be a ditz, but I've never heard her say as much stupid shit as Palin.
Have you got to get rid of all your knowledge and all your common sense to save your soul? - Clarence Darrow

Offline Cougar1

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 22854
    • View Profile
Re: Freedom
« Reply #36 on: April 03, 2015, 01:13:49 PM »
Feel free to believe what you wish Cougar.  Anybody not wearing GOP glasses can tell you that Palin is a simpleton. Granted a 125 IQ is nothing to sneeze at and people with lower IQ's than that have accomplished great things but those people worked assiduously. Palin is intellectually lazy. She dislikes reading. She dislikes being corrected. She's an ignoramus and seemingly proud of it. She's so intellectually lazy that she couldn't be bothered to simply brush up on current events before her disastrous Katie Couric interview.

Regarding Bush, I did obliquely mention him. I stated that Obama probably had an IQ of around 140 and that he was smarter than the "previous guy". That same website that rated Palin also had GW listed at 125. I think that MAY have been his IQ before becoming an alcoholic reduced his brain to mush. Anyway we all saw what a disaster the Bush presidency was.

Lastly you stated how wildly Palin was loved in Alaska, I showed numbers which showed she is unpopular in the state. The numbers YOU are using are dated prior to her disastrous run with McCain. They are also before the people of the state REALLY got to see Palin for what she is...a moneygrubbing media whore. The Kim Kardashian of politics, but if possible even more vapid. KK may be a ditz, but I've never heard her say as much stupid shit as Palin.
You have provided no substance, only opinion. But it seems that your opinions are more valuable to you than substance which explains your entire diatribe. Carry on.
“Once abolish the God and the government becomes the God.”

― G.K. Chesterton

Offline Ray Brinzer

  • Ipse Dixit
  • Administrator
  • Get a Job
  • *****
  • Posts: 7570
    • View Profile
    • http://ray.brinzer.net/
Re: Freedom
« Reply #37 on: April 03, 2015, 01:20:25 PM »
What about our food supply?  How do you guarantee our food won't sicken us without safety standards?  The food industry has claimed that it can rely on private food inspectors, but these auditors are hired by the very companies they inspect and have often failed to point out problems in facilities.

I'd like to point out that this is a more genuine point on the topic of freedom than anything which has come after it.

Offline head n arm

  • World Team
  • ****
  • Posts: 1636
    • View Profile
Re: Freedom
« Reply #38 on: April 03, 2015, 01:36:34 PM »
What about our food supply?  How do you guarantee our food won't sicken us without safety standards?  The food industry has claimed that it can rely on private food inspectors, but these auditors are hired by the very companies they inspect and have often failed to point out problems in facilities.

I'd like to point out that this is a more genuine point on the topic of freedom than anything which has come after it.

This same thing happens with governments too. Michelle Obama has made a point of "healthy" lunches for schools. The people who determine that were hired by the government who enforces the laws.

Climate change restrictions are adopted from research found by the scientists who were hired by the same governments who want to enforce these laws.

If people get sick from eating McDonalds because they have low standards then people will naturally quit eating there. It doesn't matter who the inspector is. If you want repeat business, you will give a good product.
"I'm actually worse at picking winners in wrestling than I am MMA, and that is saying something"

Offline Ray Brinzer

  • Ipse Dixit
  • Administrator
  • Get a Job
  • *****
  • Posts: 7570
    • View Profile
    • http://ray.brinzer.net/
Re: Freedom
« Reply #39 on: April 03, 2015, 03:50:18 PM »
If people get sick from eating McDonalds because they have low standards then people will naturally quit eating there. It doesn't matter who the inspector is. If you want repeat business, you will give a good product.

If you want that yes.  If you can make a lot of money from a few transactions, on the other hand, you may not care.  Or if you can play a shell game of it.  I know of a repair company which works on large housing complexes, for instance, which has had at least three different names in the past decade, and probably several more because they do terrible work.  If you can get a good contract to do bad work by giving kickbacks, it may be a more profitable route than running a good business.

For historical perspective, consider this amusing account:

Quote from: The Americans: The National Experience By Daniel J. Boorstin
Generally foreigners touring the United States by rail were appalled by the frequency of accidents and still more amazed that Americans should accept them as routine. An Englishman, Charles Richard Weld, recorded his experiences in 1855 on a train out of Cumberland, West Virginia, bound for Washington, D.C. Since the train was late leaving Cumberland they would have to speed, the conductor explained, to make up time.

[Long account of terrifying ride omitted.]

When Weld crawled from the wreckage he saw that all cars except half the middle car and the engine had been smashed. Wheels had been whirled over the landscape. Rails were either wholly wrenched from their sleepers or rolled into snakeheads. Weld's terror turned to indignation when he found none of his fellow passengers willing to join him in complaining of the recklessness of the conductor. On the contrary, most of them praised the conductor's efforts to arrive on time.

Then you have the Hartford Circus Fire in 1942, which killed over 165 people, and injured over 700 others.  This demonstrated, amongst other things, that waterproofing your tents with candle wax and gasoline isn't a good idea, whereas designing public places so that people can get out of them is.

Now, will can market forces prevent problems like these?  Maybe.  A railroad which kills too many passengers may well lose business.  But Ringling Brothers didn't have anything like this happen before, and while people want to be safe, how many of them are going to ask on the way in, "Say, you didn't happen to douse this place in fuel, by any chance, did you?"

If someone constructs an apartment building which will fall down in an earthquake, they have a very good chance of never regretting having made the money, even if a good many other people regret living in the place 30 years later.  Note how thousands die in earthquakes in places where the infrastructure is shoddy, or even when ferry boats go down.

Getting away from safety (in the normal sense), marketing cigarettes with cartoon characters seems like an example of free speech, but I have to admit don't miss it.

On the more trivial side, consider this:

Quote
In the early 1930s, a survey was conducted along 47 miles of highway between Newark and Trenton, New Jersey. That stretch of highway included 300 gas stations, 472 billboards, and an additional 440 commercial uses.

That's a billboard every 526 feet.  Granted, that's New Jersey, but it's my impression that billboards were very common elsewhere, too.  Now maybe I can support that on principle, but I have to acknowledge that it would annoy the hell out of me.

So, here's what all this means to me:

  • I don't much like government regulation, in general.
  • I do like being safe (unless I'm looking to go take risks).
  • I think that the idea that the government does things badly is generally true, but not some law of nature. Likewise, that free markets will fix everything is not a promise from God.
  • How annoyed am I that, in the aftermath of disasters, people pushed for safety regulations rather than waiting for market forces to fix things?  Not very.
  • Do I think all these problems would have been fixed without regulations?  Maybe, but I'm not very confident in that.
  • Could we potentially get rid of the regulations, once the solutions became an expectation?  Maybe, and I'm a bit more confident in that.  I think you'd have trouble selling a car without seat belts, today, even if it was legal.  That doesn't mean there wouldn't be problems, though.
  • What would happen if we suddenly deregulated everything?  I don't know.  I believe we're badly over-regulated and mis-regulated in many respects, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't learn a few very unpleasant things if we made an experiment of it.

Offline mspart

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 25762
    • View Profile
Re: Freedom
« Reply #40 on: April 03, 2015, 04:09:28 PM »
What about our food supply?  How do you guarantee our food won't sicken us without safety standards?  The food industry has claimed that it can rely on private food inspectors, but these auditors are hired by the very companies they inspect and have often failed to point out problems in facilities.

I'd like to point out that this is a more genuine point on the topic of freedom than anything which has come after it.

Are you referring to your point or Buck's?

mspart

Offline Ray Brinzer

  • Ipse Dixit
  • Administrator
  • Get a Job
  • *****
  • Posts: 7570
    • View Profile
    • http://ray.brinzer.net/
Re: Freedom
« Reply #41 on: April 03, 2015, 04:33:01 PM »
What about our food supply?  How do you guarantee our food won't sicken us without safety standards?  The food industry has claimed that it can rely on private food inspectors, but these auditors are hired by the very companies they inspect and have often failed to point out problems in facilities.

I'd like to point out that this is a more genuine point on the topic of freedom than anything which has come after it.

Are you referring to your point or Buck's?

Buck's.  He raised a question about how things would work in the absence of regulation.  I thought this was much better than quibbling about Sarah Palin and William Buckley.

Offline mspart

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 25762
    • View Profile
Re: Freedom
« Reply #42 on: April 03, 2015, 04:44:11 PM »
Ah!!  Thanks for the clarification.  I thought you were being tricky.

mspart

Offline Ray Brinzer

  • Ipse Dixit
  • Administrator
  • Get a Job
  • *****
  • Posts: 7570
    • View Profile
    • http://ray.brinzer.net/
Re: Freedom
« Reply #43 on: April 03, 2015, 06:27:33 PM »
Ah!!  Thanks for the clarification.  I thought you were being tricky.

Moi?

Offline Cougar1

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 22854
    • View Profile
Re: Freedom
« Reply #44 on: April 05, 2015, 02:26:34 PM »
Senator Mike Lee elaborates on the enormity of the problem in his book "Our Lost Constitution". I believe he is one of a new generation of leaders that is willing to address the problem of lost freedom against opposition from both sides of the aisle. This is taken from http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/03/exclusive-excerpt-from-sen-mike-lees-our-lost-constitution/

Chapter 1: Ducking and Dodging the Constitution

I keep two towers of documents in my Senate office. The first is only a few inches tall. A collection of all the legislation passed by Congress in 2013, it contains about eight hundred pages.

The second tower, which is eleven feet tall, is a collection of regulations proposed and adopted by federal agencies in 2013. It contains about eighty thousand pages.

These extraordinarily unequal towers illustrate a startling reality: The U.S. Congress no longer passes most of the federal laws, rules, and regulations that are imposed on the American people. While a mountain of those rules are decreed by an army of unelected federal bureaucrats, only about 1 percent of the rules we must live by are enacted by the most accountable branch of government—Congress.

Using a classic duck-and-dodge strategy, Congress routinely enacts legislation that purports to solve a genuine problem but provides no specific solutions. Congress then delegates to executive-branch bureaucrats the power to make legally binding rules or “regulations,” which will themselves determine the law’s real-world impact. It’s a brilliant plan; Congress gets all the credit for the popular goal and none of the blame for the controversial particulars of regulation.

One prominent example of this kind of lawmaking can be found in the Clean Air Act. The act essentially declares that “we shall have clean air” and then outlines a broad vision for limiting air pollution from both mobile sources (like cars) and stationary sources (like factories). The act contains relatively few details as to how its laudable objectives will be achieved. Instead, it authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to make and enforce legally binding regulations that, far more than the act itself, restrict air pollution.

This approach certainly has its advantages, and few would dispute that America’s air quality has improved substantially since the Clean Air Act’s passage and implementation. I’m happy, as I assume all Americans are, that the Clean Air Act has improved our nation’s air quality. There is, however, a major problem with this method of lawmaking: It insulates lawmakers from voter accountability and thereby undermines one of our Constitution’s most important features. It insulates members of Congress by giving them plausible deniability; they can blame the executive agencies for anything the voters don’t like. The bureaucrats at those agencies, in turn, become a unique and privileged class of lawmakers; they are insulated from voter accountability because they are never required to stand for election.

Thus, when the EPA adopts a new regulation carrying the force of law, those who find that law unnecessary, unreasonable, or even harmful are left with little recourse. Understandably, they might complain to those who have been elected to represent them in Congress. Members of Congress instinctively respond to such complaints by expressing empathy for those harmed by the law and frustration with the EPA and then adding something like “Well, that regulation was put in place by the EPA. That is where you should take your complaint.” Of course, the people at the EPA—as hardworking, well educated, and well intentioned as they may be—tend not to be terribly concerned about citizen complaints because they cannot be voted out of office.

It can be hard for most Americans—that is, those who don’t work in Congress or monitor its operations on a full-time basis—to understand how far our government has drifted from the Constitution’s vision and in many cases its actual stated provisions. Many Americans probably assume that our lawmakers understand our founding document and are devoted to defending it. Unfortunately, that assumption is in many ways incorrect.

Far too many members of Congress don’t understand the Constitution they’ve sworn to defend—not because they can’t understand it but because they make little or no effort to do so. Some Supreme Court justices aren’t much better; too many of them understand our founding document but refuse to acknowledge that its most important function is to limit and check power. Presidents are often even worse; they pay lip service to our nation’s governing document with their words, but their actions frequently betray a lack of real commitment to its restrictions.

People serving in each of these positions have raised their right hands and sworn some variation of an oath “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Most, if not all, of the people who have made such a vow intended at the outset to keep it. Maybe they believe they are keeping it. But far too often they are not. The truth is that our Constitution is being subverted by many of the very people who have solemnly promised to protect it.

Most of the destruction is done by well-meaning government officials who believe that our governing document is more of a starting point than a necessary set of boundaries. Those who espouse this view tend to profess a kind of reverence for the Constitution but talk about its restrictive structure with a combination of detachment and disdain. They make it clear that they think the idea of restraining government power by means of a written governing document is a

topic better suited for an ancient-history class than for a contemporary political discussion. Adherents to this viewpoint will occasionally say that the Constitution was crafted by and for an “agrarian society”—meaning that it is a sort of quaint document written for a society that is nothing like our own. As far as these critics are concerned, we don’t need to follow a bunch of rigid rules put in place by Americans who grew their own food and whose most sophisticated mode of transportation involved a horse and buggy.

When I arrived in Washington, I found it awash with people who viewed the Constitution as a nuisance. There was an attorney general who, contradicting experts within his own Department of Justice, vouched for the constitutionality of a legislative proposal that would give the District of Columbia representation in Congress, even though the Constitution makes clear that only states are entitled to such representation. There was a president who had bullied and badgered the Supreme Court after it issued a free-speech decision with which he disagreed. And there was an outgoing Speaker of the House who, when asked which provision of the Constitution gives Congress authority to make Americans buy health insurance, answered with scorn and incredulity by simply replying, “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Rather than considering the Constitution important enough for their consideration, many senators and congressmen now punt constitutional questions to staff, who in turn defer (often excessively) to the courts in construing the Constitution. If you ask senators or congressmen about the constitutionality of a particular legislative proposal, they might well answer, “Experts on my staff have assured me that, if this bill becomes law, the courts will not invalidate it.”

Relying on court decisions is no substitute for legitimate, independent constitutional analysis, which should take place within every branch of government. Every elected official has an affirmative, independent obligation to act within the Constitution’s limits, regardless of whether courts are likely to intervene. Lawmakers who don’t move beyond the question of what the courts will permit are like children trying to get away with a kind of rule breaking their parents aren’t likely to catch.

It was this state of affairs that convinced me to run for the U.S. Senate in 2010, challenging a three-term incumbent from my own party. It bothered me that even in the Republican Party, far too many elected officials have been reluctant to engage the public in a meaningful constitutional discourse. Although the GOP purports to stand for principles of constitutionally limited government, not every Republican lawmaker is willing to engage in a thoughtful constitutional dialogue—one that attempts to identify limits on federal power and extends beyond a facile assessment of how likely the courts might be to invalidate a particular law.

Sometimes government officials overlook serious constitutional defects in a legislative proposal because they see that some features of the proposal may be popular. It is politically advantageous for them to defer all constitutional questions to the courts, which can then carry all responsibility (and any accompanying blame) for the proposal’s unconstitutionality. President George W. Bush, for example, signed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain-Feingold Act), even though he knew major parts of it violated Americans’ right to free speech. He explained that “certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns”; that “questions arise under the First Amendment” regarding a limit on individual campaign contributions; and that he had “reservations about the constitutionality” of another major provision restricting political advertising.2 But in a shocking abrogation of his constitutional duty to defend the Constitution, Bush signed the bill, meekly explaining, “I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law.” In so doing, he forced upon the American people an onerous set of legal obligations that he himself recognized were constitutionally infirm. Americans had to either humbly submit to an unconstitutional law or go through the time-consuming, expensive, and politically risky exercise of challenging the law in court.

Eight years after Bush acknowledged this law’s constitutional defects but refused to veto it, the Supreme Court invalidated parts of it. Liberals went wild, demanding a constitutional amendment to repeal part of the First Amendment and heaping on the Court the criticism that Bush had deflected and that continues to this day.

Even though the Supreme Court righted some of Bush’s wrongs, many of our constitutional rights cannot (or, for one reason or another, will not) be addressed by the courts. To put it simply, the Constitution has to be defended by all three branches of government. Now more than ever, we need our elected officials to think about these things and enforce provisions of the Constitution that courts have not been willing to enforce.

Our Lost Constitution tells the stories behind some of the most important of those provisions. Each of the chapters in part 1 describes the story behind the rise and fall of a particular constitutional provision. Why was that provision included in the Constitution? What does it mean? And how did we forget it? In every case, the clause at issue fell victim to the dangerous and deliberate choices of powerful people—some well intentioned, others more malevolent—who put their own agendas above the fundamental values of our Constitution.

Part 2 explains how the Constitution’s lost clauses can be brought back to life. Each of part 2’s chapters describes a different mechanism for resurrecting the Lost Constitution—from the power litigants have demonstrated in their fight for the Second Amendment to the potential for legislators to rein in executive abuse by controlling the purse and passing new laws to the importance of voters making informed choices based on candidates’ commitment to aggressively protect the Constitution they will (if elected) swear to uphold. No single one of these mechanisms is sufficient. We will reclaim our Constitution only when litigants, judges, elected officials, and (most important) voters decide that the Lost Constitution must not remain lost forever.
“Once abolish the God and the government becomes the God.”

― G.K. Chesterton