The Modern Whig Party

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Could it be? A party for moderate Republicans who are tired of being insulted and being called RINOs? A party for those who believe in fiscal responsibility and a strong national defense but are tired of the hijack of the Republican Party by the Christian right? A party for not-so-crazy libertarians who think that science and education are good things and that taxpayer funding of these endeavors is not a handout or welfare but an investment in our future?

I know how I’m voting in 2012. If a Democrat or Republican wants my vote, pay attention and read carefully.

http://www.modernwhig.org/issues.html[/quote]

The Whig party itself was a party of big government. They especially wanted government-subsidized ‘internal improvements’, which usually meant a fleecing of the tax payers. It was these Whig experiments that drained treasuries and made many states outlaw using public money for such internal improvements.

The above is a big reason Lincoln (a former Whig) got put in: He could push through internal improvements at the Federal level and get money for a transcontinental railroad at public expense. That’s why the railroads put him forward…just another railroad-lawyer.

Anyway, the choice of the name ‘Whig’ wasn’t too bright of an idea, though most Americans would know shit from shinola about what the Whigs really wanted.
[/quote]

I recently did some reading on the building of the transcontinental railroad and have come to the conclusion that indeed that endeavor laid the foundation for big government as we now know it along with the cronyism, scandal and dirty money that has polluted American politics ever since.

Whether Lincoln was directly culpable or not is not clear to me but the socialism/fascism/progressivism bullet definitely left the bore of the gun in the 1860s on his watch.[/quote]

Council Bluffs, IA…the railhead for the transcontinental railroad…and Abe owned land there, given to him to ‘settle a debt’. Well, I’m glad no one owed him money. LOL!

22

How long before they get hijacked by the religious nuts too?

23

about 5 years after they get co-opted by the socialists and liberals . . .

24

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

By the way, can you cite the Article and Clause of the Constitution that authorizes that “science and education are good things and that taxpayer funding of these endeavors is not a handout or welfare but an investment in our future?”[/quote]

It doesn’t have an express authorization for subsidies, but the Constitution certainly affirms that “science and education” are good things by way of the Patent Clause:

Congress shall have Power. . .To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. - Article I, Section 8

Point being, there can be an argument over the means to advance “science and the useful arts”, but certainly the Constitution is not agnostic as to the value of them.[/quote]

Excellent point but the verbiage you mentioned precisely makes my point.

The Constitution extends and limits the power of Congress in this regard. It extends it by, “Congress shall have Power…To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts…”

It limits it by, “by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

So certainly the value of the “good things” of science are recognized to the extent that the patent system was constitutionally established but since the power was clearly and expressly limited to the Patent Office the 10th Amendment must come into play beyond that point: “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.”[/quote]

Push is actually right, here. This clause only allows for the enactment of patent law.

I think that scientific research and education are so important that I consider these areas a matter of national security. The Constitution does allow Congress to maintain an Army and Navy.
You’re going to make fun of this, but before you do, make sure you understand exactly how much technology is involved in modern warfare. I don’t have a problem with the federal government spending money on defense. Defense is one of the few things the federal government is reasonably competent at doing.

25

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

By the way, can you cite the Article and Clause of the Constitution that authorizes that “science and education are good things and that taxpayer funding of these endeavors is not a handout or welfare but an investment in our future?”[/quote]

It doesn’t have an express authorization for subsidies, but the Constitution certainly affirms that “science and education” are good things by way of the Patent Clause:

Congress shall have Power. . .To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. - Article I, Section 8

Point being, there can be an argument over the means to advance “science and the useful arts”, but certainly the Constitution is not agnostic as to the value of them.[/quote]

Excellent point but the verbiage you mentioned precisely makes my point.

The Constitution extends and limits the power of Congress in this regard. It extends it by, “Congress shall have Power…To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts…”

It limits it by, “by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

So certainly the value of the “good things” of science are recognized to the extent that the patent system was constitutionally established but since the power was clearly and expressly limited to the Patent Office the 10th Amendment must come into play beyond that point: “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.”[/quote]

Push is actually right, here. This clause only allows for the enactment of patent law.

I think that scientific research and education are so important that I consider these areas a matter of national security. The Constitution does allow Congress to maintain an Army and Navy.
You’re going to make fun of this, but before you do, make sure you understand exactly how much technology is involved in modern warfare. I don’t have a problem with the federal government spending money on defense. Defense is one of the few things the federal government is reasonably competent at doing.[/quote]

Discretionary spending requires no law, therefore, it need not emanate from some enumerated power.