Where the hell else is the buck suppose to stop. A man does what a MAN can, thus LBJ took on Civil Rights when he was in office. Some guys like Reagan and the Bushes went the other way. Depends on your idea of manhood I guess. A Big Man in my view helps the little guy, a little guy like Pierce helps the big guy and kisses his butt.

An obvious facetious off the cuff press conference remark but which underlies his idea of national priorities. Such priorities have been necessary throughtout history as Joseph taught us in Egypt.

Jim K yes I am very scared when folk run as "conservatives" and give speeches attacking every day americans, that is We The People who have concerns about our environment, rely to some extent on science and intelligence, with a wave of the hand and denoucing us as "greenies" or tree huggers. And when some clown says scientific companies are putting human brains in mice, I mean really Jim K does no degree of ignorance ever get under your skin. These people may be "value voters" but they cerrtainly are not my or any intelligent or thinking persons values. They simpoly are against government period. They are not for good government they are just for no government. They are for letting the old earth get along without the use of human intelligence.

The only short happy period I know of was the Clinton yeas.

Okay but there are other weird organizations we need to worry about now. Especially the Tea Partiers, the flakes like O'Donnell and Palin. While intelligent people may be concerned about the health of the our bays, estuaries, and inland waters for example these clowns give speeches wontonly attacking "the greens" etcetera. They call themselves conservatives and value voters but exactly what are they really trying to conserve or value.

Mike he is not talking about the aristocracy of titles and nobility but about the power of money. The power of private interest and of the collective that is inherent in a corporation over and against the total collective of the people and their government as expressed in their DEMOCRATIC form of government. Jefferson was very presient here.

I agree with Ron and we need to keep our society free from the church. We need to stop subsidizing church with tax deductible contributions which is nothing more than a government subsidy.

He also said each generation should revolt anew or have their own revolution. So how is poring over an old document the same as haing a new revolution. Does he contradict himself? Nancy how has Obama made on all out assault?

Taxation with representation now that is the answer. What J and Jim mean is that when there views are not ascendant or in the majority, there is no representation. All that the colonists really wanted was equality as Englishmen. Since the crown treated them unequally the cords of fidelity were cut. The US now has the lowest rate of taxation since the 1950's. The inequlity of income people is the largest in the industrialized world. Bush's attempt to return the nation to the Gilded Age of robber barons and corrupt politicians failed but will take years to correct.

True but only partly. The citizen should keep the government from falling into error proactively. Government is and should continue to be benign. In other words it should continue to arrest and incarcerate after the error is committed not before.

Madison clears up the dichotomy that some suffer under that "Ameica is a republic not a democracy". His definition of "Republic" is a government with "a scheme of representation....that differs from pure democracy". I agree wholeheartedly with his definition. America's government or republic iis a democraticaly elected representative one. It is not a pure democracy and it most definitely is not "a republic not a democracy" as some would have it.

We need a time out from knocking Judges. It sometimes seems like the politics of destruction is all that the quotes are about. How about some things that are constructive for a change.

You stated several posts ago that few people know of jury nullification, that is all.

People, societies, juries, nullify and/or defien "natural law" all of the time. In fact there is no such thing as natural law in the affairs of men. It only exists in nature, maybe that is why it is called natural. In the affairs of men we have "moral" law and that is subject to change and interpretation. Thus the Aztecs thought it moral and right to slave thousands in one day or daily as a sacrifice to their god. Morality fluctuates and is subject to change.

If Mike you think it is okay for a jury to nullify natural law why do you think it wrong for Congress or the statist authority to pass rules or laws that may be against natural law. In your value system you seem to place JURIES as somehow being morally superior to LEGISLATORS.

Great and as it should be and apparently has been for 750 years, Mike is the only one that thinks no one knows this, problably because he just discovered it recently and like all naive people he thought he was the FIRST one to know it.

Dear Mike, in your philosophic system (if I may call it that) how can LAWS, natural laws that is, ever be on trial. Would it not be simply your RULES that would be subject to this "being on trial". I give it a five and trust in humanity to know what laws and/or rules are best for their societies. I don't think one has existed that allowed for wontant murder for example, all "statist" societies develop sufficient resorces to combat such things.

I want to give it a five but a thumbs down instead to get Mike's attention. This has gone on now for 750 years, 148 years since Sponner said this. Mike discovered this principile recently and thinks only he knows about it. His looking down his nose at every one else is just symtomatic of the small little cloistered, naive and ignorant world in which he lives. You make an interesting post Norine. Mike believes in absolute law in some cases and relativistic law in other cases. When he agrees with a statute he calls it a LAW and something that should be obeyed, when he disagrees with a statute he calls it a RULE and something that can be ignored.. The only thing constant is Mikes willifullness egotism to self designate what statutes are LAWS to be obeyed and what are RULES to be ignored.

Law or as you would have it rules are for the bad hunters and the bad people. They also create a level playing field so that man is not pitted against man but all men honor the same rules. Rules which by the way you always seem to be against. Grow up Mike, just grow up!

Once you get a real life and stop quibbling about the word law and/or rule, write some more.

Too simplistic. I am thrilled that folk fear the consequences of traffic violations, polluting and littering. Public policy enforced by government give us cleaner streams, good management of forests and wild life. Left to our own devices and schemes the deer herds would have disappered 50 years ago. Individulas need to work together (thus public policy) to manage and protect limited resources be they natural, polictical, or economic. In a democracy when the government (that is us) fear the few that is licentiousness, when the few fear the governments (law) that is the beginning of WISDOM. I love Tom but this simple quote is certainly not representative of his entire body of thought.

Oh contrare my dear Mike! You over the years have oft spoke of your hatred for laws that tell you on which side of the road to drive, dislike for signs that tell you that you must stop at an intersection. You have often expressed disdain for police and law enforcement and of the agencies involved, the so called alphabet soup. This quote describes your licentious anti-liberty stance to a tea. I agree that your stance is disgraceful, and only popular on this site (why it is so is beyond me). and that everyone and government should restain your licentiousness and make it difficult.

Today's quotes are okay but they fail to recognize the rights of these individuals to organize. Just as a "capitalist" can throw his money around and organize things to suit his interest, humanity can orgazize things via labor uinions, political acition committes etc to to suit their interests. So if capital is against envrironmental conercers for example, people can counter capital via the vote etcetera.

I am sure that your neighbors talking over the fence out of hearing is a secret meeting to you Archer and I am sure you would think they are conspiring. In the Holiday song the words are "later on we'll conspire, as we sit by the fire". I am sure rcher always hears this song and cringes about the conspiracy thing. I mean get a life. It is true that folk have agenda's or mind sets that we may not know about. Our country was much more egalitarian or middle class in the '40's and '50's today that are more rich and money at the top and it is headed to get more that way. A creeping aristocracy can be seen gaining sway over the next few decades. The opposite fear is of socialism. Both of these agenda's creep up on us and life in these United States becomes changed without us hardly knowing it. But just because we don't know it or constanly study these trends and things does not mean it is a conspiracy. The Sons of Liberty were a secret society only to the British, not of course to true patriots.

We need to have a broad commonality in the body politic based on love and respect for the republic and its Constitution and the founding documents. Secret societies are okay until they do something sinister or illegal. To be secretive and to be private are a little bit of the same thing, and privacy is also an important right. The quotes today are fodder for the conspiracy theorists. Most secret societies like the Masons are open to anyone wanting to join. Once you join you know the secret. They only claim to be secret to intice membership.