ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, December 05, 2012

We're number 19!

John Hawkins has Vox Popoli at #19 on his list of top 60 conservative blogs.  I think that's pretty good for a libertarian who is only slightly more conservative than Vladimir Lenin crossed with Alaric the Visigoth.

In potentially related news, I'm going to be appearing on The Thom Hartmann Program at 4 PM Eastern to discuss the secession movement inside and outside the USA.  This has the potential to be a bit more interesting than usual because apparently it is a left-leaning program.  You can listen live via stream at www.thomhartmann.com.

Labels:

116 Comments:

Anonymous Move Zig December 05, 2012 10:56 AM  

What...Alaric was good and thoughtful man.

Anonymous paradox December 05, 2012 11:17 AM  

There are left-wing secessionists too. Thomas Naylor is one.

Anonymous CS December 05, 2012 11:18 AM  

Tom Hartman is a favorite among the liberals I know. He's written a bunch of books. Could be interesting.

Anonymous Godfrey December 05, 2012 11:26 AM  

Please remember, it’s “self-determination”, not secession.

Anonymous Susan December 05, 2012 11:45 AM  

Try and get us a count of the liberal corks your interview causes to blow. Should be fun!

And congrats on the blog listing!!! Whooohooo #19, yesssirrreee!!!

Anonymous zen0 December 05, 2012 12:09 PM  

The show had a poll on the 13th about whether Texas should be allowed to secede. The choices were ;

YES! Congress should let them go...good riddance!...17%
Or
YES! But they have to take Bush, Perry & Ron Paul....83%

Sample comment:

I could go on, but let's be honest, maybe ole Abe didn't do such a good thing. If he had extracated the blacks and let the confederacy go, I contend we would have been and would be, better off. As the famous Texan Ron White says "you can't fix stupid" he ought to know!


http://www.thomhartmann.com/polls/2012/11/should-congress-allow-texas-secede-nation

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein December 05, 2012 12:11 PM  

Please remember, it’s “self-determination”, not secession.

Yeah.... the Woodrow Wilson quotes will probably find a more receptive audience than the John C. Calhoun quotes.

Anonymous flogging flapjacks December 05, 2012 12:23 PM  

I just heard once again about the UN's proposed regulation of the internet. That put me in a dark mood.

This blog entry put me back on an even keel.

Anonymous bw December 05, 2012 12:24 PM  

If he had extracated the blacks and let the confederacy go

There is no single group of people more ignorant of history and numbers and the like than religious fundamentalist Marxist Utopians, who in their self-loathing consistently love their Coercive dictators.

'If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side' - U S Grant

Blogger Bob December 05, 2012 12:25 PM  

Grats.

But I don't think too mnany folks give a damn whether you are Conservative, or Libertarian, pro Vulcan, or whatever.

I think your rising position on the charts is because you tell the truth as you see it, almost always based solidly on the realities of any given situation.

People want the truth. You generally give it to them in large - sometimes hard to digest - doses.

Anonymous jack December 05, 2012 12:25 PM  

I will try and listen in. Hope there will be a downloadable file on it....

OpenID foxmarks December 05, 2012 12:30 PM  

Hartmann self-describes as a democratic socialist. He likes to have guests who he can use to launch into his catalog of Progressive talking points. People who don’t fit the bifactional paradigm confuse him. His stereotype of libertarians is particularly comical.

I hope Vox is permitted to complete a thought.

Anonymous bw December 05, 2012 12:49 PM  

“I would not if I could abolish or modify slavery. . . . Negros (sic) in the great numbers that exist here must of necessity be slaves.”

To his wife, he wrote, “Like Burton in ‘Toodles’ I say, ‘Damn the niggers.’

When told "They can stop a bullet as well as a white man" he responded "a sand bag is better".

"A nigger as such is a most excellent fellow, but he is not fit to marry, to associate, or vote with me or mine."

WILLIAM T SHERMAN


Anonymous Tad December 05, 2012 12:54 PM  

@Vox Day

In potentially related news, I'm going to be appearing on The Thom Hartmann Program at 4 PM Eastern to discuss the secession movement inside and outside the USA.

Oh, please, please endorse it and explain how it is a real possibility. Please!! Only that will make it really fun to listen to.

Anonymous Edjamacator December 05, 2012 1:04 PM  

Oh, please, please endorse it and explain how it is a real possibility. Please!! Only that will make it really fun to listen to.

Wow, whodathunk you were a masochist.

Anonymous bw December 05, 2012 1:05 PM  

These Marxists like Hartmann base their entire world view on an APPEAL TO EMOTION and a superior MORALITY.
I hope VD follows his own playbook and, in addition to facts, one-ups him on the appeal to MORALITY and EMOTION.
An intellectual approach will be lost on the host as well as the audience. Their entire Belief system in the Coercive power of the State is based on emotion and a (phony) moral belief system. History and Numbers be damned.

Why, Mr Hartmann, do you believe that my life, labor and property - through which your entire world view survives, is any of your business? I do not believe what you make/don't make of your life in your free choice and human action is any of mine. People are nothing more than victims of their own irresponsible choices, seeking desperately to avoid any negative consequence for those freely chosen actions/inactions. How are you helping another human being by assuming one man cannot do what another can do? Why do you believe people of a certain Color or Gender are unequal?

Anonymous cheddarman December 05, 2012 1:18 PM  

Vox,

I would beg to differ with your assertion that you are not a conservative. I think you are a conservative in the true sense of the word, as you would like to preserve and strenghten the foundations of western civilization including but not limited to: the family and historical roles (within Christendom) for men and women in society, the Church, property rights and honest money.

sincerely

cheddarman

Anonymous Mountain man December 05, 2012 1:25 PM  

I saw a part of Hartmann's show once. I made it a full ten minutes before I shut it off in disgust. In that time he managed to offer every single leftist bumper sticker slogan in existence. He probably has an IQ slightly above room temperature, but because he wears glasses he has the imperious countenance of an intellectual.

I doubt Vox will get a word in edgewise.

Anonymous Kickass December 05, 2012 1:29 PM  

Are you being set up?

It would be dissapointing if the AWCA hides away.

Blogger Michael December 05, 2012 1:56 PM  

@VD: "... than Vladimir Lenin crossed with Alaric the Visigoth."

I wonder if even The Great Google could tell me what this is supposed to mean.

If I weren't so lazy I'd go ask it.

Anonymous Mr. B.A.D. December 05, 2012 2:51 PM  

Alaric was cool

Blogger James Dixon December 05, 2012 2:54 PM  

> I wonder if even The Great Google could tell me what this is supposed to mean.

I bet you'd have better luck than Tad did finding a simple quote from Obama.

Blogger IM2L844 December 05, 2012 2:58 PM  

I doubt Vox will get a word in edgewise.

That's okay. Vox is fairly proficient at efficiently packing a lot of information and meaning into a succinct comment, but the problem with that is that the bulk of the significance contained in such comments is typically lost on and/or glossed over by left leaning "progressives" like Hartmann and his regular audience.

Anonymous zen0 December 05, 2012 3:03 PM  

I saw a part of Hartmann's show once. I made it a full ten minutes before I shut it off in disgust. In that time he managed to offer every single leftist bumper sticker slogan in existence.

Must be where Tad gets his "thoughts" from.

The segment following Vox's is about everyone's right to vote. That might have offered more opportunities for regular listener's heads to explode.

Anonymous Darren H December 05, 2012 3:14 PM  

I like Hartmann. He is down with the whole "Fair trade", not Free Trade angle, like you and Ian Fletcher. He is rare among progressive/liberals for that stance. One of the very few.

Anonymous JohnS December 05, 2012 3:32 PM  

just copied the mp3 stream link into winamp... this looks like it'll be intertaining.

Anonymous JohnS December 05, 2012 3:33 PM  

oops, make that "entertaining"

Anonymous anon123 December 05, 2012 3:55 PM  

Started listening to the stream. A Left-leaning program?And more. I'm not sure I'll last the entire interview. This guy is a foamer.

Anonymous Megabozz December 05, 2012 4:16 PM  

Did he really just say your argument was invalid because you don't live in the U.S. anymore?

Anonymous Hood\ December 05, 2012 4:17 PM  

Good thoughts, I was hoping for more though.

Anonymous VD December 05, 2012 4:19 PM  

I think he was prepared for some conventional Republican arguments and didn't really know what to do with the libertarian perspective. I mean, if Texas wants to shoot themselves in the foot, if whatever you call people from Delaware want to live in mud huts and use leaves as their currency, why would we stop them?

Anonymous Darren H December 05, 2012 4:21 PM  

Good interview, but short. I wish we would have had you on longer, and had more questions for you. I'll admit that you do better interviews than Hartmann does. He probably thinks you are crazy, but he was respectful enough. I'm sure Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow would have been foaming at the mouth.

Anonymous Cheddarman December 05, 2012 4:22 PM  

Hartmann was uncomfortable with the idea of states leaving the U.S. He also seems to believe that economic prosperity flows from the mammary glands of big government.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation (Ben) December 05, 2012 4:23 PM  

A caller is suggesting that letting red states secede is a way to solve the deficit problem.

Is that true?

Blogger JDC December 05, 2012 4:24 PM  

But what would we ever do without a federal infrastructure! We didn't build it after all - and by implication, cannot sustain it without our government.

Anonymous whtbread December 05, 2012 4:25 PM  

That was a short exchange even by radio standards. VD obviously had arguments that he wasn't prepared for but there is no hope in getting through to lefties like Thom. I was hoping Vox would have a chance to blow apart the red state/welfare state talking point but it seems Thom is too much a coward to go for two segments.

Anonymous Hood December 05, 2012 4:25 PM  

I think he was prepared for some conventional Republican arguments and didn't really know what to do with the libertarian perspective. I mean, if Texas wants to shoot themselves in the foot, if whatever you call people from Delaware want to live in mud huts and use leaves as their currency, why would we stop them?

We don't, we care about the slaves -- Honest Abe

Anonymous Tad December 05, 2012 4:28 PM  

Vox Day: "The Constitution has nothing to do with the operation of the states"

Really? The state legislatures would ask, then, why they can't regulate commerce that impacts other states. They would ask about the 18th Amendment and the 21st Amendment. They would ask about 14th Amendment and the Bill of rights.

Also, Vox Day, get some media training if you plan on more appearances.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation (Ben) December 05, 2012 4:29 PM  

Apparently, Thom thinks that Vox is a voice of the republican party.

Now he's asking if secession is a form of treason.

Anonymous bw December 05, 2012 4:34 PM  

After VD leaves: "ObamaCare is going to make the HealthCare sytem more efficient and InExpensive".

Did he really just say your argument was invalid because you don't live in the U.S. anymore?

Of course he did. Because all Statists ignore the most basic of questions: What does it really man to be human? How should I affect my neighbor and they me? Why is the State in hisory a lying, murdering, thieving entity that you believe in? Why support the worst in human nature? Why do you believe dark-skinned people and women as inferior, thus needing special advantages through coercive law?

It is the Economic/Money front that VD should've hammered him on though. It is actually the most Federal Dependent States that should secede first. It is those people, who have freely chosen and been convinced to believe government lies that will suffer the most pain. Suffering exactly because they are parasites - like Thom.
He asserted "the Federal tit argument". Fail.
"No problem with cutting some Defense spending (after VD left) yet Texas would suffer with Federal Military base closures (para.)"
Utopians are walking contradictions, who believe in the lying, murderous, bankrupt State to relieve them of the sonsequences of their free choices and false beliefs. They are anti-human, and hate Nature and freedom and liberty, and everything else beyond their control. And Children.
They are the very thing they claim to hate.






Blogger Bob December 05, 2012 4:38 PM  

When will people learn there is more than one United States? There are actually three legal definitions, each one consistitng of it's own unique properties and separate from the others.

Look it up.

Every State in the Constitutional Union can leave the "United States" the federal government exists in( along with a few territorities), and still be a nation united by the Constitution.

At least that's what I am told.

Anonymous VD December 05, 2012 4:42 PM  

I was hoping Vox would have a chance to blow apart the red state/welfare state talking point but it seems Thom is too much a coward to go for two segments.

I thought about it, but it's really irrelevant anyhow. Scotland is FAR more dependent upon England than Texas is upon Washington DC.

Really? The state legislatures would ask, then, why they can't regulate commerce that impacts other states. They would ask about the 18th Amendment and the 21st Amendment. They would ask about 14th Amendment and the Bill of rights.

You're totally missing the point. The fact that you agree to abide by rules of the club while you're in it doesn't mean that you can never leave the club. I would think that even you could grasp that concept, Tad. Just because you agree that three strikes means you're out when you're playing baseball doesn't mean you can't ever walk off the baseball field in the future.

Anonymous JohnS December 05, 2012 4:42 PM  

interesting debating style from Hartman: talk to ya for less than 10 min, then take a dump on your ideas for the next 45 min without you there...

Oh, you must register and get a password to join his chatroom too. I bet they don't delete anything not lefty manboob swpl approved...

He sure was hung up on you not living here, wasn't he? On the other hand, does this twat live in one of the (dream on...) would-be secession bound states? I guess they all signed petitions, but still.

Anonymous JohnS December 05, 2012 4:45 PM  

Heh, Hartman just admitted that "wow, there's a lot more to this issue than I thought!". Ya think? Duh.

Anonymous JohnS December 05, 2012 4:52 PM  

Any thoughts on Albert J. Nock's contention in Our Enemy The State, that The Constitution; far from deserving the reverence it gets from the average dolt who hasn't read it anyway, was actually a dastardly coup against the much more liberty friendly Articles of Confederation?

Anonymous mapper December 05, 2012 4:55 PM  

Thom Hartman, the Pompous Ass's pompous ass.

Blogger James Dixon December 05, 2012 4:56 PM  

> A caller is suggesting that letting red states secede is a way to solve the deficit problem. ... Is that true?

The think it is. which is all that matters to them. It's a fairly commonly stated leftist talking point.

> The state legislatures would ask, then, why they can't regulate commerce that impacts other states.

I see Tad likes to pretend that use taxes don't exist.

Anonymous mapper December 05, 2012 4:58 PM  

FUBAR Nation (Ben) December 05, 2012 4:29 PM

In their eyes, anyone not a wild-eyed left-librul is an eeeevil Republican.

Anonymous JohnS December 05, 2012 5:00 PM  

In any case, good job Vox. You seem to have stirred up at least a few decent callers that back secession.

Ha! Even this leftist is pushing gold in the commercials...

The end must be near.

Anonymous JohnS December 05, 2012 5:14 PM  

If the Ilk would like to cleanse their mental palate, tune into Liberty Radio Network for a more liberty friendly radio experience.

Anonymous Tad December 05, 2012 5:28 PM  

@james

I see Tad likes to pretend that use taxes don't exist.

Nor you the Dormant Commerce Clause....it's a fairly straightforward concept.

Anonymous Tad December 05, 2012 5:30 PM  

@VoxDay
Really? The state legislatures would ask, then, why they can't regulate commerce that impacts other states. They would ask about the 18th Amendment and the 21st Amendment. They would ask about 14th Amendment and the Bill of rights.

You're totally missing the point.


No, I got the point. I just thought your comment about the limits of the U.S. Constitution were interesting for what it demonstrated about your own limited understanding of the Constitution and Constitutional Law. Just something for me to keep in mind.

Blogger Spacebunny December 05, 2012 5:34 PM  

Aaaannnd. Tad attempts to move the goalposts again. *yawn*

FYI - Constitutional Law is not the Constitution you passive aggressive little girl. But of course your historical ignorance is fairly well documented on this forum.

Enlighten us dear, since you have tried to skate over it, is the UK united because England conquered Scotland?

Anonymous Tad December 05, 2012 5:48 PM  

@spacebunny



I don't know about the UK or Scotland. However, I do know my U.S. Constitutional law. Others clearly don't.

Blogger Spacebunny December 05, 2012 5:51 PM  

I don't know about the UK or Scotland. However, I do know my U.S. Constitutional law. Others clearly don't.

And yet you claimed to get the point. Yes dear, we are all laughing at you.

Anonymous Tad December 05, 2012 5:59 PM  

@Spacebunny

You aren't making any sense. I'm happy to discuss this issue of the constitution with you, but you'll have to go back and study the comments first.

Blogger Spacebunny December 05, 2012 6:02 PM  

Still missing the point.

Anonymous VD December 05, 2012 6:19 PM  

interesting debating style from Hartman: talk to ya for less than 10 min, then take a dump on your ideas for the next 45 min without you there...

Hey, his show, his deal. I have no problem with that. He was perfectly fair while I was on with him, which is more than I can say for some of the Republican radio hosts.

And as it happens, they sent an email afterwards and said they'd like to have me back on. I don't expect to convince everyone right away. I don't even expect most people to understand what I'm talking about right away. Look at poor little Tad spinning around and trying to climb on top of nothing. He doesn't even understand the topic at hand.

Anonymous Noah B. December 05, 2012 6:22 PM  

"However, I do know my U.S. Constitutional law."

Given your recent statements, you most certainly do not.

But here's a question: since the government freely skirts the Constitution and all other law whenever it wishes, why should anyone else continue to be bound by any part of it?

Anonymous Tad December 05, 2012 6:25 PM  

I don't even expect most people to understand what I'm talking about right away. Look at poor little Tad spinning around and trying to climb on top of nothing. He doesn't even understand the topic at hand.

Really? Come on. You made the most simplistic argument in the bag: Self Determination. Whoa....there's new idea. However, the call for self determinations in relation to this so-called "movement" offers no enlightenment until you shove it up against the experience, historic and legal, of the United States. Do that and you have a real conversation. So yes, I get your point, such as it was.

What I took exception to was your claim that the constitution doesn't speak to the rights of the states, which is pretty important idea when you are talking about secession, don't you think? Your claim that the Constitution doesn't layout what the states can do is so far off base it's necessary to question anything you claim that isn't backed up by facts.

Anonymous Tad December 05, 2012 6:27 PM  

@Noah

But here's a question: since the government freely skirts the Constitution and all other law whenever it wishes, why should anyone else continue to be bound by any part of it?

Well, it's sad to note that you don't understand that the constitution is not "freely" skirted. There are consequences when the government is challenged. Numerous laws and actions have and are overturned and deemed unconstitutional.

Blogger Spacebunny December 05, 2012 6:28 PM  

Really?

Yes. Really.

Anonymous Noah B. December 05, 2012 6:39 PM  

"Well, it's sad to note that you don't understand that the constitution is not "freely" skirted. There are consequences when the government is challenged."

It's like I'm talking to Baghdad Bob here. What were the consequences for Waco, Fast&Furious, and the assassination of al-Awlaki? What were the consequences to the Obama regime for openly accepting campaign donations from non-US citizens? What were the consequences to the regime for blatantly giving away billions of dollars to its cronies in the green energy sector? What were the consequences to the Bush regime for setting up a comprehensive NSA intelligence collection system to monitor virtually all digital data transmitted within the United States? Are you so hopelessly stupid as to think that any of these things were constitutional?

In most cases, the government no longer makes even the flimsiest of attempts to justify its blatantly criminal behavior. They just do whatever they think they can get away with.

Anonymous DG December 05, 2012 7:27 PM  

Vox, why didn't you bother to correct Thom's Latin?

Anonymous JohnS December 05, 2012 7:34 PM  

Speaking of government criminal behavior:
NSA Whistleblower speaks

Go ahead and tell us how it's for our own good Tad...

Anonymous Roundtine December 05, 2012 7:41 PM  

A caller is suggesting that letting red states secede is a way to solve the deficit problem.

Is that true?


Yes, it's true. The Red States are actually draining the U.S. Treasury, and if there were some way to get rid of them, the deficit would solve itself! And that's not even counting the fact that they could then make Paul Krugman the head of the Federal Reserve. Red state inbred racist redneck hicks with guns are responsible for the deficit. Please pass this on to all your blue state friends.

Anonymous Godfrey December 05, 2012 7:46 PM  

Agreed! The evil horrible Redneck states are responsible for ALL the evil in the world... no... they're responsible for all the evil in the universe. So please kick them out of the USA! If that happened, we'd have a wonderful equalitarian utopia in the Blue States!

Kick them out now!

Anonymous stg58 December 05, 2012 7:50 PM  

"Nor you the Dormant Commerce Clause....it's a fairly straightforward concept."

Is the current interpretation the same as in 1789? It seems nowadays to really be a carte blanche grant to Congress to use ut any way they want to.

Seems like with all rhe enumerated rights talk prevalent during the framing the FF would not put such an open ended credit card in the otherwise clearly enumerated powers found in Article 1, Section 8.

Anonymous stg58 December 05, 2012 7:50 PM  

"Nor you the Dormant Commerce Clause....it's a fairly straightforward concept."

Is the current interpretation the same as in 1789? It seems nowadays to really be a carte blanche grant to Congress to use ut any way they want to.

Seems like with all rhe enumerated rights talk prevalent during the framing the FF would not put such an open ended credit card in the otherwise clearly enumerated powers found in Article 1, Section 8.

Anonymous Mothman December 05, 2012 8:32 PM  

Hello, number 19.

Blogger James Dixon December 05, 2012 8:35 PM  

> Nor you the Dormant Commerce Clause....it's a fairly straightforward concept.

As you've said about others in the past, Tad: You have no idea what you're talking about.

> I just thought your comment about the limits of the U.S. Constitution were interesting for what it demonstrated about your own limited understanding of the Constitution and Constitutional Law.

Your thinking something doesn't make it true, Tad.

> However, I do know my U.S. Constitutional law.

To date, there's been precious little evidence that's the case.

> Well, it's sad to note that you don't understand that the constitution is not "freely" skirted.

And you proceed to make my point for me.

We're still waiting to hear if you've figured out how to use Google, Tad.

Anonymous Tad December 05, 2012 9:00 PM  

@stg58

"Nor you the Dormant Commerce Clause....it's a fairly straightforward concept."

Is the current interpretation the same as in 1789? It seems nowadays to really be a carte blanche grant to Congress to use ut any way they want to.


Justice Marshall first explained the notion of the "Dormant Commerce Clause in 1824 in connection with the operations of the Commerce Clause. It's not a new interpretation of federal restrictions on state action.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein December 05, 2012 9:01 PM  

@ Tad
RE: Skirting the Constitution

*My* representative, Jim Clyburn (D-SC) begs to differ:

 ‘There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.’ 

Admittedly, he doesn't often speak the truth, but he did in this instance.

Oh, and Tad..... this was his response to a question about the constitutionality of Obamacare.

Bazinga!

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein December 05, 2012 9:08 PM  

A caller is suggesting that letting red states secede is a way to solve the deficit problem.

I, for one, welcome...nay, relish the thought of being tossed in that briar patch.

Anonymous Tad December 05, 2012 9:14 PM  

@Toronto

I point you to the "necessary and proper" clause and the commerce clause...just to begin with. Now go read.

Anonymous Sexual Chocolate Imperion December 05, 2012 9:33 PM  

However, I do know my U.S. Constitutional law.

Really now! tadpole, this is going to be far too much fun. I have devoured other individuals of far more acumen. More recently, Sean Stone (yes, Oliver's son). And, I did such consumption in a most congenial and compassionate manner, on a far more esoteric subject.

Let's begin, by explaining to all us plebes, Article I, Section X. Whose was it's author. Then as a bonus, explain to us the significance of his treatise, A Caveat Against Injustice, the source of the Constitutional instrument, and how an economic system relates to law enforcement. This is so easy...

We are as so eagerly waiting with delectable baited breath...


P.S. I could go the direction of quizzing you on Art Militaire Des Chinois, Ou Recueil, D'anciens Traites Sur La Guerre, Compofes Avant L'ere Chretienne, Par Differnents Generaux Chinois (aka L'Art de la guerre) but I don't want to be too cruel, at this point in time. [1]



---------
[1] To those of interest. Understanding this, is to understand the formulation of the Document of 1787, and formulation of this nation, of which the soil, on most of us stand.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein December 05, 2012 9:43 PM  

@ Sexual Chocolate

I' m on your side here, but....

It's bated breath. Dammit!
As in "abated".

Apologies again for going full Shellie Cooper on you, but it's, like, my biggest pet peeve. (Well that and misuse of rein/reign.)

Please carry on, sir.

Anonymous cynical December 05, 2012 9:44 PM  

No downloadable audio for the radio show appearance (paywall), but I found it as streaming video here.

Vox's segment starts at about 1:09:20.

Anonymous stg58 December 05, 2012 9:48 PM  

Well, John Damned Marsall also came up with the idea that he and his black robed oligarchy would tell us what the Constitution means. That idea has worked out very well.

Did John Marshall envision a future where Congress does anything it pleases, as long as it drapes the Commerce Clause over it? That interpretation flies directly in the face of the concept of enumerated powers, which was devised by the Founders themselves.

" The powers delegated to the Federal Govermmeny are few and finite, while the powers retained by the states are many..."

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein December 05, 2012 9:49 PM  

Hello, number 19.

"Hey, 19..."

The name's TontoBubbaGoldstien, but my friends call me....


....



......


*wait for it*


......


Deacon Blues.

Anonymous Tad December 05, 2012 9:56 PM  

@Sexual Chocolate

You really want to discuss Sherman's hard-on for gold and silver and his distrust of paper money? Why not simply wait for Vox Day to write another glowing entry on the Austrian school of economics and bring it up then?

Anonymous Tad December 05, 2012 9:58 PM  

@STG58

The powers may be few, but the idea that it's the federal govt. that has the power to regulate commerce between the states, and the states do not, isn't really controversial. In fact, the trade wars between the states under the Articles of Confederation was the primary reason for devising a Constitutional Convention. So don't hold it against Marshall for pointing out the obvious.

Anonymous Roundtine December 05, 2012 10:54 PM  

Just listened to the interview. I think Vox's wording of the Constitution question wasn't clear at first, but the discussion moved on before he could fully clarify. If I understand correctly, the point is that the Constitution is a document concerning the federal government and doesn't concern the states as sovereigns. It's like what is happening in the EU: they didn't write rules or laws for what happens if a country leaves the eurozone. Although the historic relationship has shifted in practice, fundamentally the 50 states have the same sovereign status as Greece.

Also, I thought it was funny when Hartmann was going on about Scotland being conquered. Then Vox pointed out the union was voluntary. But also, by his own logic, the South has a historic justification for secession.

Blogger IM2L844 December 05, 2012 11:00 PM  

Tad, why you mysteriously continue to double down on on your what you think Vox was or should be talking about rather than what he actually said, is beyond me. The internal affairs (operation) of the states is not so inextricably intertwined with commerce between the states as to be considered one and the same thing.

Blogger James Higham December 05, 2012 11:17 PM  

Well done, lad.

Anonymous kh123 December 05, 2012 11:25 PM  

"let's be honest, maybe ole Abe didn't do such a good thing. If he had extracated the blacks and let the confederacy go, I contend we would have been and would be, better off."

And why not; Cops is fairly boring to watch on television only.

Although I'm a little surprised above commentator didn't ascribe Lincoln the power to instantly rapture the disenfranchised onto his estate, turn copper into gold, or of asking Daniel Day Lewis to feel the hole in his head so as to believe.

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick December 05, 2012 11:58 PM  

@Tad

In the memory of the late JQP...

You are an asshole and I am drunk but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be an asshole.

Anonymous kh123 December 06, 2012 12:55 AM  

I'm hoping "late" is literary rather than literal here.

Anonymous Anonymous December 06, 2012 12:59 AM  

Here it is:

http://southernnationalist.com/blog/2012/12/05/upcoming-snn-interview-on-thom-hartmann-program/

Anonymous Anonymous December 06, 2012 1:00 AM  

That is the interview above

Blogger Ghost December 06, 2012 3:06 AM  

This list from last year is where I first heard of you from. I've been reading your blogs and getting smarter for a year now.

Anonymous Sexual Chocolate December 06, 2012 3:37 AM  

@TontoBubbaGoldstein December 05, 2012 9:43 PM

baited

Deliberately annoy or taunt (someone)

No, I knew exactly what I was doing.



@tadpole December 05, 2012 9:56 PM

Because the question was to you, and your glorious acumen on the Constitution, not Vox. Article I, Section X is so key to a sound economy. All the founders (excluding Hamilton and Morris) understood that. The ancients understood this as well. If any other alternative monetary policy is so valid and moral, then why has this section not been properly amended? The proper procedure is amendment by Congress, and ratification by the states. Not clandestine shenanigans by the banking elites.

Now for your insolence, I'm calling you on L'Art de la guerre and its poignant footnote. PUSU tadpole. The niceties are over with you...

Anonymous stg58 December 06, 2012 4:40 AM  

@STG58

The powers may be few, but the idea that it's the federal govt. that has the power to regulate commerce between the states, and the states do not, isn't really controversial. In fact, the trade wars between the states under the Articles of Confederation was the primary reason for devising a Constitutional Convention. So don't hold it against Marshall for pointing out the obvious.


Tad,

Preventing trade wars between the states, which is an appropriate use of the Commerce clause, is a far cry from the federal government telling us how much water our toilets will use, what technology will be used to construct light bulbs, making us buy health insurance, etc. What did the word "regulate" mean in 1789? It meant to "make regular" or in proper operation, not control and micromanage.

Preventing tariffs, duties and imposts between Texas and New York is what the Commerce Clause is intended for. Telling me I have to use mercury bombs in my house is not.

Anonymous FP December 06, 2012 5:25 AM  

youtube version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_TSgwjtRRI

Thanks for the laugh Vox. This guy is a maroon.

Blogger James Dixon December 06, 2012 5:55 AM  

> but the idea that it's the federal govt. that has the power to regulate commerce between the states, and the states do not, isn't really controversial.

No, it isn't. So, again, explain use taxes Tad. Or could it be that the various interpretations aren't as clear as you like to think?

And of course for those like Tad, the commerce clause is so absolute and all encompassing, but a simple English phrase "Congress shall make no law" is so hard to interpret and so filled with nuance.


Anonymous the abe December 06, 2012 6:54 AM  

Thank you FP for posting the link. I've been listening to this midwit tit's replay and hoping to catch the Vox. I was just about to give up hope.

Anonymous JP (real one) December 06, 2012 7:28 AM  

"A caller is suggesting that letting red states secede is a way to solve the deficit problem."

Here's what would actually happen. Red states secede and either fully or partially rid themselves of the welfare (read: handout) system. Huge droves of folks from inner city Memphis/Atlanta, certain Mississippi Delta towns and housing projects everywhere head off into the wild "Blue" yonder. Now they're the problem of snooty welfare apologists from places like MA. Buffet, Oprah, Gates and other billionaire liberals can only handle 90% tax rates for so long before they leave the country.

Seriously, whenever I hear how bad/backwards the South is (education, obesity, poverty, etc.), how come no one ever breaks it down by race and voting preferences? Yes, there are some white "trailer trash" folks who also live on food stamps, SSI, etc. unashamedly. But they aren't the ones calling for secession.

Anonymous Toby Temple December 06, 2012 7:36 AM  

Thom knew he could not argue against Vox's positions effectively. So he raised the "it will affect current US social programs" card. It also shows that he knew Vox was right on just about everything he said.

Blogger IM2L844 December 06, 2012 8:19 AM  

just a couple of points before this thread completely dies.

Baited: lure, entice, or entrap with bait.

That works, in a poetic sense, as well.

Tonto, maybe Sexual Chocolate was just hoping for a kiss. Did you think of that?

As for compromise, it's baked into haggling and jockeying for position, but one should never compromise their basic principles for profit as that speaks to one's personal integrity.

Sadly, a lack of personal integrity is commonplace in Washington. Compromise is what politicians always pretend that they want the other side to do more of, but, in the end, both sides are always willing to trade integrity for more money or power.

Deadlock isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm perfectly happy with a "do nothing" congress. I say, let's all just hold hands and fly off that cliff like Thelma and Louise. See ya on the other side.

Anonymous Tad December 06, 2012 11:02 AM  

@STG58

What did the word "regulate" mean in 1789? It meant to "make regular" or in proper operation, not control and micromanage.

You hit upon what is for me one of the most interesting aspects of constitutional interpretation. The issue of the meaning of words and the spirit of the text.

I see your point with regard to the word "regulate". The question is can you, 200 years later, adopted a semantically literal interpretation of the Constitution. For example, in 1787 "Arms" could not have referred to the kind of automatic weapons we have today for obvious technical reasons. The same can be said for "speech" and the "internet".

Anonymous JP (real one) December 06, 2012 11:19 AM  

Horrible analogy. In 1789, citizens could band together and use the "arms" of their day to fight against a military force--foreign or domestic. Today, the arms that a citizen can legally own are nowhere near enough to fight a modern army. Of course, if you were consistent, you'd say that citizens should be able to own tanks, fighter jets and nukes..to capture the " spirit of the text." But I certainly don't expect clear thinking or consistency from an Obamabot.

Anonymous stg58 December 06, 2012 12:16 PM  

@Tad,

The founders definitely anticipated technology advancing beyond their ability to conceive of it. They didn't tell us we had a right to bear muskets. Also, arms is a catch all terms for small arms and other weapons. Some of The artillery used in the AmRev was privately owned, so we do have a precedent for civilian ownership of heavy military weapons. Tench Coxe said that the rifle and every other terrible implement of war is the birthright of the citizen.

Here we go again with you taking either the expansive or myopic view, depending on your prejudices.

Anonymous Noah B. December 06, 2012 2:45 PM  

"The question is can you, 200 years later, adopted a semantically literal interpretation of the Constitution."

Technology has advanced, but the meanings of the underlying words are essentially the same. "Arms" still refers to modern implements of warfare. "Speech" still refers to communication by the individual. But just as the right to keep and bear arms hasn't morphed into the right to commit murder, the power to regulate interstate commerce has not legitimately become an excuse to grant government control over every minute aspect of commerce.

Anonymous Tad December 06, 2012 3:05 PM  

@STG58

My view of the commerce clause is in line with what it has always been: The feds have the right to regulate commerce. This notion that they have the right to "Make regular" commerce isn't born out by the meaning of the phrase used when the founders wrote the constitution, as you suggest.

Anonymous stg58 December 06, 2012 3:44 PM  

I am taking the meaning of the phrase from the prevalent definition at the time those words were written. Also, from your own words, preventing an interstate trade war would involve making trade regular.

If that isn't the meaning in use at the time, what was it?

Anonymous stg58 December 06, 2012 3:44 PM  

I am taking the meaning of the phrase from the prevalent definition at the time those words were written. Also, from your own words, preventing an interstate trade war would involve making trade regular.

If that isn't the meaning in use at the time, what was it?

Anonymous Noah B. December 06, 2012 4:05 PM  

"This notion that they have the right to "Make regular" commerce isn't born out by the meaning of the phrase used when the founders wrote the constitution, as you suggest."

Wrong again. Not only does the meaning of the word "regulate" circa 1787 support stg58's description of the Framers' intent, the historical record supports him, too. Prior to the Progressive Era, the federal government didn't prohibit entire categories of trade across state boundaries; it worked to ensure free trade. FDR's unprecedented expansion of government based on the commerce clause is well known among those who actually understand Constitutional law.

Anonymous stg58 December 06, 2012 4:12 PM  

Wickard v Filburn was the main departure point from the founders' intent. Tad, things have not always been as they are now.

Anonymous stg58 December 06, 2012 4:12 PM  

Wickard v Filburn was the main departure point from the founders' intent. Tad, things have not always been as they are now.

Anonymous Noah B. December 06, 2012 4:18 PM  

I couldn't remember the name of the case, stg58, but that's the one I was thinking of and you're exactly right.

Anonymous Tad December 06, 2012 4:35 PM  

I am taking the meaning of the phrase from the prevalent definition at the time those words were written

Show me where that's the case.

Anonymous stg58 December 06, 2012 4:38 PM  

No worries, Noah B. I am one of the founders of the most pro-Constitution groups out there. Talking to Tad is like mowing the lawn. I gotta know my stuff.

Anonymous kh123 December 06, 2012 5:00 PM  

It's an interesting day to actually observe a specimen Uniformitarian when it comes to historical political interpretation. Little surprise that it morphs into a socialist revolutionary when it comes to implementation.

Anonymous JD December 06, 2012 5:35 PM  

In the memory of the late JQP...

JQP is dead??

I didn't even know he was sick...

Anonymous kh123 December 06, 2012 5:43 PM  

That's what I was saying. What happened?

Anonymous Toby Temple December 07, 2012 12:17 AM  

From what I can recall, it was not JQP who died. It was Bane who died.

I think JQP left this blog to focus on something else.

But do correct me if I'm wrong about this.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts