Back in the 60's and 70's, this term generally referred to the government. As history repeats itself again, it once again refers to the government we have. I'll cite a couple of examples here.
If you think things like REAL ID for driver's licenses and E-Verify for employment are great ideas to combat terrorism and illegal immigration, then you're likely an establishment Republican. Perhaps the first question you ask a candidate is their party affiliation, not where they stand on something like states rights. You see the need to "make us safer" through the force of government. It's OK to expand the federal government to accomplish these goals.
If you think things like mandated health insurance is a great idea to combat the lack of health insurance for people in the USA, then you're likely an establishment Democrat. Perhaps the first question you ask a candidate is their party affiliation, not where they stand on something like states rights. You see the need to "ensure the welfare" of the individual (not the nation) through the force of government. It's OK to expand the federal government to accomplish these goals.
What all of these federal programs and laws have in common is that they are unconstitutional at the federal level. See Article 1 Section 8 (A1 S8) of the Constitution as well as the 10th Amendment. Specifically, states- and only states- have the power to decide what if any process will be used to determine if a driver's license is needed or what the procedure will be to get one. E-Verify is a federal program to verify employment eligibility. It is not an immigration or naturalization function as authorized to Congress under A1 S8. The federal government cannot legally operate a pass/fail system to obtain employment in the non-federal sector, and this is what E-Verify does. Finally, the federal mandate of the purchase of health insurance is not authorized under A1 S8 and the federal government being allowed to force you to buy anything is unconstitutional as well as being a really bad idea. Suppose you were compelled to buy a certain brand of vehicle (due to government bailouts for the automaker)?
Not surprising at all then is that in recent election news, Mitt Romney is considered by many as the only path to Republican victory in 2012 against President Obama. President Obama will see no viable primary contender from the Democrats.
As I have observed here in the past, we must look at where we've been to see where we are going. What did the establishment of the 60's and 70's give us? A few things include:
- Increasing federal regulations on things such as automobiles.
- The federal departments of education, environmental protection, and energy.
As for the first one, thousands of people die on our highways each year. We will never build a "safe" automobile if you define safety as the inability to be injured or killed while operating it. Somewhere in the 90's we reached a good point between anti-lock brakes and airbags.
As for the others, ask how well our education system is doing? Ditto the environment, and the price of a gallon of gas- which is no longer 100% gasoline, since nearly all gas sold is 10% ethanol, a highly corrosive substance that does more harm than good.
In the 60's and 70's, many of those opposed to the establishment were considered hippies or outside the mainstream of society. One person in the 70's that was opposed to the establishment was no hippie, and is considered by fewer and fewer to be outside the mainstream of society for what he says. That person is Ron Paul.
Dr. Paul has a plan for fiscal responsibility (real cuts to the bloated federal budget), limiting the federal government to it's constitutional limits (which will help to maintain fiscal responsibility) , and supports free markets. In a free market, the federal government does not make you buy anything. In a constitutionally-limited government, the government does not make you obtain federal identification or seek their blessing just to get a job. In a federal government that employs fiscal responsibility the need for an income tax would eventually go away. Unlike the other two, Dr. Paul also has a record of not acting outside of the Constitution. Mr. Obama did so when he signed the federal mandate into law, and Mr. Romney will do so (at least as of today, check again tomorrow after the new poll comes out) based upon his actions as an elected official.
If you dislike Ron Paul's stance on some issues such as drug laws, since his position is that it is a state issue, then you should equally dislike Mitt Romney's stance on mandatory health insurance. Mitt Romney used the power of Governor to force the people of Massachusetts to buy health insurance. What's the big difference here? Ron Paul would not make you purchase drugs, even if it was legal. Mitt Romney (and Barack Obama) would make you purchase health insurance.
Incidentally, if you've never read anything I've written, please understand I still do not support illegal immigration. E-Verify and REAL ID do not do anything but cause more headaches for those that try to comply with the law, while those that do not go about their business underground or by stealing a "clean" identity (maybe yours!). We would be far better off verifying tax dollar expenditures to those receiving them (i.e. Medicaid) than to try and force everyone to prove their citizenship in a blanket style such as with REAL ID and E-Verify.
We have a choice to make. Here in Florida it will be very soon. Do we want "four more years" of either Mr. Obama or the similar Mitt Romney or do we want to elect someone that will do what he says and follow the Constitution thus restoring our country to its former greatness? Without a successful and prosperous domestic policy, foreign policy is of diminished concern.
About Paul Henry
Paul has a law enforcement background, having served as a Florida Deputy Sheriff and State Trooper for over 25 years until he retired. He worked many levels and positions within the FHP, from road patrol trooper to lieutenant in criminal investigations, where he investigated numerous criminal cases. After retirement, Paul wished to pursue his automotive hobby and be left alone, but saw an increasing amount of waste in government as well as the government's increasing involvement in our private lives and liberty, so he became politically active. Paul is the founder of the non-partisan citizen's group Floridians Against REAL ID, and authored two bills for the 2012 Florida legislative session: REAL ID partial repeal and Motorist Rights (red light cameras). Paul is the 2013 Legislative Action Committee Chair for The Tea Party Network, a network for constitutional and Tea Party groups to do more than just complain about issues. Paul works as the Deputy Director for Legislative Affairs with the Florida Campaign for Liberty and lives in the Tallahassee, Florida area.
The Establishment, Then and Now
Back in the 60's and 70's, this term generally referred to the government. As history repeats itself again, it once again refers to the government we have. I'll cite a couple of examples here.
If you think things like REAL ID for driver's licenses and E-Verify for employment are great ideas to combat terrorism and illegal immigration, then you're likely an establishment Republican. Perhaps the first question you ask a candidate is their party affiliation, not where they stand on something like states rights. You see the need to "make us safer" through the force of government. It's OK to expand the federal government to accomplish these goals.
If you think things like mandated health insurance is a great idea to combat the lack of health insurance for people in the USA, then you're likely an establishment Democrat. Perhaps the first question you ask a candidate is their party affiliation, not where they stand on something like states rights. You see the need to "ensure the welfare" of the individual (not the nation) through the force of government. It's OK to expand the federal government to accomplish these goals.
What all of these federal programs and laws have in common is that they are unconstitutional at the federal level. See Article 1 Section 8 (A1 S8) of the Constitution as well as the 10th Amendment. Specifically, states- and only states- have the power to decide what if any process will be used to determine if a driver's license is needed or what the procedure will be to get one. E-Verify is a federal program to verify employment eligibility. It is not an immigration or naturalization function as authorized to Congress under A1 S8. The federal government cannot legally operate a pass/fail system to obtain employment in the non-federal sector, and this is what E-Verify does. Finally, the federal mandate of the purchase of health insurance is not authorized under A1 S8 and the federal government being allowed to force you to buy anything is unconstitutional as well as being a really bad idea. Suppose you were compelled to buy a certain brand of vehicle (due to government bailouts for the automaker)?
Not surprising at all then is that in recent election news, Mitt Romney is considered by many as the only path to Republican victory in 2012 against President Obama. President Obama will see no viable primary contender from the Democrats.
As I have observed here in the past, we must look at where we've been to see where we are going. What did the establishment of the 60's and 70's give us? A few things include:
As for the first one, thousands of people die on our highways each year. We will never build a "safe" automobile if you define safety as the inability to be injured or killed while operating it. Somewhere in the 90's we reached a good point between anti-lock brakes and airbags.
As for the others, ask how well our education system is doing? Ditto the environment, and the price of a gallon of gas- which is no longer 100% gasoline, since nearly all gas sold is 10% ethanol, a highly corrosive substance that does more harm than good.
In the 60's and 70's, many of those opposed to the establishment were considered hippies or outside the mainstream of society. One person in the 70's that was opposed to the establishment was no hippie, and is considered by fewer and fewer to be outside the mainstream of society for what he says. That person is Ron Paul.
Dr. Paul has a plan for fiscal responsibility (real cuts to the bloated federal budget), limiting the federal government to it's constitutional limits (which will help to maintain fiscal responsibility) , and supports free markets. In a free market, the federal government does not make you buy anything. In a constitutionally-limited government, the government does not make you obtain federal identification or seek their blessing just to get a job. In a federal government that employs fiscal responsibility the need for an income tax would eventually go away. Unlike the other two, Dr. Paul also has a record of not acting outside of the Constitution. Mr. Obama did so when he signed the federal mandate into law, and Mr. Romney will do so (at least as of today, check again tomorrow after the new poll comes out) based upon his actions as an elected official.
If you dislike Ron Paul's stance on some issues such as drug laws, since his position is that it is a state issue, then you should equally dislike Mitt Romney's stance on mandatory health insurance. Mitt Romney used the power of Governor to force the people of Massachusetts to buy health insurance. What's the big difference here? Ron Paul would not make you purchase drugs, even if it was legal. Mitt Romney (and Barack Obama) would make you purchase health insurance.
Incidentally, if you've never read anything I've written, please understand I still do not support illegal immigration. E-Verify and REAL ID do not do anything but cause more headaches for those that try to comply with the law, while those that do not go about their business underground or by stealing a "clean" identity (maybe yours!). We would be far better off verifying tax dollar expenditures to those receiving them (i.e. Medicaid) than to try and force everyone to prove their citizenship in a blanket style such as with REAL ID and E-Verify.
We have a choice to make. Here in Florida it will be very soon. Do we want "four more years" of either Mr. Obama or the similar Mitt Romney or do we want to elect someone that will do what he says and follow the Constitution thus restoring our country to its former greatness? Without a successful and prosperous domestic policy, foreign policy is of diminished concern.
About Paul Henry
Paul has a law enforcement background, having served as a Florida Deputy Sheriff and State Trooper for over 25 years until he retired. He worked many levels and positions within the FHP, from road patrol trooper to lieutenant in criminal investigations, where he investigated numerous criminal cases. After retirement, Paul wished to pursue his automotive hobby and be left alone, but saw an increasing amount of waste in government as well as the government's increasing involvement in our private lives and liberty, so he became politically active. Paul is the founder of the non-partisan citizen's group Floridians Against REAL ID, and authored two bills for the 2012 Florida legislative session: REAL ID partial repeal and Motorist Rights (red light cameras). Paul is the 2013 Legislative Action Committee Chair for The Tea Party Network, a network for constitutional and Tea Party groups to do more than just complain about issues. Paul works as the Deputy Director for Legislative Affairs with the Florida Campaign for Liberty and lives in the Tallahassee, Florida area.