INSTY POINTS TO an Election Day 2008 post by Steven den Beste. And, as usual, SDB gets it right.
For the most part, I suspect, SDB tries not to come across as a wild-eyed, hair-on-fire radical. Because, checkitout, that makes you look like you’re crazy. Trouble is, that also forces you into a body of epistemological water that might be called Ecumenical Strait, wherein, in order to avoid looking radical, one veers away from speaking an unpleasant truth.
In listing the reasons Obama might not be as dangerous to the Republic as it would seem from a bare bones outline of his true agenda might make it seems, SDB includes as countervailing the notion that, “…he still has to live within Constitutional restrictions…”. As another Web sage used to put it, Nazzofast, Guido.
And here’s where you start sounding like a radical, no matter how great a Trvth you may be speaking to Povvah.
If you do a constitutional gut-check — note that Congress has sole legislative authority, then run down the list of enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 — every time you encounter a law new to you, you will quickly realize that very little the Federal Government of the United States does “lives within Constitutional restrictions.”
Couple that with the tendentiousness of Nancy Pelosi’s “Shirley you jest!” reaction to being quizzed on the constitutionality of legislation, and you are forced to realize that it isn’t radical at all to want to purge Washington of all incumbents — elected or not — and start fresh.