conservative verses liberal principles & values

[Athena]

I honestly do not know what the conservative principles and values are nor what liberal principles and values are. I like those who think they know, to create two columns. In the first column put conservative principles and values, and in the second liberal principles and values.

[Disinterested]

Other than Bob Roberts, I don't know too many conservatives who write or sing verses.

[Osborn F Enready]

Athena, I have to commend you on trying to identify lines in the sand, but good luck.

I recently lost a friend of over 30 years, because he insisted he was a dyed in the wool democrat, no matter what I said, or anyone said. Regardless of facts, or fiction. After he proclaimed this, I challenged him to defend "HIS" position, and he nearly had a caniption.

I anxiously await some answers on this between both parties followers, if for no other purpose, to see them drive the wedge further between themselves, further proving my point.

Fire away bi-partisans......

[Starboy]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Athena, I have to commend you on trying to identify lines in the sand, but good luck. I recently lost a friend of over 30 years, because he insisted he was a dyed in the wool democrat, no matter what I said, or anyone said. Regardless of facts, or fiction. After he proclaimed this, I challenged him to defend "HIS" position, and he nearly had a caniption. I anxiously await some answers on this between both parties followers, if for no other purpose, to see them drive the wedge further between themselves, further proving my point. Fire away bi-partisans......

Sorry to hear that. Maybe you can just let the whole thing drop and resume a perfectly good friendship. As far as I can tell this whole conservative vs. liberal thing is nothing more than politics as sports. You pick your team and root for that team no matter what. It matters not that both teams play by the same rules, play the same game, use the same strategies, share the same history and so on, it is the color of the jersey or the label placed on the team that matters. Your friend can't answer the question because for the most part there is nothing significantly different between the two.

Starboy

[Athena]

Starboy, I think we agree on this one. However, the point is to increase awareness, so I hope someone will make a clear statement about the differences. I sort of pick up a conservative is a Republican and a liberal is a Democrat, is that right? What is a Green, a Liberal, an Independent, etc? No, this labeling doesn't work very well. Specifically what are the differences between conservative and liberals?

[Logjam]

Quote by: Disinterested Other than Bob Roberts, I don't know too many conservatives who write or sing verses.

Right. Conservatives are too busy fighting and winning wars to waste time singing silly songs. It's the Left who have the time to make up weak poems and whistle jingles.

[Athena]

Quote by: Logjam Right. Conservatives are too busy fighting and winning wars to waste time singing silly songs. It's the Left who have the time to make up weak poems and whistle jingles.

I don't think so.

Democrats:
* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star &Bronze Star, Vietnam.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
* Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
*! Pete St ark: Air Force 1955-57
* Chuck Robb: Vietnam
* Howell Heflin: Silver Star
* George McGovern: Silver Star &DFC during WWII.
* Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft
but received #311.
* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
* John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.

Republicans -- These are the gentlemen sending people to war:
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve.
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Vin Weber: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* Jon Kyl: did not serve.
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not! serve.< /SPAN>
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL for 8 years.
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
* Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.



* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies.

Pundits &Preachers
* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')
* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
* Michael Savage: did not serve.
* George Will: did not serve.
* Chris Matthews: did not serve.
* Paul Gigot: did not serve.
* Bill Bennett: did not serve.
* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
* Bill Kristol: did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.
* Charlie Daniels: did not serve.
* Ted Nugent: did not serve. (He only shoots at things that don't shoot back.)

[Osborn F Enready]

LOL, thanks Athena, I was waiting to post that in the other thread LogJam inserted his foot in his mouth.

[Osborn F Enready]

Starboy said:
Your friend can't answer the question because for the most part there is nothing significantly different between the two.

I say:
That was more or less my point of the entire conversation that HE started. I am neither, yet I see flaws in both. When a person takes a stand on an ISSUE, they had better damned well be able to defend it with some logical grounds or be prepared to back peddle all the way to "gee, I guess I didn't know that". Ignorance is always understandable, but never excusable when you pick your battleground, and have no knowledge of the topics being discussed.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Athena I honestly do not know what the conservative principles and values are nor what liberal principles and values are. I like those who think they know, to create two columns. In the first column put conservative principles and values, and in the second liberal principles and values.

Athena, I think the answer to your question is rather simple. To find out what Conservatives believe just break out your copy of the US Constitution and read it closely. Include the Bill of Rights in your reading.

We Conservatives believe in the what the Constitution says and we believe that it means exactly what it says and nothing more. We do not believe that is a "living document" (except for some rare cases, such as the 3/5's law for non-whites).

You will find very few Conservatives who will disagree with me here. For example, there is no mention in the Constitution of a "right to privacy". It is not mentioned in the document and it therefore does not exist. Furthermore the Supreme Court should only be in a advisory position to the Congress. Their original job was to help the Legislature to not write laws that go against the axioms as stated in the Constitution. The S. Court cannot creat law. It can only overturn laws passed by the Congress that are clearly unconstitutional; nothing more.

The 2nd Ammendment means what it says. The First Ammendment means what is says and should not be extended to a "freedom of expression". It means "free speech" and nothing more.

I hope, oh lovely goddess of Athens, that I have been able to shed some light upon your question.

Sincerely,

L. Jam

[Osborn F Enready]

Logjam said:
We Conservatives believe in the what the Constitution says and we believe that it means exactly what it says and nothing more. We do not believe that is a "living document"

I say:
That is a bald faced lie no matter how you color it if you go by the voting records champ. And those are the only way to test your "theory". Conservatives have been hand in hand in trampling the Constitution to oblivion.

If that is not the case, why did Bush continue to uphold Executive Order privlidge?
Why has he not sought to repeal all anti-constitutional laws, based on necessity of the union?
Why has he not made a stand for all rights, and not just those that suit him and his corporate minions?
Why does he seek to exclude gays as equals?

A very short list of his hypocrisy, too bad there is about three reafs more of paper full of them just since he became president.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Athena I don't think so. Democrats: * Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71. * David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72. * Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72. * Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade. * Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam. * Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII. * John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts. * Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea. * Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star &Bronze Star, Vietnam. * Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53. * Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74. * Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91. * Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons. * Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal. * Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit. * Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart. * Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V. * Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star. *! Pete St ark: Air Force 1955-57 * Chuck Robb: Vietnam * Howell Heflin: Silver Star * George McGovern: Silver Star &DFC during WWII. * Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311. * Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy. * Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953 * John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters. * Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg. Republicans -- These are the gentlemen sending people to war: * Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage. * Dennis Hastert: did not serve. * Tom Delay: did not serve. * Roy Blunt: did not serve. * Bill Frist: did not serve. * Mitch McConnell: did not serve. * Rick Santorum: did not serve. * Trent Lott: did not serve. * John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business. * Jeb Bush: did not serve. * Karl Rove: did not serve. * Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism. * Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve. * Vin Weber: did not serve. * Richard Perle: did not serve. * Douglas Feith: did not serve. * Eliot Abrams: did not serve. * Richard Shelby: did not serve. * Jon Kyl: did not serve. * Tim Hutchison: did not serve. * Christopher Cox: did not serve. * Newt Gingrich: did not serve. * Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor. * George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty. * B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea. * Phil Gramm: did not serve. * John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. * Dana Rohrabacher: did not! serve.< /SPAN> * John M. McHugh: did not serve. * JC Watts: did not serve. * Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL for 8 years. * Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard. * Rudy Giuliani: did not serve. * George Pataki: did not serve. * Spencer Abraham: did not serve. * John Engler: did not serve. * Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer. * Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base. * Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies. Pundits &Preachers * Sean Hannity: did not serve. * Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.') * Bill O'Reilly: did not serve. * Michael Savage: did not serve. * George Will: did not serve. * Chris Matthews: did not serve. * Paul Gigot: did not serve. * Bill Bennett: did not serve. * Pat Buchanan: did not serve. * Bill Kristol: did not serve. * Kenneth Starr: did not serve. * Antonin Scalia: did not serve. * Clarence Thomas: did not serve. * Ralph Reed: did not serve. * Michael Medved: did not serve. * Charlie Daniels: did not serve. * Ted Nugent: did not serve. (He only shoots at things that don't shoot back.)

Cool list. Did you write all of that? Or did you import it from someplace?

I served in the Marine Corps from 1964 to 1980. Then I joined the Army and served from 1980 to 1994. All or most of the Democrats whom you mentioned, supported our surrender in Vietnam and do so in Iraq today. So while they may have served in the past, and some may have served valiently; they are traitors now. Simply put, if you want us to surrender in Iraq you want the enemy to win. That's traitorous. That's sedition. That's giving aid and comfort to the enemy, which is the definition of treason as stated in the US Constitution.

As for the right wing guys who didn't serve; I don't know what their individual circumstances were. I know that when the War broke out I ran right down to the recruiter and joined the Marine Corps' officer candidate program and served as an A-4 Skyhawk attack pilot assigned to the Fleet Marine Forces.

You infur that the Liberals who served are heros and that they're service makes them above reproach.
While some may have been heros, they are certainly not above reproach. Just because one serves in the military one does not get a "buy" when it comes to politics or treason.

Anyone who believes that we should surrender in the face of the enemy during wartime is a traitor. No matter what their past is.

John Kerry was a traitor and is so today. Clinton was a traitor (what did he do in Moscow for that year after he left of Oxford anyway?). President Bush BTW: did serve all of his time. He got something like 550 hours in F-102's. He did get leave to work in a political campaign, but this was a time when the services were cutting back and he didn't have duty involving flying orders anyway. That's why BTW: he didn't get his flight physical. If you weren't on "flight skins" one didn't bother with the flight physical. Nor did Bush avoid his drills. He made up his time after he returned to his squadron. This happened ALL OF THE TIME. Democrats have studied Bush's military record with a fine toothed comb and have not been able to find anything to try him on. Believe me, if they could; they would. I suggest that you get over it.

Kerry, on the other hand, after he left Vietnam, was ordered to a reserve unit in Virginia (I think). He NEVER showed up; NEVER. He just ignored the orders. He was too busy, probably trying to indite his fellow sailors of treason. All the while giving aid and comfort to the North Vietnamese; who mentioned later on that Kerry showed them that they had a chance to win the war.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Logjam said: We Conservatives believe in the what the Constitution says and we believe that it means exactly what it says and nothing more. We do not believe that is a "living document" I say: That is a bald faced lie no matter how you color it. if you go by the voting records champ. And those are the only way to test your "theory". Conservatives have been hand in hand in trampling the Constitution to oblivion. If that is not the case, why did Bush continue to uphold Executive Order privlidge? Why has he not sought to repeal all anti-constitutional laws, based on necessity of the union? Why has he not made a stand for all rights, and not just those that suit him and his corporate minions? Why does he seek to exclude gays as equals? A very short list of his hypocrisy, too bad there is about three reafs more of paper full of them just since he became president.

Hey, genius; a lie and an opinion are two very different things. Neither I, nor President Bush lie.

As for the Executive Order; I don't know why Bush uses it. Certainly the EO was the only way (almost) that Clinton could execute his power, since he couldn't get much through Congress. If the EO was unconstitutional It couldn't be used.

Bush cannot repeal unconstitutional laws. That's the S. Courts responsibility. So, there are no unconstitutional laws.

Bush supports our rights as they are outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

As for so called "gay rights". Homosexuals have all of the rights that you and I have. All of them. I don't want them to have special rights just because they are sexual perverts.

We may disagree, but I will never lie. I many be wrong from time to time, but I will never, ever tell a lie.

[Osborn F Enready]

I apologize if I offended you, but I felt the overwhelming truth that you seem to ignore, that both parties are trampling the Constitution and all limits and rights it enumerates, that you simply must either be ignorant, or in agreement with their positions.

Executive Order Constitutional?/?? ROFLMAO......

Do you understand what a "concentration of power" is? Did you know the Constitution EXPRESSLY forbade it?

[Osborn F Enready]

Logjam said:
Hey, genius; a lie and an opinion are two very different things. Neither I, nor President Bush lie.

I say:
Since you could ONLY realisticly SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, I reccommend you do it, and leave Bushs lies to the impeachment committee.

Logjam said:
As for the Executive Order; I don't know why Bush uses it. Certainly the EO was the only way (almost) that Clinton could execute his power, since he couldn't get much through Congress. If the EO was unconstitutional It couldn't be used.

I say:
And if abortion was illegal, it wouldn't happen. And if murder was illegal, it wouldn't happen. And if drunk driving was illegal, it wouldn't happen..........

That is known as denial.

Logjam said:
Bush cannot repeal unconstitutional laws. That's the S. Courts responsibility. So, there are no unconstitutional laws.

I say:
He cannot on his own repeal them, except by Executive Order, or didn't you know that? He can do anything he damn well pleases, under the Unconstitutional Executive Order. That is a FACT.

Logjam said:
Bush supports our rights as they are outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I say:
I hear you saying it, yet I see not one, not ONE sign of proof of that, even after pouring over his records for hours and hours..... enlighten me.

Logjam said:
As for so called "gay rights". Homosexuals have all of the rights that you and I have. All of them. I don't want them to have special rights just because they are sexual perverts.

I say:
Calling homosexuals perverts, is like calling blacks niggers, and mexicans spics. YOUR belief construes them as perverts, and you don't have the intelligence or the will to seperate belief and fact.
Is it bad when a belief makes one a bigot, racist, or a willful violator of peoples rights? You should ask yourself that.

Logjam said:
We may disagree, but I will never lie. I many be wrong from time to time, but I will never, ever tell a lie.

I say:
To lie is to purposely mislead someone. To be ignorant is to not be informed. You are either a liar, or ignorant. Your choice.

[Athena]

My impression from what I have read so far, is conservatives are narrow minded people who what us all to live in the past, preferably the time of Jesus, and liberals are open minded and believe self government means creating and recreating our government and nation.

Specifically about war. Doesn't the constitution limit the amount that can be spent on such things as war to debt that can be off in two years?

How logical is it to deal with the more Democrats serving in the armed forces than Republicans, by attacking the Democrat distaste for war? Eisenhower argued strongly that the US is not a military agressor. This argument has been vital in our international relationships, and Bush destroyed that. Not only has he destroyed the argument that the US is not a military agressor, but the Bush family has taken pride in leading the New World Order which is military domination of the world. Furthermore, Reagon and Bush have greatly increased our national debt for military reasons. And this seems to go with the preaching of Pat Robertson, which is good only to uneducated people who interpret the bible literally and don't even know what abstract thinking and abstract interpretation means. However, the God of the old testament is a war God and a very fitting God for Republic conservatives.

Some of us are concerned not only will this destroy our nation in debts, but it also makes us the threat of world peace that has our potential enemies uniting with the intent of opposing of the US grab for world power. Several of our forefathers strongly opposed war, and a president who wants to be seen as a war president is the opposite of what they had in mind. Republicans have consistantly concentrated in power in the excutive branch, when one of the main reasons for division of power was to slow down the process of going to war, with the hope the US would never act rashly and rush to war, as Bush rushed us to war, and deliberatly malnipluated information to justify a war that was not justified. Those who are devoting our lives to defending our democracy against the likes of Bush, are the defenders of that democracy, not the Christian, conservative Republicans who would be the willing puppets of Hitler ambitions to lead the New World Order. We are frantically trying to throw off the grip of the New World Order that has preverted our beloved democracy.

[SteveA]

Thank you for that list, Athena. I'm certain it's a bit biased in the selection but still ... I'm truly surprised.

[lsbskins1]

In the realm of theoretically perfect world:

Republicans believe:
Big government is inefficiant and should be avoided.
Ideal policy encourages self sufficency and initiative.
The involvement of government in business regulation discourages efficiency. The market should command.

Democrats believe:
The job of government is to serve and protect citizens, so it should have power suffcient to that purpose.
The job of government is to serve and protect citizens, so it should mold policy to that purpose.
The job of the government is to serve and protect citizens, the job of the market is to maximize profit, where that maximization harms citizens, the government should attempt to trump the market.

But, of course, both parties are filled with corruptable humans, who corrupt the ideals of their party to advance their own power.

What are we gonna do?

[SteveA]

What are we gonna do?

Good question. I worked in a position that was about 75% created/controlled by government and quit almost a year ago. I'm spending my savings to get rid of dollars and if this Real ID thing comes around in a few years, I think I'll just "keep forgetting" to get a national ID card.

No, these things don't change the world but they make it a little harder to find someone to work for them, a bit harder to pawn off bad money on people, and a bit more of an annoyance trying to tag and track everyone.

Yes, it's a hassle but despite the claims some people male I never asked for much of any of this. The people I voted for were never elected and the view that it was the will of the People, even from the point of view of a democratic majority doesn't seem to hold water on the national ID issue, the continued war in Iraq, the new prescription drug plan, the deficit spending, the misnamed "Patriot" Act etc. and definitely can't be generalized to all individuals.

It would be nice if someone in D.C. pulled out the Constitution every once in a while and tried to see where people ever said the federal government was just about free to do whatever it wanted without even needing to get state permission to amend it. If we rectified the abuses created by judicial misinterpretation of the commerce clause alone (regarding interstate trade), I have a feeling it would remove shelves of federal legislation with a ripple effect on many of the institutions relying on this and then we could get into a few of the Bill of Rights amendments and remove the need for a few more federal institutions, and then retire the Federal Reserve. Yes, that would be a good start.

Any suggestions on what to do for the second term?

(Ok, a better solution might be to give states the options of addressing a lot of the things the federal government is doing now, at the state level. Just simply package the laws that don't truly need to be done federally and let individual states opt whether or not they want to remain under federal control of those issues or not. Alternately, you could sunset a lot of legislation so that if there's some preparation that's needed, people have time to do it).

For a lot of things though, you could probably have the federal government almost shut down and most people would go to work and not notice a big difference.

[Osborn F Enready]

"What are we gonna do"

(in reply to SteveA's excellent answer)

After much thought and debate among friends, I think the best solution for a Libertarian President if ever elected would be to use the Executive Order to correct all previous Executive Orders against the Constitution. They should then use it to create a 4 year termed "Office of Governmental Efficiency and Internal Audit." This office would be made up of top scoring college graduates who specialized in economics, business and accounting: Their sole purpose to scrutinize, analyze and evaluate every single agency created in the lifetime of this government that utilizes taxpayer money to ensure Constitutional compliance, efficiency and necessity. Once these findings are complete, the list compiled, all Constitutional violators removed, and all remaining agencies put to public popular vote to justify their continuance in Constitutional agreement. (All welfare, aid programs, etc, would have to be either voluntary or privatized.)

After doing this, that president should then do as Washington did, and lay the power again to the feet of the people. He would do this by creating one last Executive Order, to declare the concept of Executive Order Unconstitutional and create a law banning all concentration of power beyond what is specified in the Constitution, and voiding the Constititution should Executive Order ever be allowed again from this date.

(I used to believe that there was no good use for Executive Order privlidge. After much contemplation and debate, I think the only answer to correct the wrongs created by it, would be to use it, and then use it to remove itself, permanently. In light of this, I see this not as being a hypocrite to my old beliefs, but enlightened as to a remedy of the problem I could not before formulate.)