web analytics

Radio Interview on ‘Consent of the Governed’

Today (August 31) at 5 p.m. CST I will be on KFUO radio discussing “the consent of the governed.”  I am reasonably certain this interview request was inspired by a recent post of mine on the same topic.  Radio link.

When I get the mp3 of the interview I will try to make it available here. UPDATE, here it is:  KFUO_conGov (12.5 MiB, 586 hits)

Christianity and Libertarians, the Republic, and the Consent of the Governed

Excerpt:

I don’t feel like merely calling myself a Constitutionalist is sufficient.  I add the ‘libertarian’ modifier in order to make clear the principle that I believe was shared by the founders.  They believed that people ought to be free and the government at all levels ought to mind its own dang business by and large but if there was an extremely compelling reason for the majority to inflict its will on the minority, there would at least be a process that would protect the minority’s rights.   Certainly, times change, and new circumstances manifest that weren’t dreamed of by the framers, but they built into the Constitution a way to handle such things that makes a great deal of sense to me today- not that anyone these days actually uses those mechanisms.  They’re just as likely to ram it through to the Supreme Court, bypassing the legislative branch altogether, ala Roe vs. Wade.

We are now so far away from the Constitution- including at the hands of Republicans- that it is hard to see how we can make our way back.  I think this is what people are seeing.  Christian conservatives are coming to this conclusion, if they haven’t already.  The ‘limited government’ Republicans sell them down the river all day long and the pool of available freedoms grows shallower every day.  Where does one turn?  Self-preservation.

 

Share

7 comments

Skip to comment form

    • Timaahy on September 6, 2011 at 1:02 am

    I hope I’m not misunderstanding you, but… in’t Roe vs Wade an example of your notion that “people ought to be free and the government at all levels ought to mind its own dang business”…?

    • Anthony on September 6, 2011 at 7:04 am
      Author

    How do you figure?

    • Timaahy on September 6, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    So I understood you correctly? You think Roe vs Wade was an example of the government not minding its own business?

    • Anthony on September 6, 2011 at 6:25 pm
      Author

    I’m sorry, I don’t know if you understood me correctly or not, because your statement doesn’t make much sense to me.

    Here is what I said:

    They’re just as likely to ram it through to the Supreme Court, bypassing the legislative branch altogether, ala Roe vs. Wade.

    Now, the Supreme Court is part of the government and the legislative branch is part of the government, but in my statement I take issue with one branch of the government’s action at the expense of another branch of the government’s action, but you pose your question by lumping both branches together as “the government.”

    As it stands right now, your question just doesn’t make sense to me, especially in context of what I actually said.

    • Timaahy on September 6, 2011 at 7:29 pm

    Ahhh… OK. I did miss your point, then (that “one branch of the government’s [acts] at the expense of another branch”). In my first reading of your post, I thought you were making the point that (a) “people ought to be free and the government at all levels ought to mind its own dang business”, and that (b) Roe vs Wade was an example of that principle being compromised.

    I’m going to go ahead and blame it on the four beers I had after work last night. 🙂

    • Anthony on September 6, 2011 at 8:09 pm
      Author

    Next time try five beers. I hear its like getting your second wind. 😉

    • Timaahy on September 8, 2011 at 1:37 am

    Coincidentally, the very same issue was raised today in Australia:
    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/end-lawfare-by-ditching-unworkable-un-policies-20110907-1jxr3.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

eighteen − 14 =