That 223-year-old document sure is helpful in times such as these.

n/t

…a serious matter to take up in 41 days once the Enemy is in retreat. For the time being what’s done is done. The Surge continues, with the official GOP lagging behind.

I’m much more interested in the “contract” that will emerge with our new conservatives, the Lee Atwater caucus, on board.

“I pledge to reduce the size, cost, and power of government at all levels, in all ways. “

get a rope

According to the Oprah/Jon Stewart yardstick, at least. How can you be so incredibly stiff-necked as to expect Congress to actually honor, defend, and protect that Constitution thingie? That is just SO ancient, you know. Get with the program, man!

other than that, the pledge is pretty darn good.

These Republican Establishment buffoons still don’t get it, and something this simple is beyond their comprehension!

The “leadership” put this out there now for only one reason.

They will sell the coming victories as a result of this great new pledge, and they think it will give them cover.

They are as cynical as they are dumb.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/09/critique-of-gops-new-pledge-to-america.html

that most in congress would not even know where that pledge came from.
Certainly they haven’t read it in a long while.

Erick isn’t too keen on the GOP’s “Pledge”.

Seriously, we are gonna have to hold GOP feet to the fire until there is an almost entire changing of the guard, and those who remain understand that we expect adherence to the constitution.

It shouldn’t be a complicated formula for the politicians, but it is. I think they are so conditioned to behave and believe how they do, that the idea that millions of citizens would band together and tell them with one voice that the constitution is their one and only mandate seems surreal to them. They certainly have no clue how to respond to it – as evidenced by this pathetic “Pledge”.

Guys, seriously … the release of the new “pledge” is a good sign. Not because it identifies any meaningful change, but it means the establishment Republicans have moved into the next stage of their dealing with the change in the attitudes of their constituents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model

Remember, when organizations or groups are faced with dramatic change, their reaction is most often denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. It is unreasonable to think these people can turn on a dime. It does not mean we should change our policies, our desires or the demand for the change, but we should NOT think it is ineffective. We have seen the anger, we have seen the denial (sit down, shut up, TEA parties are useful idiots and extremists), but now the primary results are too obvious to deny and they have had time to move along the curve to bargaining, which is what the pledge is. They KNOW it is unsatisfactory, and they probably know it will also be rejected as a bargain, but it is human nature enough to expect them to try.

We just have to ignore it, be direct, active and persuasive, and stay the course.

Additional Powers assumed by the federal government are only permitted under Article 5. If existing parts of today’s unconstitutional federal law need to remain in place, make them legal with super majority support … not by judicial fiat.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Voters get really mad when the tea party ideas are crushed. They may not admit to liking the tea party, but many of them believe in the principles of it.

Where to put resources now? Any ideas? I was thinking of givingt to NRCC, but thinking of switching to Senate Conservative fund. I appreciate suggestions.

is definitely written by a lawyer.

How about:

We promise not to be the type of Jacka**es who have been in the Congress and Senate the past 60 years on both sides of the aisle!

Or

We promise to freeze spending and taxes at their current levels until we run a surplus. Then we will not increase spending any more than the level of inflation exclusive of energy, and give you back any money that is left over.

of course I would like ot see them renounce earnmarks. Pass individual bills alone on their merits, renounce lobbyists, and pledge to spend our money as if it were their own (and they were poor).

Lets get on with winning this election in November. There is absoulutely nothing wrong what the republicans has just done in promulgating what their aims are once in the majority. For those who wanted them to publish more, I say it would take tens of thousands of pages, to list everything that needs to be done to correct the damage that has been inflicted by the socialist democrats since their taking the majority in 2007. Leave the bitching to the socialists. UNITE!

Jay Cost weighed in, he likes it and thinks it will help the GOP message.

Newt Gingrich weighed in with full throated support for the Pledge.

Ralph Reed who helped craft the 1994 Contract weighed in and thinks the 21 pages is great because it addresses the core problem with 1994, it was a plan for 100 days, not 100 months.

Redstate is definitely in the minority within Conservative circles on this.

It has been noted that this document is crafted after the Declaration of Independence, which makes all the snide games to throw the Constitution in as the “alternate” an interesting exercise.

So I am puzzled why Erick is so animated over this thing. I don’t get it. I sounds like someone throwing a temper tantrum because he is getting link sausage for breakfast instead of patties.

I think Erick, and the chorus of negativity, is 100% wrong on this one. You are all having a Ted Stevens moment.

…we have a Constitution, which is what Erick is trying to point out.

This contract smells like a gimmick to me, just as much as “yes we can” and “hope and change.”

Then I watch how the GOP is “angry” with Murkowski’s temper tantrum, yet allows her to retain her Energy chair position, even though essentially she’s already gone.

And who can forget Newt teaming up with Nancy Pelosi in those commercials for, what was it, global warming?

A GOP declaration of conviction would be much more valuable to me if I had already seen GOP leaders with conviction to begin with.

But alas, the same nancy-boys who so stunningly lost the battlefield are back again, with watered-down kool-aid. We drank it once, and woke up to BO.
They still need their “come to Jesus” moment, I’m afraid.

T.L.
http://www.cafepress.com/usteashirts

“This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent,…that principle is now universally admitted.”

“We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended.”

The Pledge to Nowhere has a Recipe that looks like this:

1 part – Enumerated powers
10 parts – Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

stir until pasty (When you can no longer see the Enumerated Powers, stop)
let sit 10 minutes then add:

1 teaspoon – Cost Cutting
3.6 Trillion parts – Big Govt. Spending
heat in a sauce pan at low temperature and let simmer

lastly add:
1/4 cup of Repeal
3/4 cup of Boehnercare
A pinch of Liberty for Flavoring

stir gently and serve

I LOVE this pledge. It really isn’t a pledge at all, it’s called “following the Constitution’s original intent”.

All fine and dandy, but here’s the problem:

The rules have been in place for 220 years. The General Welfare clause has been expanded beyond all recognition. Progressives and Independents think the way things are now is how it was supposed to be from the beginning.

They’re wrong of course, but we haven’t educated enough generations on original intent for Erick’s pledge to mean anything to anyone besides Constitution loving, originalists like the majority of the people who read this blog.

If you think we’re going to be able to have an ideological debate in the next 40 days, and come to a conclusion, you’re nuts. In the mean time, the Democrat demagogues are going to be attacking the “extremists” (aka people who support following original intent) and we could let this very very important mid-term election slip through our fingers.

If we don’t get a HUGE shift in the House, this ideological debate is over. We’ll never get anywhere near getting back to following Article 1 Section 8 and a true limited government.

This bickering over a well-intentioned pledge that can actually provide, at a minimum, something tangible for candidates, pundits, canvassers, phone-bankers, etc to fall back on when challenged by some idiot Leftist or clueless independent out there in the real world, is going to kill out momentum.

Now is not the time to have this ideological debate. Now is the time to take back the House by any means necessary and this pledge can help that. Whining about it can only hurt that.

Is the Pledge perfect? No. Can we accentuate the positives in it and unify our messaging? Yes. Can we debate the finer points after Nov 2nd? Yes.

We are creating a problem around this thing that we don’t have to right now.

Simply saying Congress should follow the constitution is nothing more than a childish platitude. What I see in the pledge and what I dont see coming from Erick or others bemoaning the pledge are two things: humility and practical solutions to problems. The pledge has its flaws but it is a step in the right direction.

I would wager a dime that if the republicans read this they would not even recognize it.

Maybe 2012 and 2014 we can find some one who knows what is in the Constitution and really wants to help make laws per the Consitution.

Also I am looking for some one who does not want to be Politically Correct. I feel that if Americans acted more like Muslim then no one would push us around and we would get back our country and the pride we once had. Plus the other countries would resepct us, because we stand up for what we believe in.

I was a little uncomfortable with the formation of a tea party caucus, but this kind of weak response to what is nothing less than outrage across the nation, is so pathetic that I am reconsidering my earlier opinion.

Can a tea party caucus help keep these guys in line? How do republicans in tight races battle against the weakness of their would be leaders? They need some strength behind them. This isn’t it.

Ron Paul is the only Republican who has a record of voting this way.

And this is no exaggeration. He’s the only one, without exception.

So when did this strict Ron Paul style constitutionalism suddenly become a good thing around here?

Any Red Staters who imagines that Boehner, Cantor, Ryan, Pence, or any other Republican leader would ever agree to limit himself to supporting bills that only exercise powers enumerated in the Constitution are kidding themselves. The same can be said of most of the candidates Erickson supported in GOP primaries.

…it was in a photo of what Obama uses for toilet paper.

I think we need to applaud the step they have taken in the right direction and ensure that they follow through with it and expound upon it. We need to celebrate the small victories or we run the risk of either demoralizing ourselves or appearing to be a bunch of people who just like to criticize. It took a long time for our country to move away from the Constitution and it will take some time to bring it back. We need to unite now and deal with removing the true threats in Congress (ie progressives) and deal with the rest after Novemeberr. Unity does not mean absence of dissent, it just means that we are focused on the larger issue at hand. Our demeanor should be that of cautious optimism. Be positive, applaud the effort, and hold them accountable.

That would be November spelled with one “r”

The unfortunate part is, since they already take an oath of office, why aren’t they ALL doing that, already?

your response sir is why i am a part of this movement .it is such a shame that the republican elite do not see the truth.

the constitution forever repell the 16th and 17th

Which is better than the pledge. It refers to a plan on his website which would also require adherence to the Constitution, and showing where the authority for a bill arises.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVorVi8gCJM&feature=player_embedded