Comments on: The Tea Party Movement and its Controversial Roots in American History http://blog.oup.com/2009/09/the-tea-party-movement-and-its-controversial-roots-in-american-history/ Academic insights for the thinking world. Fri, 17 May 2013 12:26:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: The Constitution and the 111th Congress | linkthe.com http://blog.oup.com/2009/09/the-tea-party-movement-and-its-controversial-roots-in-american-history/#comment-153596 The Constitution and the 111th Congress | linkthe.com Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:08:46 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=5527#comment-153596 [...] The Tea Party Movement and its Controversial Roots in American History (oup.com) [...] [...] The Tea Party Movement and its Controversial Roots in American History (oup.com) [...]

]]> By: Bill Hennessy http://blog.oup.com/2009/09/the-tea-party-movement-and-its-controversial-roots-in-american-history/#comment-153564 Bill Hennessy Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:54:46 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=5527#comment-153564 Terrible research. The 2009 Tea Party movement began in late February and had nothing to do with Tax Day until AFTER the success of the first round of Tea Parties beginning February 27 at Noon ET. We decided to keep the movement going because the 30 or so simultaneous parties drew about 10 times the number of people we expected. I understand that Tax Day was much bigger--we had 10,000 people at the St. Louis rally--but the start was February. Terrible research. The 2009 Tea Party movement began in late February and had nothing to do with Tax Day until AFTER the success of the first round of Tea Parties beginning February 27 at Noon ET.

We decided to keep the movement going because the 30 or so simultaneous parties drew about 10 times the number of people we expected.

I understand that Tax Day was much bigger–we had 10,000 people at the St. Louis rally–but the start was February.

]]> By: Lionheart Group | The Tea Party Movement and its Controversial Roots in American … http://blog.oup.com/2009/09/the-tea-party-movement-and-its-controversial-roots-in-american-history/#comment-153561 Lionheart Group | The Tea Party Movement and its Controversial Roots in American … Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:44:33 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=5527#comment-153561 [...] Read this article: The Tea Party Movement and its Controversial Roots in American … [...] [...] Read this article: The Tea Party Movement and its Controversial Roots in American … [...]

]]> By: M. Bean http://blog.oup.com/2009/09/the-tea-party-movement-and-its-controversial-roots-in-american-history/#comment-153560 M. Bean Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:44:16 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=5527#comment-153560 "The first amendment gives us a right to articulate and seek redress for our grievances against the state, but it is worth stating that there is no first amendment without a constitution..." This assertion is both incorrect, and as it turns out, moot. It is incorrect because it is based upon the assumption that the US Constitution "gives" us our rights. As so eloquently put by Mr. Jefferson our rights come from God; we being "endowed by our creator with the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." And whether one considers it from the Enlightenment natural rights perspective or the religious moral perspective the implication is the same; we possess our rights based upon our mere existence which in turn trumps the power of any potentate or parliamentarian to violate them (our rights). As often argued by no less important founders than James Madison, therefore, the entire Bill of Rights was functionally unnecessary (although it was certainly helpful in convincing some of the naysayers at the time that it was safe enough to support ratification of the Constitution) as a means of preserving liberty – because no government has the “right” to infringe upon inalienable rights regardless of what it does or declares. The other way the quoted assertion is incorrect is in that it improperly characterizes the nature of the Constitution. Rather than giving the people rights, what the Constitution actually does is give a few specifically enumerated powers (found mainly in Article I, Section XIII) to the federal government, while leaving all other powers in the hands of the states and/or the people (as reiterated in the 10th Amendment). What this means in normal English-speaking human being language is that if that authority is not explicitly given to the US government in the Constitution the federal government has no jurisdiction (power) to regulate or deal in that sphere of affairs. As there were no specifically enumerated powers given to the federal government in the Constitution allowing it to censor, regulate, or in way deal with "speech" issues the 1st Amendment is moot... like everything else not specifically included as an enumerated power in the Constitution meddling with "free speech" is outside the jurisdiction of the US government whether there is a Bill of Rights or not. “The first amendment gives us a right to articulate and seek redress for our grievances against the state, but it is worth stating that there is no first amendment without a constitution…”
This assertion is both incorrect, and as it turns out, moot.
It is incorrect because it is based upon the assumption that the US Constitution “gives” us our rights. As so eloquently put by Mr. Jefferson our rights come from God; we being “endowed by our creator with the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” And whether one considers it from the Enlightenment natural rights perspective or the religious moral perspective the implication is the same; we possess our rights based upon our mere existence which in turn trumps the power of any potentate or parliamentarian to violate them (our rights).
As often argued by no less important founders than James Madison, therefore, the entire Bill of Rights was functionally unnecessary (although it was certainly helpful in convincing some of the naysayers at the time that it was safe enough to support ratification of the Constitution) as a means of preserving liberty – because no government has the “right” to infringe upon inalienable rights regardless of what it does or declares.
The other way the quoted assertion is incorrect is in that it improperly characterizes the nature of the Constitution. Rather than giving the people rights, what the Constitution actually does is give a few specifically enumerated powers (found mainly in Article I, Section XIII) to the federal government, while leaving all other powers in the hands of the states and/or the people (as reiterated in the 10th Amendment). What this means in normal English-speaking human being language is that if that authority is not explicitly given to the US government in the Constitution the federal government has no jurisdiction (power) to regulate or deal in that sphere of affairs. As there were no specifically enumerated powers given to the federal government in the Constitution allowing it to censor, regulate, or in way deal with “speech” issues the 1st Amendment is moot… like everything else not specifically included as an enumerated power in the Constitution meddling with “free speech” is outside the jurisdiction of the US government whether there is a Bill of Rights or not.

]]> By: Zeitgeist http://blog.oup.com/2009/09/the-tea-party-movement-and-its-controversial-roots-in-american-history/#comment-153557 Zeitgeist Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:12:38 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=5527#comment-153557 Hrm....interesting... The estemed professor has appearently never heard of "the battle of athens tenn. circ 1946" aka "McMinn County War"...or doesnt wish to mention it... Here readers...enlighten yourself...it's a better parallel to the current movement... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946) http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1985/2/1985_2_72.shtml http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen_press.htm You have to do a bit of detective work...but if read carefully , you'll find that the corrupt political machine was run by democrats and they were thrown out by the GI's and citizenry... But surely a professor of American History would know that... Hrm….interesting…

The estemed professor has appearently never heard of “the battle of athens tenn. circ 1946″ aka “McMinn County War”…or doesnt wish to mention it…

Here readers…enlighten yourself…it’s a better parallel to the current movement…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1985/2/1985_2_72.shtml

http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm

http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen_press.htm

You have to do a bit of detective work…but if read carefully , you’ll find that the corrupt political machine was run by democrats and they were thrown out by the GI’s and citizenry…

But surely a professor of American History would know that…

]]> By: Posts about Texas Tea Parties as of September 15, 2009 | Texas Tea Parties http://blog.oup.com/2009/09/the-tea-party-movement-and-its-controversial-roots-in-american-history/#comment-153553 Posts about Texas Tea Parties as of September 15, 2009 | Texas Tea Parties Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:52:29 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=5527#comment-153553 [...] about Texas Tea Parties as of September 15, 2009 The Tea Party Movement and its Controversial Roots in American History – blog.oup.com 09/15/2009 Elvin Lim is Assistant Professor of Government at Wesleyan [...] [...] about Texas Tea Parties as of September 15, 2009 The Tea Party Movement and its Controversial Roots in American History – blog.oup.com 09/15/2009 Elvin Lim is Assistant Professor of Government at Wesleyan [...]

]]> By: Posts about Rush Limbaugh as of September 15, 2009 » The Daily Parr http://blog.oup.com/2009/09/the-tea-party-movement-and-its-controversial-roots-in-american-history/#comment-153550 Posts about Rush Limbaugh as of September 15, 2009 » The Daily Parr Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:04:17 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=5527#comment-153550 [...] about Rush Limbaugh as of September 15, 2009 The Tea Party Movement and its Controversial Roots in American History – blog.oup.com 09/15/2009 Elvin Lim is Assistant Professor of Government at Wesleyan [...] [...] about Rush Limbaugh as of September 15, 2009 The Tea Party Movement and its Controversial Roots in American History – blog.oup.com 09/15/2009 Elvin Lim is Assistant Professor of Government at Wesleyan [...]

]]>