Wow, I read that story in the link you posted, and it's truly amazing. Growing up in the generation of media sensationalism and political posturing and badmouthing really inoculated me to politicins' attempts to fraternize and mingle with common citizens. I was shocked that a dialogue like this could be so enlightening and effective in deepening Crockett's understanding of the constitution and garnering such ardent support for his reelection - all because of Bunce's immaculate reputation, as Crockett described: [ QUOTE ]
"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words, but in act. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintances."
[/ QUOTE ]
I strongly suggest that anyone reading this thread read the speech:
http://www.greaterthings.com/supplem...ey_crocket.htm
One other thing I was wondering about Ricky: The main point about not arbitrarily spending the people's money in exclusion of the budget does seem somewhat unconstitutional (though I am by no means an expert on the Constitution), but there are some situations, like in the case of natural disasters or terrorist attacks, where the damage is so devastating and far-reaching that it halts local and national economies and even disrupts the administration of government. In addition, there are unforseeable international events (like septempber 11th and the war in Afghanistan, and the Thailand tsunami) that require swift actio and the expenditure of funds to maintain international economic interests, productive foreign relations, and national security and integrity. In principle it seems like the same thing that Crockett described as unconstitutional, yet in practice it seems like at the very least a necessary breach of the constitution, or is there something in the constitution that provides for expenditures like these? How would Crockett view spending revenue like this? Or is there something obvious that I'm missing that differentiates these scenarios from the one Crockett was referring to?
Thanks again for posting the link to that speech.