Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Freedom...


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Freedom... Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Freedom... - 3/16/2010 2:57:50 PM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx


Still evading the point... You say it says a strong/powerful Federal Government...... I'm after the wording (in the Constitution) that backs up your comment.




Bull, I think that it would be Articles 4 and 6.  While I do not recall the exact phrase of "strong/powerful Federal Governement."  Article 4 limits states powers and Article 6 is where you find the Supremecy Clause. 

I hope that helps your search.

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to xBullx)
Profile   Post #: 241
RE: Freedom... - 3/16/2010 3:20:50 PM   
xBullx


Posts: 4206
Joined: 10/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx


Still evading the point... You say it says a strong/powerful Federal Government...... I'm after the wording (in the Constitution) that backs up your comment.




Bull, I think that it would be Articles 4 and 6.  While I do not recall the exact phrase of "strong/powerful Federal Governement."  Article 4 limits states powers and Article 6 is where you find the Supremecy Clause. 

I hope that helps your search.



Thank you Aylee.

_____________________________

Live well,

Bull



I'm not an asshole; I'm simply resolute...

"A Republic, If You Can Keep It."

Caution: My humor is a bit skewed.

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 242
RE: Freedom... - 3/16/2010 5:02:46 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Not a bad guess Aylee...but to go a bit farther Bull,you might want to check out the Federlist Papers authored in chief by Mrs.Hamilton ,Adams and Jay
Hamilton,Madison and Jay...Not Adams


as justification and rationalization for the need of a strong central govt and Constitution to bind in a more stronger central govt the disparate colonies...which up to that point had been only loosley bound by the Artcles of Confederation.
Jefferson and Madison

You might want to  read Madison  in "federalist 9 & 10 where he argues for a large strong central government .

were both on record as fearing such a strong consolidation of power..but were convinced  of the need after insiting on an inclusion of a Bill of Rights....

I think you are thinking of George Mason the leader of the Anti-Federalist who was primary in the forces demanding a Bill of Rights as was Madison.

.opening up a whole  nother can of words as far as the belief that future Americans might conclude that only those rights eneumerated as such ....remained of the people.

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 243
RE: Freedom... - 3/16/2010 5:07:03 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		Still evading the point... You say it says a strong/powerful Federal Government...... I'm after the wording (in the Constitution) that backs up your comment.

If you are looking for those exact words then you are up shit creek without a paddle for two reasons.
1. They ain't there.
2. I did not say them.

(in reply to xBullx)
Profile   Post #: 244
RE: Freedom... - 3/16/2010 5:20:17 PM   
InvisibleBlack


Posts: 865
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx
This comment sparked my curiousity. It'd be helpful if you could show the support for your comment that the Constitution supports a strong and/or powerful central government...


Ignoring all the bumpf along the way - the following parts of the Constitution limit the powers of the States:

Article1, Section 10:


No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


Article 6, Paragraph 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.



At the time of the signing of the Constitution, the powers given to the Federal government were very clearly ennumerated and all other powers were explicitly granted to the States or the People (Amendment 10). Over the past 200 years, power has gradually centralized and the individual States are much weaker and the Federal government much stronger than originally envisioned.

_____________________________

Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.

(in reply to xBullx)
Profile   Post #: 245
RE: Freedom... - 3/16/2010 5:42:30 PM   
xBullx


Posts: 4206
Joined: 10/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Still evading the point... You say it says a strong/powerful Federal Government...... I'm after the wording (in the Constitution) that backs up your comment.

If you are looking for those exact words then you are up shit creek without a paddle for two reasons.



That's ok, my "boat" has a motor.

quote:


1. They ain't there.



Kinda what I suspected; while I agree the Constitution subscribes to a more credible, useful and capable Federal Government, I don't believe the fathers of this nation ever intended to allow it to even become what it had by the time of the Civil War.

Power and greed, good neighbor, power and greed; the dynamic duo leading to arrogance and corruption.

quote:

2. I did not say them.



Actually you did..... You stated the following in post 159


quote:


ORIGINAL: thompsonx

You seem to not be aware of the Constitution. You claim to have read both the Constitution and the Federalist papers but both of those documents go to great lengths to explane the necesity of a strong central government.



Credibility, it's a motherfucker.




< Message edited by xBullx -- 3/16/2010 5:44:51 PM >

_____________________________

Live well,

Bull



I'm not an asshole; I'm simply resolute...

"A Republic, If You Can Keep It."

Caution: My humor is a bit skewed.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 246
RE: Freedom... - 3/16/2010 5:42:44 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		At the time of the signing of the Constitution, the powers given to the Federal government were very clearly ennumerated and all other powers were explicitly granted to the States or the People (Amendment 10). Over the past 200 years, power has gradually centralized and the individual States are much weaker and the Federal government much stronger than originally envisioned.

Would you care to enumerate those "powers that have gradually centralized"?

(in reply to InvisibleBlack)
Profile   Post #: 247
RE: Freedom... - 3/16/2010 5:47:01 PM   
thornhappy


Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline 		Psychonaut?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckyman

Real women are patriots, progressive women are in fact 'cunts'...who appointed you referee?..... don't like em...don't read um...simple....even for progressive stooges....


You know... if you're who I think you are, I don't like you in your real profile, but I have to hand it to you. This one is pretty funny. Credit where credit's due, this one is a winner.


(in reply to ThatDamnedPanda)
Profile   Post #: 248
RE: Freedom... - 3/16/2010 5:49:00 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

 


quote:

2. I did not say them.



Actually you did..... You stated the following in post 159






quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

You seem to not be aware of the Constitution. You claim to have read both the Constitution and the Federalist papers but both of those documents go to great lengths to explane the necesity of a strong central government.





Credibility, it's a motherfucker.



quote:

"to explane the necesity of a strong central government."

You might also want to look at Federalist 9 and 10 for Madisons take on powerful central government.
It would seem that you need remedial English as well as remedial history


< Message edited by thompsonx -- 3/16/2010 5:52:50 PM >

(in reply to xBullx)
Profile   Post #: 249
RE: Freedom... - 3/16/2010 5:51:22 PM   
InvisibleBlack


Posts: 865
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

At the time of the signing of the Constitution, the powers given to the Federal government were very clearly ennumerated and all other powers were explicitly granted to the States or the People (Amendment 10). Over the past 200 years, power has gradually centralized and the individual States are much weaker and the Federal government much stronger than originally envisioned.

Would you care to enumerate those "powers that have gradually centralized"?


In 200 years!? That's an essay that would take weeks to write. The Federal government has assumed or been granted massively more authority than it was initially granted.

Just from Amendments alone - Federal Income Tax, Removal of State Assembly's election of Senators, Bill of Rights applying to States as well as the Federal government

Non-Amendments - Social Security (providing old age retirement pensions), the Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency - even such things as Roe v. Wade shifted power from the States to the Federal government.

Just to be sure - as you trying to say that over the two centuries since the founding of the nation, power has not accreted to the Federal government at the expense of the States?

_____________________________

Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 250
RE: Freedom... - 3/16/2010 5:52:15 PM   
thornhappy


Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckyman
and pigs fly at Mach 1

Shit.  I never figured they could even get transonic.  Learn something new everyday.

(in reply to cuckyman)
Profile   Post #: 251
RE: Freedom... - 3/16/2010 5:54:56 PM   
thornhappy


Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline 		Dude, I use rental cars down there.

And you're much more likely to find "thedailywtf.com" or Flying Spaghetti Monster bumper stickers on my car
quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckyman

Be sure and keep coming back....they will find you... especially with a big ole Obama sticker in your window....have fun with the gators....

(in reply to cuckyman)
Profile   Post #: 252
RE: Freedom... - 3/16/2010 5:56:46 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		Just to be sure - as you trying to say that over the two centuries since the founding of the nation, power has not accreted to the Federal government at the expense of the States?

I am just asking you to tell me which powers have been "usurped" in an unconstitutional manner?
You mentioned the direct election of senators as something you seem to feel is wrong.  Perhaps you might tell us why?  Have you any idea why this came about?

(in reply to InvisibleBlack)
Profile   Post #: 253
RE: Freedom... - 3/16/2010 6:00:23 PM   
thornhappy


Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline 		Dude! I've stayed at the Inn there! For about 5 days, and I couldn't get out of there fast enough.  Next time it'll be Victorville for me, though I liked the IHOP in Barstow.
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

All y'all are real slackers, because I've been there 3 times and ya nevah caught me!
Just try that in Silver Lakes

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 254
RE: Freedom... - 3/16/2010 6:02:23 PM   
thornhappy


Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline 		Just out of curiosity, from what I know small teams were inserted with Hueys, not a cargo lifter.
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

Chief Warrant Officer...CW-3  MOS 100C0 CH-47 pilot..... 16th CAG, 14th CAB, opcon 23rd INF DIV (Americal).... Multi-engine, turbine, tandem rotor ATP...Instrument and Flight Standardizaton Instructor for all incoming flight crews in Southern I Corps 70-71....and line pilot serving 11th Inf Brigade....Duc Pho RVN....
Ah yes...the bravery of being out of range.


As much as I hate the idea, I have to come to Cucky's defense.

The things he listed here ring true, unless he did a lot of research to concoct this, which I doubt.

And the CH-47 crews were anything but out of range:


Army Chinook Helicopter Crew Home At Last


The CH47 "Chinook" helicopter was one of the workhorses of the Army's air fleet. As a cargo lift, the Chinook could carry up to 28,000 pounds on its external cargo hook, and is credited with the recovery of 11,500 disabled aircraft worth more than $3 billion. As troop carrier, the aircraft could be fitted with 24 litters for medical evacuation, or carry 33-44 troops in addition to the crew. On one occasion, a Chinook evacuated 147 refugees and their possessions on a single flight. The Chinook could be outfitted for bombing missions, dropping tear gas or napalm in locations fixed wing aircraft could not reach. The big bird could carry a large cargo of supplies. 

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 255
RE: Freedom... - 3/16/2010 6:04:58 PM   
InvisibleBlack


Posts: 865
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Just to be sure - as you trying to say that over the two centuries since the founding of the nation, power has not accreted to the Federal government at the expense of the States?

I am just asking you to tell me which powers have been "usurped" in an unconstitutional manner?
You mentioned the direct election of senators as something you seem to feel is wrong.  Perhaps you might tell us why?  Have you any idea why this came about?


Please show mw where I use the word "usurped" as you quoted. For that matter, please show me where I said that anything was "unconstitutional" or "wrong". You're inferring things that I did not imply. I said:

quote:

Over the past 200 years, power has gradually centralized and the individual States are much weaker and the Federal government much stronger than originally envisioned.


This is a value-neutral statement. If you interpret the centralization of power and the growth of Federal government as a negative that's your take on the concept. I gave no opinion.

Nowhere did I say that powers were "usurped" nor did I claim that any of the Amendments listed were "wrong" - again, this is your perception.

My statement was that, over time, more and more power has accumulated to the Federal government at the expense of the States. You seem to take issue with that. Are you putting forward an opinion that a stronger central government was or is needed? Or are you just trying to start an argument for its own sake?

_____________________________

Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 256
RE: Freedom... - 3/16/2010 6:13:53 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

Dude! I've stayed at the Inn there! For about 5 days, and I couldn't get out of there fast enough.  Next time it'll be Victorville for me, though I liked the IHOP in Barstow.
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

All y'all are real slackers, because I've been there 3 times and ya nevah caught me!
Just try that in Silver Lakes


Next time you are in victimville you need to stop and help me with a blunt.

(in reply to thornhappy)
Profile   Post #: 257
RE: Freedom... - 3/16/2010 6:18:38 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		I was seeking clarification of your position vis-a-vis the growing power of the federal government.
You have told me what you did not say.  So I am curious as to yours and everyone elses opinion of whether the fed has too much power and whether that is percieved as good or bad.
The purpose is to promote discussion not arguement

(in reply to InvisibleBlack)
Profile   Post #: 258
RE: Freedom... - 3/16/2010 6:36:31 PM   
InvisibleBlack


Posts: 865
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

I was seeking clarification of your position vis-a-vis the growing power of the federal government.
You have told me what you did not say.  So I am curious as to yours and everyone elses opinion of whether the fed has too much power and whether that is percieved as good or bad.
The purpose is to promote discussion not arguement



Fair enough.

I think that in, say, 1850 it was impossible to directly govern a nation as large as ours from a central location. The methods of communications and transportation simply did not exist. States had to have a large amount of autonomy, as did local communities. I would argue that in the early stages of our nation, the Federal government needed more authority.

Now, however - the technology does exist to govern the nation centrally. Day-to-day matters can be ruled on from a central position. Unfortunately, I don't believe that 400+ people sitting in Washington DC can truly be in touch with 300+ million people. In 1793 one Representative actually represented about 30,000 people. Now a single Representative sits for better than 600,000. There are probably 30,000 people in my neighborhood here in NYC. It might be possible to get a sense of consensus on what they want. To get a handle on the views of 600,000 people os probably not even possible.

By trying to force "one size fits all" solutions on a nation of 300,000,000 people is going to create conflict. I think there's a lot of value in attempting to determine exactly what powers, of necessity, must be handled centrally (like say the military or the currency) and which could be delegated back to the States and handled at a more local level.

As simple examples:

I'm not terribly threatened if California legalizes marijuana. I'm not really concerned if Tennessee doesn't.

I think allowing the FCC to supervise the available bandwidth so we don't have stations state to state trying to drown each other out is probably a good idea.

I think politics and the overall mood of the country might be greatly improved if everyone didn't feel like their side had to "win" in the next election or else get the other guy's view forced on you by the Federal government.

So to sum up - I think the Federal government needed to be stronger than it was at its foundation, but currently the pendulum has shifted too far and it's creating unnecessary conflict. I think that pushing things that can be handled at a State level back to the States might have a beneficial effect on the nation as a whole.

_____________________________

Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 259
RE: Freedom... - 3/16/2010 6:42:06 PM   
Aynne88


Posts: 3873
Joined: 8/29/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckyman

Those same 'women and children' would slit  your throat in a minute... a good number of NVA were women....and yeah, killing them did bother me....they ran faster, and we had to lead them a little further......


First you quote Apocalypse Now... and now it is full metal jacket....

Never in My life have I met a warrior who talks like you do.

You are a poser and a fool.  You bring dishonor to every person who has ever served.

You disgust me


Yo cucky you faker, this is my Dad, and he is a democrat and a hero. He recieved the Soldiers Medal for pulling 4 men out of a burning ship. If you did serve, you'd know they called them ships. Below is an excerpt from one of the blogs about real soldiers. You, like my friend Jeff said, make me sick. Want to challenge me on Vietnam history? Bring it bitch.   

"But unexpectedly, we got to meet a real 1st Cav. Ia Drang battle crewchief who flew in slicks and gunships and he was our guardian angel Phil XXXX  and was in Vietnam in '65 and '66."

Cucky so tell me how was la Drang? You are so full of shit. 


_____________________________

As long as people will shed the blood of innocent creatures there can be no peace, no liberty, no harmony between people. Slaughter and justice cannot dwell together.
—Isaac Bashevis Singer, writer and Nobel laureate (1902–1991)



(in reply to Jeffff)
Profile   Post #: 260
Page:   <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Freedom... Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109