quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Have to? Not sure. But, they certainly do. I do't think film producers care all that much as long as they can turn a buck or two. And, is Hollywood that bad that producers can't run their production companies the way they want?

Of course they can run their companies the way they want, and as we both seem to agree, turning a buck or two is the singular goal of any and all businesses. Your point here was that Terrell Owens was kicked off several teams not due to his skills (since he was obviously skilled to do the job), but that he was a cancer in the locker room which was somehow affecting the team's bottom line. I was just questioning whether it was truly a business decision based solely on dollars and cents, or whether it was the result of pride, image, and/or the high-strung egos of professional sports (applying to both players and owners).

quote:

quote:

Government's antics that are worse isn't a good rationale for doing things that aren't quite as worse. Setting price controls in one industry means you'll likely have to do the same in every other industry (have to be fair, right?). Now, you have price controls across the board. That's chilling, imo.

Well, we've done it before. During World War II, it was a necessity to build up our war industries without a lot of inflation and price-gouging. If we left business to its own devices during that crucial time, it might very well have crippled the Allied war effort (and might have even lost us the war).
Among other things, this experience demonstrated that capitalism only really works well during fair weather. By the same token, it also demonstrated that price controls and other limited governmental interventions in the private sector can and do produce economic growth and stability, even during periods of crisis and war. The program was hugely successful, our war production increased (not only for ourselves but for the entire Allied side in the war), and we enjoyed the greatest period of economic growth in the post-war boom than we had ever seen before.
And you think that's "chilling"? Why?

quote:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

quote:

Another key consideration is that the Founding Fathers stressed that America should remain neutral in foreign affairs and refrain from permanent alliances and foreign entanglements. The conservatives used to be more isolationist in that respect, but after WW2, they turned into more ardent interventionists than the liberals (and often used it as a scathing point of criticism against liberals). So that's another area where they blew it big time, which is why I can't accept their current push towards so-called "limited government." I don't consider it to be sincere or genuine.
Please understand that I'm not directing that criticism at you, since I realize that you're more of an isolationist, as I am. But I'll only say that as long as both conservatives and liberals continue to actively pursue an interventionist and hegemonic foreign policy around the world, we will never have any kind of "limited government" of the kind envisioned by our Founding Fathers. We can't have it both ways, even as much as we might want it.

quote:

quote:

A "wall of separation?" Not there at all. But, it should be, IMO.

Perhaps it should, but it should be for both sides. It's one thing to try to prevent government interference in the private sector, but what about the other way around? What about lobbyists, PACs, and other privately funded entities which pay for all those wonderfully entertaining TV commercials we all enjoy so much around election time? The private sector seems to work overtime in political activism and influencing public opinion, so they seem to have quite a great deal of influence over the Federal government and what they do...more so than the average Joe or the people on welfare or those with minimal skills earning minimal pay.
That's what is ultimately so absurd about discussions about "limited government" vs. the private sector, since it's the private sector which has been the driving force behind turning government into what it has become. They're the ones who hold most of the cards, so if they don't like the way things are turning out, then it's mostly their fault, isn't it? If they created a monster, then maybe they should look at their own mistakes and misconceptions which led to the creation of that monster in the first place.

quote:

quote:

The thing about business, though, is that it isn't telling you what to do, really. If an Eastern coast retailer doesn't offer the goods you want in Arizona, that store isn't going to be very successful.

And that can and does happen. Those at the individual store level might realize what's going on right away, but in any kind of centralized hierarchy, there are so many barriers of communication between the front-line staff and the higher-ups who are in a position to actually make a decision.
Here's a humorous little piece I remember from decades ago, which kind of illustrates what I'm talking about:

quote:

In the beginning was the plan.

And then came the assumptions.

And the assumptions were without form.

And the plan was without substance.

And darkness was upon the face of the workers.

And they spoke among themselves saying,
"It is a crock of shit and it stinketh."

And the workers went unto their supervisors and said,
"It is a pale of dung and none may abide the odor thereof."

And the supervisor went unto their managers and said,
"It is a container of excrement and it is very strong, such that none may abide by it."

And the managers went unto their directors, saying,
"It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide its strength."

And the directors spoke among themselves, saying to one another,
"It contains that which aids plant growth and it is very strong."

And the directors went unto the vice presidents, saying unto them,
"It promotes growth and is very powerful."

And the vice presidents went unto the president, saying unto him,
"The new plan will promote the growth and vigor of the company, with powerful effects."

And the president looked upon the plan and saw that it was good.

And the plan became policy.

This is how shit happens.

quote:

quote:

Took the representation of the States out of the Federal Government. Up until then, Senators were appointed by the States, not elected directly. Presumably, the States would have their representation in the Federal Government, too. The US Constitution was not just a compact among the People, but also among the States.

I don't see how it makes all that much difference, though, since the State governments are elected by the People as well. The States would still be represented by their Senators, whether elected by the People or appointed by the State governments. If we're a government of the People, by the People, and for the People, then that should also apply to State and local governments, shouldn't it?

No one is representing the States. Yes, the People elect the State-level representatives, but the Senators answered directly to the States, not directly to the People. The People have their representatives in Congress. The States no longer do.

quote:

quote:

State Governments certainly can get tyrannical towards it's citizens. But, it's a shitload closer to home when they do.

That's a knife that cuts both ways. State and local tyrannies can and do get pretty nasty. We have a history of it here in AZ, as well as in other areas of the country too. A lot of feuds, violence, and blood. People squabble too much, and when they do, there's a tendency to keep wanting to appeal to higher authority to settle things. As a result, that higher authority gains most of the power by default.

quote:

IMO, each level of government should act more on the level of government beneath it than on the People, except for the lowest level of government. So, County government should have more to do with the Municipals, Township, Village, etc. levels than they do with the People. States governments should have more focus on the County governments. State governments are like the back side of a coin with the Federal Government. State governments focus more on the internal workings of the Country, and the Federal Government focuses more on the external things (and mediates in disputes between/among the States).

But should county and municipal governments enjoy the same level of semi-autonomy in relation to their State governments as State governments should theoretically have in relation to the Federal government?
Using Arizona as an example, we're in a situation where 60% of the State's population is in and around the Phoenix metro area, so they have most of the legislative seats and a majority of the State's voters. Do the smaller counties and cities have any recourse if the legislature and State government decides to do something to benefit Phoenix to the detriment of the rest of the State? Should we be able to secede from the State and form our own State government?

This is where the State House and State Senate would control that, if they are set up the way they were originally in the Constitution. Each County would be represented equally in the Senate, thereby blocking legislation that helps only the minority of Counties at the expense of the majority of Counties.

Oppressive and tyrannical governments are easier to contain and control the closer they are to the People themselves.



_____________________________

What I support:

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

(in reply to Zonie63)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:



Perhaps I may have been oversimplifying about Madison, but I think that whenever we examine the Constitution and the intentions of the Founding Fathers, we have to temper with our historical 20/20 hindsight that they were monumentally wrong on a few issues which had to be hashed out in the Civil War.

Uh? Like what exactly?

Northern founding fathers wanted to abolish slavery. However, they viewed the establishment of the country to be more important, reasoning that the slave issue could be solved in time.

The constitution was an exquisite compromise.
Had they slaves counted 1:1 for representation, southerners would have controlled the halls of power and would well have continued slavery ad infinitum.

People do not give the founding fathers the credit they deserved.

quote:


They strove thereby to minimize the size of government and insulate the halls of government from mad swings in the will of the people. The original senate was to be chosen by the state governments - not by the people...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
They strove thereby to minimize the size of government and insulate the halls of government from mad swings in the will of the people. The original senate was to be chosen by the state governments - not by the people...

And who chooses the State governments?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Why is it so chilling? Because government is about power, and, in case you've missed it, both parties are about increasing both their own party's power, and government's power, in general. Granting them the authority to dictate wages and prices in all industry will not result in good for anyone, but the ones in power.

quote:


Yes, I am much more of an isolationist than most. It's great to get along with other countries, but some alliances will result in our resources being abused.

quote:


I didn't explain myself very well. I think there should be a wall of separation between business and government. I absolutely agree that the wall should separate in both directions, and separating business from government was actually the direction I meant. I'm not okay with business buying government (I'm all for getting rid of all tax loopholes, except those for charities). I am unhappy that our government has been and still is "for sale" to moneyed interests. That's the underlying theme for the Occupy Movement that I absolutely agree/d with.

quote:


No one is representing the States. Yes, the People elect the State-level representatives, but the Senators answered directly to the States, not directly to the People. The People have their representatives in Congress. The States no longer do.

quote:


This is where the State House and State Senate would control that, if they are set up the way they were originally in the Constitution. Each County would be represented equally in the Senate, thereby blocking legislation that helps only the minority of Counties at the expense of the majority of Counties.

Oppressive and tyrannical governments are easier to contain and control the closer they are to the People themselves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
They strove thereby to minimize the size of government and insulate the halls of government from mad swings in the will of the people. The original senate was to be chosen by the state governments - not by the people...

And who chooses the State governments?

The difference is, though, Senators would be directly accountable to the State government, not the People within the State. Now, Senators are directly accountable to the People within the State, and not the State governments. It's much easier to take away States rights when there is no one being held accountable by the States.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
When you say that "government is about power," does that mean to imply that business is not? Some might say that money is power, and as such, greed and accumulation of wealth is about increasing one's power. Why should I only worry about government wanting power and not business? What difference does it make to the average citizen whether he's getting screwed by a commissar or a pin-striped boss? Either way, they're both the same.

quote:

Political parties are obviously interested in increasing their party's power, but to what end? Clearly, it wouldn't benefit any individual who wanted power, since the oligarchs would keep each other in check. The big shots in society are probably the ones most afraid of increasing governmental power, since some of them are most likely to end up on the chopping block once a government dictatorship is (theoretically) established. If and when ambitious megalomaniacs take power, the first thing they invariably do is go after other powerful people who could threaten them.
Another thing about power, though, is that in order for those in power to be able to stay there, they have to be able to maintain long-term stability and political harmony in society. If they're unable or unwilling to do that, then their power can disappear literally overnight. That's why those in power might exert some of that in order to maintain that stability, such as imposing wage/price controls or other limited interventions when needed.
What's truly chilling is that so many businesspeople, capitalists, and economists seem unable to understand this. They don't learn from history. They're embracing the same mentality which led to upheavals, coups, dictatorships, and world wars. A truly reckless philosophy in the nuclear era. If we have to impose price controls to stabilize things, then I think that's a small price to pay when one considers the alternatives. Better to have a slight chill than the freezing cold of nuclear winter.
The key thing to consider here is that, as citizens in a free society which embraces life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it also comes with responsibilities. We've been talking about taking responsibility for one's actions, but I say that those who abuse their rights and freedoms without taking responsibility for the consequences are ultimately causing harm to the nation and other nations. The "private sector" is not island unto itself.

quote:

One way of combating this would be to put some real teeth in anti-corruption laws. Closing up loopholes and other systemic flaws would also help. But overall, what needs to happen is a change of culture within government itself. The role of the President is instrumental in this, since he's supposed to be managing and supervising his own branch of government. The President is supposed to be "minding the store," so to speak, not gallivanting all over the world or hobnobbing with celebrities.
But that's just as much a failure of the electorate as well. When Americans vote for their President, they don't seem to want a statesman or someone who will competently manage the Executive Branch of government. All they want is a pretty-boy news anchor, just another celebrity they can "ooh" and "aah" over. The political parties spend big bucks to create this image in the minds of voters, and the parties are financed by Wall Street and elsewhere in the private sector. If the government is for sale, then it's really the People who are buying it, since they're the ones ultimately paying for it anyway.
The "commodity" that the politicians are selling is their ability to bullshit and manipulate the People, so it's really up to the People to smarten up and make that commodity worthless. Once that happens, government will no longer be for sale.
But again, if citizens in a free society won't take the responsibility for what they do, then we get what we get. You can build as many "walls of separation" as you want, but it's not going to do a thing until the People wise up. If that's not in the cards, then I predict further instability, factionalism, regionalism, and quite probably some kind of major upheaval within the next 25-50 years. We just can't go on this way indefinitely. Something's gotta give sooner or later.
The only other things we might hope for is some kind of miracle invention or perhaps a visit from an alien civilization which could even give us more technology and more enlightened methods of governance.
Or maybe we can expect divine intervention, although I wouldn't hold my breath for that.
The least likely thing that will happen will be the Powers That Be and other leaders in our society will actually evolve into decent human beings and resolve to restrain themselves and act responsibly from here on out.

quote:

But does that really matter? The States have Governors who represent their States when it comes to dealing with the Federal government as well as dealing with other States - just like the President represents our national government when it comes to dealing with other countries or world organizations (such as the UN).
Our own Governor here in Arizona has met with the President several times, such as in the picture here:



You don't think she's representing our State government here? I or any other citizen of this State wouldn't be allowed to approach Obama and shake our fingers at him, but she was able to do that. So, as I see it, the State government has more representation and clout in the Federal government than I do - even though I'm one of "the people."

quote:

quote:

This is where the State House and State Senate would control that, if they are set up the way they were originally in the Constitution. Each County would be represented equally in the Senate, thereby blocking legislation that helps only the minority of Counties at the expense of the majority of Counties.
Oppressive and tyrannical governments are easier to contain and control the closer they are to the People themselves.

Perhaps, but it's also true that it's easier for a tyrannical government to maintain control in smaller, isolated ponds where there may not be much scrutiny from higher authority or outside observers. The People may be somewhat reticent to challenge local authority, since they have to live here too. The Feds are just "visitors," but those who have to live here have to live here, and therein lies the problem.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
It isn't the same. You can legally escape a business by not purchasing it's products. You can not legally escape the Federal Government (without moving and renouncing citizenship).

quote:


Parties are trying to get more power for the main goal of: getting even more power.

quote:


Business looks for power so it plays both sides of the political aisle. Businesses will continue to stay in power because they will continue to purchase government.

quote:


Rush Limbaugh calls them "low information voters." While he aims that charge at Democrat supporters, it's just as apt to describe as many Republican voters, too. To be honest, I don't know what we're going to do about the electorate. People seem to vote for whichever party they think is going to give them the most back. Currently, that would be the Democrat Party. I'm sure, in the near future, the GOP will start "buying" voters to regain power.

quote:


The only thing a Governor can do is complain loudly. That would be about it. There is nothing a Governor can do directly to stop the Federal Government. That was the point of having Senators appointed by the State governments. Senators can do something directly.

quote:


I understand your point, but a municipal tyrant could be taken care of by the County. A County tyrant could be taken care of by the State.

quote:


While there are several "Council Districts" within the city of Toledo, there are "At-Large" City Council seats, too. A voter in one District can not only vote for that District's seat, but also those of the At-Large seats. Elections are the "easiest" route of taking care of a local tyrant, and Council seats are voted on in a staggered manner, so Council can be changed quicker. Council can also oppose the Mayor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Actually, the complete opposite is true. The powers of the federal government were carefully circumscribed. Any power not explicitly enumerated were reserved to the states or to the people.

What exactly are those powers?

It is not the framers fault however that we have politicians and judges that do not adhere to that philosophy.

Which politicians and which judges do you feel are the offenders?

(in reply to Phydeaux)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

The difference is, though, Senators would be directly accountable to the State government, not the People within the State.

Is not the state government made up of people elected by the people? How is it that the state has become some seperate entity?


Now, Senators are directly accountable to the People within the State, and not the State governments. It's much easier to take away States rights when there is no one being held accountable by the States.

Fatuous bullshit. When the senators were appointed who could recall them? Now the people can have direct input...why is that a bad thing.

Proof you have no real idea what a conservative thinks. The Founders did set in place the manner in which the US Constitution was to be changed. I know of no conservative that doesn't know that.

If that be true why do you have issues with the 17 th. ammendment?

Even though Joether doesn't get it, Marini's example of Obamacare is spot on. The Administrative State removes things from the shoulders of Congress, so to insulate it from the voters, to an extent.

How is it that the voters cannot vote out the offender and vote in someone who will do what they are told?
Why is it that anyone would expect a congressperson to fulfill all of the functions of such bureaus as the epa or osha etc.? Or is this the purpose? If there are no administrators to staff the bureaus then those bureaus cannot fulfill their function. Pretty cool now there is no one to make or enforce safety regulations. It appears that this sort of limited government supplies the sort of safety net that big business needs to continue fucking us.


Unelected officials are starting to call the shots.

Unelected cops arrest criminals...what is your point?

The EPA can make standards and rules that can have massive impacts on our daily lives, and we didn't elect them, so we can't get rid of them.

And neither can the korporate punkassmotherfuckers who would like return to slavery.


We have so many Departments that are full of appointments that our elected officials are barely in control anymore.

That would be unsubstantiated opinion.

Technically, you responded to the questions, but you most certainly did not answer any-fucking-thing.

Kinda like some people refusing to list the "enumerated powers" after claiming that the "enumerated powers" are the only legal functions of the constitution.

which, you will use incorrectly and outside the intent of the Framers, which, not surprisingly, is easily found via their writings, even though they are no longer alive.

Fed #45 speaks directly to the happiness of the people being the only purpose of government.
It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the
public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people,
is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of
government whatever has any other value than as it may be
fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the
convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would
be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with
the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like
manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled
to the happiness of the people, the voice of every
good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter.
How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How
far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question
before us.

< Message edited by thompsonx -- 12/20/2013 4:14:44 PM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I just read the October issue of Imprimis. While it is odd that it was delivered this week, it was still a very interesting read.

Here it is in pdf format.

I would like to get the opinions of P&R on the gist of Marini's assertions. I know there will be some that will oppose whatever any Imprimis says, simply because it's in the Imprimis, from Hillsdale College, or some other stupid partisan horseshit. None of that addresses the actual meat of the article, which is what I'd rather discuss.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Actually, the complete opposite is true. The powers of the federal government were carefully circumscribed. Any power not explicitly enumerated were reserved to the states or to the people.

What exactly are those powers?

It is not the framers fault however that we have politicians and judges that do not adhere to that philosophy.

Which politicians and which judges do you feel are the offenders?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
It isn't the same. You can legally escape a business by not purchasing it's products. You can not legally escape the Federal Government (without moving and renouncing citizenship).

Still, leaving the country is always an option, so the same principle applies. Nobody is forced to buy a business’ products, and nobody is forced to remain as a citizen of the United States. Emigration may be more problematic, but I wouldn’t be so cavalier about one’s choices in business either, since it’s not always that easy for some people, depending on where they live and what choices are available.

quote:

quote:

Parties are trying to get more power for the main goal of: getting even more power.

Why? To what end? What will they do with that power? If, for example, you’re saying the Democrats want more power, does that mean they want Obama to be a dictator? If not, then what? Does it mean that once they gain total power, they’ll outlaw all other political parties? What, exactly, is the end game here as you see it?

quote:

quote:

Business looks for power so it plays both sides of the political aisle. Businesses will continue to stay in power because they will continue to purchase government.

Then what reason would the political parties have for seeking more power? If all the power rests in those who have the money to purchase government, then the Powers That Be would be content with the status quo and wouldn’t want to give any more power to a single party, faction, or individual, since that would be an unwarranted risk to their own power.
Their power is mostly held in the illusion that there is political plurality and fair competition in this country. By overtly seeking more power, political parties would destroy that illusion and ultimately lose their power. Is that what they want?

quote:

quote:

Rush Limbaugh calls them "low information voters." While he aims that charge at Democrat supporters, it's just as apt to describe as many Republican voters, too. To be honest, I don't know what we're going to do about the electorate. People seem to vote for whichever party they think is going to give them the most back. Currently, that would be the Democrat Party. I'm sure, in the near future, the GOP will start "buying" voters to regain power.

I don’t think there’s anything that can be done about the electorate. I actually find it quite frustrating most of the time whenever I talk to people about politics. The real irony is that even people whose views are diametrically opposed to each other, once you get past the media-inspired “talking points” which seem to divide factions, you can see that they’re a lot more alike than they are different.
It’s funny, because conservatives and liberals often go at each other as if they come from different planets, but they come from (mostly) the same culture, the same history, the same influences, the same literature, art, music. Many have similar religious values, too, as there are both liberal Christians as well as conservative Christians. It doesn’t even seem to have coherent class distinction either, since there are plenty of wealthy liberals and plenty of working-class conservatives.
It’s kind of curious, when you really think about it. How can people who come from the same roots and be alike in so many ways somehow wind up at odds with each other over the kinds of things that divide us?

quote:

quote:

The only thing a Governor can do is complain loudly. That would be about it. There is nothing a Governor can do directly to stop the Federal Government. That was the point of having Senators appointed by the State governments. Senators can do something directly.

Not unless they can get enough Senators to agree with them, which is the same issue whether they’re elected by the People or appointed by the States. If not, then that’s all the Senators would be doing – complaining loudly. At least the Governor would have some measure of power over the State itself, whereas the Senators have none, except 2 votes out of 100, at best. The Senators don’t even have credentials in their own State legislatures.
In any case, I’m finding it difficult to understand what the problem is. Why not have as many public offices directly elected by the People as possible and feasible? If we truly fear direct elections and the People actually having a voice in government, then why bother having elections at all? Why bother having a democracy?

quote:

quote:


I understand your point, but a municipal tyrant could be taken care of by the County. A County tyrant could be taken care of by the State.

It’s nice in theory, but in practice, it can turn out quite differently.

quote:

While there are several "Council Districts" within the city of Toledo, there are "At-Large" City Council seats, too. A voter in one District can not only vote for that District's seat, but also those of the At-Large seats. Elections are the "easiest" route of taking care of a local tyrant, and Council seats are voted on in a staggered manner, so Council can be changed quicker. Council can also oppose the Mayor.

Our city charter is a bit different, especially since it was “grandfathered” in when Arizona became part of the United States. Our city government already existed in 1775, so it’s kind of weird how it works. We have a city council and a mayor, but the mayor really has no power, as he’s just another vote on the council. The day-to-day operations of city government are handled by an appointed city manager. The county government is much the same way, as there is the county Board of Supervisors, who appoint a county administrator to take on the same functions as the city manager does.
But they’re actually quite limited as to what they can actually do, since most of the actual power lies in the State government.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:



Perhaps I may have been oversimplifying about Madison, but I think that whenever we examine the Constitution and the intentions of the Founding Fathers, we have to temper with our historical 20/20 hindsight that they were monumentally wrong on a few issues which had to be hashed out in the Civil War.

Uh? Like what exactly?

Northern founding fathers wanted to abolish slavery. However, they viewed the establishment of the country to be more important, reasoning that the slave issue could be solved in time.

The constitution was an exquisite compromise.
Had they slaves counted 1:1 for representation, southerners would have controlled the halls of power and would well have continued slavery ad infinitum.

People do not give the founding fathers the credit they deserved.

The slavery issue was solved over time, but it seems that the primary complaint here in this thread has to do with the solution that was made (which includes the 14th Amendment and centralized Federal power). You can't have it both ways. You can't leave a job undone for someone else to do and then complain later about how it was done.

In other words, if the States' Rights fanatics really, really wanted that, then they should have abolished slavery before it came to a Civil War. If they had been willing to make an "exquisite compromise" on that, then perhaps the issue could have been solved a long time ago.

I'll give the Founding Fathers some credit; I didn't say they were wrong on everything. But they weren't perfect, either. I think sometimes, people might try to use the Founding Fathers and take advantage of Americans' sentiment regarding them in order to advance a more contemporary political agenda.

And - not to put too fine a point on this - the results of the Civil War clearly proved that a centralized industrial power can beat the pants off a decentralized, agrarian, slave-based economy. Had the South won the Civil War, they would have ultimately divided and degenerated into what Central America became - dependent, weak, and under the hegemony of a larger power. That would have been the logical conclusion of the States' Rights agenda, if it had succeeded. That's the best reason for rejecting it.

Put simply, if it makes America weak (whether politically, economically, or militarily), then it's probably not a good idea. Just sayin'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Actually, the complete opposite is true. The powers of the federal government were carefully circumscribed. Any power not explicitly enumerated were reserved to the states or to the people.

What exactly are those powers?

It is not the framers fault however that we have politicians and judges that do not adhere to that philosophy.

Which politicians and which judges do you feel are the offenders?

The constitution lists them - why should I re-type a list which is already done. Done beautifully, and commented on profusely in thousands of court decisions.

If you are unwilling or unable to answer the question just say so.If it is so clear then you should be able to "enumerate " them.

The point is you got the fundamental tenet of our government exactly wrong.

Where have I stated what I feel to be the fundamental tenent of our government?

And why is it at all interesting *which* politicians and judges. 90% of all dims. 60% of all repubs. As a guess.

First you made the statement that politicians and judges do not "adhere" to the constitution. I simply aske which ones you felt were the offenders and your response is that you "guess". That would seem to be prima facia evidence that your original statement was also a guess. Is there any posibility that you might supply us with facts sinces your guesses are not all that usefull.


< Message edited by thompsonx -- 12/21/2013 3:58:34 PM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux




Well this is nicely worded - but I'm still awaiting support for your statement that the founding fathers were monumentally wrong.

Thomas jefferson is on record as to his opinion as to the inferiority of blacks intellectually. Since he was for the most of his adult life in a position to make laws that perpetuated this intellectual falacy. Most folks with a three digit iq and a pulse would agree that this is in fact an intellectual falacy.
Since both the federalist papers and the anti federalist papers were written by the founders anyone who reads them will find that they constantly tell each other how fucking stupid they are,how monumentally wrong is their understanding of government.



It does rather offend me to hear an armchair quarterback

Until someone produces a time machine "armchair quarterback" is pretty much all we have.


casually criticize (especially without a cogent backup to the statement) what is one of the best documents of the last thousand years.

This would be your unsubstantiated opinion.

Fundamentally man - this is the rulebook by how we live with each other.

I should think comon courtesy would be the rule book by which all humans live. The constitution is "nothing but a fucking piece of paper" according to bush. According to patrick henry it was nothing less than the warrant for the end of freedom and free men.
"I acknowledge that licentiousness is dangerous, and that it ought to be provided against. I acknowledge, also, the
new form of government may effectually prevent it. Yet there is another thing it will as
effectually do- -it will oppress and ruin the people.



It is one of the things that makes America who it is. So to me criticizing it, or the founding fathers is rather like criticizing baseball, applepie, and mother hood - squared.


Baseball is a form of legal slavery.
Apple pie has burned more mouths than mcdonalds coffee.
Motherfuckers exist only because there are mothers.
The founding fathers were just like any other rich guy trying to hustle a buck.
Nationalism is almost as boring as sports team loyality....albiet more bloody.

(in reply to Phydeaux)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Well this is nicely worded - but I'm still awaiting support for your statement that the founding fathers were monumentally wrong.

quote:


I've offered no dog in the fight otherwise. In other words, I haven't followed the argument about the 14th amendment. Nor about states rights.

quote:


It does rather offend me to hear an armchair quarterback casually criticize (especially without a cogent backup to the statement) what is one of the best documents of the last thousand years.

quote:


Fundamentally man - this is the rulebook by how we live with each other. It is one of the things that makes America who it is. So to me criticizing it, or the founding fathers is rather like criticizing baseball, applepie, and mother hood - squared.