# Did the Founders want a weak central government?



## SpidermanTuba

If you answered "YES", the please explain why they did not keep the Articles of Confederation, which was a form of government with weak central authority and most of the real power still resting with the states.


----------



## Oddball

A question which is truly ignorant of American history.

The Federalists (Adams, Hamilton, et al): No.

The Anti-federalists (Jefferson, Paine, etcetera): Yes.


----------



## California Girl

On a scale of 1 to 10..... how stupid can one poster be? 

1 being damned smart (I'm thinking on a par with, say, Navy1960) and 10 being dumb as dirt and stupid as mud (It would be unkind to single out just one). 


*NB: I miss Navy.... wish he'd get his ass back on the forum. Shit.... I should just email his ass and tell him that I miss him.


----------



## QUENTIN

Define what you mean by "weak" in this context.

Dude's breakdown is largely accurate in terms of who wanted more authority vs. less authority relative to the States, but how "weak" or "strong" any of it was is too subjective to answer in a vague poll.


----------



## California Girl

Dude said:


> A question which is truly ignorant of American history.
> 
> The Federalists (Adams, Hamilton, et al): No.
> 
> The Anti-federalists (Jefferson, Paine, etcetera): Yes.



The OP appears to equate small with weak, or isn't smart enough to know the difference. Go figure. It's a dumbass question undeserving of a serious response.


----------



## DiamondDave

Limited and enumerated powers that were specifically granted along with the stipulation that those powers not granted to the fed are reserved for the states and individuals.... while not 'weak' the founders clearly sought to limit the powers of the fed... unlike what left wingers believe


----------



## NYcarbineer

DiamondDave said:


> Limited and enumerated powers that were specifically granted along with the stipulation that those powers not granted to the fed are reserved for the states and individuals.... while not 'weak' the founders clearly sought to limit the powers of the fed... unlike what left wingers believe



Yet ironically in the other thread you are arguing that the federal government has the power to infringe on or take away my right to travel, despite there being no such enumerated power in the Constitution.


----------



## Baruch Menachem

They wanted something strong enough to deal with outside threats, but not so strong as it would be a daily harassment to the average citizen.

Big issues back in 1789 were the British insistence that they could interfere with US shipping, the pirates off the African coast, bankrupt states threatening the security of the rest of the country.

Some things never change.

But they wanted internal freedom and external strength.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Dude said:


> A question which is truly ignorant of American history.
> 
> The Federalists (Adams, Hamilton, et al): No.
> 
> The Anti-federalists (Jefferson, Paine, etcetera): Yes.



There's nothing ignorant in the question.  Ignorance is your inability to answer it.


----------



## NYcarbineer

California Girl said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> A question which is truly ignorant of American history.
> 
> The Federalists (Adams, Hamilton, et al): No.
> 
> The Anti-federalists (Jefferson, Paine, etcetera): Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP appears to equate small with weak, or isn't smart enough to know the difference. Go figure. It's a dumbass question undeserving of a serious response.
Click to expand...


Like you would know.  jeezus christ.  miss america strikes again.


----------



## Meister

History taught me a smaller federal government and stronger state government


----------



## Dr.Traveler

Weak? 

No.  They had the Articles of Confederation and could have stayed with that if they wanted a weak government.  They met initially to fix the Articles because they knew that the Articles had serious flaws.

Dude makes a good point in this thread though.  The Founders were not some homogeneous group think.  They had differing opinions on almost any topic that came up during the day, so it isn't really possible to talk about the opinion of that group as a whole.  That's part of the reason that the whole "Original Intent" agrument is typically bunk.

But one thing is clear:  They knew the Articles, which provided a very weak central government, needed work.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

DiamondDave said:


> Limited and enumerated powers that were specifically granted along with the stipulation that those powers not granted to the fed are reserved for the states and individuals.... while not 'weak' the founders clearly sought to limit the powers of the fed... unlike what left wingers believe



Having a central government with limited power merely makes the system federal.


----------



## NYcarbineer

California Girl said:


> On a scale of 1 to 10..... how stupid can one poster be?



*"Namecalling is the sign of a lost argument." California Girl 10/16/09*

lol, sometimes it's just too easy around here.  Where do the intelligent rightwingers post?


----------



## Dr.Traveler

NYcarbineer said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> On a scale of 1 to 10..... how stupid can one poster be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Namecalling is the sign of a lost argument." California Girl 10/16/09*
> 
> lol, sometimes it's just too easy around here.  Where do the intelligent rightwingers post?
Click to expand...


Can you provide the link to that quote.  It might be useful in a few other threads.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Dr.Traveler said:


> Weak?
> 
> No.  They had the Articles of Confederation and could have stayed with that if they wanted a weak government.  They met initially to fix the Articles because they knew that the Articles had serious flaws.
> 
> Dude makes a good point in this thread though.  The Founders were not some homogeneous group think.  They had differing opinions on almost any topic that came up during the day, so it isn't really possible to talk about the opinion of that group as a whole.  That's part of the reason that the whole "Original Intent" agrument is typically bunk.
> 
> But one thing is clear:  They knew the Articles, which provided a very weak central government, needed work.



I think the question is designed to address the very often heard assertion from certain circles that the founders never intended our federal government to have this much power, which translates into asserting that they intended the federal government to be weak.  Which even goes as far as to get serious arguments, nowadays, from many, that the states have the right to secede.


----------



## Meister

Does our federal government need to be so strong that it can tell and individual how to live his/her life?  This is what is beginning to happen with healthcare, and now our salt intake?
Where will this stop?


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Meister said:


> Does our federal government need to be so strong that it can tell and individual how to live his/her life?  This is what is beginning to happen with healthcare, and now our salt intake?
> Where will this stop?





How is the government telling me how to live my life with the health care bill?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Dr.Traveler said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> On a scale of 1 to 10..... how stupid can one poster be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Namecalling is the sign of a lost argument." California Girl 10/16/09*
> 
> lol, sometimes it's just too easy around here.  Where do the intelligent rightwingers post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you provide the link to that quote.  It might be useful in a few other threads.
Click to expand...


Here.  2 for the price of one actually, if you read through the quotes.  

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1622775-post110.html


----------



## Meister

SpidermanTuba said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does our federal government need to be so strong that it can tell and individual how to live his/her life?  This is what is beginning to happen with healthcare, and now our salt intake?
> Where will this stop?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is the government telling me how to live my life with the health care bill?
Click to expand...

It's telling you that you are going to have healthcare one way or another.....a year ago it wasn't.....sheesh


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Meister said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does our federal government need to be so strong that it can tell and individual how to live his/her life?  This is what is beginning to happen with healthcare, and now our salt intake?
> Where will this stop?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is the government telling me how to live my life with the health care bill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's telling you that you are going to have healthcare one way or another.....a year ago it wasn't.....sheesh
Click to expand...


Ok. I'm also going to have an interstate highway system one way or another - whether I like it or not, and I'm forced to pay for it with my tax dollars under penalty of law. Is that government controlling my life?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Ofcourse  they wanted a _*strong*_ federal government. The desire was for a _*limited*_ federal governement where only _*explict*_ powers were granted, all the _*unenumerated powers*_ resting with the states.

We're moving more and more to a central-form of government which is exactly what they wanted to avoid.


----------



## Meister

SpidermanTuba said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is the government telling me how to live my life with the health care bill?
> 
> 
> 
> It's telling you that you are going to have healthcare one way or another.....a year ago it wasn't.....sheesh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok. I'm also going to have an interstate highway system one way or another - whether I like it or not, and I'm forced to pay for it with my tax dollars under penalty of law. Is that government controlling my life?
Click to expand...


Your talking about infrastructure and healthcare?  Am I getting that right?


----------



## Oddball

Dr.Traveler said:


> Weak?
> 
> No.  They had the Articles of Confederation and could have stayed with that if they wanted a weak government.  They met initially to fix the Articles because they knew that the Articles had serious flaws.
> 
> Dude makes a good point in this thread though.  The Founders were not some homogeneous group think.  They had differing opinions on almost any topic that came up during the day, so it isn't really possible to talk about the opinion of that group as a whole.  *That's part of the reason that the whole "Original Intent" agrument is typically bunk.*
> 
> But one thing is clear:  They knew the Articles, which provided a very weak central government, needed work.


Somewhat agree, to the point where the original intent was made beyond clear, when spelled out in clear concise English, in the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers....At that point the original intent argument is pretty rock-solid.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

SpidermanTuba said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is the government telling me how to live my life with the health care bill?
> 
> 
> 
> It's telling you that you are going to have healthcare one way or another.....a year ago it wasn't.....sheesh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok. I'm also going to have an interstate highway system one way or another - whether I like it or not, and I'm forced to pay for it with my tax dollars under penalty of law. Is that government controlling my life?
Click to expand...


Another ridiculous premise.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Meister said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's telling you that you are going to have healthcare one way or another.....a year ago it wasn't.....sheesh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. I'm also going to have an interstate highway system one way or another - whether I like it or not, and I'm forced to pay for it with my tax dollars under penalty of law. Is that government controlling my life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your talking about infrastructure and healthcare?  Am I getting that right?
Click to expand...


Wow, you're quick.


----------



## DiamondDave

NYcarbineer said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limited and enumerated powers that were specifically granted along with the stipulation that those powers not granted to the fed are reserved for the states and individuals.... while not 'weak' the founders clearly sought to limit the powers of the fed... unlike what left wingers believe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet ironically in the other thread you are arguing that the federal government has the power to infringe on or take away my right to travel, despite there being no such enumerated power in the Constitution.
Click to expand...


In very LIMITED restrictions, yes it does (under the other powers it is granted... and don't forget the states have their own individual constitutions)... you generally have the freedom to travel, though it is not a right (only very few actual 'rights' are laid out in the constitution)

And please remember that what I was arguing is that travel is not a right but an enjoyed freedom which is generally protected.... big difference from what you are trying to infer


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Soggy in NOLA said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's telling you that you are going to have healthcare one way or another.....a year ago it wasn't.....sheesh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. I'm also going to have an interstate highway system one way or another - whether I like it or not, and I'm forced to pay for it with my tax dollars under penalty of law. Is that government controlling my life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another ridiculous premise.
Click to expand...


Soggy, you may not realize this, but the highway system costs money. And in FACT, that money is FORCIBLY taken from people, whether they want to or not, and whether they use the system or not, to pay for it.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

SpidermanTuba said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. I'm also going to have an interstate highway system one way or another - whether I like it or not, and I'm forced to pay for it with my tax dollars under penalty of law. Is that government controlling my life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another ridiculous premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Soggy, you may not realize this, but the highway system costs money. And in FACT, that money is FORCIBLY taken from people, whether they want to or not, and whether they use the system or not, to pay for it.
Click to expand...


_*Everyone*_ benefits from the highway system whether they realize it (or want to realize it) or not.  I doubt that the existence of the US ighway system is seen by anyone as a controlling factor in their life.  Or, at least I hope not.  Point being... the framers sought to avoid a situation whereby the feds were dictating minutia of everyday life.

Telling me what to eat, think, drink, buy insurance, etc. is an entirely different thing.


----------



## Oddball

SpidermanTuba said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. I'm also going to have an interstate highway system one way or another - whether I like it or not, and I'm forced to pay for it with my tax dollars under penalty of law. Is that government controlling my life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another ridiculous premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Soggy, you may not realize this, but the highway system costs money. And in FACT, that money is FORCIBLY taken from people, whether they want to or not, and whether they use the system or not, to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Fatally flawed example.

Fuel taxes,  to a great extent, pay for interstate highways...Nobody who doesn't buy gasoline or diesel pays anything for the roads.


----------



## boedicca

Dr.Traveler said:


> Weak?
> 
> No.  They had the Articles of Confederation and could have stayed with that if they wanted a weak government.  They met initially to fix the Articles because they knew that the Articles had serious flaws.
> 
> Dude makes a good point in this thread though.  The Founders were not some homogeneous group think.  They had differing opinions on almost any topic that came up during the day, so it isn't really possible to talk about the opinion of that group as a whole.  That's part of the reason that the whole "Original Intent" agrument is typically bunk.
> 
> But one thing is clear:  They knew the Articles, which provided a very weak central government, needed work.





There's a difference between weak & ineffective - and limited.

The Founders did intend Limited government which could be strong and effective in specific areas.  They certainly did not intend the current Leviathan.


----------



## Oddball

DiamondDave said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limited and enumerated powers that were specifically granted along with the stipulation that those powers not granted to the fed are reserved for the states and individuals.... while not 'weak' the founders clearly sought to limit the powers of the fed... unlike what left wingers believe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet ironically in the other thread you are arguing that the federal government has the power to infringe on or take away my right to travel, despite there being no such enumerated power in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In very LIMITED restrictions, yes it does (under the other powers it is granted... and don't forget the states have their own individual constitutions)... you generally have the freedom to travel, though it is not a right (only very few actual 'rights' are laid out in the constitution)
> 
> And please remember that what I was arguing is that travel is not a right but an enjoyed freedom which is generally protected.... big difference from what you are trying to infer
Click to expand...

That's the nuttiest fan dance I've seen an quite awhile.

The federal gubmint doesn't dispense our rights...The Constitution itself only spells out powers that we the people entrust to them with, in order to protect our inherent rights, which includes a right to free travel within the several states of the nation. Hence, roads are also known as "rights-of-way" instead of "privileges-of-way".


----------



## Meister

SpidermanTuba said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. I'm also going to have an interstate highway system one way or another - whether I like it or not, and I'm forced to pay for it with my tax dollars under penalty of law. Is that government controlling my life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your talking about infrastructure and healthcare?  Am I getting that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you're quick.
Click to expand...


I wish you would catch up.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Soggy in NOLA said:


> _*Everyone*_ benefits from the highway system whether they realize it (or want to realize it) or not.



Really? Well as long as we're in the business of dictating to people what benefits them and what doesn't whether they like it or not, why not just say-

_*Everyone*_ benefits from healthcare whether they realize it (or want to realize it) or not. 



> I doubt that the existence of the US ighway system is seen by anyone as a controlling factor in their life.



Tell that to the folks whose homes were bulldozed to make way for the highway.


----------



## Oddball

SpidermanTuba said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Everyone*_ benefits from the highway system whether they realize it (or want to realize it) or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Well as long as we're in the business of dictating to people what benefits them and what doesn't whether they like it or not, why not just say-
> 
> _*Everyone*_ benefits from healthcare whether they realize it (or want to realize it) or not.
Click to expand...

Yet another brain dead Fabian socialist yammering point, whether you realize it (or want to realize it) or not.

Nobody is _*forced*_ to buy a car or the fuel to power it.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Dude said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Everyone*_ benefits from the highway system whether they realize it (or want to realize it) or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Well as long as we're in the business of dictating to people what benefits them and what doesn't whether they like it or not, why not just say-
> 
> _*Everyone*_ benefits from healthcare whether they realize it (or want to realize it) or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another brain dead Fabian socialist yammering point, whether you realize it (or want to realize it) or not.
> 
> Nobody is _*forced*_ to buy a car or the fuel to power it.
Click to expand...




The highway trust fund received 8 billion from general revenues in 2008. I didn't hear anyone bitching about that.


----------



## boedicca

How much did we pay in Gasoline Taxes?   Considering miles driven, it's at least a $25B.

Looks to me like drivers got shorted by 2/3 what is owed for building and maintaining our inadequate highway system.


----------



## Oddball

boedicca said:


> How much did we pay in Gasoline Taxes?   Considering miles driven, it's at least a $25B.
> 
> Looks to me like drivers got shorted by 2/3 what is owed for building and maintaining our inadequate highway system.


You don't know the half of it.

About 20% of federal fuel taxes, meant to build and maintain roads and bridges, are siphoned off to support urban mass transit schemes.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

How do _*I *_benefit from _*your*_ healthcare?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

I can certainly see where _*I*_ benefit from _*my*_ healthcare.

Or is this more Utopian "we all benefit from everybody being well taken care of"  BS?


----------



## boedicca

Dude said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much did we pay in Gasoline Taxes?   Considering miles driven, it's at least a $25B.
> 
> Looks to me like drivers got shorted by 2/3 what is owed for building and maintaining our inadequate highway system.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know the half of it.
> 
> About 20% of federal fuel taxes, meant to build and maintain roads and bridges, are siphoned off to support urban mass transit schemes.
Click to expand...



Isn't that the way with most taxes?

The justification for passing them receives only a fraction of the funding - while the bulk goes to bureaucracy, unrelated programs, and social engineering objectives.

And the dim bulbs still believe that the ObamaCare funding will be used for health care.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Well, I haven't seen where highway projects have sparked mass protests....  mainly because anyone with a brain gets it as to to what the benefits are to the nation as a whole.

All  these other Utopian schemes such as wealth transfers, dictating diets, dictating that we all buy health insurance, that we do this or do that is quite another thing.  Is the usurpation of individual responsibility and the imposition of collectivism.

Believe it or not, there is a huge difference.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Freedom means the freedom to have Big Macs everyday and die of a heart attack at 52.

Like it or not, that is freedom.


----------



## Immanuel

NYcarbineer said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weak?
> 
> No.  They had the Articles of Confederation and could have stayed with that if they wanted a weak government.  They met initially to fix the Articles because they knew that the Articles had serious flaws.
> 
> Dude makes a good point in this thread though.  The Founders were not some homogeneous group think.  They had differing opinions on almost any topic that came up during the day, so it isn't really possible to talk about the opinion of that group as a whole.  That's part of the reason that the whole "Original Intent" agrument is typically bunk.
> 
> But one thing is clear:  They knew the Articles, which provided a very weak central government, needed work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the question is designed to address the very often heard assertion from certain circles that the founders never intended our federal government to have this much power, which translates into asserting that they intended the federal government to be weak.  Which even goes as far as to get serious arguments, nowadays, from many, that the states have the right to secede.
Click to expand...


I don't agree with your conclusion that states that it translated into asserting that they intended the federal government to be weak.  I have always understood it, that they intended the federal government to be limited and controlled... in my understanding that does not necessarily translate to weak.

Immie


----------



## Vast LWC

Personally I'm just shocked that Dude posted something at the beginning of the thread that I had to give him rep for...


----------



## Dr.Traveler

Dude said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weak?
> 
> No.  They had the Articles of Confederation and could have stayed with that if they wanted a weak government.  They met initially to fix the Articles because they knew that the Articles had serious flaws.
> 
> Dude makes a good point in this thread though.  The Founders were not some homogeneous group think.  They had differing opinions on almost any topic that came up during the day, so it isn't really possible to talk about the opinion of that group as a whole.  *That's part of the reason that the whole "Original Intent" agrument is typically bunk.*
> 
> But one thing is clear:  They knew the Articles, which provided a very weak central government, needed work.
> 
> 
> 
> Somewhat agree, to the point where the original intent was made beyond clear, when spelled out in clear concise English, in the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers....At that point the original intent argument is pretty rock-solid.
Click to expand...


I'm willing to concede that there were most certainly points they agreed on.  In that case, I'm willing to give the Original Intent argument the time of day.

When you have to pick and choose which Founder to support in order to win an argument though, Original Intent shouldn't be brought into the picture.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Freedom means the freedom to have Big Macs everyday and die of a heart attack at 52.
> 
> Like it or not, that is freedom.




WTF? Where in the health care bill does it state I can no longer eat big macs?


----------



## Immanuel

SpidermanTuba said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom means the freedom to have Big Macs everyday and die of a heart attack at 52.
> 
> Like it or not, that is freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF? Where in the health care bill does it state I can no longer eat big macs?
Click to expand...


You haven't heard?  That comes in HCR II.  

It is one of those "sections to be named later" along with Universal Healthcare.  

Immie


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The Founders wanted to regulate all the banks and make people buy Health insurance


----------



## SpidermanTuba

CrusaderFrank said:


> The Founders wanted to regulate all the banks and make people buy Health insurance



The Founders didn't just regulate banking, they established a National Bank and fixed the value of gold


The Founders wouldn't have known of health insurance, since it didn't really exist at the time. There was very little health care, and what little did exist was typically not costly.

Compulsory health insurance, however, is not a  new idea. The first President to support it was Republican Theodore Roosevelt.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

SpidermanTuba said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders wanted to regulate all the banks and make people buy Health insurance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders didn't just regulate banking, they established a National Bank and fixed the value of gold
> 
> 
> The Founders wouldn't have known of health insurance, since it didn't really exist at the time. There was very little health care, and what little did exist was typically not costly.
> 
> Compulsory health insurance, however, is not a  new idea. The first President to support it was Republican Theodore Roosevelt.
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7zfnbdyAW8]YouTube - Sean Penn/Jeff Spicoli - You dick![/ame]


----------



## Avatar4321

There is a difference between Strong v. Weak government. And limited v totalitarian.

The government was designed specifically to be _strong in the areas where it was given power _to govern. In all other areas, the Government was to have no say and should have no say.

The problem is there are disputes on whats a strong government and whats an overintrusive government.


----------



## Big Fitz

Both Federalists and Anti-Federalists wanted uniformity at the federal level.  After that, they were different on how MUCH government existed at that federal level.  The Articles of Confederation left too much power left to the states that caused problems.  It was too weak and chaotic.

Conversely, federalists, seeing our nation today would thing we've gone mad with it and given far too much over to the federal government for the sake of laziness.


----------



## DiamondDave

SpidermanTuba said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders wanted to regulate all the banks and make people buy Health insurance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders didn't just regulate banking, they established a National Bank and fixed the value of gold
> 
> 
> The Founders wouldn't have known of health insurance, since it didn't really exist at the time. There was very little health care, and what little did exist was typically not costly.
> 
> Compulsory health insurance, however, is not a  new idea. The first President to support it was Republican Theodore Roosevelt.
Click to expand...


And even though there are many things t LIKE Teddy for... that stance by him shows that even Teddy can be wrong


----------



## Oddball

SpidermanTuba said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders wanted to regulate all the banks and make people buy Health insurance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders didn't just regulate banking, they established a National Bank and fixed the value of gold
> 
> 
> The Founders wouldn't have known of health insurance, since it didn't really exist at the time. There was very little health care, and what little did exist was typically not costly.
> 
> Compulsory health insurance, however, is not a  new idea. The first President to support it was Republican Theodore Roosevelt.
Click to expand...

Federalist Alexander Hamilton established a national bank, and Andy Jackson abolished it. Also, Teddy Roosevelt was the prototype neoconservative.

Like I said, your rank ignorance of American history has been evident since your OP.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Why should we care what the Founders wanted?  They didn't care what the British monarchy wanted.

If you want to follow the founders' example, stop thinking that what guys wanted a couple centuries ago should dictate what you want now.


----------



## Meister

NYcarbineer said:


> Why should we care what the Founders wanted?  They didn't care what the British monarchy wanted.
> 
> If you want to follow the founders' example, stop thinking that what guys wanted a couple centuries ago should dictate what you want now.



What the Founding Fathers wanted was us to be the most prolific nation in the history of the world, and it worked.
Seems now the left wants us to step down from that success, and get in line with mediocrity as the rest of the world.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Meister said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we care what the Founders wanted?  They didn't care what the British monarchy wanted.
> 
> If you want to follow the founders' example, stop thinking that what guys wanted a couple centuries ago should dictate what you want now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the Founding Fathers wanted was us to be the most prolific nation in the history of the world, and it worked.
> Seems now the left wants us to step down from that success, and get in line with mediocrity as the rest of the world.
Click to expand...


Says who?  Prolific?  What does that even mean?

If the founders were alive today they'd be laughing their asses off at all the people who treat them like gods and their constitution like a Bible.


----------



## Gunny

SpidermanTuba said:


> If you answered "YES", the please explain why they did not keep the Articles of Confederation, which was a form of government with weak central authority and most of the real power still resting with the states.



Bullshit argument.  The Articles of Confederation were superceded by the US Constitution which clearly states any powers not specified in the Constitution rest with the states.


----------



## ihopehefails

SpidermanTuba said:


> If you answered "YES", the please explain why they did not keep the Articles of Confederation, which was a form of government with weak central authority and most of the real power still resting with the states.



First of all the constitution barely passed most state legislatures and second of all most of the supporters of the constitution knew that the articles of confederation just wasn't doing what was needed in order to handle international issues well.   They created the federal government to handle those matters which is why they only gave it a few powers and left the rest with the states.


----------



## ihopehefails

Gunny said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you answered "YES", the please explain why they did not keep the Articles of Confederation, which was a form of government with weak central authority and most of the real power still resting with the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit argument.  The Articles of Confederation were superceded by the US Constitution which clearly states any powers not specified in the Constitution rest with the states.
Click to expand...


Also, you will see that some of the actual text found in the articles of confederation were transcribed into the constitution.


----------



## Meister

NYcarbineer said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we care what the Founders wanted?  They didn't care what the British monarchy wanted.
> 
> If you want to follow the founders' example, stop thinking that what guys wanted a couple centuries ago should dictate what you want now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the Founding Fathers wanted was us to be the most prolific nation in the history of the world, and it worked.
> Seems now the left wants us to step down from that success, and get in line with mediocrity as the rest of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who?  Prolific?  What does that even mean?
> 
> If the founders were alive today they'd be laughing their asses off at all the people who treat them like gods and their constitution like a Bible.
Click to expand...


If you don't know the meaning of prolific...look it up, I'm not your seventh grade teacher.
If you don't believe it....your a friggin buffoon, NY.  Because just about every other nation in the world will tell you different.  Your partisan hackery is getting in the way of reality.

Nobody that I know thinks of the Founding Fathers as gods, sheesh.
I think of them as people with vision and knowledge on just how a government could go bad left to their own devices.
Your feeling about the Constitution is no more than drivel, and the Constitution does protect "the people" from a run away government.

Your words tell a lot about you, and just how you would embrace an overhaul of our government....it is pathetic.


----------



## JBeukema

Meister said:


> Your feeling about the Constitution is no more than drivel, and the Constitution does protect "the people" from a run away government.
> 
> .


How are you going to demand they show you where the constitution gives them the authority?



Meister said:


> Oh, pahleeeeese.....you know a person has lost the arguement when the "show me where the constitution grants...."


----------



## Quantum Windbag

SpidermanTuba said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is the government telling me how to live my life with the health care bill?
> 
> 
> 
> It's telling you that you are going to have healthcare one way or another.....a year ago it wasn't.....sheesh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok. I'm also going to have an interstate highway system one way or another - whether I like it or not, and I'm forced to pay for it with my tax dollars under penalty of law. Is that government controlling my life?
Click to expand...


The difference is one is clearly in the Constitution (postal roads) and one isn't. If the feds want to control health care legitimately all they have to do is amend the Constitution, and let people decide for themselves. the fact that they prefer just to make things up as they go along should upset everyone, because sooner or later they are going to do something you don't like using the same logic.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

SpidermanTuba said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Everyone*_ benefits from the highway system whether they realize it (or want to realize it) or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Well as long as we're in the business of dictating to people what benefits them and what doesn't whether they like it or not, why not just say-
> 
> _*Everyone*_ benefits from healthcare whether they realize it (or want to realize it) or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that the existence of the US ighway system is seen by anyone as a controlling factor in their life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the folks whose homes were bulldozed to make way for the highway.
Click to expand...


They do?

How does a perfectly healthy person that never visits a doctor benefit from insurance?


----------



## antagon

no.  'the founders' - which i took to mean all of them, didn't agree on a weak federal government.


----------



## MajinLink

I think a lot did want more state power, but there were however there were a lot who wanted more federal power of course. You can only be incredibly stupid to think that all the founding father thought exactly alike.


----------



## uscitizen

"Of course they did, why else was one of their fist actions to rally more troops than for any revoloutionary war battle to enforce the new whiskey tax?
Led by George Washington.


----------



## Sallow

uscitizen said:


> "Of course they did, why else was one of their fist actions to rally more troops than for any revoloutionary war battle to enforce the new whiskey tax?
> Led by George Washington.



Another..big time..Federalist.


----------



## Annie

Many were torn about strong central government or not. Perhaps before Shay's Rebellion, the anti-Federalists may have won out, but not after. 

Someone brought up the Whiskey Rebellion, which stands in stark contrast to Shay's, because the Federalists did win the battle of the papers. 

Even then however, they argued that there were the limitations provided in the document to protect against the most egregious attempts to usurp lower government powers. While it may seem today they were wrong, always inherent in their arguments were a participating electorate, which for now it seems, we once again have.


----------



## Sallow

Quantum Windbag said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's telling you that you are going to have healthcare one way or another.....a year ago it wasn't.....sheesh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. I'm also going to have an interstate highway system one way or another - whether I like it or not, and I'm forced to pay for it with my tax dollars under penalty of law. Is that government controlling my life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is one is clearly in the Constitution (postal roads) and one isn't. If the feds want to control health care legitimately all they have to do is amend the Constitution, and let people decide for themselves. the fact that they prefer just to make things up as they go along should upset everyone, because sooner or later they are going to do something you don't like using the same logic.
Click to expand...


Why?

General welfare and commerce clauses cover that pretty nicely.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Oddball said:


> A question which is truly ignorant of American history.
> 
> The Federalists (Adams, Hamilton, et al): No.
> 
> The Anti-federalists (Jefferson, Paine, etcetera): Yes.



Your answer shades history: Those who attended the Convention ~ 39 for a strong national government, 16 against.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

There was a commentary on the Federalist papers where those in favor of ratifying the Constitutionas were called "Rat" and those against "Anti-rats"

Now, it's simply enough to stand here 230+ years later and see what a cluster fuck we've made for ourselves and say how wrong the Constitution was but the real problem is human nature.

The Founders did what they could to limit the power of the Federal government but if you give a man an inch, he'll force you to buy health care or pay a penalty and nationalize the auto companies, banks and have the federal government be the only entity making home mortgages.

The fault, Dear Publius, is that our frail constitution and inability to pay attention, allowed people to remake out Constitution and they've been at it for the whole history of the Republic.

Do you think we're unique? Study Rome, study Florence, study France, study Great Britain  and watch the constant struggles for power.

We're no different than anywhere else. We had a good initial start, but it's up to *US*, to we here today to make it better.  Adams and Jefferson can't help us, we've got to roll up our sleeves and make it what we want.


----------



## JakeStarkey

ihopehefails said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you answered "YES", the please explain why they did not keep the Articles of Confederation, which was a form of government with weak central authority and most of the real power still resting with the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit argument.  The Articles of Confederation were superceded by the US Constitution which clearly states any powers not specified in the Constitution rest with the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, you will see that some of the actual text found in the articles of confederation were transcribed into the constitution.
Click to expand...


And you both ignore the relationship of that with the general welfare clause.  You gotta way to go, guys.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Meister said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the Founding Fathers wanted was us to be the most prolific nation in the history of the world, and it worked.
> Seems now the left wants us to step down from that success, and get in line with mediocrity as the rest of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says who?  Prolific?  What does that even mean?
> 
> If the founders were alive today they'd be laughing their asses off at all the people who treat them like gods and their constitution like a Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't know the meaning of prolific...look it up, I'm not your seventh grade teacher.
> If you don't believe it....your a friggin buffoon, NY.  Because just about every other nation in the world will tell you different.  Your partisan hackery is getting in the way of reality.
> 
> Nobody that I know thinks of the Founding Fathers as gods, sheesh.
> I think of them as people with vision and knowledge on just how a government could go bad left to their own devices.
> Your feeling about the Constitution is no more than drivel, and the Constitution does protect "the people" from a run away government.
> 
> Your words tell a lot about you, and just how you would embrace an overhaul of our government....it is pathetic.
Click to expand...


Meister, your understanding is not at the adult level, as your opining above demonstrates, and you certainly do belong in a 7th-grade class.  OK, I can insult better than you, so what?

The fact is that the Founders were an interesting group, had some decent vision, lacked in other areas, and be utterly confounded a non-white was president of the United States.

They could not envision the future; therefore, the Constitution is organic, not rigid, to be intepreted for each era and generation; thus the argument for "originalism" is constructed on a bed of rhetorical sand that washed away long ago.

Move on.  Better yet, take a history course.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Quantum Windbag said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's telling you that you are going to have healthcare one way or another.....a year ago it wasn't.....sheesh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. I'm also going to have an interstate highway system one way or another - whether I like it or not, and I'm forced to pay for it with my tax dollars under penalty of law. Is that government controlling my life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is one is clearly in the Constitution (postal roads) and one isn't. If the feds want to control health care legitimately all they have to do is amend the Constitution, and let people decide for themselves. the fact that they prefer just to make things up as they go along should upset everyone, because sooner or later they are going to do something you don't like using the same logic.
Click to expand...


The difference is the general welfare clause, which covers any argument that you have, QWB.  The "people" decided when they elected Senators and Representatives in 2008.

And?  No state attorney general has filed any brief of any significant constitutional concern about the constitutionality of health care.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says who?  Prolific?  What does that even mean?
> 
> If the founders were alive today they'd be laughing their asses off at all the people who treat them like gods and their constitution like a Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't know the meaning of prolific...look it up, I'm not your seventh grade teacher.
> If you don't believe it....your a friggin buffoon, NY.  Because just about every other nation in the world will tell you different.  Your partisan hackery is getting in the way of reality.
> 
> Nobody that I know thinks of the Founding Fathers as gods, sheesh.
> I think of them as people with vision and knowledge on just how a government could go bad left to their own devices.
> Your feeling about the Constitution is no more than drivel, and the Constitution does protect "the people" from a run away government.
> 
> Your words tell a lot about you, and just how you would embrace an overhaul of our government....it is pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meister, your understanding is not at the adult level, as your opining above demonstrates, and you certainly do belong in a 7th-grade class.  OK, I can insult better than you, so what?
> 
> The fact is that the Founders were an interesting group, had some decent vision, lacked in other areas, and be utterly confounded a non-white was president of the United States.
> 
> They could not envision the future; therefore, the Constitution is organic, not rigid, to be intepreted for each era and generation; thus the argument for "originalism" is constructed on a bed of rhetorical sand that washed away long ago.
> 
> Move on.  Better yet, take a history course.
Click to expand...


Jake, are you talking about the US Constitution? I'm not sure what document you're referring to with this " the Constitution is organic, not rigid, to be intepreted (sic) for each era and generation"


----------



## JakeStarkey

The fault, dear Crusader Frank, is you still want the right to own a human being, which you could have done before the Civil War.  I don't think you want a human, but I believe you want that misbegotten "rat" (that's how we say 'rights' down here).

The Constitution has been self-correcting from the beginning, through Amendments and SCOTUS decisions.  Today Plessy and Worchester and Dred Scott are not likely.  In your world, they would be expected to happen.

Where you are right is that Americans as humans are simply the same as other humans: American exceptionalism does not apply.  Where are we are different is when we live up to the liberal humanity of the Declaration and Constitutuion.  When we had done that, we are pretty awesome.


----------



## Annie

CrusaderFrank said:


> There was a commentary on the Federalist papers where those in favor of ratifying the Constitutionas were called "Rat" and those against "Anti-rats"
> 
> Now, it's simply enough to stand here 230+ years later and see what a cluster fuck we've made for ourselves and say how wrong the Constitution was but the real problem is human nature.
> 
> The Founders did what they could to limit the power of the Federal government but if you give a man an inch, he'll force you to buy health care or pay a penalty and nationalize the auto companies, banks and have the federal government be the only entity making home mortgages.
> 
> The fault, Dear Publius, is that our frail constitution and inability to pay attention, allowed people to remake out Constitution and they've been at it for the whole history of the Republic.
> 
> Do you think we're unique? Study Rome, study Florence, study France, study Great Britain  and watch the constant struggles for power.
> 
> We're no different than anywhere else. We had a good initial start, but it's up to *US*, to we here today to make it better.  Adams and Jefferson can't help us, we've got to roll up our sleeves and make it what we want.



You got it right CF, though the 'rats' and 'anti-rats' were not referring to the rat that Paine thought he'd smelt. 

The Federalists were in favor of ratification, the anti-Federalists against. The Federalists  were in favor of the two 'general language' clauses, the anti-Federalists against those two and wanted specific language and a Bill of Rights added. When all was said and done, they even compromised here, with the general clauses and Bill of Rights kept in or agreed to be added. The respect they had for each other, no matter how tempers had flared is in the assumption that the Bill of Rights would be added with that first Congress and the fact that those 10 amendments were added first thing accomplished.

I think when one looks at those first 'Revolutionary Era Presidencies' there were plenty of instances that all of them met moments of irony within their administrations on the wisdom of 'the other side', regardless of their personal stand during the Convention and Ratification periods. We know that Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase stands out, but certainly was not the only issue faced in those first decades. 

They all wanted a 'more perfect union', though they knew that the interests or factions if you will, they represented wanted different outcomes for different reasons, they respected that ultimately the union was most important to all of them. Near all assumed the others were of good faith, which is why they ultimately 'got it done.' The rest had to be left up to the succeeding generations, to keep it up and remind the 'other side' of the ultimate public good was the interest of all, regardless of the particular area of disagreement. For these reasons, even Adams and Jefferson ultimately were able to resume their friendship in their ending years, regardless of the philosophical differences of their administrations. 

The Constitution and the system it created IS exceptional and left us the possibility that so can be the people, IF they, the ultimate source of power, stay informed and active, it's they that keep the ultimate checks and balances on those running the government. The people are to whom Jefferson is referring to in the 'from time-to-time' meme. There are times in our brief history where this has been shown to be true, I believe that we are living through such a period. So far, the people are doing pretty well, both sides are actively engaged. Now if they can learn to think for the 'whole' instead of just their own interests.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> The fault, dear Crusader Frank, is you still want the right to own a human being, which you could have done before the Civil War.  I don't think you want a human, but I believe you want that misbegotten "rat" (that's how we say 'rights' down here).
> 
> The Constitution has been self-correcting from the beginning, through Amendments and SCOTUS decisions.  Today Plessy and Worchester and Dred Scott are not likely.  In your world, they would be expected to happen.
> 
> Where you are right is that Americans as humans are simply the same as other humans: American exceptionalism does not apply.  Where are we are different is when we live up to the liberal humanity of the Declaration and Constitutuion.  When we had done that, we are pretty awesome.



Jake, it's hard to tell what's more idiotic: your imaging me as a would be slave owner or your complete and total, well I can't even call it a misunderstanding, because it's a type of understanding, it's more like we're talking about another document in some foreign language.

The Constitution is not a "Living, breathing document" but it does have an Amendment process; that was the genius of the founders. The "Living, Breathing" is just a Progressive perversion.


----------



## antagon

its difficult to base an analysis of what the founders conceived just by looking at the ratification and the dissent.  the rat(ificationist)s, for example, included jefferson(ians) who became the brake mechanism for the strong federalist movement during antibellum.

_the federalist_ was a sales pitch, and the seeming contradiction between that push and the subsequent pull to slow the balance of strength in the fed govt after the ratification is a testament to that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

CrusaderFrank said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fault, dear Crusader Frank, is you still want the right to own a human being, which you could have done before the Civil War.  I don't think you want a human, but I believe you want that misbegotten "rat" (that's how we say 'rights' down here).
> 
> The Constitution has been self-correcting from the beginning, through Amendments and SCOTUS decisions.  Today Plessy and Worchester and Dred Scott are not likely.  In your world, they would be expected to happen.
> 
> Where you are right is that Americans as humans are simply the same as other humans: American exceptionalism does not apply.  Where are we are different is when we live up to the liberal humanity of the Declaration and Constitutuion.  When we had done that, we are pretty awesome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, it's hard to tell what's more idiotic: your imaging me as a would be slave owner or your complete and total, well I can't even call it a misunderstanding, because it's a type of understanding, it's more like we're talking about another document in some foreign language.
> 
> The Constitution is not a "Living, breathing document" but it does have an Amendment process; that was the genius of the founders. The "Living, Breathing" is just a Progressive perversion.
Click to expand...


You are correct that we use language differently.  I venerate the Constitution.  I know that it was designed to serve generations to come, not to capture that of the Founders and impose it on the future.  Such makes reason stare.  And time has proven my vision correct and yours wrong.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fault, dear Crusader Frank, is you still want the right to own a human being, which you could have done before the Civil War.  I don't think you want a human, but I believe you want that misbegotten "rat" (that's how we say 'rights' down here).
> 
> The Constitution has been self-correcting from the beginning, through Amendments and SCOTUS decisions.  Today Plessy and Worchester and Dred Scott are not likely.  In your world, they would be expected to happen.
> 
> Where you are right is that Americans as humans are simply the same as other humans: American exceptionalism does not apply.  Where are we are different is when we live up to the liberal humanity of the Declaration and Constitutuion.  When we had done that, we are pretty awesome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, it's hard to tell what's more idiotic: your imaging me as a would be slave owner or your complete and total, well I can't even call it a misunderstanding, because it's a type of understanding, it's more like we're talking about another document in some foreign language.
> 
> The Constitution is not a "Living, breathing document" but it does have an Amendment process; that was the genius of the founders. The "Living, Breathing" is just a Progressive perversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct that we use language differently.  I venerate the Constitution.  I know that it was designed to serve generations to come, not to capture that of the Founders and impose it on the future.  Such makes reason stare.  And time has proven my vision correct and yours wrong.
Click to expand...


No Jake, the Founders knew that human nature was perverse and tried to put together a balanced government, one that would respect the individual yet be strong enough to be effective. You make it a limp sock puppet subject to popular tastes and whims. Once again, it's just another topic you can't be bothered to learn about you just spew Progressive talking points and still haven't figured out why you're Professor Backwards.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your comments above reveal why the reactionaries far, far to the right are so few in number and are do desperately attempting to subvert the Tea Party, then the GOP.  It's a fact I know the Constitution, its creation, its history, its founders, and it purpose far better than you, Frank.  You are trapped in a world that does not want to change, and you and those like you want to impose your depraved nature on the rest of us.

The American population is darker, more literate, technologically advanced, and uninterested in the dead old past to them of race, dual federalism, and home rule.  They look at your side, Frank, as weird, and that is why your numbers are so lacking in color, youth to thirty somethings, and women.  Look at the next rally, and you will see what I mean.

You see, your chance was over before you ever were born.


----------



## midcan5

SpidermanTuba said:


> If you answered "YES", the please explain why they did not keep the Articles of Confederation, which was a form of government with weak central authority and most of the real power still resting with the states.



LOL  The replies are too funny, ask a question, get the right wingnut reply of the moment.  In another rhetorical situation, the founders would be for this or that, dependent on the current requirement to spin, distort, or obfuscate. 

Confusion was rife, the founders - the people - wanted an end to it, a central government in other words. 

"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts." Quote DB :: Speeches :: George Washington :: George Washington's Farewell Address Speech


----------



## boedicca

JakeStarkey said:


> And?  No state attorney general has filed any brief of any significant constitutional concern about the constitutionality of health care.




You are Woefully Misinformed.

_As the Obama administration presses ahead with the health care law, officials are bracing for the possibility that a federal judge in Virginia will soon reject its central provision as unconstitutional and, in the worst case for the White House, halt its enforcement until higher courts can rule.

The judge, Henry E. Hudson of Federal District Court in Richmond, has promised to rule by the end of the year on the constitutionality of the laws requirement that most Americans obtain insurance, which takes effect in 2014...

...*Mr. Cuccinelli and the plaintiffs in the Florida case, who include attorneys general or governors from 20 states*, have emphasized that Congressional bill writers did not include a severability clause that would explicitly protect other parts of the sprawling law if certain provisions were struck down..._

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/us/politics/27health.html?partner=rss&emc=rss


----------



## JakeStarkey

Boedicaa, there is no merit in your contention than any merit in the "lack of severability clause" contention.  It can certainly be inferred and defended and judged meritorious.  Your wack AGs are merely spending the people's money on a lost cause.


----------



## Yurt

JakeStarkey said:


> Your comments above reveal why the reactionaries far, far to the right are so few in number and are do desperately attempting to subvert the Tea Party, then the GOP.  It's a fact I know the Constitution, its creation, its history, its founders, and it purpose far better than you, Frank.  You are trapped in a world that does not want to change, and you and those like you want to impose your depraved nature on the rest of us.
> 
> The American population is darker, more literate, technologically advanced, and uninterested in the dead old past to them of race, dual federalism, and home rule.  They look at your side, Frank, as weird, and that is why your numbers are so lacking in color, youth to thirty somethings, and women.  Look at the next rally, and you will see what I mean.
> 
> You see, your chance was over before you ever were born.



you claim to be on the "right" of the political spectrum

yet

i've never seen you call out anyone on the left for anything....why is that


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yurt, that is because you have not been reading.  I am not worried about the left, I am concerned about the wacks that want to pervert the GOP.  What you are mad about is that I won't support pretend GOP wannabees.  Never have, never will.  The past is gone, tomorrow is not here yet.  So plan for the future, and the Palins are not the road to sucess.  The Romneys are.  Live with it.


----------



## Intense

JakeStarkey said:


> Yurt, that is because you have not been reading.  I am not worried about the left, I am concerned about the wacks that want to pervert the GOP.  What you are mad about is that I won't support pretend GOP wannabees.  Never have, never will.  The past is gone, tomorrow is not here yet.  So plan for the future, and the Palins are not the road to sucess.  The Romneys are.  Live with it.



Where the fuck were you the last time Romney ran???   

Just so you don't confuse Federalism with Nationalism. Enumerated decentralized power, as a defense against tyranny and the totalitarian state. Ssshh!!!!!


----------



## Yurt

JakeStarkey said:


> Yurt, that is because you have not been reading.  I am not worried about the left, I am concerned about the wacks that want to pervert the GOP.  What you are mad about is that I won't support pretend GOP wannabees.  Never have, never will.  The past is gone, tomorrow is not here yet.  So plan for the future, and the Palins are not the road to sucess.  The Romneys are.  Live with it.



i'm mad?  how did you get that?  projection again most likely....

your theory isn't even plausible as most of your stances are in the left end of the spectrum....if you truly cared, truly....you would work both sides to get them to this so called middle or perfect ground you would have us believe would make america better....

you can't take on one party and expect that it will bring you your dream, it takes both parties to find the middle, it has worked that way since our founding, so i find your story to be fiction

this board was the first board i posted at on the internet, i was clueless about politics when i joined and i've learned some more over the years, not just from this board, but one important item that seems true to me is....no one party can make this nation better.  

yet you believe only one party can, why?


----------



## Yurt

one more thing....

jake...you obviously don't pay attention....i don't support palin, i do support romney


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yurt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt, that is because you have not been reading.  I am not worried about the left, I am concerned about the wacks that want to pervert the GOP.  What you are mad about is that I won't support pretend GOP wannabees.  Never have, never will.  The past is gone, tomorrow is not here yet.  So plan for the future, and the Palins are not the road to sucess.  The Romneys are.  Live with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm mad?  how did you get that?  projection again most likely....
> 
> your theory isn't even plausible as most of your stances are in the left end of the spectrum....if you truly cared, truly....you would work both sides to get them to this so called middle or perfect ground you would have us believe would make america better....
> 
> you can't take on one party and expect that it will bring you your dream, it takes both parties to find the middle, it has worked that way since our founding, so i find your story to be fiction
> 
> this board was the first board i posted at on the internet, i was clueless about politics when i joined and i've learned some more over the years, not just from this board, but one important item that seems true to me is....no one party can make this nation better.
> 
> yet you believe only one party can, why?
Click to expand...


You have no idea what my stances are based on your comments above.  I believe in the future.  I know the past is dead.  I know the GOP has to court far better the youth, the minorities, the women than it ever has in the past if it wants to survive.  

I believe either party can win in 2012, based on two things: the state of the economy and who the candidates will be.  A Palin Obama race ends in Democratic victory despite the economy.  A Obama Romney race will end in a GOP victory.

If the above makes me a liberal compared to you, than you are beyond the right-wing horizon and can easily be dismissed.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I know you do.  I am just giving you the facts on where I stand.  I could care less if you agree with me at all.  But do understand this, Yurt, I want a Romney victory.


----------



## Yurt

JakeStarkey said:


> I know you do.  I am just giving you the facts on where I stand.  I could care less if you agree with me at all.  But do understand this, Yurt, I want a Romney victory.



i don't believe you and the fact you think i'm "beyond" the right wing horizon is hilarious and shows you're just a dishonest hack

when one reads your posts, they cannot conclude anything but that you're a liberal passing yourself off as a republican


----------



## JakeStarkey

Who cares what you believe at all?  I don't.  Any far right wing nut might believe that, but any responsible Republican knows that you are just being silly.  However, let's you the right wing kook and me the "liberal" kook work for a Romney victory.  Once we get that, we can quarrel.


----------



## Yurt

JakeStarkey said:


> Who cares what you believe at all?  I don't.  Any far right wing nut might believe that, but any responsible Republican knows that you are just being silly.  However, let's you the right wing kook and me the "liberal" kook work for a Romney victory.  Once we get that, we can quarrel.



the fact you think i'm "far right wing" proves you're a far left liberal

no doubt my support of gay marriage or getting the government out of marriage makes me a far right wing kook....


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, the fact that you think I am a "far left liberal" shows just how kooky and far to the right you are, possible to the right of USAR and tea party samurai.  Your stand on marriage means on that one issue you are a social libertarian (NO! bigrebnc, that _does not _mean that Yurt is a socialist).  See, you want to define me, and you can't do that accurately.  So who cares?  Let's work to elect Romney.


----------



## Yurt

JakeStarkey said:


> No, the fact that you think I am a "far left liberal" shows just how kooky and far to the right you are, possible to the right of USAR and tea party samurai.  Your stand on marriage means on that one issue you are a social libertarian (NO! bigrebnc, that _does not _mean that Yurt is a socialist).  See, you want to define me, and you can't do that accurately.  So who cares?  Let's work to elect Romney.



lol....this is why i believe you're a troll

to claim i'm to the right, even possibly, of USAR and TPS....can mean you're only here to troll, eg, not tell the truth, but just to make dumb comments and get a rise out of people...

there are at least two glaring issues that prove you're a dishonest hack...1.  i don't support palin; 2.  i believe obama was born in hawaii

and yet you would actually proffer that i might be to the right of those guys....


----------



## JakeStarkey

What you believe is unimportant.

How can I be trolling when you troll that I am a liberal when I am not?  I never doubted that you were smart enough to not support Palin, and any sane person knows that Obama was born in Hawaii.

See, that is why I want to know why you are trolling.  I did catch you on youtube.

[ame="http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bMLrA_0O5I&feature=related"]http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bMLrA_0O5I&feature=related[/ame]

[ame="http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-ASbyfaSR0&feature=related"]http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-ASbyfaSR0&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> Your comments above reveal why the reactionaries far, far to the right are so few in number and are do desperately attempting to subvert the Tea Party, then the GOP.  It's a fact I know the Constitution, its creation, its history, its founders, and it purpose far better than you, Frank.  You are trapped in a world that does not want to change, and you and those like you want to impose your depraved nature on the rest of us.
> 
> The American population is darker, more literate, technologically advanced, and uninterested in the dead old past to them of race, dual federalism, and home rule.  They look at your side, Frank, as weird, and that is why your numbers are so lacking in color, youth to thirty somethings, and women.  Look at the next rally, and you will see what I mean.
> 
> You see, your chance was over before you ever were born.



Jake, you are in Lala-land. The Framers left us with an Amendment process to make changes as we developed as a civilization. Anyone who had more that a cursory understand of the document would have known that. I fear the Constitution is like the Footnotes you've still yet to site me in "Blacklisted" just unread.

Please pick any part of the Constitution and enlighten me as to what difference it makes that we are "darker, more literate, technologically advanced" (you're not including yourself in the "literate" part, are you?)


----------



## Yurt

JakeStarkey said:


> What you believe is unimportant.
> 
> How can I be trolling when you troll that I am a liberal when I am not?  I never doubted that you were smart enough to not support Palin, and any sane person knows that Obama was born in Hawaii.
> 
> See, that is why I want to know why you are trolling.  I did catch you on youtube.
> 
> ]



unfortunately for you, i'm not the only one who believes you're trolling and are a liberal trying to pass himjself off as a republican...

but you're right, it doesn't matter, because you can troll all day and night regardless of anyone's opinion....

if you truly wanted to push your political agenda and convince those on the right that their way is wrong, you would do so in a way that doesn't convince 99% of those on the right that you're a liberal...your words convict you...you have the option to change that, but you won't and that is because you're trollin


----------



## JakeStarkey

Frank, you truly do not understand the Founders, American history, the role of the Constitution, its history, and how the law has developed in our wonderful country.  I have the Constitution besides my computer at home and at work.  I read in it at least once a day.  Only the Bible do I read more than the Constitution.

Your America is over.  Get used to it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> Frank, you truly do not understand the Founders, American history, the role of the Constitution, its history, and how the law has developed in our wonderful country.  I have the Constitution besides my computer at home and at work.  I read in it at least once a day.  Only the Bible do I read more than the Constitution.
> 
> Your America is over.  Get used to it.



The "law" and the Amendment process has been perverted by Progressives since FDR who used SCOTUS judges to usurp the process.

Have a grown up read the Constitution to you, someone besides Larry Tribe.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

I'll be waiting for weeks for Jake to show how the fact that we have computers necessitated a rewrite to the Constitution


----------



## Yurt

JakeStarkey said:


> Frank, you truly do not understand the Founders, American history, the role of the Constitution, its history, and how the law has developed in our wonderful country.  I have the Constitution besides my computer at home and at work.  I read in it at least once a day.  Only the Bible do I read more than the Constitution.
> 
> Your America is over.  Get used to it.



and jim bakker read the bible everyday....


----------



## JakeStarkey

And you should remember that the devils knew Jesus and trembled in fear.

Frank has very little comprehension of the matters he discusses.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yurt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you believe is unimportant.
> 
> How can I be trolling when you troll that I am a liberal when I am not?  I never doubted that you were smart enough to not support Palin, and any sane person knows that Obama was born in Hawaii.
> 
> See, that is why I want to know why you are trolling.  I did catch you on youtube.
> 
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unfortunately for you, i'm not the only one who believes you're trolling and are a liberal trying to pass himjself off as a republican...
> 
> but you're right, it doesn't matter, because you can troll all day and night regardless of anyone's opinion....
> 
> if you truly wanted to push your political agenda and convince those on the right that their way is wrong, you would do so in a way that doesn't convince 99% of those on the right that you're a liberal...your words convict you...you have the option to change that, but you won't and that is because you're trollin
Click to expand...


You see, you think the far right is mainstream, and it is not.  To tell you the truth then is not trolling.  And what the far right wacks think of me is immaterial, and what you think of me is immaterial.  Revealing your goofiness does not make me a troll, boxxy.


----------



## Yurt

JakeStarkey said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you believe is unimportant.
> 
> How can I be trolling when you troll that I am a liberal when I am not?  I never doubted that you were smart enough to not support Palin, and any sane person knows that Obama was born in Hawaii.
> 
> See, that is why I want to know why you are trolling.  I did catch you on youtube.
> 
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unfortunately for you, i'm not the only one who believes you're trolling and are a liberal trying to pass himjself off as a republican...
> 
> but you're right, it doesn't matter, because you can troll all day and night regardless of anyone's opinion....
> 
> if you truly wanted to push your political agenda and convince those on the right that their way is wrong, you would do so in a way that doesn't convince 99% of those on the right that you're a liberal...your words convict you...you have the option to change that, but you won't and that is because you're trollin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see, you think the far right is mainstream, and it is not.  To tell you the truth then is not trolling.  And what the far right wacks think of me is immaterial, and what you think of me is immaterial.  Revealing your goofiness does not make me a troll, boxxy.
Click to expand...


huh?  i never said the far right is mainstream....

you're a troll jake and your lies continue to prove it....


----------



## JakeStarkey

You can't prove one lie, boxxy.  I believe in smaller government, I believe in less taxes, I believe that health care companies violated their public trust, I believe welfare reform needs to turn welfare recipients into taxpayers, I believe that Mitt Romney would be a great president.  I believe that if you really believe that I am a liberal, then you must be hull down on the right so that only your eyes are showing above the horizon.

Why can't you get we can't do a thing about how the left, the dems, and the libs think?  We need to reform our own party so that it more truly reflects the will of the people.  When Boehner and McConnell state that "the people have spoken", they are lying through their teeth; they are only speaking for their big money donors, not you and me.  They don't care about you and me.  Romney, I believe, truly does.

Slink off if you don't like it.


----------



## editec

They wanted to most* bang* for the* buck.*

Bang = effective governance
Buck = the amount of freedom they'd have to give up.

They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.

So they went with a stronger central government and that worked fairly well, but as we can all see, the power of the central government has gorwn stronger over time.


----------



## Intense

editec said:


> They wanted to most* bang* for the* buck.*
> 
> Bang = effective governance
> Buck = the amount of freedom they'd have to give up.
> 
> They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.
> 
> So they went with a stronger central government and that worked fairly well, but as we can all see, the power of the central government has gorwn stronger over time.





> They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.



What kind of kool aid are you drinking????? 

The system they tried was Federalism, you Jack Ass.


----------



## Dr.Traveler

Intense said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> They wanted to most* bang* for the* buck.*
> 
> Bang = effective governance
> Buck = the amount of freedom they'd have to give up.
> 
> They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.
> 
> So they went with a stronger central government and that worked fairly well, but as we can all see, the power of the central government has gorwn stronger over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of kool aid are you drinking?????
> 
> The system they tried was Federalism, you Jack Ass.
Click to expand...


He is talking about the Articles, which was more of an alliance of equal states or a Confederacy than a Federalist system.  And the Articles were a failure.  A necessary failure, as the Founders would have almost certainly rejected the Constitution flat out following the Revolutionary War.  It was only after the Articles failed that the Founders realized you needed a stronger Federal government.

That's why this question is a bit on the silly side.  Of course they wanted a strong central government.  They'd tried a weak central government and it outright failed.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Intense said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> They wanted to most* bang* for the* buck.*
> 
> Bang = effective governance
> Buck = the amount of freedom they'd have to give up.
> 
> They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.
> 
> So they went with a stronger central government and that worked fairly well, but as we can all see, the power of the central government has gorwn stronger over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of kool aid are you drinking?????
> 
> The system they tried was Federalism, you Jack Ass.
Click to expand...


The Articles of Confederation set up a confederated government of dual federalism, not the co-operative federalism into which our modern government has evolved.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

NYcarbineer said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limited and enumerated powers that were specifically granted along with the stipulation that those powers not granted to the fed are reserved for the states and individuals.... while not 'weak' the founders clearly sought to limit the powers of the fed... unlike what left wingers believe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet ironically in the other thread you are arguing that the federal government has the power to infringe on or take away my right to travel, despite there being no such enumerated power in the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Air travel is interstate commerce, You may want to reread what powers the Fed was granted.


----------



## antagon

Intense said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> They wanted to most* bang* for the* buck.*
> 
> Bang = effective governance
> Buck = the amount of freedom they'd have to give up.
> 
> They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.
> 
> So they went with a stronger central government and that worked fairly well, but as we can all see, the power of the central government has gorwn stronger over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of kool aid are you drinking?????
> 
> The system they tried was Federalism, you Jack Ass.
Click to expand...


clearly the man is referring to the articles of confederacy experiment.


----------



## Intense

antagon said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> They wanted to most* bang* for the* buck.*
> 
> Bang = effective governance
> Buck = the amount of freedom they'd have to give up.
> 
> They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.
> 
> So they went with a stronger central government and that worked fairly well, but as we can all see, the power of the central government has gorwn stronger over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of kool aid are you drinking?????
> 
> The system they tried was Federalism, you Jack Ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> clearly the man is referring to the articles of confederacy experiment.
Click to expand...


Our form of Federalism is what he referred to. Federalism is anti Strong Centralized Authority, plain and simple. Totalitarianism, is the threat, Tyranny. The defense, Enumerated Co-Equal distribution of Powers, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Federal, State, and Local. Each with It's sphere of influence and authority. Checks and balances. Centralized one size fits all is the last thing we need. It is the Tyrant's Perfect Storm.  Clearly the man is implying that State's Right's died with the Confederacy.


----------



## Dr.Traveler

Intense said:


> Clearly the man is implying that State's Right's died with the Confederacy.



It kinda did.  That's why its a shame that the South made a conscious choice to make the stand for State's Rights over the issue of Slavery.

If the South had abolished Slavery, and then decided to leave the Union they almost certainly would have succeeded in their cause.  Slavery became an issue that kept the North in the War and the Europeans out of it.


----------



## Intense

Dr.Traveler said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> They wanted to most* bang* for the* buck.*
> 
> Bang = effective governance
> Buck = the amount of freedom they'd have to give up.
> 
> They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.
> 
> So they went with a stronger central government and that worked fairly well, but as we can all see, the power of the central government has gorwn stronger over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of kool aid are you drinking?????
> 
> The system they tried was Federalism, you Jack Ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is talking about the Articles, which was more of an alliance of equal states or a Confederacy than a Federalist system.  And the Articles were a failure.  A necessary failure, as the Founders would have almost certainly rejected the Constitution flat out following the Revolutionary War.  It was only after the Articles failed that the Founders realized you needed a stronger Federal government.
> 
> That's why this question is a bit on the silly side.  Of course they wanted a strong central government.  They'd tried a weak central government and it outright failed.
Click to expand...


The Federal Constitution Stated Enumerated Powers, Checks and Balances, in effect Government by the consent of the Governed. We seem to forget more than we think we know. The Articles Of Confederation did not bare a resemblance to the Confederacy, other than the Confederacy being modeled after it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Dr.Traveler said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly the man is implying that State's Right's died with the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It kinda did.  That's why its a shame that the South made a conscious choice to make the stand for State's Rights over the issue of Slavery.
> 
> If the South had abolished Slavery, and then decided to leave the Union they almost certainly would have succeeded in their cause.  Slavery became an issue that kept the North in the War and the Europeans out of it.
Click to expand...


The southern states had no other reason than the right to own human beings to leave the Union.


----------



## antagon

> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The system they tried was Federalism, you Jack Ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> clearly the man is referring to the articles of confederacy experiment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our form of Federalism is what he referred to. Federalism is anti Strong Centralized Authority, plain and simple. Totalitarianism, is the threat, Tyranny. The defense, Enumerated Co-Equal distribution of Powers, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Federal, State, and Local. Each with It's sphere of influence and authority. Checks and balances. Centralized one size fits all is the last thing we need. It is the Tyrant's Perfect Storm.  Clearly the man is implying that State's Right's died with the Confederacy.
Click to expand...

maybe i cant say what editec was referring to with the clarity ive claimed.  i know that it would require being desperately uninformed about america to fail to understand the extents of state rights despite the civil war.  i dont think ed is in that basket.  it sounds like a reference to the articles of confederation to me.

i think federalism is just what it has turned out to be, but it is not the confederate, 'anti-strong' claim that you've made.  the federal government is explicitly declared supreme in the constitution in a way that is simpler and plainer than the extents of the enumerated powers of congress.  within the sphere of government, the federal government holds significant power.

i believe the qualm of the founders was with the power of government visa vis the constituency as far as consensus went.  even though not everyone thought that an explicit bill of rights was necessary, it was understood that the government was not meant to involve itself deeply in people's lives in the ways dear enough to make that bill of rights in the end.

the idea that confederacy or any other face of state supremacy was agreed among those who abandoned the articles in favor of a federal system with explicit supremacy to that centralized government is a logical indication that your perspective was not the prevailing one at the time, or at any time thereafter.


----------



## Intense

antagon said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> clearly the man is referring to the articles of confederacy experiment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our form of Federalism is what he referred to. Federalism is anti Strong Centralized Authority, plain and simple. Totalitarianism, is the threat, Tyranny. The defense, Enumerated Co-Equal distribution of Powers, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Federal, State, and Local. Each with It's sphere of influence and authority. Checks and balances. Centralized one size fits all is the last thing we need. It is the Tyrant's Perfect Storm.  Clearly the man is implying that State's Right's died with the Confederacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> maybe i cant say what editec was referring to with the clarity ive claimed.  i know that it would require being desperately uninformed about america to fail to understand the extents of state rights despite the civil war.  i dont think ed is in that basket.  it sounds like a reference to the articles of confederation to me.
> 
> i think federalism is just what it has turned out to be, but it is not the confederate, 'anti-strong' claim that you've made.  the federal government is explicitly declared supreme in the constitution in a way that is simpler and plainer than the extents of the enumerated powers of congress.  within the sphere of government, the federal government holds significant power.
> 
> i believe the qualm of the founders was with the power of government visa vis the constituency as far as consensus went.  even though not everyone thought that an explicit bill of rights was necessary, it was understood that the government was not meant to involve itself deeply in people's lives in the ways dear enough to make that bill of rights in the end.
> 
> the idea that confederacy or any other face of state supremacy was agreed among those who abandoned the articles in favor of a federal system with explicit supremacy to that centralized government is a logical indication that your perspective was not the prevailing one at the time, or at any time thereafter.
Click to expand...




> i think federalism is just what it has turned out to be, but it is not the confederate, 'anti-strong' claim that you've made.



My claim has nothing to do with with the Confederacy or Anti-Strong. My claim is about Government by the consent of the Governed, Rule of Law, and Due Process. Our Federal Republic is Anti-Tyranny. Transparency, Disclosure, Accountability, are part of the formula. Yes, I agree with You that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. We really are not that far apart. I do believe in the Enumerated Powers the Constitution plainly laid out. These Powers reserve certain Jurisdictions to the States or the People. 



> it was understood that the government was not meant to involve itself deeply in people's lives in the ways dear enough to make that bill of rights in the end.



And yet the Writers of the Constitution Originally tried to ratify it without The Bill Of Rights, because the argument was, the Powers were so limited, that it was redundant. Only because of the distrust at the Constitutional Convention, was it added only to get support for Ratification. Pity that the Right to Privacy was not thought of at the time, huh.



> the idea that confederacy or any other face of state supremacy was agreed among those who abandoned the articles in favor of a federal system with explicit supremacy to that centralized government is a logical indication that your perspective was not the prevailing one at the time, or at any time thereafter.



I think you are confusing Federalism with Nationalism. Federalism was not about one size fits all Nationalized Generic Solutions to our Problems, it is about a loose hold, allowing for experimentation and discovery at Local levels, and about expansion of proved policies. Think on the effect of recall on mass distribution of anything, because of failed or incompetent testing? The object of Good Government, is serving the needs of it's charge, not the means by which it serves it's charge. The mechanism and it's concerns are secondary to the mechanism's reason for being in the first place.

You make good points, Antagon. We are not that far apart.


----------



## antagon

no, i dont think we are too far apart, Intense.  this is the same sort of debate which the framers and the ratifiers engaged in.  the constitution seems to have a wide enough birth to allow for both of our points of view to find support within its text.  

i am under the impression that this was done with the intent for lawmakers to hack it out.  failing that, i dont think the founders were averse to armed civil disobedience to tyrrany... it came down to civil war in the end.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> And you should remember that the devils knew Jesus and trembled in fear.
> 
> Frank has very little comprehension of the matters he discusses.



Jake, you're a clown. Big red nose, oversize shoes, fuzzy magenta hair, the whole works.

You embarrassed yourself in the "Blacklisted" Thread and now you've doubled down on your "Total Ignorance is indeed a defense" strategy.  

The Founders did not draft document that gave us a spineless, formless government subject to every changing whims. They installed a high threshold to Amendment the document. Progressives breached the threshold to pass the New Deal and have been wiping their asses with it ever since.

And again you've not told us what fundamental changes everybody having a iPod would necessitate to the Constitution.

Jake the Clown.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Frank, I have unmasked the clown in you.  I kicked your ass in the "blacklisted" thread.  The Founders drafted a document that gave a strong, central government so that business, banking, and commerce could expand.  You ignore Madison initially, you ignore Hamilton, you ignore Washington, you ignore John Adams and his son, you ignore Henry Clay and Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln.

You, Frank, are the one wearing the clown suit here.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> Frank, I have unmasked the clown in you.  I kicked your ass in the "blacklisted" thread.  The Founders drafted a document that gave a strong, central government so that business, banking, and commerce could expand.  You ignore Madison initially, you ignore Hamilton, you ignore Washington, you ignore John Adams and his son, you ignore Henry Clay and Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> You, Frank, are the one wearing the clown suit here.



Here's Jake taking another swing at me in a debate.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Taking a swing at you? You swung at me, missed, and I knocked you to floor.  Clown.


----------



## Intense

Intense said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our form of Federalism is what he referred to. Federalism is anti Strong Centralized Authority, plain and simple. Totalitarianism, is the threat, Tyranny. The defense, Enumerated Co-Equal distribution of Powers, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Federal, State, and Local. Each with It's sphere of influence and authority. Checks and balances. Centralized one size fits all is the last thing we need. It is the Tyrant's Perfect Storm.  Clearly the man is implying that State's Right's died with the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> 
> maybe i cant say what editec was referring to with the clarity ive claimed.  i know that it would require being desperately uninformed about america to fail to understand the extents of state rights despite the civil war.  i dont think ed is in that basket.  it sounds like a reference to the articles of confederation to me.
> 
> i think federalism is just what it has turned out to be, but it is not the confederate, 'anti-strong' claim that you've made.  the federal government is explicitly declared supreme in the constitution in a way that is simpler and plainer than the extents of the enumerated powers of congress.  within the sphere of government, the federal government holds significant power.
> 
> i believe the qualm of the founders was with the power of government visa vis the constituency as far as consensus went.  even though not everyone thought that an explicit bill of rights was necessary, it was understood that the government was not meant to involve itself deeply in people's lives in the ways dear enough to make that bill of rights in the end.
> 
> the idea that confederacy or any other face of state supremacy was agreed among those who abandoned the articles in favor of a federal system with explicit supremacy to that centralized government is a logical indication that your perspective was not the prevailing one at the time, or at any time thereafter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My claim has nothing to do with with the Confederacy or Anti-Strong. My claim is about Government by the consent of the Governed, Rule of Law, and Due Process. Our Federal Republic is Anti-Tyranny. Transparency, Disclosure, Accountability, are part of the formula. Yes, I agree with You that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. We really are not that far apart. I do believe in the Enumerated Powers the Constitution plainly laid out. These Powers reserve certain Jurisdictions to the States or the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it was understood that the government was not meant to involve itself deeply in people's lives in the ways dear enough to make that bill of rights in the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet the Writers of the Constitution Originally tried to ratify it without The Bill Of Rights, because the argument was, the Powers were so limited, that it was redundant. Only because of the distrust at the Constitutional Convention, was it added only to get support for Ratification. Pity that the Right to Privacy was not thought of at the time, huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the idea that confederacy or any other face of state supremacy was agreed among those who abandoned the articles in favor of a federal system with explicit supremacy to that centralized government is a logical indication that your perspective was not the prevailing one at the time, or at any time thereafter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are confusing Federalism with Nationalism. Federalism was not about one size fits all Nationalized Generic Solutions to our Problems, it is about a loose hold, allowing for experimentation and discovery at Local levels, and about expansion of proved policies. Think on the effect of recall on mass distribution of anything, because of failed or incompetent testing? The object of Good Government, is serving the needs of it's charge, not the means by which it serves it's charge. The mechanism and it's concerns are secondary to the mechanism's reason for being in the first place.
> 
> You make good points, Antagon. We are not that far apart.
Click to expand...


The Civil War was not about Federalism (States Rights V.S. Federal Rights), but irreconcilable differences, among them Slavery, and years of Tariff abuse, built up over decades. Agriculture suffered greatly over unfair trade practices that favored industry. Hamilton style schemes that burdened unfairly.

This Book is a great read. [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentucky-Resolutions/dp/1403963037]Amazon.com: Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy (9781403963031): William Watkins: Books[/ame]


----------



## antagon

i wont go as far as to say that the civvy was independent from the issue of states rights and confederacy.  the south simply didn't want to participate in the US, and objected to US policy under the decidedly confederate concept of nullification.  whether it was the central bank, slavery, tariffs, industry or war, the south had been reticent throughout antebellum when it came to recognizing a national interest at all.  finally they wanted out of the constitution whereas the union saw that as theft and treason.

bloodshed on a massive scale.


----------



## Intense

antagon said:


> i wont go as far as to say that the civvy was independent from the issue of states rights and confederacy.  the south simply didn't want to participate in the US, and objected to US policy under the decidedly confederate concept of nullification.  whether it was the central bank, slavery, tariffs, industry or war, the south had been reticent throughout antebellum when it came to recognizing a national interest at all.  finally they wanted out of the constitution whereas the union saw that as theft and treason.
> 
> bloodshed on a massive scale.



A few Administrations before Lincoln wiped their boots on South Carolina, hurting the State in big way's. It was a long road that brought the South to the Civil War.


----------



## Dr.Traveler

JakeStarkey said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly the man is implying that State's Right's died with the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It kinda did.  That's why its a shame that the South made a conscious choice to make the stand for State's Rights over the issue of Slavery.
> 
> If the South had abolished Slavery, and then decided to leave the Union they almost certainly would have succeeded in their cause.  Slavery became an issue that kept the North in the War and the Europeans out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The southern states had no other reason than the right to own human beings to leave the Union.
Click to expand...


I don't exactly share that view.  A lot of folks forget that during the War of 1812 the Northeastern states were seriously considering succession from the Union too.  That was absolutely not about slavery.

I think that there was a case to be made against the Fed in the 19th Century, and a legitimate case to be made for a dissolving of the Union.  The problem is that the South, who did have some legitimate issues, failed to abolish slavery before trying to leave.

If the South had abolished slavery, chances are support for the War in the North would have fallen apart after some of the early Confederate victories.  The European nations who were put off by the South's slave based economy would have almost certainly jumped on a chance to weaken the United States and entered the war.

As things were though, while the Civil War wasn't entirely about slavery for the South, for the North slavery became one of the primary motivations for the public.  It gave the North a sense of "rightness" for their cause, boosted moral, and kept them in the War.  The Euopean powers that had abolished slavery stayed out of the war, despite serious business and strategic interests that should have brought them into it.

I think prior to the War there was a case to be made for legal succession.  Now its a moot point.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

One of Hamilton key reasons for states becoming -rats was to avoid a civil war -- ironic, no?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Not at all.  Hamilton believed an integrated economic system and uniform international trade laws (two of the reasons for the convention of 1787) were absolutely necessary for a successful union.  The issue of slavery, of course, was the reason the system came unsprung.


----------



## Bern80

I have to agree with one of the response posts that the question is rather vague. What is your definition of a 'weak' central government? 

If you asked me I would say that would be a government structured such that their are checks and balances that ultimately prevent tyranny on the part of the government. To quote the title of a book, "Power divided is power checked".  

There is an awful lot implied in Spidey's question and some assumptions can be made. For those of on here we all know who the conserviatves, libertarians and liberals are and we know spidey's rep as a lib. We see questions like this all the time from all sides and I have to say I don't see the point. It's not like Spidey actually wants to be convinced that the framers intended for their to be central government with limited power. His mind was made up before he asked the question. He's just trying to set up targets to shoot down. He's not actually interested in entertaining the evidence that the framers intended for their to be a weak central government. He likely believes in strong central government with fairly expansive powers. The only question is why? Forget what the framers intent might have been. Why would ANYONE on the left or right want a government to have the authority to be tyrannical? I really don't get it.

As to the evidence that the power of the central government was indeed intended to be limited? There is all kinds of evidence in the consititution and other historical documents for this. The obvious ones being this is the not just America this is the United *States* of America. If power wasn't meant to be divided why do we have different states that have a certain latitude to do things their own way? 

The other asanine argument I saw was 'well the constitution doesn't say the government can't do this or that'. How fucking stupid can you be to ask this? That isn't about politics or framers intent. That is about written english, practicality and common sense. What makes more sense: For a bunch of people to try to come up with every abuse a government might try or ever try and put it to paper (who knows how long the constituion would have to be then) OR to grant the central government some specific powers with the implication that if it isn't written the fed can't do it? And in fact the later isn't even implied in the constitution it fucking says it; those powers not granted to the fed are reserved to the states.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I understand what you are saying, Bern, and the SCOTUS disagrees with you.


----------



## Two Thumbs

SpidermanTuba said:


> If you answered "YES", the please explain why they did not keep the Articles of Confederation, which was a form of government with weak central authority and most of the real power still resting with the states.



Think we need to understand something.

There were a LOT of Founders.  Some where and are famous, most you counldn't name unless you did a deep study.

In an over all sense, I would say no.  Those that understood power new that power currupted people and a corrupt governing is what they broke away from.

Some saw the vastness of America and "new" due to the size there would be a need for a strong central power to keep every state moving in the same direction.

But if you just look at how often the 3 branches met in the beginning you can easily determine that they wanted to have little power.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> I understand what you are saying, Bern, and the SCOTUS disagrees with you.



About what? 

And I again ask if you're siding with SCOTUS and whatever you think their opinion is on limited central government, I again ask why? Why do you want a central government to have enough power that, if abused, jeopardizes your freedom?


----------



## JakeStarkey

A centralized government may very well do that, Bern.  We have seen two centuries where state governments certainly did abuse their citizens.  I am far more concerned about the far right wacks in my party and what they would do if they got power than I am of the feds right now.

But all that is a glam on the OP.  No, the Founders as a group wanted a strong central goveernment so that banking and commerce and interstate regulations were standarized for all players.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> A centralized government may very well do that, Bern.  We have seen two centuries where state governments certainly did abuse their citizens.  I am far more concerned about the far right wacks in my party and what they would do if they got power than I am of the feds right now.
> 
> But all that is a glam on the OP.  No, the Founders as a group wanted a strong central goveernment so that banking and commerce and interstate regulations were standarized for all players.



And that gets back to my original question. What is meant by 'strong'? Apparently our definitions are different. Certainly I understand the standardization of certain things on a national level. I'm not sure what that has to do with the strength of the central government. Just because some argue that the fed was meant to be weak in terms of power doesn't mean no power and I really don't know how the things you listed are defining characteristics of a 'strong' central government in the sense we are talking about (or at least I am talking about).


----------



## JakeStarkey

I think the question for both of us, then, Bern, is whether the state or the fed should be protecting civil liberties?

Or am I misunderstanding you all together on this.  I am not deliberately being obtuse, I guess I am just dense.


----------



## antagon

JakeStarkey said:


> A centralized government may very well do that, Bern.  We have seen two centuries where state governments certainly did abuse their citizens.  I am far more concerned about the far right wacks in my party and what they would do if they got power than I am of the feds right now.
> 
> But all that is a glam on the OP.  No, the Founders as a group wanted a strong central goveernment so that banking and commerce and interstate regulations were standarized for all players.



i'd only go as far as that they were split on the extent of central government's strength.  the semantics of strong or weak and central vs state throw this discussion off.  as far as personal liberties go, i dont think many of the founders felt that state rights were protective of such, and were not confederate on that basis.  they sought to have a central government which could make protections uniformed across the states - one of the major themes in the constitution.  for others, but i would argue fewer delegates, there was the issue of empowerment of state governments.  this sentiment resurged after the ratification, having left a sour taste in the mouth of the parties to the articles of confederation.

interestingly, bern80 closed his rant referring to deference of unspecified rights to the states, where the constitution defers to states and individuals.  the alternative perspective which many of the founders held, maintains that the US is a protector of rights from states.  such is the function of the SCOTUS and fed circuits on many occasions: superceding the judgement of states once determined they've demured their constituent's rights to their own.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> I think the question for both of us, then, Bern, is whether the state or the fed should be protecting civil liberties?
> 
> Or am I misunderstanding you all together on this.  I am not deliberately being obtuse, I guess I am just dense.



I think it should be the Feds job to protect civil liberties. I DON'T think that duty, in of itself, is what would define it as being 'strong'.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I disagree with your first paragraph.  The proof in the pudding is the anti-rats' demands for 1st Amendment guarantees because the last thing they wanted was the feds telling them how to regulate their churches or their political speech or the carrying of weapons or search and seizure and so on.  The Founders were overwhelmingly pro-republican and anti-democratic in political philosophy.  So I don't see them as seeing the national government the protector of civil liberties.


----------



## antagon

how do you reconcile the bill of rights or the those limitations of government in the constitution with the supremacy of the judiciary and the US if they weren't aimed at emplacing definative, uniformed rights in a centrally inforceable position.

if the founders were anti-democratic, that is reflected in their being no suffrage amendment.  they were concerned about property and arms rights.  those were protected, and against militias as mutually as the army or navy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The bill of rights was to pacify the anti-rats so that the states would not feel threatened by the national government.

There was no supremacy of the judiciary in 1787, or 1793, or 1800 until John Marshall and his court decided that the SCOTUS was going to be the final arbiter.  Not that it was going to be easy: Jefferson tried to have Justice Salmon Chase impeached and convicted on political charges; Jackson as president ignored the court's rulings protecting the sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation; and Abraham Lincoln and his fellow Whigs becoming Republicans had flatly committed themselves to make sure _Dred Scott _was dead as a letter of the law.


----------



## antagon

c'mon jake.  how much more directly can the desire for federal oversight of states be read from history  than the fact that the shays' rebellion was the straw that broke the back of the articles?  "the supreme law of the land" so that states were mandated to provide haebeus corpus among a host of other issues arising from that matter.  you are only referring to the the 10th amendment exclusively with that states' protection bit, whereas the first 8 amendments could be construed as extending protections trampled by MA during the shays'... and for the central and state governments at once.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Antagon, you are not describing what I said at all and your inference is goofy.

One, the Founders were overwhelmingly anti-democratic, pro-business, and afraid of large national government telling the states what they could do socially and culturally and, to an extent, politically.

Two, the government as conceived by them is not what we have now, and that is fine by me.  But not let's pretend that somehow those guys were secret goingtobe libs and progressives of the latter half of the 20 century.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> The government as conceived by them is not what we have now, and that is fine by me.  But not let's pretend that somehow those guys were secret goingtobe libs and progressives of the latter half of the 20 century.



Again, my question is why? What is it you are afraid will happen if the central government doesn't have enough power?

If the government now wasn't what the framers intended and what they intended is essentially what made it into the constitution, aren't you basically admitting that the constitution should not be striclty intepreted?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The intent of the Founders has absolutely nothing to do with what we do today.  To think otherwise is to make reason stare.  Anyone who suggests suggest nonsense is appealing to false authority.  However, Bern, you are suggesting that you believe the Constitution is an organic document to be interpreted for generations as they perceive and not be dictated to by dead men more than 200 years ago.


----------



## antagon

starkey, this is the statement of yours i've contested:

"The bill of rights was to pacify the anti-rats so that the states would not feel threatened by the national government."

i've pointed out that this cannot be supported because the bill of rights only empowers the states with _part_ of the 10th amendment.  in the historical context which the constitution was drafted, that is in the wake of the shays' rebellion and arguably specifically because of it, tells more.  during the shays' MA denied habeas corpus, searched and seized homes, barred rights of assembly and speech, abandoned due process, sentenced cruel punishments.  criminalized bearing of arms... this is the bear share of the bill of rights.  this, not states rights are the impetus of the majority of the amendments... 9/10ths.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> The intent of the Founders has absolutely nothing to do with what we do today.  To think otherwise is to make reason stare.



Why? Why do you suggest the words on paper can't be applied across generations? 




JakeStarkey said:


> Anyone who suggests suggest nonsense is appealing to false authority.  However, Bern, you are suggesting that you believe the Constitution is an organic document to be interpreted for generations as they perceive and not be dictated to by dead men more than 200 years ago.



The statement is tough to understand what you are saying. Are you claiming I do or do not believe the constitution should be an organic document? Because I think I've said before I don't believe it is an organic document. IF you are claiming it is an organic document then I contend that is what is nonsensical. How can words already put to paper be organic? They can't change. They say what they say and mean what they mean. You can't redefine words for convenience. The document is only organic in the sense that the framers did include a process for ammending it. There is no 'interpreting' the constitution. Government either abides by what it says or it ignores. It's just that some people don't have the integrity to admit it's the later they are doing when they say they are 'interpreting' it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Thank you, Bern, for fairly stating what you believe.  

Those like you who are bound to the past are mortgaging your future.


----------



## editec

Intense said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> They wanted to most* bang* for the* buck.*
> 
> Bang = effective governance
> Buck = the amount of freedom they'd have to give up.
> 
> They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.
> 
> So they went with a stronger central government and that worked fairly well, but as we can all see, the power of the central government has gorwn stronger over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They tried the loose confederate system and found that it failed to govern well enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of kool aid are you drinking?????
> 
> The system they tried was Federalism, you Jack Ass.
Click to expand...

 
And what kind of government were they abandoning, Intense?

A CONFDERATION, right?

And FYI, it is entirely possible to disagree with me without being disagreeable, lad.

I have no doubt you imagine that insulting people makes your arguments look stronger, but take my word for it when I tell you it doesn't.

So let's recap, shall we?

1. We had a confederate form of government_ before_ we wrote the current constitutional form of government we have now, so on that point, you simply misread my post

2. Attacking people personally, even if they had been wrong ---which, in this case, I was not -- doesn't make you look like a very strong person, it makes you look like a hysterical little bully.

3. When you try to teach your grandfather how to suck eggs, you'd best be a hell of a lot more experienced in egg suckery than your GP.

Here endth today's lesson, Lad.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> Thank you, Bern, for fairly stating what you believe.
> 
> Those like you who are bound to the past are mortgaging your future.



How am I bound to the past? How does abiding by the constitution as it is written and constructed sacrafice the future?

And if that is what YOU believe, then man up and answer the question; If your contention is that the document is too antiquated to be applicable today are you not contending that we really don't have to adhere to the constitution at all?


----------



## Liberty

NYcarbineer said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limited and enumerated powers that were specifically granted along with the stipulation that those powers not granted to the fed are reserved for the states and individuals.... while not 'weak' the founders clearly sought to limit the powers of the fed... unlike what left wingers believe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet ironically in the other thread you are arguing that the federal government has the power to infringe on or take away my right to travel, despite there being no such enumerated power in the Constitution.
Click to expand...


10th amendment, dumbass.


----------



## JakeStarkey

We do abide by the Constitution as it is written and interpreted, that's the point.

Your argument is antique and quaint: take it up with SCOTUS and constitutional scholars.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> We do abide by the Constitution as it is written and interpreted, that's the point.
> 
> Your argument is antique and quaint: take it up with SCOTUS and constitutional scholars.



Huh? If we do abide by the constitution as it is written as you contend, and that is what I suggest we do as well, what about my position is antique and jeopardizes the future of the country?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Because if you think SCOTUS over the decades has eviscerated your concept of the Constitution, you are looking to the past.

Hint: we are not going there.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> Because if you think SCOTUS over the decades has eviscerated your concept of the Constitution, you are looking to the past.
> 
> Hint: we are not going there.



Jake we both just agreed that the constitution should be abided by as it is written and constructed. Based on the above your position than has to be that SCOTUS is simply not capable of incorrectly interpreting the constitution.....you're right Jake, you don't want to go there.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Bern80 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because if you think SCOTUS over the decades has eviscerated your concept of the Constitution, you are looking to the past.
> 
> Hint: we are not going there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake we both just agreed that the constitution should be abided by as it is written and constructed. Based on the above your position than has to be that SCOTUS is simply not capable of incorrectly interpreting the constitution.....you're right Jake, you don't want to go there.
Click to expand...


I said "if YOU think", not if I think, Bern.  You are projecting.  Your internet opinion is wrong, SCOTUS is right, and we don't have to go there.  However, no one is stopping you from making that journey to futility.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> I said "if YOU think", not if I think, Bern.  You are projecting.  Your internet opinion is wrong, SCOTUS is right, and we don't have to go there.  However, no one is stopping you from making that journey to futility.




And what you think about my position is of course incorrect. What am I wrong about?

I don't think SCOUTS has 'eviscerated the constitution'. Are there a handful of rulings I would maybe disagree with? Sure. You can't tell me you think they got it right 100% of the time either. 

I even agree that they are the final say on the document. But having the final word and being correct about it are two different things.

It isn't even SCOTUS rulings that I have the biggest problem with. It's the legislature that seems to not even consider whether legislation they pass is constitutional much less makes laws that abide by how it was written and constructed.


----------



## JakeStarkey

OK, your third paragraph narrows what you are saying so that pea brains like me get it.  I agree that both SCOTUS and the Congress make some stupid rulings and legislation.  Yes, 100% I agree with that.

Did you know until the late 1990s, the state of Utah had a small office that gave the legislature (overwhelmingly GOP since the late Reagan years) its opinions on constitutionality of proposed and passed legislation?  So many of the opinions contradicted the legislation that the legislature, instead of considering the merit of the office and as an unofficial check, simply elimianted the office.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> Did you know until the late 1990s, the state of Utah had a small office that gave the legislature (overwhelmingly GOP since the late Reagan years) its opinions on constitutionality of proposed and passed legislation?  So many of the opinions contradicted the legislation that the legislature, instead of considering the merit of the office and as an unofficial check, simply elimianted the office.




I did not. I wish the fed had something like that, a constitutional review committee or something. Unfortunately it doesn't surprise me much that the Utah office was disolved. We wouldn't want to get in the way of 'progress' now would we.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Of course not.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

SpidermanTuba said:


> If you answered "YES", the please explain why they did not keep the Articles of Confederation, which was a form of government with weak central authority and most of the real power still resting with the states.



Here's a good discriptive video of what the founders truely wanted for this country. Or at least it fits for me.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC_BzMptnlk&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5G1VnOEjao&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8o_fdh1xg4&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPlOTuSGYeQ&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBkYaKaah18&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlLWQZ4p4eM&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJLbxlIWztg&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhEi1ZXc0Fk&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey

But do we have to follow their vision, bigrebnc, if it constrains us as a people from moving forward?  That is my issue with Judges Thomas and Bork: it is as if nothing changed for them since 1791.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> But do we have to follow their vision, bigrebnc, if it constrains us as a people from moving forward?  That is my issue with Judges Thomas and Bork: it is as if nothing changed for them since 1791.



Their vision gave us the freedoms we have. The U.S. Constitutrion has been the frame work that many nations have built their government on. I'm not changing


----------



## JakeStarkey

Then live in 1791 with racism, slavery, sexism, homophobia.  Stay there.  You will not be needed for the future.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Then live in 1791 with racism, slavery, sexism, homophobia.  Stay there.  You will not be needed for the future.



Blather blather blather, Saul Alinsky needs to teach you something other than showing that you are a communist.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> But do we have to follow their vision, bigrebnc, if it constrains us as a people from moving forward?  That is my issue with Judges Thomas and Bork: it is as if nothing changed for them since 1791.



It doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing. So they thought slavery was okay. Fine we don't have to use it. Other visions I think are rather important and still ring true today like personal liberty. 

When some of us here talk about getting 'back' to a nation the framers envisioned those are the ideals we are talking about. I don't see how holding to a position of personal liberty being the utmost important to protect as holding the country back. I don't see an overall vision of a government that is checked and balanced to prevent tyranny, to prevent the things they fled in Europe from happening here as being detrimental to societal growth. I don't see how anyone can disagree with carrying on those ideals today. And doing so certainly doesn't require us to revert to other 'values' such as women and minorities being essentially second class citizens.

Now, if as you say, the constitution is to be followed as it was written and constructed those values ought to take care of themselves as they are overarching themes. The document is not a charter from government that bestows priviledges on its subjects. It is a document from the people that grants certain powers to the government. So perhaps the best things to do is 'interpret' the constitution from a strictly constructionist standpoint. One that abides not by the visions of this framer or that framer but one that abides by the definition of the words on paper and the grammatical rules of written english.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then live in 1791 with racism, slavery, sexism, homophobia.  Stay there.  You will not be needed for the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blather blather blather, Saul Alinsky needs to teach you something other than showing that you are a communist.
Click to expand...


In other words, Little Saul of the Far Right (see you just got a title!), you got nothing.

The founders could not envision the future; therefore, the Constitution is organic, not rigid, but to be interpreted for each era and generation; thus the argument for "originalism" is constructed on a bed of rhetorical sand that washed away long ago.

Move on, Little Saul. Better yet, take a history course.


----------



## JakeStarkey

None of that, which you worry yourself silly about, has occurred.  If you don't like the modern world, move to the country and do not use electricity or city water or sanitation or sewage or police protection or fire prevention or or or or. . .  Come on, guys, give us something concrete.  If not, you are Pals of Little Saul.  You got nothing.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then live in 1791 with racism, slavery, sexism, homophobia.  Stay there.  You will not be needed for the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blather blather blather, Saul Alinsky needs to teach you something other than showing that you are a communist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, Little Saul of the Far Right (see you just got a title!), you got nothing.
> 
> The founders could not envision the future; therefore, the Constitution is organic, not rigid, but to be interpreted for each era and generation; thus the argument for "originalism" is constructed on a bed of rhetorical sand that washed away long ago.
> 
> Move on, Little Saul. Better yet, take a history course.
Click to expand...




> In other words, Little Saul of the Far Right (see you just got a title!), you got nothing.


No brainless one saul is a leftist. Your little rant at an attempt of embarrassing me doesn't work. 


> The founders could not envision the future



Oh they had foresight thats why they also created the bill of rights.



> not rigid, but to be interpreted for each era and generation; thus the argument for "originalism" is constructed on a bed of rhetorical sand that washed away long ago.
> 
> Move on, Little Saul. Better yet, take a history course



I suggest you need to go back and study your self or better yet move your communist ass to russia cuba or some other country to your liking. Your kind is not welcome here anymore


> the Constitution is organic



no it isn't communist. There are certain steps that must be taken to amsend the constituion.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc has become the Little Saul of the Moronic Right.

Dude, the Constitution governs.  The governance is done by legislation, amendment, and judicial review.  You don't like it, Little Saul, who cares?

You truly are the saul alinisky of the moronic far right.  Son, you are goofy.

Enroll in your local community college, there, Little Saul.  Take a history course.  Do your soul good.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc has become the Little Saul of the Moronic Right.
> 
> Dude, the Constitution governs.  The governance is done by legislation, amendment, and judicial review.  You don't like it, Little Saul, who cares?
> 
> You truly are the saul alinisky of the moronic far right.  Son, you are goofy.
> 
> Enroll in your local community college, there, Little Saul.  Take a history course.  Do your soul good.



Jake, you've yet to explain what fundamental changes we need to make to the Constitution because of xboxes or iPods


----------



## bag

SpidermanTuba said:


> If you answered "YES", the please explain why they did not keep the Articles of Confederation, which was a form of government with weak central authority and most of the real power still resting with the states.



"our" forefathers had the intelligence to leave it up to US, if you read the constitution, the articles of confederation, the declaration of independence, and ALL OTHER relevant papers posted at that time. leaving it there.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc has become the Little Saul of the Moronic Right.
> 
> Dude, the Constitution governs.  The governance is done by legislation, amendment, and judicial review.  You don't like it, Little Saul, who cares?
> 
> You truly are the saul alinisky of the moronic far right.  Son, you are goofy.
> 
> Enroll in your local community college, there, Little Saul.  Take a history course.  Do your soul good.





> You don't like it, Little Saul, who cares?



From all of your replys little communist you are the one that does not like the Constitution the way it is.



JakeStarkey said:


> But do we have to follow their vision, bigrebnc, if it constrains us as a people from moving forward?  That is my issue with Judges Thomas and Bork: it is as if nothing changed for them since 1791.





JakeStarkey said:


> Then live in 1791 with racism, slavery, sexism, homophobia.  Stay there.  You will not be needed for the future.



*These are all human emotions with the exception of slavery you cannot legislate out of extence.*



JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then live in 1791 with racism, slavery, sexism, homophobia.  Stay there.  You will not be needed for the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blather blather blather, Saul Alinsky needs to teach you something other than showing that you are a communist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, Little Saul of the Far Right (see you just got a title!), you got nothing.
> 
> The founders could not envision the future; therefore, the Constitution is organic, not rigid, but to be interpreted for each era and generation; thus the argument for "originalism" is constructed on a bed of rhetorical sand that washed away long ago.
> 
> Move on, Little Saul. Better yet, take a history course.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Little Saul of the Far Right, as I thought, has no answer.

Run Little Saul, run!


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> None of that, which you worry yourself silly about, has occurred.  If you don't like the modern world, move to the country and do not use electricity or city water or sanitation or sewage or police protection or fire prevention or or or or. . .  Come on, guys, give us something concrete.  If not, you are Pals of Little Saul.  You got nothing.



I don't get why you keep referencing the 'modern world' vs. the 'framer's world'. What is it about the modern world you don't think I like? The ONLY issue I have with the modern world or how government does things is when they sacrafice freedom for 'progress'. 

Freedom is the ability to choose. The more choices taken away from you the less free you are. Freedom is also money. The more of it you have the more free you are. There are a couple of undeniable facts along those line. Our government has done nothing but get bigger since it's inception. It simply does more, regulates more, provides more services and takes on more roles. That costs money. Government gets it's money through taxes. Thus the bigger government, the more it decides to do and thus the more money it needs from YOU, the less free you are. 

So Jake, you simply can not factually state that your freedom isn't being eroded. It is. The only question is, is it acceptable to you in the name of progress. The framers did have pretty good forsight where these concepts are concerned. Jefferson said "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under thepretense of taking care of them." and Frankln said those who would sacrifice their liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You simply do not understand that history does not stand still, Bern80.  Technological development over the last 250 years has continually eroded human privacy, which I think you equate with "liberty."  Only an apocalypse will stop that, and we all will be returned to the steam and coal oil age.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> You simply do not understand that history does not stand still, Bern80.  Technological development over the last 250 years has continually eroded human privacy, which I think you equate with "liberty."  Only an apocalypse will stop that, and we all will be returned to the steam and coal oil age.



'History doesn't stand still' is a nonensical statement. I have no idea what you mean by that. Regardless, you think incorrectly. I do not equate privacy with liberty. Nor do I see how technological advancement makes us less free or why advancement in technology means we can't abide by the constitution or adhere to some of our founding principles. Can you explain that? Your positions seems to be that my position will invariably hold the country backm which is also don't get. a)What is my positino and b) what about it keeps the country from progressing?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Little Saul of the Far Right, as I thought, has no answer.
> 
> Run Little Saul, run!




I answered you it's not my fault if you are to stupid to read it.





bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc has become the Little Saul of the Moronic Right.
> 
> Dude, the Constitution governs.  The governance is done by legislation, amendment, and judicial review.  You don't like it, Little Saul, who cares?
> 
> You truly are the saul alinisky of the moronic far right.  Son, you are goofy.
> 
> Enroll in your local community college, there, Little Saul.  Take a history course.  Do your soul good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't like it, Little Saul, who cares?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From all of your replys little communist you are the one that does not like the Constitution the way it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *These are all human emotions with the exception of slavery you cannot legislate out of extence.*
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blather blather blather, Saul Alinsky needs to teach you something other than showing that you are a communist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, Little Saul of the Far Right (see you just got a title!), you got nothing.
> 
> The founders could not envision the future; therefore, the Constitution is organic, not rigid, but to be interpreted for each era and generation; thus the argument for "originalism" is constructed on a bed of rhetorical sand that washed away long ago.
> 
> Move on, Little Saul. Better yet, take a history course.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Little Saul of the Right cannot answer the questions.  The Constitution is fine the way it is, the SCOTUS is the final arbiter (and, yes, they, on occasion, get it wrong), but it is far better than war.  If Americans feel strongly about an issue that is extra-congressional, then put out the Amendment process.

Little Saul of the Right, that is the way it is.  You really should stop emulating far lefty tactics.  You look as stupid as the lefties who follow Saul, or other far righties, like Rush, who follow his tactics.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Little Saul of the Right cannot answer the questions.  The Constitution is fine the way it is, the SCOTUS is the final arbiter (and, yes, they, on occasion, get it wrong), but it is far better than war.  If Americans feel strongly about an issue that is extra-congressional, then put out the Amendment process.
> 
> Little Saul of the Right, that is the way it is.  You really should stop emulating far lefty tactics.  You look as stupid as the lefties who follow Saul, or other far righties, like Rush, who follow his tactics.



You are not being very coherent, but I guess thats how the communist work. Saul Alinsky wrote your playbook.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You follow Saul Alinksy, bigrebnc, and that is why you fail with people who can actually think.

Bern, that you do not understand the interplay of history, technology, and liberty since 1750 is simply not my problem.

But I have a suggestion for you and your running buddy, Little Saul of the Right: twist your philosophy to fit the facts rather than twist the facts to fit your philosophy.  You will be far more accurate if you do.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> You follow Saul Alinksy, bigrebnc, and that is why you fail with people who can actually think.
> 
> Bern, that you do not understand the interplay of history, technology, and liberty since 1750 is simply not my problem.
> 
> But I have a suggestion for you and your running buddy, Little Saul of the Right: twist your philosophy to fit the facts rather than twist the facts to fit your philosophy.  You will be far more accurate if you do.



People whoi think? jake as most communist you don't think you reactr to commands from the high command.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Communist?  You have no idea what a communist is, my Little Saul of the Right.  You have no idea what a socialist is, my Little Saul of the Right.  However, you do know what a racist, a sexist, and a homophobe is, because you are all of that.  Little Saul of the Right is a former member of the Klan and apparently affiliates doctrinally with the American Nazi Party.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Communist?  You have no idea what a communist is, my Little Saul of the Right.  You have no idea what a socialist is, my Little Saul of the Right.  However, you do know what a racist, a sexist, and a homophobe is, because you are all of that.  Little Saul of the Right is a former member of the Klan and apparently affiliates doctrinally with the American Nazi Party.



You jake are a communist thats all I need to know. Klan? Do you have any source stating that I have been or am in the klan? If not you know the drill you lying piece of shit.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> Bern, that you do not understand the interplay of history, technology, and liberty since 1750 is simply not my problem.



Sure I do. What I don't see is how any of those concepts are in opposition to each other. I'm curious as to what you think that opposition is.



JakeStarkey said:


> But I have a suggestion for you and your running buddy, Little Saul of the Right: twist your philosophy to fit the facts rather than twist the facts to fit your philosophy.  You will be far more accurate if you do.



The problem Jake is you are attributing to me a philosophy I don't have (hell you can't even tell me what you think it is). I think you're just looking for something to fight over or be condescending about.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communist?  You have no idea what a communist is, my Little Saul of the Right.  You have no idea what a socialist is, my Little Saul of the Right.  However, you do know what a racist, a sexist, and a homophobe is, because you are all of that.  Little Saul of the Right is a former member of the Klan and apparently affiliates doctrinally with the American Nazi Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You jake are a communist thats all I need to know. Klan? Do you have any source stating that I have been or am in the klan? If not you know the drill you lying piece of shit.
Click to expand...


Do you have any source that shows I am a communist?  You can't tie any of my political philosophy to anything other than mainstream American principles.  You on the other hand have been a Klansman, and still a racist and sexist and homophobe.

Little Saul of the Far Right, you are pathetic.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Bern80 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bern, that you do not understand the interplay of history, technology, and liberty since 1750 is simply not my problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do. What I don't see is how any of those concepts are in opposition to each other. I'm curious as to what you think that opposition is.
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I have a suggestion for you and your running buddy, Little Saul of the Right: twist your philosophy to fit the facts rather than twist the facts to fit your philosophy.  You will be far more accurate if you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem Jake is you are attributing to me a philosophy I don't have (hell you can't even tell me what you think it is). I think you're just looking for something to fight over or be condescending about.
Click to expand...


You are projecting again, sweetheart.  Your philosophy is contradictory and silly.  Hang in there, though, who knows what will happen.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communist?  You have no idea what a communist is, my Little Saul of the Right.  You have no idea what a socialist is, my Little Saul of the Right.  However, you do know what a racist, a sexist, and a homophobe is, because you are all of that.  Little Saul of the Right is a former member of the Klan and apparently affiliates doctrinally with the American Nazi Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You jake are a communist thats all I need to know. Klan? Do you have any source stating that I have been or am in the klan? If not you know the drill you lying piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any source that shows I am a communist?  You can't tie any of my political philosophy to anything other than mainstream American principles.  You on the other hand have been a Klansman, and still a racist and sexist and homophobe.
> 
> Little Saul of the Far Right, you are pathetic.
Click to expand...


Your words give you away.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bern, that you do not understand the interplay of history, technology, and liberty since 1750 is simply not my problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do. What I don't see is how any of those concepts are in opposition to each other. I'm curious as to what you think that opposition is.
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I have a suggestion for you and your running buddy, Little Saul of the Right: twist your philosophy to fit the facts rather than twist the facts to fit your philosophy.  You will be far more accurate if you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem Jake is you are attributing to me a philosophy I don't have (hell you can't even tell me what you think it is). I think you're just looking for something to fight over or be condescending about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are projecting again, sweetheart.  Your philosophy is contradictory and silly.  Hang in there, though, who knows what will happen.
Click to expand...


Again, what philosophy would that be?


----------



## editec

*Bern80 informs us:*



> Nor do I see how technological advancement makes us less free or why advancement in technology means we can't abide by the constitution or adhere to some of our founding principles.


 
You cannot understand how changing technology erodes freedom?

Seriously?

Our 18th century flounding fathers could *safely *say that: The right to bear arms shall not be abridged".

That certainly made perfect sense for their society at that time.

Now imagine a world where ARMS includes bombs and ray guns.

You still want to NOT abrdige your idiot neighbors' right to own those?

_Seriously?_

The more powerful our techology becomes, the less freedom society can afford to grant to its citizens.

I wish that were not so, but history keeps showing us that that is INEVITABLE.


----------



## Bern80

editec said:


> *Bern80 informs us:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor do I see how technological advancement makes us less free or why advancement in technology means we can't abide by the constitution or adhere to some of our founding principles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot understand how changing technology erodes freedom?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Our 18th century flounding fathers could *safely *say that: The right to bear arms shall not be abridged".
> 
> That certainly made perfect sense for their society at that time.
> 
> Now imagine a world where ARMS includes bombs and ray guns.
> 
> You still want to NOT abrdige your idiot neighbors' right to own those?
> 
> _Seriously?_
> 
> The more powerful our techology becomes, the less freedom society can afford to grant to its citizens.
> 
> I wish that were not so, but history keeps showing us that that is INEVITABLE.
Click to expand...


Except tha isn't technology eroding freedom, editec. That's government eroding freedom because they have decided you lack the responsibility to keep people safe from said arms.

And bringing up the 2nd ammendment really is a poor example. First it rests on the premise that the framers really did intend for any type of exploding device at the time (cannons, mortars, muskets, etc.) to be included in the terms 'arms'. Well did they?

Secondly, let's assume they did and we are required to allow people to own bombs. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. It isn't practical or realistic that one would own a bomb for self defense. And if used irresponsibly or malicously you prosecute the person, just as you would if someone did the same with a legal firearm.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Bern80, you tend to get it backwards.  Society would be irresponsible to let you have a death ray, a bomb, a frigate out on the lake.  You have no moral expection to possess such things.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> You have no moral expection to possess such things.



Why dont you try that sentence again so I at least understand what the hell it is you're trying to say before I reply.

p.s still waiting for you to tell me what my wrong philosophy is


----------



## JakeStarkey

You clearly understood what I wrote; you just don't like it.  Tuff.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

editec said:


> *Bern80 informs us:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor do I see how technological advancement makes us less free or why advancement in technology means we can't abide by the constitution or adhere to some of our founding principles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot understand how changing technology erodes freedom?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Our 18th century flounding fathers could *safely *say that: The right to bear arms shall not be abridged".
> 
> That certainly made perfect sense for their society at that time.
> 
> Now imagine a world where ARMS includes bombs and ray guns.
> 
> You still want to NOT abrdige your idiot neighbors' right to own those?
> 
> _Seriously?_
> 
> The more powerful our techology becomes, the less freedom society can afford to grant to its citizens.
> 
> I wish that were not so, but history keeps showing us that that is INEVITABLE.
Click to expand...




> Our 18th century flounding fathers could *safely *say that: The right to bear arms shall not be abridged".



I have guns all I can say to whom ever you want them come and take them.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Stop that crap, Little Saul of the Far Right.  Misuse your firearms, and, yes, "they" will come for them.

Little Saul, you are anything but tough.  Every time you get whacked here, you squeal like a little girl.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Stop that crap, Little Saul of the Far Right.  Misuse your firearms, and, yes, "they" will come for them.
> 
> Little Saul, you are anything but tough.  Every time you get whacked here, you squeal like a little girl.



No you stop the shit bitch You are not making any sense what the fuck is lkittle saul? I don't support his agenda you do. I use his and your playbook against you.

As for the rest I am sure they will come and I am sure I will die but you can rest asuredly I will take some with me. They don't fuck with me I will not fuck with them.

Every time you get wacked you copy what you were wacked with and repeat it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Little Saul of the Far Right acting oh so tuff, just like a little girl.  Little Saul, you are squealing again.

You moron, why do you talk that "I wanna be a moron hero martyr" nonsense?

Little Saul, you are so goofy.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Little Saul of the Far Right acting oh so tuff, just like a little girl.  Little Saul, you are squealing again.
> 
> You moron, why do you talk that "I wanna be a moron hero martyr" nonsense?
> 
> Little Saul, you are so goofy.



little stalin just pushing shit out of his mouth.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You _are _drinking early.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> You clearly understood what I wrote; you just don't like it.  Tuff.



No I really don't. Your writing is really quite poor and occassionally bordering on just plain giberish.

Whatever it was you said it was at least, as you are so fond of pointing out, simply an opinion substantiated with absolutely nothing.


----------



## Chris

The "Founding Fathers" owned slaves.

Who give a rat's ass what they wanted?


----------



## Bern80

Chris said:


> The "Founding Fathers" owned slaves.
> 
> Who give a rat's ass what they wanted?



Which goes to my point earlier. Which was essentially do we really need to throw out the baby with the bath water?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Bern80, we are not going back to the 1790s.  I don't want cooperative federalism at all, period.  We saw what happened to tens of millions of American for more than a century under that nonsense.  No good Republican wants anything to do with that.  Go join the Tea Party.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> Bern80, we are not going back to the 1790s.  I don't want cooperative federalism at all, period.  We saw what happened to tens of millions of American for more than a century under that nonsense.  No good Republican wants anything to do with that.  Go join the Tea Party.



I know Jake. You've only said it a dozen times now. I don't give a shit about what you want or don't want. What I give a shit about is you ascribing positions to me that I don't have. I'm an honest person. You tell me what it is you think I believe and what the fuck it has to do with giong back to 1790 and I will tell you whether that is an accurate representation of what I believe. Fair enough?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Bern80, what you think is immaterial.  What you hope for will not happen.  I don't care if you run from what you say and hide behind negatives when in fact you are saying what I ascribe to you.  You need to be honest with yourself, and stop being in denial of who you are and what  you believe.  Definitions of words have particular meanings and you and the others who try to change those meanings will fail every time.

I am not sayin', just sayin'.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> What you hope for will not happen.



What is it you believe I hope will happen?



JakeStarkey said:


> I don't care if you run from what you say and hide behind negatives when in fact you are saying what I ascribe to you.



What position am I running from? Don't you get it Jake? I can't run from the position you have ascribed to me because I don't know what to run from. I can't deny something if I don't know WHAT I'm denying. The factual reality is what you did is decide what YOUR position is. What that position is is anyone's guess because you are too spineless to take a definitive stand anything. As a result you also made up the opposition to that position. You then ascribed that position to me disregarding whether that's what  I really think or not simply so you would have something tangible to argue against rather than arguing with a brick wall. I have bad news for you. You're still arguing against a brick wall.   



JakeStarkey said:


> You need to be honest with yourself, and stop being in denial of who you are and what  you believe. Definitions of words have particular meanings and you and the others who try to change those meanings will fail every time.



I am plenty honest with myself. I have zero problem sticking up for what I believe in. I do have a problem with people tellng me what I believe if it's something I don't. I would think that is something you would want to know because if someone doesn't really have the position ascribed to them it makes you look pretty stupid. The fact is you already look pretty stupid because I told you what my position was in terms of how we should abide by the constitution. You said you agreed with that. So you can imagine why it is so confusing to me that you are arguing against something you said you agreed with.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Then tell us in clear terms exactly what you want from government and how government is supposed to do or not to do that.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> Then tell us in clear terms exactly what you want from government and how government is supposed to do or not to do that.



I want government to abide by the constituion as constructed and currently written. A sentiment you said you agreed with.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"As constructed".  You mean the original ratified document and then amended through the centuries.  I do not know by what you mean "currently written."  Elaborate, please.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> "As constructed".  You mean the original ratified document and then amended through the centuries.  I do not know by what you mean "currently written."  Elaborate, please.



I simply mean that I have no problem with the ammendments that followed after the original ratification.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Do you disagree then with the doctrine of judicial review as developed in the last two centuries?


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> Do you disagree then with the doctrine of judicial review as developed in the last two centuries?



I can't say that I know what that doctrine is or what you're referring to. What doctrine are you referring to.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are clearly showing your ass here, Bern.  You clearly are a far right wackaloon, a not mainstream yoke trying to be smarmy, and you are much poorer at it then even daveman, who is a fool.  Shame on you.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> You are clearly showing your ass here, Bern.  You clearly are a far right wackaloon, a not mainstream yoke trying to be smarmy, and you are much poorer at it then even daveman, who is a fool.  Shame on you.



Jake if a bunch of people don't know you're talking about, maybe you should consider whether the communication deficiency lies on your end. I really do not know what doctrine of judicial review you are talking about. Once you explain what you are referring to then I can tell you whether I agree or disagree with it. The only thing being shown here is your lack of spine and inability to commit to any position at all.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Everyone knows what the doctrine of judicial review is, what its history is, and how it has been applied in American history.  The history is taught in high school, college, and university.  You are a smarmy fool who does not have the strength of his principles to discuss this.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> Everyone knows what the doctrine of judicial review is, what its history is, and how it has been applied in American history.  The history is taught in high school, college, and university.  You are a smarmy fool who does not have the strength of his principles to discuss this.



Okay I have brushed up on the subject and still have a question. What do you mean by do I disagree with judicial review in the U.S.? Do you mean to ask, do I disagree with it as means of making sure the legislature abides by the constitution? Or do you mean do I disagree with decisions made under judicial review?


----------



## JakeStarkey

You begin with (1) how you understand it historically, (2) your opinion if it fits in Article III of the Constitution, and (3) if the court has used it appropriately.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> You begin with (1) how you understand it historically, (2) your opinion if it fits in Article III of the Constitution, and (3) if the court has used it appropriately.



The basic concept is it is a process used by the judicial branch of government to review the constitutionality of legislation passed by the executive and/or legislative branches. From a consturctionist stand point, no, the judicial review is not mentioned in Articles III. As to whether it has been used appropriately, if one is a constructionist one could argue the fact that it has been used at all means it has not been used appropriately.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I imagine a strict constructionist could say that.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> I imagine a strict constructionist could say that.



Well it's either that or grant the judicial branch a power not mentioned at all in the constitution.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your argument is easily surmounted, in my opinion, that a nation based on constitutional must have a mechanism that judges if laws meet the constitution's design.  Since the founders who spoke about judicial review generally supported it, and since nine of the original states had it written into their constitutions, I think SCOTUS assumption of the role is defensible.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> Your argument is easily surmounted, in my opinion, that a nation based on constitutional must have a mechanism that judges if laws meet the constitution's design.  Since the founders who spoke about judicial review generally supported it, and since nine of the original states had it written into their constitutions, I think SCOTUS assumption of the role is defensible.



I know a lot of the framers mentioned it. But I thought you didn't care about what a bunch of 200 year old dead guys thought. That their ways were old and antiquated and only took the country backwards. That was why you and I agreed we should abide by the constitution as it was constructed and not by the differing opinions of the framers.


----------

