A government of the people, by the people, for the people

[Foxfyre]

Do you believe the USA is a government of the people, by the people, for the people? I once did. I do not believe it is that now. And to correct that situation I propose the following Resolution:

WHEREAS: The Founders of the great United States of America intended that this nation be the first in the history of the world to have a free people who would govern themselves free of the dictates of Monarch, Pope, or any other central government authority, and

WHEREAS: The Constitution of the United States was designed to secure the God given rights of the people and otherwise leave them alone to form whatever sort of societies they wished to have, and

WHEREAS: The Constitution of the United States was designed to strictly limit the powers of those elected or appointed to federal office, and

WHEREAS: The government has assumed powers the Constitution does not allow and that the Founders never intended a central government to have,

BE IT THEREFORE ACKNOWLEDGED that in order to preserve this great nation as the Founders intended that it be, the people must rise up and condemn and replace those in government who confiscate property that the Constitution does not authorize, that spend the people's money in ways that the Constitution does not authorize, and that obligate future generations with debt that the Constitution does not authorize.

* * * * * *​

I further believe this is likely the last generation in America who will have the ability to accomplish that.

Agree or Disagree

The Founders got rid of the Articles of Confederation because the central authority was too weak. Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Madison at first, Jay, Marshall, etc were central authority guys.

They all proved it with a 13,000 man army to put down a few dozen whiskey farmers in western PA.

The army was used to put down a civilian attack on a government installation/official. Something you would expect the government to do anywhere at any time. There was no confrontation, however, as the farmers went home before the army arrived. A few people were arrested but were acquited of any crimes and released. Yes, the Whiskey Rebellion did demonstrate the power of the government to put down anarchy. And the subsequent repeal of the whiskey tax and the government giving up on that means to raise revenues spoke to the ability of the people to have their voices heard.

The voices of the people are not heard much these days.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do you believe the USA is a government of the people, by the people, for the people? I once did. I do not believe it is that now. And to correct that situation I propose the following Resolution:

WHEREAS: The Founders of the great United States of America intended that this nation be the first in the history of the world to have a free people who would govern themselves free of the dictates of Monarch, Pope, or any other central government authority, and

WHEREAS: The Constitution of the United States was designed to secure the God given rights of the people and otherwise leave them alone to form whatever sort of societies they wished to have, and

WHEREAS: The Constitution of the United States was designed to strictly limit the powers of those elected or appointed to federal office, and

WHEREAS: The government has assumed powers the Constitution does not allow and that the Founders never intended a central government to have,

BE IT THEREFORE ACKNOWLEDGED that in order to preserve this great nation as the Founders intended that it be, the people must rise up and condemn and replace those in government who confiscate property that the Constitution does not authorize, that spend the people's money in ways that the Constitution does not authorize, and that obligate future generations with debt that the Constitution does not authorize.

* * * * * *​

I further believe this is likely the last generation in America who will have the ability to accomplish that.

Agree or Disagree

The Founders got rid of the Articles of Confederation because the central authority was too weak. Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Madison at first, Jay, Marshall, etc were central authority guys.

They all proved it with a 13,000 man army to put down a few dozen whiskey farmers in western PA.

The army was used to put down a civilian attack on a government installation/official. Something you would expect the government to do anywhere at any time. There was no confrontation, however, as the farmers went home before the army arrived. A few people were arrested but were acquited of any crimes and released. Yes, the Whiskey Rebellion did demonstrate the power of the government to put down anarchy. And the subsequent repeal of the whiskey tax and the government giving up on that means to raise revenues spoke to the ability of the people to have their voices heard.

The voices of the people are not heard much these days.

Thank you for the recognition of the need of a strong central authority.

I agree that the common folk's voice is not heard today, hardly at all.

 

[OKTexas]

For instance, as one small example of what would happen with my proposed amendment, would you guys be good with us disbanding FEMA other than for a small department and some heavy equipment who could move in quickly to clear roads etc. and then organize and distribute donated food, water, clothing, etc ?

I would have no problem eliminating FEMA completely. Local disasters are States responsibilities, they should have their own rainy day funds to deal with them.

I have no problem with a FEMA as I described. In the interest of promoting the general welfare, it is conceivable that a state would have its own resources diminished or wiped out in a major disaster and would need some help to get things back up and running. But the intial hands on help necessary to preserve life--i.e. clearing out debris so relief can get into devastated areas amd helping with immediate distribution of donated relief supplies--should be the extent of federal involvement. No rebuilding. No ongoing welfare. No replacement of destroyed property that the owner did not bother to insure etc. That indeed should be the state's responsibility.

So you agree with the court that the feds can assume powers not specifically granted. You do realize you're contradicting yourself.

 

[Foxfyre]

When you say "freedom loving people", what exactly do you have in mind?

Those people who want to govern themselves instead of having an authoritarian central government telling them who they have to be, what they must embrace or tolerate, who presumes to provide for some, and who presumes to confiscate property of others for things the Constitution never intended the federal government to do.

Still being pretty vague. You would prefer we have no military, for example? You need a central government for that. What precisely is it you want the government to stop doing and which government are you talking about. I know that I live under three distinct governments and my daughter, who lives in he city, lives under four.

No, the military is a Constitutional responsibility of Congress for the purpose of securing our rights--preventing anyone from taking away those rights.

And please try to to focus on the federal government here. Whatever government entities the people put into place at the state, county, and local levels is not the subject of this thread. It is important to make a distinction between various government entities.

 

[Sallow]

Do you believe the USA is a government of the people, by the people, for the people? I once did. I do not believe it is that now. And to correct that situation I propose the following Resolution:

WHEREAS: The Founders of the great United States of America intended that this nation be the first in the history of the world to have a free people who would govern themselves free of the dictates of Monarch, Pope, or any other central government authority, and

WHEREAS: The Constitution of the United States was designed to secure the God given rights of the people and otherwise leave them alone to form whatever sort of societies they wished to have, and

WHEREAS: The Constitution of the United States was designed to strictly limit the powers of those elected or appointed to federal office, and

WHEREAS: The government has assumed powers the Constitution does not allow and that the Founders never intended a central government to have,

BE IT THEREFORE ACKNOWLEDGED that in order to preserve this great nation as the Founders intended that it be, the people must rise up and condemn and replace those in government who confiscate property that the Constitution does not authorize, that spend the people's money in ways that the Constitution does not authorize, and that obligate future generations with debt that the Constitution does not authorize.

* * * * * *​

I further believe this is likely the last generation in America who will have the ability to accomplish that.

Agree or Disagree

The Constitution makes no mention of god..or god given rights.

 

[regent]

When the Supreme Court decided that providing for the general welfare in ways other than described in Article 1, Sections 8 was an independent power, the limitations on the Federal Government were essentially removed. Only way to change that now is an Article 5 convention where the States could reign in the Feds. I don't see that happening in my life time.

It started with Teddy Roosevelt turning the Constitution on its head when he declared the government could do anything the Constitution did not expressly forbid. Up until then, every President and Congress had gone with the Founders intent that the Constitution limited government to only what it authorized.

I do think there are enough freedom loving people left in America that we can reverse the current destruction of Constitutional intent and individual liberties. But I do think this is the last generation that will have any power to do that. It does require all of us who care to start paying attention now.

Teddy Roosevelt didn't start this idea, it was started with Hamilton and our first president, Washington and concerned the bank, tariffs, and a host of issues. Hamilton said the government must have the means adequate to its ends. Where, for example, was it written that government must help business, but laws were passed in the Washington adminisration doing just that. Then the Marshall Court, beginning with the second president, Adams, deciding the Supreme Court had the power to decide what the constitution meant, but nowhere was this deciding power given to the Court in the constitution. They just decided it on their very own. Even Jefferson the strict interpreter of the constitution bought Louisiana clearly not authorized by the constitution. And on and on.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would have no problem eliminating FEMA completely. Local disasters are States responsibilities, they should have their own rainy day funds to deal with them.

I have no problem with a FEMA as I described. In the interest of promoting the general welfare, it is conceivable that a state would have its own resources diminished or wiped out in a major disaster and would need some help to get things back up and running. But the intial hands on help necessary to preserve life--i.e. clearing out debris so relief can get into devastated areas amd helping with immediate distribution of donated relief supplies--should be the extent of federal involvement. No rebuilding. No ongoing welfare. No replacement of destroyed property that the owner did not bother to insure etc. That indeed should be the state's responsibility.

So you agree with the court that the feds can assume powers not specifically granted. You do realize you're contradicting yourself.

The Constitution grants the federal government the ability to provide the common defense, promote the general welfare--which as the Founders saw it was everybody's welfare equally and not special groups--and to preserve (protect) the blessings of liberty which the Founders defned as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The Preamble describes the purpose of the Constitution. The whole of the Constitution is intended to meet that purpose:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. That is what the war powers are for. The only issue is whether the President assumes powers for the good of We the People, not the government per se.

 

[PratchettFan]

Those people who want to govern themselves instead of having an authoritarian central government telling them who they have to be, what they must embrace or tolerate, who presumes to provide for some, and who presumes to confiscate property of others for things the Constitution never intended the federal government to do.

Still being pretty vague. You would prefer we have no military, for example? You need a central government for that. What precisely is it you want the government to stop doing and which government are you talking about. I know that I live under three distinct governments and my daughter, who lives in he city, lives under four.

No, the military is a Constitutional responsibility of Congress for the purpose of securing our rights--preventing anyone from taking away those rights.

And please try to to focus on the federal government here. Whatever government entities the people put into place at the state, county, and local levels is not the subject of this thread. It is important to make a distinction between various government entities.

I am attempting to focus on this concept of a "freedom loving people" who wish to "govern themselves". I assume from this that you have no problem with the government forcing people to embrace or tolerate and to confiscate property, so long as that is done at the state level.

Under the Constitution, the Congress makes the laws, the executive branch applies the laws and the SC resolve any conflicts. All of the members of Congress have been legally elected, in accordance with the Constitution, as has the President. All of the members of the SC have been appointed in accordance with the Constitution. So it would seem what we currently have meets your definition of a freedom loving people governing themselves, in accordance with the Constitution.

So I have to ask again, what exactly is it you are proposing?

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you believe the USA is a government of the people, by the people, for the people? I once did. I do not believe it is that now. And to correct that situation I propose the following Resolution:

WHEREAS: The Founders of the great United States of America intended that this nation be the first in the history of the world to have a free people who would govern themselves free of the dictates of Monarch, Pope, or any other central government authority, and

WHEREAS: The Constitution of the United States was designed to secure the God given rights of the people and otherwise leave them alone to form whatever sort of societies they wished to have, and

WHEREAS: The Constitution of the United States was designed to strictly limit the powers of those elected or appointed to federal office, and

WHEREAS: The government has assumed powers the Constitution does not allow and that the Founders never intended a central government to have,

BE IT THEREFORE ACKNOWLEDGED that in order to preserve this great nation as the Founders intended that it be, the people must rise up and condemn and replace those in government who confiscate property that the Constitution does not authorize, that spend the people's money in ways that the Constitution does not authorize, and that obligate future generations with debt that the Constitution does not authorize.

* * * * * *​

I further believe this is likely the last generation in America who will have the ability to accomplish that.

Agree or Disagree

The Constitution makes no mention of god..or god given rights.

That was clearly the intent, however, of the "blessings of liberty" line in the Constitution. The Founders to a man believed in natural rights--those who were religious called them God given rights. It was the primary basis forf the Declaration of the Independence and the moral imperative of the Revolutionary War.

 

[PratchettFan]

When the Supreme Court decided that providing for the general welfare in ways other than described in Article 1, Sections 8 was an independent power, the limitations on the Federal Government were essentially removed. Only way to change that now is an Article 5 convention where the States could reign in the Feds. I don't see that happening in my life time.

It started with Teddy Roosevelt turning the Constitution on its head when he declared the government could do anything the Constitution did not expressly forbid. Up until then, every President and Congress had gone with the Founders intent that the Constitution limited government to only what it authorized.

I do think there are enough freedom loving people left in America that we can reverse the current destruction of Constitutional intent and individual liberties. But I do think this is the last generation that will have any power to do that. It does require all of us who care to start paying attention now.

Teddy Roosevelt didn't start this idea, it was started with Hamilton and our first president, Washington and concerned the bank, tariffs, and a host of issues. Hamilton said the government must have the means adequate to its ends. Where, for example, was it written that government must help business, but laws were passed in the Washington adminisration doing just that. Then the Marshall Court, beginning with the second president, Adams, deciding the Supreme Court had the power to decide what the constitution meant, but nowhere was this deciding power given to the Court in the constitution. They just decided it on their very own. Even Jefferson the strict interpreter of the constitution bought Louisiana clearly not authorized by the constitution. And on and on.

First, the Constitution does give the deciding power to the SC. I refer you to Article 3, Section 2.

What you are saying is that the founding fathers, the men who wrote and enacted the Constitution, did not agree with your interpretation.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It started with Teddy Roosevelt turning the Constitution on its head when he declared the government could do anything the Constitution did not expressly forbid. Up until then, every President and Congress had gone with the Founders intent that the Constitution limited government to only what it authorized.

I do think there are enough freedom loving people left in America that we can reverse the current destruction of Constitutional intent and individual liberties. But I do think this is the last generation that will have any power to do that. It does require all of us who care to start paying attention now.

Teddy Roosevelt didn't start this idea, it was started with Hamilton and our first president, Washington and concerned the bank, tariffs, and a host of issues. Hamilton said the government must have the means adequate to its ends. Where, for example, was it written that government must help business, but laws were passed in the Washington adminisration doing just that. Then the Marshall Court, beginning with the second president, Adams, deciding the Supreme Court had the power to decide what the constitution meant, but nowhere was this deciding power given to the Court in the constitution. They just decided it on their very own. Even Jefferson the strict interpreter of the constitution bought Louisiana clearly not authorized by the constitution. And on and on.

First, the Constitution does give the deciding power to the SC. I refer you to Article 3, Section 2.

What you are saying is that the founding fathers, the men who wrote and enacted the Constitution, did not agree with your interpretation.

No, he's saying that the founding fathers did not agree with this interpretation after it was safely ratified. Their positions pre and post ratification are largely two different things, which is the problem.

 

[Foxfyre]

Still being pretty vague. You would prefer we have no military, for example? You need a central government for that. What precisely is it you want the government to stop doing and which government are you talking about. I know that I live under three distinct governments and my daughter, who lives in he city, lives under four.

No, the military is a Constitutional responsibility of Congress for the purpose of securing our rights--preventing anyone from taking away those rights.

And please try to to focus on the federal government here. Whatever government entities the people put into place at the state, county, and local levels is not the subject of this thread. It is important to make a distinction between various government entities.

I am attempting to focus on this concept of a "freedom loving people" who wish to "govern themselves". I assume from this that you have no problem with the government forcing people to embrace or tolerate and to confiscate property, so long as that is done at the state level.

Under the Constitution, the Congress makes the laws, the executive branch applies the laws and the SC resolve any conflicts. All of the members of Congress have been legally elected, in accordance with the Constitution, as has the President. All of the members of the SC have been appointed in accordance with the Constitution. So it would seem what we currently have meets your definition of a freedom loving people governing themselves, in accordance with the Constitution.

So I have to ask again, what exactly is it you are proposing?

The state and local government is assumed to be social contract agreed to by the majority of the people. There is much to be debated on the scope of such government, but the Founders assumed no authority over that so long as the local governments infringed on the rights of nobody else. In other words the Commonwealth of Massuchusetts would have no ability to force its idea of good, evil, right, wrong, justice, injustice on the other states. And if the people of a state wanted a Puritanical theocracy, they could have that. If they wanted a wild, wooly hellfire society, they could have that.

The Founders believe there was no freedom at all if people had no ability to get it wrong, to make mistakes, to do it poorly. And they also believed in the vritue of freedom that a free people would eventually work out the problems and injustices and would get it right. But it was their life to live. Their choices to make. And the federal government would have no power over that.

 

[PratchettFan]

Teddy Roosevelt didn't start this idea, it was started with Hamilton and our first president, Washington and concerned the bank, tariffs, and a host of issues. Hamilton said the government must have the means adequate to its ends. Where, for example, was it written that government must help business, but laws were passed in the Washington adminisration doing just that. Then the Marshall Court, beginning with the second president, Adams, deciding the Supreme Court had the power to decide what the constitution meant, but nowhere was this deciding power given to the Court in the constitution. They just decided it on their very own. Even Jefferson the strict interpreter of the constitution bought Louisiana clearly not authorized by the constitution. And on and on.

First, the Constitution does give the deciding power to the SC. I refer you to Article 3, Section 2.

What you are saying is that the founding fathers, the men who wrote and enacted the Constitution, did not agree with your interpretation.

No, he's saying that the founding fathers did not agree with this interpretation after it was safely ratified. Their positions pre and post ratification are largely two different things, which is the problem.

Are you saying that they used one set of arguments to sell the idea of the Constitution and then used another set in order to make the country work?

 

[OKTexas]

I have no problem with a FEMA as I described. In the interest of promoting the general welfare, it is conceivable that a state would have its own resources diminished or wiped out in a major disaster and would need some help to get things back up and running. But the intial hands on help necessary to preserve life--i.e. clearing out debris so relief can get into devastated areas amd helping with immediate distribution of donated relief supplies--should be the extent of federal involvement. No rebuilding. No ongoing welfare. No replacement of destroyed property that the owner did not bother to insure etc. That indeed should be the state's responsibility.

So you agree with the court that the feds can assume powers not specifically granted. You do realize you're contradicting yourself.

The Constitution grants the federal government the ability to provide the common defense, promote the general welfare--which as the Founders saw it was everybody's welfare equally and not special groups--and to preserve (protect) the blessings of liberty which the Founders defned as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The Preamble describes the purpose of the Constitution. The whole of the Constitution is intended to meet that purpose:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So you buy into the premise that the Constitution contains implied powers which the 10th Amendment says it does not. You can't have it both ways.

 

[whitehall]

Here's a thought, get off your ass and try to make your chosen political party more responsive to your pipe dream. Disregard the left wing attacks on the Tea Party and join up to make the GOP more conservative or disregard the stigma about communism and try make the democrat party more responsive to socialism..

 

[Foxfyre]

Teddy Roosevelt didn't start this idea, it was started with Hamilton and our first president, Washington and concerned the bank, tariffs, and a host of issues. Hamilton said the government must have the means adequate to its ends. Where, for example, was it written that government must help business, but laws were passed in the Washington adminisration doing just that. Then the Marshall Court, beginning with the second president, Adams, deciding the Supreme Court had the power to decide what the constitution meant, but nowhere was this deciding power given to the Court in the constitution. They just decided it on their very own. Even Jefferson the strict interpreter of the constitution bought Louisiana clearly not authorized by the constitution. And on and on.

First, the Constitution does give the deciding power to the SC. I refer you to Article 3, Section 2.

What you are saying is that the founding fathers, the men who wrote and enacted the Constitution, did not agree with your interpretation.

No, he's saying that the founding fathers did not agree with this interpretation after it was safely ratified. Their positions pre and post ratification are largely two different things, which is the problem.

The Founders never intended that the Supreme Court or any other Court have the ability to make law or establish policy of any kind. The purpose of the court at all levels was to strictly interpret the intent of the law as it existed, as it was passed by the people or their representatives.

The Founders would be absolutely horrified at what has become of our court system all the way through the Supreme Court. But they also knew that judges could and would err which is why they wrote into the Constitution a provision for removing an errant justice from the high court. They would not have hesitated to do so. It is unfortunate that we now look to SCOTUS as some kind of God with jurisdiction to dictate to us all.

And this may be the last generation with the power to fix that too.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

First, the Constitution does give the deciding power to the SC. I refer you to Article 3, Section 2.

What you are saying is that the founding fathers, the men who wrote and enacted the Constitution, did not agree with your interpretation.

No, he's saying that the founding fathers did not agree with this interpretation after it was safely ratified. Their positions pre and post ratification are largely two different things, which is the problem.

Are you saying that they used one set of arguments to sell the idea of the Constitution and then used another set in order to make the country work?

Well I reject the implication that they had to do it to "make the country work." I would phrase it, "They used one set of arguments to sell the Constitution to the states, and once it was safely ratified they changed their tune to give themselves more power." Power hungry politicians, who'd have thunk it?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

First, the Constitution does give the deciding power to the SC. I refer you to Article 3, Section 2.

What you are saying is that the founding fathers, the men who wrote and enacted the Constitution, did not agree with your interpretation.

No, he's saying that the founding fathers did not agree with this interpretation after it was safely ratified. Their positions pre and post ratification are largely two different things, which is the problem.

The Founders never intended that the Supreme Court or any other Court have the ability to make law or establish policy of any kind. The purpose of the court at all levels was to strictly interpret the intent of the law as it existed, as it was passed by the people or their representatives.

The Founders would be absolutely horrified at what has become of our court system all the way through the Supreme Court. But they also knew that judges could and would err which is why they wrote into the Constitution a provision for removing an errant justice from the high court. They would not have hesitated to do so. It is unfortunate that we now look to SCOTUS as some kind of God with jurisdiction to dictate to us all.

And this may be the last generation with the power to fix that too.

And yet it was one of the founders who appointed John Marshall who claimed that power for the court.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here's a thought, get off your ass and try to make your chosen political party more responsive to your pipe dream. Disregard the left wing attacks on the Tea Party and join up to make the GOP more conservative or disregard the stigma about communism and try make the democrat party more responsive to socialism..

The Tea Party in its purest form, and groups like it, are probably our last hope to turn this all around. That is why the Left, those lovers of authoritarian government and what benefits they believe they can generate from it, have been so diligent in their efforts to diminish, marginalize, discredit, and demonize the Tea Party, similiar grass roots movements, and any leader who might espouse the values and principles they embrace. The demonization has been largely effective because the media mostly embraces Leftists big government concepts.

But we won't turn it around by continuing to re-elect people who won't do it. We too often LIKE our own representatives while accusing everybody else's. We have to get away from that concept.

Elect enough of the right people, and it won't matter if they have an (R) or a (D) after their name.