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

[JakeStarkey]

Come on, princess, show us game. Hint: freedom to act and liberty as absence of coercion, the difference between personal and institutional

you are running away

 

[bripat9643]

Come on, princess, show us game. Hint: freedom to act and liberty as absence of coercion, the difference between personal and institutional

you are running away

Don't hint, Fakey. A coward posts hints. Someone who can actually defend his claims simply does it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's defined above.

and here: freedom to act and liberty as absence of coercion, the difference between personal and institutional

Disagree with Jefferson and Locke and Mill all you want, bripat, but you are wrong

 

[PratchettFan]

But as the Founders saw it, the states could (and did) do all those things. The Puritan theocracy that put people in stocks for heresy was perfectly legal under federal law. The federal government was prohibited by the Constitution from doing that, but not the states. The Salem Witch trials were perfectly legal under federal law. The federal government was prohibited by the Constitution from doing that but not the states.

As it was, a free people, unhindered and unpressed by any monarch, Pope, or other central authority, voluntarily dismantled those theocracies, made the burning of witches illegal, etc. etc. etc. The point is, the federal government then, as it was intended to do, allowed the people freedom to form whatever sort of societies they wished to have.

Yes, the Constitution itself is a social contract. One that allows the federal government specific powers and was intended to prevent it from having any other powers. The federal government was to secure our rights to order our own lives as we saw fit and then leave us alone to live them. And that included not dictating what sort of social contract the states, counties, communities, or any other entity would adopt.

The examples you are providing predated the Constitution.

How do you think the founders expected to secure our rights if they thought the states were free to take away those rights?

I continue to return to my question. What is it you are proposing? The federal government clearly does not agree with you. It has never agreed with you. What you are saying is counter to established law in this country. So what are you suggesting be done?

I agree with you that the federal government clearly does not agree with me.

I disagree with you that the federal government has never aqreed with me.

What I am proposing is that we begin now to intensely educate the people on concepts of what individual liberty was intended to be and restore our federal government to its original concept before it is too late to stop the damage to that liberty that is currently being done and to begin reversing the damage that has already been done.

Ahhhh..... but I don't think you are correct. I think what you are proposing is counter to liberty. So do we educate people with both of our positions?

 

[Montrovant]

My goal here is not to earn pats on th back but to get the story straight. The Founders knew about the colonial theocracies. And they knew that if the federal government forbade them, the people had no freedom at all. There is no freedom when the government tells you what you can and cannot do in your own society. The Founders also believed that people with their God given rights secured would eventually get around to doing the right thing. Thus, the theocracies dissolved. The witch burnings and other such atrocities ceased in the face of strong public opinion against them.

I'm sorry, but isn't telling people what they can and cannot do EXACTLY the purpose of government? Not that the government makes the rules, but that it enforces whatever rules a given society agrees upon? (let's just deal with societies in which the people have say in government). You seem to be advocating, and claiming the founders advocated, anarchy.

No one is going to be completely free. That's just life. However, there certainly are degrees of freedom. Not allowing state-run theocracies =/= total loss of freedom.

Not in the case of the U.S. Constitution.

This is a document of the people telling government what government can and cannot do. Or at least that was the intent. The government was given authority to enact whatever law or regulation was necessary to facilitate the various colonies/states cooperating together as one nation without restricting the ability of the states to be who the people wanted them to be.

And otherwise the sole responsibility of the federal government was to secure the unalienable rights of the people and otherwise leave them alone to live their lives. The people are not free in anarchy because in anarchy they can violate each other's rights. And the people are not free if the government can assign them the rights they will and will not have because a government with such power can violate the people's unalienable rights as easily as any other.

The U.S. Constitution--the entire concept of the nation the Founders gave us--was to eliminate both conditions so that we Americans would be the first people in the history of the world to be truly free. It produced the greatest, most productive, most innovative, most creative, most benevolent nation the world had ever seen.

I believe this is the last generation that will have the ability to turn things around and restore that great nation to its original concept.

You seem to have ignored my next sentence, in which I clarified that by government telling you what to do, I mean government enforces whatever rules and laws the people decide. That is, in fact, what government does. Having and enforcing laws is, in fact, telling people what they can or cannot do.

I wonder how many generations have passed in which people wanted to get back to the better times, to the original intent? How many generations in which people declared it was the last chance we had to restore our country to the way it was meant to be? The grass is always greener applies just as well to the past; so many people seem to think it was better 'before'.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm sorry, but isn't telling people what they can and cannot do EXACTLY the purpose of government? Not that the government makes the rules, but that it enforces whatever rules a given society agrees upon? (let's just deal with societies in which the people have say in government). You seem to be advocating, and claiming the founders advocated, anarchy.

No one is going to be completely free. That's just life. However, there certainly are degrees of freedom. Not allowing state-run theocracies =/= total loss of freedom.

Not in the case of the U.S. Constitution.

This is a document of the people telling government what government can and cannot do. Or at least that was the intent. The government was given authority to enact whatever law or regulation was necessary to facilitate the various colonies/states cooperating together as one nation without restricting the ability of the states to be who the people wanted them to be.

And otherwise the sole responsibility of the federal government was to secure the unalienable rights of the people and otherwise leave them alone to live their lives. The people are not free in anarchy because in anarchy they can violate each other's rights. And the people are not free if the government can assign them the rights they will and will not have because a government with such power can violate the people's unalienable rights as easily as any other.

The U.S. Constitution--the entire concept of the nation the Founders gave us--was to eliminate both conditions so that we Americans would be the first people in the history of the world to be truly free. It produced the greatest, most productive, most innovative, most creative, most benevolent nation the world had ever seen.

I believe this is the last generation that will have the ability to turn things around and restore that great nation to its original concept.

You seem to have ignored my next sentence, in which I clarified that by government telling you what to do, I mean government enforces whatever rules and laws the people decide. That is, in fact, what government does. Having and enforcing laws is, in fact, telling people what they can or cannot do.

I wonder how many generations have passed in which people wanted to get back to the better times, to the original intent? How many generations in which people declared it was the last chance we had to restore our country to the way it was meant to be? The grass is always greener applies just as well to the past; so many people seem to think it was better 'before'.

We have a government now that thinks it is okay for the federal government - for example - to require the taxpayer or private companies to provide contraceptives free. That was not a decision of the people. That was a corruption of original intent of the Constitution by their elected representatives.

We have a government now that thinks is okay for the federal government to confiscate property from Citizen A, who legally, lawfully, and ethically acquired it, and give it to Citizen B who did absolutely nothing to earn it or deserve it. The reason? Citizen B has less than Citizen A. (And also they can persuade Citizen B to keep voting them into power that way.)

Tell me how that squares with the Founders original intent that we be a people who govern ourselves? That if property is not sacrosanct, then there are no rights at all?

We have a government now that thinks it is okay for federal elected, appointed, and employed people to party hearty in the most lavish manner on the taxpayer's dime.

We have a government now that shrugs off a 16 trillion dollar debt and doesn't care that it will bury us under its sheer weight but are unwilling to do a single thing to turn that around lest it be politically unpopular with those who keep voting them into power, prestige, influence and ability to vastly increase their personal fortunes.

Can you tell me you don't care about any of this? That it should not be a concern? That it will only get worse until it cannot be corrected short of another revolutionary war if we do not get our thinking straight and start turning it around now?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Hobby Lobby case is going to turn that first paragraph upside down this summer, Foxfyre.

The Constitution recognizes the principle of taxation and gives it to the legislature of We the People. So do the state constitutions. Change those constitutions, or change your opinion

We all agree that corruption in our parties, major and minor, is abominable, but who do we who lead us to reform: not the dems, pubs, libs, or TP. We need a new movement.

 

[Montrovant]

Not in the case of the U.S. Constitution.

This is a document of the people telling government what government can and cannot do. Or at least that was the intent. The government was given authority to enact whatever law or regulation was necessary to facilitate the various colonies/states cooperating together as one nation without restricting the ability of the states to be who the people wanted them to be.

And otherwise the sole responsibility of the federal government was to secure the unalienable rights of the people and otherwise leave them alone to live their lives. The people are not free in anarchy because in anarchy they can violate each other's rights. And the people are not free if the government can assign them the rights they will and will not have because a government with such power can violate the people's unalienable rights as easily as any other.

The U.S. Constitution--the entire concept of the nation the Founders gave us--was to eliminate both conditions so that we Americans would be the first people in the history of the world to be truly free. It produced the greatest, most productive, most innovative, most creative, most benevolent nation the world had ever seen.

I believe this is the last generation that will have the ability to turn things around and restore that great nation to its original concept.

You seem to have ignored my next sentence, in which I clarified that by government telling you what to do, I mean government enforces whatever rules and laws the people decide. That is, in fact, what government does. Having and enforcing laws is, in fact, telling people what they can or cannot do.

I wonder how many generations have passed in which people wanted to get back to the better times, to the original intent? How many generations in which people declared it was the last chance we had to restore our country to the way it was meant to be? The grass is always greener applies just as well to the past; so many people seem to think it was better 'before'.

We have a government now that thinks it is okay for the federal government - for example - to require the taxpayer or private companies to provide contraceptives free. That was not a decision of the people. That was a corruption of original intent of the Constitution by their elected representatives.

We have a government now that thinks is okay for the federal government to confiscate property from Citizen A, who legally, lawfully, and ethically acquired it, and give it to Citizen B who did absolutely nothing to earn it or deserve it. The reason? Citizen B has less than Citizen A. (And also they can persuade Citizen B to keep voting them into power that way.)

Tell me how that squares with the Founders original intent that we be a people who govern ourselves? That if property is not sacrosanct, then there are no rights at all?

We have a government now that thinks it is okay for federal elected, appointed, and employed people to party hearty in the most lavish manner on the taxpayer's dime.

We have a government now that shrugs off a 16 trillion dollar debt and doesn't care that it will bury us under its sheer weight but are unwilling to do a single thing to turn that around lest it be politically unpopular with those who keep voting them into power, prestige, influence and ability to vastly increase their personal fortunes.

Can you tell me you don't care about any of this? That it should not be a concern? That it will only get worse until it cannot be corrected short of another revolutionary war if we do not get our thinking straight and start turning it around now?

The point is that the government was freely elected. They are our representatives. If we don't like what they are doing, we can vote for someone else or run for office ourselves. Not liking the path government is taking is NOT the same as that government being run against the wishes of the people. There will always be people who disagree with some or even all of what the government of their particular society does. It is impossible to please all of the people all of the time. Unless you are going to claim our representatives were not fairly elected, the people are getting what they want.

If the people of the US want something different from their government, they need to elect different leaders.

 

[bripat9643]

It's defined above.

and here: freedom to act and liberty as absence of coercion, the difference between personal and institutional

Disagree with Jefferson and Locke and Mill all you want, bripat, but you are wrong

You're babbling, Fakey. You can't use the word you're defining in the definition. What the fuck does "the difference between personal and institutional" mean? If our institutions don't allow it, then you have no personal freedom.

You're a fucking poser, Fakey. You make bold claims and then devolve into unintelligible blubbering when asked to support them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's defined above.

and here: freedom to act and liberty as absence of coercion, the difference between personal and institutional

Disagree with Jefferson and Locke and Mill all you want, bripat, but you are wrong

You're babbling, Fakey. You can't use the word you're defining in the definition. What the fuck does "the difference between personal and institutional" mean? If our institutions don't allow it, then you have no personal freedom.

You're a fucking poser, Fakey. You make bold claims and then devolve into unintelligible blubbering when asked to support them.

You said wrongfully there is no difference between liberty and freedom. I gave you a link and I gave you a definition. Yet you deny it.

We are simply back to your refusal to accept terms and their definitions that you don't like.

bripat, little buddy, what you think matters not. What actually is matters.

Once again, your opinion is not evidence of anything other than the disorderly nature of your mind.

 

[jasonnfree]

Not in the case of the U.S. Constitution.

This is a document of the people telling government what government can and cannot do. Or at least that was the intent. The government was given authority to enact whatever law or regulation was necessary to facilitate the various colonies/states cooperating together as one nation without restricting the ability of the states to be who the people wanted them to be.

And otherwise the sole responsibility of the federal government was to secure the unalienable rights of the people and otherwise leave them alone to live their lives. The people are not free in anarchy because in anarchy they can violate each other's rights. And the people are not free if the government can assign them the rights they will and will not have because a government with such power can violate the people's unalienable rights as easily as any other.

The U.S. Constitution--the entire concept of the nation the Founders gave us--was to eliminate both conditions so that we Americans would be the first people in the history of the world to be truly free. It produced the greatest, most productive, most innovative, most creative, most benevolent nation the world had ever seen.

I believe this is the last generation that will have the ability to turn things around and restore that great nation to its original concept.

You seem to have ignored my next sentence, in which I clarified that by government telling you what to do, I mean government enforces whatever rules and laws the people decide. That is, in fact, what government does. Having and enforcing laws is, in fact, telling people what they can or cannot do.

I wonder how many generations have passed in which people wanted to get back to the better times, to the original intent? How many generations in which people declared it was the last chance we had to restore our country to the way it was meant to be? The grass is always greener applies just as well to the past; so many people seem to think it was better 'before'.

We have a government now that thinks it is okay for the federal government - for example - to require the taxpayer or private companies to provide contraceptives free. That was not a decision of the people. That was a corruption of original intent of the Constitution by their elected representatives.

We have a government now that thinks is okay for the federal government to confiscate property from Citizen A, who legally, lawfully, and ethically acquired it, and give it to Citizen B who did absolutely nothing to earn it or deserve it. The reason? Citizen B has less than Citizen A. (And also they can persuade Citizen B to keep voting them into power that way.)

Tell me how that squares with the Founders original intent that we be a people who govern ourselves? That if property is not sacrosanct, then there are no rights at all?

We have a government now that thinks it is okay for federal elected, appointed, and employed people to party hearty in the most lavish manner on the taxpayer's dime.

We have a government now that shrugs off a 16 trillion dollar debt and doesn't care that it will bury us under its sheer weight but are unwilling to do a single thing to turn that around lest it be politically unpopular with those who keep voting them into power, prestige, influence and ability to vastly increase their personal fortunes.

Can you tell me you don't care about any of this? That it should not be a concern? That it will only get worse until it cannot be corrected short of another revolutionary war if we do not get our thinking straight and start turning it around now?

Some pretty good ideas you bring up foxfyre but where you say :
"We have a government now that thinks it's okay for the federal government to confiscate property from Citizen A, who legally, lawfully, and ethically acquired it, and give it to Citizen B who did absolutely nothing to earn it or deserve it. The reason? Citizen B has less than Citizen A. (And also they can persuade Citizen B to keep voting them into power that way."

-You make it sound like Citizen B always has less than Citizen A. Not always the case. Right now this XL Pipeline company is a powerful foreign corporation (Citizen B, if a foreign enterprise could be called a citizen) eminent domaining Citizen A's land in the midwest for profit. Not an isolated case either where B is more powerful than A. The U.S. Supreme Court sanctioned this in 2005 Kelo v. City of New London.

 

[jasonnfree]

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

In the poll, A free people govern themselves got the most votes. A noble idea maybe but impossible to be realized. And what were a free people at that time? A small minority. Only White men that owned property could vote. Was this really so great after all? Eliminating all the women as free persons? The country was successful early on due to unique circumstances including a large slave population helping make it great for which they never received compensation. The country was ripe for the picking and if Indians got in the way, eliminate or relocate them even if they'd occupied their lands for hundreds of years.

 

[Dubya]

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

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

You people don't believe in government, so we'll just leave you people out.

 

[regent]

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

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

You people don't believe in government, so we'll just leave you people out.

If there was a conflict between what the American people want but the constitution does not allow, who should prevail, the American people or the constitution?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Most white Americans probably did not want federally enforced integration and an end to segregation laws, and guess what?

 

[Dubya]

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

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

You people don't believe in government, so we'll just leave you people out.

If there was a conflict between what the American people want but the constitution does not allow, who should prevail, the American people or the constitution?

The 9 people in the Supreme Court prevail. You retards haven't ever figured that out. The Constitution made it their job, not yours.

 

[rdean]

Unless a Republican President like Eisenhower starts something like NASA which has improved American lives in uncounted ways, bringing in billions through research which resulted in licences and patents and an unknown number of jobs.

Or a Republican President like Eisenhower builds the interstate highway system that creates millions of jobs and becomes the envy of the world.

Too bad Republicans of today are stupid fucks who endlessly repeat stupid nonsense that is easily proven to be stupid. Stupid at "tard" level. Not just stupid.

 

[Foxfyre]

You seem to have ignored my next sentence, in which I clarified that by government telling you what to do, I mean government enforces whatever rules and laws the people decide. That is, in fact, what government does. Having and enforcing laws is, in fact, telling people what they can or cannot do.

I wonder how many generations have passed in which people wanted to get back to the better times, to the original intent? How many generations in which people declared it was the last chance we had to restore our country to the way it was meant to be? The grass is always greener applies just as well to the past; so many people seem to think it was better 'before'.

We have a government now that thinks it is okay for the federal government - for example - to require the taxpayer or private companies to provide contraceptives free. That was not a decision of the people. That was a corruption of original intent of the Constitution by their elected representatives.

We have a government now that thinks is okay for the federal government to confiscate property from Citizen A, who legally, lawfully, and ethically acquired it, and give it to Citizen B who did absolutely nothing to earn it or deserve it. The reason? Citizen B has less than Citizen A. (And also they can persuade Citizen B to keep voting them into power that way.)

Tell me how that squares with the Founders original intent that we be a people who govern ourselves? That if property is not sacrosanct, then there are no rights at all?

We have a government now that thinks it is okay for federal elected, appointed, and employed people to party hearty in the most lavish manner on the taxpayer's dime.

We have a government now that shrugs off a 16 trillion dollar debt and doesn't care that it will bury us under its sheer weight but are unwilling to do a single thing to turn that around lest it be politically unpopular with those who keep voting them into power, prestige, influence and ability to vastly increase their personal fortunes.

Can you tell me you don't care about any of this? That it should not be a concern? That it will only get worse until it cannot be corrected short of another revolutionary war if we do not get our thinking straight and start turning it around now?

Some pretty good ideas you bring up foxfyre but where you say :
"We have a government now that thinks it's okay for the federal government to confiscate property from Citizen A, who legally, lawfully, and ethically acquired it, and give it to Citizen B who did absolutely nothing to earn it or deserve it. The reason? Citizen B has less than Citizen A. (And also they can persuade Citizen B to keep voting them into power that way."

-You make it sound like Citizen B always has less than Citizen A. Not always the case. Right now this XL Pipeline company is a powerful foreign corporation (Citizen B, if a foreign enterprise could be called a citizen) eminent domaining Citizen A's land in the midwest for profit. Not an isolated case either where B is more powerful than A. The U.S. Supreme Court sanctioned this in 2005 Kelo v. City of New London.

It does not matter when Citizen B has or had less or how much less or whether he has less at all. It does matter that the Founders never intended the federal government to have any ability to strip property away from Citizen A for Citizen B's benefit.

And if you think the Supreme Court ruled as the Founders would have ruled in Kelo v New New London, you really need to review the documented thought processes that went into the original Constitution.

 

[rdean]

We have a government now that thinks it is okay for the federal government - for example - to require the taxpayer or private companies to provide contraceptives free. That was not a decision of the people. That was a corruption of original intent of the Constitution by their elected representatives.

We have a government now that thinks is okay for the federal government to confiscate property from Citizen A, who legally, lawfully, and ethically acquired it, and give it to Citizen B who did absolutely nothing to earn it or deserve it. The reason? Citizen B has less than Citizen A. (And also they can persuade Citizen B to keep voting them into power that way.)

Tell me how that squares with the Founders original intent that we be a people who govern ourselves? That if property is not sacrosanct, then there are no rights at all?

We have a government now that thinks it is okay for federal elected, appointed, and employed people to party hearty in the most lavish manner on the taxpayer's dime.

We have a government now that shrugs off a 16 trillion dollar debt and doesn't care that it will bury us under its sheer weight but are unwilling to do a single thing to turn that around lest it be politically unpopular with those who keep voting them into power, prestige, influence and ability to vastly increase their personal fortunes.

Can you tell me you don't care about any of this? That it should not be a concern? That it will only get worse until it cannot be corrected short of another revolutionary war if we do not get our thinking straight and start turning it around now?

Some pretty good ideas you bring up foxfyre but where you say :
"We have a government now that thinks it's okay for the federal government to confiscate property from Citizen A, who legally, lawfully, and ethically acquired it, and give it to Citizen B who did absolutely nothing to earn it or deserve it. The reason? Citizen B has less than Citizen A. (And also they can persuade Citizen B to keep voting them into power that way."

-You make it sound like Citizen B always has less than Citizen A. Not always the case. Right now this XL Pipeline company is a powerful foreign corporation (Citizen B, if a foreign enterprise could be called a citizen) eminent domaining Citizen A's land in the midwest for profit. Not an isolated case either where B is more powerful than A. The U.S. Supreme Court sanctioned this in 2005 Kelo v. City of New London.

It does not matter when Citizen B has or had less or how much less or whether he has less at all. It does matter that the Founders never intended the federal government to have any ability to strip property away from Citizen A for Citizen B's benefit.

And if you think the Supreme Court ruled as the Founders would have ruled in Kelo v New New London, you really need to review the documented thought processes that went into the original Constitution.

Without that law, George Bush wouldn't have his millions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We have a government now that thinks it is okay for the federal government - for example - to require the taxpayer or private companies to provide contraceptives free. That was not a decision of the people. That was a corruption of original intent of the Constitution by their elected representatives.

We have a government now that thinks is okay for the federal government to confiscate property from Citizen A, who legally, lawfully, and ethically acquired it, and give it to Citizen B who did absolutely nothing to earn it or deserve it. The reason? Citizen B has less than Citizen A. (And also they can persuade Citizen B to keep voting them into power that way.)

Tell me how that squares with the Founders original intent that we be a people who govern ourselves? That if property is not sacrosanct, then there are no rights at all?

We have a government now that thinks it is okay for federal elected, appointed, and employed people to party hearty in the most lavish manner on the taxpayer's dime.

We have a government now that shrugs off a 16 trillion dollar debt and doesn't care that it will bury us under its sheer weight but are unwilling to do a single thing to turn that around lest it be politically unpopular with those who keep voting them into power, prestige, influence and ability to vastly increase their personal fortunes.

Can you tell me you don't care about any of this? That it should not be a concern? That it will only get worse until it cannot be corrected short of another revolutionary war if we do not get our thinking straight and start turning it around now?

Some pretty good ideas you bring up foxfyre but where you say :
"We have a government now that thinks it's okay for the federal government to confiscate property from Citizen A, who legally, lawfully, and ethically acquired it, and give it to Citizen B who did absolutely nothing to earn it or deserve it. The reason? Citizen B has less than Citizen A. (And also they can persuade Citizen B to keep voting them into power that way."

-You make it sound like Citizen B always has less than Citizen A. Not always the case. Right now this XL Pipeline company is a powerful foreign corporation (Citizen B, if a foreign enterprise could be called a citizen) eminent domaining Citizen A's land in the midwest for profit. Not an isolated case either where B is more powerful than A. The U.S. Supreme Court sanctioned this in 2005 Kelo v. City of New London.

It does not matter when Citizen B has or had less or how much less or whether he has less at all. It does matter that the Founders never intended the federal government to have any ability to strip property away from Citizen A for Citizen B's benefit.

And if you think the Supreme Court ruled as the Founders would have ruled in Kelo v New New London, you really need to review the documented thought processes that went into the original Constitution.

You are 100% correct on this.