A Modern Emancipation Proclamation

[saveliberty]

Finding new common ground with others is certainly a great byproduct of the CDZ concept Vidi. The Bonus Army looks like a genuine issue with the government and not an entitlement issue to me. This whole discussion is a distraction from the OP though. I think Foxfyre has already conceded there were some uprisings. I personally don't put it at a level of massive as suggested by Unktore.

 

[Vidi]

Finding new common ground with others is certainly a great byproduct of the CDZ concept Vidi. The Bonus Army looks like a genuine issue with the government and not an entitlement issue to me. This whole discussion is a distraction from the OP though. I think Foxfyre has already conceded there were some uprisings. I personally don't put it at a level of massive as suggested by Unktore.

When you add Unks examples with my own examples, you have a fair amount of unrest.

Unrest is not open rebellion. It is however almost always a prerequisite.

I dont see it as a distraction because the original question was actually a poll. Would we support the resolution? And weve been asked to support our reasoning.

 

[saveliberty]

Those incidents were aimed at government. I don't think the one that is suggested would be towards government as much as government being a buffer against two opposing sides.

Got back from my run a little while ago and in about another 9 hours a donut is going to look really good.

 

[Unkotare]

I personally don't put it at a level of massive as suggested by Unktore.

Did I use the word "massive"?

 

[JDzBrain]

...I dont have time tonight to address them all so I just want to tackle a couple as quickly as I can

1) Your point about NO State. Under a strict interpretation, youre absolutely right on that...
...( but I reserve the right to come back to it if I can find a source lol )

2) Isnt Tranquility stability?

Again GREAT POST! Greenies for you!

LOL...well, I'll accept your rain check.

As to tranquility, it wasn't JUST tranquility. It was DOMESTIC tranquility.

The founders coupled those two words for a very good reason. The tranquility they were talking about was that derived from a life free from domestic insurrection, wars between states or attacks from abroad. Which in the day and still to THIS DAY is a very REAL possibility.

The War of 1812, Mexican American War and 9/11 are all examples of that interruption of tranquility by outside sources, while the Civil War (we call it the War of Northern Aggression down here. ;~) is the best know example of domestic interruption of that tranquility, there have been several attempted domestic insurrections including one shooting war called Shay's Rebellion that occurred while the first Continental Convention was convening to try and ratify the Constitution.

By the way, it actually WAS over the money! ;~)

However, MOST were funded or incited by outside sources like England, France or Spain. Hell, Occupy Wall Street was conceived, organized and executed from CANADA!

The founders had NO intention of IMPOSED tranquility on the individual. They viewed that as oppression! ;~)

They didn't believe tranquility could be imposed any more than they believed in collective salvation!

Oh, and HERE is a good source to get ya started with some of my claims. It an article by historian David Barton from his web site. Regardless of anything anyone might say about his politics or religious overtness, the guy IS the most knowledgeable historian alive today.

 

[Foxfyre]

Would it be conceivable that the Founders would not see many of our government initiatives as promoting or maintaining domestic tranquility? The Resolution addresses this by taking away the federal government's ability to create class envy, to pick winners and losers as beneficiaries from the public treasury or via contracts let by the Federal government.

So we are already seeing those who see the federal government's role to provide a safety net. That safety net, however, is pushing us to the very edge of national bankruptcy even as it disrupts domestic tranquility of those who resist losing any federal government benefits of any kind.

The Founders did not see a safety net as a function of the Federal Government.

Okay I'm out for tonight. Back in the morning.

 

[JDzBrain]

Finding new common ground with others is certainly a great byproduct of the CDZ concept Vidi. The Bonus Army looks like a genuine issue with the government and not an entitlement issue to me. This whole discussion is a distraction from the OP though. I think Foxfyre has already conceded there were some uprisings. I personally don't put it at a level of massive as suggested by Unktore.

When you add Unks examples with my own examples, you have a fair amount of unrest.

Unrest is not open rebellion. It is however almost always a prerequisite.

I dont see it as a distraction because the original question was actually a poll. Would we support the resolution? And weve been asked to support our reasoning.

Folks, as with the example of Shay's Rebellion I mentioned above, which was a rebellion over printing money, bankers and the economy AND which took place in the late 1780's and early 1790's, rebellions...shooting and otherwise have been going on since the very days the founders were writing and ratifying our Constitution. Had they intended that we were a welfare state...they had EVERY opportunity to just write that right into the Constitution. They did NOT do that!

Instead, they took measures to make sure the national and state's armies (militias/National Guard) were strong enough to put down such rebellions. And in fact, shortly after becoming our first president, Washington PERSONALLY led a 15,000 man militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion...a farmers rebellion over money....just to make the point!

These riots, rebellions, insurrections...whatEVER you guys seem to be so frightened of have been happening since before this country WAS a country. And WAY before we started down this damnednable welfare state crap. We survived them then, and we will survive them in the future. Because make no mistake, there WILL be more in the future....no matter how much we soak the rich!

Beyond that, the notion of paying what is essentially protection money to try and placate those who would commit these acts is an abomination to the memories of those who have given their lives to establish and maintain this Republic and down right cowardly.

Besides, just ask anyone who has been shook down in a protection racket. All it leads to is ever increasing demands. There is NO placating leeches. They just keep sucking and sucking until they are so bloated they fall off or you go DRY!

As I've said before, I'm with Jefferson on this one. "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

 

[saveliberty]

I personally don't put it at a level of massive as suggested by Unktore.

Did I use the word "massive"?

Post #206, used mass.

 

[saveliberty]

There are financial stress limits on everything. The government cannot maintain current programs at the rate things are going now. Thoughtful reductions and cuts now are far better than a collapse of the entire system.

 

[Foxfyre]

Finding new common ground with others is certainly a great byproduct of the CDZ concept Vidi. The Bonus Army looks like a genuine issue with the government and not an entitlement issue to me. This whole discussion is a distraction from the OP though. I think Foxfyre has already conceded there were some uprisings. I personally don't put it at a level of massive as suggested by Unktore.

When you add Unks examples with my own examples, you have a fair amount of unrest.

Unrest is not open rebellion. It is however almost always a prerequisite.

I dont see it as a distraction because the original question was actually a poll. Would we support the resolution? And weve been asked to support our reasoning.

Folks, as with the example of Shay's Rebellion I mentioned above, which was a rebellion over printing money, bankers and the economy AND which took place in the late 1780's and early 1790's, rebellions...shooting and otherwise have been going on since the very days the founders were writing and ratifying our Constitution. Had they intended that we were a welfare state...they had EVERY opportunity to just write that right into the Constitution. They did NOT do that!

Instead, they took measures to make sure the national and state's armies (militias/National Guard) were strong enough to put down such rebellions. And in fact, shortly after becoming our first president, Washington PERSONALLY led a 15,000 man militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion...a farmers rebellion over money....just to make the point!

These riots, rebellions, insurrections...whatEVER you guys seem to be so frightened of have been happening since before this country WAS a country. And WAY before we started down this damnednable welfare state crap. We survived them then, and we will survive them in the future. Because make no mistake, there WILL be more in the future....no matter how much we soak the rich!

Beyond that, the notion of paying what is essentially protection money to try and placate those who would commit these acts is an abomination to the memories of those who have given their lives to establish and maintain this Republic and down right cowardly.

Besides, just ask anyone who has been shook down in a protection racket. All it leads to is ever increasing demands. There is NO placating leeches. They just keep sucking and sucking until they are so bloated they fall off or you go DRY!

As I've said before, I'm with Jefferson on this one. "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

And herein is another reason for the resolution. The ability of government to print money is a huge liberal license for the government to spend as much money as it chooses to spend. Also it is a form of wealth redistribution. If we could again restrict the federal government to what the Constitution allows it to do, the fed could be abolished and the gold standard would have a much better chance of being re-established as law.

The Whiskey Rebellion, however, was not an uprising against losing a benefit but a most vigorous protest against new taxes imosed (on whiskey sales) by Congress as a means to pay off the national debt. Washington did indeed ride with the militia to defend the beleagered tax authorities irate farmers were attacking. The farmers disbanded and went home before the militia arrived with no confrontations necessary. Working from memory here, I believe there were a few arrests--maybe 20 or so?--but I also seem to remember that all were acquitted and that ended the matter.

But this was a protest against what the already freedom loving farmers saw as an oppressive and unfair tax--oppressive and unfair being subjective of course.

Of interest, it was Jefferson's brand new Republican Party that repealed the whiskey tax when they took power some time later.

The resolution speaks to all the same issues they debated back then though. It is those who want bigger government more able to be hands on to work with the people and redistribute wealth versus those who see small, limited government as they only way that freedom can exist and be defended.

 

[JDzBrain]

And herein is another reason for the resolution. The ability of government to print money is a huge liberal license for the government to spend as much money as it chooses to spend. Also it is a form of wealth redistribution. If we could again restrict the federal government to what the Constitution allows it to do, the fed could be abolished and the gold standard would have a much better chance of being re-established as law.

The Whiskey Rebellion, however, was not an uprising against losing a benefit but a most vigorous protest against new taxes imosed (on whiskey sales) by Congress as a means to pay off the national debt. Washington did indeed ride with the militia to defend the beleagered tax authorities irate farmers were attacking. The farmers disbanded and went home after the militia arrived with no confrontations necessary. Working from memory here, I believe there were a few arrests--maybe 20 or so?--but I also seem to remember that all were acquitted and that ended the matter.

But this was a protest against what the already freedom loving farmers saw as an oppressive and unfair tax--oppressive and unfair being subjective of course.

Of interest, it was Jefferson's brand new Republican Party that repealed the whiskey tax when they took power some time later.

The resolution speaks to all the same issues they debated back then though. It is those who want bigger government more able to be hands on to work with the people and distribute wealth versus those who see small, limited government as they only way that freedom can exist and be defended.

Exactly so! MOST of these rebellions...INCLUDING the War Between the States were about money. Regardless of what revisionist history tells us.

I can understand why Washington enacted the whiskey tax that sparked the rebellion. He himself made shine and given his experience trying to get the states to pay his solders in the revolution...he HAD to find a way to provide for the common defense. Given the small overhead and large profits in whiskey...it made sense to him. It was WRONG, but I understand it.

As you said, it WAS repealed by Jefferson, who QUIT Washington's cabinet over the VERY THING we are discussing here. Washington sided with those who wanted to do the whiskey tax and have a bigger central government...Jefferson disagreed, pointed out that a direct tax on income was unconstitutional and resigned.

Of course, HE...Jefferson, violated the Constitution with the Louisiana Purchase when he was president. So his hands aren't clean either. LOL

That act of arrogance has led to the federal government owning more than 50% of ALL LAND west of the great plains in DIRECT violation of the Constitution. ALL payed for by presidential discretionary spending funds.

ONE MORE way ideologues have bastardized constitutional procedures to buy influence with states and groups like the tree huggers.

Oh, and Jefferson's party was the Democratic Republican Party wasn't it? I'm pretty sure that Lincoln was the first Republican (an offshoot of the Democratic Republican Party that split into two camps, those who were military interventionist and those who were non-interventionist) to be president. I THINK! Like you said, I'm just going from memory...and I AIN'T gettin' any younger! ;~)

At any rate, you are steel on target. This HAS to be brought under control if our economy and Republic is EVER going to return to prominence and a leadership role in the world that we once enjoyed. We HAVE to lead by example...NOT explanation and rationalizations!

 

[Unkotare]

I personally don't put it at a level of massive as suggested by Unktore.

Did I use the word "massive"?

Post #206, used mass.

So, I didn't use the word "massive" then? I used the word "mass" in direct reference to fox's factual error about street riots during the Great Depression.

 

[Unkotare]

Of course, HE...Jefferson, violated the Constitution with the Louisiana Purchase when he was president. So his hands aren't clean either. LOL

That act of arrogance has led to the federal government owning more than 50% of ALL LAND west of the great plains in DIRECT violation of the Constitution.

You wanna give it back?

 

[Foxfyre]

And herein is another reason for the resolution. The ability of government to print money is a huge liberal license for the government to spend as much money as it chooses to spend. Also it is a form of wealth redistribution. If we could again restrict the federal government to what the Constitution allows it to do, the fed could be abolished and the gold standard would have a much better chance of being re-established as law.

The Whiskey Rebellion, however, was not an uprising against losing a benefit but a most vigorous protest against new taxes imosed (on whiskey sales) by Congress as a means to pay off the national debt. Washington did indeed ride with the militia to defend the beleagered tax authorities irate farmers were attacking. The farmers disbanded and went home after the militia arrived with no confrontations necessary. Working from memory here, I believe there were a few arrests--maybe 20 or so?--but I also seem to remember that all were acquitted and that ended the matter.

But this was a protest against what the already freedom loving farmers saw as an oppressive and unfair tax--oppressive and unfair being subjective of course.

Of interest, it was Jefferson's brand new Republican Party that repealed the whiskey tax when they took power some time later.

The resolution speaks to all the same issues they debated back then though. It is those who want bigger government more able to be hands on to work with the people and distribute wealth versus those who see small, limited government as they only way that freedom can exist and be defended.

Exactly so! MOST of these rebellions...INCLUDING the War Between the States were about money. Regardless of what revisionist history tells us.

I can understand why Washington enacted the whiskey tax that sparked the rebellion. He himself made shine and given his experience trying to get the states to pay his solders in the revolution...he HAD to find a way to provide for the common defense. Given the small overhead and large profits in whiskey...it made sense to him. It was WRONG, but I understand it.

As you said, it WAS repealed by Jefferson, who QUIT Washington's cabinet over the VERY THING we are discussing here. Washington sided with those who wanted to do the whiskey tax and have a bigger central government...Jefferson disagreed, pointed out that a direct tax on income was unconstitutional and resigned.

Of course, HE...Jefferson, violated the Constitution with the Louisiana Purchase when he was president. So his hands aren't clean either. LOL

That act of arrogance has led to the federal government owning more than 50% of ALL LAND west of the great plains in DIRECT violation of the Constitution. ALL payed for by presidential discretionary spending funds.

ONE MORE way ideologues have bastardized constitutional procedures to buy influence with states and groups like the tree huggers.

Oh, and Jefferson's party was the Democratic Republican Party wasn't it? I'm pretty sure that Lincoln was the first Republican (an offshoot of the Democratic Republican Party that split into two camps, those who were military interventionist and those who were non-interventionist) to be president. I THINK! Like you said, I'm just going from memory...and I AIN'T gettin' any younger! ;~)

At any rate, you are steel on target. This HAS to be brought under control if our economy and Republic is EVER going to return to prominence and a leadership role in the world that we once enjoyed. We HAVE to lead by example...NOT explanation and rationalizations!

Unfortunately, however, the wrong interpretation of a Constitution that allows govenment to do what is not explicitly prohibited has created a leadership that no longer even tries to address and deal with problems. They are interested in feathering their own personal nests and use frequently distorted explanation and all manner of rationalization to keep the people voting for them. And a whole bunch of that rhetoric creates an illusion that governnent is gonna fix it; government is gonna give you what you need; govenment is the solution IF YOU VOTE FOR ME!! Vote for that other guy and you will surely be screwed.

And once the election is over, it is right back to business as usual--the business of throwing the people just enough bones so they will keep the government in power and thereby enriching the career politicians and bureaucrats.

And part of this equation is to be sure we continue the dumbing down of America. Distort history as much as possible because we have so short circuited independent and critical though among our citizens that they won't bother to check or question the revised versions. And point out any flaw in the real heroes so they can be wholly condemned for their imperfection while exalting and justification mistakes and imperfections in those in the current government. Without benefit of critical thought, they can get away with that almost every time.

I think we need to adopt the resolution before we have any hope to start turning all that around.

 

[Foxfyre]

QUESTION: Do ya'll really think the current government we have will fix itself as long as it has the ability to use our money to prosper itself?

Do you have such faith in those elected leaders that they will do the right thing rather than what advantages themselves?

 

[Montrovant]

I tend to agree with Vidi about this, that if you want to consider this any kind of binding resolution, it is worded to broadly and too open to interpretation to be effective.

If you want to look at it as a non-binding matter of principle, I'm more inclined to agree with it; specifics could be worked out in an amendment or binding piece of legislature.

I think that as it is written, it would not only be too generally written, but that the very politicians (and perhaps judges) you wish to remove because of their corruption would be the ones to interpret the language. So, in a sense, it could actually add another layer of political doublespeak when your intention would be to get rid of that, I think.

I don't trust politicians as a general rule. I believe in the old adage that power corrupts. However, I do question whether we have ever had a government made up of civil servants, people truly concerned with the good of the nation and following the rules and mandates of the constitution, at least for any extended period of time. My interpretation of the history of government and politics is that it has always drawn people more interested in power than service; those we would want to be our leaders are rarely the ones who want the position. I wonder if a system that prevents all, or most, of the ability of politicians to line their own pockets is realistic. I also wonder if, even absent the lining of pockets, the power of political office might not still draw the wrong people into politics.

Before I ramble too far off topic, I'll end this here.

 

[Unkotare]

I think we need to adopt the resolution before we have any hope to start turning all that around.

Just checking: You don't actually imagine this 'resolution' will ever exist or have any impact whatsoever anywhere beyond this one thread on this one forum on this one website for a few more days at most, do you? I mean, it's all well and good as a point of discussion, but you know this will not even leave a temporary impression on this very forum, right? No offense, it's just that the way you express yourself raises the question.

 

[saveliberty]

Albuquerque Protocol?

 

[Foxfyre]

I tend to agree with Vidi about this, that if you want to consider this any kind of binding resolution, it is worded to broadly and too open to interpretation to be effective.

If you want to look at it as a non-binding matter of principle, I'm more inclined to agree with it; specifics could be worked out in an amendment or binding piece of legislature.

I think that as it is written, it would not only be too generally written, but that the very politicians (and perhaps judges) you wish to remove because of their corruption would be the ones to interpret the language. So, in a sense, it could actually add another layer of political doublespeak when your intention would be to get rid of that, I think.

I don't trust politicians as a general rule. I believe in the old adage that power corrupts. However, I do question whether we have ever had a government made up of civil servants, people truly concerned with the good of the nation and following the rules and mandates of the constitution, at least for any extended period of time. My interpretation of the history of government and politics is that it has always drawn people more interested in power than service; those we would want to be our leaders are rarely the ones who want the position. I wonder if a system that prevents all, or most, of the ability of politicians to line their own pockets is realistic. I also wonder if, even absent the lining of pockets, the power of political office might not still draw the wrong people into politics.

Before I ramble too far off topic, I'll end this here.

I don't think you are off topic. The resolution is not intended to be 'law' but is rather intended to be a statement of principle as a first step for development of a law that will address the concepts in the resolution. If we cannot agree what we want the law to achieve, there is no chance that enough of us will make our voices heard and so direct our elected representatives so that it can be passed.

There are some who insist on nitpicking the concepts to death; others who want to make it so legalistic that we can't get past legal technicalities, and then there are those who have no interest in it at all. But a few are actually seeing the concept that drives the resolution. It is that on which a large majority of us must agree before we will be able to move forward.

 

[dblack]

The resolution is not intended to be 'law' but is rather intended to be a statement of principle as a first step for development of a law that will address the concepts in the resolution. If we cannot agree what we want the law to achieve, there is no chance that enough of us will make our voices heard and so direct our elected representatives so that it can be passed.

I'm supportive of any initiative that might inspire a nationwide dialog about the actual purpose of government, and think this resolution, or similar proposals, could do that. One of the biggest problems we face as a nation is that we have such wildly differing expectations of our government. We need to find some consensus on a focused "mission statement" for government. Without that, we're just thrashing about, wasting a lot of effort from all parties involved.