A Modern Emancipation Proclamation

[Vidi]

Exactly. So you have just argued against your own argument that the resolution is already covered by the 14th Amendment.

But yes, essentially removing all federal social safety nets is exactly what I am proposing because they are doing far more harm than good, they are corrupting those in government and the beneficiaries of them, and they are bankrupting the nation. That is precisely what the resolution says.

It does not suppose there will be no social safety nets, but they will be at the state and local levels where historically they have been far less damaging.

Sorry youre going to have to enlighten me on how Ive argued against my point. Im not seeing it.

You said the 14th Amendment produces equal treatment in the matter of government charity and then provided specific examples of how it does not.

Rewarding the least successful and denying reward to the most successful is not equal protection. Most especially when it is the most successful who are required to provide the funding for the least successful. That is arbitrary redistribution of wealth that should never be a function of the federal government.

The federal government should be returned to its original role in which promoting the general welfare meant doing what was helpful for all to prosper, but nobody was any more entitled to money from the treasury than anybody else no matter who they are.

no maam. I think thats where I problem lies.

However, I see now that my opposition was an "either/or" opposition not an "and" opposition which is where some of the confusion between us may lie ( in other words, my fault. Even I was treating it as an "and" oppostion. )

The 14th produces equal PROTECTION , which is the best we can hope for. If youre discussing protection then your resolution is redundant.

But if your resolution is only about TREATMENT, then my opposition is based on unworkable in any form of government other than a pure communist state.


EDIT: Also I would argue that taxing the successful at a higher rate than the unsuccessful is not unequal as the successful person is able to extract more of the wealth from the system ( yes I understand its not zero sum. ) and that a progressive tax system is not arbitrary as you and Dblack like to say because its done with a very specific reason, the stability of the society, and within the powers of the Constitution, so therefore limited.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'll be back to fight the good fight tomorrow if God is willing and all that. . . .good night all and thanks for giving me the best debate workout I've had in awhile.

 

[Vidi]

Personally I think that cries for a "Constitutional amendment" are nothing but excuses for politicians to blame the system when we freaking pay them to be the system. Fix it you fools. We don't need no stinking Amendment. We have you.

If a bad law is deemed Constitutional or a good law unconstitutional, the only way to change it is through an amendment.

While I agree 110% with your sentiment, I disagree with your conclusion.

 

[Vidi]

I'll be back to fight the good fight tomorrow if God is willing and all that. . . .good night all and thanks for giving me the best debate workout I've had in awhile.

Yes, I must be off as well. I have to drive home before I can relax with season 3 of Warehouse 13 on Netflix and get some sleep before it all begins again in six hours ( from now lol )

Fox, Im happy to oblige. Please feel free to come up with a new topic when you feel the urge. With any luck, we will disagree on that one too LOL

 

[JDzBrain]

I think youre missing my point.

One of the objections I have to your resolution is its redundancy. The 14th amendment grants every citizen of the United States equal protection under the law....

You've said this a few times now and so I WILL address it. The 14th amendment is radical reconstruction era BULL that did, with a constitutional amendment, what SHOULD have been done by legislation!

It was plainly and simply, a usurping of state's authority by the federal government in the pretense of protecting emancipated slaves as a reprisal against a couple states that tried to use a loop hole in federal law to ship freed slaves back to Africa using their children.

That's point one. Point two is that NO...it does NOT guarantee equal protection under the law. That is a fallacy. It guarantees that no STATE can deny equal protection to a citizen of the United States living within it's borders. You'll notice I have made bold the operative phrase in Section 1, posted below. It says NOTHING about equal protections under federal law.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It would have said NO LAW shall be made or enforced...and so on and so on if the intent was as you claim. What it says is no state shall make or enforce. Your argument is base on a fallacy.

By the way, the 14th amendment is also the amendment that made it LEGAL for a state to take a person's right to vote or freedom of speech or own a gun or property or anything else...FOR LIFE if they commit a crime. Something they could not do before it's passage and something the founders never intended. They believed in redemption.

Given the cries about disenfranchisement of voters and calls by liberals to let prisoners vote, supporting the 14th to get the Mexican vote must present something of a Catch 22 for liberals!

Youre correct in that it does single people out based on goals of the government, but they are far from arbitrary. The single mission of government is to promote stability.

In my opinion, our rights cannot be protected without stability. Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness all go out the window if you cant drive down the street without facing an angry mob.

As to extension of this resolution to the States, it would end every known governmental safety net that we currently have. Thus rioting in the streets when the unemployed cant feed their kids.

I strongly suggest that what you recommend is a recipe for disaster.

First there is this, "The single mission of government is to promote stability."

The Declaration of Independence is the WHY our country was founded, THIS..."We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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."...the Preamble to the Constitution is the WHAT the governments SOLE job is and the Constitution is the HOW our government is to do that. If it ain't in there...it ain't their job!

Then there is the part highlighted in the second quote. If you look at EVERY riot that has occurred in the last 50 years, just where have those riots occurred and who is involved in them? I'll give you a hint. They are the very people you claim throwing money stolen from the pockets of working Americans SHOULD be placating. It does NOT!

Giving people a hand out just keeps um on the reservation, plantation or however you want to put it. Giving them a hand UP removes discontent!

Just like throwing money at education does NOT improve education. The 5 highest spenders on education in this country are ALL at the bottom of performance. That's FACT.

Personally I think that cries for a "Constitutional amendment" are nothing but excuses for politicians to blame the system when we freaking pay them to be the system. Fix it you fools. We don't need no stinking Amendment. We have you.

If a bad law is deemed Constitutional or a good law unconstitutional, the only way to change it is through an amendment.

While I agree 110% with your sentiment, I disagree with your conclusion.

No...it is NOT the only way! As a matter of fact...it is the LAST way it should or has been done historically.

There are literally DOZENS of examples of laws that have been upheld or overturned by the Supreme Court in the last hundred years that were simply taken back up by Congress and rewritten to fix them or repeal them. It does not take a constitutional amendment. The only thing that takes a constitutional amendment to fix...IS a constitutional amendment!

Vidi, while I appreciate you're persistence AND thoughtful nature, the arguments presented ARE based primarily on misinterpretations.

 

[saveliberty]

One of the primary responsibilities of our government should be and is to protect the property of citizens. Having to constantly defend your property reduces what society is able to produce as a whole and makes all citizens unable to invest in the future, due to a need to defend the present.

If a person's income is determined by the whims of government, then the government has failed to fulfill its duty. Taking of the "rich's" income, because it is believed they have too much or "enough" is simply stealing. At this point investment becomes less attractive for the reason I mentioned above.

Entitlement programs become traps for many. They never escape from the cycle of poverty and enter the middle class. I have to wonder why that is. It seems that the most likely reasons are a lack of skills, which should be actively pursued by the grantee, Lack of motivation, which should be rewarded with a time limit on benefits or politicans that want dependence.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION​

WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and

WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and

WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and

WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and

WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.

* * * * * *​

Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .

I agree 100%.

I also read some responses and no one has convinced me that I should not agree with this.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, good morning everybody. I'm working on my first cup of coffee and have had at least a few hours of sleep and should be almost human shortly.

I would like to focus on Vidi's 'angry mob' concept. I don't recall reading of angry mobs in the history books during the Great Depression that was exacerbated for hundreds of thousands by the 'dust bowl' prolonged drought throughout the great plains. Yes the federal government, for the very first time on any large scale, did step in with some free food and works programs, but it was not in response to angry mobs demanding government help.

I also don't read in the history books that there was a huge upsurge in crime during that time, or that people lived in more fear of each other. There are stories of great compassion and how people helped people get through it all.

(Many economists,believe the federal governments first foray into Keynesian economics actually prolonged the Depression, but that is a subject for another thread and in any case it did not otherwise affect the majority of Americans at the time.)

That was an America in which the federal government had not previously stepped in to 'help' people in difficulty, and it never occurred to the people that it should.

What does seem to trigger angry mobs, however, is an entitlement mentality and a dependence on government to provide for us what we cannot or do not choose to have the discipline to do to provide for ourselves. It is only when people have become accustomed to the government providing what we want, most especially other people's money, that they rise up when there is any suggestion that such be stopped or reduced.

It happens in Greece. It happens in California. And maybe it will happen throughout America if the government actually does begin to rachet back the government freebies and hand outs.

But what is the alternative? We are already in deficit at a very dangerous percentage of the GDP and the debt is rising at a rate no amount of increased taxes will put a dent in.

 

[saveliberty]

The answer is give in to Mob rule? Really?

 

[Foxfyre]

The answer is give in to Mob rule? Really?

No, I'm pretty sure Vidi didn't mean that. But his observation is not unrealistic based on what we are seeing in European governments where the leaders are trying to impose some austerity measures.

It goes back to the principle of the resolution itself: entitlements corrupt both those in government and the recipients of the benevolence. And probably a lot of angry people used to having access to other people's money is going to be a consequence of any real reform.

 

[saveliberty]

We interupt this discussion for an important announcement.

Foxfyre, Pale has Krispy Kremes in the CS.

That is all.

( I am in soooooooo...much trouble right now )

 

[Foxfyre]

LOL, yes you are Save, and I've already rhetorically negged him.

Okay, back to our regularly scheduled programming here. . . . .

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,

other countries do it also even China.It is not a corrupting influence if managed correctly

Would your mom accept the excuse "Well sally murdered her brothers so why are you mad at me for murdering mine?"

Just saying pointing to another countrys bad decision making doesn't justify making bad decisions here.

 

[Foxfyre]

WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,

other countries do it also even China.It is not a corrupting influence if managed correctly

Would your mom accept the excuse "Well sally murdered her brothers so why are you mad at me for murdering mine?"

Just saying pointing to another countrys bad decision making doesn't justify making bad decisions here.

Further, pointing to other countries and how they do things and what has and has not worked for them can be somewhat instructive, but really cannot compare to American exceptionalism.

The U.S.A. has the only government ever conceived in the history of the world that was organized for the sole purpose of recognizing, defending, and upholding unalienable rights that the people were deemed to already have, and to provide a basic structure that would allow the government to do that.

In EVERY other nation, it is the government that assigns the rights the people will have. We were unique among every government that has every existed in having a Constitution that allowed government to do only specific things and nothing else.

But for a long time now, those who have not or will not appreciate the original intent of the U.S. Constitution have been turning it on its head to allow government to do what the Constitution does not expressly forbid rather than limiting government to what the Constitution expressly allows.

And it is to reverse that corruption of Constitutional intent that the resolution is intended to correct.

 

[dblack]

other countries do it also even China.It is not a corrupting influence if managed correctly

Would your mom accept the excuse "Well sally murdered her brothers so why are you mad at me for murdering mine?"

Just saying pointing to another countrys bad decision making doesn't justify making bad decisions here.

Further, pointing to other countries and how they do things and what has and has not worked for them can be somewhat instructive, but really cannot compare to American exceptionalism.

The U.S.A. has the only government ever conceived in the history of the world that was organized for the sole purpose of recognizing, defending, and upholding unalienable rights that the people were deemed to already have, and to provide a basic structure that would allow the government to do that.

In EVERY other nation, it is the government that assigns the rights the people will have. We were unique among every government that has every existed in having a Constitution that allowed government to do only specific things and nothing else.

But for a long time now, those who have not or will not appreciate the original intent of the U.S. Constitution have been turning it on its head to allow government to do what the Constitution does not expressly forbid rather than limiting government to what the Constitution expressly allows.

And it is to reverse that corruption of Constitutional intent that the resolution is intended to correct.

Glad to see this clarification. There have been several references in this thread to "corruption", and it's really the corruption of the intent and practice of limited government that I think we're talking about - not any specific graft or malfeasance on the part of any our leaders.

So many of these conversations circle around fundamental differences in our views regarding the purpose of government. The topic, apparently, is too abstract to interest many people in conversation, but I think it's probably the most important thing we could be talking about regarding US politics.

 

[Unkotare]

I also don't read in the history books that there was a huge upsurge in crime during that time, or that people lived in more fear of each other. .

Read again. There was a rapid increase in crime during the Great Depression.

 

[Unkotare]

I don't recall reading of angry mobs in the history books during the Great Depression.

There were many strikes and protest movements during the Great Depression.

 

[Foxfyre]

Would your mom accept the excuse "Well sally murdered her brothers so why are you mad at me for murdering mine?"

Just saying pointing to another countrys bad decision making doesn't justify making bad decisions here.

Further, pointing to other countries and how they do things and what has and has not worked for them can be somewhat instructive, but really cannot compare to American exceptionalism.

The U.S.A. has the only government ever conceived in the history of the world that was organized for the sole purpose of recognizing, defending, and upholding unalienable rights that the people were deemed to already have, and to provide a basic structure that would allow the government to do that.

In EVERY other nation, it is the government that assigns the rights the people will have. We were unique among every government that has every existed in having a Constitution that allowed government to do only specific things and nothing else.

But for a long time now, those who have not or will not appreciate the original intent of the U.S. Constitution have been turning it on its head to allow government to do what the Constitution does not expressly forbid rather than limiting government to what the Constitution expressly allows.

And it is to reverse that corruption of Constitutional intent that the resolution is intended to correct.

Glad to see this clarification. There have been several references in this thread to "corruption", and it's really the corruption of the intent and practice of limited government that I think we're talking about - not any specific graft or malfeasance on the part of any our leaders.

So many of these conversations circle around fundamental differences in our views regarding the purpose of government. The topic, apparently, is too abstract to interest many people in conversation, but I think it's probably the most important thing we could be talking about regarding US politics.

I agree. And I think if we can't refocus the body politic to at least begin the conversation, we are absolutely rushing headlong to just become another enormous "Greece." And there aren't enough combined economies in the world big enough to bail us out if we allow that to happen.

The corruption of which I have spoken, and which is referenced in the resolution, is a result of the corruption of Constitutional intent. Our leaders are able to enrich themselves in every way at our expense, and that process has evolved to the point that their sole purpose in their respective offices is to favor as many different groups as they can so as to generate votes to keep themselves in an office in which they are enriching themselves.

That is an extremely unhealthy way to do government as those so favored quickly adopt an appetite and dependency on government favors and will focus their votes on those who will promise to keep the freebies coming. Anybody who suggests removing or reducing those freebies quickly becomes political anathema to those who say they want reform but who don't want to risk giving anything up.

It creates a viscious circle in which entitlements and getting government money becomes the goal and actually solving real problems cannot and will not be addressed.

 

[saveliberty]

Please enlighten us with links regarding the strikes and crime stats.

 

[saveliberty]

Posts #194 & 195 Foxfyre.