Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
My purpose here is to strictly limit the federal government to Its original intent. The states and local communities would be as free as birds to create and implement whatever social welfare systems they wished to have.
While I agree with reinstating the tenth amendment, I do see a role for Federal government in ensuring that states honor civil liberties, particularly in regard to equal protection.
Why? What equal protection?
I can see a federal ruling that no state can discriminate based on skin color, religion, sexual orientation, etc. in delivery of state services. But how do you impose that on the private citizen without denying that citizen his/her unalienable right of association, self determination, how he/she uses his own property, etc.? Leave that up to the states and local communities to legislate and not the federal government.
Why is it ok for the state and local communities to deny you your inalienable right but not the federal government?
It isn't okay at all, but if it is going to happen, the people at least can leave a local community or state to find the liberties lost under a more local government. When such happens at the federal level, however, we have nowhere to go other than to lose our entire country.
If enough people leave a local government it will have to change or cease to exist. Such a solution is impractical and counter productive at the federal level.
No, they are far less likely. Unless, of course, you are in the majority and don't really care about what happens to the minorities. Historically, denies of personal liberties have been done primarily at the local level. I see no reason to think human beings have changed in the last couple of years.
How about children with serious disabilities? Senior citizens with no other source of income? Do we wish to be a country which just lets the helpless starve?
Perhaps that is the first step in this process. Let's drop ideology for a time and focus on what kind of nation we want to be, and then we can look at what it is we need to do to become that nation.
I don't think so. I think a reasonable argument can be made that a safety net for all is a "general benefit". I can't speak for Foxfyre, but I'm not out to kill any semblance of state welfare. The far greater evil is the widespread corporatism that comes from extending the concept to a broad tool for handing out favors or manipulating our economic decisions.
My purpose here is to strictly limit the federal government to Its original intent. The states and local communities would be as free as birds to create and implement whatever social welfare systems they wished to have.
Given the nature of our economy, the states can't do so. What a bank does in Oregon affects manufacturing in Georgia. We no longer live in the 18th century.
What the banks can and can't do is irrelevant to whatever social welfare system a state or local community wishes to have.
So you prefer a system doomed to failure. You think we should be a third world country?
The MSM doesn't get to dictate campaign financing.
Since 1867, there have been dozens of campaign finance laws passed and probably hundreds or even thousands of regulations put on the books governing how those laws would be implemented. The fact that more such laws are piled on top of or replace old ones should tell us that such laws do not correct the problem. The most sweeping and defining campaign reform, McCain/Feingold in 2002, had so many self-serving loopholes in it for McCain and Feingold et al that it was essentially worthless in curbing the abuses. More money than ever is changing hands in the electoral process as politicians and special interest groups always find new and innovative paths around the rules. And it becomes ever more difficult without taking away more and more rights of the people to express their support for the candidate of their choice and the right to use their property as they choose including giving it away.
So why not simply limit what they are able to buy with all that money, and limit how much the politicians and bureaucrats are able to profit from their public service? That is fairly simple to do as previously posted. Take the profit out of it and what money was donated would be to elect good people again. The professional politicians have no incentive to be there. We would likely elect true public servants again who would focus on the best interests of the people and the country.
You just made my point for me. Regulations will be flouted and Congress will constantly find "loopholes" to exploit. So even your proposed "limitations" won't survive the inevitable onslaught of politicians trying to exploit them.
Therefore the only viable solution is to criminalize all campaign financing that is intended to purchase power over the representatives of We the People.
That means there must be a separation between money and elections. If the pool of money for elections is drawn equally from all taxpayers and parceled out based purely on obtaining the requisite number of signatures there is no loophole to exploit. No other funding can be allowed for the campaigns. No one other than the candidates can spend the money allocated and no outside entity can be allowed to influence the outcome of an election. The penalties must be mandatory jail time without parole. By criminalizing all outside influences there is no way that Congress can corrupt the election process.
Then we can criminalize any attempt to influence a Representative with financial gain for themselves or any related people or entities in which they have an interest.
Unless we are willing to hold politicians criminally liable we will have politicians who will happily do the bidding of the highest bidders.
This isn't rocket science.
I didn't make your point for you. I made an argument that was pretty much 180 opposite of yours. I want to restrict government. You seem to want to give government unlimited powers to restrict the people any way it wants to do. Don't expect any kind of support from me in your efforts there because reversal of that concept is what this thread is all about.
Too bad you can't find a single post of mine supporting this canard of yours.
"You seem to want to give government unlimited powers to restrict the people any way it wants to do."
Needless to say you will just ignore being called out because you cannot support your canard, just as you ignored the content of what I actually posted because you cannot refute any of it.
I don't have to refute it. Anybody reading the thread can see it. If you wish to make this something personal I suggest you take it to the FZ. Otherwise if you would enjoy discussing the topic we'll be happy to have you. Do have a nice day.
Nice place you got here. Hope it's fine if I jump in, though a bit late to this party.
10. Congress may allocate no funds or benefit, or make any regulation, establish any policy, or enact any law that benefits or disadvantage any individual, group, entity, or demographic that does not benefit or disadvantage all without respect for politics or socioeconomic status.
I see where you are going with this, and cronyism certainly is something to curtail as much as possible. Yet your wording suggests that, if Congress awards one person or entity $10bn to build something, it has to award that same benefit to every other person or entity. That would be odd.
Obviously, you didn't mean to express that. However, if it doesn't mean that - and I don't see how - and Congress can still award one person or entity a single contract that benefits this person or entity at the exclusion of all others, the possibility to buy "favours" still exists, unhampered.
While I agree with reinstating the tenth amendment, I do see a role for Federal government in ensuring that states honor civil liberties, particularly in regard to equal protection.
Why? What equal protection?
I can see a federal ruling that no state can discriminate based on skin color, religion, sexual orientation, etc. in delivery of state services. But how do you impose that on the private citizen without denying that citizen his/her unalienable right of association, self determination, how he/she uses his own property, etc.? Leave that up to the states and local communities to legislate and not the federal government.
Why is it ok for the state and local communities to deny you your inalienable right but not the federal government?
It isn't okay at all, but if it is going to happen, the people at least can leave a local community or state to find the liberties lost under a more local government. When such happens at the federal level, however, we have nowhere to go other than to lose our entire country.
If enough people leave a local government it will have to change or cease to exist. Such a solution is impractical and counter productive at the federal level.
No, they are far less likely. Unless, of course, you are in the majority and don't really care about what happens to the minorities. Historically, denies of personal liberties have been done primarily at the local level. I see no reason to think human beings have changed in the last couple of years.
I disagree. I believe people who enjoy the blessings of liberty will make mistakes but will learn from them and eventually get it right or at least more right. I have faith in the human capacity to make better choices when it is free to do so. I have far less faith in a permanent political class that exists mostly for its own self-serving interests in a powerful central government to do so. And I think an honest review of history will support me on that.
I don't think so. I think a reasonable argument can be made that a safety net for all is a "general benefit". I can't speak for Foxfyre, but I'm not out to kill any semblance of state welfare. The far greater evil is the widespread corporatism that comes from extending the concept to a broad tool for handing out favors or manipulating our economic decisions.
My purpose here is to strictly limit the federal government to Its original intent. The states and local communities would be as free as birds to create and implement whatever social welfare systems they wished to have.
Given the nature of our economy, the states can't do so. What a bank does in Oregon affects manufacturing in Georgia. We no longer live in the 18th century.
What the banks can and can't do is irrelevant to whatever social welfare system a state or local community wishes to have.
So you prefer a system doomed to failure. You think we should be a third world country?
I'm sorry, but this statement is just too silly to merit a response.
I don't think so. What I want is to curb the practice of using legislation and tax policy to reward or punish specific interest groups. Compensation and benefits offered to government employees is a different matter. We need wording that can capture that.
It won't be possible to create an ironclad rule here - it will always be possible for corrupt politicians to circumvent Constitutional limits - but we need to give the Court clear instructions on this matter. As it is, as Roberts made clear in the ACA ruling, using regulatory and tax policy to reward and punish people is accepted practice.
How about children with serious disabilities? Senior citizens with no other source of income? Do we wish to be a country which just lets the helpless starve?
Perhaps that is the first step in this process. Let's drop ideology for a time and focus on what kind of nation we want to be, and then we can look at what it is we need to do to become that nation.
I don't think so. I think a reasonable argument can be made that a safety net for all is a "general benefit". I can't speak for Foxfyre, but I'm not out to kill any semblance of state welfare. The far greater evil is the widespread corporatism that comes from extending the concept to a broad tool for handing out favors or manipulating our economic decisions.
Even there I think it is dangerous to tie the hands of the government. The last time we were faced with the serious potential of major banks failing and the government did nothing we found ourselves in a depression that only turned around with the advent of a world war. Should we have done again what was disastrous before?
I think it's more dangerous not to tie the hands of the government. Federal power to manipulate our economic fortunes is the driving force behind corporatism and I want to see separation of economy and state front and center in a new Constitution. It's every bit as important as keeping government out of religion, and for most of the same reasons.
No, it isn't. The driving force behind corporatism is the same as it always has been - greed. Take away government from the economy and you have a collapsed economy within a couple of decades.
Why? What equal protection?
I can see a federal ruling that no state can discriminate based on skin color, religion, sexual orientation, etc. in delivery of state services. But how do you impose that on the private citizen without denying that citizen his/her unalienable right of association, self determination, how he/she uses his own property, etc.? Leave that up to the states and local communities to legislate and not the federal government.
Why is it ok for the state and local communities to deny you your inalienable right but not the federal government?
It isn't okay at all, but if it is going to happen, the people at least can leave a local community or state to find the liberties lost under a more local government. When such happens at the federal level, however, we have nowhere to go other than to lose our entire country.
If enough people leave a local government it will have to change or cease to exist. Such a solution is impractical and counter productive at the federal level.
No, they are far less likely. Unless, of course, you are in the majority and don't really care about what happens to the minorities. Historically, denies of personal liberties have been done primarily at the local level. I see no reason to think human beings have changed in the last couple of years.
I disagree. I believe people who enjoy the blessings of liberty will make mistakes but will learn from them and eventually get it right or at least more right. I have faith in the human capacity to make better choices when it is free to do so. I have far less faith in a permanent political class that exists mostly for its own self-serving interests in a powerful central government to do so. And I think an honest review of history will support me on that.
Yes. I agree. But then a couple of generations come, people get used to that liberty and decide it is their due rather than something to be continuously earned. Then they want to make the same mistakes again. I am happy you have faith, but I shall base my conclusions upon observations of human nature as it actually is.
I have no great faith in a permanent political class either, but the permanent political class at the state level is no different than at the national level, just more likely to use its power to deny personal liberties. Again, as has been demonstrated by history - repeatedly.
My purpose here is to strictly limit the federal government to Its original intent. The states and local communities would be as free as birds to create and implement whatever social welfare systems they wished to have.
Given the nature of our economy, the states can't do so. What a bank does in Oregon affects manufacturing in Georgia. We no longer live in the 18th century.
What the banks can and can't do is irrelevant to whatever social welfare system a state or local community wishes to have.
So you prefer a system doomed to failure. You think we should be a third world country?
I'm sorry, but this statement is just too silly to merit a response.
Why not? I responded to your post about your faith. At least mine was based in reality.
A strong national government is needed for society to function well. Strong does not necessarily equal largeFederalism can work with the bulk of power being either national or state. If the later, how much power should be given to the states?
Show us the history in which a people with their rights secured eventually accomplished these utopian goals?Why is it ok for the state and local communities to deny you your inalienable right but not the federal government?
It isn't okay at all, but if it is going to happen, the people at least can leave a local community or state to find the liberties lost under a more local government. When such happens at the federal level, however, we have nowhere to go other than to lose our entire country.
If enough people leave a local government it will have to change or cease to exist. Such a solution is impractical and counter productive at the federal level.
No, they are far less likely. Unless, of course, you are in the majority and don't really care about what happens to the minorities. Historically, denies of personal liberties have been done primarily at the local level. I see no reason to think human beings have changed in the last couple of years.
I disagree. I believe people who enjoy the blessings of liberty will make mistakes but will learn from them and eventually get it right or at least more right. I have faith in the human capacity to make better choices when it is free to do so. I have far less faith in a permanent political class that exists mostly for its own self-serving interests in a powerful central government to do so. And I think an honest review of history will support me on that.
Yes. I agree. But then a couple of generations come, people get used to that liberty and decide it is their due rather than something to be continuously earned. Then they want to make the same mistakes again. I am happy you have faith, but I shall base my conclusions upon observations of human nature as it actually is.
I have no great faith in a permanent political class either, but the permanent political class at the state level is no different than at the national level, just more likely to use its power to deny personal liberties. Again, as has been demonstrated by history - repeatedly.
When you can show me history in which a people with their rights secured did not eventually figure out how to make a better life for everybody with liberty as opposed to governments given a lot of power to direct the lives of the people, you will make a good argument. Until then I'll stick with mine.
A free people must be free to get it wrong, to make mistakes, to screw up, to be morons if that is what they choose to be. But I have faith that most people will choose to get it right, to strive for excellence, to fix what's broken when they are given liberty to do so and when they profit from getting it right more than they profit from doing it wrong. And I believe it is much easier to recognize and deal with little problems in the city or state than it is trying to fix a massive federal government once it goes wrong.
The Founders knew that there is no liberty if some are given power to dictate the rights that others will have. Those in government understood that very well and had no problem with understanding that they were limited to what the government [Constitution?] stated they could do. That is why the original Constitution was intended to strictly restrict the power of the federal government and give all power to the people to form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have and to discipline and govern themselves. No despot, dictatorship, monarchy, papacy, or other totalitarian form of government would be allowed to develop.
And up until the turn of the 20th Century when the people failed to object to increasing power grabs by the federal government, every President and congress interpreted the constitutional restrictions on federal government the same:
“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves ; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.” ― Thomas Jefferson, Letters of Thomas Jefferson
Probably most USMB members have some familiarity with at least some of the U.S. Constitution and most have strong opinions about what the Constitution does and does not protect/provide/accomplish.
It might be an interesting discussion to have our own little Constitutional convention here and discuss what we would want to retain and what we would change of the original Constitution if the people decided to write a new one.
For instance, the Preamble of the Original Constitution is 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 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.
The problem with the wording, however descriptive and elegant, is that we might have trouble in agreeing on what a 'more perfect union' is, what components of justice the federal government should be involved in, or what constitutes 'domestic tranquility'. Certainly there are broad disputes as to what is included in the 'general welfare' and strong opposing views on what 'blessings of liberty' actually are.
My proposal for a preamble for a new constitution would be something more like this:
We the people, in order to ensure peaceful cooperation and commerce between the various states, provide for the common defense, promote justice and the general welfare without prejudice or favoritism, and secure the unalienable rights and blessings of liberty for every citizen, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.
What would you want a new Constitution for the United State of America to accomplish that the old one does not seem to do?
But you see, when we make it mandatory that if the government gives one person $10 billion to build something, it has to give everybody $10 billion to build something, then it can't give anybody anything because it is impossible to give that $10 billion to all.
It can't give the green energy people grants to do green energy projects without giving the same grants to everybody else to do whatever. Even the oil and coal companies. That would prevent the federal government from picking winners and losers or utilizing any kind of favoritism as to who could receive grants and would result in those kinds of expenditures not being made at the federal level.
And at a more philosophical level, we need to return to the concept that the federal government be given no ability to tax the people or confiscate any form of the people's property for anything that the federal government is not mandated to do. If that concept can be clarified as the original constitution intended, it eliminates almost all the current uglies and misconduct that now exists.
In the interest of dwindling resources of anything, it could be appropriate for the federal government to fund a research project and call in experts from all producers of that resource to find a solution that would benefit the entire country. Beating the Russians to the moon was that kind of government project. So was the Hubble telescope. And such projects that are free of partisan motives generally result in much unexpected benefit to all.
But I have faith that most people will choose to get it right, to strive for excellence, to fix what's broken when they are given liberty to do so and when they profit from getting it right more than they profit from doing it wrong. And I believe it is much easier to recognize and deal with little problems in the city or state than it is trying to fix a massive federal government once it goes wrong.
But I have faith that most people will choose to get it right, to strive for excellence, to fix what's broken when they are given liberty to do so and when they profit from getting it right more than they profit from doing it wrong. And I believe it is much easier to recognize and deal with little problems in the city or state than it is trying to fix a massive federal government once it goes wrong.
I don't agree with that statement because here we are, 50 years after the Civil Acts Right was passed and we still have people (and politicians) who want businesses to be able to discriminate. We would still have slaves if Lincoln hadn't made it illegal. Allowing time to take care of the wrongs may sound okay for those not being targeted, but hell for those that are.
As for the cities and states, the majority are going to rule, regardless of the majority in the other 49 states who may be for or against a certain action, which just complicates things even more..... it would end up benefitting the rich and hurting the poor.
Like abortion. It used to be legal in some states and not in others, and only the rich were able to go to the states where it was legal. Now we have Medicaid....certain conservative led states refused to accept the Federal government money allocated, and many low income people, including conservatives, are unable to have health care and in many cases are no longer eligible for Medicaid.
The Founders knew that there is no liberty if some are given power to dictate the rights that others will have. Those in government understood that very well and had no problem with understanding that they were limited to what the government [Constitution?] stated they could do. That is why the original Constitution was intended to strictly restrict the power of the federal government and give all power to the people to form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have and to discipline and govern themselves. No despot, dictatorship, monarchy, papacy, or other totalitarian form of government would be allowed to develop.
And up until the turn of the 20th Century when the people failed to object to increasing power grabs by the federal government, every President and congress interpreted the constitutional restrictions on federal government the same:
“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves ; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.” ― Thomas Jefferson, Letters of Thomas Jefferson
I love this thread. I really do.
If I understand your argument correctly, you would want to restore the current Constitution to its originally intended meaning, and now quote Jefferson to the effect that educating the people would be the way to go about it, since the people's educated attention and enlightened demands would be the ultimate safeguard for rights as enshrined in the Constitution. Correct? And no re-writing it, whether by amendment, or by beginning from scratch, would ultimately be helpful if that seemingly failed education wasn't remedied, because the re-written Constitution wasn't safeguarded and thus bound to fail, and in the same way and for the same reason the current one is (allegedly) failing.
I still don't understand your intent to write a NEW Constitution that would implement the original intent of the old one. You'd have to do a better job of it than the Founding Fathers, and that is assuming you (we) can discern their original intent. If so, good luck with that.
Not that I would ever dare to tell you what to do with your thread, Foxfyre, but, since I find we're meandering somewhat aimlessly here, I'd like to make a recommendation: Before assuming what is arguably the most complex writing task any society can undertake, why not take a (historically) preceding step first, and write what would be the Declaration of Independence (from the current Constitutional order)? [Well, fear from sounding pompous when writing about writing a Constitution isn't an option.]
That would involve...
1) setting out a guiding principle (or guiding principles), as in "born equal".
2) collecting information on, and systematically grouping and organising a list of grievances and complaints raised against the current Constitutional (dis-) order.
3) determining, in light of both principle(s) and grievances what the appropriate steps would be to secure an order of society and state more conducive towards the common welfare and in line with the principle(s) set out above.
Maybe, once that's done, we'd arrive on more secure ground, and even receive some direction?
How about children with serious disabilities? Senior citizens with no other source of income? Do we wish to be a country which just lets the helpless starve?
Perhaps that is the first step in this process. Let's drop ideology for a time and focus on what kind of nation we want to be, and then we can look at what it is we need to do to become that nation.
I don't think so. I think a reasonable argument can be made that a safety net for all is a "general benefit". I can't speak for Foxfyre, but I'm not out to kill any semblance of state welfare. The far greater evil is the widespread corporatism that comes from extending the concept to a broad tool for handing out favors or manipulating our economic decisions.
Even there I think it is dangerous to tie the hands of the government. The last time we were faced with the serious potential of major banks failing and the government did nothing we found ourselves in a depression that only turned around with the advent of a world war. Should we have done again what was disastrous before?
I think it's more dangerous not to tie the hands of the government. Federal power to manipulate our economic fortunes is the driving force behind corporatism and I want to see separation of economy and state front and center in a new Constitution. It's every bit as important as keeping government out of religion, and for most of the same reasons.
No, it isn't. The driving force behind corporatism is the same as it always has been - greed. Take away government from the economy and you have a collapsed economy within a couple of decades.
I'm talking about the style of government known as corporatism - Corporatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia - which is founded on government power to regulate economic interests.
Why is it ok for the state and local communities to deny you your inalienable right but not the federal government?
It isn't okay at all, but if it is going to happen, the people at least can leave a local community or state to find the liberties lost under a more local government. When such happens at the federal level, however, we have nowhere to go other than to lose our entire country.
If enough people leave a local government it will have to change or cease to exist. Such a solution is impractical and counter productive at the federal level.
No, they are far less likely. Unless, of course, you are in the majority and don't really care about what happens to the minorities. Historically, denies of personal liberties have been done primarily at the local level. I see no reason to think human beings have changed in the last couple of years.
I disagree. I believe people who enjoy the blessings of liberty will make mistakes but will learn from them and eventually get it right or at least more right. I have faith in the human capacity to make better choices when it is free to do so. I have far less faith in a permanent political class that exists mostly for its own self-serving interests in a powerful central government to do so. And I think an honest review of history will support me on that.
Yes. I agree. But then a couple of generations come, people get used to that liberty and decide it is their due rather than something to be continuously earned. Then they want to make the same mistakes again. I am happy you have faith, but I shall base my conclusions upon observations of human nature as it actually is.
I have no great faith in a permanent political class either, but the permanent political class at the state level is no different than at the national level, just more likely to use its power to deny personal liberties. Again, as has been demonstrated by history - repeatedly.
When you can show me history in which a people with their rights secured did not eventually figure out how to make a better life for everybody with liberty as opposed to governments given a lot of power to direct the lives of the people, you will make a good argument. Until then I'll stick with mine.
A free people must be free to get it wrong, to make mistakes, to screw up, to be morons if that is what they choose to be. But I have faith that most people will choose to get it right, to strive for excellence, to fix what's broken when they are given liberty to do so and when they profit from getting it right more than they profit from doing it wrong. And I believe it is much easier to recognize and deal with little problems in the city or state than it is trying to fix a massive federal government once it goes wrong.
Given the nature of our economy, the states can't do so. What a bank does in Oregon affects manufacturing in Georgia. We no longer live in the 18th century.
What the banks can and can't do is irrelevant to whatever social welfare system a state or local community wishes to have.
So you prefer a system doomed to failure. You think we should be a third world country?
I'm sorry, but this statement is just too silly to merit a response.
Why not? I responded to your post about your faith. At least mine was based in reality.
At least mine was based on what I have actually argued and not what you made of it with that statement.
