CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Foxfyre]

It's not though. Freedom is messy. And inevitably pragmatic. Because it acknowledges the way people really are. People aren't ants. We're surly, stubborn and diverse. Letting people think for themselves guarantees that some of us will fail, but in that failure, we'll learn.

Deluding ourselves with the belief that there is one right way to live, and setting government on the task of marching everyone down that road, IS utopian and, if history has taught us anything, ends badly.

The simple answer is simple, if one feels paying for health insurance is an egregious assault on their freedom, then the alternative used by millions of other people world wide who lacked freedom is to go to another country.

There are plenty of people who have come to our shores from oppressive countries where in fact freedom was just another word. Asserting as you do that being required to pay for health insurance is an assault on your liberty is absurd. By relying on the community in which you reside to take care of you when you get hit by a bus or fall off a cliff is the antithesis of someone who is personally responsible.

It is not acceptable to me to have to give up my country in order to have the liberty to live my life as I choose so long as I do not infringe on the rights of others.

Of course not. But thinking through through the issue the uninsured will be infringing on others by using their tax dollars to pick them up when they hit the ground. A tax supported ambulance will take them to the nearest ER which will treat them, and dump them on the nearest public hospital, where we, the taxpaying public, will continue to provide them the care they need.

Of course the ER, if not a public hospital, will charge its responsible patients a fee higher, do to the need to treat the scofflaws. And those who have health insurance and are personally responsible will need to buy tires, shocks and struts after hitting all the pot holes not fixed for lack of local resources, wait longer when calling 911 do to a lack of public resources, and of course see fees raised to buy our dogs' tags, get a permit for home repairs, and wait days for the county to sign off costing the contractor time which is money.

You are mixing federal government with local government. Federal government was not intended to do what the people, via social contract, choose to do with local government. All the federal government needs to do is NOT interfere with what people choose to do at the local level in order to restore all the concept of liberty that the Founders intended with the original constitution.

That's ^^^ ridiculous. I've told this story before, but it is worth repeating.

My first job in LE allowed me access to FBI rap sheets. I noticed that many of the dispositions coming from the deep south note "Floater". I asked my then supervisor what is a "Floater". He told me that, "whenever someone - usually a Negro - committed a minor crime, rather than spend the money to try them, jail them, feed them, etc. the criminal justice system simply put them on a bus to California."

It doesn't take a genius to extrapolate this into a broken system where each state and each local community made their own rules, many times to the disadvantage of other states or communities.

So if your state wants to give somebody the option of leaving the state or staying to face the judge or just ignore whatever law is broken, that is the price we pay in order to give liberty. Liberty does not assume that everything will always be just or fair or right or effective. Liberty is the ability to be who and what we are regardless of what anybody else thinks about it.

Under liberty, the folks in California would have every right to choose to accommodate your floater or choose to expect him/her to support himself/herself or leave.

The role of the federal government would not be to dictate to either state what their laws or processes must be other than to insist that whatever laws are adopted, they apply uniformly to all citizens.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The simple answer is simple, if one feels paying for health insurance is an egregious assault on their freedom, then the alternative used by millions of other people world wide who lacked freedom is to go to another country.

There are plenty of people who have come to our shores from oppressive countries where in fact freedom was just another word. Asserting as you do that being required to pay for health insurance is an assault on your liberty is absurd. By relying on the community in which you reside to take care of you when you get hit by a bus or fall off a cliff is the antithesis of someone who is personally responsible.

It is not acceptable to me to have to give up my country in order to have the liberty to live my life as I choose so long as I do not infringe on the rights of others.

Of course not. But thinking through through the issue the uninsured will be infringing on others by using their tax dollars to pick them up when they hit the ground. A tax supported ambulance will take them to the nearest ER which will treat them, and dump them on the nearest public hospital, where we, the taxpaying public, will continue to provide them the care they need.

Of course the ER, if not a public hospital, will charge its responsible patients a fee higher, do to the need to treat the scofflaws. And those who have health insurance and are personally responsible will need to buy tires, shocks and struts after hitting all the pot holes not fixed for lack of local resources, wait longer when calling 911 do to a lack of public resources, and of course see fees raised to buy our dogs' tags, get a permit for home repairs, and wait days for the county to sign off costing the contractor time which is money.

You are mixing federal government with local government. Federal government was not intended to do what the people, via social contract, choose to do with local government. All the federal government needs to do is NOT interfere with what people choose to do at the local level in order to restore all the concept of liberty that the Founders intended with the original constitution.

That's ^^^ ridiculous. I've told this story before, but it is worth repeating.

My first job in LE allowed me access to FBI rap sheets. I noticed that many of the dispositions coming from the deep south note "Floater". I asked my then supervisor what is a "Floater". He told me that, "whenever someone - usually a Negro - committed a minor crime, rather than spend the money to try them, jail them, feed them, etc. the criminal justice system simply put them on a bus to California."

It doesn't take a genius to extrapolate this into a broken system where each state and each local community made their own rules, many times to the disadvantage of other states or communities.

So if your state wants to give somebody the option of leaving the state or staying to face the judge or just ignore whatever law is broken, that is the price we pay in order to give liberty. Liberty does not assume that everything will always be just or fair or right or effective. Liberty is the ability to be who and what we are regardless of what anybody else thinks about it.

Under liberty, the folks in California would have every right to choose to accommodate your floater or choose to expect him/her to support himself/herself or leave.

The role of the federal government would not be to dictate to either state what their laws or processes must be other than to insist that whatever laws are adopted, they apply uniformly to all citizens.

You missed the point entirely. The deep south states were dumping their criminals on California. Needless to say you would be outraged if CA was exporting their criminals to New Mexico instead of dealing with them.

 

[Wry Catcher]

1. A POTUS needing to not be concerned with any future election will be more likely to not play the game of politics and to function in the best interest of the nation, not only his or her base, and less likely to accommodate donors and thus more likely to listen to a wider range of opinions and not simply the deep pocket special interests.

2. I disagree. The Line-Item Veto works very well in the States, where governors have some greater control over the budget. We all know that logrolling, earmarks and other efforts to aid party members in the reelection to the legislature by bringing money to their constituency is common practice. A POTUS not running again can more easily strike out such unnecessary largess from the Federal Budget.

3. I disagree. The Bar Association is a special interest and a very politically asute one.

4. I do not want to see special interests (SI) have the ability to put a referendum on a national ballot. Every election in CA we see efforts by the SI with deep pockets putting men and women out front of major retail stores seeking signatures on a petition for an initiative in CA. Using the tools of demagogues they are able to earn .50 cents a signature from registered voters in a hurry to take care of their shopping and fall prey to efforts to benefit the few at the expense of the many.

5. Congress self regulates now, as each member acts in his or her own self interest. One Senator has more power than the POTUS, and one Committee Chairperson has the ability to table any item which may effect his or her future reelection.

6. http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf

1. I find it naive to assume that any POTUS would no longer care about his party's success in case he need not worry about his own re-election.

2. That's for me a matter of principle, that is, separation of powers. The Executive should not have any control over legislation, other than to ensure that it's Constitutional, and even then only if the Judiciary agrees.

3. I am not wedded to the Bar Association, and am open to any other suggestion. Since they're rating nominees anyway, why not use their expertise? The fact that they're "politically astute" probably doesn't distinguish them from any other body you might care to mention.

4. If you distrust the people, and their ability to make reasonable choices, why care for a referendum at all? I might agree, however, that funding / taxes better remain the prerogative of Congress, as voting on extended government services in conjunction with a certain unwillingness to pay for same would bankrupt the nation. But then, listening to the "debt-screechers", that wouldn't be that different from what Congress is doing to the nation.

5. Such is the extent of legislative power as organised according to the supreme legislative body's self-imposed rules. If you don't trust the legislators, and don't really trust the people either, why bother with democracy at all? I find, the Founders had a clear picture of the self-serving nature of humankind, and I further find the surprise that legislators are no exception, that they are just like us, rather puzzling. Democracy must, and can, withstand that, as long as there are proper checks within and across governing bodies.

6. As I said, I agree that Justices should submit to the same rules as do Federal Judges.

Oh, and BTW, how about doing away with the FPTP system, as this is where the whole gerrymandering business originates with the sole aim to thwart the will of the people? How about allotting representatives according to the proportion of votes in each state? Oh, and I think the outdated Electoral College needs to go as well.

___________________________________________

But why go to the time and expense of a formal referendum if it has no binding effect on what Congress does? Polling groups do just as good a job--probably better--to test the temperament of the people. Or a Congressman or Senator could poll his constituency via the internet. Voter turnout is pitiful enough when the vote matters.

I have to agree with that. Except that I find whether pollsters would do a better job or not is an open question.

In re # 6, see:

In California Citizens Control the Redistricting Process and It Works IVN.us

A referendum has no legal authority, but when a majority, or super majority, votes "hell no" or "hell yes" pols listen.

1. I find it naive to believe a lame duck POTUS wouldn't put his or her legacy before a political party.

2. I respectfully disagree. The Legislature can still override a line-item veto, and the Judiciary should have no input in the budget (I have personal experience with judges ordering LE to do very costly activities, costs the courts would not budget for).

3. Again, I disagree. The Bar Association can be consulted but they are not beholden to the voter, and as such they're accountable only to their needs and, sadly, whims.

4. I do trust the people, but agree but budets need to be passed by elected officials on a simple majority vote, not the high hurdle of 2/3 plus one. That is what caused the great mess we had in California and which the wisdom of the voter recently changed. Those who pass budgets need to be clear, if money is needed revenue must be obtained.

5. Well, there are no checks on the rules established by the Senate or the H. of Rep.; there is nothing in the COTUS which establishes filibusters, for example.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The simple answer is simple, if one feels paying for health insurance is an egregious assault on their freedom, then the alternative used by millions of other people world wide who lacked freedom is to go to another country.

There are plenty of people who have come to our shores from oppressive countries where in fact freedom was just another word. Asserting as you do that being required to pay for health insurance is an assault on your liberty is absurd. By relying on the community in which you reside to take care of you when you get hit by a bus or fall off a cliff is the antithesis of someone who is personally responsible.

It is not acceptable to me to have to give up my country in order to have the liberty to live my life as I choose so long as I do not infringe on the rights of others.

Of course not. But thinking through through the issue the uninsured will be infringing on others by using their tax dollars to pick them up when they hit the ground. A tax supported ambulance will take them to the nearest ER which will treat them, and dump them on the nearest public hospital, where we, the taxpaying public, will continue to provide them the care they need.

Of course the ER, if not a public hospital, will charge its responsible patients a fee higher, do to the need to treat the scofflaws. And those who have health insurance and are personally responsible will need to buy tires, shocks and struts after hitting all the pot holes not fixed for lack of local resources, wait longer when calling 911 do to a lack of public resources, and of course see fees raised to buy our dogs' tags, get a permit for home repairs, and wait days for the county to sign off costing the contractor time which is money.

You are mixing federal government with local government. Federal government was not intended to do what the people, via social contract, choose to do with local government. All the federal government needs to do is NOT interfere with what people choose to do at the local level in order to restore all the concept of liberty that the Founders intended with the original constitution.

That's ^^^ ridiculous. I've told this story before, but it is worth repeating.

My first job in LE allowed me access to FBI rap sheets. I noticed that many of the dispositions coming from the deep south note "Floater". I asked my then supervisor what is a "Floater". He told me that, "whenever someone - usually a Negro - committed a minor crime, rather than spend the money to try them, jail them, feed them, etc. the criminal justice system simply put them on a bus to California."

It doesn't take a genius to extrapolate this into a broken system where each state and each local community made their own rules, many times to the disadvantage of other states or communities.

So if your state wants to give somebody the option of leaving the state or staying to face the judge or just ignore whatever law is broken, that is the price we pay in order to give liberty. Liberty does not assume that everything will always be just or fair or right or effective. Liberty is the ability to be who and what we are regardless of what anybody else thinks about it.

Under liberty, the folks in California would have every right to choose to accommodate your floater or choose to expect him/her to support himself/herself or leave.

The role of the federal government would not be to dictate to either state what their laws or processes must be other than to insist that whatever laws are adopted, they apply uniformly to all citizens.

I think you've missed the point.

The role of government in the first and last analysis is to Govern, and govern within the vision and mission statement of the Preamble as written, not as you would like it to be.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is not acceptable to me to have to give up my country in order to have the liberty to live my life as I choose so long as I do not infringe on the rights of others.

Of course not. But thinking through through the issue the uninsured will be infringing on others by using their tax dollars to pick them up when they hit the ground. A tax supported ambulance will take them to the nearest ER which will treat them, and dump them on the nearest public hospital, where we, the taxpaying public, will continue to provide them the care they need.

Of course the ER, if not a public hospital, will charge its responsible patients a fee higher, do to the need to treat the scofflaws. And those who have health insurance and are personally responsible will need to buy tires, shocks and struts after hitting all the pot holes not fixed for lack of local resources, wait longer when calling 911 do to a lack of public resources, and of course see fees raised to buy our dogs' tags, get a permit for home repairs, and wait days for the county to sign off costing the contractor time which is money.

You are mixing federal government with local government. Federal government was not intended to do what the people, via social contract, choose to do with local government. All the federal government needs to do is NOT interfere with what people choose to do at the local level in order to restore all the concept of liberty that the Founders intended with the original constitution.

That's ^^^ ridiculous. I've told this story before, but it is worth repeating.

My first job in LE allowed me access to FBI rap sheets. I noticed that many of the dispositions coming from the deep south note "Floater". I asked my then supervisor what is a "Floater". He told me that, "whenever someone - usually a Negro - committed a minor crime, rather than spend the money to try them, jail them, feed them, etc. the criminal justice system simply put them on a bus to California."

It doesn't take a genius to extrapolate this into a broken system where each state and each local community made their own rules, many times to the disadvantage of other states or communities.

So if your state wants to give somebody the option of leaving the state or staying to face the judge or just ignore whatever law is broken, that is the price we pay in order to give liberty. Liberty does not assume that everything will always be just or fair or right or effective. Liberty is the ability to be who and what we are regardless of what anybody else thinks about it.

Under liberty, the folks in California would have every right to choose to accommodate your floater or choose to expect him/her to support himself/herself or leave.

The role of the federal government would not be to dictate to either state what their laws or processes must be other than to insist that whatever laws are adopted, they apply uniformly to all citizens.

I think you've missed the point.

The role of government in the first and last analysis is to Govern, and govern within the vision and mission statement of the Preamble as written, not as you would like it to be.

The Founders did not want a government that governs. They wanted a free people who govern themselves and assign the government the authority it will have.

And perhaps you missed the point of the thread which is to explore how to improve the existing Constitution, most especially when it is interpreted differently by different people or groups. The existing Preamble should be looked at in that context along with everything else because it obviously is not interpreted the same by everybody.

 

[Foxfyre]

Variations of the following is being offered for consideration by The Heritage Foundation, among others, as a sort of modern 'Declaration of Independence'.

Does anybody here have any quarrel with it in whole or in part?

We believe in the spirit of our Founding Fathers and come together from across the nation to sign the following Declaration, reaffirming our belief in the principles on which our nation was founded.

We believe this nation is uniquely dedicated to the universal principles of human liberty: that all are fundamentally equal and equally endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The U.S. government is intended to be limited so that we have the liberty and opportunity to live our lives, control our fates, and pursue our own happiness.

We believe in the right to the rewards of our own labor—the promise that we Americans can keep what we earn and that this makes possible a society in which every member can work hard, pursue opportunity, and advance in life based on individual talent and ability. In this America, success comes from hard work and personal merit rather than from entitlement or aristocracy.

We believe that the primary duties of the federal government in regard to the economy are to guarantee the equal rights of the individual, destroy barriers to opportunity, and uphold the rule of law. Because economic opportunity will be available to everyone, the people will have great incentive to earn more, save more, and invest in more opportunities for the future. This means more enterprise and more economic activity.

We believe that the primary duties of the federal government in regard to the economy are to guarantee the equal rights of the individual, destroy barriers to opportunity, and uphold the rule of law. Rather than acting to guarantee economic outcomes, government should provide the sturdy framework for opportunity, economic growth, and human flourishing.

We believe it is the constitutional duty of the federal government to secure the country’s international borders in order to strengthen and preserve its constitutional government.

But liberty does not belong only to this country. The United States must also continue to recognize its special responsibility to support the cause of liberty in the world.

We believe the ability to freely worship and to act in accordance with a particular faith without fear of government reprisal is essential to civil society. Together we stand in defiance of any edict that compels our people, our businesses, or our institutions to participate in any act that impedes our ability to freely worship or to act in accordance with our faith.

However, over-reaching government and a growing disregard for the role of faith in public life have led to increasing erosions of religious liberty. Together we stand in defiance of any edict that compels our institutions to participate in any act that impedes our ability to freely worship or to act in accordance with a particular faith without fear of government reprisal.

We emphatically reject today’s welfare and regulatory state. “We the people” demand less of our federal government rather than more. We demand that all branches of government recognize the clear constitutional limits to its powers.

Government must perform its proper responsibilities effectively through the three distinct branches of federal government, through all 50 states and through thousands of counties and local municipalities. We demand that the government recognize the clear constitutional limits to its powers.

As individuals, we sign our names in full support of the above principles.

Together, we represent a unified front to support America’s foundational ideals. We reject the progressive efforts to dismantle our nation's foundations and will work tirelessly for the restoration of our constitutional republic.

 

[Olde Europe]

1. I find it naive to believe a lame duck POTUS wouldn't put his or her legacy before a political party.

2. I respectfully disagree. The Legislature can still override a line-item veto, and the Judiciary should have no input in the budget (I have personal experience with judges ordering LE to do very costly activities, costs the courts would not budget for).

3. Again, I disagree. The Bar Association can be consulted but they are not beholden to the voter, and as such they're accountable only to their needs and, sadly, whims.

4. I do trust the people, but agree but budets need to be passed by elected officials on a simple majority vote, not the high hurdle of 2/3 plus one. That is what caused the great mess we had in California and which the wisdom of the voter recently changed. Those who pass budgets need to be clear, if money is needed revenue must be obtained.

5. Well, there are no checks on the rules established by the Senate or the H. of Rep.; there is nothing in the COTUS which establishes filibusters, for example.

1. You make it appear that the two are irreconcilable, mutually exclusive. I'd opine, if you check the records of any president's eighth and last year in office, you'll not find they disagree with their party any more than during the years before. I, for one, have not seen the like.

2. You'll have to forgive me if I don't assign much value to the details of how a veto is being organised, when it remains a breach of principle all the same, and yes, I know, vetoes can be overridden. (I have no objections to judges ordering costly procedures in case they are legally or Constitutionally required, either directly or by implication, in case, for instance, a judge finds that a Constitutionally guaranteed right needs stronger protections. None whatsoever. Of course, LE have every option put their minds to work to figure out ways to make that procedure less costly, or petition lawmakers to change the law.)

3. Voters have their say on who writes the laws. They should not have a direct say on the application of the law, or the interpretation of what the law or the Constitution means, just as they shall not have a say on what cancer is, or gravity. That requires skills far beyond those of most of the voters, skills I find in the Bar Association, and that makes them more appealing to me than a bunch of politicos who would much rather look at a would-be justice's political leanings, or even his or her underwear, to decide whether their vote should be up or down.

4. Glad we agree on that one.

5. I know there's nothing about any of that in the Constitution; that's why I spoke of "self-governing" bodies. Again, I have to ask, if you don't trust your representatives to regulate their own affairs, why would you place any trust in them on any matter at all, such as regulating citizens' behaviour? Of course there are checks, in that rules that a majority find do not work will likely be changed.

____________________________________________

Variations of the following is being offered for consideration by The Heritage Foundation, among others, as a sort of modern 'Declaration of Independence'.

Does anybody here have any quarrel with it in whole or in part?

Yeah, that's crap from start to finish, from the hypocrisy of keeping what we "earn" to the sanctimony of public declarations of faith, from the pledge to the sanctity of the plutocracy to the pledge to look the other way as the devil eats the hindmost under the guise of "limited government", which inevitably becomes pretty unlimited once female reproduction or the purchase of weapon systems are involved, but it's far too much crap to bother shovelling it out.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Variations of the following is being offered for consideration by The Heritage Foundation, among others, as a sort of modern 'Declaration of Independence'.

Does anybody here have any quarrel with it in whole or in part?

We believe in the spirit of our Founding Fathers and come together from across the nation to sign the following Declaration, reaffirming our belief in the principles on which our nation was founded.

We believe this nation is uniquely dedicated to the universal principles of human liberty: that all are fundamentally equal and equally endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The U.S. government is intended to be limited so that we have the liberty and opportunity to live our lives, control our fates, and pursue our own happiness.

We believe in the right to the rewards of our own labor—the promise that we Americans can keep what we earn and that this makes possible a society in which every member can work hard, pursue opportunity, and advance in life based on individual talent and ability. In this America, success comes from hard work and personal merit rather than from entitlement or aristocracy.

We believe that the primary duties of the federal government in regard to the economy are to guarantee the equal rights of the individual, destroy barriers to opportunity, and uphold the rule of law. Because economic opportunity will be available to everyone, the people will have great incentive to earn more, save more, and invest in more opportunities for the future. This means more enterprise and more economic activity.

We believe that the primary duties of the federal government in regard to the economy are to guarantee the equal rights of the individual, destroy barriers to opportunity, and uphold the rule of law. Rather than acting to guarantee economic outcomes, government should provide the sturdy framework for opportunity, economic growth, and human flourishing.

We believe it is the constitutional duty of the federal government to secure the country’s international borders in order to strengthen and preserve its constitutional government.

But liberty does not belong only to this country. The United States must also continue to recognize its special responsibility to support the cause of liberty in the world.

We believe the ability to freely worship and to act in accordance with a particular faith without fear of government reprisal is essential to civil society. Together we stand in defiance of any edict that compels our people, our businesses, or our institutions to participate in any act that impedes our ability to freely worship or to act in accordance with our faith.

However, over-reaching government and a growing disregard for the role of faith in public life have led to increasing erosions of religious liberty. Together we stand in defiance of any edict that compels our institutions to participate in any act that impedes our ability to freely worship or to act in accordance with a particular faith without fear of government reprisal.

We emphatically reject today’s welfare and regulatory state. “We the people” demand less of our federal government rather than more. We demand that all branches of government recognize the clear constitutional limits to its powers.

Government must perform its proper responsibilities effectively through the three distinct branches of federal government, through all 50 states and through thousands of counties and local municipalities. We demand that the government recognize the clear constitutional limits to its powers.

As individuals, we sign our names in full support of the above principles.

Together, we represent a unified front to support America’s foundational ideals. We reject the progressive efforts to dismantle our nation's foundations and will work tirelessly for the restoration of our constitutional republic.

Unworkable Libertarian Utopia declaration that would never be ratified because it would never work in real life. It grants all power to the plutocrats and theocrats and none to We the People.

 

[dblack]

I want a system in which everybody benefits from the good and everybody suffers the consequences of the bad so that everybody has incentive to want good government and not just government that benefits them personally.

I think this is key, and restoring equal protection should be a top priority in a new constitution. Corporatism undermines freedom and democracy and sets government up as the ubiquitous mediator in every social interaction. We need to make it abundantly clear the purpose of government is to protect the equal rights of all the people, not to parse out favors to special interests.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And we're not in a hot and humid room during a summer in Philadelphia. Imagine the discourse there, behind closed doors from May to Sept. 1787. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall.

 

[Foxfyre]

Variations of the following is being offered for consideration by The Heritage Foundation, among others, as a sort of modern 'Declaration of Independence'.

Does anybody here have any quarrel with it in whole or in part?

Yeah, that's crap from start to finish, from the hypocrisy of keeping what we "earn" to the sanctimony of public declarations of faith, from the pledge to the sanctity of the plutocracy to the pledge to look the other way as the devil eats the hindmost under the guise of "limited government", which inevitably becomes pretty unlimited once female reproduction or the purchase of weapon systems are involved, but it's far too much crap to bother shovelling it out.

And here is the crux of the problem. How you interpret those statements is very different from how I and many other interpret those statements. For the record, I am not convinced I could agree to each and every one of them, and I am pretty sure anybody who sees them all as crap wouldn't have a clue which ones I might have a problem with.

 

[percysunshine]

.

Having Senators limited to serve two 6 year terms is the only thing I would change if I had a say in the matter.

.

 

[Olde Europe]

And here is the crux of the problem. How you interpret those statements is very different from how I and many other interpret those statements.

That was those statements' purpose, in their obscurity and vagueness to appeal to the faithful, to rally the base behind a sound-cloud of dog whistles. To the others, who see each and every paragraph's downside, it is plainly repellent, but for them the authors plainly do not care.

 

[dblack]

Variations of the following is being offered for consideration by The Heritage Foundation, among others, as a sort of modern 'Declaration of Independence'.

Does anybody here have any quarrel with it in whole or in part?

Yeah, that's crap from start to finish, from the hypocrisy of keeping what we "earn" to the sanctimony of public declarations of faith, from the pledge to the sanctity of the plutocracy to the pledge to look the other way as the devil eats the hindmost under the guise of "limited government", which inevitably becomes pretty unlimited once female reproduction or the purchase of weapon systems are involved, but it's far too much crap to bother shovelling it out.

And here is the crux of the problem. How you interpret those statements is very different from how I and many other interpret those statements. For the record, I am not convinced I could agree to each and every one of them, and I am pretty sure anybody who sees them all as crap wouldn't have a clue which ones I might have a problem with.

Well, I don't think we're likely reach much agreement with people like Olde Europe or Wry Catcher, but I still think the most important outcome of defining a new constitution would be a clear description of the purpose and responsibilities of government. I'm curious how they would define the purpose of government, and how they would limit federal power, if at all.

 

[Foxfyre]

Variations of the following is being offered for consideration by The Heritage Foundation, among others, as a sort of modern 'Declaration of Independence'.

Does anybody here have any quarrel with it in whole or in part?

Yeah, that's crap from start to finish, from the hypocrisy of keeping what we "earn" to the sanctimony of public declarations of faith, from the pledge to the sanctity of the plutocracy to the pledge to look the other way as the devil eats the hindmost under the guise of "limited government", which inevitably becomes pretty unlimited once female reproduction or the purchase of weapon systems are involved, but it's far too much crap to bother shovelling it out.

And here is the crux of the problem. How you interpret those statements is very different from how I and many other interpret those statements. For the record, I am not convinced I could agree to each and every one of them, and I am pretty sure anybody who sees them all as crap wouldn't have a clue which ones I might have a problem with.

Well, I don't think we're likely reach much agreement with people like Olde Europe or Wry Catcher, but I still think the most important outcome of defining a new constitution would be a clear description of the purpose and responsibilities of government. I'm curious how they would define the purpose of government, and how they would limit federal power, if at all.

Yes. I wish more would discuss the concepts instead of all the quasi name calling, partisanship, and 'your side is evil while our side is more noble' kinds of arguments. It isn't useful to call a statement crap and then characterize it as some kind of ideological garbage without explaining WHY it is crap while leaving the ideological characterizations out of it except as necessary.

And I can imagine that the divides were almost as wide between some factions at that original constitutional convention; neverthless, after MUCH dificulty, they did achieve a consensus that all could live with. The one difference, is ALL of those people were convinced individual liberty was the first and most important goal. I am not at all certain that would be true of those contributing to this thread.

 

[Foxfyre]

And here is the crux of the problem. How you interpret those statements is very different from how I and many other interpret those statements.

That was those statements' purpose, in their obscurity and vagueness to appeal to the faithful, to rally the base behind a sound-cloud of dog whistles. To the others, who see each and every paragraph's downside, it is plainly repellent, but for them the authors plainly do not care.

And I bet you can't articulate a rationale for your opinion about that. It may absolutely be plainly repellent to you, but I wish you would explain why as that could be instructive.

 

[Olde Europe]

It isn't hateful to call a statement crap and then characterize it as some kind of ideological garbage without explaining WHY it is crap

Nice talking-to I got there. Just to clarify, I have in very short terms, because today I really don't have any inclination to dissect this kind of partisan propaganda in any detail, explained why I find that document crap, whereas you haven't found the time to discuss any aspect thereof.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Variations of the following is being offered for consideration by The Heritage Foundation, among others, as a sort of modern 'Declaration of Independence'.

Does anybody here have any quarrel with it in whole or in part?

Yeah, that's crap from start to finish, from the hypocrisy of keeping what we "earn" to the sanctimony of public declarations of faith, from the pledge to the sanctity of the plutocracy to the pledge to look the other way as the devil eats the hindmost under the guise of "limited government", which inevitably becomes pretty unlimited once female reproduction or the purchase of weapon systems are involved, but it's far too much crap to bother shovelling it out.

And here is the crux of the problem. How you interpret those statements is very different from how I and many other interpret those statements. For the record, I am not convinced I could agree to each and every one of them, and I am pretty sure anybody who sees them all as crap wouldn't have a clue which ones I might have a problem with.

Well, I don't think we're likely reach much agreement with people like Olde Europe or Wry Catcher, but I still think the most important outcome of defining a new constitution would be a clear description of the purpose and responsibilities of government. I'm curious how they would define the purpose of government, and how they would limit federal power, if at all.

Your curiosity can be satisfied by reading the Preamble to our Constitution. As I've said many times I view the preamble as a vision/mission statement. Of course I don't believe it has the force of law, but it defines the nature and purpose of our Federal Government.

Read it, it is much less "obscure" (I use the word ambiguous) then the Second Amendment.

 

[Foxfyre]

Variations of the following is being offered for consideration by The Heritage Foundation, among others, as a sort of modern 'Declaration of Independence'.

Does anybody here have any quarrel with it in whole or in part?

Yeah, that's crap from start to finish, from the hypocrisy of keeping what we "earn" to the sanctimony of public declarations of faith, from the pledge to the sanctity of the plutocracy to the pledge to look the other way as the devil eats the hindmost under the guise of "limited government", which inevitably becomes pretty unlimited once female reproduction or the purchase of weapon systems are involved, but it's far too much crap to bother shovelling it out.

And here is the crux of the problem. How you interpret those statements is very different from how I and many other interpret those statements. For the record, I am not convinced I could agree to each and every one of them, and I am pretty sure anybody who sees them all as crap wouldn't have a clue which ones I might have a problem with.

Well, I don't think we're likely reach much agreement with people like Olde Europe or Wry Catcher, but I still think the most important outcome of defining a new constitution would be a clear description of the purpose and responsibilities of government. I'm curious how they would define the purpose of government, and how they would limit federal power, if at all.

Your curiosity can be satisfied by reading the Preamble to our Constitution. As I've said many times I view the preamble as a vision/mission statement. Of course I don't believe it has the force of law, but it defines the nature and purpose of our Federal Government.

Read it, it is much less "obscure" (I use the word ambiguous) then the Second Amendment.

If it is less 'obscure', then explain how somebody can support big government programs like Obamacare using that Preamble as a mission statement while somebody like me thinks the Preamble in no way supports or justifies a big government program like Obamacare.

 

[dcraelin]

More with the euphemisms? Let's clear things up by replacing the phrase ("extending" health insurance to millions of Americans) with something closer to the truth: Forcing millions of Americans to buy insurance they don't want.

Could you provide us with a link detailing the proportion of new ACA sign-ups who were "forced" to do so? Thanks in advance.

Google "individual mandate". Read a bit and we can discuss it.

Even if things weren't settled in they way I'd prefer, I'd rather have a Constitution that was clear and understood by all. If we want government to provide us with health care, for example, let's enumerate it as a genuine responsibility of government and get on with it. The middle ground is what's killing us. Waffling back and forth between a state-run economy and a free market simply offers greater opportunity for the unscrupulous to screw us all.

Yeah, if things could be a simple as that, as if there were a two-bit choice between one and the other, and if it weren't so that in just about everything you find both the public and the private sector intermingling to - as much as possible - combine the strengths of both.

That may be the intent. But the result is the worst of both. Private greed and state corruption.

Your misunderstanding of the ACA as government provided healthcare is noted, in passing.

It's noted ignorantly, however, because I don't understand ACA as "government provided healthcare". It's just forcing people into the insurance market to keep the industry afloat.

It was conservatives who originated the "individual mandate" in the Heritage Foundation plan.

The Tortuous History of Conservatives and the Individual Mandate - Forbes

The healthcare industry doesn't require that anyone be "forced" to buy insurance in order to stay afloat. That is completely false. It was doing just fine raising prices exorbitantly before the ACA came along.

But if you want to keep down insurance costs you have to spread them over the largest possible pool. Same thing applies to vehicle, homeowner and life insurance.

Your lack of understanding of the basics of insurance means that you are erroneously placing the "blame" on Obama instead of dealing with the issue which was the cost of healthcare. The Heritage Foundation plan which became both RomneyCare and the ACA work because they include both an employer mandate and an individual mandate.

Actually I think I remember that a year or so before passage of Obama/Romney care there was an insurance company in California that was having to raise rates so high they were losing customers, if I remember the story right. So I do think they were beginning to see problems.