House Dem: Constitution was designed to increase government power

[martybegan]

It requires a powerful government to protect ANY rights.

But even a weak government can infringe upon them.

and a powerful government can infringe on them even more if abused.

 

[Correll]

You may consider it a "legal fiction" if you do not believe in God. But it is a "legal fiction" that is the basis of all Human Rights and Civil Rights in the world. Do you really want to undermine that, and if so, what possible good could come of that?

It really has nothing to do with whether there is a God or not. Rights are what we as a society agree upon. Without some sort of organization to back them up, we live in a state of nature in which the only rights are the ones you can personally defend.

I asked what possible good could come of undermining the possibly "legal fiction" that Human Rights are Inherent.

Nothing in your response addressed that.

You addressed the existence of God, which I framed the question carefully to not be relevant to avoid giving an atheist a Red Flag and thus derailing the thread.

And then restated your original position.


Nothing happened with the round of conversation except the passage of time and the waste of a small amount of electricity.


I repeat my question.


What possible good could come of undermining the possibly "legal fiction" that Human Rights are Inherent?

1. Nobody agrees on what rights are natural rights

2. It requires a powerful government to protect ANY rights.

1. There is tremendous agreement on what are inherent or natural rights. For example, i suspect me and you would agree that the Right to life, liberty and security of person.

2. I repeat my question AGAIN, which all of you lefties refuse to answer. What possible good could come of undermining the possibly "legal fiction" that Human Rights are Inherent?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You may consider it a "legal fiction" if you do not believe in God. But it is a "legal fiction" that is the basis of all Human Rights and Civil Rights in the world. Do you really want to undermine that, and if so, what possible good could come of that?

It really has nothing to do with whether there is a God or not. Rights are what we as a society agree upon. Without some sort of organization to back them up, we live in a state of nature in which the only rights are the ones you can personally defend.

I asked what possible good could come of undermining the possibly "legal fiction" that Human Rights are Inherent.

Nothing in your response addressed that.

You addressed the existence of God, which I framed the question carefully to not be relevant to avoid giving an atheist a Red Flag and thus derailing the thread.

And then restated your original position.


Nothing happened with the round of conversation except the passage of time and the waste of a small amount of electricity.


I repeat my question.


What possible good could come of undermining the possibly "legal fiction" that Human Rights are Inherent?

1. Nobody agrees on what rights are natural rights

2. It requires a powerful government to protect ANY rights.

1. There is tremendous agreement on what are inherent or natural rights. For example, i suspect me and you would agree that the Right to life, liberty and security of person.

2. I repeat my question AGAIN, which all of you lefties refuse to answer. What possible good could come of undermining the possibly "legal fiction" that Human Rights are Inherent?

Those are meaningless generalities.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It requires a powerful government to protect ANY rights.

But even a weak government can infringe upon them.

So we're back to anarchy. You people always come through with the stupid.

 

[SwimExpert]

So we're back to anarchy.

I'll decide what words should be in my own mouth, thank you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Has the fed gov power increased since the start of the constituon ? Yes!

So he's right. Cause the only way that could've happened is if the con allowed for it .

Or, corrupt politicians, and judges, and legislatures, could have exceeded their authority and enumerated powers, in their greedy quest for more power.


In VIOLATION of the Constitution.

If so then it should be easy to get their actions ruled unconstitutional.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So we're back to anarchy.

I'll decide what words should be in my own mouth, thank you.

Face it. What all you complainers really want is a government dominated by people you agree with.

 

[Correll]

You may consider it a "legal fiction" if you do not believe in God. But it is a "legal fiction" that is the basis of all Human Rights and Civil Rights in the world. Do you really want to undermine that, and if so, what possible good could come of that?

It really has nothing to do with whether there is a God or not. Rights are what we as a society agree upon. Without some sort of organization to back them up, we live in a state of nature in which the only rights are the ones you can personally defend.

I asked what possible good could come of undermining the possibly "legal fiction" that Human Rights are Inherent.

Nothing in your response addressed that.

You addressed the existence of God, which I framed the question carefully to not be relevant to avoid giving an atheist a Red Flag and thus derailing the thread.

And then restated your original position.


Nothing happened with the round of conversation except the passage of time and the waste of a small amount of electricity.


I repeat my question.


What possible good could come of undermining the possibly "legal fiction" that Human Rights are Inherent?

1. Nobody agrees on what rights are natural rights

2. It requires a powerful government to protect ANY rights.

1. There is tremendous agreement on what are inherent or natural rights. For example, i suspect me and you would agree that the Right to life, liberty and security of person.

2. I repeat my question AGAIN, which all of you lefties refuse to answer. What possible good could come of undermining the possibly "legal fiction" that Human Rights are Inherent?

Those are meaningless generalities.

1. The UN disagrees. I pulled that straight from Number One in the UN Declaration on Human Rights. (full disclosure:I don't give a damn about the UN but I know you lefties do)


2. I repeat my question AGAIN, which all of you lefties refuse to answer. What possible good could come of undermining the possibly "legal fiction" that Human Rights are Inherent?

 

[Correll]

Has the fed gov power increased since the start of the constituon ? Yes!

So he's right. Cause the only way that could've happened is if the con allowed for it .

Or, corrupt politicians, and judges, and legislatures, could have exceeded their authority and enumerated powers, in their greedy quest for more power.


In VIOLATION of the Constitution.

If so then it should be easy to get their actions ruled unconstitutional.

What makes you say that?

 

[SwimExpert]

So we're back to anarchy.

I'll decide what words should be in my own mouth, thank you.

Face it. What all you complainers really want is a government dominated by people you agree with.

What did I tell you about putting words in my mouth?

 

[martybegan]

So we're back to anarchy.

I'll decide what words should be in my own mouth, thank you.

Face it. What all you complainers really want is a government dominated by people you agree with.

Right back at you, bitch tits.

But not really, because when you allow for federalism and libertarian leanings, you are not trying to use government to get other people to agree with you, and that is the real difference.

 

[regent]

Most high schools probably spend little time on the Articles and it goes over the heads of many. It was obvious they didn't work, but 13 independent states were reluctant to give up one iota of power, so much so, that the convention was supposedly held in secret.

 

[SwimExpert]

Most high schools probably spend little time on the Articles and it goes over the heads of many. It was obvious they didn't work, but 13 independent states were reluctant to give up one iota of power, so much so, that the convention was supposedly held in secret.

What?

 

[regent]

Most high schools probably spend little time on the Articles and it goes over the heads of many. It was obvious they didn't work, but 13 independent states were reluctant to give up one iota of power, so much so, that the convention was supposedly held in secret.

What?

What, what?

 

[Correll]

Most high schools probably spend little time on the Articles and it goes over the heads of many. It was obvious they didn't work, but 13 independent states were reluctant to give up one iota of power, so much so, that the convention was supposedly held in secret.

Yes, what is your point?

 

[regent]

Most high schools probably spend little time on the Articles and it goes over the heads of many. It was obvious the Articlesy didn't work, but 13 independent states were reluctant to give up one iota of power, so much so, that the convention was supposedly held in secret.

Yes, what is your point?

My point is that many Americans do not understand the reasons some of the
thirteen colonies kept scheduling meetings to clean up the Articles and instead wrote, supposedly in secret, a new Constitution giving the government new powers and the power to back up the new powers.

 

[Correll]

Most high schools probably spend little time on the Articles and it goes over the heads of many. It was obvious the Articlesy didn't work, but 13 independent states were reluctant to give up one iota of power, so much so, that the convention was supposedly held in secret.

Yes, what is your point?

My point is that many Americans do not understand the reasons some of the
thirteen colonies kept scheduling meetings to clean up the Articles and instead wrote, supposedly in secret, a new Constitution giving the government new powers and the power to back up the new powers.

BUT that the overall theme of LIMITED GOVERNMENT with LIMITED POWERS and CHECKS AND BALANCES, to prevent tyranny remained the same, is something that many on the left, such as the dem in the op, do not understand.

 

[regent]

Most high schools probably spend little time on the Articles and it goes over the heads of many. It was obvious the Articlesy didn't work, but 13 independent states were reluctant to give up one iota of power, so much so, that the convention was supposedly held in secret.

Yes, what is your point?

My point is that many Americans do not understand the reasons some of the
thirteen colonies kept scheduling meetings to clean up the Articles and instead wrote, supposedly in secret, a new Constitution giving the government new powers and the power to back up the new powers.

BUT that the overall theme of LIMITED GOVERNMENT with LIMITED POWERS and CHECKS AND BALANCES, to prevent tyranny remained the same, is something that many on the left, such as the dem in the op, do not understand.

It just wasn't as limited, and very much different, from 13 powerful state governments to a federal system with the Constitution the law of the land and enforcement by the national government via the president.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

He may be referring to the fact that the current constitution and all of its amendments gives the federal government more power than what existed in the articles of confederation. That much is true. The constitution of the United States was created to give the federal government more power than the articles of confederation but the fact that any government has a set of rules to follow layed out in a constitution means that it can't do whatever it wants anymore I can drive in whatever manor I want.

 

[regent]

The Articles gave the national government almost no power. When Washington would plead with them to please pay the troops, the response was usually: If we had it you'd be the first to get it. So we borrowed, running up our first debt, and ended up with DC as the new capital.
(how did that happen?)