A Modern Emancipation Proclamation

[saveliberty]

Seems like it is necessary if we want to maintain a democratic republic.

 

[Foxfyre]

Seems like it is necessary if we want to maintain a democratic republic.

So you were a signer in support of the resolution?

 

[saveliberty]

Seems like it is necessary if we want to maintain a democratic republic.

So you were a signer in support of the resolution?

This was the question I was answering: "
And I think it is safe to say that Vidi is probably right that citizens could and/or will take to the streets to protest a roll back in their federal government freebies now that an entitlement mentality has been developed.

So, if we accept Vidi's observation as the reasonable and logical probability, would removing entitlements as a function of the federal governmewnt be worth it?"

Now you ask a different question. The answer to that one is probably not. I would be in favor of multiple amendments to the Constitution limiting politicans to a single term, bills must be 100% germane to the subject of the bill, budgets must balance on an annual basis.

 

[Unkotare]

No reason to deflect continually either, but there you are. I can only conclude that your objection to the OP is mob rule may enuse. Not much of a debate point.

Not sure why I have to keep repeating this but I was not addressing anyone's conclusions, I was merely correcting a factual error. There is really no need for anyone's ego to feel threatened over it.

Except your sources are not facts.

Yes, they really are. I even provided a video. What have you contributed?

 

[saveliberty]

Not sure why I have to keep repeating this but I was not addressing anyone's conclusions, I was merely correcting a factual error. There is really no need for anyone's ego to feel threatened over it.

Except your sources are not facts.

Yes, they really are. I even provided a video. What have you contributed?

Reason to someone claiming a blog and left wing website must be fact. Seriously, you continue to deflect from the OP. You have been asked repeatedly to stick to the OP. I can only conclude you are trolling and I am required to report that. Please return to the topic immediately, so I am not forced to follow the rules.

 

[Unkotare]

the hard times of the Depression did not result in widespread angry mobs taking to the streets.

Despite the fact that I have provided video of angry mobs taking to the streets in cities across the country...

 

[Foxfyre]

You provided video of angry union workers taking to the streets, Unkotare. I have conceded that point in several posts now.

One last time I am respectfully requesting that you acknowledge that your point is duly noted and I am respectfully requesting that we do not derail this thread via anecdotal disputes.

 

[Unkotare]

Except your sources are not facts.

Yes, they really are. I provided a variety of sources. I even provided a video. What have you contributed?

Reason to someone claiming a blog and left wing website must be fact. Seriously, you continue to deflect from the OP. You have been asked repeatedly to stick to the OP. I can only conclude you are trolling and I am required to report that. Please return to the topic immediately, so I am not forced to follow the rules.

If you consider actual facts to be "trolling," then you do whatever you feel you need to do. If you want to create a fact-free zone so that anyone can say anything without ever being inconvenienced by the truth then I suggest you take that up with BD.

 

[Unkotare]

One last time I am respectfully requesting that you acknowledge that your point is duly noted .

That is very nice of you, but for the third time, I was not making a point, I was correcting an error in FACT.

 

[Foxfyre]

Seems like it is necessary if we want to maintain a democratic republic.

So you were a signer in support of the resolution?

This was the question I was answering: "
And I think it is safe to say that Vidi is probably right that citizens could and/or will take to the streets to protest a roll back in their federal government freebies now that an entitlement mentality has been developed.

So, if we accept Vidi's observation as the reasonable and logical probability, would removing entitlements as a function of the federal governmewnt be worth it?"

Now you ask a different question. The answer to that one is probably not. I would be in favor of multiple amendments to the Constitution limiting politicans to a single term, bills must be 100% germane to the subject of the bill, budgets must balance on an annual basis.

But the resolution is specifically focused on removing entitlements and other freebies and monetary benefits to anybody as a function of the federal government as a means to balance the budget among other things.

Your other two points could be worthy goals and certainly are worthy of debate, but should be handled in a separate thread.

But okay you can't support the resolution as written. Why?

 

[saveliberty]

Because mine addresses your issue as well as others all at once.

 

[Foxfyre]

Because mine addresses your issue as well as others all at once.

But how? What objection do you have to the resolution?

 

[saveliberty]

As has already been demonstrated, it could be interpreted as redundant law. That will cause tremendous litigation and unintended consequences. My plan creates a balanced budget requirement which will eliminate many entitlements by necessity. That also forces them to keep it balanced. Transparency in legislation will be very helpful in seeing the goals and objectives of those in power. Power will be limited.

 

[dblack]

As has already been demonstrated, it could be interpreted as redundant law. That will cause tremendous litigation and unintended consequences. My plan creates a balanced budget requirement which will eliminate many entitlements by necessity. That also forces them to keep it balanced. Transparency in legislation will be very helpful in seeing the goals and objectives of those in power. Power will be limited.

It's valid to point out that, if actually applied, the fourteenth amendment could be used to effect the things called for in the resolution. But it's not. If actually applied, in my view, it would have blocked the individual mandate tax - and all other tax "incentive" schemes. But it's not applied consistently. That's the unfortunate reality of the situation.

When the court and government conspire to "reinterpret" Constitutional protections out from under us, we should act to get them back - by passing new amendments that rebuild degraded protections.

EDIT: Also, I don't see how a balanced budget really addresses using government for redistributing 'benefit'. You could have gross inequities and still balance the books.

 

[JDzBrain]

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

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

Property crimes and ALL OTHER CRIMES were nearly 4 times higher in the 80's and 90's than any other time in the history of this country. Over the history of this country, the crime rate has remained pretty much static, with only the NUMBERS changing with increases in population...NOT as a percentage of the population. Those have remained within a few points over our history...UNTIL the 80's and 90's.

So just exactly WHY would that be? Isn't that when our post Nam socially enlightened society started spending hit it's all time highs, We had a SUPPOSED 1.2 trillion dollar budget surplus, the current form of the farm bill that contains food stamp funding was written and enacted and on and on and on? The answer to ALL that is YES!

Throwing money at a problem does NOT fix the problem. It...at BEST...eases the symptom for a SHORT period. In the long run, it makes it WORSE. Just ask Greece and Spain and France and most of the REST of western Europe where the fires burn nightly!

 

[Foxfyre]

As has already been demonstrated, it could be interpreted as redundant law. That will cause tremendous litigation and unintended consequences. My plan creates a balanced budget requirement which will eliminate many entitlements by necessity. That also forces them to keep it balanced. Transparency in legislation will be very helpful in seeing the goals and objectives of those in power. Power will be limited.

I disagree that 'eliminating many entitlements by necessity' would be less likely to trigger litigation than the resolution would. I CAN see HUGE litigation if one group lost their entitlements but another was allowed to keep theirs. Equal protection and all that.

However, a Constitutional amendment has to be agreed to in Congress or produced via a constitutional convention and would have to be agreed to by 38 of 50 states. I think most states have a policy of putting the amendment to the vote of the people in their respective states as to whether they want it ratified or not.

At any rate, if the basic concept of the resolution was written into a constitutional amendment and was ratified, there would be little to litigate. The only time that would happen if somebody challenged a government contract to somebody as to whether it was legitimate government function or a 'pay off' or whatever, but those lawsuits happen all the time anyway.

 

[Vidi]

Ok theres a LOT to answer here...but I think that I need to clear something up first and that is the factual argument going on about civil unrest during the great depression.

Like many here, I have fought very hard against Unk outside the clean zone, so imagine my surprise when I find him actually support my facts. In fact, he has posted one of the videos that I was going to post in response so that will now be unneccesary. So Kudos to Unk!

But the unrest goes FAR beyond just that one video.

Does anyone here know what the Bonus Army was?

Bonus Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bonus Army was the popular name of an assemblage of some 43,000 marchers—17,000 World War I veterans, their families, and affiliated groups—who gathered in Washington, D.C., in the spring and summer of 1932 to demand immediate cash-payment redemption of their service certificates. Its organizers called it the Bonus Expeditionary Force to echo the name of World War I's American Expeditionary Force, while the media called it the Bonus March. It was led by Walter W. Waters, a former Army sergeant.

A second, smaller Bonus March in 1933 at the start of the Roosevelt Administration was defused in May with an offer of jobs for the Civilian Conservation Corps at Fort Hunt, Virginia, which most of the group accepted. Those who chose not to work for the CCC by the May 22 deadline were given transportation home. In 1936, Congress overrode President Franklin D. Roosevelt's veto and paid the veterans their bonus years early.

On a side note: Look up General Smedley Butler and the Business Plot. Butler is one of Americas true unsung heroes.


and it wasnt just the Bonus Army

Timeline . Riding the Rails . American Experience . WGBH | PBS

February 1931
"Food riots" begin to break out in parts of the U.S. In Minneapolis, several hundred men and women smash the windows of a grocery market and make off with fruit, canned goods, bacon, and ham. One of the store's owners pulls out a gun to stop the looters, but is leapt upon and has his arm broken. The "riot" is brought under control by 100 policemen

March 1931
Three thousand unemployed workers march on the Ford Motor Company's plant in River Rouge, Michigan. Dearborn police and Ford's company guards attack the workers, killing four and injuring many more.


January 1937
United Automobile Workers strike at the General Motors Plant in Flint, Michigan. The strike turns violent when strikers clash with company-hired police.


May 1937
At Republic Steel's South Chicago plant, workers and their families try to combine a picnic with a rally and demonstration. Ten people are killed and a dozen more are wounded in the "Memorial Day Massacre."

Take away peoples hope and any program to give them hope and they will protest and violence breaks out.

 

[Vidi]

I think youre missing my point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, JD great post and great points. I dont have time tonight to address them all so I just want to tackle a couple as quickly as I can

1) Your point about NO State. Under a strict interpretation, youre absolutely right on that. I dont have a source to cite for rebuttal, so Ill have to concede the point. Great job!

( but I reserve the right to come back to it if I can find a source lol )

2) Isnt Tranquility stability?

Again GREAT POST! Greenies for you!

 

[Vidi]

We interupt this discussion for an important announcement.

Foxfyre, Pale has Krispy Kremes in the CS.

That is all.

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

Kristy Kremes are crap! I wish I could treat you all to fresh donuts from one of my bakeries to prove it. Hehe.

 

[saveliberty]

Fresh sounds good Vidi. I have yet to suffer through a Krispy Kreme.