A Modern Emancipation Proclamation

[Foxfyre]

The resolution is not intended to be 'law' but is rather intended to be a statement of principle as a first step for development of a law that will address the concepts in the resolution. If we cannot agree what we want the law to achieve, there is no chance that enough of us will make our voices heard and so direct our elected representatives so that it can be passed.

I'm supportive of any initiative that might inspire a nationwide dialog about the actual purpose of government, and think this resolution, or similar proposals, could do that. One of the biggest problems we face as a nation is that we have such wildly differing expectations of our government. We need to find some consensus on a focused "mission statement" for government. Without that, we're just thrashing about, wasting a lot of effort from all parties involved.

Exactly, and I blame our education system. We don't really teach or encourage people to think critically any more. Most don't have any idea how to look at both sides of any issue objectively. Too many are conditioned to the 30 second sound bite or sloganeering that teaches by rote. It is a form of brainwashing that prevents any from seeing any concept or point of view other than what they are 'supposed' to believe.

If the resolution can at least start a conversation and encourage some to start thinking a little outside the box they are conditioned to, then we are on our way. Too many are so fixed and polarized in their point of view they won't even allow the conversation, much less engage in it.

 

[9thIDdoc]

That would probably require Constitutional amendment. And I see the private scector being at least as big a part of the problem(s) as the government.

 

[Unkotare]

We don't really teach or encourage people to think critically any more. .

Sure we do. 'We' teach a lot of things that most people don't end up being very good at.

 

[JDzBrain]

Of course, HE...Jefferson, violated the Constitution with the Louisiana Purchase when he was president. So his hands aren't clean either. LOL

That act of arrogance has led to the federal government owning more than 50% of ALL LAND west of the great plains in DIRECT violation of the Constitution.

You wanna give it back?

Actually, the governor of Utah (A state where the Federal government now owns more than 80% of the land...including all of the resource rich north east portion of the state) has filed a lawsuit against the Federal government trying to FORCE them to give that state's natural resources BACK to it's rightful owners...it's citizens!

And if you are talking about the Louisiana Purchase...It was bought for a fair enough a price. Not NEARLY as cheap as 12 dollars worth of beads, but reasonable. ;~)

Problem was, Jefferson jumped the gun. There was already movement in Congress to purchase the land from the French. The thing was, we MIGHT have gotten it even cheaper if Jefferson had waited for Congress.

Napoleon and the French were in dire straights. They couldn't carry on conquest in Europe AND maintain control over all their interest in the New World. Had Jefferson waited, we MIGHT could have just walked in and taken over as some who remembered the French and Indian Wars suggested or forced the French to sale it to us for the 2 million some in Congress had suggested we offer. More than Manhattan, but hey...cheap enough. ;~)

What HAPPENED was, Jefferson paid Napoleon like 15 Million and he used that money consolidate his power and expand his wars of conquest. Which, by the way...pissed the British OFF to no end. They had NO love for the French given the help they'd provided us in our revolution. And even less because of Napoleon's designs on their Empire.

The reason that is important is that because of our funding Napoleon's expanded ambitions...he got TOO ambitious. While the French were otherwise occupied gettin' their butts kicked in Russia and having a string of revolutions...the British decided it was time to test us again.

Jefferson's decision to violate Constitution not only lead DIRECTLY to the deaths of THOUSANDS in Europe, but also to a 2 year long war, the War of 1812 with the British...which we DAMN NEAR LOST!

Nothing...and I mean NOTHING good ever comes for our elected officials violation of their oath to defend and protect the Constitution...EVER!

No one man was smart enough to write it and no one man is smart enough to righteously violate it. No matter WHO they are!

So, to answer your question, the SMART money is on the Constitution and NOT the smart guy...EVERY TIME!

But then, we don't get do overs do we? We just get more idiots compounding the problems caused by the last smart guy that violated their oath!

 

[Foxfyre]

That would probably require Constitutional amendment. And I see the private scector being at least as big a part of the problem(s) as the government.

A Constitutional Amendment was not outside the possibilities offered in the OP, but I think the resolution itself suggests as much 'blame'on those outside of government as it suggests 'blame' on those in charge of the government.

There is an old teaching from management school though. You cannot make a bad system work by changing the people. And you can't make a poor worker competent by changing the system.

The resolution suggests we change both the system and the people in the way government uses the peoples' money.

 

[JDzBrain]

Just checking: You don't actually imagine this 'resolution' will ever exist or have any impact whatsoever anywhere beyond this one thread on this one forum on this one website for a few more days at most, do you? I mean, it's all well and good as a point of discussion, but you know this will not even leave a temporary impression on this very forum, right? No offense, it's just that the way you express yourself raises the question.

You DO know that this thread is in the top 3 most VIEW on the Clean Debate Zone...right? And it's no where NEAR the top 3 in total posters. So SOMEONE is interested and watching the debate.

So although I wasn't the one asked...I think is can say...YES, I DO think the ideas and principles we are discussing ARE going to leave an impression. Even if it's only on 1 or 2 people...it's a start!

QUESTION: Do ya'll really think the current government we have will fix itself as long as it has the ability to use our money to prosper itself?

Do you have such faith in those elected leaders that they will do the right thing rather than what advantages themselves?

I know that's more a rhetorical question than anything Foxy, but I think it deserves and answer. Will the current government fix anything...NO...not a chance in France. ;~)

Do I have faith it can be fixed by elected officials? ABSOLUTELY!

NOT with the Congress in it's current configuration of course. But I, like our founders have faith in We the People. We have already started to take the steps required to make that happen. The principles that sparked the different TEA Party groups are GROWING in popularity. Americans GET IT!

So yes, I think it can happen!

I tend to agree with Vidi about this, that if you want to consider this any kind of binding resolution, it is worded to broadly and too open to interpretation to be effective.

If you want to look at it as a non-binding matter of principle, I'm more inclined to agree with it; specifics could be worked out in an amendment or binding piece of legislature.

I think that as it is written, it would not only be too generally written, but that the very politicians (and perhaps judges) you wish to remove because of their corruption would be the ones to interpret the language. So, in a sense, it could actually add another layer of political doublespeak when your intention would be to get rid of that, I think.

I don't trust politicians as a general rule. I believe in the old adage that power corrupts. However, I do question whether we have ever had a government made up of civil servants, people truly concerned with the good of the nation and following the rules and mandates of the constitution, at least for any extended period of time. My interpretation of the history of government and politics is that it has always drawn people more interested in power than service; those we would want to be our leaders are rarely the ones who want the position. I wonder if a system that prevents all, or most, of the ability of politicians to line their own pockets is realistic. I also wonder if, even absent the lining of pockets, the power of political office might not still draw the wrong people into politics.

Before I ramble too far off topic, I'll end this here.

You know what Montro, you've ALMOST hit it on the head. See, the point is NOT the language of Foxy's resolution. While Foxy is EXTREMELY bright and well versed in this stuff, she is just one mind. No one person wrote our Constitution or ANY Amendment to it. This discussion is about EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID...the system, the kind of people we've elected to serve us and the way they abuse it. Your dead on!

It's not really about the minutia of writing a resolution...YET! I figure if the thread goes on long enough, she'll get around to getting all of us to helping do another draft resolution! LOL

 

[Unkotare]

...YES, I DO think the ideas and principles we are discussing ARE going to leave an impression.

Then you are delusional.

 

[saveliberty]

It won't take an actual civil war to fix it, but it will take politicans watching the country rise up in arms against them to get change. Then watch the bills fly and get passed in hours.

 

[JDzBrain]

...YES, I DO think the ideas and principles we are discussing ARE going to leave an impression.

Then you are delusional.

So I take you believe that of the 300-500 people that have LIKELY accounted for the nearly 1800 VIEWS of this thread not ONE will learn ANYTHING, not ONE will have their curiosity peaked and do their own research by ANYTHING that has been written here and pass it on.

Huh, THAT...is a view of my fellow man that I personally could NOT live with!

See, that is a perfect example of what we are discussing and the MAIN difference between liberals and conservatives.

Conservatives are...in general, optimist. They believe, as did the founders, in the ability of man to rule himself, his own nature and destiny.

Conservatives believe it is man's inherit nature to do good, do good works and leave the world better than they found it.

Conservatives believe that it is man's inherit curiosity that drives him to enlightenment, exploration and innovation...NOT external stimulus.

Conservatives believe, as Jefferson said, "I prefer the inconvenience of to much liberty to the tyranny of too little of it."

Liberals believe NONE of that. Liberals are...in general, pessimist and liberals in BOTH parties have set about writing MILLIONS of pages of new laws and regulations over the last 60 years to protect man from the ONE person he neither needs nor wants protection from...himself!

Oh, and you DO know that personal attacks...BESIDES being disallowed in the Clean Debate Zone....is the last resort of the ignorant, right?

Nunt nah, is NOT debate. It's a 6 year old on the playground!

It won't take an actual civil war to fix it, but it will take politicans watching the country rise up in arms against them to get change. Then watch the bills fly and get passed in hours.

LOL...then the had better get to passin' stuff liberty! Since the democrats took both houses of Congress in 2006, gun sales in this country have nearly tripled. LEGAL gun ownership is higher right now than it has ever been in the history of this country.

That ain't happening because people are hunting down bigfoot! ;~)

But you may be right, and the problem is that the first laws they will pass will be GUN RESTRICTIONS if the configuration of the Congress and president remains as it is now.

 

[Foxfyre]

It won't take an actual civil war to fix it, but it will take politicans watching the country rise up in arms against them to get change. Then watch the bills fly and get passed in hours.

Okay that relates more to the companion thread to this one: "Revolution!" Though most of the participants on that thread are not quite ready to take up arms to reign in a government that seems to be going rogue on us.

But rather than focus on HOW to accomplish significiant change I would ask everybody to refocus on WHAT we wish to accomplish.

Based on the straw poll, it would seem that a most members who have looked in on this thread are in agreement with the spirit of most of the resolution.

But I am also seeing folks shy away from really focusing on or embracing the conclusion that we must deny the federal government the ability to use our money for any form of charity or benevolence that benefits only some but not all. Why do you think that concept is so uncomfortable for most?

 

[JDzBrain]

The resolution is not intended to be 'law' but is rather intended to be a statement of principle as a first step for development of a law that will address the concepts in the resolution. If we cannot agree what we want the law to achieve, there is no chance that enough of us will make our voices heard and so direct our elected representatives so that it can be passed.

I'm supportive of any initiative that might inspire a nationwide dialog about the actual purpose of government, and think this resolution, or similar proposals, could do that. One of the biggest problems we face as a nation is that we have such wildly differing expectations of our government. We need to find some consensus on a focused "mission statement" for government. Without that, we're just thrashing about, wasting a lot of effort from all parties involved.

You know what guys, this reminds me of one of the sections, Section 51 in our State Constitution here in Kentucky. It relates to how laws are passed and it might, with a little tweaking FIX a lot of the crap that Foxy's resolution addresses. Anyway, here it is, word for word.

"No law enacted by the General Assembly (Changed to Congress of course.) shall relate to more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title, and no law shall be revised, amended, or the provisions thereof extended or conferred by reference to its title only, but so much thereof as is revised, amended, extended or conferred, shall be reenacted and published at length."

This single statement, if passed as an Amendment, would eliminate Deem and Pass...the unconstitutional parliamentary trickery used to pass Obamacare. It would END attaching HUGE spending for entitlement legislation to bills which ARE popular and proper. It also FORCES Congressmen to ATTACH THEIR NAMES AND REPUTATIONS to votes for the insanity they are inflicting on us!

While I am EXTREMELY disappointed in the way our representatives have constantly VIOLATED our Constitution over the years here in Kentucky, I am VERY proud of the language written into that Constitution and this section is just one reason why!

 

[JDzBrain]

...Based on the straw poll, it would seem that a most members who have looked in on this thread are in agreement with the spirit of most of the resolution.

But I am also seeing folks shy away from really focusing on or embracing the conclusion that we must deny the federal government the ability to use our money for any form of charity or benevolence that benefits only some but not all. Why do you think that concept is so uncomfortable for most?

That's easy Foxy. It's because the founders were RIGHT!

They believed in the inherit goodness of man and this kind of thing plays on and uses the inherit good nature of man to accomplish POLITICAL goals!

They use our nature against our best interest!

 

[Foxfyre]

...Based on the straw poll, it would seem that a most members who have looked in on this thread are in agreement with the spirit of most of the resolution.

But I am also seeing folks shy away from really focusing on or embracing the conclusion that we must deny the federal government the ability to use our money for any form of charity or benevolence that benefits only some but not all. Why do you think that concept is so uncomfortable for most?

That's easy Foxy. It's because the founders were RIGHT!

They believed in the inherit goodness of man and this kind of thing plays on and uses the inherit good nature of man to accomplish POLITICAL goals!

They use our nature against our best interest!

Yes, I agree that is how it started. Part of the problem is that it often takes many months or more often years or decades for the full effect of government policy to be fully felt. And too often those who enact a policy of great consequence aren't even around when the chickens come home to roost.

I don't think Teddy Roosevelt intended to shift harmful power to the government when he expanded what government would be allowed to do.

I don't think FDR had in mind the downside that government intervention and entitlements would eventually have.

I don't think Carter had any insight that his relatively harmless CRA would be so completely infested with wrong thinking and corruptiion that would lead to the housing bubble crash of 2008.

And now I think we have created opportunistic political leaders who no longer care about consequences. They blithely agree to harmful legislation knowing they won't be around to deal with the consequences years on down the line. Or, when it all hits the fan, they know they can blame it on the current administration and not themselves.

The only way to correct that problem is to fix a bad system. We need to close the public spigot that allows them to use our money to keep themselves in power and on a very lucrative gravy train.

 

[Vidi]

...Based on the straw poll, it would seem that a most members who have looked in on this thread are in agreement with the spirit of most of the resolution.

But I am also seeing folks shy away from really focusing on or embracing the conclusion that we must deny the federal government the ability to use our money for any form of charity or benevolence that benefits only some but not all. Why do you think that concept is so uncomfortable for most?

That's easy Foxy. It's because the founders were RIGHT!

They believed in the inherit goodness of man and this kind of thing plays on and uses the inherit good nature of man to accomplish POLITICAL goals!

They use our nature against our best interest!

Yes, I agree that is how it started. Part of the problem is that it often takes many months or more often years or decades for the full effect of government policy to be fully felt. And too often those who enact a policy of great consequence aren't even around when the chickens come home to roost.

I don't think Teddy Roosevelt intended to shift harmful power to the government when he expanded what government would be allowed to do.

I don't think FDR had in mind the downside that government intervention and entitlements would eventually have.

I don't think Carter had any insight that his relatively harmless CRA would be so completely infested with wrong thinking and corruptiion that would lead to the housing bubble crash of 2008.

And now I think we have created opportunistic political leaders who no longer care about consequences. They blithely agree to harmful legislation knowing they won't be around to deal with the consequences years on down the line. Or, when it all hits the fan, they know they can blame it on the current administration and not themselves.

The only way to correct that problem is to fix a bad system. We need to close the public spigot that allows them to use our money to keep themselves in power and on a very lucrative gravy train.

Or we could just put term limits on them and force money out of politics by opposing the Citizens United decision.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's easy Foxy. It's because the founders were RIGHT!

They believed in the inherit goodness of man and this kind of thing plays on and uses the inherit good nature of man to accomplish POLITICAL goals!

They use our nature against our best interest!

Yes, I agree that is how it started. Part of the problem is that it often takes many months or more often years or decades for the full effect of government policy to be fully felt. And too often those who enact a policy of great consequence aren't even around when the chickens come home to roost.

I don't think Teddy Roosevelt intended to shift harmful power to the government when he expanded what government would be allowed to do.

I don't think FDR had in mind the downside that government intervention and entitlements would eventually have.

I don't think Carter had any insight that his relatively harmless CRA would be so completely infested with wrong thinking and corruptiion that would lead to the housing bubble crash of 2008.

And now I think we have created opportunistic political leaders who no longer care about consequences. They blithely agree to harmful legislation knowing they won't be around to deal with the consequences years on down the line. Or, when it all hits the fan, they know they can blame it on the current administration and not themselves.

The only way to correct that problem is to fix a bad system. We need to close the public spigot that allows them to use our money to keep themselves in power and on a very lucrative gravy train.

Or we could just put term limits on them and force money out of politics by opposing the Citizens United decision.

But even term limits allows them to do some major harm in a corrupt system. Plenty of time to set in motion forces that will greatly benefit them personally when their relatively short term is completed and they return home.

I want a system in place where the ONLY motive that will drive them is to leave things better for everybody than they were when they arrived. I think if they cannot build multi-million dollar pension funds or pay off their cronies or enact laws and legislation specifically to favor their own businessses, etc., most will naturally term limit themselves. We will get true public servants in Washington again instead of self serving career politicians. And if there are a few who love being public servants and want to run for re-election and stay on, well there's something to say for having a few old guards hanging around with the experience and a solid grasp of history.

 

[dblack]

Or we could just put term limits on them and force money out of politics by opposing the Citizens United decision.

But even term limits allows them to do some major harm in a corrupt system. Plenty of time to set in motion forces that will greatly benefit them personally when their relatively short term is completed and they return home.

I want a system in place where the ONLY motive that will drive them is to leave things better for everybody than they were when they arrived. I think if they cannot build multi-million dollar pension funds or pay off their cronies or enact laws and legislation specifically to favor their own businessses, etc., most will naturally term limit themselves. We will get true public servants in Washington again instead of self serving career politicians. And if there are a few who love being public servants and want to run for re-election and stay on, well there's something to say for having a few old guards hanging around with the experience and a solid grasp of history.

I've never been much of a fan of term limits for that reason. It seems like a band-aid solution at best, and could do as much harm as good - especially if we're constantly faced with a large portion of reps in 'lame duck' mode. At that point, if they're not trusted public servants, they're primary incentive is to prep their exit strategy - handing out favors and laying the foundation for a lobbying career.

As far as reversing Citizens United it, again, seems like a bad solution to cover up for bad government to begin with. As long as government has the power to make or break businesses with the stroke of a pen, those businesses will find a way to influence decisions. We can play games attempting to limit access but it won't stem the tide. At best it will just make it so that only businesses with the really good lawyers will be able to influence government.

The problem with corporations being in bed with government is that government is in bed with corporations. If we want to keep economic power from having too much influence on government, we have to keep government out of the "business" of deciding who gets to have economic power. As long as they assume that role, people who want to get rich will find a way to manipulate government to their ends.

 

[Unkotare]

...YES, I DO think the ideas and principles we are discussing ARE going to leave an impression.

Then you are delusional.

So I take you believe that of the 300-500 people that have LIKELY accounted for the nearly 1800 VIEWS of this thread not ONE will learn ANYTHING, not ONE will have their curiosity peaked and do their own research by ANYTHING that has been written here and pass it on.

No, not one.

 

[Montrovant]

...Based on the straw poll, it would seem that a most members who have looked in on this thread are in agreement with the spirit of most of the resolution.

But I am also seeing folks shy away from really focusing on or embracing the conclusion that we must deny the federal government the ability to use our money for any form of charity or benevolence that benefits only some but not all. Why do you think that concept is so uncomfortable for most?

That's easy Foxy. It's because the founders were RIGHT!

They believed in the inherit goodness of man and this kind of thing plays on and uses the inherit good nature of man to accomplish POLITICAL goals!

They use our nature against our best interest!

I wonder how many of the founders, involved in a revolution and then politics, were likely to really believe that humanity is inherently good.

 

[Montrovant]

Yes, I agree that is how it started. Part of the problem is that it often takes many months or more often years or decades for the full effect of government policy to be fully felt. And too often those who enact a policy of great consequence aren't even around when the chickens come home to roost.

I don't think Teddy Roosevelt intended to shift harmful power to the government when he expanded what government would be allowed to do.

I don't think FDR had in mind the downside that government intervention and entitlements would eventually have.

I don't think Carter had any insight that his relatively harmless CRA would be so completely infested with wrong thinking and corruptiion that would lead to the housing bubble crash of 2008.

And now I think we have created opportunistic political leaders who no longer care about consequences. They blithely agree to harmful legislation knowing they won't be around to deal with the consequences years on down the line. Or, when it all hits the fan, they know they can blame it on the current administration and not themselves.

The only way to correct that problem is to fix a bad system. We need to close the public spigot that allows them to use our money to keep themselves in power and on a very lucrative gravy train.

Or we could just put term limits on them and force money out of politics by opposing the Citizens United decision.

But even term limits allows them to do some major harm in a corrupt system. Plenty of time to set in motion forces that will greatly benefit them personally when their relatively short term is completed and they return home.

I want a system in place where the ONLY motive that will drive them is to leave things better for everybody than they were when they arrived. I think if they cannot build multi-million dollar pension funds or pay off their cronies or enact laws and legislation specifically to favor their own businessses, etc., most will naturally term limit themselves. We will get true public servants in Washington again instead of self serving career politicians. And if there are a few who love being public servants and want to run for re-election and stay on, well there's something to say for having a few old guards hanging around with the experience and a solid grasp of history.

I don't, offhand, know what kind of effective government would only allow one motive for public service. If nothing else, there is always power to be gained/wielded as part of government, which will attract those who do not simply want to help their country. Sure, that's a great idea in theory, but in practice I'd need to see some specifics to know how you could accomplish it. Especially considering the fact that much of the corruption in governments is probably already outlawed.

 

[saveliberty]

It won't take an actual civil war to fix it, but it will take politicans watching the country rise up in arms against them to get change. Then watch the bills fly and get passed in hours.

Okay that relates more to the companion thread to this one: "Revolution!" Though most of the participants on that thread are not quite ready to take up arms to reign in a government that seems to be going rogue on us.

But rather than focus on HOW to accomplish significiant change I would ask everybody to refocus on WHAT we wish to accomplish.

Based on the straw poll, it would seem that a most members who have looked in on this thread are in agreement with the spirit of most of the resolution.

But I am also seeing folks shy away from really focusing on or embracing the conclusion that we must deny the federal government the ability to use our money for any form of charity or benevolence that benefits only some but not all. Why do you think that concept is so uncomfortable for most?

Entitlements are mandated charity at a distance. When you meet your neighbor in need, sometimes it reminds as that it could happen to us with just a small reversal of fortune. So a part of us wants to keep a distance and just have that money removed from us.

At almost half of the population, all of us must certainly know a few people who get assistance. Giving the need a familiar face makes it harder too. Helping someone rebuild their life takes time and effort. It yields better results, but is harder one on one.