CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Foxfyre, Dec 8, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    22,667
    Thanks Received:
    2,178
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,744
    I agree that laws are necessary to protect our inalienable rights. But I'm not sure there's much to be gained from debating the intent of the original Constitution. For the purpose of this thread, it's really just a distraction - and one that tends to get bogged down in "quotefest" tedium. I'm also not sure quoting HF is productive, if for no other reason than the political baggage.

    The role of government in 'regulating' activity, rather than protecting rights, is definitely an important point of discussion.
     
  2. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,868
    Thanks Received:
    12,568
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +18,524
    But....but....how is it not 'arm wrestling' when the discussion is reduced to an 'is to' or 'is not' argument over whether government is too large and intrusive?

    Or when those who are apparently incapable of getting past their partisan or ideological prejudices in order to discuss a concept seem determined to make sure no discussion of actual concepts will happen?

    My hope was that by focusing for a bit on federal regulation and how much such power be given to the federal government might move us forward on discussing actual principles and concepts.

    This is what I would like to discuss:

    THE PRINCIPLE offered for discussion is that laws affecting almost every aspect of our lives are being made by people unelected by anybody to do that. Good thing? Bad thing?
     
  3. candycorn
    Offline

    candycorn Alis volat propriis

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    40,025
    Thanks Received:
    4,810
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +13,431
    No. I do not.

    I do not feel it was the position of the framers of the Constitution on the whole that Georgia could have martial law and the Carolinas would have democracy. Certainly there were people around at that time that wanted to create their own enclaves such as Roger Williams in Rhode Island.
    The concept was so popular that it was opposed by neighboring states, mainly Massachusetts. This was prior to the Constitutional Convention but it's unlikely that in the space of one generation the paradigm would shift so dramatically.

    I also do not think the Constitution was designed to achieve maximum liberty. Maximum liberty is total autonomy. If you're stating that "maximum" liberty is couched in terms of being as "maxxed" as one can be in any government...okay. If you think it achieves it; you're simply wrong. In either case, if taxation is a form of enslavement as many right wing loons think; you're wrong because it allows for taxation. Oh well.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. candycorn
    Offline

    candycorn Alis volat propriis

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    40,025
    Thanks Received:
    4,810
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +13,431
    Well, in my old home state of Texas, there is a new Senate session going on. The first order of business was to invoke what the federal Senate called the Nuclear Option....change the amount of votes needed to approve a measure.

    From The Texas Tribune:

    With a new lieutenant governor installed for the first time in over a decade Wednesday — and over the cries of Democrats — the Texas Senate voted to break from an almost 70-year tradition intended to encourage compromise among its 31 members.

    Now the approval of only 19 senators instead of 21 will be required to bring legislation to the floor for debate. The change — passed on a vote of 20-10 — has the practical effect of allowing Republicans to consider a bill without a single vote from one of the chamber's 11 Democrats. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who presides over the Senate, has targeted the tradition known as the “two-thirds rule” since he first entered the Legislature in 2007.

    So on one hand, you have people claiming the GOP just wants to get out of the way and on the other, in the reddest of red states, they make it easier for government to intercede.... Its the perfect commentary for the GOP in 2015/2016.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,868
    Thanks Received:
    12,568
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +18,524
    Again if we could keep the partisan prejudices and perjorative comments out of this, it would be extremely helpful.

    Yes, the hermit who does not interact in any way with other humans enjoys maximum liberty. . . UNTIL somebody comes along who is able to take what he has or force him into roles he does not agree to or kills him.

    The 'maximum liberty' the Founders envisioned for a new nation was one in which the government would be assigned just enough power to enable the various states to function as one nation and just enough power to secure our rights; i.e. the federal government would defend the nation but would have no power to dictate to any person who he or she must be or how he or she would live his/her life or how the people would organize and enforce their various societies.

    That concept has been steadily eroded, however, as a strictly limited federal government has established more and more bureaucracies given power to dictate laws to the people.

    The Revolutionary War was triggered not by anger over taxation, but angered over taxation without representation.

    Now the discussion is whether we are living under laws/regulation without representation. Should the unelected be given power to pass such laws?
     
  6. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,868
    Thanks Received:
    12,568
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +18,524
    I used the HF piece because it is so well researched and so intensely pertinent to the topic. I was unable to find any other source that argued the issue as competently. I also was very clear that it is not to be considered the authority on the subject nor was it to be the only source.

    I also requested that everybody set aside their partisan and ideological prejudices and the inevitable sniping and finger pointing in order to discuss the concept of regulation. There are some who are apparently incapable of doing that no matter what source I might use as a discussion starter.

    Again the discussion topic at this time is: Do we want to contine to allow the federal bureacracy as it exists? Or does the bureaucracy that exists violate the very concept of republican (little 'r') government in which the people trust their elected representatives to make such decisions?

    If you have a quarrel with the HF interpretation of that, by all means air it. Or just go with your own perceptions.
     
  7. candycorn
    Offline

    candycorn Alis volat propriis

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    40,025
    Thanks Received:
    4,810
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +13,431


    I think that Kennedy/Johnson did the right things by integrating the universities. Do you? If you do not, please tell me how that is not a massive over-reach. If you do, please tell me how you reconcile the two.
     
  8. candycorn
    Offline

    candycorn Alis volat propriis

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    40,025
    Thanks Received:
    4,810
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +13,431
    Hypothetical question:

    Can I have whomever I want over to my house? Let them stay with me?
     
  9. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,868
    Thanks Received:
    12,568
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +18,524
    So far as I know, both Kennedy and Johnson were both elected by the people were they not? And they didn't desegregate anything single handedly, but it required a vote of both houses of Congress to accomplish that legislation.

    This part of thediscussion is NOT about legislation that Congress passes. The discussion is focused on an unelected bureaucracy allowed to dictate regulation that is treated as law.

    Do you see the difference between those two things?

    If so, please answer my previous question. Do you want your next door neighbor who was elected by nobody to have the power to dictate what you will or will not be able to purchase or how you are required to conduct your business?
     
  10. Derideo_Te
    Offline

    Derideo_Te Je Suis Charlie

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2013
    Messages:
    20,464
    Thanks Received:
    7,287
    Trophy Points:
    360
    Ratings:
    +12,089
    The Founding Fathers were far smarter than that. They already had the Magna Carta as a starting point. They had examples of Democracies and Republics from history as examples.

    It is utterly ridiculous to ignore all precedent and "start with a blank sheet of paper". That you are insisting upon doing so says a lot about the vacuousness of the Libertarian mindset.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Search tags for this page
apartaids laws
,

content