Can someone explain why we can't just give freedom a chance?

[occupied]

Why can't the federal government just stick to the constitution? Since when has this become a bad thing? I don't understand...republicans complain, democrats complain, our whole system is just whiners with no real solution...when the solution is right in front of us. That's right. I am talking about the damn United States Constitution. All the rules are in place...but we don't follow them. The federal government grows and grows and grows, seizes power that by design the 10th amendment is supposed to protect, etc. etc. Maybe the reason why the country is declining economically, morally, etc. is because we strayed from our foundation...the foundation of liberty secured primarily by local government.

God help us.

You just whined more in one paragraph than I have in years and then offered no solutions.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, yeah it was, because the states were set up to have the vast majority of governing power. Very few duties were granted to the central government.

You're also exhibiting your naivete in concluding that everything the federal government does is Constitutional simply because it hasn't been struck down by SCOTUS. That is a flawed premise because many things are never challenged and in many cases where they have been challenged the SCOTUS and other appellate courts have been just as complicite in unconstitutionally expanding the powers of the federal government as the politicians have. Kelo v New London was a good example of that, as previously brought up.

Furthermore, that you think it is a "childish view" that "18th century politicians of a nation of 3 million should decide what was needed to run a superpower of 300 million people" is intellectually flawed at best. The alternative is that we just invent new interpretations of the Constitution (which is exactly what has happened) and if the Constitution suddenly means whatever a few people decide it does on any given day then we may as well throw the whole thing in the trash because it means nothing.

I'm afraid that is how things do work. A law is Constitutional until proven otherwise.
The courts are established to determine what is and what is not constitutional. That is the process that has worked for the last 235 years
You may not like it, but that's the way it is

And a RIGHT the courts gave themselves, and NOT thier intent.

You don't like Marbury vs Madison....change it
There is a Constitutional system in place to do just that. Otherwise ......live with it. It has worked for over 200 years

 

[The T]

you want to talk federal government?

How about the federal government of our founding fathers insisted on keeping men in slavery? How about the federal government not allowing women to vote or own property? How about the freedom the federal government provided native americans?

Comparing the freedom provided by our founding fathers to the freedom we have today is a joke

which is why no one is doing so. Instead, they are asking why we refuse to follow the constitution. That does not mean we abandon 200 years of social progress, it means that our government should follow the damn document it was established with to include the amendments to date btw.

which is exactly what the government does. The constitution established three branches of government to ensure that it does.

the government today provides it's citizens vast amounts more freedom than the government of 1780

bullshit.

 

[Contumacious]

Can someone explain why we can't just give freedom a chance?
.

Study classical conditioning and Pavlov's dogs.

Every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later. . . . Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey. A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state. –

Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (1943)

.

 

[Intense]

Because the American people, overall, don't want them to and/or don't care.

I do not think it is the majority you speak of.

If that were true then the government wouldn't function the way it does. They don't get there unless we put them there.

When you factor in misinformation, smear campaigns, and out right lying, graft, corruption, fraud, to name a few factors, when we abandon truth and justice for convenience, expedience, comfort, we get what we deserve.

 

[Richard-H]

Why can't the federal government just stick to the constitution? Since when has this become a bad thing? I don't understand...republicans complain, democrats complain, our whole system is just whiners with no real solution...when the solution is right in front of us. That's right. I am talking about the damn United States Constitution. All the rules are in place...but we don't follow them. The federal government grows and grows and grows, seizes power that by design the 10th amendment is supposed to protect, etc. etc. Maybe the reason why the country is declining economically, morally, etc. is because we strayed from our foundation...the foundation of liberty secured primarily by local government.

God help us.

Pretty much every law that gets passed is questioned for it's constitutionalty, and many are brought before the supreme court to rule on it's constitutionality. So basically, assuming that the court system does it's job, the governement does operate within the limits of the Constitution.

It's just that apparently, people interpert the Constitution different AND that a lot of court decisions are based more on political biases rather than pure constitutionality.

Basically, the court system stinks at what it does.

 

[rightwinger]

Federalist papers have no legal bearing. What decides what the Constitution entails is 200 plus years of legal case law.

Again, absolutely false. 200 years of legal case law isn't what wrote the Constitution (although that's certainly how it's being practiced). It means what it means and the Federalist Papers were written to tell us exactly what it means. It's people like you over the years, with judicial and political power, who have decided to ignore these things because your agenda would have been impossible to implement were you forced to follow them.

Which states ratified The Federalist Papers? The fucking things were not even signed. They have no legal bearing

What has legal bearing is case law written to interpret the Constitution

 

[occupied]

Why can't the federal government just stick to the constitution? Since when has this become a bad thing? I don't understand...republicans complain, democrats complain, our whole system is just whiners with no real solution...when the solution is right in front of us. That's right. I am talking about the damn United States Constitution. All the rules are in place...but we don't follow them. The federal government grows and grows and grows, seizes power that by design the 10th amendment is supposed to protect, etc. etc. Maybe the reason why the country is declining economically, morally, etc. is because we strayed from our foundation...the foundation of liberty secured primarily by local government.

God help us.

Pretty much every law that gets passed is questioned for it's constitutionalty, and many are brought before the supreme court to rule on it's constitutionality. So basically, assuming that the court system does it's job, the governement does operate within the limits of the Constitution.

It's just that apparently, people interpert the Constitution different AND that a lot of court decisions are based more on political biases rather than pure constitutionality.

Basically, the court system stinks at what it does.

The high court usually does pretty good, where people usually bitch is when the sacred ideal of due process seems to protect scumbags from swift vengeance or just everyday persecution. Supply your own definition of scumbag.

 

[FA_Q2]

which is why no one is doing so. Instead, they are asking why we refuse to follow the constitution. That does not mean we abandon 200 years of social progress, it means that our government should follow the damn document it was established with to include the amendments to date btw.

which is exactly what the government does. The constitution established three branches of government to ensure that it does.

the government today provides it's citizens vast amounts more freedom than the government of 1780

bullshit.

Uuhhh....
With slavery alone you are going to find that hard to swallow. He is right, there exists more freedom today than 200 years ago. Where he is incorrect is that freedom exists because of the overreach and ignorance on the constitution. Such freedoms did not come around because we reinterpreted the constitution to man anything that the idiots in power want it to mean and do not go away of we were to actually follow it once again. As a matter of fact, they would be reinforced.

 

[occupied]

I can only think of one relatively recent SCOTUS decision that was nakedly partisan and resulted in less freedom, the republicans loved it and still do and if they overturn the affordable care act we can make it a double.

 

[The T]

which is exactly what the government does. The constitution established three branches of government to ensure that it does.

the government today provides it's citizens vast amounts more freedom than the government of 1780

bullshit.

Uuhhh....
With slavery alone you are going to find that hard to swallow. He is right, there exists more freedom today than 200 years ago. Where he is incorrect is that freedom exists because of the overreach and ignorance on the constitution. Such freedoms did not come around because we reinterpreted the constitution to man anything that the idiots in power want it to mean and do not go away of we were to actually follow it once again. As a matter of fact, they would be reinforced.

Nope...As the Founders intended for slavery to be done away with from the start, but couldn't go that way without having the Southern States balking, and the Constitution NOT being adopted [see 3/5ths compromise]...?

I disagree.

 

[Contumacious]

Which states ratified The Federalist Papers? The fucking things were not even signed. They have no legal bearing

What has legal bearing is case law written to interpret the Constitution

Yo Vern, how 'bout the Communist Manifesto? Does it have legal meaning ?

No, how then do you explain the 2 planks of the Communist Manifesto:

1- Heavy Graduated Income Tax

2- The Federal Reserve Board

Did the states ratify Karl Marx's socioeconomic system?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[uscitizen]

Why can't the federal government just stick to the constitution? Since when has this become a bad thing? I don't understand...republicans complain, democrats complain, our whole system is just whiners with no real solution...when the solution is right in front of us. That's right. I am talking about the damn United States Constitution. All the rules are in place...but we don't follow them. The federal government grows and grows and grows, seizes power that by design the 10th amendment is supposed to protect, etc. etc. Maybe the reason why the country is declining economically, morally, etc. is because we strayed from our foundation...the foundation of liberty secured primarily by local government.

God help us.

Ahh but there was money and power to be gained.
In reality liberty had it's chance and lost out to profit.

 

[Liberty]

Why can't the federal government just stick to the constitution? Since when has this become a bad thing? I don't understand...republicans complain, democrats complain, our whole system is just whiners with no real solution...when the solution is right in front of us. That's right. I am talking about the damn United States Constitution. All the rules are in place...but we don't follow them. The federal government grows and grows and grows, seizes power that by design the 10th amendment is supposed to protect, etc. etc. Maybe the reason why the country is declining economically, morally, etc. is because we strayed from our foundation...the foundation of liberty secured primarily by local government.

God help us.

You just whined more in one paragraph than I have in years and then offered no solutions.

ummm...google "libertarian." Solutions for you. Happy?

 

[Liberty]

Federalist papers have no legal bearing. What decides what the Constitution entails is 200 plus years of legal case law.

Again, absolutely false. 200 years of legal case law isn't what wrote the Constitution (although that's certainly how it's being practiced). It means what it means and the Federalist Papers were written to tell us exactly what it means. It's people like you over the years, with judicial and political power, who have decided to ignore these things because your agenda would have been impossible to implement were you forced to follow them.

Which states ratified The Federalist Papers? The fucking things were not even signed. They have no legal bearing

What has legal bearing is case law written to interpret the Constitution

Drop the legal bearing nonsense and actually look at it objectively.

1. Someone wrote a document.
2. That SAME person wrote in several other documents EXACTLY what was meant in the main document.
3. Some random guy with a law degree and an appointment 150 years later now says that the AUTHOR of said document is incorrect about what HE HIMSELF WROTE.

You realize that siding with the last person is absolutely idiotic right, regardless of whatever titles or whatever that person holds?

 

[Liberty]

Why can't the federal government just stick to the constitution? Since when has this become a bad thing? I don't understand...republicans complain, democrats complain, our whole system is just whiners with no real solution...when the solution is right in front of us. That's right. I am talking about the damn United States Constitution. All the rules are in place...but we don't follow them. The federal government grows and grows and grows, seizes power that by design the 10th amendment is supposed to protect, etc. etc. Maybe the reason why the country is declining economically, morally, etc. is because we strayed from our foundation...the foundation of liberty secured primarily by local government.

God help us.

Ahh but there was money and power to be gained.
In reality liberty had it's chance and lost out to profit.

Yeah it's quite a shame idiots like you voted in corrupt assholes who developed this perverted system that the left calls capitalism but is actually corporatism.

 

[Unkotare]

Name a time in our American history, except during the Civil War, WW1, and WW2, when Americans had LESS freedom than we have today..........we'll wait.

It's a shame to see a seemingly intelligent person (you), who is so drunk on the leftist Kool-Aid that he/she has lost any semblance of honesty, integrity, and objectivity.

A time when Americans had less freedom than today? How about when blacks were not free to mingle with whites? How about when women and gays were restricted in the military? How about when blacks and whites could not marry? When women could not apply for most jobs?

We have much more freedom today than we used to

Freedom would necessarily mean that which is shared by everyone. Not that someone has a particular freedom because the freedom of someone else has been taken away.

Blacks now have the freedom to sit at any lunch counter they want, but they have this freedom only because the freedom of the lunch counter owner has been taken away.

The loss of personal freedom we have today is tremendous. Go into some neighborhoods, the windows and doors of homes are barred. The inhabitants may not venture out of their doors after dark. Children don't play outside and dare not go to the park. Certainly these people have very little personal freedom. The reason they have such little personal freedom is because the government is protecting the rights and freedom of the very people who are making others prisoners in their own homes.

This kind of nonsense is a good example of what happens when someone 'plays' with terms they don't understand. Katz engages in such activity on a very regular basis.

 

[rightwinger]

Which states ratified The Federalist Papers? The fucking things were not even signed. They have no legal bearing

What has legal bearing is case law written to interpret the Constitution

Yo Vern, how 'bout the Communist Manifesto? Does it have legal meaning ?

No, how then do you explain the 2 planks of the Communist Manifesto:

1- Heavy Graduated Income Tax

2- The Federal Reserve Board

Did the states ratify Karl Marx's socioeconomic system?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

No State that I am aware of has Ratified the Communist Manifesto either. Like the Federalist Papers, it has no legal bearing in this country

 

[rightwinger]

Again, absolutely false. 200 years of legal case law isn't what wrote the Constitution (although that's certainly how it's being practiced). It means what it means and the Federalist Papers were written to tell us exactly what it means. It's people like you over the years, with judicial and political power, who have decided to ignore these things because your agenda would have been impossible to implement were you forced to follow them.

Which states ratified The Federalist Papers? The fucking things were not even signed. They have no legal bearing

What has legal bearing is case law written to interpret the Constitution

Drop the legal bearing nonsense and actually look at it objectively.

1. Someone wrote a document.
2. That SAME person wrote in several other documents EXACTLY what was meant in the main document.
3. Some random guy with a law degree and an appointment 150 years later now says that the AUTHOR of said document is incorrect about what HE HIMSELF WROTE.

You realize that siding with the last person is absolutely idiotic right, regardless of whatever titles or whatever that person holds?

Madison did not write the Constitution by himself and the final ratified version differed from Madisons positions. The Constitution was a compromise ratified by the states and is the only document with legal bearing. A bunch of unsigned essays are not legally binding

 

[jillian]

Again, absolutely false. 200 years of legal case law isn't what wrote the Constitution (although that's certainly how it's being practiced). It means what it means and the Federalist Papers were written to tell us exactly what it means. It's people like you over the years, with judicial and political power, who have decided to ignore these things because your agenda would have been impossible to implement were you forced to follow them.

Which states ratified The Federalist Papers? The fucking things were not even signed. They have no legal bearing

What has legal bearing is case law written to interpret the Constitution

Drop the legal bearing nonsense and actually look at it objectively.

1. Someone wrote a document.
2. That SAME person wrote in several other documents EXACTLY what was meant in the main document.
3. Some random guy with a law degree and an appointment 150 years later now says that the AUTHOR of said document is incorrect about what HE HIMSELF WROTE.

You realize that siding with the last person is absolutely idiotic right, regardless of whatever titles or whatever that person holds?

the "document" has about as much weight as reagan's inaugural speeches.

the federalist papers have no force of law ...

it doesn't really matter what anyone's "opinion" of the document is... except when you try to pretend it's law.