Bull Ring Challenge to Boss on Congress, Corporations and Citizen Responsibility for Votes on federal laws

Discussion in 'The Bull Ring' started by emilynghiem, Jan 17, 2016.

  1. Boss

    Boss Take a Memo:

    Apr 21, 2012
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Birmingham, AL
    Okay, you started a thread about Congress, corporations and citizens responsibility for votes on federal laws. Most of this latest post is about social issues where Congress passed laws upholding traditional marriage. Then you go on and on about our BELIEFS and how we need to somehow restrict Congress from passing certain laws unless they meet certain criteria, etc.

    Look... I understand, if Congress has done something that you don't agree with and you feel frustrated. I often feel that way as well but we cannot start tinkering around with the system to try and fix this. People have partisan beliefs and they have every right to lobby for those beliefs. It doesn't matter if they belong to corporations or religious groups, or even if their partisan view is the result of that relationship... it's still their right.

    Now, regarding SOCIAL issues, I do not believe the founding fathers or our Constitution ever intended FEDERAL government to deal with social issues among the population. I think they had in mind that these things would be dealt with at the state and local level because the nature of our relationships are too difficult to apply a cookie-cutter approach. And this is what I hear you saying you have a problem with, but the genie is out of the bottle, we've embarked on a future where precedent has been set and many people feel it's the federal government's responsibility to make these decisions. And if not the federal government, the Supreme Court.

    Granted, this probably all started with slavery and many of the issues resolved were good things... like women's suffrage and civil rights, but it's simply not how our founders intended things to be done and we're dealing with that today. So, for better or worse, it's the system we have now. That doesn't mean we have to keep on electing people who believe in statist government as opposed to federalist government. But whenever someone mentions "states rights" they are hooted down as a racist who wants to put blacks in chains and take away voting rights.

    We can sit here and discuss all these things until we're blue in the face, it's not going to change. I thought our conversation was about the responsibility regarding who we elect and what those we elect are doing with regard to influence from corporations and special interests.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. emilynghiem

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Jan 21, 2010
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    I agree with this part Boss

    I don't agree with assuming nothing's going to change:
    A. who we elect IS one of the responsibilities we do need to be more consistent about;
    AND in addition to that, I push for these other responsibilities also:
    B. writing our own policies where they do meet the criteria we are talking about on keeping social issues LOCAL and "out of federal govt" instead of trying to pass cookie-cutter laws for all
    C. teaching people (both inside and out of govt, both in communities and in corporations, both workers and managers, both rich and poor, both Black and White, both Men and Women, both Older and Younger) the Constitutional principles and ethics so everyone can agree to be on the same page
    D. enforcing these standards by teaching and offering assistance in MEDIATING to resolve social and belief issues so these DON'T become "federal cases"

    Boss that's the only part I would take issue with you on

    It takes MORE than just voting and watching who we elect

    it takes writing laws and contracts and mediating conflicts ourselves,
    teaching people to govern their own affairs AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE
    so that way, Boss, people CAN BE EDUCATED on what we vote on,

    Boss if people don't even know what it takes to resolve a conflict in beliefs
    over marriage or transgender issues, how can we expect to elect leaders who can do this?
    If we don't even know it can be resolved, or what solutions look like, we're going to vote for BS
    pushed on us as the only choices.

    So this DOES AFFECT who we vote for, if we resolve conflicts and
    SET A HIGHER STANDARD of Constitutional policies, standards and governance

    YES Boss I do believe things CAN change

    Why? Because the current standards of political bullying are unsustainable.
    Neither side is ever going to agree to a policy that was "bullied past them"
    So that is never going to work, not with people's beliefs.

    People by nature will never settle for their beliefs being run over by others, especially not govt.
    So changing this WILL change who and how we vote for policies and people.

    I believe this is inevitable.
    You don't see this change happening, but I say people will not put up with
    anything less than CONSENT as the standard on policies that affect their BELIEFS.

    I've never met a human being willing to compromise forever, they may tolerate it temporarily
    if they are overpowered, but by conscience they will fight to defend their free will and beliefs.
    Until then they experience depression and anger, and all levels of damage.
    This bullying is not sustainable, and eventually people will beg for a better way.
    When they find it, they are relieved, they WANT solutions that don't violate their beliefs.

    by establishing better solutions as the standard, for equal protection of the laws to be honored,
    then this will change the standards by which we vote, judge, elect and appoint.

    I believe this is happening now, and will continue to catch on until it becomes the norm.

Share This Page

Search tags for this page