Constitution

Discussion in 'Congress' started by Zoom-boing, Jun 1, 2009.

  1. Zoom-boing
    Offline

    Zoom-boing Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    25,071
    Thanks Received:
    7,261
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    East Japip
    Ratings:
    +10,130
    My son has history project due next week. It's a timeline and write up covering six of the chapters in their history book. It basically covers pre-Revolutionary war to post Constitution.

    In reading over the information, when I started reading the 'Seven Principles of the Constitution' when I read these principles, I did a double take. 1. 'Popular Sovereignty (who gives the government its power). Popular sovereignty is a government in which the people rule. Everyone I've spoken too thinks bailing out failing companies is wrong, wrong, wrong yet . . . the government does as it pleases, not what the people want. 2. Republicanism - the people exercise their power by voting of their political reps. Ok -- but how do you get reps who will represent the people instead of their own interests? I don't trust any of the politicians to hold my best interest in the forefront, do you? Obama vs. McCain. I mean, really? This was our choice? 3. Limited Government - ok, this was the one that really made me stop. The Constitution was specifically framed for the government to be limited and yet . . . . the government is anything but limited, and hasn't been for awhile, and is growing bigger and bigger as we speak. The principle of limited government is also closely related to the 'rule of law', where in the American government everyone, citizens and powerful leaders alike, must obey the law. Individuals or groups cannot twist or bypass the law to serve their own interests. How many of Obama's cabinet picks have broken the law and yet . . . . a blind eye is turned to it and they are given the job.

    In reading over all of the information in the history book it made me sick to see where our government started and how far off course we've gone. I see government control in so many things where it just shouldn't be . . . when will it stop? Honestly, I don't think it will. It makes me sad to think that in another generation or so they won't have any idea that once upon a time people had the freedom to make choices instead of the government deciding for them.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. Agnapostate
    Offline

    Agnapostate BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Quake State
    Ratings:
    +344
    I think an inability to implement legitimate democracy is a deficiency of republicanism as a whole, which is why I instead advocate anarchism, keeping in mind Gaston Leval's observation that the Spanish anarchists "instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganization of social life." That said, I've long recognized the unfeasibility of the implementation of anarchism in my lifetime, so I instead focus on broad progressivism and libertarianism.

    Now, I also do believe that the founders had an interest in equality of opportunity, and did not realize that rapid industrialization would cement the power of the financial class and prevent easy transition by the masses. Their existence in an agrarian society characterized by relative equality of opportunity for white male landowners over 21 (heh), prevented any major speculation about this. That's why I favor nationalization of major industries and the extension of democracy into the economic realm through worker-owned enterprises and labor cooperatives, combined with the destruction of wealth and market concentration and the facilitation of legitimately competitive market enterprise through the radical re-organization of property rights so that genuine equality of opportunity is established. It's through that means that the role of government, an integral agent in the capitalist economy, can be drastically reduced in the market socialist economy and democracy can flourish.
     
  3. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,595
    Thanks Received:
    5,913
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,028
    Don't bring this up amongst our Left leaning friends. They will tell you that even though it is clearly stated that the Federal Government was to be a limited Government and that AMENDMENTS were required to give it new powers, that the supposed General Welfare clause ( one that does NOT exist) gives the Government UNLIMITED power.

    That new Amendments are not needed when one can just claim it is for the "general" Welfare. Again a clause that does not exist.

    Lawyers, politicians hell every walk of life for the left will tell you this.

    Just before the Constitution lists the REAL Limits of power given the Federal Government, the wrote a paragraph to explain WHY these powers were granted and they added a point that THESE powers were for the General Welfare of the Country and the people.

    Now the left takes that OUT of context and claims, even though it is not one of the listed powers, that some how it is now a power of the Government.

    The Federalist papers, other papers, comments from the Founders all indicate this simply is NOT true. The Constitution itself proves it is not true as it does not list " the General Welfare" as a separate power at all. It is simply a descriptor of WHY the real powers exist.

    Jillian is one of the worst offenders, she keeps reminding us she went to LAW school and is a practicing Attorney and she is so badly informed on what the Constitution means as to beg the question? Was she ever given a class on the document?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  4. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,595
    Thanks Received:
    5,913
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,028
    You want no Government but before it goes you want it to make all those better off then you to be made no better then you financially. How Quaint. You want no Government but you want this none existent Government to seize all Industry and basically destroy it by giving it away to people that have no investment in it. How Quaint.

    n other words you want anarchy so no one will have more than you and you do not have to work to achieve anything. Thanks for explaining that.
     
  5. NOBama
    Offline

    NOBama Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,242
    Thanks Received:
    173
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +173
    People were once thought that the world was square too, it took a long time to prove otherwise. The only differecne is that those people really believed the world was square, in the case of the libtards promoting the idea that the constitution was given the power to determine and control the general welfare of the people, it's a self serving interest and a case they have yet been able to prove.
     
  6. Agnapostate
    Offline

    Agnapostate BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Quake State
    Ratings:
    +344
    Don't be absurd. Your primitive misconceptions simply can't address the fact that the democratic market socialism of the nature that I advocate (based around worker-owned enterprises and labor cooperatives, again), would have a far smaller place for government than capitalism currently does. Workers' ownership is precisely what facilitates legitimately competitive market exchange by those with an interest in success; the fact that all workers receive shares of firm profits is a strong motivation to work harder.
     
  7. Zoom-boing
    Offline

    Zoom-boing Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    25,071
    Thanks Received:
    7,261
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    East Japip
    Ratings:
    +10,130
    Jillian is a lawyer?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,595
    Thanks Received:
    5,913
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,028
    Careful she will get mad and neg rep you for not admitting she is a Lawyer.

    But ya, hard to believe with some of the crap that comes out of her mouth, Hu?
     
  9. Zoom-boing
    Offline

    Zoom-boing Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    25,071
    Thanks Received:
    7,261
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    East Japip
    Ratings:
    +10,130
    She won't neg rep me. For some reason I thought she was a teacher.

    ETA: or worked in corporate, something suit-like.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2009
  10. Agnapostate
    Offline

    Agnapostate BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Quake State
    Ratings:
    +344
    Nah, I don't think Jill is a lawyer or lives in New York, for that matter. I have no evidence of that; I just enjoy disputing her claims about her own identity...reciprocal justice, y'know. :)
     

Share This Page