Did the Founders want a weak central government?

[Bern80]

I said "if YOU think", not if I think, Bern. You are projecting. Your internet opinion is wrong, SCOTUS is right, and we don't have to go there. However, no one is stopping you from making that journey to futility.

And what you think about my position is of course incorrect. What am I wrong about?

I don't think SCOUTS has 'eviscerated the constitution'. Are there a handful of rulings I would maybe disagree with? Sure. You can't tell me you think they got it right 100% of the time either.

I even agree that they are the final say on the document. But having the final word and being correct about it are two different things.

It isn't even SCOTUS rulings that I have the biggest problem with. It's the legislature that seems to not even consider whether legislation they pass is constitutional much less makes laws that abide by how it was written and constructed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, your third paragraph narrows what you are saying so that pea brains like me get it. I agree that both SCOTUS and the Congress make some stupid rulings and legislation. Yes, 100% I agree with that.

Did you know until the late 1990s, the state of Utah had a small office that gave the legislature (overwhelmingly GOP since the late Reagan years) its opinions on constitutionality of proposed and passed legislation? So many of the opinions contradicted the legislation that the legislature, instead of considering the merit of the office and as an unofficial check, simply elimianted the office.

 

[Bern80]

Did you know until the late 1990s, the state of Utah had a small office that gave the legislature (overwhelmingly GOP since the late Reagan years) its opinions on constitutionality of proposed and passed legislation? So many of the opinions contradicted the legislation that the legislature, instead of considering the merit of the office and as an unofficial check, simply elimianted the office.

I did not. I wish the fed had something like that, a constitutional review committee or something. Unfortunately it doesn't surprise me much that the Utah office was disolved. We wouldn't want to get in the way of 'progress' now would we.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course not.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If you answered "YES", the please explain why they did not keep the Articles of Confederation, which was a form of government with weak central authority and most of the real power still resting with the states.

Here's a good discriptive video of what the founders truely wanted for this country. Or at least it fits for me.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC_BzMptnlk&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5G1VnOEjao&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8o_fdh1xg4&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPlOTuSGYeQ&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBkYaKaah18&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlLWQZ4p4eM&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJLbxlIWztg&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhEi1ZXc0Fk&feature=related[/ame]

 

[JakeStarkey]

But do we have to follow their vision, bigrebnc, if it constrains us as a people from moving forward? That is my issue with Judges Thomas and Bork: it is as if nothing changed for them since 1791.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

But do we have to follow their vision, bigrebnc, if it constrains us as a people from moving forward? That is my issue with Judges Thomas and Bork: it is as if nothing changed for them since 1791.

Their vision gave us the freedoms we have. The U.S. Constitutrion has been the frame work that many nations have built their government on. I'm not changing

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then live in 1791 with racism, slavery, sexism, homophobia. Stay there. You will not be needed for the future.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Then live in 1791 with racism, slavery, sexism, homophobia. Stay there. You will not be needed for the future.

Blather blather blather, Saul Alinsky needs to teach you something other than showing that you are a communist.

 

[Bern80]

But do we have to follow their vision, bigrebnc, if it constrains us as a people from moving forward? That is my issue with Judges Thomas and Bork: it is as if nothing changed for them since 1791.

It doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing. So they thought slavery was okay. Fine we don't have to use it. Other visions I think are rather important and still ring true today like personal liberty.

When some of us here talk about getting 'back' to a nation the framers envisioned those are the ideals we are talking about. I don't see how holding to a position of personal liberty being the utmost important to protect as holding the country back. I don't see an overall vision of a government that is checked and balanced to prevent tyranny, to prevent the things they fled in Europe from happening here as being detrimental to societal growth. I don't see how anyone can disagree with carrying on those ideals today. And doing so certainly doesn't require us to revert to other 'values' such as women and minorities being essentially second class citizens.

Now, if as you say, the constitution is to be followed as it was written and constructed those values ought to take care of themselves as they are overarching themes. The document is not a charter from government that bestows priviledges on its subjects. It is a document from the people that grants certain powers to the government. So perhaps the best things to do is 'interpret' the constitution from a strictly constructionist standpoint. One that abides not by the visions of this framer or that framer but one that abides by the definition of the words on paper and the grammatical rules of written english.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then live in 1791 with racism, slavery, sexism, homophobia. Stay there. You will not be needed for the future.

Blather blather blather, Saul Alinsky needs to teach you something other than showing that you are a communist.

In other words, Little Saul of the Far Right (see you just got a title!), you got nothing.

The founders could not envision the future; therefore, the Constitution is organic, not rigid, but to be interpreted for each era and generation; thus the argument for "originalism" is constructed on a bed of rhetorical sand that washed away long ago.

Move on, Little Saul. Better yet, take a history course.

 

[JakeStarkey]

None of that, which you worry yourself silly about, has occurred. If you don't like the modern world, move to the country and do not use electricity or city water or sanitation or sewage or police protection or fire prevention or or or or. . . Come on, guys, give us something concrete. If not, you are Pals of Little Saul. You got nothing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Then live in 1791 with racism, slavery, sexism, homophobia. Stay there. You will not be needed for the future.

Blather blather blather, Saul Alinsky needs to teach you something other than showing that you are a communist.

In other words, Little Saul of the Far Right (see you just got a title!), you got nothing.

The founders could not envision the future; therefore, the Constitution is organic, not rigid, but to be interpreted for each era and generation; thus the argument for "originalism" is constructed on a bed of rhetorical sand that washed away long ago.

Move on, Little Saul. Better yet, take a history course.

In other words, Little Saul of the Far Right (see you just got a title!), you got nothing.

No brainless one saul is a leftist. Your little rant at an attempt of embarrassing me doesn't work.

The founders could not envision the future

Oh they had foresight thats why they also created the bill of rights.

not rigid, but to be interpreted for each era and generation; thus the argument for "originalism" is constructed on a bed of rhetorical sand that washed away long ago.

Move on, Little Saul. Better yet, take a history course

I suggest you need to go back and study your self or better yet move your communist ass to russia cuba or some other country to your liking. Your kind is not welcome here anymore

the Constitution is organic

no it isn't communist. There are certain steps that must be taken to amsend the constituion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigrebnc has become the Little Saul of the Moronic Right.

Dude, the Constitution governs. The governance is done by legislation, amendment, and judicial review. You don't like it, Little Saul, who cares?

You truly are the saul alinisky of the moronic far right. Son, you are goofy.

Enroll in your local community college, there, Little Saul. Take a history course. Do your soul good.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

bigrebnc has become the Little Saul of the Moronic Right.

Dude, the Constitution governs. The governance is done by legislation, amendment, and judicial review. You don't like it, Little Saul, who cares?

You truly are the saul alinisky of the moronic far right. Son, you are goofy.

Enroll in your local community college, there, Little Saul. Take a history course. Do your soul good.

Jake, you've yet to explain what fundamental changes we need to make to the Constitution because of xboxes or iPods

 

[bag]

If you answered "YES", the please explain why they did not keep the Articles of Confederation, which was a form of government with weak central authority and most of the real power still resting with the states.

"our" forefathers had the intelligence to leave it up to US, if you read the constitution, the articles of confederation, the declaration of independence, and ALL OTHER relevant papers posted at that time. leaving it there.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigrebnc has become the Little Saul of the Moronic Right.

Dude, the Constitution governs. The governance is done by legislation, amendment, and judicial review. You don't like it, Little Saul, who cares?

You truly are the saul alinisky of the moronic far right. Son, you are goofy.

Enroll in your local community college, there, Little Saul. Take a history course. Do your soul good.

You don't like it, Little Saul, who cares?

From all of your replys little communist you are the one that does not like the Constitution the way it is.

But do we have to follow their vision, bigrebnc, if it constrains us as a people from moving forward? That is my issue with Judges Thomas and Bork: it is as if nothing changed for them since 1791.

Then live in 1791 with racism, slavery, sexism, homophobia. Stay there. You will not be needed for the future.

These are all human emotions with the exception of slavery you cannot legislate out of extence.

Then live in 1791 with racism, slavery, sexism, homophobia. Stay there. You will not be needed for the future.

Blather blather blather, Saul Alinsky needs to teach you something other than showing that you are a communist.

In other words, Little Saul of the Far Right (see you just got a title!), you got nothing.

The founders could not envision the future; therefore, the Constitution is organic, not rigid, but to be interpreted for each era and generation; thus the argument for "originalism" is constructed on a bed of rhetorical sand that washed away long ago.

Move on, Little Saul. Better yet, take a history course.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Little Saul of the Far Right, as I thought, has no answer.

Run Little Saul, run!

 

[Bern80]

None of that, which you worry yourself silly about, has occurred. If you don't like the modern world, move to the country and do not use electricity or city water or sanitation or sewage or police protection or fire prevention or or or or. . . Come on, guys, give us something concrete. If not, you are Pals of Little Saul. You got nothing.

I don't get why you keep referencing the 'modern world' vs. the 'framer's world'. What is it about the modern world you don't think I like? The ONLY issue I have with the modern world or how government does things is when they sacrafice freedom for 'progress'.

Freedom is the ability to choose. The more choices taken away from you the less free you are. Freedom is also money. The more of it you have the more free you are. There are a couple of undeniable facts along those line. Our government has done nothing but get bigger since it's inception. It simply does more, regulates more, provides more services and takes on more roles. That costs money. Government gets it's money through taxes. Thus the bigger government, the more it decides to do and thus the more money it needs from YOU, the less free you are.

So Jake, you simply can not factually state that your freedom isn't being eroded. It is. The only question is, is it acceptable to you in the name of progress. The framers did have pretty good forsight where these concepts are concerned. Jefferson said "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under thepretense of taking care of them." and Frankln said those who would sacrifice their liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You simply do not understand that history does not stand still, Bern80. Technological development over the last 250 years has continually eroded human privacy, which I think you equate with "liberty." Only an apocalypse will stop that, and we all will be returned to the steam and coal oil age.