Freedom?

Discussion in 'Congress' started by Pappadave, Aug 18, 2010.

  1. Pappadave
    Offline

    Pappadave Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    109
    Thanks Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +15
    We live in a society supposedly based on freedom with a charter (constitution) that establishes the rights and limitations of that freedom. We supposedly accept the concepts of liberty, the freedom to choose, the rights of the individual. We established by the constitution the limits, the duties and responsibilities, and the boundaries of how far our limited government could encroach on our freedoms. We supposedly accept that our freedoms are limited by the freedoms of others, but do we? Does our government? I think not.

    Have we granted our government the right to confiscate by force (tax) the fruits of our labor (wealth) for any purpose outside those established limits? Can our government decide for us which acts of charity, no matter how worthy, I.E. exemptions, exceptions, subsidies, grants, entitlements, "redistribution of wealth" we support? Without our express permission, any and all uses of tax revenues beyond the limits imposed by the constitution is simply theft and should be treated as a crime. If we as a society wish to support and fund these charitable acts we need to define that right in the constitution (amend it).

    Have we granted our government the right or authority to spend our wealth or the wealth of future generations (deficit spending) before that wealth even exists? Did we anywhere in the constitution grant the right of taxation without representation? Do we allow in the constitution the right of the government to rob the future? Did we allow in the constitution the authority or power to tax our wealth at differing rates (different strokes for different folks)? We demanded by our constitution equity of laws (We are all created Equal). It would seem that taxation by any means other than a flat rate equally applied to all violates that principle.

    You govern with the consent of the governed. Our constitution is that consent. Any exercise of power outside that consent is not acceptable without amending that consent. Our government does not get to decide which parts to obey and which to ignore. Any excursion beyond the limits on government or even ourselves is forbidden by that constitution. The need to rewrite, redefine, and reestablish the limits of the constitution is obvious, the author of the constitution is we the people, Do we really believe in Freedom? Get to work and keep it.

    Peace, Love, and Faith. Pappadave.
     
  2. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,748
    Thanks Received:
    4,242
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,156
    So, you reject representative government, and therefore the Constitution of the U.S. There can be no other inference from you words.
    What would please you? National referendums on every issue? Every state able to pass laws indifferent to laws passed by other states; laws passed of course by state referendums?
    How would you fix, or what would replace our Constitution?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Pappadave
    Offline

    Pappadave Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    109
    Thanks Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +15
    I do not reject representative government, I demand that it represents all of us equally. When governments seek to rule rather than govern they have stepped beyond the authority we the people gave them. I don't want to change the constitution to comply with my standards, I want it to state all of OUR standards. The simple rule of the majority is mob rule, followed to its logical end we find one man (or woman) standing in a wasteland of death and destruction, king or queen of all they survey. We the people created the constitution, we the people need to fix it. P.S. The constitution covers state governments as well.
     
  4. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,748
    Thanks Received:
    4,242
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,156
    I don't understand. Do you support or reject the USSC in Citizens United v. FEC? How does a government, or should a government, decide policy or enact laws on issues wherein different citizens (or citizens and an industry) have conflicting interests?
     
  5. Tech_Esq
    Offline

    Tech_Esq Sic Semper Tyrannis!

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,408
    Thanks Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Ratings:
    +558
    It sounds as though he's rejecting Judicial Review more than representative government.

    Am I right?
     
  6. Pappadave
    Offline

    Pappadave Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    109
    Thanks Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +15
    I reject Judicial tyranny. The courts have the power to rule on the constitutionality of a law, they have no authority to make law. An error in a law should be remanded to the legislative body that enacted it in the first place. We supposedly are a country of Law, not men and women in robes making the law. I am not claiming to have all the answers, I'm merely asking the question. Harry Truman had a sign on his desk, "the buck stops here". In our system the buck stops at the feet of the people who created the system. If we are satisfied with system, fine. If we are not, we have the right, the power, and the duty to correct it, not eliminate it. Pappadave
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Tech_Esq
    Offline

    Tech_Esq Sic Semper Tyrannis!

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,408
    Thanks Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Ratings:
    +558
    Unfortunately, in practice it has been extremely difficult to separate "saying what the law is" and making law. I think to the detriment of the country.

    Specifically, in United States v. Darby Lumber Co. where the Supreme Court essentially invalidated the 10th Amendment. I believe this was a gross abuse of power by the Supremes and it needs to be overruled.

    Also, in Wickard v. Filburn when the Court ruled that the lack of Commerce was commerce under the commerce clause and therefore subject to regulation by congress.

    This leads in a chain of cases led to the thought, held by Congress, that they have the ability under the Constitution to pass the health care bill.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Charles_Main
    Offline

    Charles_Main AR15 Owner

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    16,692
    Thanks Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Ratings:
    +2,251
    I have always personally had some trouble with our Judaical Branch of Government. Trouble with the way it is set up. Federal Judges wield Serious Power to influence how the constitution is Interpreted. Yet they are not only not elected but appointed, But they are appointed for LIFE. With the Peoples only possible recourse being Impeachment which is not an easy thing to pull off. We worry about presidents like Reagan serving when their minds might be starting to go from Age, yet we are ok with Supreme court justices appointed and serving for over 50 years until near 100 years old.

    Seems like a flaw in our Democratic system to have so much power in the hands of so few, who are not elected but Appointed to life long seats.
     
  9. Tech_Esq
    Offline

    Tech_Esq Sic Semper Tyrannis!

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,408
    Thanks Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Ratings:
    +558
    I think that is a legitimate point. It's covered in the Federalist Papers as to why the life term, but I don't know that the points made there survive after Marbary v. Madison and Chief Justice Marshall claiming the power for the court of judicial review.

    We might consider term limiting them at 20 years or so.
     
  10. Samson
    Offline

    Samson Póg Mo Thóin Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,357
    Thanks Received:
    3,742
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    A Higher Plain
    Ratings:
    +4,210
    Would you rather judges base their decisions on a NYT/MSNBC poll because they're concerned about being re-elected?
     

Share This Page