Freedom?

[Pappadave]

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.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

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?

 

[Pappadave]

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.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

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?

 

[Tech_Esq]

It sounds as though he's rejecting Judicial Review more than representative government.

Am I right?

 

[Pappadave]

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

 

[Tech_Esq]

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.

 

[Charles_Main]

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

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.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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

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.

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.

 

[Samson]

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.

Would you rather judges base their decisions on a NYT/MSNBC poll because they're concerned about being re-elected?

 

[midcan5]

"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." Adam Smith 'The Wealth of Nations,' Book I Chapter VIII


OMG what hogwash this OP is and how often you read it. It is as if a whole generation of Americans have joined the 'cult of greed and selfishness.' Freedom is meaningless outside of context. We are not free in anarchy, even though the naive seem to think so. It is strange how America has lost it sense of community through or because of identity politics. Freedom and particularly individual freedom are strong myths that oddly stand in the way of a just and fair society. Nations collapse from the inside, and America's tilt to a smug abandonment of its religious and secular sense of fairness leads in one direction only.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.html


http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/88682-a-conservative-wakes-up.html


Check this out after reading below quote. Jared Diamond on why societies collapse | Video on TED.com

"'The Culture of Contentment' is a deliberate misnomer. Galbraith is using irony here, irony little short of sarcasm. What he really means is the culture of smugness. His argument is that until the mid 1970s round about the oil crisis the western democracies accepted the idea of a mixed economy and with that went economic social progress. Since then, however, a prominent class has emerged, materially stable and even very rich, which, far from trying to help the less fortunate, has developed a whole infrastructure - politically and intellectually - to marginalize and even demonize them. Aspects of this include tax reductions to the better off and welfare cuts to the worst off, small 'manageable wars' to maintain the unifying force of a common enemy, the idea of 'unmitigated laissez-faire as embodiment of freedom,' and a desire for cutback in government. The most important collective end result of all this, Galbraith says, is a blindness and a deafness among the 'contented' to the growing problems of society. While they are content to spend, or have spent in their name, trillions of dollars to defeat relatively minor enemy figures... they are extremely unwilling to spend money on the underclass nearer home. In a startling paragraph he quotes figures to show that 'the number of Americans living below the poverty line increased by 28% in just 10 years from 24.5 million in 1978 to 32 million in 1988 by then nearly one in five children was born in poverty in the United States more than twice as high a proportion as in Canada or Germany." Peter Watson


[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Contentment-Penguin-economics-Galbraith/dp/0140173668/ref=sr_1_17?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Culture of Contentment, the (Penguin economics) (9780140173666): John Kenneth Galbraith: Books[/ame]

 

[Truthmatters]

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

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.

Which is why a president stealing an election ( like Bush did) and then appointing SCOTUS members is so very bad for this country.

They are to be appointed by duly elected presidents not people who KNOW the guys who make the voting machines and people willing to break the law and keep Aemricans from voting.

 

[Truthmatters]

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. What part of interstate commerse do you not understand?

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.Did he sell his chickens on an interstate market?

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.

You have been fed a load of shit and lapped it up

 

[Douger]

YO Pappa.
Get yourself to Miami and I'll pay your airfare and lodgin in southern Cuba. The lobster is fantastic and damn near "free".
On the way back we'll stop at Romeo y Julieta and get you some cigars to take home to your buddies.
All you have is FreeDumb.

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

 

[Harry Dresden]

YO Pappa.
Get yourself to Miami and I'll pay your airfare and lodgin in southern Cuba. The lobster is fantastic and damn near "free".
On the way back we'll stop at Romeo y Julieta and get you some cigars to take home to your buddies.
All you have is FreeDumb.

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

did you like the way Castros dick tasted....

 

[Pappadave]

I think we going off track. I am not stating I want more freedom. I recognize my freedoms are limited by the freedoms of others. I claim no right unto myself I am not willing to grant to others. I claim no right or authority to change anything other than by the force of reason. I do think our governments have strayed far beyond the limits we the people established in the constitution. The whole issue including the limits on ourselves needs to be revisited. The document itself provides ways and means to to just that (as long as Charlie Rangel Is not the chairman). Sorry, couldn't resist a cheap shot. Why are we so afraid to use them? Do we fear ourselves that much? Peace, Love, And Faith. Pappadave

 

[anewhope]

Freedom is a human right!

But the focus needs to be promoting women's rights worldwide. Then freedom will improved in countries where women aren't treated as equals as men.

 

[Old Rocks]

YO Pappa.
Get yourself to Miami and I'll pay your airfare and lodgin in southern Cuba. The lobster is fantastic and damn near "free".
On the way back we'll stop at Romeo y Julieta and get you some cigars to take home to your buddies.
All you have is FreeDumb.

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

did you like the way Castros dick tasted....

Do you like the way Suadi dick tastes?

 

[Segfault]

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?

So if we need to go to war and we don't have the money for it, should we raise taxes or just stand down? I certainly don't think lowering taxes in this scenario is going to work out.

 

[Twofox]

I think we going off track. I am not stating I want more freedom. I recognize my freedoms are limited by the freedoms of others. I claim no right unto myself I am not willing to grant to others. I claim no right or authority to change anything other than by the force of reason. I do think our governments have strayed far beyond the limits we the people established in the constitution. The whole issue including the limits on ourselves needs to be revisited. The document itself provides ways and means to to just that (as long as Charlie Rangel Is not the chairman). Sorry, couldn't resist a cheap shot. Why are we so afraid to use them? Do we fear ourselves that much? Peace, Love, And Faith. Pappadave

That's pretty much what I got out of your original post.

Over time, our corrupt politicians have found ways to game the system. Am I cynical? Sure, a bit, but this is also the reality of our current state of affairs in government.

Career politicians have done everything they can to stay in power. The mafia used to buy judges, does anyone really think that politicians, or parties don't do this today?

I agree that one major weak spot is the judges. While congress can pass laws to reverse decisions made at the bench, there needs to be something else in place as well. Term limits may lower the number of judges that can be bought, it may not. Electing them is a bad way to go, as someone pointed out, they'd just run for re-election.

There is a movement by the states to submit constitutional amendments, but congress refuses to call the meeting (sorry blanking on terminology here). That's a place to start. It's called something like the article 5 convention?