Irreconcilable Differences?

[Rikurzhen]

Why can't we return to that concept for the future? Why must one side impose its will on the other side on an increasing variety of social and moral issues? Why can't the people of individual states decide for themselves? We are all free to express our views with our ballots (and our feet, if necessary). What ever happened to tolerance for opposing viewpoints?

That's two different questions. Often the two sides are in the SAME state. Your solution does nothing to stop that. What you advocate is the balkanization of America. If we're to be one country, we need a common framework, not 50. One problem comes when people insist on a concept that I believe never existed, i.e. "original intent". It's a statistical and logical impossibility that all the framers had the same intent. The Constitution should be regarded as a living document that's read in view of the times we live in, NOT the views of 18th century gentry. The Canadians have this concept as a fundamental part of their constitutional law called the Living Tree Doctrine.

Living tree doctrine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Re: Living Tree. Of course progressives favor this because they favor having a Constitution unmoored from principles.

The Canadian formulation illustrates how deranged this notion is. Their Supreme Court wrote that notion into their legal culture - the citizens never had a say. Then future judges claim it is a bedrock principle of Canadian Constitutional jurisprudence. Hooey.

The way to keep a Constitution current is to amend it. This way the people always have a voice. The living tree approach gives far, far too much power to an unelected group of people to radically change the MOST fundamental governing principles which bind us all into one compact.

In Canada's case the problem of detached judiciary is even worse that what we face here in that their SC Justices are not subject to hearings at all, their appointed behind closed doors and with input from the Canadian Bar Association. Smoke-filled back rooms combined with judges having the power to alter a Constitution just on a whim and being free from being held accountable is an awful example to hold up to emulate.

To your other issue - people of differing ideologies being colocated in the same state. This is fairly easy to solve given a long enough period of time to implement a solution - provide incentives for relocation. A Big Sort of sorts. Twenty, thirty, or forty years from start to finish. The rate of relocation should accelerate as the political imbalance grows, meaning that the incentive really only need be available to start the ball rolling.

We'll all be happier with the outcome. Liberals can have their dreamt of Nanny State and normal people can be left alone.

 

[Rikurzhen]

It is pretty clear that, politically, our nation is split into two camps with antithetical views about the role of government. As a result, we are moving towards a system where whichever side gains a temporary majority can dictate its views without any regard for the minority. This, in turn, creates a feeling of disenfranchisement which undermines confidence in our democracy and leads to civil unrest, which can be expressed in many ways.

One way to avoid this developing situation is to return to the concept of State Sovereignty as envisioned by our Founders in the Constitution. (I avoid the term "States Rights" because of its association with the obviously unconstitutional practice of racial segregation.) This concept, specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, limited the Federal government's authority to impose its will on the various States without their consent. It was the basis upon which 13 political entities, with widely divergent views, were able to join together to create an exceptional new country. The beauty of this system is that it allows people to agree to disagree without infringing on each others' rights.

Why can't we return to that concept for the future? Why must one side impose its will on the other side on an increasing variety of social and moral issues? Why can't the people of individual states decide for themselves? We are all free to express our views with our ballots (and our feet, if necessary). What ever happened to tolerance for opposing viewpoints?

Zealots on both sides should reconsider their authoritarian positions, lest they reap what they have sown.

I have long been beating the drum for this concept. The original intent of the Founders, however they might have disagreed on HOW best to achieve it, was to create a nation in which the people would be subject to no dictator, feudal lord, dictator, monarch, pope, or other totalitarian form of government.

The Constitution was intended to allow for sufficient regulation to secure and defend the rights of the people and allow the various states to function as one nation, and then it was intended that the federal government would leave the people strictly alone to live their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.

The divided government with executive, legislative, and judicial branches, each assigned its own powers, was intended to protect against any form of totalitarianism.

But power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth are heady temptations for the best of people, and over time a permanent political class, something the Founders would have abhorred, has developed blurring the lines between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches and has given away to an increasing totalitarianism that the Constitution was supposed to prevent.

The only difference between Republicans and Democrats, both populated with the permanent political class these days, is that they represent different constituencies and each throws enough bones to their own base to keep the people voting them into office. When that no longer works for them, I'm pretty sure they would figure out a way to do away with the vote.

Returning all the power and resources to the states other than that necessary for the states to function as one nation would remedy the whole thing.

Nice read, but your thesis is still all about what the "Founders" wanted. What matters is what "we the people" want. That means today's people, NOT those of the late 18th century.

I want want the Founders wanted. So do a lot of other people. There, problem solved.

 

[konradv]

I want want the Founders wanted. So do a lot of other people. There, problem solved.

Not really. Your solution presumes all the Founders wanted the same thing, a statistical and logical impossibility. When have you ever heard of such a large group of people being of one mind politically?

 

[Rikurzhen]

I want want the Founders wanted. So do a lot of other people. There, problem solved.

Not really. Your solution presumes all the Founders wanted the same thing, a statistical and logical impossibility. When have you ever heard of such a large group of people being of one mind politically?

I don't care whether George wanted to bed Betsy and that Ben wanted to drink a cup of grog.

They, by definition, all agreed to clear principles, so your statistical impossibility has just turned into a statistical certainty. All of the other factors which would lead to conflicting visions are outside of the agreement that they reached. The principles in play here are the Lowest Common Denominator found amongst the Founders.

 

[Foxfyre]

[QUOTE="Rikurzhen, post: 9700898, member: 50157
I want want the Founders wanted. So do a lot of other people. There, problem solved.[/QUOTE]

Me too as I previously expressed.

 

[Agit8r]

...the concept of State Sovereignty as envisioned by our Founders in the Constitution.

Nope:

"They seem still to aim at things repugnant and irreconcilable; at an augmentation of federal authority, without a diminution of State authority; at sovereignty in the Union, and complete independence in the members. They still, in fine, seem to cherish with blind devotion the political monster of an imperium in imperio."
-- from Federalist #15

 

[Agit8r]

I take it that advocates of state sovereignty have no problem with states limiting second amendment rights?

So exactly who decides which rights in the Constitution are immune from state action, and how does that differ from what we have now?

The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights upon the states.

 

[konradv]

I want want the Founders wanted. So do a lot of other people. There, problem solved.

Not really. Your solution presumes all the Founders wanted the same thing, a statistical and logical impossibility. When have you ever heard of such a large group of people being of one mind politically?

I don't care whether George wanted to bed Betsy and that Ben wanted to drink a cup of grog.

They, by definition, all agreed to clear principles, so your statistical impossibility has just turned into a statistical certainty. All of the other factors which would lead to conflicting visions are outside of the agreement that they reached. The principles in play here are the Lowest Common Denominator found amongst the Founders.

That's a lot of mumbo-jumbo that amounts to "I'm right because I say I'm right". The lowest common denominator was a short, in parts vague, document that requires a SC to sort out. If it was as clear as you day it wouldn't have been necessary and we wouldn't be having the arguments we're having today.

 

[jwoodie]

Why are you so afraid of AMENDING the Constitution as needed rather than by judicial fiat? That power is SPECIFICALLY granted to the STATES. Or do you consider that process "vague?" The answer, of course, is that you and your ilk want to impose your will on other people without their assent or recourse. How admirable.

All that matters is, is it Constitutional? That's determined by the SC. So, it's impossible for anyone to "impose their will". If the SC says it's OK, it isn't an imposition. If the SC says it isn't OK, the law is void. Sure you can amend the Constitution, but that's a long and tedious process.

Thank you for proving my point so eloquently. If you can get five political hacks on your side, the Constitution be damned. You can then create new "rights" (e.g., "privacy") out of whole cloth, ignore whichever existing provisions (e.g., 10th Amendment) you find inconvenient and impose your will on the entire nation. All without consideration of the will of the people or having to go through a "tedious" Constitutional process. Congratulations!

 

[jwoodie]

I take it that advocates of state sovereignty have no problem with states limiting second amendment rights?

So exactly who decides which rights in the Constitution are immune from state action, and how does that differ from what we have now?

The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights upon the states.

No. it doesn't. Have you actually read it? Without any Constitutional authority, SCOTUS decided to SELECTIVELY incorporate SOME portions of the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment by unilaterally voiding the 10th Amendment.

 

[Rotagilla]

I take it that advocates of state sovereignty have no problem with states limiting second amendment rights?

So exactly who decides which rights in the Constitution are immune from state action, and how does that differ from what we have now?

The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights upon the states.

The 14th amendment is unconstitutional. It wasn't ratified legally. Read some history.

 

[jwoodie]

I want want the Founders wanted. So do a lot of other people. There, problem solved.

Not really. Your solution presumes all the Founders wanted the same thing, a statistical and logical impossibility. When have you ever heard of such a large group of people being of one mind politically?

I don't care whether George wanted to bed Betsy and that Ben wanted to drink a cup of grog.

They, by definition, all agreed to clear principles, so your statistical impossibility has just turned into a statistical certainty. All of the other factors which would lead to conflicting visions are outside of the agreement that they reached. The principles in play here are the Lowest Common Denominator found amongst the Founders.

That's a lot of mumbo-jumbo that amounts to "I'm right because I say I'm right". The lowest common denominator was a short, in parts vague, document that requires a SC to sort out. If it was as clear as you day it wouldn't have been necessary and we wouldn't be having the arguments we're having today.

Why are so opposed to the Constitutional Amendment process? Are you afraid that it wouldn't come out the way YOU want it to?

P.S. It seems that very few Democrats are democrats.

 

[Freemason9]

. . .

But power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth are heady temptations for the best of people, and over time a permanent political class, something the Founders would have abhorred, has developed blurring the lines between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches and has given away to an increasing totalitarianism that the Constitution was supposed to prevent.

The only difference between Republicans and Democrats, both populated with the permanent political class these days, is that they represent different constituencies and each throws enough bones to their own base to keep the people voting them into office. When that no longer works for them, I'm pretty sure they would figure out a way to do away with the vote.

Returning all the power and resources to the states other than that necessary for the states to function as one nation would remedy the whole thing.

I agree in principle, but current state borders would probably need to change; i.e., rural states with sparse populations and relatively low mean incomes like Nebraska, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma, etc. could never support themselves.

And in principle, I am against the very concept of forced taxation by any government; then again, taxation is absolutely necessary to support modern infrastructure and social economics.

It's an interesting question . . . but there is no doubt that Kansans have no business making laws for Californians, and contrariwise.

 

[Freemason9]

I want want the Founders wanted. So do a lot of other people. There, problem solved.

Not really. Your solution presumes all the Founders wanted the same thing, a statistical and logical impossibility. When have you ever heard of such a large group of people being of one mind politically?

I don't care whether George wanted to bed Betsy and that Ben wanted to drink a cup of grog.

They, by definition, all agreed to clear principles, so your statistical impossibility has just turned into a statistical certainty. All of the other factors which would lead to conflicting visions are outside of the agreement that they reached. The principles in play here are the Lowest Common Denominator found amongst the Founders.

That's a lot of mumbo-jumbo that amounts to "I'm right because I say I'm right". The lowest common denominator was a short, in parts vague, document that requires a SC to sort out. If it was as clear as you day it wouldn't have been necessary and we wouldn't be having the arguments we're having today.

Why are so opposed to the Constitutional Amendment process? Are you afraid that it wouldn't come out the way YOU want it to?

P.S. It seems that very few Democrats are democrats.

I don't think that's true about Democrats; it's just that activist conservative Supreme Court judges have turned the Constitution into a corporate charter.

 

[Foxfyre]

. . .

But power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth are heady temptations for the best of people, and over time a permanent political class, something the Founders would have abhorred, has developed blurring the lines between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches and has given away to an increasing totalitarianism that the Constitution was supposed to prevent.

The only difference between Republicans and Democrats, both populated with the permanent political class these days, is that they represent different constituencies and each throws enough bones to their own base to keep the people voting them into office. When that no longer works for them, I'm pretty sure they would figure out a way to do away with the vote.

Returning all the power and resources to the states other than that necessary for the states to function as one nation would remedy the whole thing.

I agree in principle, but current state borders would probably need to change; i.e., rural states with sparse populations and relatively low mean incomes like Nebraska, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma, etc. could never support themselves.

And in principle, I am against the very concept of forced taxation by any government; then again, taxation is absolutely necessary to support modern infrastructure and social economics.

It's an interesting question . . . but there is no doubt that Kansans have no business making laws for Californians, and contrariwise.

The federal government was intended and needs to have very little involvement in infrastructure. What infrastructure is necessary will be provided by the states, local communities, and the private sector. What most leftists don't understand is that a huge chunk of the tax money collected by the federal government is swallowed up to support the ever increasing, more bloated, more redundant, more self serving federal government.

The MEDIAN federal spending per capita in the USA in 2005 was $7,222.62. It is certainly much more than that now, nine years later. And, because very few of us pay that much in federal taxes per capita, a huge chunk of it was borrowed and was added to the national debt for us or future generations to pay plus enormous amounts of interest. And it should be pretty obvious to everybody that most expenditures are self serving for those in government and not all that much benefit for the people the government is supposed to serve.

For instance, New Mexico is near the top in the federal spending per capita, but remains at or near the top in poverty too. Apparently the federal spending isn't benefitting the man on the street all that much, yes? Those that get those great government jobs though make out like bandits. Washington DC has the highest per capita federal spending and the highest standard of living in the country--for those in government. Not so much for the man on the street who often suffers high crime, terrible schools, and other undesirable conditions.

So what if the federal government collected only the amount needed to fultill its constitutionally mandated responsibilities and left all the rest of all that money with the various states? The states would have to make some adjustments for sure, but once accomplished, I think we all would get a lot more bang for our buck and would again experience much more of the blessings of liberty we once enjoyed.

 

[Freemason9]

Foxfire, you said:

"The federal government was intended and needs to have very little involvement in infrastructure. What infrastructure is necessary will be provided by the states, local communities, and the private sector."

Well, that's part of my point. The rural red states of the midwest and the the south have NEVER been able to support themselves in terms of infrastructure. Even when there was a population "boom" in the midwest, for example, the Rural Electrification Act was needed simply to provide power. The entire nation paid telephone fees on their bills to enable Nebraskans to have telephone access, as another example.

"And, because very few of us pay that much in federal taxes per capita, a huge chunk of it was borrowed and was added to the national debt for us or future generations to pay plus enormous amounts of interest."

It's not "debt" in the normal sense of the word; in our FR system, it is how the money supply is created/expanded when the GDP grows. But I don't have time to explain that to you.

"For instance, New Mexico is near the top in the federal spending per capita, but remains at or near the top in poverty too. Apparently the federal spending isn't benefitting the man on the street all that much, yes?"

No argument there, working people don't get rich from federal spending (aristocrats and corporate shareholders might, but that's another story). Higher wages cut poverty. We (and New Mexico) need higher wages if the economy is going to get better.

"So what if the federal government collected only the amount needed to fultill its constitutionally mandated responsibilities and left all the rest of all that money with the various states?"

Sure, go ahead . . . imagine Oklahoma without federal aid--LOL.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfire, you said:

"The federal government was intended and needs to have very little involvement in infrastructure. What infrastructure is necessary will be provided by the states, local communities, and the private sector."

Well, that's part of my point. The rural red states of the midwest and the the south have NEVER been able to support themselves in terms of infrastructure. Even when there was a population "boom" in the midwest, for example, the Rural Electrification Act was needed simply to provide power. The entire nation paid telephone fees on their bills to enable Nebraskans to have telephone access, as another example.

"And, because very few of us pay that much in federal taxes per capita, a huge chunk of it was borrowed and was added to the national debt for us or future generations to pay plus enormous amounts of interest."

It's not "debt" in the normal sense of the word; in our FR system, it is how the money supply is created/expanded when the GDP grows. But I don't have time to explain that to you.

"For instance, New Mexico is near the top in the federal spending per capita, but remains at or near the top in poverty too. Apparently the federal spending isn't benefitting the man on the street all that much, yes?"

No argument there, working people don't get rich from federal spending (aristocrats and corporate shareholders might, but that's another story). Higher wages cut poverty. We (and New Mexico) need higher wages if the economy is going to get better.

"So what if the federal government collected only the amount needed to fultill its constitutionally mandated responsibilities and left all the rest of all that money with the various states?"

Sure, go ahead . . . imagine Oklahoma without federal aid--LOL.

You know what? Elsewhere, I use a sig line that is the beginning of a phrase Ben Franklin once wrote in a piece entitled "On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor that he wrote for the London Chronicle ten years before the Declaration of Independence was signed:

The whole phrase was summed up thusly:

. . . .For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. — I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. . . .​

Except for the terrible drought/dust bowl of the 1930's, Oklahomans managed to support themselves as well as anybody else long before they were receiving federal funding of any kind. And they even got through that without federal aid. I am quite confident that Oklahomans are as capable of doing that than anybody else now. Those incapable of making it in Oklahoma without federal aid will simply move someplace else that offers them more opportunity to support themselves or the haves in Oklahoma will take care of the have nots as Americans have always done.

We can't have it both ways. We either give up our liberties and ability to order our own lives and allow the 'king' or whomever to take care of us. Or we value liberty enough to govern ourselves.

 

[Agit8r]

I take it that advocates of state sovereignty have no problem with states limiting second amendment rights?

So exactly who decides which rights in the Constitution are immune from state action, and how does that differ from what we have now?

The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights upon the states.

No. it doesn't. Have you actually read it? Without any Constitutional authority, SCOTUS decided to SELECTIVELY incorporate SOME portions of the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment by unilaterally voiding the 10th Amendment.

However you want to interpret it personally, even Scalia and Roberts accept Incorporation as part of the Common Law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No. it doesn't..

Yes, it does.

See Scalia's concurring opinion in McDonald.

 

[jwoodie]

No. it doesn't..

See Scalia's concurring opinion in McDonald.

While you are quoting your beloved SCOTUS, why don't you explain the Constitutional basis for the Separate But Equal Doctrine?