Should Gov't have Limits?

[The T]

Once upon a time America was peopled with folks that Edmund Burke referred to as follows:
'They were Protestants “of that kind which is most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion,” and their dissent from the Anglican Church not only favored liberty, it was “built upon it.” '

Now, there are far too many who march in lock step, as you seem to.


In November you'll see folks who bridle at being told what to do, march to the voting booths...

You are sadly mistaken and have not understood a word in any of the posts I wrote. I do not walk in lockstep with anyone. I have sent protest letters against each of these acts where government has over stepped the bounds.
If anyone walks in lockstep it is the religious mind that has an entire rule book to lead them by the nose.

Let's see if I can educate you as to the 'religious mind.'

Religion and morality are not accepted as regulating society because it is written in a book.
No, it is millennia of human experience that is codified, and been proven successful.

There is an illusion that is the basis of progressive philosophy, that with the right government, men will be persuaded to behave as angels. For conservatives, though, men will always behave as they do, with envy, greed and covetousness. The best we can do is create government with requisite checks and balances that assumes the imperfect nature of man, a human nature that is not perfectible.

The purpose of religion and morality is to limit the corrosive influences of human nature. The purpose of law is to control the destructive actions which spring from said nature.

In other words a self-imposed check to ensure society from total breakdown as Human nature is known and history demonstrates time in memoriam.

All is required to adhere is HONOR, and honorable people.

 

[The T]

No. I didn't say that. Obviously the Government has limits, and those limits are clearly written out. What I am saying, and The T is terrified to address, is that if the Constitution doesn't say that the Government CAN'T do something, then I think it's safe to say the Government CAN do that thing. You guys are looking at the Government and the Constitution exactly backwards from reality. You seem to think unless a Power is expressly written out, then the Government can't do it. That's not how it works. No where in the Constitution is it written that the Government can't create an interstate highway system. Therefore, I think they are within their Power to do so. Make sense?

I think you are mistaken, the Constitution was designed to specify what the gov't CAN do; if it ain't in there, they're not authorized to do it. For issues like the interstate system, the Constitution was interpreted as allowed under the Commerce Clause, or perhaps somewhere else.

The Founders, indeed almost everybody in those days, was very afraid of a gov't that had too much control and authority over their lives. So they wrote it so it would delineate what the gov't could do, and if it ain't in there then they're not supposed to be able to do it.

I'm curious as to your definition of limits or any of the other lib/dems in here. You appear to be saying the gov't can mandate the purchase of health insurance; that's what the "mandate" is all about. Which essentially means then that is true then the gov't could under the Commerce clause require you to buy anything really. Where's your limit?

I knew I didn't word that perfectly. Let me try an example.

No where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it say the Federal Government CAN pass a law to promote gun ownership or that it CAN'T pass a law to promote gun ownership. (The closest is that they can't pass a law infringing, but that's different. Obviously.)

So, in that case, since it is not expressly written that they CAN nor that they CAN'T, I believe they could pass a law to promote gun ownership. All of you seem to be arguing that the Federal Government COULDN'T pass that law, because there is no expressly written line saying it.

See what I mean?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Get it yet?

 

[Wiseacre]

No. I didn't say that. Obviously the Government has limits, and those limits are clearly written out. What I am saying, and The T is terrified to address, is that if the Constitution doesn't say that the Government CAN'T do something, then I think it's safe to say the Government CAN do that thing. You guys are looking at the Government and the Constitution exactly backwards from reality. You seem to think unless a Power is expressly written out, then the Government can't do it. That's not how it works. No where in the Constitution is it written that the Government can't create an interstate highway system. Therefore, I think they are within their Power to do so. Make sense?

I think you are mistaken, the Constitution was designed to specify what the gov't CAN do; if it ain't in there, they're not authorized to do it. For issues like the interstate system, the Constitution was interpreted as allowed under the Commerce Clause, or perhaps somewhere else.

The Founders, indeed almost everybody in those days, was very afraid of a gov't that had too much control and authority over their lives. So they wrote it so it would delineate what the gov't could do, and if it ain't in there then they're not supposed to be able to do it.

I'm curious as to your definition of limits or any of the other lib/dems in here. You appear to be saying the gov't can mandate the purchase of health insurance; that's what the "mandate" is all about. Which essentially means then that is true then the gov't could under the Commerce clause require you to buy anything really. Where's your limit?

I knew I didn't word that perfectly. Let me try an example.

No where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it say the Federal Government CAN pass a law to promote gun ownership or that it CAN'T pass a law to promote gun ownership. (The closest is that they can't pass a law infringing, but that's different. Obviously.)

So, in that case, since it is not expressly written that they CAN nor that they CAN'T, I believe they could pass a law to promote gun ownership. All of you seem to be arguing that the Federal Government COULDN'T pass that law, because there is no expressly written line saying it.

See what I mean?

Not the best example, the Bill of Rights says the Congress cannot infringe on a citizen's right to bear arms. No law is needed to promote gun ownership, we already have that right.

But here's the real point - say that the 2nd amendment wasn't there, and we didn't have that right. If gov't has no limit, it could pass a law that say you MUST own a gun; if your income level is high enough, you gotta pay for it yourself, otherwise the gov't will issue you one that the rest of us pay for. And if you refuse to buy one, the gov't can dock you some money on your tax return every year as a penalty for non-compliance.

You okay with that?

 

[The T]

I think you are mistaken, the Constitution was designed to specify what the gov't CAN do; if it ain't in there, they're not authorized to do it. For issues like the interstate system, the Constitution was interpreted as allowed under the Commerce Clause, or perhaps somewhere else.

The Founders, indeed almost everybody in those days, was very afraid of a gov't that had too much control and authority over their lives. So they wrote it so it would delineate what the gov't could do, and if it ain't in there then they're not supposed to be able to do it.

I'm curious as to your definition of limits or any of the other lib/dems in here. You appear to be saying the gov't can mandate the purchase of health insurance; that's what the "mandate" is all about. Which essentially means then that is true then the gov't could under the Commerce clause require you to buy anything really. Where's your limit?

I knew I didn't word that perfectly. Let me try an example.

No where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it say the Federal Government CAN pass a law to promote gun ownership or that it CAN'T pass a law to promote gun ownership. (The closest is that they can't pass a law infringing, but that's different. Obviously.)

So, in that case, since it is not expressly written that they CAN nor that they CAN'T, I believe they could pass a law to promote gun ownership. All of you seem to be arguing that the Federal Government COULDN'T pass that law, because there is no expressly written line saying it.

See what I mean?

Not the best example, the Bill of Rights says the Congress cannot infringe on a citizen's right to bear arms. No law is needed to promote gun ownership, we already have that right.

But here's the real point - say that the 2nd amendment wasn't there, and we didn't have that right. If gov't has no limit, it could pass a law that say you MUST own a gun; if your income level is high enough, you gotta pay for it yourself, otherwise the gov't will issue you one that the rest of us pay for. And if you refuse to buy one, the gov't can dock you some money on your tax return every year as a penalty for non-compliance.

You okay with that?

Great example.

 

[Wiseacre]

I think you are mistaken, the Constitution was designed to specify what the gov't CAN do; if it ain't in there, they're not authorized to do it. For issues like the interstate system, the Constitution was interpreted as allowed under the Commerce Clause, or perhaps somewhere else.

The Founders, indeed almost everybody in those days, was very afraid of a gov't that had too much control and authority over their lives. So they wrote it so it would delineate what the gov't could do, and if it ain't in there then they're not supposed to be able to do it.

I'm curious as to your definition of limits or any of the other lib/dems in here. You appear to be saying the gov't can mandate the purchase of health insurance; that's what the "mandate" is all about. Which essentially means then that is true then the gov't could under the Commerce clause require you to buy anything really. Where's your limit?

I knew I didn't word that perfectly. Let me try an example.

No where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it say the Federal Government CAN pass a law to promote gun ownership or that it CAN'T pass a law to promote gun ownership. (The closest is that they can't pass a law infringing, but that's different. Obviously.)

So, in that case, since it is not expressly written that they CAN nor that they CAN'T, I believe they could pass a law to promote gun ownership. All of you seem to be arguing that the Federal Government COULDN'T pass that law, because there is no expressly written line saying it.

See what I mean?

Not the best example, the Bill of Rights says the Congress cannot infringe on a citizen's right to bear arms. No law is needed to promote gun ownership, we already have that right.

But here's the real point - say that the 2nd amendment wasn't there, and we didn't have that right. If gov't has no limit, it could pass a law that say you MUST own a gun; if your income level is high enough, you gotta pay for it yourself, otherwise the gov't will issue you one that the rest of us pay for. And if you refuse to buy one, the gov't can dock you some money on your tax return every year as a penalty for non-compliance.

You okay with that?

Let me add an addendum:

" So, in that case, since it is not expressly written that they CAN nor that they CAN'T, I believe they could pass a law to promote gun ownership. All of you seem to be arguing that the Federal Government COULDN'T pass that law, because there is no expressly written line saying it. "


As I believe it should be, again assuming the 2nd amendment doesn't exist, the gov't couldn't and shouldn't be able to pass a law the requires gun ownership. IMHO, the federal gov't does not have the power to mandate the purchase of any product or service. The auto insurance thing has a side issue - I don't have to drive a car, that ismy choice. The gov't should have the right to require AI if I choose to drive, but it does not have the right to require AI for those who do not drive.

 

[alan1]

I think you are mistaken, the Constitution was designed to specify what the gov't CAN do; if it ain't in there, they're not authorized to do it. For issues like the interstate system, the Constitution was interpreted as allowed under the Commerce Clause, or perhaps somewhere else.

The Founders, indeed almost everybody in those days, was very afraid of a gov't that had too much control and authority over their lives. So they wrote it so it would delineate what the gov't could do, and if it ain't in there then they're not supposed to be able to do it.

I'm curious as to your definition of limits or any of the other lib/dems in here. You appear to be saying the gov't can mandate the purchase of health insurance; that's what the "mandate" is all about. Which essentially means then that is true then the gov't could under the Commerce clause require you to buy anything really. Where's your limit?

I knew I didn't word that perfectly. Let me try an example.

No where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it say the Federal Government CAN pass a law to promote gun ownership or that it CAN'T pass a law to promote gun ownership. (The closest is that they can't pass a law infringing, but that's different. Obviously.)

So, in that case, since it is not expressly written that they CAN nor that they CAN'T, I believe they could pass a law to promote gun ownership. All of you seem to be arguing that the Federal Government COULDN'T pass that law, because there is no expressly written line saying it.

See what I mean?

Not the best example, the Bill of Rights says the Congress cannot infringe on a citizen's right to bear arms. No law is needed to promote gun ownership, we already have that right.

But here's the real point - say that the 2nd amendment wasn't there, and we didn't have that right. If gov't has no limit, it could pass a law that say you MUST own a gun; if your income level is high enough, you gotta pay for it yourself, otherwise the gov't will issue you one that the rest of us pay for. And if you refuse to buy one, the gov't can dock you some money on your tax return every year as a penalty for non-compliance.

You okay with that?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Wiseacre again.

Excellent way to point out the government forcing one to engage in commerce.

 

[dblack]

Moot point as Obamacare doesn't require you to buy anything. It requires you to have coverage, but that's a very different thing.

Shell game.

 

[dblack]

Let's cut to the chase - should the gov't have the power to force you to buy something, anything, or not buy it? Do they have the power to decide for you what's good for you and what isn't, a decision you have no say in? For example, should they be able to determine the conditions for who gets what medical treatment, based on cost analysis by a bunch of bureaucrats?

You mean like if I have a chronic pain, should I be able to head down to my local pharmacy and spend some of my hard-earned dollars on medical marijuana in a perfectly legal market transaction?

Exactly, yes. And, under no circumstances should you be forced to do so by the state.

 

[dblack]

And there we have the essence of the thread. According to you, the gov't has no limit at all; it can force you to buy something whether you want it or not, and if you don't they can penalize you. Today's it's an extra tax on your return, tomorrow maybe you go to jail.

That's pretty much it. And it would be nice if those who hold this view would be honest enough to own it. But the rarely will, preferring to dance around the issue rather than address it.

 

[DontBeStupid]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Get it yet?

Yes I do.

Clearly you don't.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I knew I didn't word that perfectly. Let me try an example.

No where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it say the Federal Government CAN pass a law to promote gun ownership or that it CAN'T pass a law to promote gun ownership. (The closest is that they can't pass a law infringing, but that's different. Obviously.)

So, in that case, since it is not expressly written that they CAN nor that they CAN'T, I believe they could pass a law to promote gun ownership. All of you seem to be arguing that the Federal Government COULDN'T pass that law, because there is no expressly written line saying it.

See what I mean?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If it don't say it, it goes to the states, not to the feds.

So in your opinion and interpretation of the Constitution, because it does not expressly say the Federal Government has the power to create an interstate highway system, that Power therefore falls to the States per the 10th Amendment?

In other words, you think the Interstate Highway System is Unconstitutional?

Right?

 

[dblack]

No. I didn't say that. Obviously the Government has limits, and those limits are clearly written out. What I am saying, and The T is terrified to address, is that if the Constitution doesn't say that the Government CAN'T do something, then I think it's safe to say the Government CAN do that thing. You guys are looking at the Government and the Constitution exactly backwards from reality. You seem to think unless a Power is expressly written out, then the Government can't do it.

Yes, that was exactly the intent of the Constitution. Most anyone who's studied it understands this, even those arguing for broad interpretations of the enumerated powers. Indeed, that's WHY they argue for broad interpretations, because they acknowledge that the Constitution is a declaration of what government CAN do, not a list of what it cannot.

 

[The T]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Get it yet?

Yes I do.

Clearly you don't.

So you are in this thread trying to explain WHY there CAN BE legislation regarding citizens owning guns...?

Sorry...

Posted by YOU:

I knew I didn't word that perfectly. Let me try an example.

No where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it say the Federal Government CAN pass a law to promote gun ownership or that it CAN'T pass a law to promote gun ownership. (The closest is that they can't pass a law infringing, but that's different. Obviously.)

So, in that case, since it is not expressly written that they CAN nor that they CAN'T, I believe they could pass a law to promote gun ownership. All of you seem to be arguing that the Federal Government COULDN'T pass that law, because there is no expressly written line saying it.

Explain how this shit squares with the second?

IDIOT.

 

[dblack]

So in your opinion and interpretation of the Constitution, because it does not expressly say the Federal Government has the power to create an interstate highway system, that Power therefore falls to the States per the 10th Amendment?

In other words, you think the Interstate Highway System is Unconstitutional?

Right?

Absolutely yes. And it set precedent for more of the same. If the Congress, and the Court were following the law, it would have required an amendment.

 

[The T]

So in your opinion and interpretation of the Constitution, because it does not expressly say the Federal Government has the power to create an interstate highway system, that Power therefore falls to the States per the 10th Amendment?

In other words, you think the Interstate Highway System is Unconstitutional?

Right?

Absolutely yes. And it set precedent for more of the same. If the Congress, and the Court were following the law, it would have required an amendment.

NO. Article 1, Section 8 gave Congress power to post roads.

You might wanna rethink it a bit.

 

[dblack]

NO. Article 1, Section 8 gave Congress power to post roads.

You might wanna rethink it a bit.

Hmmm, I might at that. Though calling an entire interstate system "Post Roads" seems a stretch. In any case, the point is that whether or not it is constitutional depends on whether or not it can be cited as one of the enumerated powers.

 

[The T]

NO. Article 1, Section 8 gave Congress power to post roads.

You might wanna rethink it a bit.

Hmmm, I might at that. Though calling an entire interstate system "Post Roads" seems a stretch. In any case, the point is that whether or not it is constitutional depends on whether or not it can be cited as one of the enumerated powers.

Article one section 8 is what it is...no matter the size of the road system...I don't think the Founders stipulated size, did they?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Let's cut to the chase - should the gov't have the power to force you to buy something, anything, or not buy it?

Ever heard of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act? It forces you to buy retirement and disability insurance, as well as medicare.

 

[dblack]

Let's cut to the chase - should the gov't have the power to force you to buy something, anything, or not buy it?

Ever heard of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act? It forces you to buy retirement and disability insurance, as well as medicare.

Yep, also unconstitutional. Most of this crap was passed under the upside down interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

NO. Article 1, Section 8 gave Congress power to post roads.

You might wanna rethink it a bit.

Hmmm, I might at that. Though calling an entire interstate system "Post Roads" seems a stretch. In any case, the point is that whether or not it is constitutional depends on whether or not it can be cited as one of the enumerated powers.

Article one section 8 is what it is...no matter the size of the road system...I don't think the Founders stipulated size, did they?

The power to build the interstate highway system comes from Article I Section 8 clause 1, not clause 7.