What is the Primary duty of the federal government?

[Si modo]

True. But they are also there to create a system of balances. A grand compromise, if you will. There is wide latitude for policy regarding the exact nature of those balances without violating the broad first principles. Which is why we have the ebb and flow of poltiical "sides" seeking the right balance.

True and most of that balance is based on which rights trump others, giving trump cards to those rights and responsibilites most closely connected to those first principles.

My biggest point, however, is that I find a disturbing sentiment growing that views these first principles as either outdated and/or malleable. Very disturbing sentiment to me.

No, you're right, it is imperative to adhere to the first principles. The problem is the scope of those principles and the various ways they can be read. Well, a mixed problem/blessing if you ask me. It keeps people talking in places like this and reexamining the balance, which is a good thing.

Absolutely. Few issues are resolved in an information vacuum.

 

[goldcatt]

Article IV Section 4, Clause 1: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."

That my friends, is the primary role of government. Not all that hope and change crap. Dude was the closest to the answer.

That contradicts the FF's rhetoric about the 'consent of the governed'

​

Among other things.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Article IV Section 4, Clause 1: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."

That my friends, is the primary role of government. Not all that hope and change crap. Dude was the closest to the answer.

That contradicts the FF's rhetoric about the 'consent of the governed'

​

Edited to add: Forget it. I am not wasting my time with you, after your adolescent intellectual display yesterday.

 

[JBeukema]

What is the primary duty of the federal government? When you give your answer, please state why.

To carry out the will of the People

Even if the will of the people would violate the first principles of the constitution?

If you accept the notion of 'the consent of the governed', then any govt. which follows a piece of paper of the will of the People is invalid. If the people reject those terms and wish for a different gov't or for their gov't to act differently, then it has been charged with doing so.

 

[JBeukema]

Article IV Section 4, Clause 1: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."

That my friends, is the primary role of government. Not all that hope and change crap. Dude was the closest to the answer.

That contradicts the FF's rhetoric about the 'consent of the governed'

​

It does no such thing.

A) the gov't is valid so long as it carries out the will of the people


B) the gov't is valid and right in doing (list, despite the will of the people


They are mutually exclusive assertions, for the People might desire something other than thsoe 200 years ago desired

 

[Oddball]

That contradicts the FF's rhetoric about the 'consent of the governed'

​

It does no such thing.

A) the gov't is valid so long as it carries out the will of the people


B) the gov't is valid and right in doing (list, despite the will of the people


They are mutually exclusive assertions, for the People might desire something other than thsoe 200 years ago desired

Then what's the point in having a constitution at all, oh mighty Oracle?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

A vacuum would be void of and ignorant of any proper summation of the whole. I have done no such thing. All this talk about my position being a vacuum, is unfounded. If I started the thread by isolating Article IV, Section 4, Clause 1 from anything else in the Constitution, ignoring the purpose of the Constitution in the first place, the vacuum talk retort to me would have some merit. I have done no such thing.

Primary purpose does not mean only purpose. And that is what is getting twisted back toward the point and purpose of the thread.

 

[JBeukema]

It does no such thing.

A) the gov't is valid so long as it carries out the will of the people


B) the gov't is valid and right in doing (list, despite the will of the people


They are mutually exclusive assertions, for the People might desire something other than thsoe 200 years ago desired

Then what's the point in having a constitution at all, oh mighty Oracle?

The constitution is a formal codification of the social contract that was adopted at the time and into which new citizens are brought.


Did you ever notice that it includes two methods by which the formal codification of the contract can be modified as the will of the People changes?

 

[goldcatt]

To carry out the will of the People

Even if the will of the people would violate the first principles of the constitution?

If you accept the notion of 'the consent of the governed', then any govt. which follows a piece of paper of the will of the People is invalid. If the people reject those terms and wish for a different gov't or for their gov't to act differently, then it has been charged with doing so.

No, that's nothing but mob rule. I for one appreciate my protections against the mob, thank you very much.

 

[goldcatt]

A vacuum would be void of and ignorant of any proper summation of the whole. I have done no such thing. All this talk about my position being a vacuum, is unfounded. If I started the thread by isolating Article IV, Section 4, Clause 1 from anything else in the Constitution, ignoring the purpose of the Constitution in the first place, the vacuum talk retort to me would have some merit. I have done no such thing.

Primary purpose does not mean only purpose. And that is what is getting twisted back toward the point and purpose of the thread.

Then I stand corrected, although I still disagree with your choice.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The U.S. Constitution is made for the people, not the people for the ur charter of our government. No law that violates the charter is valid, including a law that a majority of the people support, for the charter protects minority rights. The Constitution can be amended in two way, and the final arbiter is always, first and last, the Supreme Court, which has "original juridiction" on all matters constitutional. If you don't believe it, go read Article III slowly and carefully.

 

[JBeukema]

Revising the formal codification of the social contract: the means codified into the contract itself

Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

The Amendment Process
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Informal (non-codified) changes to the societal compact

other way the Constitution's meaning is changed is often referred to as "informal amendment." This phrase is a misnomer, because there is no way to informally amend the Constitution, only the formal way. However, the meaning of the Constitution, or the interpretation, can change over time. There are two main ways that the interpretation of the Constitution changes, and hence its meaning. The first is simply that circumstances can change. One prime example is the extension of the vote. In the times of the Constitutional Convention, the vote was often granted only to monied land holders. Over time, this changed and the vote was extended to more and more groups. Finally, the vote was extended to all males, then all persons 21 and older, and then to all persons 18 and older. The informal status quo became law, a part of the Constitution, because that was the direction the culture was headed. Another example is the political process that has evolved in the United States: political parties, and their trappings (such as primaries and conventions) are not mentioned or contemplated in the Constitution, but they are fundamental to our political system.
The second major way the meaning of the Constitution changes is through the judiciary. As the ultimate arbiter of how the Constitution is interpreted, the judiciary wields more actual power than the Constitution alludes to. For example, before the Privacy Cases, it was perfectly constitutional for a state to forbid married couples from using contraception; for a state to forbid blacks and whites to marry; to abolish abortion. Because of judicial changes in the interpretation of the Constitution, the nation's outlook on these issues changed.
In neither of these cases was the Constitution changed. Rather, the way we looked at the Constitution changed, and these changes had a far-reaching effect. These changes in meaning are significant because they can happen by a simple judge's ruling and they are not a part of the Constitution and so they can be changed later.

Direct changes to the societal compact based upon popular demand and the consent of the governed

One other way of amendment is also not mentioned in the Constitution, and, because it has never been used, is lost on many students of the Constitution. Framer James Wilson, however, endorsed popular amendment, and the topic is examined at some length in Akhil Reed Amar's book, The Constitution: A Biography.
The notion of popular amendment comes from the conceptual framework of the Constitution. Its power derives from the people; it was adopted by the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of the people. Given all this, if the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a change to the Constitution, should not the people be allowed to make such a change? As Wilson noted in 1787, "... the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them."
It makes sense - if the people demand a change, it should be made. The change may not be the will of the Congress, nor of the states, so the two enumerated methods of amendment might not be practical, for they rely on these institutions. The real issue is not in the conceptual. It is a reality that if the people do not support the Constitution in its present form, it cannot survive. The real issue is in the practical. Since there is no process specified, what would the process be? There are no national elections today - even elections for the presidency are local. There is no precedent for a national referendum. It is easy to say that the Constitution can be changed by the people in any way the people wish. Actually making the change is another story altogether.
Suffice it to say, for now, that the notion of popular amendment makes perfect sense in the constitutional framework, even though the details of affecting popular amendment could be impossible to resolve.

 

[Oddball]

The constitution is a formal codification of the social contract that was adopted at the time and into which new citizens are brought.


Did you ever notice that it includes two methods by which the formal codification of the contract can be modified as the will of the People changes?

Again, you cynically attempt to bastardize the meaning and implications of the word "contract".

An all-too-common ploy of the fifth columnist.

 

[JBeukema]

Even if the will of the people would violate the first principles of the constitution?

If you accept the notion of 'the consent of the governed', then any govt. which follows a piece of paper of the will of the People is invalid. If the people reject those terms and wish for a different gov't or for their gov't to act differently, then it has been charged with doing so.

No, that's nothing but mob rule. I for one appreciate my protections against the mob, thank you very much.

All government is mob rule and all systems are ultimately democracy

btw, 'the consent of the governed' was crucial to the FF's rhetoric and the very foundation by which they justified their war for independence

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

A vacuum would be void of and ignorant of any proper summation of the whole. I have done no such thing. All this talk about my position being a vacuum, is unfounded. If I started the thread by isolating Article IV, Section 4, Clause 1 from anything else in the Constitution, ignoring the purpose of the Constitution in the first place, the vacuum talk retort to me would have some merit. I have done no such thing.

Primary purpose does not mean only purpose. And that is what is getting twisted back toward the point and purpose of the thread.

Then I stand corrected, although I still disagree with your choice.

Thank you for the correction. I knew we would be at odds on this legal heathen.

 

[JBeukema]

The U.S. Constitution is made for the people, not the people for the ur charter of our government. No law that violates the charter is valid, including a law that a majority of the people support, for the charter protects minority rights. The Constitution can be amended in two way, and the final arbiter is always, first and last, the Supreme Court, which has "original juridiction" on all matters constitutional. If you don't believe it, go read Article III slowly and carefully.

the final arbiter is always the mob, which can reject the Constitution as they rejected the king

 

[goldcatt]

A vacuum would be void of and ignorant of any proper summation of the whole. I have done no such thing. All this talk about my position being a vacuum, is unfounded. If I started the thread by isolating Article IV, Section 4, Clause 1 from anything else in the Constitution, ignoring the purpose of the Constitution in the first place, the vacuum talk retort to me would have some merit. I have done no such thing.

Primary purpose does not mean only purpose. And that is what is getting twisted back toward the point and purpose of the thread.

Then I stand corrected, although I still disagree with your choice.

Thank you for the correction. I knew we would be at odds on this legal heathen.

Bring it, fundie.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Even if the will of the people would violate the first principles of the constitution?

If you accept the notion of 'the consent of the governed', then any govt. which follows a piece of paper of the will of the People is invalid. If the people reject those terms and wish for a different gov't or for their gov't to act differently, then it has been charged with doing so.

No, that's nothing but mob rule. I for one appreciate my protections against the mob, thank you very much.

That I can agree with.

 

[goldcatt]

If you accept the notion of 'the consent of the governed', then any govt. which follows a piece of paper of the will of the People is invalid. If the people reject those terms and wish for a different gov't or for their gov't to act differently, then it has been charged with doing so.

No, that's nothing but mob rule. I for one appreciate my protections against the mob, thank you very much.

That I can agree with.

So why choose Article 4, Section 4 as primary? Why not another clause, if you're going to choose just one?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

No, that's nothing but mob rule. I for one appreciate my protections against the mob, thank you very much.

That I can agree with.

So why choose Article 4, Section 4 as primary? Why not another clause, if you're going to choose just one?

As I said, Article IV, Section 4, Clause 1 aptly summarizes ( read: enumerates) the proper duty of the federal government per the founding fathers. The founding fathers did not write that article because they were tired and didn't have much left to say. It was a reaffirmation to the states. In essence, the states were to be powerful part of the government, not the feds.