What problems face America today?

[The T]

We should covertly instigate a hot war between china and the other asian tigers and the mideast and europe. With the destruction of industrial capacity, the us will rise once more into the manufacturing fray.

And we WILL when the Government ceases running them outta town for making this a strong economy...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Energy:

P: Both presidents Bush II and Obama understood our need to control our national 'jones' for oil. Our addiction to oil impacts our country and its citizens more than any other issue. It is the basis for much of our foreign policy, our deployment of troops to the far corners of the world and forced a willingness to accept as friends those who control the worlds largest oil reserves yet eschew our values and democratic principles.

S: Those who believe in a market system forget that oil is all by itself a market. There is no competition for oil and oil is a product easily manipulated by those who control its supply - oil rich countries and refiners. The oil embargo 40 years ago should have awakened our leaders to the need for alternative sources of energy and an Apollo type effort to establish light and heavy commuter rail, ferry boats where appropriate and sites of commerce at ferry terminals and rail heads to reduce the number of cars on the roads.
The Congress might require all State and Local governments and special districts in the sun belt to replace the roofs of all government buildings with solar panels; and require that such agencies replace their fleets with hybrids and all electric vehicles as a condition of receiving highway funds. Adding hundreds of thousands of orders for hybrids/all electric will help bring down the cost for such vehicles to the consumer.

What did the Cheney commission on energy decide? Who attended and what was the cost per gallon of gas before they met?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We have a Government that has taken over states rights and used the general welfare clause to expand itself into larger and larger government

First, you forgot to cite your case law where the Supreme Court has made such a ruling on the General Welfare Clause and ‘states’ rights.’

Second, there is no such thing as ‘states’ rights,’ that concept was nullified by the Civil War and 14th Amendment.

This fact was later affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Darby (1941), where the Court was reviewing the constitutionality of the Fair Labor Standards Act passed by Congress in 1938.

In Darby, the Court addressed the 10th Amendment, often cited in error by advocates of the fallacy of ‘states’ rights’:

From the beginning and for many years, the [Tenth A]mendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 324, 325; McCulloch v. Maryland, supra, 405, 406; Gordon v. United States, 117 U.S. 697, 705; Lottery Case, supra; Northern Securities Co. v. United States, supra, 344-345; Everard's Breweries v. Day, supra, 558; United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733; see United States v. The Brigantine William, 28 Fed.Cas. No. 16,700, p. 622. Whatever doubts may have arisen of the soundness of that conclusion, they have been put at rest by the decisions under the Sherman Act and the National Labor Relations Act which we have cited. See also Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 330-331; Wright v. Union Central Ins. Co., 304 U.S. 502, 516.

United States v. Darby

Our Constitution tells exactly what the government's role is and if we got back to a smaller government like it should be. we would not be almost 15 trillion dollars in debt.

Third, the Constitution outlines the government’s role as interpreted by the Supreme Court, the Court’s decisions are the law of the land, per Marbury v Madison (1803), where the Supreme Court is authorized to decide what the Constitution means. There is nothing in the Constitution stating how big or small the government should be, nor will the Court ever rule on such an inane issue. And the size of the government doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the size of debit.

We now have Departments making laws, as well as Court Judges and Executive power is over riding Legislative power and courts are making decisions over riding the majority of voters in the states.

Fourth, per West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette (1943), the rule of law states that we are not subject to the dictates of men, regardless the number of votes. The majority of a given state may not vote to preempt the rights of others, it is utterly irrelevant. The rule of law protects us from the tyranny of the majority. The courts are therefore not ‘overriding’ the majority of voters in a given state, but exercising the concept of the rule of law to strike down statutes which are indeed un-Constitutional, violating the rights of others.

That is not our Constitution, it is government out of control.

Last, this is indeed our Constitution – the government being ‘out of control’ has nothing to do with the Constitution (indeed, it’s been the Constitution and courts which have prevented over the years the government becoming a dictatorship – see: Nixon Administration) and everything to do with the ignorance and apathy of this Nation’s citizens to engage in petty partisan bickering and adhere blindly to reactionary political doctrine and dogma – we have met the enemy and he is us.

***

As an aside – it’s sad and troubling that conservatives and others on the right don’t exhibit the same outrage with regard to government overreach with regard to 4th Amendment privacy rights concerning abortion and police search and seizure, 5th and 6th Amendment due process rights with regard to non-citizens, and 14th Amendment equal protection rights with regard to same sex marriage as they do issues of commerce.

Hypocrisy, thy name is conservative.

 

[Care4all]

And? You've a problem with Capitalism all of a sudden?

Why did GM build an 800 MIllion dollar plant in Mexico? doyathink? AFTER we gave them their freaking bailout? Splain that to we Americans.. dumbbbbasss.

Explain giving billions as well to South American countries so WE can in Obama's words "...become their BEST customer..." in regard to Oil drilling ventures as WE are currently prohibited from drilling...

fyi...

we did not give them money....

a BANK LOANED them money....to buy our products. Loans are NOT money given, loans are from a bank that they have to pay back....NOT tax payer's money????

why are you saying obama gave them money? this deal was done with the bank BEFORE obama came along....it was just finalized under his term.

 

[Sallow]

My five:

1. Concentration of wealth into a small sector - This is probably the biggest challenge. It has and is eroding our democracy and capitalistic economic system. If this does not get address, we may well see the return of a de facto aristocracy in the form of a plutocracy.

2. Pollution and the change in global weather patterns - It's probably to late to change some of the damage that will happen in the next decade or so. We are going to see (and are seeing) oceans rising and more extreme weather. But the world is pretty resilient...and my personal opinion is that we have not reached a tipping point where the collapse of the bio sphere is irreversable. But it's going to take some hard choices..and not just from this country.

3. Rogue States - This isn't just those states that this country considers "rogues" either. We've seen the effects of governments which suppress their people's wills and engage in lawless behavior. Some of that comes back to haunt this country in very real ways..like terrorism.

4. The proliferation of Nuclear weapons - Not much needs to be said on this. But it's a very real and tangible danger.

5. Poverty - This probably ties in with number 1 and 3..but it is still a huge problem that deserves it's own listing.

 

[Flopper]

Obama announced a few days ago that we were at the highest level of production since 2003 and he will extend leases to drill in the Gulf and Alaska. Conservation, additional production, and development of alternative sources of energy will make the country energy independent. The question is how long will take?

 

[Wry Catcher]

#4

P: Election Advertsiing, Campagn Donations and Citizens United v. FEC

S: Total and complete transparency of all money given to influence an election. Even one dime given to influence an election which does not provide the source of the money, the name of the donar and the amount given should be a felony; A felony punished by a minimum penalty of three times the amount of the 'donation' and not less than one year and one day in custody (no good time credits, no home detention, no work release). The offender should lose his/her right hold any offical office, either by election or appointment.
In terms of Citzens United v. FEC a Constitutional Amendment might be needed to protect our elections on every level from being purchased by special interests.

 

[The T]

Why did GM build an 800 MIllion dollar plant in Mexico? doyathink? AFTER we gave them their freaking bailout? Splain that to we Americans.. dumbbbbasss.

Explain giving billions as well to South American countries so WE can in Obama's words "...become their BEST customer..." in regard to Oil drilling ventures as WE are currently prohibited from drilling...

fyi...

we did not give them money....

a BANK LOANED them money....to buy our products. Loans are NOT money given, loans are from a bank that they have to pay back....NOT tax payer's money????

why are you saying obama gave them money? this deal was done with the bank BEFORE obama came along....it was just finalized under his term.

AND? Then what? We Gave them oppritunity...for US to be..."their best customers..."

Doesn't change a fucking thing.

 

[Political Junky]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

List the top five, then offer a somewhat comprehensive solution. Leave the cliches, glib comments and ad hominems out. If you have nothing to offer, don't post.

I gave you mine. Let all working Americans pay Federal Taxes. No loopholes, no rebates. Let's all have a stake in this country. Let's even out the givers and the takers.

Exxon too?

 

[JBeukema]

The U.S.A. was founded on Liberalism, genius. The FF loved to spew Locke.

No it was founded on Republicanism.

Constitution of the United States of America

Article IV.
Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in ths Union a Republican Form of Government.
Not a Progressive Socialist form of Government.

Wow... retarded...

Online Library of Liberty - John Locke

Liberalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[JBeukema]

From the beginning and for many years, the [Tenth A]mendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.

See what I've highlighted in red.

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.
​

Those powers and the authority to exercise them is what is meant by 'states' rights'

Third, the Constitution outlines the government’s role as interpreted by the Supreme Court, the Court’s decisions are the law of the land

And can be wrong, as in Dred Scott. In such instances, it is not only just but our duty to disobey.

, per Marbury v Madison (1803), where the Supreme Court is authorized to decide what the Constitution means.

Would the government be expected to say anything other than that is to decide the limits (if any) of its own authority?

There is nothing in the Constitution stating how big or small the government should be, nor will the Court ever rule on such an inane issue.

There are the enumerated powers and the Tenth Amendment.

 

[The T]

From the beginning and for many years, the [Tenth A]mendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.

See what I've highlighted in red.

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. ​

Those powers and the authority to exercise them is what is meant by 'states' rights'

Third, the Constitution outlines the government’s role as interpreted by the Supreme Court, the Court’s decisions are the law of the land

And can be wrong, as in Dred Scott. In such instances, it is not only just but our duty to disobey.

, per Marbury v Madison (1803), where the Supreme Court is authorized to decide what the Constitution means.

Would the government be expected to say anything other than that is to decide the limits (if any) of its own authority?

There is nothing in the Constitution stating how big or small the government should be, nor will the Court ever rule on such an inane issue.

There are the enumerated powers and the Tenth Amendment.

And the COURTS are NOT the ultimate authority...are they?

 

[WillowTree]

Explain giving billions as well to South American countries so WE can in Obama's words "...become their BEST customer..." in regard to Oil drilling ventures as WE are currently prohibited from drilling...

fyi...

we did not give them money....

a BANK LOANED them money....to buy our products. Loans are NOT money given, loans are from a bank that they have to pay back....NOT tax payer's money????

why are you saying obama gave them money? this deal was done with the bank BEFORE obama came along....it was just finalized under his term.

AND? Then what? We Gave them oppritunity...for US to be..."their best customers..."

Doesn't change a fucking thing.

No it doesen't change a thing. obie nutbar is just a slick talking Chicago thug, always has been. his term has been a nightmare in slow motion

 

[WillowTree]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

List the top five, then offer a somewhat comprehensive solution. Leave the cliches, glib comments and ad hominems out. If you have nothing to offer, don't post.

I gave you mine. Let all working Americans pay Federal Taxes. No loopholes, no rebates. Let's all have a stake in this country. Let's even out the givers and the takers.

Exxon too?

and especially GE.

 

[The T]

fyi...

we did not give them money....

a BANK LOANED them money....to buy our products. Loans are NOT money given, loans are from a bank that they have to pay back....NOT tax payer's money????

why are you saying obama gave them money? this deal was done with the bank BEFORE obama came along....it was just finalized under his term.

AND? Then what? We Gave them oppritunity...for US to be..."their best customers..."

Doesn't change a fucking thing.

No it doesen't change a thing. obie nutbar is just a slick talking Chicago thug, always has been. his term has been a nightmare in slow motion

Just as he always does...Obama's Chicago-style politics will be his bane...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

We have a Government that has taken over states rights and used the general welfare clause to expand itself into larger and larger government

First, you forgot to cite your case law where the Supreme Court has made such a ruling on the General Welfare Clause and ‘states’ rights.’

Second, there is no such thing as ‘states’ rights,’ that concept was nullified by the Civil War and 14th Amendment.

This fact was later affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Darby (1941), where the Court was reviewing the constitutionality of the Fair Labor Standards Act passed by Congress in 1938.

In Darby, the Court addressed the 10th Amendment, often cited in error by advocates of the fallacy of ‘states’ rights’:

From the beginning and for many years, the [Tenth A]mendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 324, 325; McCulloch v. Maryland, supra, 405, 406; Gordon v. United States, 117 U.S. 697, 705; Lottery Case, supra; Northern Securities Co. v. United States, supra, 344-345; Everard's Breweries v. Day, supra, 558; United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733; see United States v. The Brigantine William, 28 Fed.Cas. No. 16,700, p. 622. Whatever doubts may have arisen of the soundness of that conclusion, they have been put at rest by the decisions under the Sherman Act and the National Labor Relations Act which we have cited. See also Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 330-331; Wright v. Union Central Ins. Co., 304 U.S. 502, 516.

United States v. Darby

Third, the Constitution outlines the government’s role as interpreted by the Supreme Court, the Court’s decisions are the law of the land, per Marbury v Madison (1803), where the Supreme Court is authorized to decide what the Constitution means. There is nothing in the Constitution stating how big or small the government should be, nor will the Court ever rule on such an inane issue. And the size of the government doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the size of debit.

We now have Departments making laws, as well as Court Judges and Executive power is over riding Legislative power and courts are making decisions over riding the majority of voters in the states.

Fourth, per West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette (1943), the rule of law states that we are not subject to the dictates of men, regardless the number of votes. The majority of a given state may not vote to preempt the rights of others, it is utterly irrelevant. The rule of law protects us from the tyranny of the majority. The courts are therefore not ‘overriding’ the majority of voters in a given state, but exercising the concept of the rule of law to strike down statutes which are indeed un-Constitutional, violating the rights of others.

That is not our Constitution, it is government out of control.

Last, this is indeed our Constitution – the government being ‘out of control’ has nothing to do with the Constitution (indeed, it’s been the Constitution and courts which have prevented over the years the government becoming a dictatorship – see: Nixon Administration) and everything to do with the ignorance and apathy of this Nation’s citizens to engage in petty partisan bickering and adhere blindly to reactionary political doctrine and dogma – we have met the enemy and he is us.

***

As an aside – it’s sad and troubling that conservatives and others on the right don’t exhibit the same outrage with regard to government overreach with regard to 4th Amendment privacy rights concerning abortion and police search and seizure, 5th and 6th Amendment due process rights with regard to non-citizens, and 14th Amendment equal protection rights with regard to same sex marriage as they do issues of commerce.

Hypocrisy, thy name is conservative.

This is so far off the deep end as to be laughable.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Problem: Spending, debt and the deficit

Solution: Repeal the 16th Amendment, go back to having the States fund the Beast.

The 16th Amendment (Income Tax) was a neutron bomb on the States. They are still there, but lost their power to control the purse strings. The federal budget process would take all of 10 seconds if States rather then income tax funded the federal budget. For example, a Congressperson from NY want the Federal Govt to fund a road in Rome, NY, the representatives in 49 other states would tell NY "we're not paying for it, go fund yourself"

 

[P F Tinmore]

It is the Republicrats fault.

Vote for the third party of your choice.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

See what I've highlighted in red.

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.


Those powers and the authority to exercise them is what is meant by 'states' rights'

In Darby the Court clarified that the Amendment did not authorize states to ‘nullify’ Federal statues considered in conflict with their laws; this in conjunction with the Supremacy Clause enjoins states from disregarding Federal laws and renders ‘states’ rights’ moot.

And can be wrong, as in Dred Scott. In such instances, it is not only just but our duty to disobey.

One may disobey any law he feels is unjust, provided he’s prepared to suffer the consequences. We’ll never know if indeed Dred Scott v Sandford was ‘wrong,’ as it was vacated by the 14th Amendment. And that indeed would be the appropriate recourse should the people believe a given ruling is morally wrong – to amend the Constitution.

Would the government be expected to say anything other than that is to decide the limits (if any) of its own authority?

Marbury has nothing to do with ‘government authority’ per se - indeed it authorizes the restriction of government power by making it subject to the rule of law. The genius of the Framers was their understanding that men are incapable of ruling one another justly – by making the rule of law the supreme authority, the human propensity for tyranny is mitigated. This of course is nothing new, the Framers merely codified the Magna Carta via the Constitution – Marbury acknowledges the wisdom of this ancient and vital tenet.

There are the enumerated powers and the Tenth Amendment.

If this is in reference to ‘states’ rights,’ see above as the 10th has been rendered moot by Darby, the 14th Amendment, and Incorporation Doctrine.

Again:

From the beginning and for many years the amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.

The means Congress may enact any law is sees as ‘Necessary and Proper’ without interference from local jurisdictions. It was never the intent of the Framers to authorize the states to act independently of the Federal government or refuse to acknowledge its laws.

See also: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819):

The Government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land. There is nothing in the Constitution which excludes incidental or implied powers. If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate and plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may be employed to carry it into effect pursuant to the Necessary and Proper clause.

If a state believes a given Federal law is un-Constitutional, it may file suit in Federal court. But it does not have the ‘state right’ to ignore, nullify, or otherwise alter the Federal statue. And should the Federal law be upheld by the Supreme Court, the state is obligated to follow that law.

 

[kaulbach]

Not a lot of answering the question going on...


For what it is worth - 5 things that aren't working or need fixing:

[1] The two party precedent that presents negligible opportunity for real democracy to the US populace. The funding for political parties is in desperate need of review and limitation to help democracy prosper.

[2] Repair damaged international reputation. To be fair Obama has gone a long way on this, but foreign policy pre-Obama has left the US with very difficult situations all around the globe. How they're managed, and how Obama's predecessor's mess is cleared up, will determine much to come.

[3] Got to wean the country off of oil, or at least start using it more efficiently.

[4] Federal debt

[5] Social infrastructure inequalities (crime, poverty, education, healthcare). For a rich, advanced nation the US lags behind so much of the 1st world in distribution of basic amenities.