A government of the people, by the people, for the people

[Foxfyre]

When the Supreme Court decided that providing for the general welfare in ways other than described in Article 1, Sections 8 was an independent power, the limitations on the Federal Government were essentially removed. Only way to change that now is an Article 5 convention where the States could reign in the Feds. I don't see that happening in my life time.

If a bunch of politicians got together to rewrite the Constitution, the last thing they would do is reign in the Federal government. More than likely the result would a be a Soviet style constitution where every conceivable entitlement would become a right and government power would be unlimited.

Which is why I think this is the last generation that can fix it if it can be done at all. But we are going to have to stop re-electing the same kinds of professional politicians who got us into this mess and put enough reformers in there all at once to get the opportunity to the people. And then it is going to be up to freedom loving people to convince enough people why they should vote for it.

 

[Greenbeard]

Yes it can and in the case of the Louisiana Purchase had to really stretch to justify it within Constitutional parameters and probably didn't fully succeed. But again, that was an extreme situation and did not really set a precedent that altered the core principles involved.

Jefferson's allies in Congress grasped at a number of arguments to justify the Louisiana Purchase, including an expansive reading of the general welfare clause (previously a notion the Federalist Party was much more comfortable with than the strict constructionist Democratic Republicans).

Here's Caesar Rodney (rewarded by Jefferson with an appointment to Attorney General in 1807 and retained into the Madison administration) on the floor of the House arguing for the constitutionality of the purchase:

A recurrence to the Constitution will show that it is predicated on the principle of the United States acquiring territory, either by war, treaty, or purchase. There was one part of that instrument within whose capricious grasp all these modes of acquisition were embraced. By the Constitution Congress have power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States." To provide for the general welfare! The import of these terms is very comprehensive indeed. If this general delegation of authority be not at variance with other particular powers specially granted, nor restricted by them; if it be not in any degree comprehended in those subsequently delegated, I cannot perceive why, within the fair meaning of this general provision is not include the power of increasing our territory, if necessary for the general welfare or common defence.

Kevin is absolutely correct that this tradition goes back a lot further than Teddy Roosevelt. Particularly since, as I think someone already pointed out, the most famous early adherent of an expansive reading of the Constitution, Hamilton, was one of the primary authors of the Federalist papers and the first presidential administration in the country's history was distinctly Hamiltonian.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Caesar Rodney made a justification that would have made Alexander Hamilton or George Washington proud.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Do you believe the USA is a government of the people, by the people, for the people? I once did. I do not believe it is that now. And to correct that situation I propose the following Resolution:

WHEREAS: The Founders of the great United States of America intended that this nation be the first in the history of the world to have a free people who would govern themselves free of the dictates of Monarch, Pope, or any other central government authority, and

WHEREAS: The Constitution of the United States was designed to secure the God given rights of the people and otherwise leave them alone to form whatever sort of societies they wished to have, and

There are no "God given rights" of any sort. We the people secure our own rights by upholding them for others.

WHEREAS: The Constitution of the United States was designed to strictly limit the powers of those elected or appointed to federal office, and

Define "strictly limit".

WHEREAS: The government has assumed powers the Constitution does not allow and that the Founders never intended a central government to have,

Please enumerate all of these alleged "assumed powers".

BE IT THEREFORE ACKNOWLEDGED that in order to preserve this great nation as the Founders intended that it be, the people must rise up and condemn and replace those in government who confiscate property that the Constitution does not authorize, that spend the people's money in ways that the Constitution does not authorize, and that obligate future generations with debt that the Constitution does not authorize.

This nation has incurred debts from it's very inception. The concept of having a nation means that it will be necessary for it to incur debts when the need(s) arise. The social contract of this nation is one where we all share the burdens of this nation just as we all enjoy the rewards. To only want the rewards while denying the reality of the burden means that this proposal cannot be taken seriously. FYI the Constitution does authorize said debts.

* * * * * *​

I further believe this is likely the last generation in America who will have the ability to accomplish that.

Agree or Disagree

Disagree since the terms are unacceptable and vague.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Do you believe the USA is a government of the people, by the people, for the people? I once did. I do not believe it is that now.

That's because you are now a minority. And the U.S. is MAJORITY rule. So no - we don't enforce your views anymore. America is closer to fulfilling the promises of the Declaration of Independence today that ever before in our history.

 

[boedicca]

I further believe this is likely the last generation in America who will have the ability to accomplish that.

Agree or Disagree

I am disheartened to mostly agree. Obama's appalling speech to graduates telling them to not listen to the voices that warn of "tyranny" put the brainwashing in stark relief. Especially over the past 30 years, students are increasingly taught that the government owes them "positive" rights and that the Constitution is subject to popular whim. Combine these with a complete intolerance of other viewpoints and a lack of appreciation for privacy (all of our lives are "content" for social media), and we have a society that is incredibly ripe for a Neo Serfdom, this time in service to a secular bureaucratic state.

It's very sad. That said, I do retain hope that the individual spirit is still alive in enough people to turn the tide.

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you believe the USA is a government of the people, by the people, for the people? I once did. I do not believe it is that now. And to correct that situation I propose the following Resolution:

WHEREAS: The Founders of the great United States of America intended that this nation be the first in the history of the world to have a free people who would govern themselves free of the dictates of Monarch, Pope, or any other central government authority, and

WHEREAS: The Constitution of the United States was designed to secure the God given rights of the people and otherwise leave them alone to form whatever sort of societies they wished to have, and

There are no "God given rights" of any sort. We the people secure our own rights by upholding them for others.

WHEREAS: The Constitution of the United States was designed to strictly limit the powers of those elected or appointed to federal office, and

Define "strictly limit".

Please enumerate all of these alleged "assumed powers".

BE IT THEREFORE ACKNOWLEDGED that in order to preserve this great nation as the Founders intended that it be, the people must rise up and condemn and replace those in government who confiscate property that the Constitution does not authorize, that spend the people's money in ways that the Constitution does not authorize, and that obligate future generations with debt that the Constitution does not authorize.

This nation has incurred debts from it's very inception. The concept of having a nation means that it will be necessary for it to incur debts when the need(s) arise. The social contract of this nation is one where we all share the burdens of this nation just as we all enjoy the rewards. To only want the rewards while denying the reality of the burden means that this proposal cannot be taken seriously. FYI the Constitution does authorize said debts.

* * * * * *​

I further believe this is likely the last generation in America who will have the ability to accomplish that.

Agree or Disagree

Disagree since the terms are unacceptable and vague.

Okay my friend, I won't respond point by point because I HATE chopping up the context that way. But generally responding to your comments:

It is your opinion that there are no God given rights. The Founders based the whole of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution on the concept that there are God given rights that no government would have ability to take away without the consent of the people. Those who were not religious agreed that a free people could not be free unless natural rights were recognized and secured.

"Strictly limit" means to give government no power to do what the people have not authorized it to do. The power assigned to government was defined and not left to 'assumption'.

A free people decides for itself what 'burden' it consents to take on, and it is not for government to assume the burden for them or assign the burden to them.

The terms are indeed probably 'unacceptable' and 'vague'--your language--to those who have an unacceptable and vague understanding of the history and rationale that went into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that evolved from that earlier document. And to those who refuse to consider the concepts as the Founders hammered them out over years of writing, speeches, debates, trial, error, and compromise until they arrived at a document all could and would willingly sign and support.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I further believe this is likely the last generation in America who will have the ability to accomplish that.

Agree or Disagree

I am disheartened to mostly agree. Obama's appalling speech to graduates telling them to not listen to the voices that warn of "tyranny" put the brainwashing in stark relief. Especially over the past 30 years, students are increasingly taught that the government owes them "positive" rights and that the Constitution is subject to popular whim. Combine these with a complete intolerance of other viewpoints and a lack of appreciation for privacy (all of our lives are "content" for social media), and we have a society that is incredibly ripe for a Neo Serfdom, this time in service to a secular bureaucratic state.

It's very sad. That said, I do retain hope that the individual spirit is still alive in enough people to turn the tide.

There’s no reason to be ‘disheartened’ or ‘sad, ’ unless one is a blind partisan hack.

The president’s admonishment was both accurate and wise, to not listen to the partisan and hysterical, to those who cry ‘tyranny’ not out of a concern for our civil liberties but in an effort to realize some perceived political advantage.

 

[akelch]

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Do you believe the USA is a government of the people, by the people, for the people? I once did. I do not believe it is that now. And to correct that situation I propose the following Resolution:

WHEREAS: The Founders of the great United States of America intended that this nation be the first in the history of the world to have a free people who would govern themselves free of the dictates of Monarch, Pope, or any other central government authority, and

WHEREAS: The Constitution of the United States was designed to secure the God given rights of the people and otherwise leave them alone to form whatever sort of societies they wished to have, and

There are no "God given rights" of any sort. We the people secure our own rights by upholding them for others.

Define "strictly limit".

Please enumerate all of these alleged "assumed powers".

This nation has incurred debts from it's very inception. The concept of having a nation means that it will be necessary for it to incur debts when the need(s) arise. The social contract of this nation is one where we all share the burdens of this nation just as we all enjoy the rewards. To only want the rewards while denying the reality of the burden means that this proposal cannot be taken seriously. FYI the Constitution does authorize said debts.

* * * * * *​

I further believe this is likely the last generation in America who will have the ability to accomplish that.

Agree or Disagree

Disagree since the terms are unacceptable and vague.

Okay my friend, I won't respond point by point because I HATE chopping up the context that way. But generally responding to your comments:

(1) It is your opinion that there are no God given rights. The Founders based the whole of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution on the concept that there are God given rights that no government would have ability to take away without the consent of the people. Those who were not religious agreed that a free people could not be free unless natural rights were recognized and secured.

"Strictly limit" means to give government no power to do what the people have not authorized it to do. (2) The power assigned to government was defined and not left to 'assumption'.

(3) A free people decides for itself what 'burden' it consents to take on, and it is not for government to assume the burden for them or assign the burden to them.

The terms are indeed probably 'unacceptable' and 'vague'--your language-- (4) to those who have an unacceptable and vague understanding of the history and rationale that went into the (5) Declaration of Independence and (6) the Constitution that evolved from that earlier document. And to those who refuse to consider the concepts as the Founders hammered them out over years of writing, speeches, debates, trial, error, and compromise until (7) they arrived at a document all could and would willingly sign and support.

OK, Foxy, let's try this your way. I am highlighting your statements and then responding to them in turn.

(1) "Natural rights" are not "God given". Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that rights came from any deity. Furthermore the Constitution did not even have any enumerated rights at all. It wasn't until after the French chose to define them that the Americans decided to adopt them for themselves. So technically they are "French given" rights.

(2) The powers assigned to the government of We the people are the powers that it currently exercises. You have not defined any powers that it has "assumed".

(3) The "free people" consented to be taxed and to honor the debts incurred by the nation.

(4) So knowing the history of the Bill of Rights is "vague and unacceptable"?

(5) The Declaration of Independence does not enumerate the powers of the government of We the people.

(6) The Constitution did not evolve from the Declaration of Independence but rather from the Magna Carta which had been around since 1215 and replaced the "Divine Right of Kings" with "Govern with the Consent of the Governed".

(7) The Founding Fathers all signed and supported a document that enshrined slavery which means that those slaves did not have any "God given" rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

 

[Intense]

Do you believe the USA is a government of the people, by the people, for the people? I once did. I do not believe it is that now.

That's because you are now a minority. And the U.S. is MAJORITY rule. So no - we don't enforce your views anymore. America is closer to fulfilling the promises of the Declaration of Independence today that ever before in our history.

You Progressive Statist's have Sacrificed Individual Liberties and Right's to the selfish needs and wants of the Collective long ago. Good try though, Comrade. With each new Law, you impose and take more to feed the Beast, but I guess It's got to eat, huh. Just don't confuse the blind leading the blind with Justice, Righteousness, or Communion, it's embarrassing.

 

[regent]

Of course, democracy comes from the ancient Greeks, in fact the word democracy comes from the Greeks.
The Declaration of Independence is from the period of enlightenment and reason, and is based on the natural rights concepts from that period. The Declaration has no power and was a form of propaganda.
But, Declaration or not, the overthrow of a government still requires force and force has been tried and force failed.
The bigger question is why would anyone want to overthrow this government and what type would replace it? What is the purpose of government?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Do you believe the USA is a government of the people, by the people, for the people? I once did. I do not believe it is that now. And to correct that situation I propose the following Resolution:

WHEREAS: The Founders of the great United States of America intended that this nation be the first in the history of the world to have a free people who would govern themselves free of the dictates of Monarch, Pope, or any other central government authority, and

WHEREAS: The Constitution of the United States was designed to secure the God given rights of the people and otherwise leave them alone to form whatever sort of societies they wished to have, and

There are no "God given rights" of any sort. We the people secure our own rights by upholding them for others.

Define "strictly limit".

Please enumerate all of these alleged "assumed powers".

This nation has incurred debts from it's very inception. The concept of having a nation means that it will be necessary for it to incur debts when the need(s) arise. The social contract of this nation is one where we all share the burdens of this nation just as we all enjoy the rewards. To only want the rewards while denying the reality of the burden means that this proposal cannot be taken seriously. FYI the Constitution does authorize said debts.

* * * * * *​

I further believe this is likely the last generation in America who will have the ability to accomplish that.

Agree or Disagree

Disagree since the terms are unacceptable and vague.

Okay my friend, I won't respond point by point because I HATE chopping up the context that way. But generally responding to your comments:

It is your opinion that there are no God given rights. The Founders based the whole of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution on the concept that there are God given rights that no government would have ability to take away without the consent of the people. Those who were not religious agreed that a free people could not be free unless natural rights were recognized and secured.

"Strictly limit" means to give government no power to do what the people have not authorized it to do. The power assigned to government was defined and not left to 'assumption'.

A free people decides for itself what 'burden' it consents to take on, and it is not for government to assume the burden for them or assign the burden to them.

The terms are indeed probably 'unacceptable' and 'vague'--your language--to those who have an unacceptable and vague understanding of the history and rationale that went into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that evolved from that earlier document. And to those who refuse to consider the concepts as the Founders hammered them out over years of writing, speeches, debates, trial, error, and compromise until they arrived at a document all could and would willingly sign and support.

Unfortunately we have those who refuse to consider the case law, established, settled, and accepted, that interprets the Constitution and determines its meaning; in that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

Our rights are indeed inalienable, they may not be taken by, nor bestowed upon us by, any government, constitution, or man.

The Constitution codifies and acknowledges both the rights of the individual and the powers possessed by government; its case law allows the courts to balance the two interests, preserving individual and ordered liberty, where the risk of sacrificing personal autonomy to collective determination is eliminated.

 

[Intense]

I personally look at Federalism as a better protection of what is right and just, than Majority rule. The Mob sometimes gets swayed and fooled to easily, abandoning reason and balance for shiny trinkets or free stuff. Federalism, with people of integrity behind the wheel, seek first to establish, defend, and preserve justice. Constructive Liberty. We go with what is proven, and build on it, abandoning the dead wood.I choose that over having a voice in getting to pick who our Masters are.

 

[gallantwarrior]

When the Supreme Court decided that providing for the general welfare in ways other than described in Article 1, Sections 8 was an independent power, the limitations on the Federal Government were essentially removed. Only way to change that now is an Article 5 convention where the States could reign in the Feds. I don't see that happening in my life time.

Every one of the fifty states are on the federal dole. Every state accepts some kind of federal subsidies. Like other welfare leeches, individual, governmental, and corporate, the sundry States will most likely never vote to cut the flow of federal cash into their state coffers.

 

[francoHFW]

Just shows how off the rails the Pub dupes are on helping the less fortunate, and they don't seem to know Voodoo has redistributed wealth to the richest for 30 years...functional idiots at this point...

 

[gallantwarrior]

For instance, as one small example of what would happen with my proposed amendment, would you guys be good with us disbanding FEMA other than for a small department and some heavy equipment who could move in quickly to clear roads etc. and then organize and distribute donated food, water, clothing, etc ?

I would have no problem eliminating FEMA completely. Local disasters are States responsibilities, they should have their own rainy day funds to deal with them.

I have no problem with a FEMA as I described. In the interest of promoting the general welfare, it is conceivable that a state would have its own resources diminished or wiped out in a major disaster and would need some help to get things back up and running. But the intial hands on help necessary to preserve life--i.e. clearing out debris so relief can get into devastated areas amd helping with immediate distribution of donated relief supplies--should be the extent of federal involvement. No rebuilding. No ongoing welfare. No replacement of destroyed property that the owner did not bother to insure etc. That indeed should be the state's responsibility.

OR the responsibility of the individual property owners.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would have no problem eliminating FEMA completely. Local disasters are States responsibilities, they should have their own rainy day funds to deal with them.

I have no problem with a FEMA as I described. In the interest of promoting the general welfare, it is conceivable that a state would have its own resources diminished or wiped out in a major disaster and would need some help to get things back up and running. But the intial hands on help necessary to preserve life--i.e. clearing out debris so relief can get into devastated areas amd helping with immediate distribution of donated relief supplies--should be the extent of federal involvement. No rebuilding. No ongoing welfare. No replacement of destroyed property that the owner did not bother to insure etc. That indeed should be the state's responsibility.

OR the responsibility of the individual property owners.

Yes. Those who buy property should buy insurance to protect their investment or take their risks. If you build a place on top of the San Andreas fault, the responsible thing to do is buy earthquake insurance. If you're in a river flood plain, you better buy flood insurance. If you can't afford it, you better build someplace that doesn't have earthquakes or floods. There is no way that Citizen B, who properly insures his property, should be on the hook to restore Citizen A who doesn't.