CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Foxfyre]

I have not answered your question because it has already been asked and answered and ignored by you numerous times in this thread. So I now see the question itself as a diversionary tactic and prefer to move on.

Can you provide a link showing where I did exactly that?

It's pretty hard to provide a link showing that somebody ignored something. If it important to you, perhaps you could provide links in which you thought you were responsive?

And I really don't want to get into one of these endless 'did too - did not' exchanges that kills a thread. I accept that you don't agree with much, if anything, of what I have posted and you have little respect for or interest in my opinions. And that's cool. I don't mind. No really good discussion can happen if everybody has the same point of view. So let's move on okay?

The subject is what we would want in a new U.S. Constitution that we think would improve it or clarify those clauses that have been subject to misinterpretation or that have been changed to fit this or that agenda or that needs to be added for a modern America.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Why should the federal government be given authority to mandate that all automobiles manufactured or sold in America must be equipped with seat belts? As would be the case with requiring UL labels on electrical apparatus, are such laws justified in the interest of the general welfare?

South Dakota, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine and Kentucky do not have seat belt laws, not because they oppose seat belts, but because they have ruled that each person has the right to choose what is and is not in his/her own self interest in such matters just as each person has the right to choose to do sky diving or hang gliding or rock climbing or surfing giant waves etc. All 50 states, however, do require safety restraints for children in vehicles. Colorado, Illinois and Iowa do not require safety helmets for adults riding motorcycles but do require them for children.

Why not federal mandates that all cars be equipped with speed governors? A few legislators have proposed that rear view cameras in all cars be made mandatory.

The question always rests on how much control the federal government should be given over the way we choose to live our lives and how arbitrary that control can be.

Driving is not a right but a privilege which is why the federal government can make this laws.

Everyone is actually better off now because they raised CAFE standards. We have more money in our pockets because cars get better gas mileage today then they did 39 years ago. If we were still driving those same gas guzzlers we would be choking on the emissions and cursing at the gas pumps.

So not every government regulation is a bad one.

I'm not discussing whether regulations are good or bad. I am discussing the concept of human liberty and how much of it the federal government should have the right to dictate, control, or take away.

Every time we get down to specifics you deflect.

You were asked to state which rights your claimed to have been "eroded and/or destroyed".

Now you are demanding that limitations on what the federal government can regulate but you refuse to discuss what those limitations would entail in practical terms.

In order for this to work it must be pragmatic. That means taking examples and following them to their logical conclusions.

I have not answered your question because it has already been asked and answered and ignored by you numerous times in this thread. So I now see the question itself as a diversionary tactic and prefer to move on.

And if you cannot figure out from my posts what limitations more federal power could entail, you really need to focus better.

So again, where do we draw the line on what the federal government can regulate before we have no rights of self determination at all? And for those for whom this is a concern, how do we write a clause into the U.S. Constitution that would restore that self determination to the people?

You can't and won't draw your imaginary line because it is based upon suppositions rather than facts.

Without actual concrete examples of what you allege are these imaginary "infringements" upon your right to "self determination" that you believe must be "restored" you are just batting at soap bubbles.

This nation already has the right to self determination. If anything is depriving We the People of that right it has been the systemic deregulation of elections to the point where the representatives of the people are now sold to the highest corporate bidder. But you refuse to even address that glaring criminal act because it means facing up to what has been done in your name with your full knowledge, consent and approval.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why should the federal government be given authority to mandate that all automobiles manufactured or sold in America must be equipped with seat belts? As would be the case with requiring UL labels on electrical apparatus, are such laws justified in the interest of the general welfare?

South Dakota, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine and Kentucky do not have seat belt laws, not because they oppose seat belts, but because they have ruled that each person has the right to choose what is and is not in his/her own self interest in such matters just as each person has the right to choose to do sky diving or hang gliding or rock climbing or surfing giant waves etc. All 50 states, however, do require safety restraints for children in vehicles. Colorado, Illinois and Iowa do not require safety helmets for adults riding motorcycles but do require them for children.

Why not federal mandates that all cars be equipped with speed governors? A few legislators have proposed that rear view cameras in all cars be made mandatory.

The question always rests on how much control the federal government should be given over the way we choose to live our lives and how arbitrary that control can be.

Driving is not a right but a privilege which is why the federal government can make this laws.

Everyone is actually better off now because they raised CAFE standards. We have more money in our pockets because cars get better gas mileage today then they did 39 years ago. If we were still driving those same gas guzzlers we would be choking on the emissions and cursing at the gas pumps.

So not every government regulation is a bad one.

I'm not discussing whether regulations are good or bad. I am discussing the concept of human liberty and how much of it the federal government should have the right to dictate, control, or take away.

Every time we get down to specifics you deflect.

You were asked to state which rights your claimed to have been "eroded and/or destroyed".

Now you are demanding that limitations on what the federal government can regulate but you refuse to discuss what those limitations would entail in practical terms.

In order for this to work it must be pragmatic. That means taking examples and following them to their logical conclusions.

I have not answered your question because it has already been asked and answered and ignored by you numerous times in this thread. So I now see the question itself as a diversionary tactic and prefer to move on.

And if you cannot figure out from my posts what limitations more federal power could entail, you really need to focus better.

So again, where do we draw the line on what the federal government can regulate before we have no rights of self determination at all? And for those for whom this is a concern, how do we write a clause into the U.S. Constitution that would restore that self determination to the people?

You can't and won't draw your imaginary line because it is based upon suppositions rather than facts.

Without actual concrete examples of what you allege are these imaginary "infringements" upon your right to "self determination" that you believe must be "restored" you are just batting at soap bubbles.

This nation already has the right to self determination. If anything is depriving We the People of that right it has been the systemic deregulation of elections to the point where the representatives of the people are now sold to the highest corporate bidder. But you refuse to even address that glaring criminal act because it means facing up to what has been done in your name with your full knowledge, consent and approval.

I have provided my argument for what the solution is to that DT, and you ignored my argument. I will repeat it. If the restrictions on the powers of the Congress were implemented--I provided a suggested list of such restrictions--then nobody--not any individual, no group, no entity, no corporation, no demographic--would be able to buy any power or benefit from the federal government no matter how much money they contributed to whatever cause. I see the problem as not residing with the corporations as much as a self-serving Congress. But my solution would take care of it regardless of misconduct by either.

I see that as a much better solution rather than restricting the rights of the people to do whatever they wish with their own property.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I have not answered your question because it has already been asked and answered and ignored by you numerous times in this thread. So I now see the question itself as a diversionary tactic and prefer to move on.

Can you provide a link showing where I did exactly that?

It's pretty hard to provide a link showing that somebody ignored something. If it important to you, perhaps you could provide links in which you thought you were responsive?

And I really don't want to get into one of these endless 'did too - did not' exchanges that kills a thread. I accept that you don't agree with much, if anything, of what I have posted and you have little respect for or interest in my opinions. And that's cool. I don't mind. No really good discussion can happen if everybody has the same point of view. So let's move on okay?

The subject is what we would want in a new U.S. Constitution that we think would improve it or clarify those clauses that have been subject to misinterpretation or that have been changed to fit this or that agenda or that needs to be added for a modern America.

If I recall correctly I provided you with exactly that right in the beginning of this thread and your lack of respect for my opinions led you to dismiss them as irrelevant because you were determined to pursue your own agenda.

So having done exactly that we have gone full circle and discovered that what you are proposing is not substantiated by anything that you can pin down and say is actually a problem with the current constitution.

On the other hand I have pointed out exactly where the current constitution could use an amendment to effectively outlaw the criminal takeover of elections and the outright purchasing of our elected representatives by corporations hostile to the best interests of We the People.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Driving is not a right but a privilege which is why the federal government can make this laws.

Everyone is actually better off now because they raised CAFE standards. We have more money in our pockets because cars get better gas mileage today then they did 39 years ago. If we were still driving those same gas guzzlers we would be choking on the emissions and cursing at the gas pumps.

So not every government regulation is a bad one.

I'm not discussing whether regulations are good or bad. I am discussing the concept of human liberty and how much of it the federal government should have the right to dictate, control, or take away.

Every time we get down to specifics you deflect.

You were asked to state which rights your claimed to have been "eroded and/or destroyed".

Now you are demanding that limitations on what the federal government can regulate but you refuse to discuss what those limitations would entail in practical terms.

In order for this to work it must be pragmatic. That means taking examples and following them to their logical conclusions.

I have not answered your question because it has already been asked and answered and ignored by you numerous times in this thread. So I now see the question itself as a diversionary tactic and prefer to move on.

And if you cannot figure out from my posts what limitations more federal power could entail, you really need to focus better.

So again, where do we draw the line on what the federal government can regulate before we have no rights of self determination at all? And for those for whom this is a concern, how do we write a clause into the U.S. Constitution that would restore that self determination to the people?

You can't and won't draw your imaginary line because it is based upon suppositions rather than facts.

Without actual concrete examples of what you allege are these imaginary "infringements" upon your right to "self determination" that you believe must be "restored" you are just batting at soap bubbles.

This nation already has the right to self determination. If anything is depriving We the People of that right it has been the systemic deregulation of elections to the point where the representatives of the people are now sold to the highest corporate bidder. But you refuse to even address that glaring criminal act because it means facing up to what has been done in your name with your full knowledge, consent and approval.

I have provided my argument for what the solution is to that DT, and you ignored my argument. I will repeat it. If the restrictions on the powers of the Congress were implemented--I provided a suggested list of such restrictions--then nobody--not any individual, no group, no entity, no corporation, no demographic--would be able to buy any power or benefit from the federal government no matter how much money they contributed to whatever cause. I see the problem as not residing with the corporations as much as a self-serving Congress. But my solution would take care of it regardless of misconduct by either.

I see that as a much better solution rather than restricting the rights of the people to do whatever they wish with their own property.

I did not ignore your argument. I rebutted it.

I pointed out that Congress could simply pass legislation that would nullify your restrictions. It would be in the interests of Congress and the Executive to do exactly that.

However if funding for elections by corporations were made illegal the barrier to corrupting our representatives would now be out of reach of Congress.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not discussing whether regulations are good or bad. I am discussing the concept of human liberty and how much of it the federal government should have the right to dictate, control, or take away.

Every time we get down to specifics you deflect.

You were asked to state which rights your claimed to have been "eroded and/or destroyed".

Now you are demanding that limitations on what the federal government can regulate but you refuse to discuss what those limitations would entail in practical terms.

In order for this to work it must be pragmatic. That means taking examples and following them to their logical conclusions.

I have not answered your question because it has already been asked and answered and ignored by you numerous times in this thread. So I now see the question itself as a diversionary tactic and prefer to move on.

And if you cannot figure out from my posts what limitations more federal power could entail, you really need to focus better.

So again, where do we draw the line on what the federal government can regulate before we have no rights of self determination at all? And for those for whom this is a concern, how do we write a clause into the U.S. Constitution that would restore that self determination to the people?

You can't and won't draw your imaginary line because it is based upon suppositions rather than facts.

Without actual concrete examples of what you allege are these imaginary "infringements" upon your right to "self determination" that you believe must be "restored" you are just batting at soap bubbles.

This nation already has the right to self determination. If anything is depriving We the People of that right it has been the systemic deregulation of elections to the point where the representatives of the people are now sold to the highest corporate bidder. But you refuse to even address that glaring criminal act because it means facing up to what has been done in your name with your full knowledge, consent and approval.

I have provided my argument for what the solution is to that DT, and you ignored my argument. I will repeat it. If the restrictions on the powers of the Congress were implemented--I provided a suggested list of such restrictions--then nobody--not any individual, no group, no entity, no corporation, no demographic--would be able to buy any power or benefit from the federal government no matter how much money they contributed to whatever cause. I see the problem as not residing with the corporations as much as a self-serving Congress. But my solution would take care of it regardless of misconduct by either.

I see that as a much better solution rather than restricting the rights of the people to do whatever they wish with their own property.

I did not ignore your argument. I rebutted it.

I pointed out that Congress could simply pass legislation that would nullify your restrictions. It would be in the interests of Congress and the Executive to do exactly that.

However if funding for elections by corporations were made illegal the barrier to corrupting our representatives would now be out of reach of Congress.

And what is to prevent Congress from nullifying your concept of how funding should be handled? Why is it more important to you to restrict the people than it is to restrict the government from self-serving activities that ultimately hurt the people?

And if Congress is allowed to pass legislation that nullifies any part of the Constitution without going through the stated amendment process, then it is time for another revolutionary war or else we're all screwed anyway.

 

[dblack]

A trial by a jury of one's peers is currently a citizen's Constitutional right as is the right to remain silent and not incriminate oneself--these are not inalienable rights but, as you said, rather procedural rights.

They are inalienable rights because they belong to We the People and cannot be taken away from us without overthrowing the government of the people.

I understand that's the way you see it. But, again, you're using a different definition of "inalienable" than we are. That's fine, as far as it goes, but it makes it difficult to converse if you simply refuse to acknowledge that.

And yes, such things do require participation by others which is why they are something different from inalienable/unalienable rights that are what we do that requires no contribution or participation from any other person.

Where I am going with this is my intention to reinstate those precious unalienable rights that have been eroded and sometimes essentially destroyed in the name of political correctness. I want us to return to a society in which people can be who and what they are, when this requires no participation or contribution from other people, and that they can be who and what they are without fear that the government will punish them for it and/or that some angry mob will organize to hurt them physically or materially purely because they hold a politically incorrect opinion.

Can you enumerate these "precious rights" that you claim have been "eroded" and "essentially destroyed"?

Freedom of association, freedom of conscience, economic freedom, etc... Basic freedom, by its very nature, isn't 'enumerable'.

In which case how can Foxy claim that they have been eroded and/or destroyed if they cannot even be enumerated?

You can't conceive of destroying things that are innumerable? We can still cite examples of freedoms, as I've done above, even if there are countless such examples.

Let me get this straight, you are claiming that "Freedom of association, freedom of conscience, economic freedom, etc..." have been "eroded and destroyed"?

Please cite examples as to how you believe that to be true for each of the above.

Freedom of association and freedom of conscience: PA laws. Economic freedom: ACA.

 

[BlackSand]

I have not answered your question because it has already been asked and answered and ignored by you numerous times in this thread. So I now see the question itself as a diversionary tactic and prefer to move on.

Can you provide a link showing where I did exactly that?

It's pretty hard to provide a link showing that somebody ignored something. If it important to you, perhaps you could provide links in which you thought you were responsive?

And I really don't want to get into one of these endless 'did too - did not' exchanges that kills a thread. I accept that you don't agree with much, if anything, of what I have posted and you have little respect for or interest in my opinions. And that's cool. I don't mind. No really good discussion can happen if everybody has the same point of view. So let's move on okay?

The subject is what we would want in a new U.S. Constitution that we think would improve it or clarify those clauses that have been subject to misinterpretation or that have been changed to fit this or that agenda or that needs to be added for a modern America.

I don't believe he has read the previous posts where you clearly indicated changes to the structure that would not allow the corruption he is describing to exist ... Much less flourish.

The greatest hurdle your measures (identified earlier in the thread) would face, is the necessity of people to let go of what they think government is responsible for. If there is no benefit a corporate leader could gain through corruption or buying an election ... Demanding that the corporate leader will do so ... Much less benefit from it ... Is just not conclusive with the argument.

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Every time we get down to specifics you deflect.

You were asked to state which rights your claimed to have been "eroded and/or destroyed".

Now you are demanding that limitations on what the federal government can regulate but you refuse to discuss what those limitations would entail in practical terms.

In order for this to work it must be pragmatic. That means taking examples and following them to their logical conclusions.

I have not answered your question because it has already been asked and answered and ignored by you numerous times in this thread. So I now see the question itself as a diversionary tactic and prefer to move on.

And if you cannot figure out from my posts what limitations more federal power could entail, you really need to focus better.

So again, where do we draw the line on what the federal government can regulate before we have no rights of self determination at all? And for those for whom this is a concern, how do we write a clause into the U.S. Constitution that would restore that self determination to the people?

You can't and won't draw your imaginary line because it is based upon suppositions rather than facts.

Without actual concrete examples of what you allege are these imaginary "infringements" upon your right to "self determination" that you believe must be "restored" you are just batting at soap bubbles.

This nation already has the right to self determination. If anything is depriving We the People of that right it has been the systemic deregulation of elections to the point where the representatives of the people are now sold to the highest corporate bidder. But you refuse to even address that glaring criminal act because it means facing up to what has been done in your name with your full knowledge, consent and approval.

I have provided my argument for what the solution is to that DT, and you ignored my argument. I will repeat it. If the restrictions on the powers of the Congress were implemented--I provided a suggested list of such restrictions--then nobody--not any individual, no group, no entity, no corporation, no demographic--would be able to buy any power or benefit from the federal government no matter how much money they contributed to whatever cause. I see the problem as not residing with the corporations as much as a self-serving Congress. But my solution would take care of it regardless of misconduct by either.

I see that as a much better solution rather than restricting the rights of the people to do whatever they wish with their own property.

I did not ignore your argument. I rebutted it.

I pointed out that Congress could simply pass legislation that would nullify your restrictions. It would be in the interests of Congress and the Executive to do exactly that.

However if funding for elections by corporations were made illegal the barrier to corrupting our representatives would now be out of reach of Congress.

And what is to prevent Congress from nullifying your concept of how funding should be handled? Why is it more important to you to restrict the people than it is to restrict the government from self-serving activities that ultimately hurt the people?

And if Congress is allowed to pass legislation that nullifies any part of the Constitution without going through the stated amendment process, then it is time for another revolutionary war or else we're all screwed anyway.

Because my concept makes it a crime as opposed to merely a regulation. Congress cannot pass a law making it legal for members to violate criminal statutes.

The War Powers act is an example of Congress finding a way around the Constitution and effectively "amending" it without an actual amendment. Compare that to the attempt to subvert the Constitutional right to a speedy trial by the Executive branch. It was stopped cold by the SCOTUS who ruled that reclassifying someone as an "enemy combatant" does not deprive them of their rights.

So Congress and the Executive will try to subvert your solution in order to gain additional powers for themselves and if there is a way to do it they will find it.

But passing a law exempting themselves from criminal prosecution for taking campaign funds will be unconstitutional and will be struck down by the SCOTUS under my solution.

 

[dblack]

Why should the federal government be given authority to mandate that all automobiles manufactured or sold in America must be equipped with seat belts? As would be the case with requiring UL labels on electrical apparatus, are such laws justified in the interest of the general welfare?

South Dakota, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine and Kentucky do not have seat belt laws, not because they oppose seat belts, but because they have ruled that each person has the right to choose what is and is not in his/her own self interest in such matters just as each person has the right to choose to do sky diving or hang gliding or rock climbing or surfing giant waves etc. All 50 states, however, do require safety restraints for children in vehicles. Colorado, Illinois and Iowa do not require safety helmets for adults riding motorcycles but do require them for children.

Why not federal mandates that all cars be equipped with speed governors? A few legislators have proposed that rear view cameras in all cars be made mandatory.

The question always rests on how much control the federal government should be given over the way we choose to live our lives and how arbitrary that control can be.

Driving is not a right but a privilege which is why the federal government can make this laws.

Everyone is actually better off now because they raised CAFE standards. We have more money in our pockets because cars get better gas mileage today then they did 39 years ago. If we were still driving those same gas guzzlers we would be choking on the emissions and cursing at the gas pumps.

So not every government regulation is a bad one.

I'm not discussing whether regulations are good or bad. I am discussing the concept of human liberty and how much of it the federal government should have the right to dictate, control, or take away.

Every time we get down to specifics you deflect.

You were asked to state which rights your claimed to have been "eroded and/or destroyed".

Now you are demanding that limitations on what the federal government can regulate but you refuse to discuss what those limitations would entail in practical terms.

In order for this to work it must be pragmatic. That means taking examples and following them to their logical conclusions.

I have not answered your question because it has already been asked and answered and ignored by you numerous times in this thread. So I now see the question itself as a diversionary tactic and prefer to move on.

And if you cannot figure out from my posts what limitations more federal power could entail, you really need to focus better.

So again, where do we draw the line on what the federal government can regulate before we have no rights of self determination at all? And for those for whom this is a concern, how do we write a clause into the U.S. Constitution that would restore that self determination to the people?

You can't and won't draw your imaginary line because it is based upon suppositions rather than facts.

Without actual concrete examples of what you allege are these imaginary "infringements" upon your right to "self determination" that you believe must be "restored" you are just batting at soap bubbles.

This nation already has the right to self determination. If anything is depriving We the People of that right it has been the systemic deregulation of elections to the point where the representatives of the people are now sold to the highest corporate bidder. But you refuse to even address that glaring criminal act because it means facing up to what has been done in your name with your full knowledge, consent and approval.

The right to self determination applies to individuals, specifically to their right to make their own decisions despite the will of the nation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"The question always rests on how much control the federal government should be given over the way we choose to live our lives and how arbitrary that control can be."

This is why both major parties are statist progressive parties, despite the rhetoric. They both want to control the national government.

 

[dblack]

"The question always rests on how much control the federal government should be given over the way we choose to live our lives and how arbitrary that control can be."

This is why both major parties are statist progressive parties, despite the rhetoric. They both want to control the national government.

What? Now you're pretending to be a libertarian?

 

[Derideo_Te]

They are inalienable rights because they belong to We the People and cannot be taken away from us without overthrowing the government of the people.

I understand that's the way you see it. But, again, you're using a different definition of "inalienable" than we are. That's fine, as far as it goes, but it makes it difficult to converse if you simply refuse to acknowledge that.

Can you enumerate these "precious rights" that you claim have been "eroded" and "essentially destroyed"?

Freedom of association, freedom of conscience, economic freedom, etc... Basic freedom, by its very nature, isn't 'enumerable'.

In which case how can Foxy claim that they have been eroded and/or destroyed if they cannot even be enumerated?

You can't conceive of destroying things that are innumerable? We can still cite examples of freedoms, as I've done above, even if there are countless such examples.

Let me get this straight, you are claiming that "Freedom of association, freedom of conscience, economic freedom, etc..." have been "eroded and destroyed"?

Please cite examples as to how you believe that to be true for each of the above.

Freedom of association and freedom of conscience: PA laws. Economic freedom: ACA.

What are "PA laws"?

Your economic freedom is infringed by the ACA? That is all you have? Your freedom to get sick and be a burden to other taxpayers is being infringed by making you pay a tax penalty to support the burden you are imposing on taxpayers?

Weren't you arguing earlier that individual rights cannot infringe on the rights of others? (Or was that another thread?) But your "economic freedom" does impose a burden on others therefore it cannot be a "freedom" that everyone "enjoys" since others must suffer economically for your "economic freedom".

 

[Derideo_Te]

Driving is not a right but a privilege which is why the federal government can make this laws.

Everyone is actually better off now because they raised CAFE standards. We have more money in our pockets because cars get better gas mileage today then they did 39 years ago. If we were still driving those same gas guzzlers we would be choking on the emissions and cursing at the gas pumps.

So not every government regulation is a bad one.

I'm not discussing whether regulations are good or bad. I am discussing the concept of human liberty and how much of it the federal government should have the right to dictate, control, or take away.

Every time we get down to specifics you deflect.

You were asked to state which rights your claimed to have been "eroded and/or destroyed".

Now you are demanding that limitations on what the federal government can regulate but you refuse to discuss what those limitations would entail in practical terms.

In order for this to work it must be pragmatic. That means taking examples and following them to their logical conclusions.

I have not answered your question because it has already been asked and answered and ignored by you numerous times in this thread. So I now see the question itself as a diversionary tactic and prefer to move on.

And if you cannot figure out from my posts what limitations more federal power could entail, you really need to focus better.

So again, where do we draw the line on what the federal government can regulate before we have no rights of self determination at all? And for those for whom this is a concern, how do we write a clause into the U.S. Constitution that would restore that self determination to the people?

You can't and won't draw your imaginary line because it is based upon suppositions rather than facts.

Without actual concrete examples of what you allege are these imaginary "infringements" upon your right to "self determination" that you believe must be "restored" you are just batting at soap bubbles.

This nation already has the right to self determination. If anything is depriving We the People of that right it has been the systemic deregulation of elections to the point where the representatives of the people are now sold to the highest corporate bidder. But you refuse to even address that glaring criminal act because it means facing up to what has been done in your name with your full knowledge, consent and approval.

The right to self determination applies to individuals, specifically to their right to make their own decisions despite the will of the nation.

I suggest that you look up the definition of self determination before you go any further down that rabbit hole.

 

[dblack]

I understand that's the way you see it. But, again, you're using a different definition of "inalienable" than we are. That's fine, as far as it goes, but it makes it difficult to converse if you simply refuse to acknowledge that.

Freedom of association, freedom of conscience, economic freedom, etc... Basic freedom, by its very nature, isn't 'enumerable'.

In which case how can Foxy claim that they have been eroded and/or destroyed if they cannot even be enumerated?

You can't conceive of destroying things that are innumerable? We can still cite examples of freedoms, as I've done above, even if there are countless such examples.

Let me get this straight, you are claiming that "Freedom of association, freedom of conscience, economic freedom, etc..." have been "eroded and destroyed"?

Please cite examples as to how you believe that to be true for each of the above.

Freedom of association and freedom of conscience: PA laws. Economic freedom: ACA.

What are "PA laws"?

The public accommodations stipulations common to civil rights legislation.

Your economic freedom is infringed by the ACA? That is all you have?

Nah, there's plenty more. But I'm not inclined to get into with you until you show at least some comprehension of the basic concepts of individual rights and limited government.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have not answered your question because it has already been asked and answered and ignored by you numerous times in this thread. So I now see the question itself as a diversionary tactic and prefer to move on.

Can you provide a link showing where I did exactly that?

It's pretty hard to provide a link showing that somebody ignored something. If it important to you, perhaps you could provide links in which you thought you were responsive?

And I really don't want to get into one of these endless 'did too - did not' exchanges that kills a thread. I accept that you don't agree with much, if anything, of what I have posted and you have little respect for or interest in my opinions. And that's cool. I don't mind. No really good discussion can happen if everybody has the same point of view. So let's move on okay?

The subject is what we would want in a new U.S. Constitution that we think would improve it or clarify those clauses that have been subject to misinterpretation or that have been changed to fit this or that agenda or that needs to be added for a modern America.

I don't believe he has read the previous posts where you clearly indicated changes to the structure that would not allow the corruption he is describing to exist ... Much less flourish.

The greatest hurdle your measures (identified earlier in the thread) would face, is the necessity of people to let go of what they think government is responsible for. If there is no benefit a corporate leader could gain through corruption or buying an election ... Demanding that the corporate leader will do so ... Much less benefit from it ... Is just not conclusive with the argument.

.

Oh I think he read it. I think he just didn't want to talk about it. Which, by the way, is his unalienable right to not do.

But you are absolutely right that the greatest hurdle to putting restrictions on Congress that would not allow them to use their offices for purely self-serving purposes is that it would also take away the people's ability to use the federal government for their own self-serving purposes. You put that more charitably than I did when you said there would be a problem with those who have a different idea about what the federal government should do.

DT said that Congress can't pass laws that allow them to do what is illegal. If we compare the modern day U.S. government with that the Founders intended, they pass a LOT of laws that would have been illegal had they lived in the 18th or 19th centuries.

 

[Foxfyre]

They are inalienable rights because they belong to We the People and cannot be taken away from us without overthrowing the government of the people.

I understand that's the way you see it. But, again, you're using a different definition of "inalienable" than we are. That's fine, as far as it goes, but it makes it difficult to converse if you simply refuse to acknowledge that.

Can you enumerate these "precious rights" that you claim have been "eroded" and "essentially destroyed"?

Freedom of association, freedom of conscience, economic freedom, etc... Basic freedom, by its very nature, isn't 'enumerable'.

In which case how can Foxy claim that they have been eroded and/or destroyed if they cannot even be enumerated?

You can't conceive of destroying things that are innumerable? We can still cite examples of freedoms, as I've done above, even if there are countless such examples.

Let me get this straight, you are claiming that "Freedom of association, freedom of conscience, economic freedom, etc..." have been "eroded and destroyed"?

Please cite examples as to how you believe that to be true for each of the above.

Freedom of association and freedom of conscience: PA laws. Economic freedom: ACA.

Even going back to those seat belt laws. Certainly an argument can be made that such laws work in the interest of the general welfare because they save people from a lot of serious injuries and/or death. But why just seat belt laws? Why not all human activity that people do that they don't have to do that can result in serious injury and/or death?

But, so goes the argument, if you are injured worse because you weren't wearing a seat belt, you drive up everybody else's auto insurance costs. But the opposing argument is, allow insurance companies or plaintiffs to choose to deduct benefits to those who were not wearing a seat belt when they were injured. That would provide a strong incentive to wear the seat belt while not taking away the citizen's choice to be sensible or not sensible. (Work comp laws in many states have adopted that policy for decades now--the worker who failed to utilize safety equipment or who was under the influence of a controlled substance when he was injured, has a penalty deducted from his/her benefits.

 

[candycorn]

Any new constitution must give voice to the constitution where it is quiet; to stop shenanigans like Harry Reid has imposed during the past 6 years.

 

[Foxfyre]

Any new constitution must give voice to the constitution where it is quiet; to stop shenanigans like Harry Reid has imposed during the past 6 years.

The Founders and all who followed them right up to the turn of the 20th century held to the original intent that where the Constitution was silent, the federal government had no authority to act. Teddy Roosevelt turned that concept on its head when he declared that the government could do anything that the Constitution did not expressly forbid and appointed a number of judges who would back him up on that. Because he was so personally popular, nobody saw fit or need to seriously challenge him on that.

But that is what opened the floodgates for government misconduct. That started a small and innocuous snowball rolling that has been gaining speed and mass ever since until it has created this enormous bloated thing called a federal government that is more and more operating like a black hole, drawing all power and resources into itself. And those in charge of it are mostly a permanent political class that exists to increase its own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth and throws the people just enough bones to keep themselves in office. They don't care how destructive they are because they figure they'll have theirs and be long gone before the whole thing collapses under its own weight. And they are confident that they won't be the ones to get the blame when that happens.

A new and improved Constitution should first and foremost assign the federal government its authority and would make much more clear than the original did, that anything outside that assigned authority, the federal government cannot do. And the first thing the federal government should be assigned to do is to secure the unalienable rights of the people against all who would deny them to the people. And we can figure out what other areas of authority the federal government will be allowed to have and it will be quite limited.

 

[PratchettFan]

I get what you are saying. My objection is that the word is misleading and propagandistic. You have a right or you don't. Calling it inalienable adds nothing. If you are marooned on an island, then you can do whatever you please within your physical limitations, but you have no rights at all. The very concept of a right is dependent upon a society. Without social interaction the word has no meaning.

If we are going to discuss which rights we should and which we should not have, that is fine. If we are going to discuss how we are to insure we keep those rights, that is fine. Clearly we have different ideas on how that should be done. But applying this adjective to the word rights does not change the reality of it. Its only purpose is propaganda, just as Jefferson employed it, and I am not a fan of propaganda.

I'm not tied to the word inalienable. If you have a better word or phrase to use that would say it better, let's hear it. I just personally prefer that word because of its historical context, but I'm not inflexible on that.

Otherwise let's agree on the definition of the word as it relates to the suggested Constitutional rewrite--it can be defined within the body of that Constitution.

I've done that. The word is "rights".

We're looking for a word that characterizes rights that stand on their own, that don't require the service of others. You seem reluctant to admit such a distinction. But let me ask you this. Do you see any fundamental difference between a right that is purely a freedom of action (freedom of speech), and one that makes a claim on goods or services (right to healthcare)? Because that's the distinction that we're after here. That's the importance of "inalienable".

Rights don't stand on their own. If you are actually looking to create a new foundation of government then it should be based upon a realistic view of human society, not an ideological fantasy. There is not right to healthcare, however it is certainly appropriate for the government to insure healthcare is available to its citizens. Providing services to the citizenry is one of the major purposes of government.

But do you see any fundamental distinction between those types of "rights"? That's the important piece of this. You're focused on whether the term "right" refers to some that ought to be protect vs something thats is protected, and that's not really the point of what we're talking about.

"There is not right to healthcare, however it is certainly appropriate for the government to insure healthcare is available to its citizens."

Why do you say this? Should there be a 'right to healthcare'? If society decided it should be thus, would there be a right to healthcare? And if so, would you see any difference between that kind of right and a right like freedom of speech? Please try to answer. I'm not trying to 'trap' you, and I'm not playing any kind of rhetorical game here. Just trying to communicate the ideas clearly, because I sense you really don't understand what we're saying.

There is a distinction between a right and a benefit. You have the right to speak your mind, you don't have the right to travel by car - but does that mean it isn't appropriate for the government to build highways? Building highways is a benefit. So no, there is no right to healthcare and there should not be. But it is appropriate for the government to insure it is provided. This falls under the concept of providing for the general welfare.