CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[dblack]

I don't propose that it be the only source, but the Heritage Foundation has posted a paper on federal regulation that is both comprehensive and interesting (at least to me).

I will say right up front that some of you will disagree with their statements of fact and that is okay. But I will use some of them for the purposes of discussion. Let's start with the concept/thesis of the paper:

". . . When the Founders created our Constitution, they entrusted only limited powers to the national government and specifically enumerated those powers in the Constitution itself. A government that only had to carry out a limited number of functions could do so through the institutions and procedures established by the Constitution.

But as the national government expanded and began to focus more and more on every aspect of citizens’ lives, the need for a new kind of government—one focused on regulating the numerous activities of citizens rather than on protecting their individual rights—became apparent. In the United States, this new form of government is the administrative state. In Democracy in America , Alexis de Tocqueville warned that under such a government, citizens would become“nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” [1]

As the modern administrative state has grown and metastasized over the past decades, it has taken many forms, to the point of becoming the primary method of politics and policymaking. The myriad agencies and departments that make up this administrative state operate as a“fourth branch” of government that typically combines the powers of the other three and makes policy with little regard for the rights and views of citizens. In terms of actual policy, most of the action is located in administrative agencies and departments, not in the Congress and the President as is commonly thought. Unelected bureaucrats—not elected representatives—are running the show.

One of the greatest long-term challenges facing the United States is the restoration of limited constitutional government. Central to that objective, and an essential aspect of changing America’s course, is the dismantling of the administrative state that so threatens our self-governing republic. . . ."
From Administrative State to Constitutional Government
​

Comments?

A more important question is "What is the need for laws"? Are laws just a rule book or are they written to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, or the exception to the rule? Or are they written to ensure the majority that was elected gets what they voted for?

I tend to believe that laws are necessary to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, and the exceptions to the rule.

If the government is too large and too invasive (I don't feel that it is), it certainly is not doing so at the behest of those with the unpopular, obscene, minority or exceptionist opinions.

Laws are necessary to protect our unalienable rights. Without laws there is anarchy and nobody's rights are secure as the strong can take whatever it wants from the weaker or do whatever it wants to the weaker. That is not what liberty looks like.

The original Constitution was designed to achieve maximum liberty. And that is my personal goal in a discussion of how we can restore the liberties that have been eroded over time as government takes more and more power that the people once had.

The original Constitution was intended to secure the people's rights and then the government would leave the people strictly alone to lives their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.

The Heritage piece I presented to launch a discussion on regulatory powers of the federal government suggests that unelected people, via regulations regarded as laws, are now intruding on almost every aspect of how we live our lives and what sorts of societies we are required to have.

Do you agree with or disagree with that concept? Why or why not?

I agree that laws are necessary to protect our inalienable rights. But I'm not sure there's much to be gained from debating the intent of the original Constitution. For the purpose of this thread, it's really just a distraction - and one that tends to get bogged down in "quotefest" tedium. I'm also not sure quoting HF is productive, if for no other reason than the political baggage.

The role of government in 'regulating' activity, rather than protecting rights, is definitely an important point of discussion.

 

[Foxfyre]

A more important question is "What is the need for laws"? Are laws just a rule book or are they written to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, or the exception to the rule? Or are they written to ensure the majority that was elected gets what they voted for?

I tend to believe that laws are necessary to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, and the exceptions to the rule.

If the government is too large and too invasive (I don't feel that it is), it certainly is not doing so at the behest of those with the unpopular, obscene, minority or exceptionist opinions.

This is an excellent point, and it's really where the discussion needs to start. Until we have consensus on this question, the rest of it is just arm-wrestling.

But....but....how is it not 'arm wrestling' when the discussion is reduced to an 'is to' or 'is not' argument over whether government is too large and intrusive?

Or when those who are apparently incapable of getting past their partisan or ideological prejudices in order to discuss a concept seem determined to make sure no discussion of actual concepts will happen?

My hope was that by focusing for a bit on federal regulation and how much such power be given to the federal government might move us forward on discussing actual principles and concepts.

This is what I would like to discuss:

THE PRINCIPLE offered for discussion is that laws affecting almost every aspect of our lives are being made by people unelected by anybody to do that. Good thing? Bad thing?

 

[candycorn]

I don't propose that it be the only source, but the Heritage Foundation has posted a paper on federal regulation that is both comprehensive and interesting (at least to me).

I will say right up front that some of you will disagree with their statements of fact and that is okay. But I will use some of them for the purposes of discussion. Let's start with the concept/thesis of the paper:

". . . When the Founders created our Constitution, they entrusted only limited powers to the national government and specifically enumerated those powers in the Constitution itself. A government that only had to carry out a limited number of functions could do so through the institutions and procedures established by the Constitution.

But as the national government expanded and began to focus more and more on every aspect of citizens’ lives, the need for a new kind of government—one focused on regulating the numerous activities of citizens rather than on protecting their individual rights—became apparent. In the United States, this new form of government is the administrative state. In Democracy in America , Alexis de Tocqueville warned that under such a government, citizens would become“nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” [1]

As the modern administrative state has grown and metastasized over the past decades, it has taken many forms, to the point of becoming the primary method of politics and policymaking. The myriad agencies and departments that make up this administrative state operate as a“fourth branch” of government that typically combines the powers of the other three and makes policy with little regard for the rights and views of citizens. In terms of actual policy, most of the action is located in administrative agencies and departments, not in the Congress and the President as is commonly thought. Unelected bureaucrats—not elected representatives—are running the show.

One of the greatest long-term challenges facing the United States is the restoration of limited constitutional government. Central to that objective, and an essential aspect of changing America’s course, is the dismantling of the administrative state that so threatens our self-governing republic. . . ."
From Administrative State to Constitutional Government
​

Comments?

A more important question is "What is the need for laws"? Are laws just a rule book or are they written to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, or the exception to the rule? Or are they written to ensure the majority that was elected gets what they voted for?

I tend to believe that laws are necessary to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, and the exceptions to the rule.

If the government is too large and too invasive (I don't feel that it is), it certainly is not doing so at the behest of those with the unpopular, obscene, minority or exceptionist opinions.

Laws are necessary to protect our unalienable rights. Without laws there is anarchy and nobody's rights are secure as the strong can take whatever it wants from the weaker or do whatever it wants to the weaker. That is not what liberty looks like.

The original Constitution was designed to achieve maximum liberty. And that is my personal goal in a discussion of how we can restore the liberties that have been eroded over time as government takes more and more power that the people once had.

The original Constitution was intended to secure the people's rights and then the government would leave the people strictly alone to lives their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.

The Heritage piece I presented to launch a discussion on regulatory powers of the federal government suggests that unelected people, via regulations regarded as laws, are now intruding on almost every aspect of how we live our lives and what sorts of societies we are required to have.

Do you agree with or disagree with that concept? Why or why not?

No. I do not.

I do not feel it was the position of the framers of the Constitution on the whole that Georgia could have martial law and the Carolinas would have democracy. Certainly there were people around at that time that wanted to create their own enclaves such as Roger Williams in Rhode Island.
The concept was so popular that it was opposed by neighboring states, mainly Massachusetts. This was prior to the Constitutional Convention but it's unlikely that in the space of one generation the paradigm would shift so dramatically.

I also do not think the Constitution was designed to achieve maximum liberty. Maximum liberty is total autonomy. If you're stating that "maximum" liberty is couched in terms of being as "maxxed" as one can be in any government...okay. If you think it achieves it; you're simply wrong. In either case, if taxation is a form of enslavement as many right wing loons think; you're wrong because it allows for taxation. Oh well.

 

[candycorn]

A more important question is "What is the need for laws"? Are laws just a rule book or are they written to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, or the exception to the rule? Or are they written to ensure the majority that was elected gets what they voted for?

I tend to believe that laws are necessary to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, and the exceptions to the rule.

If the government is too large and too invasive (I don't feel that it is), it certainly is not doing so at the behest of those with the unpopular, obscene, minority or exceptionist opinions.

This is an excellent point, and it's really where the discussion needs to start. Until we have consensus on this question, the rest of it is just arm-wrestling.

Well, in my old home state of Texas, there is a new Senate session going on. The first order of business was to invoke what the federal Senate called the Nuclear Option....change the amount of votes needed to approve a measure.

From The Texas Tribune:

With a new lieutenant governor installed for the first time in over a decade Wednesday — and over the cries of Democrats — the Texas Senate voted to break from an almost 70-year tradition intended to encourage compromise among its 31 members.

Now the approval of only 19 senators instead of 21 will be required to bring legislation to the floor for debate. The change — passed on a vote of 20-10 — has the practical effect of allowing Republicans to consider a bill without a single vote from one of the chamber's 11 Democrats. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who presides over the Senate, has targeted the tradition known as the “two-thirds rule” since he first entered the Legislature in 2007.

So on one hand, you have people claiming the GOP just wants to get out of the way and on the other, in the reddest of red states, they make it easier for government to intercede.... Its the perfect commentary for the GOP in 2015/2016.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't propose that it be the only source, but the Heritage Foundation has posted a paper on federal regulation that is both comprehensive and interesting (at least to me).

I will say right up front that some of you will disagree with their statements of fact and that is okay. But I will use some of them for the purposes of discussion. Let's start with the concept/thesis of the paper:

". . . When the Founders created our Constitution, they entrusted only limited powers to the national government and specifically enumerated those powers in the Constitution itself. A government that only had to carry out a limited number of functions could do so through the institutions and procedures established by the Constitution.

But as the national government expanded and began to focus more and more on every aspect of citizens’ lives, the need for a new kind of government—one focused on regulating the numerous activities of citizens rather than on protecting their individual rights—became apparent. In the United States, this new form of government is the administrative state. In Democracy in America , Alexis de Tocqueville warned that under such a government, citizens would become“nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” [1]

As the modern administrative state has grown and metastasized over the past decades, it has taken many forms, to the point of becoming the primary method of politics and policymaking. The myriad agencies and departments that make up this administrative state operate as a“fourth branch” of government that typically combines the powers of the other three and makes policy with little regard for the rights and views of citizens. In terms of actual policy, most of the action is located in administrative agencies and departments, not in the Congress and the President as is commonly thought. Unelected bureaucrats—not elected representatives—are running the show.

One of the greatest long-term challenges facing the United States is the restoration of limited constitutional government. Central to that objective, and an essential aspect of changing America’s course, is the dismantling of the administrative state that so threatens our self-governing republic. . . ."
From Administrative State to Constitutional Government
​

Comments?

A more important question is "What is the need for laws"? Are laws just a rule book or are they written to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, or the exception to the rule? Or are they written to ensure the majority that was elected gets what they voted for?

I tend to believe that laws are necessary to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, and the exceptions to the rule.

If the government is too large and too invasive (I don't feel that it is), it certainly is not doing so at the behest of those with the unpopular, obscene, minority or exceptionist opinions.

Laws are necessary to protect our unalienable rights. Without laws there is anarchy and nobody's rights are secure as the strong can take whatever it wants from the weaker or do whatever it wants to the weaker. That is not what liberty looks like.

The original Constitution was designed to achieve maximum liberty. And that is my personal goal in a discussion of how we can restore the liberties that have been eroded over time as government takes more and more power that the people once had.

The original Constitution was intended to secure the people's rights and then the government would leave the people strictly alone to lives their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.

The Heritage piece I presented to launch a discussion on regulatory powers of the federal government suggests that unelected people, via regulations regarded as laws, are now intruding on almost every aspect of how we live our lives and what sorts of societies we are required to have.

Do you agree with or disagree with that concept? Why or why not?

No. I do not.

I do not feel it was the position of the framers of the Constitution on the whole that Georgia could have martial law and the Carolinas would have democracy. Certainly there were people around at that time that wanted to create their own enclaves such as Roger Williams in Rhode Island.
The concept was so popular that it was opposed by neighboring states, mainly Massachusetts. This was prior to the Constitutional Convention but it's unlikely that in the space of one generation the paradigm would shift so dramatically.

I also do not think the Constitution was designed to achieve maximum liberty. Maximum liberty is total autonomy. If you're stating that "maximum" liberty is couched in terms of being as "maxxed" as one can be in any government...okay. If you think it achieves it; you're simply wrong. In either case, if taxation is a form of enslavement as many right wing loons think; you're wrong because it allows for taxation. Oh well.

Again if we could keep the partisan prejudices and perjorative comments out of this, it would be extremely helpful.

Yes, the hermit who does not interact in any way with other humans enjoys maximum liberty. . . UNTIL somebody comes along who is able to take what he has or force him into roles he does not agree to or kills him.

The 'maximum liberty' the Founders envisioned for a new nation was one in which the government would be assigned just enough power to enable the various states to function as one nation and just enough power to secure our rights; i.e. the federal government would defend the nation but would have no power to dictate to any person who he or she must be or how he or she would live his/her life or how the people would organize and enforce their various societies.

That concept has been steadily eroded, however, as a strictly limited federal government has established more and more bureaucracies given power to dictate laws to the people.

The Revolutionary War was triggered not by anger over taxation, but angered over taxation without representation.

Now the discussion is whether we are living under laws/regulation without representation. Should the unelected be given power to pass such laws?

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't propose that it be the only source, but the Heritage Foundation has posted a paper on federal regulation that is both comprehensive and interesting (at least to me).

I will say right up front that some of you will disagree with their statements of fact and that is okay. But I will use some of them for the purposes of discussion. Let's start with the concept/thesis of the paper:

". . . When the Founders created our Constitution, they entrusted only limited powers to the national government and specifically enumerated those powers in the Constitution itself. A government that only had to carry out a limited number of functions could do so through the institutions and procedures established by the Constitution.

But as the national government expanded and began to focus more and more on every aspect of citizens’ lives, the need for a new kind of government—one focused on regulating the numerous activities of citizens rather than on protecting their individual rights—became apparent. In the United States, this new form of government is the administrative state. In Democracy in America , Alexis de Tocqueville warned that under such a government, citizens would become“nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” [1]

As the modern administrative state has grown and metastasized over the past decades, it has taken many forms, to the point of becoming the primary method of politics and policymaking. The myriad agencies and departments that make up this administrative state operate as a“fourth branch” of government that typically combines the powers of the other three and makes policy with little regard for the rights and views of citizens. In terms of actual policy, most of the action is located in administrative agencies and departments, not in the Congress and the President as is commonly thought. Unelected bureaucrats—not elected representatives—are running the show.

One of the greatest long-term challenges facing the United States is the restoration of limited constitutional government. Central to that objective, and an essential aspect of changing America’s course, is the dismantling of the administrative state that so threatens our self-governing republic. . . ."
From Administrative State to Constitutional Government
​

Comments?

A more important question is "What is the need for laws"? Are laws just a rule book or are they written to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, or the exception to the rule? Or are they written to ensure the majority that was elected gets what they voted for?

I tend to believe that laws are necessary to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, and the exceptions to the rule.

If the government is too large and too invasive (I don't feel that it is), it certainly is not doing so at the behest of those with the unpopular, obscene, minority or exceptionist opinions.

Laws are necessary to protect our unalienable rights. Without laws there is anarchy and nobody's rights are secure as the strong can take whatever it wants from the weaker or do whatever it wants to the weaker. That is not what liberty looks like.

The original Constitution was designed to achieve maximum liberty. And that is my personal goal in a discussion of how we can restore the liberties that have been eroded over time as government takes more and more power that the people once had.

The original Constitution was intended to secure the people's rights and then the government would leave the people strictly alone to lives their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.

The Heritage piece I presented to launch a discussion on regulatory powers of the federal government suggests that unelected people, via regulations regarded as laws, are now intruding on almost every aspect of how we live our lives and what sorts of societies we are required to have.

Do you agree with or disagree with that concept? Why or why not?

I agree that laws are necessary to protect our inalienable rights. But I'm not sure there's much to be gained from debating the intent of the original Constitution. For the purpose of this thread, it's really just a distraction - and one that tends to get bogged down in "quotefest" tedium. I'm also not sure quoting HF is productive, if for no other reason than the political baggage.

The role of government in 'regulating' activity, rather than protecting rights, is definitely an important point of discussion.

I used the HF piece because it is so well researched and so intensely pertinent to the topic. I was unable to find any other source that argued the issue as competently. I also was very clear that it is not to be considered the authority on the subject nor was it to be the only source.

I also requested that everybody set aside their partisan and ideological prejudices and the inevitable sniping and finger pointing in order to discuss the concept of regulation. There are some who are apparently incapable of doing that no matter what source I might use as a discussion starter.

Again the discussion topic at this time is: Do we want to contine to allow the federal bureacracy as it exists? Or does the bureaucracy that exists violate the very concept of republican (little 'r') government in which the people trust their elected representatives to make such decisions?

If you have a quarrel with the HF interpretation of that, by all means air it. Or just go with your own perceptions.

 

[candycorn]

I don't propose that it be the only source, but the Heritage Foundation has posted a paper on federal regulation that is both comprehensive and interesting (at least to me).

I will say right up front that some of you will disagree with their statements of fact and that is okay. But I will use some of them for the purposes of discussion. Let's start with the concept/thesis of the paper:

". . . When the Founders created our Constitution, they entrusted only limited powers to the national government and specifically enumerated those powers in the Constitution itself. A government that only had to carry out a limited number of functions could do so through the institutions and procedures established by the Constitution.

But as the national government expanded and began to focus more and more on every aspect of citizens’ lives, the need for a new kind of government—one focused on regulating the numerous activities of citizens rather than on protecting their individual rights—became apparent. In the United States, this new form of government is the administrative state. In Democracy in America , Alexis de Tocqueville warned that under such a government, citizens would become“nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” [1]

As the modern administrative state has grown and metastasized over the past decades, it has taken many forms, to the point of becoming the primary method of politics and policymaking. The myriad agencies and departments that make up this administrative state operate as a“fourth branch” of government that typically combines the powers of the other three and makes policy with little regard for the rights and views of citizens. In terms of actual policy, most of the action is located in administrative agencies and departments, not in the Congress and the President as is commonly thought. Unelected bureaucrats—not elected representatives—are running the show.

One of the greatest long-term challenges facing the United States is the restoration of limited constitutional government. Central to that objective, and an essential aspect of changing America’s course, is the dismantling of the administrative state that so threatens our self-governing republic. . . ."
From Administrative State to Constitutional Government
​

Comments?

A more important question is "What is the need for laws"? Are laws just a rule book or are they written to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, or the exception to the rule? Or are they written to ensure the majority that was elected gets what they voted for?

I tend to believe that laws are necessary to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, and the exceptions to the rule.

If the government is too large and too invasive (I don't feel that it is), it certainly is not doing so at the behest of those with the unpopular, obscene, minority or exceptionist opinions.

Laws are necessary to protect our unalienable rights. Without laws there is anarchy and nobody's rights are secure as the strong can take whatever it wants from the weaker or do whatever it wants to the weaker. That is not what liberty looks like.

The original Constitution was designed to achieve maximum liberty. And that is my personal goal in a discussion of how we can restore the liberties that have been eroded over time as government takes more and more power that the people once had.

The original Constitution was intended to secure the people's rights and then the government would leave the people strictly alone to lives their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.

The Heritage piece I presented to launch a discussion on regulatory powers of the federal government suggests that unelected people, via regulations regarded as laws, are now intruding on almost every aspect of how we live our lives and what sorts of societies we are required to have.

Do you agree with or disagree with that concept? Why or why not?

No. I do not.

I do not feel it was the position of the framers of the Constitution on the whole that Georgia could have martial law and the Carolinas would have democracy. Certainly there were people around at that time that wanted to create their own enclaves such as Roger Williams in Rhode Island.
The concept was so popular that it was opposed by neighboring states, mainly Massachusetts. This was prior to the Constitutional Convention but it's unlikely that in the space of one generation the paradigm would shift so dramatically.

I also do not think the Constitution was designed to achieve maximum liberty. Maximum liberty is total autonomy. If you're stating that "maximum" liberty is couched in terms of being as "maxxed" as one can be in any government...okay. If you think it achieves it; you're simply wrong. In either case, if taxation is a form of enslavement as many right wing loons think; you're wrong because it allows for taxation. Oh well.

Again if we could keep the partisan prejudices and perjorative comments out of this, it would be extremely helpful.

Yes, the hermit who does not interact in any way with other humans enjoys maximum liberty. . . UNTIL somebody comes along who is able to take what he has or force him into roles he does not agree to or kills him.

The 'maximum liberty' the Founders envisioned for a new nation was one in which the government would be assigned just enough power to enable the various states to function as one nation and just enough power to secure our rights; i.e. the federal government would defend the nation but would have no power to dictate to any person who he or she must be or how he or she would live his/her life or how the people would organize and enforce their various societies.

I think that Kennedy/Johnson did the right things by integrating the universities. Do you? If you do not, please tell me how that is not a massive over-reach. If you do, please tell me how you reconcile the two.

 

[candycorn]

Hypothetical question:

Can I have whomever I want over to my house? Let them stay with me?

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't propose that it be the only source, but the Heritage Foundation has posted a paper on federal regulation that is both comprehensive and interesting (at least to me).

I will say right up front that some of you will disagree with their statements of fact and that is okay. But I will use some of them for the purposes of discussion. Let's start with the concept/thesis of the paper:

". . . When the Founders created our Constitution, they entrusted only limited powers to the national government and specifically enumerated those powers in the Constitution itself. A government that only had to carry out a limited number of functions could do so through the institutions and procedures established by the Constitution.

But as the national government expanded and began to focus more and more on every aspect of citizens’ lives, the need for a new kind of government—one focused on regulating the numerous activities of citizens rather than on protecting their individual rights—became apparent. In the United States, this new form of government is the administrative state. In Democracy in America , Alexis de Tocqueville warned that under such a government, citizens would become“nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” [1]

As the modern administrative state has grown and metastasized over the past decades, it has taken many forms, to the point of becoming the primary method of politics and policymaking. The myriad agencies and departments that make up this administrative state operate as a“fourth branch” of government that typically combines the powers of the other three and makes policy with little regard for the rights and views of citizens. In terms of actual policy, most of the action is located in administrative agencies and departments, not in the Congress and the President as is commonly thought. Unelected bureaucrats—not elected representatives—are running the show.

One of the greatest long-term challenges facing the United States is the restoration of limited constitutional government. Central to that objective, and an essential aspect of changing America’s course, is the dismantling of the administrative state that so threatens our self-governing republic. . . ."
From Administrative State to Constitutional Government
​

Comments?

A more important question is "What is the need for laws"? Are laws just a rule book or are they written to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, or the exception to the rule? Or are they written to ensure the majority that was elected gets what they voted for?

I tend to believe that laws are necessary to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, and the exceptions to the rule.

If the government is too large and too invasive (I don't feel that it is), it certainly is not doing so at the behest of those with the unpopular, obscene, minority or exceptionist opinions.

Laws are necessary to protect our unalienable rights. Without laws there is anarchy and nobody's rights are secure as the strong can take whatever it wants from the weaker or do whatever it wants to the weaker. That is not what liberty looks like.

The original Constitution was designed to achieve maximum liberty. And that is my personal goal in a discussion of how we can restore the liberties that have been eroded over time as government takes more and more power that the people once had.

The original Constitution was intended to secure the people's rights and then the government would leave the people strictly alone to lives their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.

The Heritage piece I presented to launch a discussion on regulatory powers of the federal government suggests that unelected people, via regulations regarded as laws, are now intruding on almost every aspect of how we live our lives and what sorts of societies we are required to have.

Do you agree with or disagree with that concept? Why or why not?

No. I do not.

I do not feel it was the position of the framers of the Constitution on the whole that Georgia could have martial law and the Carolinas would have democracy. Certainly there were people around at that time that wanted to create their own enclaves such as Roger Williams in Rhode Island.
The concept was so popular that it was opposed by neighboring states, mainly Massachusetts. This was prior to the Constitutional Convention but it's unlikely that in the space of one generation the paradigm would shift so dramatically.

I also do not think the Constitution was designed to achieve maximum liberty. Maximum liberty is total autonomy. If you're stating that "maximum" liberty is couched in terms of being as "maxxed" as one can be in any government...okay. If you think it achieves it; you're simply wrong. In either case, if taxation is a form of enslavement as many right wing loons think; you're wrong because it allows for taxation. Oh well.

Again if we could keep the partisan prejudices and perjorative comments out of this, it would be extremely helpful.

Yes, the hermit who does not interact in any way with other humans enjoys maximum liberty. . . UNTIL somebody comes along who is able to take what he has or force him into roles he does not agree to or kills him.

The 'maximum liberty' the Founders envisioned for a new nation was one in which the government would be assigned just enough power to enable the various states to function as one nation and just enough power to secure our rights; i.e. the federal government would defend the nation but would have no power to dictate to any person who he or she must be or how he or she would live his/her life or how the people would organize and enforce their various societies.

I think that Kennedy/Johnson did the right things by integrating the universities. Do you? If you do not, please tell me how that is not a massive over-reach. If you do, please tell me how you reconcile the two.

I don't propose that it be the only source, but the Heritage Foundation has posted a paper on federal regulation that is both comprehensive and interesting (at least to me).

I will say right up front that some of you will disagree with their statements of fact and that is okay. But I will use some of them for the purposes of discussion. Let's start with the concept/thesis of the paper:

". . . When the Founders created our Constitution, they entrusted only limited powers to the national government and specifically enumerated those powers in the Constitution itself. A government that only had to carry out a limited number of functions could do so through the institutions and procedures established by the Constitution.

But as the national government expanded and began to focus more and more on every aspect of citizens’ lives, the need for a new kind of government—one focused on regulating the numerous activities of citizens rather than on protecting their individual rights—became apparent. In the United States, this new form of government is the administrative state. In Democracy in America , Alexis de Tocqueville warned that under such a government, citizens would become“nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” [1]

As the modern administrative state has grown and metastasized over the past decades, it has taken many forms, to the point of becoming the primary method of politics and policymaking. The myriad agencies and departments that make up this administrative state operate as a“fourth branch” of government that typically combines the powers of the other three and makes policy with little regard for the rights and views of citizens. In terms of actual policy, most of the action is located in administrative agencies and departments, not in the Congress and the President as is commonly thought. Unelected bureaucrats—not elected representatives—are running the show.

One of the greatest long-term challenges facing the United States is the restoration of limited constitutional government. Central to that objective, and an essential aspect of changing America’s course, is the dismantling of the administrative state that so threatens our self-governing republic. . . ."
From Administrative State to Constitutional Government
​

Comments?

A more important question is "What is the need for laws"? Are laws just a rule book or are they written to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, or the exception to the rule? Or are they written to ensure the majority that was elected gets what they voted for?

I tend to believe that laws are necessary to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, and the exceptions to the rule.

If the government is too large and too invasive (I don't feel that it is), it certainly is not doing so at the behest of those with the unpopular, obscene, minority or exceptionist opinions.

Laws are necessary to protect our unalienable rights. Without laws there is anarchy and nobody's rights are secure as the strong can take whatever it wants from the weaker or do whatever it wants to the weaker. That is not what liberty looks like.

The original Constitution was designed to achieve maximum liberty. And that is my personal goal in a discussion of how we can restore the liberties that have been eroded over time as government takes more and more power that the people once had.

The original Constitution was intended to secure the people's rights and then the government would leave the people strictly alone to lives their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.

The Heritage piece I presented to launch a discussion on regulatory powers of the federal government suggests that unelected people, via regulations regarded as laws, are now intruding on almost every aspect of how we live our lives and what sorts of societies we are required to have.

Do you agree with or disagree with that concept? Why or why not?

No. I do not.

I do not feel it was the position of the framers of the Constitution on the whole that Georgia could have martial law and the Carolinas would have democracy. Certainly there were people around at that time that wanted to create their own enclaves such as Roger Williams in Rhode Island.
The concept was so popular that it was opposed by neighboring states, mainly Massachusetts. This was prior to the Constitutional Convention but it's unlikely that in the space of one generation the paradigm would shift so dramatically.

I also do not think the Constitution was designed to achieve maximum liberty. Maximum liberty is total autonomy. If you're stating that "maximum" liberty is couched in terms of being as "maxxed" as one can be in any government...okay. If you think it achieves it; you're simply wrong. In either case, if taxation is a form of enslavement as many right wing loons think; you're wrong because it allows for taxation. Oh well.

Again if we could keep the partisan prejudices and perjorative comments out of this, it would be extremely helpful.

Yes, the hermit who does not interact in any way with other humans enjoys maximum liberty. . . UNTIL somebody comes along who is able to take what he has or force him into roles he does not agree to or kills him.

The 'maximum liberty' the Founders envisioned for a new nation was one in which the government would be assigned just enough power to enable the various states to function as one nation and just enough power to secure our rights; i.e. the federal government would defend the nation but would have no power to dictate to any person who he or she must be or how he or she would live his/her life or how the people would organize and enforce their various societies.

I think that Kennedy/Johnson did the right things by integrating the universities. Do you? If you do not, please tell me how that is not a massive over-reach. If you do, please tell me how you reconcile the two.

So far as I know, both Kennedy and Johnson were both elected by the people were they not? And they didn't desegregate anything single handedly, but it required a vote of both houses of Congress to accomplish that legislation.

This part of thediscussion is NOT about legislation that Congress passes. The discussion is focused on an unelected bureaucracy allowed to dictate regulation that is treated as law.

Do you see the difference between those two things?

If so, please answer my previous question. Do you want your next door neighbor who was elected by nobody to have the power to dictate what you will or will not be able to purchase or how you are required to conduct your business?

 

[Derideo_Te]

We are starting with a blank sheet of paper.

The Founding Fathers were far smarter than that. They already had the Magna Carta as a starting point. They had examples of Democracies and Republics from history as examples.

It is utterly ridiculous to ignore all precedent and "start with a blank sheet of paper". That you are insisting upon doing so says a lot about the vacuousness of the Libertarian mindset.

 

[candycorn]

A more important question is "What is the need for laws"? Are laws just a rule book or are they written to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, or the exception to the rule? Or are they written to ensure the majority that was elected gets what they voted for?

I tend to believe that laws are necessary to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, and the exceptions to the rule.

If the government is too large and too invasive (I don't feel that it is), it certainly is not doing so at the behest of those with the unpopular, obscene, minority or exceptionist opinions.

Laws are necessary to protect our unalienable rights. Without laws there is anarchy and nobody's rights are secure as the strong can take whatever it wants from the weaker or do whatever it wants to the weaker. That is not what liberty looks like.

The original Constitution was designed to achieve maximum liberty. And that is my personal goal in a discussion of how we can restore the liberties that have been eroded over time as government takes more and more power that the people once had.

The original Constitution was intended to secure the people's rights and then the government would leave the people strictly alone to lives their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.

The Heritage piece I presented to launch a discussion on regulatory powers of the federal government suggests that unelected people, via regulations regarded as laws, are now intruding on almost every aspect of how we live our lives and what sorts of societies we are required to have.

Do you agree with or disagree with that concept? Why or why not?

No. I do not.

I do not feel it was the position of the framers of the Constitution on the whole that Georgia could have martial law and the Carolinas would have democracy. Certainly there were people around at that time that wanted to create their own enclaves such as Roger Williams in Rhode Island.
The concept was so popular that it was opposed by neighboring states, mainly Massachusetts. This was prior to the Constitutional Convention but it's unlikely that in the space of one generation the paradigm would shift so dramatically.

I also do not think the Constitution was designed to achieve maximum liberty. Maximum liberty is total autonomy. If you're stating that "maximum" liberty is couched in terms of being as "maxxed" as one can be in any government...okay. If you think it achieves it; you're simply wrong. In either case, if taxation is a form of enslavement as many right wing loons think; you're wrong because it allows for taxation. Oh well.

Again if we could keep the partisan prejudices and perjorative comments out of this, it would be extremely helpful.

Yes, the hermit who does not interact in any way with other humans enjoys maximum liberty. . . UNTIL somebody comes along who is able to take what he has or force him into roles he does not agree to or kills him.

The 'maximum liberty' the Founders envisioned for a new nation was one in which the government would be assigned just enough power to enable the various states to function as one nation and just enough power to secure our rights; i.e. the federal government would defend the nation but would have no power to dictate to any person who he or she must be or how he or she would live his/her life or how the people would organize and enforce their various societies.

I think that Kennedy/Johnson did the right things by integrating the universities. Do you? If you do not, please tell me how that is not a massive over-reach. If you do, please tell me how you reconcile the two.

A more important question is "What is the need for laws"? Are laws just a rule book or are they written to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, or the exception to the rule? Or are they written to ensure the majority that was elected gets what they voted for?

I tend to believe that laws are necessary to protect the unpopular, the obscene, the minority opinion, and the exceptions to the rule.

If the government is too large and too invasive (I don't feel that it is), it certainly is not doing so at the behest of those with the unpopular, obscene, minority or exceptionist opinions.

Laws are necessary to protect our unalienable rights. Without laws there is anarchy and nobody's rights are secure as the strong can take whatever it wants from the weaker or do whatever it wants to the weaker. That is not what liberty looks like.

The original Constitution was designed to achieve maximum liberty. And that is my personal goal in a discussion of how we can restore the liberties that have been eroded over time as government takes more and more power that the people once had.

The original Constitution was intended to secure the people's rights and then the government would leave the people strictly alone to lives their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.

The Heritage piece I presented to launch a discussion on regulatory powers of the federal government suggests that unelected people, via regulations regarded as laws, are now intruding on almost every aspect of how we live our lives and what sorts of societies we are required to have.

Do you agree with or disagree with that concept? Why or why not?

No. I do not.

I do not feel it was the position of the framers of the Constitution on the whole that Georgia could have martial law and the Carolinas would have democracy. Certainly there were people around at that time that wanted to create their own enclaves such as Roger Williams in Rhode Island.
The concept was so popular that it was opposed by neighboring states, mainly Massachusetts. This was prior to the Constitutional Convention but it's unlikely that in the space of one generation the paradigm would shift so dramatically.

I also do not think the Constitution was designed to achieve maximum liberty. Maximum liberty is total autonomy. If you're stating that "maximum" liberty is couched in terms of being as "maxxed" as one can be in any government...okay. If you think it achieves it; you're simply wrong. In either case, if taxation is a form of enslavement as many right wing loons think; you're wrong because it allows for taxation. Oh well.

Again if we could keep the partisan prejudices and perjorative comments out of this, it would be extremely helpful.

Yes, the hermit who does not interact in any way with other humans enjoys maximum liberty. . . UNTIL somebody comes along who is able to take what he has or force him into roles he does not agree to or kills him.

The 'maximum liberty' the Founders envisioned for a new nation was one in which the government would be assigned just enough power to enable the various states to function as one nation and just enough power to secure our rights; i.e. the federal government would defend the nation but would have no power to dictate to any person who he or she must be or how he or she would live his/her life or how the people would organize and enforce their various societies.

I think that Kennedy/Johnson did the right things by integrating the universities. Do you? If you do not, please tell me how that is not a massive over-reach. If you do, please tell me how you reconcile the two.

So far as I know, both Kennedy and Johnson were both elected by the people were they not? And they didn't desegregate anything single handedly, but it required a vote of both houses of Congress to accomplish that legislation.

No Kennedy federalized the National Guard:

On June 10, 1963, President John F. Kennedy federalized National Guard troops and deployed them to the University of Alabama to force its desegregation. The next day, Governor Wallace yielded to the federal pressure, and two African American students--Vivian Malone and James A. Hood--successfully enrolled. In September of the same year, Wallace again attempted to block the desegregation of an Alabama public school--this time Tuskegee High School in Huntsville--but President Kennedy once again employed his executive authority and federalized National Guard troops. Wallace had little choice but to yield.

I suspect you knew what I was talking about.

Do you support Kennedy doing so? Yes or no.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Have a nice day DT. I hope somebody who really wants to discuss the concept instead of bash somebody or accuse somebody or play the broken ad hominem record routine will find the topic interesting.

That you refuse to deal with reality and apply critical thinking to what you read is not my problem. You weren't able to refute anything I posted and neither were you able to substantiate anything that you quoted of HF's disinformation.

As far as I am concerned your blind partisan support for those who are intent upon destroying the government of the people and for the people is something that I will call out whenever and wherever I see it rear it's ugly head.

What has disappointed me is that you have indulged yourself in endless ad hominems of your own while denouncing them in the same post. That is just dishonest and I expected more from you in that respect. Your inability to see your own shortcomings is probably linked to your lack of critical thinking skills.

But whatever. You are free to believe in whatever you want and I will uphold that right of yours with my life. But it won't ever stop me from exposing your beliefs from being fallacious, unAmerican and harmful to We the People.

And no, you are not interested in actually "discussing the concept" at all. All you want is an echo chamber of dittoheads who will agree with everything you post no matter how wrongheaded, impractical and harmful it might be in reality. There are plenty of forums where you will find those people but here in USMB you are just going to have to deal with having your Libertarian illusions shattered on the rocks of harsh reality.

Have a nice day.

I've found that whenever someone quotes the "founders", the person doing the quoting is merely cherry-picking those founders that agreed with them or a compromise made by those founders that they can live with.

Going forward, if you are ever unsure if someone is truly a constitutional/historical/or scholar-otherwise on our republic, ask them the following simple question:

"What is in the Constitution or the amendments that you most disagree with?"

They will either not answer or they will say none of it and when they do, you know that you have them dead to rights. The very nature of compromise is that Party A gives up something and Party B gives up something. Within both parties, there are members of that group that would have given more and there are members that would have given less. So it would have been very uncommon to find someone from Colonial days (much less 230+/- years after the fact) that left the room totally satisfied at the outcome.

Anyway, I found it to be a very effective instrument.

None of the Libertarian Utopians in the thread are willing to deal with that reality however. They want a "blank slate" because then the other side has to do 100% of the compromising to get anything at all. It doesn't work that way in real life. The Libertarians don't get everything they want (i.e. a blank slate) and then only begrudgingly make a few meager concessions here and there.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The Heritage piece I presented to launch a discussion on regulatory powers of the federal government suggests that unelected people, via regulations regarded as laws, are now intruding on almost every aspect of how we live our lives and what sorts of societies we are required to have.

Do you agree with or disagree with that concept? Why or why not?

Because the HF disinformation is based upon the utterly bogus premise that "unelected people, via regulations regarded as laws, are now intruding on almost every aspect of how we live our lives and what sorts of societies we are required to have" which is completely false.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The 'maximum liberty' the Founders envisioned for a new nation was one in which the government would be assigned just enough power to enable the various states to function as one nation and just enough power to secure our rights; i.e. the federal government would defend the nation but would have no power to dictate to any person who he or she must be or how he or she would live his/her life or how the people would organize and enforce their various societies.

Hogwash!

Amongst the very first acts of Congress were laws requiring that all firearms must be registered and that certain professions must be taxed in order to pay for a state run healthcare system.

That gives lie to your bogus claims about "maximum liberty".

 

[Derideo_Te]

I used the HF piece because it is so well researched

 

[Foxfyre]

Laws are necessary to protect our unalienable rights. Without laws there is anarchy and nobody's rights are secure as the strong can take whatever it wants from the weaker or do whatever it wants to the weaker. That is not what liberty looks like.

The original Constitution was designed to achieve maximum liberty. And that is my personal goal in a discussion of how we can restore the liberties that have been eroded over time as government takes more and more power that the people once had.

The original Constitution was intended to secure the people's rights and then the government would leave the people strictly alone to lives their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.

The Heritage piece I presented to launch a discussion on regulatory powers of the federal government suggests that unelected people, via regulations regarded as laws, are now intruding on almost every aspect of how we live our lives and what sorts of societies we are required to have.

Do you agree with or disagree with that concept? Why or why not?

No. I do not.

I do not feel it was the position of the framers of the Constitution on the whole that Georgia could have martial law and the Carolinas would have democracy. Certainly there were people around at that time that wanted to create their own enclaves such as Roger Williams in Rhode Island.
The concept was so popular that it was opposed by neighboring states, mainly Massachusetts. This was prior to the Constitutional Convention but it's unlikely that in the space of one generation the paradigm would shift so dramatically.

I also do not think the Constitution was designed to achieve maximum liberty. Maximum liberty is total autonomy. If you're stating that "maximum" liberty is couched in terms of being as "maxxed" as one can be in any government...okay. If you think it achieves it; you're simply wrong. In either case, if taxation is a form of enslavement as many right wing loons think; you're wrong because it allows for taxation. Oh well.

Again if we could keep the partisan prejudices and perjorative comments out of this, it would be extremely helpful.

Yes, the hermit who does not interact in any way with other humans enjoys maximum liberty. . . UNTIL somebody comes along who is able to take what he has or force him into roles he does not agree to or kills him.

The 'maximum liberty' the Founders envisioned for a new nation was one in which the government would be assigned just enough power to enable the various states to function as one nation and just enough power to secure our rights; i.e. the federal government would defend the nation but would have no power to dictate to any person who he or she must be or how he or she would live his/her life or how the people would organize and enforce their various societies.

I think that Kennedy/Johnson did the right things by integrating the universities. Do you? If you do not, please tell me how that is not a massive over-reach. If you do, please tell me how you reconcile the two.

Laws are necessary to protect our unalienable rights. Without laws there is anarchy and nobody's rights are secure as the strong can take whatever it wants from the weaker or do whatever it wants to the weaker. That is not what liberty looks like.

The original Constitution was designed to achieve maximum liberty. And that is my personal goal in a discussion of how we can restore the liberties that have been eroded over time as government takes more and more power that the people once had.

The original Constitution was intended to secure the people's rights and then the government would leave the people strictly alone to lives their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.

The Heritage piece I presented to launch a discussion on regulatory powers of the federal government suggests that unelected people, via regulations regarded as laws, are now intruding on almost every aspect of how we live our lives and what sorts of societies we are required to have.

Do you agree with or disagree with that concept? Why or why not?

No. I do not.

I do not feel it was the position of the framers of the Constitution on the whole that Georgia could have martial law and the Carolinas would have democracy. Certainly there were people around at that time that wanted to create their own enclaves such as Roger Williams in Rhode Island.
The concept was so popular that it was opposed by neighboring states, mainly Massachusetts. This was prior to the Constitutional Convention but it's unlikely that in the space of one generation the paradigm would shift so dramatically.

I also do not think the Constitution was designed to achieve maximum liberty. Maximum liberty is total autonomy. If you're stating that "maximum" liberty is couched in terms of being as "maxxed" as one can be in any government...okay. If you think it achieves it; you're simply wrong. In either case, if taxation is a form of enslavement as many right wing loons think; you're wrong because it allows for taxation. Oh well.

Again if we could keep the partisan prejudices and perjorative comments out of this, it would be extremely helpful.

Yes, the hermit who does not interact in any way with other humans enjoys maximum liberty. . . UNTIL somebody comes along who is able to take what he has or force him into roles he does not agree to or kills him.

The 'maximum liberty' the Founders envisioned for a new nation was one in which the government would be assigned just enough power to enable the various states to function as one nation and just enough power to secure our rights; i.e. the federal government would defend the nation but would have no power to dictate to any person who he or she must be or how he or she would live his/her life or how the people would organize and enforce their various societies.

I think that Kennedy/Johnson did the right things by integrating the universities. Do you? If you do not, please tell me how that is not a massive over-reach. If you do, please tell me how you reconcile the two.

So far as I know, both Kennedy and Johnson were both elected by the people were they not? And they didn't desegregate anything single handedly, but it required a vote of both houses of Congress to accomplish that legislation.

No Kennedy federalized the National Guard:

On June 10, 1963, President John F. Kennedy federalized National Guard troops and deployed them to the University of Alabama to force its desegregation. The next day, Governor Wallace yielded to the federal pressure, and two African American students--Vivian Malone and James A. Hood--successfully enrolled. In September of the same year, Wallace again attempted to block the desegregation of an Alabama public school--this time Tuskegee High School in Huntsville--but President Kennedy once again employed his executive authority and federalized National Guard troops. Wallace had little choice but to yield.

I suspect you knew what I was talking about.

Do you support Kennedy doing so? Yes or no.

Kennedy was acting on the authority of the President, ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE, to enforce the Brown vs Board of Education ruling by the Supreme Court. Now as part of this discussion, we can argue whether that ruling was actually a constitutional prerogative of the Supreme Court or whether it too should have been passed by Congress, but at the time, Kennedy was acting according to the law at that time.

Again, do you not see the difference between a President enforcing an existing law and unelected people making law?

 

[candycorn]

No. I do not.

I do not feel it was the position of the framers of the Constitution on the whole that Georgia could have martial law and the Carolinas would have democracy. Certainly there were people around at that time that wanted to create their own enclaves such as Roger Williams in Rhode Island.
The concept was so popular that it was opposed by neighboring states, mainly Massachusetts. This was prior to the Constitutional Convention but it's unlikely that in the space of one generation the paradigm would shift so dramatically.

I also do not think the Constitution was designed to achieve maximum liberty. Maximum liberty is total autonomy. If you're stating that "maximum" liberty is couched in terms of being as "maxxed" as one can be in any government...okay. If you think it achieves it; you're simply wrong. In either case, if taxation is a form of enslavement as many right wing loons think; you're wrong because it allows for taxation. Oh well.

Again if we could keep the partisan prejudices and perjorative comments out of this, it would be extremely helpful.

Yes, the hermit who does not interact in any way with other humans enjoys maximum liberty. . . UNTIL somebody comes along who is able to take what he has or force him into roles he does not agree to or kills him.

The 'maximum liberty' the Founders envisioned for a new nation was one in which the government would be assigned just enough power to enable the various states to function as one nation and just enough power to secure our rights; i.e. the federal government would defend the nation but would have no power to dictate to any person who he or she must be or how he or she would live his/her life or how the people would organize and enforce their various societies.

I think that Kennedy/Johnson did the right things by integrating the universities. Do you? If you do not, please tell me how that is not a massive over-reach. If you do, please tell me how you reconcile the two.

No. I do not.

I do not feel it was the position of the framers of the Constitution on the whole that Georgia could have martial law and the Carolinas would have democracy. Certainly there were people around at that time that wanted to create their own enclaves such as Roger Williams in Rhode Island.
The concept was so popular that it was opposed by neighboring states, mainly Massachusetts. This was prior to the Constitutional Convention but it's unlikely that in the space of one generation the paradigm would shift so dramatically.

I also do not think the Constitution was designed to achieve maximum liberty. Maximum liberty is total autonomy. If you're stating that "maximum" liberty is couched in terms of being as "maxxed" as one can be in any government...okay. If you think it achieves it; you're simply wrong. In either case, if taxation is a form of enslavement as many right wing loons think; you're wrong because it allows for taxation. Oh well.

Again if we could keep the partisan prejudices and perjorative comments out of this, it would be extremely helpful.

Yes, the hermit who does not interact in any way with other humans enjoys maximum liberty. . . UNTIL somebody comes along who is able to take what he has or force him into roles he does not agree to or kills him.

The 'maximum liberty' the Founders envisioned for a new nation was one in which the government would be assigned just enough power to enable the various states to function as one nation and just enough power to secure our rights; i.e. the federal government would defend the nation but would have no power to dictate to any person who he or she must be or how he or she would live his/her life or how the people would organize and enforce their various societies.

I think that Kennedy/Johnson did the right things by integrating the universities. Do you? If you do not, please tell me how that is not a massive over-reach. If you do, please tell me how you reconcile the two.

So far as I know, both Kennedy and Johnson were both elected by the people were they not? And they didn't desegregate anything single handedly, but it required a vote of both houses of Congress to accomplish that legislation.

No Kennedy federalized the National Guard:

On June 10, 1963, President John F. Kennedy federalized National Guard troops and deployed them to the University of Alabama to force its desegregation. The next day, Governor Wallace yielded to the federal pressure, and two African American students--Vivian Malone and James A. Hood--successfully enrolled. In September of the same year, Wallace again attempted to block the desegregation of an Alabama public school--this time Tuskegee High School in Huntsville--but President Kennedy once again employed his executive authority and federalized National Guard troops. Wallace had little choice but to yield.

I suspect you knew what I was talking about.

Do you support Kennedy doing so? Yes or no.

Kennedy was acting on the authority of the President, ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE, to enforce the Brown vs Board of Education ruling by the Supreme Court. Now as part of this discussion, we can argue whether that ruling was actually a constitutional prerogative of the Supreme Court or whether it too should have been passed by Congress, but at the time, Kennedy was acting according to the law at that time.

Again, do you not see the difference between a President enforcing an existing law and unelected people making law?

This will be the 3rd time I've asked it (and likely the 3rd time you've side-stepped it); Do you support Kennedy doing so?

What unelected people are making laws?

 

[Foxfyre]

Again if we could keep the partisan prejudices and perjorative comments out of this, it would be extremely helpful.

Yes, the hermit who does not interact in any way with other humans enjoys maximum liberty. . . UNTIL somebody comes along who is able to take what he has or force him into roles he does not agree to or kills him.

The 'maximum liberty' the Founders envisioned for a new nation was one in which the government would be assigned just enough power to enable the various states to function as one nation and just enough power to secure our rights; i.e. the federal government would defend the nation but would have no power to dictate to any person who he or she must be or how he or she would live his/her life or how the people would organize and enforce their various societies.

I think that Kennedy/Johnson did the right things by integrating the universities. Do you? If you do not, please tell me how that is not a massive over-reach. If you do, please tell me how you reconcile the two.

Again if we could keep the partisan prejudices and perjorative comments out of this, it would be extremely helpful.

Yes, the hermit who does not interact in any way with other humans enjoys maximum liberty. . . UNTIL somebody comes along who is able to take what he has or force him into roles he does not agree to or kills him.

The 'maximum liberty' the Founders envisioned for a new nation was one in which the government would be assigned just enough power to enable the various states to function as one nation and just enough power to secure our rights; i.e. the federal government would defend the nation but would have no power to dictate to any person who he or she must be or how he or she would live his/her life or how the people would organize and enforce their various societies.

I think that Kennedy/Johnson did the right things by integrating the universities. Do you? If you do not, please tell me how that is not a massive over-reach. If you do, please tell me how you reconcile the two.

So far as I know, both Kennedy and Johnson were both elected by the people were they not? And they didn't desegregate anything single handedly, but it required a vote of both houses of Congress to accomplish that legislation.

No Kennedy federalized the National Guard:

On June 10, 1963, President John F. Kennedy federalized National Guard troops and deployed them to the University of Alabama to force its desegregation. The next day, Governor Wallace yielded to the federal pressure, and two African American students--Vivian Malone and James A. Hood--successfully enrolled. In September of the same year, Wallace again attempted to block the desegregation of an Alabama public school--this time Tuskegee High School in Huntsville--but President Kennedy once again employed his executive authority and federalized National Guard troops. Wallace had little choice but to yield.

I suspect you knew what I was talking about.

Do you support Kennedy doing so? Yes or no.

Kennedy was acting on the authority of the President, ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE, to enforce the Brown vs Board of Education ruling by the Supreme Court. Now as part of this discussion, we can argue whether that ruling was actually a constitutional prerogative of the Supreme Court or whether it too should have been passed by Congress, but at the time, Kennedy was acting according to the law at that time.

Again, do you not see the difference between a President enforcing an existing law and unelected people making law?

This will be the 3rd time I've asked it (and likely the 3rd time you've side-stepped it); Do you support Kennedy doing so?

What unelected people are making laws?

I did support Kennedy doing so at the time and I would support a President doing so now. I support Presidents who obey and enforce the law. I do not support any President who disregards or arbitrarily changes or refuses to enforce a law and have no problem condemning such action committed by any President.

To answer your question re what unelected people are making laws, I will refer you to Posts #1419, #1420, and #1427.

And after you have reviewed that material, would you answer my question that I am now asking for the third time:

Do you want your next door neighbor who was elected by nobody to have the power to dictate what you will or will not be able to purchase or how you are required to conduct your business?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I do not support any President who disregards or arbitrarily changes or refuses to enforce a law and have no problem condemning such action committed by any President.

And which presidents besides Nixon and Reagan did that?

 

[candycorn]

I think that Kennedy/Johnson did the right things by integrating the universities. Do you? If you do not, please tell me how that is not a massive over-reach. If you do, please tell me how you reconcile the two.

I think that Kennedy/Johnson did the right things by integrating the universities. Do you? If you do not, please tell me how that is not a massive over-reach. If you do, please tell me how you reconcile the two.

So far as I know, both Kennedy and Johnson were both elected by the people were they not? And they didn't desegregate anything single handedly, but it required a vote of both houses of Congress to accomplish that legislation.

No Kennedy federalized the National Guard:

On June 10, 1963, President John F. Kennedy federalized National Guard troops and deployed them to the University of Alabama to force its desegregation. The next day, Governor Wallace yielded to the federal pressure, and two African American students--Vivian Malone and James A. Hood--successfully enrolled. In September of the same year, Wallace again attempted to block the desegregation of an Alabama public school--this time Tuskegee High School in Huntsville--but President Kennedy once again employed his executive authority and federalized National Guard troops. Wallace had little choice but to yield.

I suspect you knew what I was talking about.

Do you support Kennedy doing so? Yes or no.

Kennedy was acting on the authority of the President, ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE, to enforce the Brown vs Board of Education ruling by the Supreme Court. Now as part of this discussion, we can argue whether that ruling was actually a constitutional prerogative of the Supreme Court or whether it too should have been passed by Congress, but at the time, Kennedy was acting according to the law at that time.

Again, do you not see the difference between a President enforcing an existing law and unelected people making law?

This will be the 3rd time I've asked it (and likely the 3rd time you've side-stepped it); Do you support Kennedy doing so?

What unelected people are making laws?

I did support Kennedy doing so at the time and I would support a President doing so now. I support Presidents who obey and enforce the law. I do not support any President who disregards or arbitrarily changes or refuses to enforce a law and have no problem condemning such action committed by any President.

.
Thanks...see how easy it is to simply answer a question.

Now back to the blank sheet of paper and states determining their own societies mumbo jumbo....

Lets say that Kennedy lost Alabama to Nixon in 1960. Under the new rules you want to spawn; would Kennedy have the right as President of the United States to intervene in any state where the majority didn't elect him?