"Direct Democracy" and the OWS

[CrusaderFrank]

I don't recall the Federal Government, under the United States Constitution, to be allowed to have control and dictate over it's people (such as the mandate of Obamacare) but rather always be submissive to the will of the people that place them into such positions. When we begin to view the Federal Government as more of a position of supreme power and rule over its people, we begin to lose the intent of where that true power should "more respectfully" reside according to our Founding Fathers: A Constitution of limited Government power that answers to, and foremost preserves, the freedoms and rights of the "individual" liberties it's established (under the Declaration of Independence) to always protect.

The Constitution never called for limited Government. It establishes the confines and structure of Government and leaves it up to the elected officials to decide on the scope of Government

If you don't like the size of the Government, elect new officials. You will have no luck proving a large Government is Un-Constitutional

Honest question.

How are the EPA officials, unelected souls, able to rule and make laws when they are unelected bureaucrats ...?

How is this constitutional?

It's covered under the "Good and Commerce" Clause

 

[tinydancer]

Oreo, OWS has no official spokespersons and if it did, you would certainly not be one of them. It is not up to you to say what the movement stands for.

Who issued the Manifesto? Someone put it out there. And with the list of laughable demands.

#1 Give me your money.

#2 Give me all your money.

#3 I'm not kidding, I'm a lazy bastard and I want your money.



ad nauseum

why? because you owe me. my mummy said so.

 

[The T]

I don't recall the Federal Government, under the United States Constitution, to be allowed to have control and dictate over it's people (such as the mandate of Obamacare) but rather always be submissive to the will of the people that place them into such positions. When we begin to view the Federal Government as more of a position of supreme power and rule over its people, we begin to lose the intent of where that true power should "more respectfully" reside according to our Founding Fathers: A Constitution of limited Government power that answers to, and foremost preserves, the freedoms and rights of the "individual" liberties it's established (under the Declaration of Independence) to always protect.

The Constitution never called for limited Government. It establishes the confines and structure of Government and leaves it up to the elected officials to decide on the scope of Government

If you don't like the size of the Government, elect new officials. You will have no luck proving a large Government is Un-Constitutional

Honest question.

How are the EPA officials, unelected souls, able to rule and make laws when they are unelected bureaucrats ...?

How is this constitutional?

But...but...they answer to Obama...he's POTUS...so it MUST be legal!

/Sarcasm...going to take shower after playing part of Statist goon...I feel so dirty...

 

[tinydancer]

The Constitution never called for limited Government. It establishes the confines and structure of Government and leaves it up to the elected officials to decide on the scope of Government

If you don't like the size of the Government, elect new officials. You will have no luck proving a large Government is Un-Constitutional

Honest question.

How are the EPA officials, unelected souls, able to rule and make laws when they are unelected bureaucrats ...?

How is this constitutional?

It's covered under the "Good and Commerce" Clause

Whoa geeze.

Thanks. But that's frightening.

 

[tinydancer]

The Constitution never called for limited Government. It establishes the confines and structure of Government and leaves it up to the elected officials to decide on the scope of Government

If you don't like the size of the Government, elect new officials. You will have no luck proving a large Government is Un-Constitutional

Honest question.

How are the EPA officials, unelected souls, able to rule and make laws when they are unelected bureaucrats ...?

How is this constitutional?

But...but...they answer to Obama...he's POTUS...so it MUST be legal!

/Sarcasm...going to take shower after playing part of Statist goon...I feel so dirty...

If I could only make a "get this liberal crap off my body body wash" I would be a quizzillionaire.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

You are wrong about the tea party protests. The tea partys formed in a direct response to what the people invovled felt was a constitutional overreach by the federal govt and fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government.

The Tea Partys want to work within the confines of our consitutional republic to affect change while the OWS people want to scapegoat rich people and instill a tyranny of the majority over the minority (also called a direct democracy).

The tea party events were funded by the Koch brothers and promoted for free by Fox news.


This is real grass roots.


Why did you think the tea party protests were great and think these ones are BAD!
'

Because you are a partisan hack with no moral code

Liar.

These 'protests' are part of the 'October Offensive' organized by Watermelon Man, Van Jones... and funded by the Tides Foundation.

It's no more grassroots than you are intelligent.

And, we could point out the opposite... you ranted like a banshee about the TEAs and yet these guys are 'great'. Hypocrite.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

96.9 Boston Talks Audio On-Demand

^^^4th podcast down titled "Master Occupier: Lloyd Hart, master occupier talks about Occupy Boston"

yeah, audio rules

"drunks and bums infiltrating..." (Fifth down)

That guy wrote a book, awesome title.

 

[DaGoose]

Rather, I support our (apparently more and more, MY) Constitution.

That document protects the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Deal with it.

We will deal with it dude. Next election. You can count on it.

You're going to deal with, "That document that protects the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"?

How exactly do you "want to deal" with the Constitution?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Nope. One of the finest documents ever written by Humanity. A fine testament to Liberalism.

I don't recall the Federal Government, under the United States Constitution, to be allowed to have control and dictate over it's people (such as the mandate of Obamacare) but rather always be submissive to the will of the people that place them into such positions. When we begin to view the Federal Government as more of a position of supreme power and rule over its people, we begin to lose the intent of where that true power should "more respectfully" reside according to our Founding Fathers: A Constitution of limited Government power that answers to, and foremost preserves, the freedoms and rights of the "individual" liberties it's established (under the Declaration of Independence) to always protect.

The Constitution never called for limited Government. It establishes the confines and structure of Government and leaves it up to the elected officials to decide on the scope of Government

If you don't like the size of the Government, elect new officials. You will have no luck proving a large Government is Un-Constitutional

It's not that very hard to do, for someone who has read and understands the Constitution. The United States Constitution lists what Government WILL do, and all that it CAN do. That's "limited government". They can be found in Article I which states: "herein granted shall be" a SPECIFIC list of sections and clauses establishing the framework Congress may operate within. Article II - The president may only execute (shall be) within the confines of Article II. Under Article III - The Supreme Court may only (shall be) "interpret or judge" that which the legislature makes in a Republic form of Government, and may go no further. To move beyond these established "boundaries" in an attempt to establish a BIGGER form of Government would be YES, UnConstitutional!

The Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." It is controlling as to all officials of the three Branches of the Federal government--Executive, Legislative and Judicial--with regard to all of their pronouncements, actions, decisions, agreements and legislative Acts. Each of them is sworn, by oath of office, to support the Constitution only.

Limited Government in Relation to The Constitution's Treaty Clause

It's also been established through the opinions of those who were among the Founding Fathers:

"The Tenth Amendment is the foundation of the Constitution."
- Thomas Jefferson
-- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


"The great leading objects of the federal government, in which revenue is concerned, are to maintain domestic peace, and provide for the common defense. In these are comprehended the regulation of commerce that is, the whole system of foreign intercourse; the support of armies and navies, and of the civil administration." -- Alexander Hamilton, remarks to the New York Ratifying Convention, 1788

"That government is best which governs least." -- Thomas Paine

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare... they may appoint teachers in every state... The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.
- James Madison


You will have a very difficult time proving that the opinions of the Founding Fathers, was the desire to establish a Big Government system, when they wrote the Constitution. In fact if you care to do some research and try, I'll wait.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If these are college kids...aren't there classes going on? Are they getting grades for attending WS? Is this the student body of Berkley and everyone is getting an "A?"

"Berkley?" LMFAO. Maybe Noter Daim or Stunford.

 

[freedombecki]

From the 'manifesto', at least the most recent one, of the OWS:

....

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.​

[Emphasis added]

Our Founding Fathers created a country and a Constitution that is based on a political system called a constitutional republic. They were wise enough to know that direct democracies historically don't fare well.

Fact of the matter is, calling for a direct democracy is inconsistent with our Constitution. For those who have taken an oath to preserve our Constitution, I hope they remember these facts.

I hope so, too. Good thread, Si Modo.