Government's highest duty

[8537]

The highest duty of Government...any government is protection of Liberty.

So, speed limits are the result of tyranny, then?

Article 1 Section 8...

Government post roads...they can set the rules.

You obviously aren't a student of the Constitution. Otherwise you wouldn't have shown your ******* stupidity out of the gate.

Another Drone on the boards. How quaint.

******* dumbass.

Art 1 Sec 8 doesn't apply because the federal government doesn't set speed limits.

 

[The Rabbi]

So, speed limits are the result of tyranny, then?

Article 1 Section 8...

Government post roads...they can set the rules.

You obviously aren't a student of the Constitution. Otherwise you wouldn't have shown your ******* stupidity out of the gate.

Another Drone on the boards. How quaint.

******* dumbass.

Art 1 Sec 8 doesn't apply because the federal government doesn't set speed limits.

With your typical ignorance you are of course wrong
National Maximum Speed Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Technically each state does it, but in reality the Feds do.

 

[8537]

Article 1 Section 8...

Government post roads...they can set the rules.

You obviously aren't a student of the Constitution. Otherwise you wouldn't have shown your ******* stupidity out of the gate.

Another Drone on the boards. How quaint.

******* dumbass.

Art 1 Sec 8 doesn't apply because the federal government doesn't set speed limits.

With your typical ignorance you are of course wrong
National Maximum Speed Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Technically each state does it, but in reality the Feds do.

No, each state sets it.

The government simply pulls resources based on whether or not they like your speed limit.

You and T could hang out together and combine IQ's to reach triple digits.

And why would you link to a law that was repealed long ago?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Technically each state does it, but in reality the Feds do.

Technically? The law you referenced has been repealed many years ago.

 

[bripat9643]

Without the aforementioned, there can be no Constitutional Republic. Without the aforementioned, there is no possibility of seeing the fruition of the Preamble of the Constitution.

Not true. We could scrap the federal system altogether in favor of a United America, and still preserve our constitutional republic and accomplish the goals of the preamble.

Sort of like the way the Soviets were "united" in the former Soviet Union.

If you do away with the federal system, you do away with the Constitution. It depends on federalism to preserve our liberty.

Government is the enemy of freedom. The only way to control it is to limit it to the maximum extent possible.

 

[bripat9643]

With your typical ignorance you are of course wrong
National Maximum Speed Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Technically each state does it, but in reality the Feds do.

No, each state sets it.

The government simply pulls resources based on whether or not they like your speed limit.

In other words, the federal government sets it.

You're an imbecile, obviously.

 

[Photonic]

A governments highest duty is to its people.


The American Governments highest duty is to its bondholders.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Sort of like the way the Soviets were "united" in the former Soviet Union.

Why would you even bother saying something like this? I know that you don't know me. But I'm not so stupid and ignorant as to not know how factually inaccurate this is. First, the Soviet Union was also a federation, just like the US. Second, the problems of the Soviet Union had nothing to do with having or not having a federal design. That's a really dumb thing to bring up.

If you do away with the federal system, you do away with the Constitution. It depends on federalism to preserve our liberty.

Well, not if the people choose to amend the constitution, you wouldn't be doing away with it.

And it's false to say that the constitution depends on federalism to preserve liberty. That's a completely unfounded statement. The constitution depends on guarantees of certain rights, limitations on government, checks and balances between divided branches of government, and representatives in the government democratically chosen by the people in order to preserve our liberty.

Government is the enemy of freedom. The only way to control it is to limit to the maximum extent possible.

Whether government is the enemy of freedom is highly questionable. And talking about needs to limit government has nothing to do with this subject. Such a claim (even if it were true) does not establish Art 4 Sec 4 as the "highest duty of government" as was suggested.

 

[bripat9643]

Why would you even bother saying something like this? I know that you don't know me. But I'm not so stupid and ignorant as to not know how factually inaccurate this is. First, the Soviet Union was also a federation, just like the US. Second, the problems of the Soviet Union had nothing to do with having or not having a federal design. That's a really dumb thing to bring up.

The Soviet Union was in no way a federation, which is a loose association of mostly autonomous governments. The Soviets were simply administrative subdivisions of the central government. That is exactly the system the "progressives" in this country have been trying to move us to. Federalism prevents the central government from becoming oppressive because the member states are free to some extent to ignore the commands of the central government. The authority of the later is limited. Abolishing federalism is a big step on the road to totalitarianism. it's virtually impossible to impose it otherwise.

If you do away with the federal system, you do away with the Constitution. It depends on federalism to preserve our liberty.

Well, not if the people choose to amend the constitution, you wouldn't be doing away with it.

You would still be doing away with the Constitution as it now stands.

And it's false to say that the constitution depends on federalism to preserve liberty. That's a completely unfounded statement. The constitution depends on guarantees of certain rights, limitations on government, checks and balances between divided branches of government, and representatives in the government democratically chosen by the people in order to preserve our liberty.

Without federalism, limits on the federal government are meaningless. The idea that the federal government is going to limit its own power doesn't pass the laugh test. Only the ability of member states to contest the commands of the federal government place any meaningful limit on the power of the federal government. Before the Civil War, that was accomplished in this country by state nullification of federal law, and the threat of secession. Lincoln put a brutal end to that system with the carnage that caused the deaths of 700,000 Americans.

Government is the enemy of freedom. The only way to control it is to limit to the maximum extent possible.

Whether government is the enemy of freedom is highly questionable. And talking about needs to limit government has nothing to do with this subject.

ROFL! it's not in the slightest bit questionable. Just look at any country were freedom disappeared. Whenever government grows, freedom disappears. it's a one-for-one relationship.

Such a claim (even if it were true) does not establish Art 4 Sec 4 as the "highest duty of government" as was suggested.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

 

[editec]

Governments' duty is to serve the people.

Any government that largely fails to do that isn't worth supporting.

 

[California Girl]

The highest duty of Government...any government is protection of Liberty.

I can see bloomberg skipped school the day the Founders and this Republic were discussed in school.

Actually, that is true... in the US. It is not necessarily true of other governments but how other countries choose to live is not our business... until they make it out business by crashing planes into buildings in our country or some such other attack.

Bloomie is sounding very 'New World Order'. He's clearly an idiot.

 

[8537]

With your typical ignorance you are of course wrong
National Maximum Speed Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Technically each state does it, but in reality the Feds do.

No, each state sets it.

The government simply pulls resources based on whether or not they like your speed limit.

In other words, the federal government sets it.

You're an imbecile, obviously.

You should tell the state of Texas (Speed limit: 85) and Montana (Speed limit for quite a long time: "Safe speed", aka no limit) that the federal government sets their limits using a law that was repealed 20 years ago.

 

[Ame®icano]

This should warm all the little Progressive hearts.

“There are powers only governments can exercise, policies only governments can mandate and enforce and results only governments can achieve. To halt the worldwide epidemic of non-communicable diseases, governments at all levels must make healthy solutions the default social option. That is ultimately government’s highest duty.”

NYC Mayor Bloomberg: 'Government

 

[The Rabbi]

Technically each state does it, but in reality the Feds do.

Technically? The law you referenced has been repealed many years ago.

The basic mechanism is still there. Technically each state sets its own drinking age too. Miraculously they all agree that 21 is the right age, even though it was 18 when I was growing up in NY and 19 when I came to TN. I guess all that money the Feds threatened to withhold might have something to do with it. Ditto with speed limits.

 

[8537]

Technically each state does it, but in reality the Feds do.

Technically? The law you referenced has been repealed many years ago.

The basic mechanism is still there. Technically each state sets its own drinking age too. Miraculously they all agree that 21 is the right age, even though it was 18 when I was growing up in NY and 19 when I came to TN. I guess all that money the Feds threatened to withhold might have something to do with it. Ditto with speed limits.

Did Texas agree to forego federal moneys in order to have an 85MPH speed limit?/

Eh, that's a rhetorical question. No, they didn't.

 

[The Rabbi]

technically? The law you referenced has been repealed many years ago.

the basic mechanism is still there. Technically each state sets its own drinking age too. Miraculously they all agree that 21 is the right age, even though it was 18 when i was growing up in ny and 19 when i came to tn. I guess all that money the feds threatened to withhold might have something to do with it. Ditto with speed limits.

did texas agree to forego federal moneys in order to have an 85mph speed limit?/

eh, that's a rhetorical question. No, they didn't.

dunce!

 

[8537]

Oh, looky there - it's like clockwork. Rabbi gets exposed as being completely and spectacularly wrong, so he jumps off topic, calls you a name and neg reps you.

You're as predictable as the setting sun, Rabbi.

Did Texas agree to forego federal funds when they increased their speed limit to 85?

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh, looky there - it's like clockwork. Rabbi gets exposed as being completely and spectacularly wrong, so he jumps off topic, calls you a name and neg reps you.

You're as predictable as the setting sun, Rabbi.

Did Texas agree to forego federal funds when they increased their speed limit to 85?

The only thing that's been exposed here is your ignorance. Again.
Actually Utah:

On June 1, 1986, Nevada ignored the NMSL by posting a 70 mph (110 km/h) limit on 3 miles (5 km) of Interstate 80. The Nevada statute authorizing this speed limit included language that invalidated itself if the federal government suspended transportation funding. Indeed, the Federal Highway Administration immediately withheld highway funding, which automatically invalidated the statute by its own terms.[12]

 

[Inthemiddle]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Well therein lies the problem. You jump into a conversation, object to what someone has said, and have no idea what it was all about to begin with. Someone said that the highest duty of government was spelled out in Art 4 Sec 4 of the US constitution. Everything I said was in response to that. So next time, instead of jumping in and trying to drag someone's words into your own created context for no point whatsoever, try actually catching up on the discussion before you join in.

 

[flacaltenn]

Our nations' highest duty is to make sure that nothing screws with televised NFL games. Especially the Super Bowl..