Once and for all, to fix the Federal Government. . . .

[candycorn]

Lets move on from education if we can;

Should there be national standards for anything? For example, I have driven from coast to coast ( not literally but very close to the entire nation) along Interstate 10. What if Mississippi wanted to start using plywood and paint for their road signs along their roadways (whatever designation they have). Alabama wants to use gray signs instead of green ones like everywhere else. Florida decides to stop using any. Is that okay?

What about the FCC...should there be any regulation about what comes on the public airwaves?
What did the founders have to say about that? I'm guessing we can get some interpretation on that and what they thought LOL.

Should we have federal standards for what can become a state? Lets say that the upper peninsula wanted to leave Michigan. Is that okay if they vote for it? Should Michigan be able to enforce the borders drawn by Washington on their people or should they have to? What if they wanted an island that is currently claimed by Ohio?

What about integration? How'd you like what Kennedy did in the 60's in Alabama? Should states be able to institute apartheid?

I'm curious how far down the rabbit hole this goes.

There is a role for the federal government to assist the states as they coordinate things like roads, and considering the reason for the interstate system and the funding that supports it, federal standards are not unreasonable, especially in things like concrete formulas, bridge construction and consistent markings - but why in the world would the states fight that in the world of today?

The federal government should also have a role in settling any grievance a person has against their state, and if a state is stupid enough to institute discriminatory laws against blacks, gays or even democrats , the federal courts is where decisions should be made about the CONSTITUTIONALITY of those laws.

The system is designed to work, but not if its micromanaged from the top.

Hey I agree on some of that...but the OP was the target of the questions; apparently he/she wants to return to the states having full autonomy. I'm trying to settle a baseline as to where we can debate from there.

We really need to address what is being talked about here. Total state control means TOTAL STATE CONTROL.

Like I did with the education.http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/172235-once-and-for-all-to-fix-the-federal-government-18.html#post3815821 He/she all but admitted that if there is a shortfall in a state's budget, they are perfectly ok with the rest of the school year being written off. I think YOU and I can agree on THAT particular stance being monumentally moronic. So I would like to see what other jewels of wisdom can be unearthed.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is no one who adheres to any of the criteria noted above; the extreme right and libertarians have created their liberal straw man so well, you actually believe the contrivance exists.

All you have to do is read almost any political thread. Including this one. There are always some who think it is the duty of the federal government to take from the haves for the benefit of the have nots and to make laws designing the sort of society that is deemed suitable for all.

<sarcasm>

Yeah...if Arkansas can't afford to educate their kids, too bad for the kids right? I'm frankly tired of seeing my tax money going to educate kids that aren't mine. What do I care if my neighbor gets educated or not? Screw them. Its my money, you can't take it from me for any reason other than preventing an armed invasion.

Right!

You either believe in self governance or you do not. You either believe in freedom from authoritarian government or you do not. You either put your faith in the people to look to their own self interests or you trust government to know what's best for the people.

I believe in self governance.

I believe in freedom from authoritarian government.

I trust people to look to their own self interests more effectively and efficiently than government ever will.

 

[candycorn]

All you have to do is read almost any political thread. Including this one. There are always some who think it is the duty of the federal government to take from the haves for the benefit of the have nots and to make laws designing the sort of society that is deemed suitable for all.

<sarcasm>

Yeah...if Arkansas can't afford to educate their kids, too bad for the kids right? I'm frankly tired of seeing my tax money going to educate kids that aren't mine. What do I care if my neighbor gets educated or not? Screw them. Its my money, you can't take it from me for any reason other than preventing an armed invasion.

Right!

You either believe in self governance or you do not. You either believe in freedom from authoritarian government or you do not. You either put your faith in the people to look to their own self interests or you trust government to know what's best for the people.

I believe in self governance.

I believe in freedom from authoritarian government.

I trust people to look to their own self interests more effectively and efficiently than government ever will.

And I have oceanfront property outside of Phoenix for sale.

The more you write, the more you sound like Bolshevik Hunter and sound as if you have a lesser grasp of reality than most teenagers.

I wish you well.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well CandyCorn is obviously out of ammo on that point in this thread. So I'll wish him and everybody a peaceful, safe, and

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!!!!

May we never forget what it cost so many to give us independence, freedom, unalienable rights, and ability to govern ourselves. May we never give that up.

 

[idb]

Why? When the federal government was not providing oversight--translation: meddling--the USA had some of the best schools in the world if not THE best schools in the world. The more the federal government inserted funding, which of course included oversight and control, the worse the schools got. It should not be the responsibility of the citizens of Vermont to pay taxes to support schools in Louisiana. Vermont should keep their money at home and focus on providing a great education for the children of Vermont.

And anyone with an appreciation for the Constitution and the intent of the Founders understands how dangerous it is for a powerful central government to have control of school curriculum and content.

I do not want the Federal government to have any control over the education of the citizens.

Well, shouldn't there be a minimum standard of education required?
Shouldn't kids be taught to read for example?

What if you had a state that decided, for the sake of their own prosperity, they just needed to churn kids out to dig up coal or tar sands, and structured their education system accordingly?

Do you REALLY imagine that that could happen in the world of today?

If it did, do you really imagine people wouldn't move to a state with a better focus, completely undermining the tax base of the offending state?

I admit I was using an extreme example for effect but my point stands - there must be a certain minimum standard in many aspects to daily life, not only education...the environment for example.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, shouldn't there be a minimum standard of education required?
Shouldn't kids be taught to read for example?

What if you had a state that decided, for the sake of their own prosperity, they just needed to churn kids out to dig up coal or tar sands, and structured their education system accordingly?

Do you REALLY imagine that that could happen in the world of today?

If it did, do you really imagine people wouldn't move to a state with a better focus, completely undermining the tax base of the offending state?

I admit I was using an extreme example for effect but my point stands - there must be a certain minimum standard in many aspects to daily life, not only education...the environment for example.

Yes. Every state shares the environment with all others. Numerous states are likely to share major aquifers, rivers, lakes, and streams. Such things fall within the realm of the general welfare as the Founders understood it; therefore, reasonable regulation to protect everybody's unalienable right to not have their clean air, clean soil, clean water polluted by others is a necessary/reasonable responsibility of the federal government.

But whatever can be handled more efficiently, effectively, and/or economically by the states and/or private enterprise should not be a prerogative of the federal government.
The federal government should not be controlling anything related to education and has proved without doubt that it cannot do so effectively,efficiently, and/or economically when it has tried.

 

[candycorn]

Well CandyCorn is obviously out of ammo on that point in this thread. So I'll wish him and everybody a peaceful, safe, and

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!!!!

May we never forget what it cost so many to give us independence, freedom, unalienable rights, and ability to govern ourselves. May we never give that up.

Its obvious you never had any to start with. I also love the way you take it on your self to tell us how the founders would feel about everything from western states aquifers to head start to childhood education standards. Its rather hilarious that one with such naive views feels he/she is qualified to speak for the founders; if anything they were not naive men.

They were, in fact, flawed individuals in a great many ways. Flawed, as we all are. Perhaps you should read a little more and say a whole lot less about their views.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well CandyCorn is obviously out of ammo on that point in this thread. So I'll wish him and everybody a peaceful, safe, and

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!!!!

May we never forget what it cost so many to give us independence, freedom, unalienable rights, and ability to govern ourselves. May we never give that up.

Its obvious you never had any to start with. I also love the way you take it on your self to tell us how the founders would feel about everything from western states aquifers to head start to childhood education standards. Its rather hilarious that one with such naive views feels he/she is qualified to speak for the founders; if anything they were not naive men.

They were, in fact, flawed individuals in a great many ways. Flawed, as we all are. Perhaps you should read a little more and say a whole lot less about their views.

Not as hilarious as you putting words like that in my mouth that I never said. I may be naive, but I am not dishonest about my opponent's argument. And it would be really easy to believe that you haven't really read my arguments on this topic and it is quite obvious that you don't have a clue about what I have read and know of the Founders.

 

[candycorn]

Well CandyCorn is obviously out of ammo on that point in this thread. So I'll wish him and everybody a peaceful, safe, and

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!!!!

May we never forget what it cost so many to give us independence, freedom, unalienable rights, and ability to govern ourselves. May we never give that up.

Its obvious you never had any to start with. I also love the way you take it on your self to tell us how the founders would feel about everything from western states aquifers to head start to childhood education standards. Its rather hilarious that one with such naive views feels he/she is qualified to speak for the founders; if anything they were not naive men.

They were, in fact, flawed individuals in a great many ways. Flawed, as we all are. Perhaps you should read a little more and say a whole lot less about their views.

Not as hilarious as you putting words like that in my mouth that I never said. I may be naive, but I am not dishonest about my opponent's argument. And it would be really easy to believe that you haven't really read my arguments on this topic and it is quite obvious that you don't have a clue about what I have read and know of the Founders.

Your absurd opinions that if a state doesn't fund it's schools, thats cool are just that; absurd. No thinking person even comes close to that sort of dementia.

You said it; not me.

Please let us know how the founding fathers feel about the FCC, air quality standards, lead in the drinking water, etc... I'm sure you'll find some fortune cookie quote from some gray wig and translate for us.

I will admit I do not know how you think about many topics; you talk out both sides of your mouth on a great many of them. National roads....good : National standards...bad.

It's borderline hilarious.

 

[Foxfyre]

Rave on CandyCorn. You were pretty well intellectually bankrupt the first time you accused me of saying something I didn't say and now you're digging yourself into a hole you may not be able to crawl out of. I'm going to bed. You have a good night.

 

[candycorn]

Rave on CandyCorn. You were pretty well intellectually bankrupt the first time you accused me of saying something I didn't say and now you're digging yourself into a hole you may not be able to crawl out of. I'm going to bed. You have a good night.

I was asleep when you were taking shots at me...thanks.

Gee...a threat from Foxy...I'm really scared.

Pardon me while I yawn.

 

[candycorn]

Rave on CandyCorn. You were pretty well intellectually bankrupt the first time you accused me of saying something I didn't say and now you're digging yourself into a hole you may not be able to crawl out of. I'm going to bed. You have a good night.

I was asleep when you were taking shots at me...thanks.

Gee...a threat from Foxy...I'm really scared.

Pardon me while I yawn. Do the founders mind if I yawn at your threat?

 

[Foxfyre]

Reminder from the OP:

(Civility and respect for respectfully stated opinions requested please. We can set up a food fight or insult fest for the children elsewhere.)

Now moving right along:

Though many of the Founders commented on it, with all concurring that charity or benevolence was not a prerogative of the federal government, James Madison was probably the most 'vocal' of all. Each of the following quotes can be placed within the full context of the remarks without changing the literal meaning in any way:

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
&#8220;With respect to the two words &#8216;general welfare,&#8217; I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.&#8221;

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, &#8220;I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.&#8221;
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

&#8220;&#8230;[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.&#8221;
-James Madison

&#8220;If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.&#8221; James Madison, &#8220;Letter to Edmund Pendleton,&#8221;
-James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984).

&#8220;An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.&#8221;
-James Madison, Federalist No. 58, February 20, 1788

&#8220;There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations"--
James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

 

[Foxfyre]

That last one was so on target and speaks so profoundly as to why the federal government must be kept as small and limited in power as possible, it bears repeating:

“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations"--

 

[Uncensored2008]

What is an entitlement?

Are US Food inspectors an entitlement? Nobody is forcing you to buy food--you could grow your own. So in one sense of the word, they are an entitlement and certainly were not mentioned in the Constitution.

What about National Parks? Do you want to close the Grand Canyon...permanently? Or sell it to Texaco and let them do what they want?

Again, what about the Interstates? I know the citizens of the US are paying for new Interstates being put into Louisiana, Texas and some other states. Will those go bye bye in this silly rush to get back to the exact text of a document written 224 years ago?

en·ti·tle·ment
noun \-&#712;t&#299;-t&#601;l-m&#601;nt\

2
: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program

A basic civics class would have done you wonders....

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm not sure if you know what I'm saying or trying to say (whichever is the case)....

That seems fair, considering how clear it is that you don't have any idea, either...

I want the federal government to have 3X the meat, fish, poultry, vegetable inspectors they have now.

Why?

Incidents of food contamination have dramatically DECREASED since the time CLINTON ended mandatory FDA inspections.

Reinventing Food Regulations

I want the federal government to manage the national parks.

They already do.

The poster who came up with the original OP seems to want to turn back the clock to the 1780's where the government basically protected the borders and little else.

That's a great idea.

As you may or may not know, I'm all for preserving the Constitution

I've seen no evidence supporting such a claim - here or at AWE.

You seem to be fully a "Top down authoritarian," with the individual at the bottom of the heap.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's always surprised me when people say they want a "citizen" politician. I want my critter to be a professional too.

So that they can represent and promote the agenda of "professional rulers" rather than the average citizen.

And thus lies the distinction between left and right.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's always surprised me when people say they want a "citizen" politician. I want my critter to be a professional too.

So that they can represent and promote the agenda of "professional rulers" rather than the average citizen.

And thus lies the distinction between left and right.

That is precisely the principle concept that most separates left (liberal) from right (conservative) these days regardless of the degree of each. The left looks to government to have the sort of society they want. The right trusts the individual to look to their best interests and does not trust the government with that.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

It's always surprised me when people say they want a "citizen" politician. I want my critter to be a professional too.

So that they can represent and promote the agenda of "professional rulers" rather than the average citizen.

And thus lies the distinction between left and right.

That is precisely the principle concept that most separates left (liberal) from right (conservative) these days regardless of the degree of each. The left looks to government to have the sort of society they want. The right trusts the individual to look to their best interests and does not trust the government with that.

Just because an individual knows how to look after their own best interests doesn't mean that they won't try to cheat you at the first opportunity. Any attempt to prevent this by means other than a government has historically failed.

 

[Foxfyre]

So that they can represent and promote the agenda of "professional rulers" rather than the average citizen.

And thus lies the distinction between left and right.

That is precisely the principle concept that most separates left (liberal) from right (conservative) these days regardless of the degree of each. The left looks to government to have the sort of society they want. The right trusts the individual to look to their best interests and does not trust the government with that.

Just because an individual knows how to look after their own best interests doesn't mean that they won't try to cheat you at the first opportunity. Any attempt to prevent this by means other than a government has historically failed.

Show me a government that has prevented that and I'll concede that you have a point. Otherise I'll have to point out that you are again missing the point being made here.