The Constitutional Myths of the right

[MadChemist]

Stating in Federalist 45 that the powers of the federal government are few and defined

That is as it should be, of course.

But there is no excuse for the growth of state governments, and especially local and municipal governments, out of proportion, so far beyond the size and budget needed to regulate, govern and dictate every detail of every citizen's waking and sleeping life, working, eating, drinking, washing, and chores from cradle to grave.

Well, sadly, you might say our Founders were tyrants who wanted a tiny Federal government so it would not interfere with their local tyrannies.

What point are you arguing ?

If there are "tiny tyrannies" it is because people have let evil men gain control. That will happen regardless of whether the federal government is overarching or not.

Your comment was that "you might say". I would never say that. And I think such a statement is incorrect.

Our founders first sought common ground with England and only revolted when they felt they had no choice. They then tried the Articles of Confederation, which made the constitution look like a communist manifesto. They then moved to the constitution.

Again, I ask. What point are you arguing ?

 

[justinacolmena]

If there are "tiny tyrannies" it is because people have let evil men gain control. That will happen regardless of whether the federal government is overarching or not.

The overarching federal government exercises its powers of totalitarianism through "tiny tyrannies" of City Hall in every village and township across America.

The Mayor who puts on a such show of insubordination to higher powers in actually in strict obedience to a hidden Deep State shadow government of disaffected feds who will never willingly relax their grip on absolute federal power.

 

[MadChemist]

If there are "tiny tyrannies" it is because people have let evil men gain control. That will happen regardless of whether the federal government is overarching or not.

The overarching federal government exercises its powers of totalitarianism through "tiny tyrannies" of City Hall in every village and township across America.

The Mayor who puts on a such show of insubordination to higher powers in actually in strict obedience to a hidden Deep State shadow government of disaffected feds who will never willingly relax their grip on absolute federal power.

If there are "tiny tyrannies" it is because people have let evil men gain control. That will happen regardless of whether the federal government is overarching or not.

The overarching federal government exercises its powers of totalitarianism through "tiny tyrannies" of City Hall in every village and township across America.

The Mayor who puts on a such show of insubordination to higher powers in actually in strict obedience to a hidden Deep State shadow government of disaffected feds who will never willingly relax their grip on absolute federal power.

I suppose it is time for me to ask for an example.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

The biggest problem is that it is obvious that we do not agree as to what the terms of the Constitution define, and that means we need to have a modern constitutional convention to get it all straightened out; but nobody, except me is smart enough to figure that out and publish an actual reorganization plan.

Not even the brilliant Black Lives Matter revolutionaries are smart enough to call for a constitutional convention.

 

[MadChemist]

The biggest problem is that it is obvious that we do not agree as to what the terms of the Constitution define, and that means we need to have a modern constitutional convention to get it all straightened out; but nobody, except me is smart enough to figure that out and publish an actual reorganization plan.

Not even the brilliant Black Lives Matter revolutionaries are smart enough to call for a constitutional convention.

I would recommend you be careful what you ask for.

The constitution could easily be rewritten to be more right or left wing.

I personally value the concept of federalism and the 10th amendment. I really would hate to see that go away.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

I would recommend you be careful what you ask for.

The constitution could easily be rewritten to be more right or left wing.

No, it cannot. You do not understand the long drawn out process that a modern convention will incur. You obviously, have not reviewed any of the discussions that I have presented here at USMB; but that is par for the course for most people.

 

[Gdjjr]

It's wonderful to have such a brilliant mind telling us what to know-

 

[MadChemist]

I would recommend you be careful what you ask for.

The constitution could easily be rewritten to be more right or left wing.

No, it cannot. You do not understand the long drawn out process that a modern convention will incur. You obviously, have not reviewed any of the discussions that I have presented here at USMB; but that is par for the course for most people.

Please point me in the direction of your discussions.

A link would be good.

But to my point......

States Likely Could Not Control Constitutional Convention on Balanced Budget Amendment or Other Issues | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

In the coming months, a number of states are likely to consider resolutions that call for a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced federal budget, and...

www.cbpp.org

Similarly, former Chief Justice of the United States Warren Burger wrote in 1988:

[T]here is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda.[3]

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Please point me in the direction of your discussions.

United States Fourth Continental Congress

The United States Fourth Continental Congress (US4CC) will probably be the designation for the inevitable venue that orders the succeeding charter to the subsisting United States Constitution that was composed in 1787 by the legendary Philadelphia Convention, which for convenience for...

www.usmessageboard.com

But to my point......

States Likely Could Not Control Constitutional Convention on Balanced Budget Amendment or Other Issues | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

In the coming months, a number of states are likely to consider resolutions that call for a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced federal budget, and...

www.cbpp.org

Similarly, former Chief Justice of the United States Warren Burger wrote in 1988:

[T]here is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda.[3]

Thank you for these articles, I have not seen them before and they provide the "scholarly" critiques that I can use in substitution for the same criticisms from average citizens that would be dismissed. I'll answer the questions in the discussion I linked.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If there are "tiny tyrannies" it is because people have let evil men gain control. That will happen regardless of whether the federal government is overarching or not.

no no the point is that state Constitutions provided for unlimited power of govt thus proving that Founders we ok with tyranny as long as it was their tyranny.

 

[Englewood]

Our present Constitution was considered the result of the liberalism of The Age of Enlightenment. Some also realize that the Federalist Papers were simply letters to the editor. It is quite possible were we to write a new Constitution,it would more liberal thanthe present one.

 

[Gdjjr]

Our present Constitution was considered the result of the liberalism of The Age of Enlightenment. Some also realize that the Federalist Papers were simply letters to the editor. It is quite possible were we to write a new Constitution,it would more liberal thanthe present one.

And the Liberals of the day had to fight with the Conservatives of the day to get the Bill of Rights in it- I seriously doubt that today would be much different- the anti-federalist papers were rebuttal to the federalist, (the conservatives) amongst themselves and lo and behold it seems they were correct in their assessments.

 

[Gdjjr]

no no the point is that state Constitutions provided for unlimited power of govt thus proving that Founders we ok with tyranny as long as it was their tyranny.

But not federal, or far removed/distant/no skin in the game so to speak. The belief/hope being, locals would hold accountable, its gov't, and through federal representatives have a defender of legal (read laws) that would hopefully help prevent federal tyranny of favoring one over another in commerce and trade.

 

[Gdjjr]

I usually, when discussing the constitution, use the words, "to help prevent" somewhere in my post.

In thinking even more about it, the constitution, I'm not so sure that is the over all case- it is, for the most part, determining how the federal gov't is structured. The Bill of Rights are significant in that we ( a lot of us, me included) believe them to be lines that are not to be crossed by a federal gov't.. They are insignificant in that there is no punishment for those lines being crossed addressed.

So many lines have been crossed it's unbelievable. At least to me. But, I'm not a control freak, except where "I" am concerned. I have no inherent/need desire to control others. "I" am a full time job for me.

It appears, structurally speaking even, the constitution means little to those who swear, in the affirmative, (ambiguously which I'll point out shortly) to protect and defend- the ambiguity being; "to the best of my ability".
There in lies a caveat- their ability is questionable when looking at History and current events.

There is but one caveat in the constitution that I recall. Maybe someone else can point out another. That one caveat is in the 4th amendment- "probable cause". That is terribly subjective.

Improper, i.e., subjective, education encourages tyranny by the few over the many. And I've yet to see, or hear, a political hack (candidate) for any office denounce the "system", which is not called for in the constitution. Anywhere.

 

[danielpalos]

The biggest problem is that it is obvious that we do not agree as to what the terms of the Constitution define, and that means we need to have a modern constitutional convention to get it all straightened out; but nobody, except me is smart enough to figure that out and publish an actual reorganization plan.

Not even the brilliant Black Lives Matter revolutionaries are smart enough to call for a constitutional convention.

I agree to disagree. Our Founding Fathers did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. It is not ambiguous or vague in any way.

 

[danielpalos]

The biggest problem is that it is obvious that we do not agree as to what the terms of the Constitution define, and that means we need to have a modern constitutional convention to get it all straightened out; but nobody, except me is smart enough to figure that out and publish an actual reorganization plan.

Not even the brilliant Black Lives Matter revolutionaries are smart enough to call for a constitutional convention.

I would recommend you be careful what you ask for.

The constitution could easily be rewritten to be more right or left wing.

I personally value the concept of federalism and the 10th amendment. I really would hate to see that go away.

I don't believe we could a better job today.

 

[danielpalos]

I would recommend you be careful what you ask for.

The constitution could easily be rewritten to be more right or left wing.

No, it cannot. You do not understand the long drawn out process that a modern convention will incur. You obviously, have not reviewed any of the discussions that I have presented here at USMB; but that is par for the course for most people.

Please point me in the direction of your discussions.

A link would be good.

But to my point......

States Likely Could Not Control Constitutional Convention on Balanced Budget Amendment or Other Issues | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

In the coming months, a number of states are likely to consider resolutions that call for a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced federal budget, and...

www.cbpp.org

Similarly, former Chief Justice of the United States Warren Burger wrote in 1988:

[T]here is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda.[3]

That is how we got our federal Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

If there are "tiny tyrannies" it is because people have let evil men gain control. That will happen regardless of whether the federal government is overarching or not.

no no the point is that state Constitutions provided for unlimited power of govt thus proving that Founders we ok with tyranny as long as it was their tyranny.

States have the equivalent to our Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The People need to understand the language used to frame the concepts.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

The biggest problem is that it is obvious that we do not agree as to what the terms of the Constitution define, and that means we need to have a modern constitutional convention to get it all straightened out; but nobody, except me is smart enough to figure that out and publish an actual reorganization plan.

I don't believe we could a better job today.

It appears that most people are just like you. Although, the evolution of technology has advanced horse drawn carriages to automobiles, dreams about flying through the air have been met and surpassed by rockets ships that landed men on the Moon. Sea going ships are now made of steel and launch and recover aircraft and fire cannon balls the size of powder kegs. Ice houses have been replaced with refrigeration machines, and simple to use ice cubes are readily available on demand. Food is readily available 24 hours a day. Pictures of people and things can be produced in an instant, and people can talk to and see other people around the world at any time they want. Buildings can be constructed thousands of feet high made of steel and glass, a hundred floors with elevators and running water and flushing toilets. Pen and paper, that the founders had to use to write the almighty United States Constitution has been replaced by computer aided word processing that can automatically correct spelling errors and rearrange articles and sections without having to rewrite the entire draft, but there is no way we can make government any more efficient and more responsive than what the brilliant racist slave-owners composed in 1787.

I agree to disagree. Our Founding Fathers did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. It is not ambiguous or vague in any way.

The Amendments prove you wrong. The founders would disagree with you on everything else. If they had the telephone, they would have made a network of the state legislatures for the senate, and a network of the municipal councils for the House - any fucking idiot should be able to see that.

Just can't be done, because . . . the erroneous three-part separation model keeps everyone's ideas about government organization and decision making in the proverbial box.

SL Chartering System - US4CC

US4CC

www.us4cc.info

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Our present Constitution was considered the result of the liberalism of The Age of Enlightenment. Some also realize that the Federalist Papers were simply letters to the editor. It is quite possible were we to write a new Constitution,it would more liberal thanthe present one.

Of course it would be more liberal Today half the country are Democrats which is short for socialist communist.