The Constitutional Myths of the right

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
57,566
Reaction score
1,702
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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 Pen and paper, that the founders had to use to write the almighty United States Constitution has been replaced by computer aided word processing that can automatically correct spelling errors and rearrange articles and sections without having to rewrite the entire draft,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. :auiqs.jpg:
I agree to disagree. Our Founding Fathers resorted to object orientation before the technology sector gave us the term. We could not do a better job today because of the Concepts they use not the technology they had.

And, it a simple lack morals that necessitated any amendments. The anti-federalists understood that better than the federalists, apparently.
 

Prof.Lunaphiles

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2020
Messages
555
Reaction score
293
Points
498
Location
Transient
I agree to disagree. Our Founding Fathers resorted to object orientation before the technology sector gave us the term. We could not do a better job today because of the Concepts they use not the technology they had.
What concepts did they use that cannot be surpassed by the updated information about law and government that we have now that they did not have in 1800?
Three-part separation theory - you think that cannot be improperly deployed???

How about the department of justice - you don't think that can be separated from the presidency, because it is not needed to be???
United States Department of Justice - Wikipedia
And, it a simple lack morals that necessitated any amendments. The anti-federalists understood that better than the federalists, apparently.
Which is an excuse for not understanding that the checks and balances do not work.
 
Last edited:

Gdjjr

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
5,918
Reaction score
2,392
Points
215
Location
Texas
Which is an excuse for not understanding that the checks and balances do not work.
As long as there is no punishment for malfeasance, no rule will work- people do have the power to change the elected, every election- but most are too busy to worry with the bullshit from the Districts of Criminals as long as they can pay their mortgage and car note- changing the constitution won't change that. Most of the noise around elections is from the media- people vote what they're familiar with, or against. Period.

One single object will merit the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining judges from usurping legislation- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Livingston [1825]
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
57,566
Reaction score
1,702
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
I agree to disagree. Our Founding Fathers resorted to object orientation before the technology sector gave us the term. We could not do a better job today because of the Concepts they use not the technology they had.
What concepts did they use that cannot be surpassed by the updated information about law and government that we have now that they did not have in 1800?
Three-part separation theory - you think that cannot be improperly deployed???

How about the department of justice - you don't think that can be separated from the presidency, because it is not needed to be???
United States Department of Justice - Wikipedia
And, it a simple lack morals that necessitated any amendments. The anti-federalists understood that better than the federalists, apparently.
Which is an excuse for not understanding that the checks and balances do not work.
There are no better concepts to surpass. This is what our federal Constitution is supposed to effectuate:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It is a simple lack of morals not knowledge or technology.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
57,566
Reaction score
1,702
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
insure domestic Tranquility
And the incorrect organization of the government skews the approach to domestic tranquility.
There is no incorrect organization of Government; it is simply a lack of faithful execution of our own laws.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Blacks were citizens after 1808. Our Civil War should have never happened.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
82,693
Reaction score
20,608
Points
2,180
Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress

What really drives this idea today isn't legal theory; it's the political fear that the people of the United States will enact progressive legislation

"The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose -- to restrain the federal government," Rep. Ron Paul said in 2008.

Bless his heart. (For those of you who didn't grow up in the South, that expression in context means, "He means well, but sometimes I just want to slap him.") Dr. Paul is a likeable and honest person, but he knows as much about the Constitution as I do about obstetrics--the difference being that I don't try to instruct the nation on how to deliver babies.

Dr. Paul is far from alone in this bizarre delusion. If there's anything the far right regards as dogma, it's that the "intent" of the Constitution was to restrain, inhibit, intimidate, infantilize, disempower, disembowel, and generally smack Congress and federal bureaucrats around. "Does anyone seriously believe that when the Founders gathered in Philadelphia 220 years ago they were aspiring to control the buying decisions of individual consumers from Washington?" Sen. Tom Coburn asks. "They were arguing for the opposite and implored future Courts to slap down any law from Congress that expanded the Commerce Clause." Sen. Jim DeMint claims that "although the Constitution does give some defined powers to the federal government, it is overwhelmingly a document of limits, and those limits must be respected."

If this is true, it's the kind of truth that comes to us only from divine revelation--because it sure doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution or the history of its framing. Historically, in fact, it's ludicrously anachronistic, like claiming that the telescope was invented in 1608 so that people could watch Apollo 13 land on the moon. There was no federal government to speak of in 1787. "Congress" was a feckless, ludicrous farce. The concern that brought delegates to Philadelphia was that, under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was too weak. Many of the Framers were close to panic because the Confederation Congress was unable to levy taxes, pay the nation's debts, live up to its treaty obligations, regulate commerce, or restrain the greedy, predatory state governments. The Union seemed on the verge of splitting into tiny republics, which would quickly be recolonized by Britain, France, or Spain.

As early as 1780, Alexander Hamilton (one of the authors of The Federalist) wrote to James Duane that "[t]he fundamental defect [in the Articles of Confederation] is a want of power in Congress. It is hardly worth while to show in what this consists, as it seems to be universally acknowledged, or to point out how it has happened, as the only question is how to remedy it."

In April 1787, James Madison, second author of The Federalist, wrote to George Washington his aim for a new Constitution: "The national government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity." (Madison also wanted a rule that no state law could take effect until Congress explicitly approved it.)

Shortly before, Washington had written to John Jay, "I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several States." Jay, third author of The Federalist, made clear to Washington his own view:"What Powers should be granted to the Government so constituted is a Question which deserves much Thought--I think the more the better--the States retaining only so much as may be necessary for domestic Purposes;and all their principal Officers civil and military being commissioned and removeable by the national Governmt." (Note the last part: State executives would be appointed by the federal government.)

As for the Constitution's text, if it was "intended" to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so. Article I § 8, a Homeric catalog of Congressional power, is the longest and most detailed in the Constitution. It includes the "Necessary and Proper" Clause, which delegates to Congress the power "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress - The Atlantic

Moron...that is why the seperated the powers of government between 3 distinct groups, why they put checks and balances into every aspect of the newly formed federal government and its relationship to the states...you don't know what you are talking about....you moron.....

The reason they specified so deeply about what congress could do was because they state in the 10th Amendment that any power not specifically given to the federal government belonged to the states and the people...you dumb ass....it limited the power of congress, you don't have any clue what you are talking about.
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,478
Reaction score
2,050
Points
1,100
One single object will merit the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining judges from usurping legislation- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Livingston [1825]
Well who really cares where legislation comes from. We can have stupid liberal legislation from the Court or the Congress. Conservatives are losing the battle everywhere: media, schools, colleges, govt, entertainment, deep state, churches, corporations. Does it really matter from what gun or guns the fatal shot comes?
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,478
Reaction score
2,050
Points
1,100
As for the Constitution's text, if it was "intended" to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so.
OMG!!! Of course it says so but you have read it to know it. Do you know how to read at all?? Constitution strictly limits govt to the "enumerated powers" and further reinforces that principle with the Bill of Rights!! Do you know about the Bill of Rights?? Do you want to ask your Mom to confirm this and then get back to us?
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,478
Reaction score
2,050
Points
1,100
Last edited:

Gdjjr

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
5,918
Reaction score
2,392
Points
215
Location
Texas
what about intellectuals??? if they care we obviously want to know why they care from what gun the fatal shot comes and not why there are so many guns aimed at us.
You asked a question. I answered it.
if they care we obviously want to know why they care
I personally don't care why they care.

Intellectuals, by today's standards, impress me not.
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,478
Reaction score
2,050
Points
1,100
what about intellectuals??? if they care we obviously want to know why they care from what gun the fatal shot comes and not why there are so many guns aimed at us.
You asked a question. I answered it.
if they care we obviously want to know why they care
I personally don't care why they care.

Intellectuals, by today's standards, impress me not.
Actually, it’s not that important whether intellectuals impress you or not. The only thing that is important is that socialism be stopped.
Make sense?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
57,566
Reaction score
1,702
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
what about intellectuals??? if they care we obviously want to know why they care from what gun the fatal shot comes and not why there are so many guns aimed at us.
You asked a question. I answered it.
if they care we obviously want to know why they care
I personally don't care why they care.

Intellectuals, by today's standards, impress me not.
Actually, it’s not that important whether intellectuals impress you or not. The only thing that is important is that socialism be stopped.
Make sense?
No. This is what our Founding Fathers wanted to accomplish via the social Order of Government:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,478
Reaction score
2,050
Points
1,100
what about intellectuals??? if they care we obviously want to know why they care from what gun the fatal shot comes and not why there are so many guns aimed at us.
You asked a question. I answered it.
if they care we obviously want to know why they care
I personally don't care why they care.

Intellectuals, by today's standards, impress me not.
Actually, it’s not that important whether intellectuals impress you or not. The only thing that is important is that socialism be stopped.
Make sense?
No. This is what our Founding Fathers wanted to accomplish via the social Order of Government:
"secure the Blessings of Liberty"
Yes they wanted to secure the blessings of liberty ie oppose monarchy and socialism.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
57,566
Reaction score
1,702
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
what about intellectuals??? if they care we obviously want to know why they care from what gun the fatal shot comes and not why there are so many guns aimed at us.
You asked a question. I answered it.
if they care we obviously want to know why they care
I personally don't care why they care.

Intellectuals, by today's standards, impress me not.
Actually, it’s not that important whether intellectuals impress you or not. The only thing that is important is that socialism be stopped.
Make sense?
No. This is what our Founding Fathers wanted to accomplish via the social Order of Government:
"secure the Blessings of Liberty"
Yes they wanted to secure the blessings of liberty ie oppose monarchy and socialism.
Our form of Government is the social Order that is supposed to effectuate the goal.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top