The U.S. Constitution

[Foxfyre]

1. It has produced the most free, prosperous, generous nation the world has known.
No, the free people did that. The constitution when followed just protected their rights to do so.

2. When implemented as the Founders intended, it allows for true human freedom.
While true it doesn't address the problem. Our political system and the people in it are corrupt.

3. It has been corrupted and must be repaired by honorable people.
The only way to repair it is to elliminate the cause of the corruption. Get rid of the representative portion. We don't need them. We can train ambassadors to represent us, we can control the military and we can vote for and against our own initiatives. What do we need a representative for?

7. It must be interpreted as the Founders intended in order to be relevent.
As long as we have people who can gain power and wealth by abusing the constitution we will never be able to use it as the founders intended.

9. All those in government must be held responsible to uphold the Constitution.
They take an oath "to protect and uphold" the constitution when they take office - they lie. We, the People and Citizens of the united States are responsible to uphold the constitution and protect our rights and freedoms. If that is impossible then it is time to try something new.

1. True but that's sort of splitting hairs with semantics isn't it? But yes, the Founders always intended for the Constitution to secure our rights and then the federal government would stay out of our way and allow us to form whatever sort of society that we wished to have. And that self-governing free society then produced the most free, prosperous, productive, generous nation that the world has ever known.

The anti-originalists, however, cannot or will not acknowledge that. They point to pockets of citizens that didn't allow freedom, to the inevitable corrupt opportunist, to the least successful as if those were the norm and thereby declare the great experiment to be a failure.

And as they force us ever more under the thumb of authoritarian government and look to that as the solution for every societal ill, we see our original classless society dissolving in favor of more and more haves and have nots and more and more dependency on that government. And they can't seem to see how that government is transferring more and more of the power and remaining wealth to itself with every passing day.

2. There has never been a people without some who chose evil over good. That is not the fault of the original system. However, as we change the system to authoritarian government, that inevitably does encourage more and more corruption.

3. Somewhere in your argument here should be considered the universal truth that you cannot correct a corrupt system by changing the people, nor can you makes bad employees or public servants good by changing the system.

7. Agreed.

9. Agreed.

 

[Intense]

Our society today has a better appreciation of the Constitution than t any time in history. If you want to talk government tyranny, look at our society of the Pre 50s and 60s. It was a time conservatives look at as the golden age...when you were free to discriminate as you please
You even had a government who would enforce your hatred for you

Only when one looses the ability to distinguish between Right and wrong, good and evil. There is no time like the present, to put conscience first. It was true Yesterday, it will remain true Tomorrow. Can you define Conservatism? Can you define Tyranny? Can you define Statist Progressivism? Our Society today is lost in the woods, when it comes to defining moral values.

If I respond...will you ]XXXXX edit my response?

Not for Personal loss or gain. I respect You as a Poster, whether or not we are in agreement is not a factor. The Theme in this Forum, in particular, is Civil Discourse. Say what you need to say without going out of your way to offend, or attacking a Poster Personally. We all need work on that skill. No One is here to change or alter the message.

References about Moderation should be made Via PM.

 

[Intense]

1. It has produced the most free, prosperous, generous nation the world has known.
No, the free people did that. The constitution when followed just protected their rights to do so.

2. When implemented as the Founders intended, it allows for true human freedom.
While true it doesn't address the problem. Our political system and the people in it are corrupt.

3. It has been corrupted and must be repaired by honorable people.
The only way to repair it is to elliminate the cause of the corruption. Get rid of the representative portion. We don't need them. We can train ambassadors to represent us, we can control the military and we can vote for and against our own initiatives. What do we need a representative for?

7. It must be interpreted as the Founders intended in order to be relevent.
As long as we have people who can gain power and wealth by abusing the constitution we will never be able to use it as the founders intended.

9. All those in government must be held responsible to uphold the Constitution.
They take an oath "to protect and uphold" the constitution when they take office - they lie. We, the People and Citizens of the united States are responsible to uphold the constitution and protect our rights and freedoms. If that is impossible then it is time to try something new.

1. True but that's sort of splitting hairs with semantics isn't it? But yes, the Founders always intended for the Constitution to secure our rights and then the federal government would stay out of our way and allow us to form whatever sort of society that we wished to have. And that self-governing free society then produced the most free, prosperous, productive, generous nation that the world has ever known.

The anti-originalists, however, cannot or will not acknowledge that. They point to pockets of citizens that didn't allow freedom, to the inevitable corrupt opportunist, to the least successful as if those were the norm and thereby declare the great experiment to be a failure.

And as they force us ever more under the thumb of authoritarian government and look to that as the solution for every societal ill, we see our original classless society dissolving in favor of more and more haves and have nots and more and more dependency on that government. And they can't seem to see how that government is transferring more and more of the power and remaining wealth to itself with every passing day.

2. There has never been a people without some who chose evil over good. That is not the fault of the original system. However, as we change the system to authoritarian government, that inevitably does encourage more and more corruption.

3. Somewhere in your argument here should be considered the universal truth that you cannot correct a corrupt system by changing the people, nor can you makes bad employees or public servants good by changing the system.

7. Agreed.

9. Agreed.

My fear is that Anything New will be brought into being by those that are currently manipulating the system. They will drown reason out completely, crash the Economy, giving birth first to Anarchy, Chaos, ending up with Hard Tyranny, which the Survivors will beg for. Big Mistake. Mark Levin does mention and support "Constructive Liberty". Why throw the baby out with the bath water. Let's learn to distinguish between what works, and what is a fail. We build on the Foundation and improve on what has merit. The fails, that cannot be defended, we cut. We have a long established history that we can choose to learn from, if we are honest, act on.

 

[Intense]

Would Americans today, hopefully even conservaties, accept The Alien and Sedition Acts? Would we accept slavery, or even separate but equal at the drinking fountains or lunch counters. Just in my lifetime Blacks have been accepted in Pro baseball and football. Just in my lifetime a Catholic has been elected president, just in my lifetime fewer, if any, Americans are starving. As slow as it going it's going great.

Good one. Personally, I view Hamilton as the First Statist Progressive. Power hungry, Anti Social, Authoritarian. Big on Centralized Government, Monopolies, unfair Taxation, locking up his critics, intimidating anyone who openly supported them. He ran Washington's Administration, and Adam's until Adams caught on. Did he do good? Some. Did he scheme against us with the British. Yup. He had very low regard for the Individual, that same disregard shared by Statist Progressives, Today. None of this has anything at all to do with Conservatism. By brand of Conservatism interchanges with Classic Liberalism. Give me Madison, Jefferson, Thoreau, any day of the week.

 

[Foxfyre]

1. It has produced the most free, prosperous, generous nation the world has known.
No, the free people did that. The constitution when followed just protected their rights to do so.

2. When implemented as the Founders intended, it allows for true human freedom.
While true it doesn't address the problem. Our political system and the people in it are corrupt.

3. It has been corrupted and must be repaired by honorable people.
The only way to repair it is to elliminate the cause of the corruption. Get rid of the representative portion. We don't need them. We can train ambassadors to represent us, we can control the military and we can vote for and against our own initiatives. What do we need a representative for?

7. It must be interpreted as the Founders intended in order to be relevent.
As long as we have people who can gain power and wealth by abusing the constitution we will never be able to use it as the founders intended.

9. All those in government must be held responsible to uphold the Constitution.
They take an oath "to protect and uphold" the constitution when they take office - they lie. We, the People and Citizens of the united States are responsible to uphold the constitution and protect our rights and freedoms. If that is impossible then it is time to try something new.

1. True but that's sort of splitting hairs with semantics isn't it? But yes, the Founders always intended for the Constitution to secure our rights and then the federal government would stay out of our way and allow us to form whatever sort of society that we wished to have. And that self-governing free society then produced the most free, prosperous, productive, generous nation that the world has ever known.

The anti-originalists, however, cannot or will not acknowledge that. They point to pockets of citizens that didn't allow freedom, to the inevitable corrupt opportunist, to the least successful as if those were the norm and thereby declare the great experiment to be a failure.

And as they force us ever more under the thumb of authoritarian government and look to that as the solution for every societal ill, we see our original classless society dissolving in favor of more and more haves and have nots and more and more dependency on that government. And they can't seem to see how that government is transferring more and more of the power and remaining wealth to itself with every passing day.

2. There has never been a people without some who chose evil over good. That is not the fault of the original system. However, as we change the system to authoritarian government, that inevitably does encourage more and more corruption.

3. Somewhere in your argument here should be considered the universal truth that you cannot correct a corrupt system by changing the people, nor can you makes bad employees or public servants good by changing the system.

7. Agreed.

9. Agreed.

My fear is that Anything New will be brought into being by those that are currently manipulating the system. They will drown reason out completely, crash the Economy, giving birth first to Anarchy, Chaos, ending up with Hard Tyranny, which the Survivors will beg for. Big Mistake. Mark Levin does mention and support "Constructive Liberty". Why throw the baby out with the bath water. Let's learn to distinguish between what works, and what is a fail. We build on the Foundation and improve on what has merit. The fails, that cannot be defended, we cut. We have a long established history that we can choose to learn from, if we are honest, act on.

It has long now been my opinion that we have swerved so far away from the original intent that the only remedy is a Constitutional amendment that takes ability away from those in the federal government, whether elected, appointed. or hired, to use the tax payer's money to benefit themselves apart from a fixed salary while in office and taking away their ability to use the taxpayer's money to buy votes. power, prestige, influence, or increase their personal fortunes. That would be a huge change from what is now happening and will require immense courage on the part of the people, but I see no other way to return us to original intent.

 

[Intense]

1. True but that's sort of splitting hairs with semantics isn't it? But yes, the Founders always intended for the Constitution to secure our rights and then the federal government would stay out of our way and allow us to form whatever sort of society that we wished to have. And that self-governing free society then produced the most free, prosperous, productive, generous nation that the world has ever known.

The anti-originalists, however, cannot or will not acknowledge that. They point to pockets of citizens that didn't allow freedom, to the inevitable corrupt opportunist, to the least successful as if those were the norm and thereby declare the great experiment to be a failure.

And as they force us ever more under the thumb of authoritarian government and look to that as the solution for every societal ill, we see our original classless society dissolving in favor of more and more haves and have nots and more and more dependency on that government. And they can't seem to see how that government is transferring more and more of the power and remaining wealth to itself with every passing day.

2. There has never been a people without some who chose evil over good. That is not the fault of the original system. However, as we change the system to authoritarian government, that inevitably does encourage more and more corruption.

3. Somewhere in your argument here should be considered the universal truth that you cannot correct a corrupt system by changing the people, nor can you makes bad employees or public servants good by changing the system.

7. Agreed.

9. Agreed.

My fear is that Anything New will be brought into being by those that are currently manipulating the system. They will drown reason out completely, crash the Economy, giving birth first to Anarchy, Chaos, ending up with Hard Tyranny, which the Survivors will beg for. Big Mistake. Mark Levin does mention and support "Constructive Liberty". Why throw the baby out with the bath water. Let's learn to distinguish between what works, and what is a fail. We build on the Foundation and improve on what has merit. The fails, that cannot be defended, we cut. We have a long established history that we can choose to learn from, if we are honest, act on.

It has long now been my opinion that we have swerved so far away from the original intent that the only remedy is a Constitutional amendment that takes away from those in government, whether elected, appointed. or hired, from using the tax payer's money to benefit themselves apart from a fixed salary while in office and taking away their ability to use the taxpayer's money to buy votes. power, prestige, influence, or increase their personal fortunes. That would be a huge change from what is now happening and will require immense courage on the part of the people, but I see no other way to return us to original intent.

I support that. Further, in Theory We have 3 Branches in the Federal Government, Each with It's own Jurisdiction, Responsibility, and Limits. We Have a distinction between the Roles of Federal Government, State, and Local Government. Those Powers should not be encroaching on each other, or Usurping each others authority. Too Many Federal and State Agencies have long gone off of the Reservation. We need to eliminate hypocrisy and redundancy. The Mechanism was Never of more value than that which it was constructed to serve.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think my remedy would accomplish much of that, Intense.

The reformers tried to rein in the excesses of Congress by requiring them to be re-elected before they could receive a raise in pay, benefits, expense accounts, etc. Prior to that, they had met late at night or early morning, after the press had gone to bed, to vote themselves generous chunks of the taxpayer's money and benefits ensuring they had to be in Washington for a fairly short period in order to retire as milliionaires and ensure they would live very well for life. So what did they do to get around that? In the late night and early morning, after the press had gone to bed, they just voted incremental increases that would kick in automatically in perpetuity and enrich them more and more so long as they managed to get re-elected.

But the salary and benefits are just part of it. Part of it is being able to use the tax payers money to bribe people to keep them in power and to direct funding to their cronies to keep the campaign dollars flowing in or to funnel money to organizations that would make them unbelievably wealthy at such time as they leave Washington.

Take all that away from them, and the corrupt ones will just leave. There won't be any point to them staying any more. And that opens the door for people to be elected who truly want to serve and who have incentive to tax less and spend no more than is absolutely necessary and to balance budgets and do exemplary jobs as legislators.

 

[PaulS1950]

Regent,
There are many children who are starving. The food banks can't keep up with the demand anymore.
The only time in history when more people were starving was during the great depression.
Most Americans accepted the anti-terrorist acts which remove many of their rights. You can be held, without charges - a phone call or representation, for failure to cooperate with a police officer. Most people accept the TSA - would these have been acceptable in the fourties, fifties or sixties? Would anyone have submitted to a strip search to fly?
The USA has succeeded in disconnecting families so that families don't support each other very much so people are homeless, without work and hungry.
As a minister I must see it a lot more than you. Why don't you volunteer at a food bank on one of your days off - or a family shelter. Then tell us what you found.

 

[PaulS1950]

Foxfyre,
Why even have elected officials? We can vote on the bills and place initiatives on the ballot without them. We have instant communication today and the need for representatives has long since passed. Time has proven that people with special powers become power and money hungry so do away with that part of the system. As far as the president is concerned we can elect one as an ambassador with no powers of law. I say we need to bring the power back to the people.

 

[rightwinger]

Foxfyre,
Why even have elected officials? We can vote on the bills and place initiatives on the ballot without them. We have instant communication today and the need for representatives has long since passed. Time has proven that people with special powers become power and money hungry so do away with that part of the system. As far as the president is concerned we can elect one as an ambassador with no powers of law. I say we need to bring the power back to the people.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for supper

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre,
Why even have elected officials? We can vote on the bills and place initiatives on the ballot without them. We have instant communication today and the need for representatives has long since passed. Time has proven that people with special powers become power and money hungry so do away with that part of the system. As far as the president is concerned we can elect one as an ambassador with no powers of law. I say we need to bring the power back to the people.

The vast majority of us simply do not have the time and inclination to do the necessary homework. It would be almost impossible for three hundred million people to hammer out the necessary details to accomplish a piece of legislation to make law. And we need responsible people providing oversight to keep a necessary bureaucracy honest and doing what it is charged to do. The Founders knew what they were doing by making us a Democratic Republic rather than a pure Democracy.

Also in one of the rare occasions I agree with Rightwinger, a tyranny of the majority will accomplish majority will but would not protect our unalienable rights. A tyranny of the minority is also non constructive and just as damning for human freedoms which the system the Founders gave us was also intended to protect. But the corruption of the Founders intent that the Constitution would limit powers of government was turned on its head and the government is now running amuck.

If we do not correct that, I fear our Republic will not survive another generation.

 

[Uncensored2008]

One of the unique aspects of the United States Constitution is the fact that it's written in plain language. The document was deliberately crafted so that all citizens would have the ability to read and understand the supreme law of the land. Consider that the constitution has but 4,400 words, less than 1/100 the number of words in the the Obamacare law. Anyone with an 8th grade education can sit down and read the entire constitution in a half an hour.

This is truly a remarkable document, designed for the people at large, not for lawyers or judges to "interpret," but for every citizen to understand.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for supper

P.J. O'Rourke.

(Just in case you were going to mis-attribute it to Ben Franklin or something.)

 

[Polk]

For the most loosest interpretation of the constitution I nominate Marbury v. Madison by the conservative Marshall Court.

Wickard v. Filburn, in my opinion.

The problem with Wickard isn't the final result, it's the reasoning the Court used to get there.

 

[rightwinger]

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for supper

P.J. O'Rourke.

(Just in case you were going to mis-attribute it to Ben Franklin or something.)

Actually, I don't think either one said it

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually, I don't think either one said it

It was O'Rourke.

But the " Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote" portion appeared from the ether of the Internet.

 

[PaulS1950]

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for supper, but a republic allows for the sheeps right to life and the means to protect itself.
The USA is a representative republic. we have the bill of rights that guarantees that individual rights cannot be lost by popular vote as would happen in a democracy.
You can't vote down freedom of religion
You can't vote out freedom of speech
You can't eliminate freedom of the press
You can't vote away the right to keep and bear arms
You can't vote out the right to be free from searches and seizure of persons and property
But the government is trying.
The problem is that people don't challenge actions that go against their rights.
The USA used to be populated with free thinking doers and now it seems to be populated with non-thinking lazy people who want someone else to do for them.

 

[Foxfyre]

One of the unique aspects of the United States Constitution is the fact that it's written in plain language. The document was deliberately crafted so that all citizens would have the ability to read and understand the supreme law of the land. Consider that the constitution has but 4,400 words, less than 1/100 the number of words in the the Obamacare law. Anyone with an 8th grade education can sit down and read the entire constitution in a half an hour.

This is truly a remarkable document, designed for the people at large, not for lawyers or judges to "interpret," but for every citizen to understand.

But at issue is the understanding of what the Constitution intends. Look at the straw polls here. While most seem to agree with you and me, the fact that there is support for all the other options too is a little scary actualy.

Almost as many didn't check the Founders' intent option as did.

But here is the problem. You have a fairly large number of Americans who now agree with Teddy Roosevelt. The government can do whatever it wants that the Constitution does not expressly forbid. And the 47% of Americans who now receive some sort of government benefit at taxpayer expense might philosophically disagree with that, but they are unwilling to rock the boat lest they lose the benefits they are receiving.

And then you have people who have actually been educated in the Founders' intent that the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government only to that which the Consitution explicitly allows. Though there have been a few incidents testing it along the way, every President and Congress up until Teddy Roosevelt have respected that concept and have stuck with it pretty darn well.

So our task now is to get the train back on the tracks of the Founders' intent. And I honestly believe that if the current generation does not do that, there will be too few who will understand the concept and how important it is to freedom, prosperity, innovation, creativity, productivity, and altruism, and how a classless society is impossible without it. And then it becomes impossible to repair. And the great experiment will be declared to have failed and will no longer have a place among us except in the hearts of an educated few.

 

[Uncensored2008]

But at issue is the understanding of what the Constitution intends. Look at the straw polls here. While most seem to agree with you and me, the fact that there is support for all the other options too is a little scary actualy.

Almost as many didn't check the Founders' intent option as did.

But here is the problem. You have a fairly large number of Americans who now agree with Teddy Roosevelt. The government can do whatever it wants that the Constitution does not expressly forbid. And the 47% of Americans who now receive some sort of government benefit at taxpayer expense might philosophically disagree with that, but they are unwilling to rock the boat lest they lose the benefits they are receiving.

And then you have people who have actually been educated in the Founders' intent that the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government only to that which the Consitution explicitly allows. Though there have been a few incidents testing it along the way, every President and Congress up until Teddy Roosevelt have respected that concept and have stuck with it pretty darn well.

So our task now is to get the train back on the tracks of the Founders' intent. And I honestly believe that if the current generation does not do that, there will be too few who will understand the concept and how important it is to freedom, prosperity, innovation, creativity, productivity, and altruism, and how a classless society is impossible without it. And then it becomes impossible to repair. And the great experiment will be declared to have failed and will no longer have a place among us except in the hearts of an educated few.

I generally agree, except that I think we already have too few who cherish liberty to correct course.

The very fact that I'm voting Romney this election is an acknowledgment that Liberty is already defeated, else I would be voting Johnson, the one who promotes liberty. But at this point I can only see slowing the decline as a possibility. I see no chance of America honoring the intent of the the founding fathers, and would be thrilled if we merely abide by the words in the Constitution.

This has been a bad year for liberty, and the Constitution. The Obama administration wages open, hot war against the 1st amendment. First with the assault on religious liberty as Obama waged war against the Catholics, and now against basic freedom of speech, as the administration edges toward criminalizing speech that offends Islam. Obama wouldn't attempt this with the current makeup of the SCOTUS, but the appointment of one more openly Marxist justice like Kagan, will allow Obama to revoke the 1st amendment.

 

[Foxfyre]

But at issue is the understanding of what the Constitution intends. Look at the straw polls here. While most seem to agree with you and me, the fact that there is support for all the other options too is a little scary actualy.

Almost as many didn't check the Founders' intent option as did.

But here is the problem. You have a fairly large number of Americans who now agree with Teddy Roosevelt. The government can do whatever it wants that the Constitution does not expressly forbid. And the 47% of Americans who now receive some sort of government benefit at taxpayer expense might philosophically disagree with that, but they are unwilling to rock the boat lest they lose the benefits they are receiving.

And then you have people who have actually been educated in the Founders' intent that the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government only to that which the Consitution explicitly allows. Though there have been a few incidents testing it along the way, every President and Congress up until Teddy Roosevelt have respected that concept and have stuck with it pretty darn well.

So our task now is to get the train back on the tracks of the Founders' intent. And I honestly believe that if the current generation does not do that, there will be too few who will understand the concept and how important it is to freedom, prosperity, innovation, creativity, productivity, and altruism, and how a classless society is impossible without it. And then it becomes impossible to repair. And the great experiment will be declared to have failed and will no longer have a place among us except in the hearts of an educated few.

I generally agree, except that I think we already have too few who cherish liberty to correct course.

The very fact that I'm voting Romney this election is an acknowledgment that Liberty is already defeated, else I would be voting Johnson, the one who promotes liberty. But at this point I can only see slowing the decline as a possibility. I see no chance of America honoring the intent of the the founding fathers, and would be thrilled if we merely abide by the words in the Constitution.

This has been a bad year for liberty, and the Constitution. The Obama administration wages open, hot war against the 1st amendment. First with the assault on religious liberty as Obama waged war against the Catholics, and now against basic freedom of speech, as the administration edges toward criminalizing speech that offends Islam. Obama wouldn't attempt this with the current makeup of the SCOTUS, but the appointment of one more openly Marxist justice like Kagan, will allow Obama to revoke the 1st amendment.

Yes, me too, as Romney has said some things that bother me re perpetuating big government policy. But no way in hell would he ever be as dangerous as Obama in furthering big government authority or using that in questionable ways.

I know Gary Johnson personally and he is a good man and was a good and very popular governor for New Mexico. But as in everything, you have to be careful what you wish for. He would be right there to support most values earnestly held by freedom loving people. But he would not be a true Founders' intent person as he would still use the government to order a society sd he sees it should be rather than understand and appreciate the Founders' intent that people are free only if they can have the society they want at the local level.

(He is also irritating me no end by attacking Romney instead of Obama.)