how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
1205 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| I don't trust them When the laws are vague, you trust the Government.
I would rather not have the Government as restricted as possible. After all, that is what the constitution is about - to restrict the powers of Government. | |
 kapilThe Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | said by fifty nine:that is what the constitution is about - to restrict the powers of Government. No, it's not. The word has a definition. It's not what you think it's about. A constitution is the legal framework for the government of a nation....it says nothing about restricting powers of the government other than to say that any powers not explicitly granted to government is vested with the people. If the people, through their elected representatives, allow the government more authority so it can do more on behalf of the people it represents...then that isn't unconstitutional.
--
»www.VoIPTrunk.com | |
4 edits | said by kapil:said by fifty nine:that is what the constitution is about - to restrict the powers of Government. No, it's not. The word has a definition. It's not what you think it's about. A constitution is the legal framework for the government of a nation....it says nothing about restricting powers of the government other than to say that any powers not explicitly granted to government is vested with the people. If the people, through their elected representatives, allow the government more authority so it can do more on behalf of the people it represents...then that isn't unconstitutional. The US constitution absolutely limits the power of Government, and the US was founded on the principle of limited Government.
The bill of rights was specifically designed to limit the power of the Government as well.
Furthermore, the constitution and the declaration of independence recognize our rights as coming not from the Government, but defines them as rights we are born with, and that the Government can only recognize those rights, not take them away.
For example, the right to free speech cannot be taken away without a constitutional amendment. If any law tries to do it, it can be (and has been, repeatedly) challenged in court. Same for the freedom of the press and our other rights. Even gun control laws have been ruled as unconstitutional in many cases (DC v Heller, for example).
Notice that the bill of rights uses language like, "Congress shall make no law" or "The right of the people. (to do XYZ)..shall not be infringed."
All of these things say things that the Government cannot do. In other words, they limit the powers of Government. | |
 manfmmdPremium
join:2003-01-14
Earth, TX
 ·AT&T Southwest
 ·CMA Access
2 edits | reply to kapil
said by kapil:said by fifty nine:that is what the constitution is about - to restrict the powers of Government. No, it's not. The word has a definition. It's not what you think it's about. A constitution is the legal framework for the government of a nation....it says nothing about restricting powers of the government other than to say that any powers not explicitly granted to government is vested with the people. If the people, through their elected representatives, allow the government more authority so it can do more on behalf of the people it represents...then that isn't unconstitutional. I beg to differ, it say that those powers not delegated to the federal government are vested with the states. It's time to brush off the 10th Amendment and re-read it.
edit to quote:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"or to the people", as some would interpret, would be the ability to add to or take away from the Constitution via a ratification of a new Amendment by the states.
--
"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan | |
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:The US constitution absolutely limits the power of Government, and the US was founded on the principle of limited Government. Absolutely limits power? Consider the context. The US Constitution was ratified in 1788. Twelve years after the revolution -- and the founding generation living under the relatively-libertarian Articles of Confederation. The AoF granted no powers to a central government, because there was none. No need to enumerate powers (nor the rights those powers should respect) because there was no entity to use/abuse those powers.
After 12 years, the founding generation wanted a more powerful government, not less. They ditched the AoF in favor of a vastly more powerful and completely new government, creating loopholes like "general welfare" and "reasonable searches" which didn't exist before.
So, it's obviously not an absolute limit on power. It was (relatively speaking) one of the largest expansions of power in this country's history. The AoF was an absolute limit on power. It wasn't effective. And, after the revolutionary high wore off, the founding generation opted for more effective, efficient government to meet their needs. Just like every generation since has desired.
You're right that it's not an unlimited power. But, in the process of defining (in some cases, vaguely) power, they were vastly increasing power to meet their needs. They didn't invalidate the concept of powerful, effective government. They were the role model for it.
Mark | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to manfmmd
said by manfmmd:I beg to differ, it say that those powers not delegated to the federal government are vested with the states. It's time to brush off the 10th Amendment and re-read it. The BoR was a sop to the anti-federalists who didn't want the new government even with the amendments. The ratification process was highly politicized, with the kind of hyperbole we see in the modern healthcare debate. People just trying to pollute the public's opinion. Win at any cost.
Anti-federalists insisted that rights commonly enumerated in state constitutions be enumerated in the new Constitution. Without this, anything could happen. Federalists insisted that, if there was no specific grant of power to infringe a right, there was no reason to add language protecting the right (it would imply a power had been granted).
I think the BoR is good for only one reason: It added more debate, to help us understand the founding generation's view of balancing individual and collective imperatives.
But, it's not an absolute protection. For example, I can't get on my roof at 2:00 AM and begin spouting Teabagger rhetoric. The Supreme Court interpreted (with the help of the debates surrounding the 1st Amendment) that freedom of speech is subject to "time, manner and place" restrictions.
Likewise, your reference to the 10th amendment (and so-called state's rights). The Constitution has a supremacy clause. It essentially says the same thing the 10th amendment says. The federal government is supreme. So, there is no such thing as state sovereignty (if the Civil War hadn't already proven this). It simply says that, if the federal government legislates in an area which a state does, the federal government's authority is supreme.
The 10th amendment simply reiterated that principle from a slightly different (and, perhaps superfluous) perspective. If a power isn't delegated to the federal government, it remains with the state (or people). However, the "interstate commerce" and "general welfare" clauses are broad enough to encompass any power a future Congress may see fit to exercise!
If the founding generation was so concerned with state supremacy or limited grants of power, they would have 1) stuck with the Articles of Confederation, or 2) more precisely defined loopholes such as described above.
In the end, we have a balance of powers to accommodate ever-changing balancing interests. Those interests, like the founding generation, were individual versus collective -- with the collective interest being more important (as evidenced by the founding generation ditching the Articles of Confederation for a vastly more powerful government).
It's been much the same for the past 220 years, as each generation shifted toward more powerful and efficient government to meet new challenges which the founding generation couldn't envision. (They couldn't envision their own challenges just 12 years earlier!).
Mark | | |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:said by fifty nine:The US constitution absolutely limits the power of Government, and the US was founded on the principle of limited Government. Absolutely limits power? Consider the context. The US Constitution was ratified in 1788. Twelve years after the revolution -- and the founding generation living under the relatively-libertarian Articles of Confederation. The AoF granted no powers to a central government, because there was none. No need to enumerate powers (nor the rights those powers should respect) because there was no entity to use/abuse those powers. After 12 years, the founding generation wanted a more powerful government, not less. They ditched the AoF in favor of a vastly more powerful and completely new government, creating loopholes like "general welfare" and "reasonable searches" which didn't exist before. So, it's obviously not an absolute limit on power. It was (relatively speaking) one of the largest expansions of power in this country's history. The AoF was an absolute limit on power. It wasn't effective. And, after the revolutionary high wore off, the founding generation opted for more effective, efficient government to meet their needs. Just like every generation since has desired. You're right that it's not an unlimited power. But, in the process of defining (in some cases, vaguely) power, they were vastly increasing power to meet their needs. They didn't invalidate the concept of powerful, effective government. They were the role model for it. Mark No no no, I meant:
Absolutely. The US constitution limits power. I know that it is not an absolute limit. | |
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:It's been much the same for the past 220 years, as each generation shifted toward more powerful and efficient government to meet new challenges which the founding generation couldn't envision. (They couldn't envision their own challenges just 12 years earlier!). Mark Thanks, that's my LOL for the day. | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:No no no, I meant: Absolutely. The US constitution limits power. I know that it is not an absolute limit. But, even as a limit of power, when read within the context of its inception, that limit is very limited. The founding generation was moving from limited government to expansive government -- because their own 12-year experiment with a libertarian (consensual) government proving ineffective. Not vice verse.
That's partly why broad grants of power have been consistently interpreted to cover broader applications of government exercise (to meet new challenges which the founding generation didn't foresee, when they couldn't foresee even their own needs 12 years down the road).
said by fifty nine:said by amigo_boy:It's been much the same for the past 220 years, as each generation shifted toward more powerful and efficient government to meet new challenges which the founding generation couldn't envision. (They couldn't envision their own challenges just 12 years earlier!). Thanks, that's my LOL for the day. Then I invite you to live without the SEC, building codes, zoning laws, food & drug quality laws, and government creation of corporate charters (a legal, yet fictional "person" which stands as a fall guy for owners/investors --without which we would have vastly less commerce, and virtually no stock market).
It's easy to talk about how bad things are, without having to live with what would have been the consequences of staying with the founding generation's libertarian Articles of Confederation.
However, I think everyone agrees things could stand improvement. The rub is in everyone's personal definition of "improvement." Some see a greater collective imperative. Others an individual imperative. And then we're back to talking about the context of the founding generation ditching a libertarian government for one vastly more equipped to serve collective interests.
Mark | |
1 edit | said by amigo_boy:Then I invite you to live without the SEC, building codes, zoning laws, food & drug quality laws, and government creation of corporate charters (a legal, yet fictional "person" which stands as a fall guy for owners/investors --without which we would have vastly less commerce, and virtually no stock market). It's easy to talk about how bad things are, without having to live with what would have been the consequences of staying with the founding generation's libertarian Articles of Confederation. I actually have, in foreign countries. Some things were better, some things were worse.
I did appreciate not having a building department breathing down my neck about every little thing I did. Compare that to the US, where the building departments in many towns in my state sets all sorts of arbitrary rules and often puts things out for the public to comment on, so your home improvement project is often subject to the will of the public.
The stupid public drinking laws we have here were also nonexistent there. I enjoyed being able to have a beer outside with my friends... outside the bar that is.
Food and drug quality laws in the US are a joke for the most part. They allow things like Carbon Monoxide to be used to make meat appear fresh.
But no, my comment was more along the line of Government efficiency. Government is by no means efficient when they are paying $500 for a toilet seat. | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by fifty nine:I did appreciate not having a building department breathing down my neck about every little thing I did. I agree. I like the variety of construction/design found in Latin America. But, when you go to buy a house, you have to do your own investigation whether studs are 16" on center, or horse dung was used as insulation. (This is why it's common in those countries to buy a property with the intent to tear down the house and build your own. The house is an unknown.).
Here, the majority has opted for standards because it facilitates their daily lives (participating in other markets they deem more important).
said by fifty nine:The stupid public drinking laws we have here were also nonexistent there. I enjoyed being able to have a beer outside with my friends... outside the bar that is. That's good stuff too -- until a bunch of drunks are standing outside your house drinking. Or, a drunk is passed out outside the bar. Or, (in the absence of zoning laws) your neighbor turns his house into a bar.
It's always about balancing competing interests. That's what the founding generation faced. They weren't keen on a distant, unrepresentative legislature imposing taxes upon them (in many ways for socially engineering). Then, when they had a decade of libertarian local representation, and a bunch of hot-heads began screaming revolutionary rhetoric (Shay's Rebellion), and there was no central, powerful government to deal with it -- they suddenly fell in love with distant, less representative government. 
Every generation since has been the same. Weighing the degree to which the distant/powerful government helps or harms them personally. Less interested in how it helps/harms others.
said by fifty nine:But no, my comment was more along the line of Government efficiency. Government is by no means efficient when they are paying $500 for a toilet seat. I guess it's the difference between a micro and macro view. If we didn't have a large, powerful central government we (in Arizona) might not be able to buy cheap $2 toilet seats imported from China because California, Oregon and Washington would join together to block their import (giving their toilet-seat makers a captive market).
So, the occasional $500 toilet seat (representative of occasional perversions of distant, less representative government) isn't so bad when compared to the alternative.
That's not an excuse to accept the status quo. Just that, things aren't so bad when taken as part of a larger picture.
Mark | |
 NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | reply to fifty nine
The only time the words "government" and "efficient" belong in the same sentence is when they're separated by a single word: "isn't". | |
 C0deZer0Oc'D To Rhythm And PolicePremium
join:2001-10-03
Davenport, FL | reply to fifty nine
But no, my comment was more along the line of Government efficiency. Government is by no means efficient when they are paying $500 for a toilet seat. Which some would argue is a way to cover up what they pay for R&D on all those shiny new weapons in the military budget, or insert conspiracy theory here like Area 51, etc.
--
Front Line Force Fortress Forever | |
1 edit | reply to amigo_boy
I derive a great deal of enjoyment from reading your responses amigo_boy. You debate with facts rather than tactics. It's refreshing. | |
1 edit | reply to amigo_boy
Pointing out the pitfalls of socialized healthcare in neighboring countries and others across the pond is not winning "at any cost." Canadians don't cross the border for healthcare for the fun of it. Forcing down a government option will ultimately remove choice and create more bureaucracy and higher deficits along with taxes to go along with it. With the current set of elitists in control of the government, the balance of which you speak has largely been lost. Luckily, not even all Democrats have been able to reach a consensus on the unwise overhaul of healthcare (yes, reform is needed but not the kind championed by the extreme left). | |
|
