Originally posted by King Castle
your point is lost to me and irrelevant to a person who knows 1st hand what it is like to freely give up certain freedoms and rights for the greater good of my country.. i know what is to be in a fascist government when i have bn in 3rd world countries where ppl are afraid to speak up or leave there homes.. i dont need to go to russian or china when i can go to a ghetto and see ppl having the same fears.trying to make a comparison between two different forms of governments does not alter the fact that one country is doing things it is not suppose to do.... i could care less what russia or china do, what i do care is what my country does to its citizens and the laws and rights it violates under unconstitutional laws out of supposed necessity.
that is actually why I dislike the point, and I wont press it too hard, but you said you were constantly having your rights abused by the government, which I think is untrue.
For all its abuses, the Patriot act has done very little to the life of the average American, as a result of government policy. More abuses are going to come from street cops, not as a result of the government or of your rights being infringed by law.
It is very different than actual government agencies that police speech or extort business. The American government, going by policy, doesn't do very much that abuses the average person.
Originally posted by King Castle
i also realize that ppl have abused the constitution in order to garner political, social power... i also believe that sometimes we the ppl need to cast off the shackles of corrupt government and it is our duty as american ppl to do so... i am not one you need to convince about changing things in government i am not a blind patriotic follower... that doesnt mean i dont respect and understand the spirit and intent of the constitution and back it up when it needs to.
But the constitution was written in a time of slavery, and includes things from that perspective.
We don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water, there are good ideas, but they are good because we, today, can see they are good and work, not because someone thought they were a good idea some other time.
Seriously, **** the spirit of anything, we don't live in a spiritual world with spiritual problems.
Originally posted by King Castle
i understand the things in it need to be amended for modern times.. but, to say we need to cast it off is where i have a problem the minute that happens we are no longer living in the united states founded by our forefathers... maybe its a good thing maybe not, all i know is that it can and would cause many problems and political/social upheaval to do so.
what i think is strange is that, above, you mention the terrible cases of the American ghettos, which, according to the the idea of small government (which the constitution apparently represents), would be totally left to their own devices. afaik, the american constitution doesn't ensure health or education or jobs or any of the things that the state needs to provide to get people out of poverty. [actually, please correct me if i'm wrong on that]
Originally posted by King Castle
i am not sure what you mean by ppl being more freer under British rule? if you mean that they were across the other side of the ocean as free, i guess you are right. but, that isnt enough to have an uncaring government who taxes your colonies and does nothing to help build your society...
the American government went straight to taxing their citizens while doing very little to build society right after the British did, but instead of laying back and getting rich off its colony, the American government invested in local tax collectors and police, who were much more oppressive to the average citizen than were things under british rule.
Such was the nature of british colonial policy. They only used "white man's burden" as a tool of economic growth and political justification. Not like the French.
Originally posted by inimalist
what i think is strange is that, above, you mention the terrible cases of the American ghettos, which, according to the the idea of small government (which the constitution apparently represents), would be totally left to their own devices. afaik, the american constitution doesn't ensure health or education or jobs or any of the things that the state needs to provide to get people out of poverty. [actually, please correct me if i'm wrong on that]
The general welfare clause seems to be most reasonably interpreted that way but debates about if it should have existed since the document was written. You're right that they're not specifically mentioned.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The general welfare clause seems to be most reasonably interpreted that way but debates about if it should have existed since the document was written. You're right that they're not specifically mentioned.
then why do most people who say "we need to go back to the constitution" also oppose state run health care (at least this is the impression I get, is this just the vocal lunatic fringe?)
Originally posted by inimalist
then why do most people who say "we need to go back to the constitution" also oppose state run health care (at least this is the impression I get, is this just the vocal lunatic fringe?)
Originally posted by inimalist
then why do most people who say "we need to go back to the constitution" also oppose state run health care (at least this is the impression I get, is this just the vocal lunatic fringe?)
Traditionalists usually point out that those sorts of welfare are not specifically mentioned as being allowed, the claim being that it limits the government's powers to using tax money for welfare that the constitution separately enumerates.
Originally posted by inimalist
then why do most people who say "we need to go back to the constitution" also oppose state run health care (at least this is the impression I get, is this just the vocal lunatic fringe?)
If you don't know, the Tenth Amendment states that any powers not vested in the Federal government through the Constitution are left to the states to decide.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Traditionalists usually point out that those sorts of welfare are not specifically mentioned as being allowed, the claim being that it limits the government's powers to using tax money for welfare that the constitution separately enumerates.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
They also point to the Tenth Amendment as taking precedent in things like health care and welfare.
interesting. agree or not, do you guys think, then, that there is a legitimate argument from a constitutional perspective that means the federal government of America shouldn't be providing what are considered traditional social services? (like, health, education, etc)
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
If you don't know, the Tenth Amendment states that any powers not vested in the Federal government through the Constitution are left to the states to decide.
lol, I did not know, thanks!
Originally posted by King Kandy
Most people who say "we need to go back to the constitution", imo, have little idea of what it's actual content is.
do you think the constitution advocates for the federal government to provide social services?
Originally posted by inimalist
interesting. agree or not, do you guys think, then, that there is a legitimate argument from a constitutional perspective that means the federal government of America shouldn't be providing what are considered traditional social services? (like, health, education, etc)
If you accept that the government is only allowed to do the things the Constitution specifically enumerates, then probably not.
On the other hand the government is clearly supposed to provide for things like personal liberty and general welfare, I don't buy arguments that everyone can be assumed to have either unless certain services are guaranteed.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you accept that the government is only allowed to do the things the Constitution specifically enumerates, then probably not.On the other hand the government is clearly supposed to provide for things like personal liberty and general welfare, I don't buy arguments that everyone can be assumed to have either unless certain services are guaranteed.
I agree, under current contexts, with your last point
there is no other body in the position to ensure basic living standards to citizens other than the state in the current political regieme, and personal freedom is inherently dependant on a certain level of personal security
Originally posted by inimalist
do you think the constitution advocates for the federal government to provide social services?
Now, I would definitely say it SHOULD be advocating that, otherwise it wouldn't really be up to international ideas of a government's purpose.
Originally posted by King Kandy
To be honest, i'm not really sure. That's the kind of thing left to the supreme court to decide. In promoting the general welfare, I imagine the framers probably imagined it could be handled on a case-by-case basis.
cool, I'm really only asking because I am totally unfamiliar with the American constitution
Originally posted by King Kandy
Now, I would definitely say it SHOULD be advocating that, otherwise it wouldn't really be up to international ideas of a government's purpose.
oh, agreed for sure, so long as we add the provision that the state acts to eventually give individuals this power over their own lives 😛
The founding fathers who were religious would think that America is a cesspool of immorality but they'd probably think the same about the rest of the world as well.
The one's that weren't religious would feel as though their mission was accomplished.
The mission was to create a country free from laws that include the hypocrisy and double standards that humans with religions are well known for. They wanted the new country to be a beacon of freedom from oppression and it is.
They would be most ashamed though at the unpatriotic behavior of the richest republicans. These people are the ones that want tax cuts despite the fact that they've put a freeze on hiring americans and put illegals to work cause it's cheaper plain and simple. They thrive on war and could care less about Americans, be they republicans or democrats.
When billionaires stop hiring it isn't because they don't have any work available it's because they don't want to. When banks don't help the taxpayers that bailed them out but they do shell out huge bonuses and throw extravagant parties....
it's just unpatriotic and the founding fathers would be disgusted.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
"They found a more impressive way to copy their text!"
Originally posted by inimalist
interesting. agree or not, do you guys think, then, that there is a legitimate argument from a constitutional perspective that means the federal government of America shouldn't be providing what are considered traditional social services? (like, health, education, etc)
Not really, as the constitution clearly states, in Article 1, which the conservatives bringing up the tenth amendment conveniently forget or even outright deny that
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States
Which is not to say that you can't be against health care and other social services, but not logically on the basis of the tenth amendment or the constitution.
That's my interpretation anyways.
Re: What Would our Founding Fathers Think?
Originally posted by King Castle
If The Founders of this Nation could come to the future and see what their dream had become what would they say?Founding fathers like:
Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Hancock so on and so on...
"what? no slaves? a black united states president?! billionaires whom are black?! my god, the world's gone mad! i say!"
Originally posted by Bardock42
Which is not to say that you can't be against health care and other social services, but not logically on the basis of the tenth amendment or the constitution.That's my interpretation anyways.
even though the general welfare refers to "The United States", and not to citizens directly?