 |
Well that little piece certainly tells it like it is and it is good to know there are some americans who are realists. I was beginning to think you were all brainwashed.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
"We’ve been living in a fool’s paradise. The result may be a government that is as good as the American people, which is something that should concern everyone"
but I think I would paraphrase that last sentence in your post
"we just don't know what damned good government is."
NO rephrasing necessary, I meant it exactly as put.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Sure it should. But only to the extent permitted by the Constitution. The government can't simply say that it wants to do something either domisticallly or in foreign policy, and therefore it is going to do it. That way lies tyranny... the sort of thing we fought a war with you guys to be free of.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
Here's an example... just as a President cannot declare war without the ratification of Congress, he also cannot sign and enforece treaties without Congress' ratification. Foreign policy (for war OR peace) is LIMITED by the powers granted by the Constitution. And nobody may violate the Constitution, no matter how good the cause.
That addresses your question about foreign policy and the government. But the same thing applies on the domestic front.
The Constitution outlines very clearly what the powers of the Federal government are. It also says that those power NOT SPECIFICALLY SO ENUMERATED are in the hands of the states and individuals, NOT in the hands of the government.
The power to take over a business or an industry, or to start providing services to people that are outside their purview (like health care or retirement benefits, or anything else) is NOT enumerated in the Constitution. Therefore the Federal Government has no such power. EVEN if they think that doing such a thing would be the "humane thing to do" they cannot do it.
Elliot
Hello again, Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Hate to break it to you, but the president can't declare war at all. Don't thank me. That's why I'm here.
excon
PS> Doncha think your discussion of the Constitution might be taken more seriously if you actually KNEW the Constitution?
The president is commander in chief of the military, though.
He doesn't have to "declare" war to start one.
Just look at the Vietnam "war".
And what the hell kind of fool congress declares war on "terror" anyway?
I would like to say, by the way, that I don't necessarily agree with Elliot on all of his points about not wanting the government involved. I personally think that democratic socialism is the way to go. Problem is--we got to fix the corruption in our government before we can go that route.
Morning Wolverine,
I find with interest you consider all policies of the United States to be created in Government
Strange statement I hear you saying, well, foreign policy is shaped by the people of a country just as much as it it is by its paper policies
Why is it you consider that a reputation of a country is based solely at the door of its government?
What makes you think it isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
For instance... the reputation of the French (at least by many Americans) is that they are a bunch of effite, elitist racists who couldn't win a war with a wet paper bag without the help of the US military.
Are most French elitist? Probably not. Are they racists? Probably not. Are they all effite? That one's still up for debate, but by and large I would say no. Are they all poor fighters? Again, probably not.
But their government is ALL of those things. They haven't won a war since the late 1700s, they stockpile their immigrants in government housing projects so that they don't have to think about them too often, and they all come off as a bunch of wine-sniffing, cheese-tasting effites. And so, reputation follows what the government does.
As for reputation following the individuals' actions, and not those of the government... I again point you to the fact that the individual citizens of the USA are the most charitable people in the world by a factor of 2:1. And yet, we have the reputation of being greedy, self-absorbed, and uncaring. Clearly the reputation of Americans does NOT follow the actions of the people, but rather the actions of the government... which has been greedy, uncaring and self-absorbed in many ways.
But we have gotten off-topic. The topic we have been pursuing is the role of government, not the reputation of countries toward other countries. And as I have said, the role of government is spelled out in the Constitution. Reputation doesn't enter into the equation. The good intentions of those who wish to act in an extra-constitutional manner don't enter into the equation.
Elliot
Evening Wolverine,
I think we are still on track, let me demonstrate
The constitution has played a major part in you answering my simple question on foreign policy
So, lets see what it says :
So the basic ideology of the consitition includes general welfare, how can you argue against?Quote:
The Preamble states:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure 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.
Or were the Fathers of the Document wrong?
phlanx that would require an understanding of what the founders meant by general welfare. Without getting into it ;they did not consider it the duty of a massive central nanny state to administer what the gvt. Thinks is good for the masses. They truly believed the role of the central government limited and they specifically enumerated what was permitted by the central government in the articles of the Constitution.
Here's the problem with that line "promoting the general welfare":
Who decides?
Prohibition was "promoting the general welfare".
The drinking age is "promoting the general welfare".
Seat belt laws are "promoting the general welfare".
Anti-gambling laws are "promoting the general welfare".
Some see abolishing abortion, preventing gay marriage, or even the abolishment of the equal rights amendment as 'promoting the general welfare'.
Does "promoting the general welfare" mean that the government can then do whatever it wants to CONTROL the general populace "for its own good"?
Whose morals decide what the "general welfare" of the country is?
Is Democracy seriously missing something in America
What makes a Government decide what is good for the people - THE People DO! Or do we have a completely different explanation of democracy
You allow your government to tell you at what age you can drink, where you can gamble, what you should wear in a car (this is a good thing!)
And yet you think a simple reform to allow millions of americans to obtain health insurance is a bad thing and anti constitutional
I am afraid I still don't get it!
Have you ever heard of the electoral college, phlanx?
And I'm not stopping millions of Americans from getting health insurance now! I'm just refusing to PAY for it.
The Constitution DOES promote the general welfare of the people. But the Founders knew that promoting the general welfare meant, and gave the Federal Government specific instructions on how to do so by...Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
1) protecting the citizens from enemies
2) maintaining the ability of people to travel and communicate
3) maintaining the ability of the people to conduct business, gain wealth, and pursue business opportunities unimpeded.
It did NOT mean handing stuff out to the people.
Nor did it mean taking money from one person to give to another.
Nor did it mean taking money from the people at all for any purpose other than the three responsibilities that the Federal Government is supposed to take care of.
In fact, the ability to do so is SPECIFICALLY prohibited by the 10th Amendment whioch states:
That means that if it isn't enumerated in the Constitution as a power reserved to the Federal Government, the Federal Government can't do it.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.
There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal Government the power to give people health care or health insurance. That power is reserved for the states (who regulate insurance companies and medical practitioners) or for the people (who purchase health insurance or health care services). The Federal Government has no such legal power.
Again, it may be a nice idea, and people may think it is the right thing to do (if they don't understand the economics of it), but it is ILLEGAL for the Federal Government to do so under the Constitution.
But here's a question for you to answer.
How do you define "promoting the general welfare"? Who determines what "general welfare" means? Does the definition change? How often? Under what circumstances does it change? Are there any limitations to what the government can do to promote the general welfare? Who determines those? Who ENFORCES those limitations, if any?
If I think that one individual or business can do more with a piece of property than another individual or business, can the government arbitrarily take that property away from one and give it to another because it "promotes the general welfare"? Can the government force me to give up my home because the government determines that someone else can make better use of it to build a business than I can and therefore taking it away from me and giving it to someone else promotes the "general welfare"?
Not according to the written Constitution, they can't.
But they have taken such powers upon themselves anyway. (I suggest that you Google a Supreme Court case known as Kelo v. New London to see an example of what I mean.) And THAT is one example of why I have problems with giving the government more powers than they currently have. And handing them direct control of 1/6th of our economy falls under the heading of A Very Bad Idea.
The Founding Fathers knew that the meaning of "general welfare" would come up for debate eventually. That's why they were very specific in the powers that they granted the government and the responsibilities they enumerated for the government. And that is why they were very clear to say that any powers not so enumerated do not belong to the federal government.
Elliot
Democracy is when you elect people to tell you what to do as distinct from them being born into a position or taking over at the point of a gun. There is an illusion in democracy that the average person actually has a say in what gets done but it is an illusion. As long as a government behaves in a reasonable manner democracy works but as soon as it puts its hand in the pocket of the people they get upsetQuote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
As I have said before, there are ways to make sure that everyone who wants insurance can get it without nationalizing the health system of the USA. What is wrong with trying those methods, all of which are Constitutional, Capitalist and Democratic, and don't rely on Marxism and government growth? Why are you so stuck on selling us a socialist system when we have OTHER options than can work better and don't violate the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
I haven't seen you comment on ANY of the 10 items that I listed to reform health care in the USA. Is that because you don't have anything to say about it? Do you think those reforms won't work? Do you think they will work? Have you even read them?
If there are other options, why would you continue to push THIS solution when you know that so many people are against it?
Elliot
You know Elliot I'm glad we had 100 years to observe the operation of your Constitution before we modeled ours on yoursQuote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Yep. And in a Democracy, we can do something about it in the next election.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
And given the number of times in the past coupls of years that bad laws have been STOPPED by phone calls flooding Congress members' switchboards, I would hesitate to claim that the people have no power. Cap & Trade has died in the Senate because of the flood of phone calls that members of the House of Representatives had to deal with telling them NOT to vote for it before they ended up voting for it. It passed in the House by the skin of their teeth, but the Senate buried the bill because of the political flak that they feared from their constituents.
The Immigration Reform bill died a horrible death in 2007 and 2008 because members of Congress received phone calls from constitutents telling them to vote against it, too.
And there is a reason that Congress wasn't able to simply vote for Health Care Reform before the summer recess took place as Obama wanted. They were flooded with phone calls DEMANDING that people have a chance to read the bill and ask questions before Congress voted on it.
Members of Congress from BOTH Houses know that they have to stand for election. And if they get flooded with phone calls telling them that if they vote for a particular bill they are going to be voted out of office, they listen. And legistlation gets buried or voted down because of it.
So the Democratic system DOES work if enough people are willing to act within that system. The representative either votes the way the majority wishes him to vote, or his constituents vote him out of office.
This isn't illusion. There are those who used to BELIEVE that it was only an illusion, back when people weren't quite as involved with the political process as so man are now. But recent events over the past couple of years have proven otherwise. The people really DO have the power to stop bad legislation or vote the bums out of office, IF THEY ARE WILLING TO ACT. Which they are now. And the Members of Congress know it.
Elliot
You're right Elliot by using affirmative action the people have stopped their "democratic representatives" from making decisions that were not in their interest. What this demonstrates is that the system isn't working, not that it is. If the people elected by the people were acting in the interests of the people it would not be necessary for the people to conduct a pseudo referendum to get them to do not what is in the interest of vested interests but what is in the interest of the people. As I said Elliot democracy is an illusion and mob rule has taken overQuote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Democracy IS mob rule... just without the violence and with a set of rules.
But you make that sound like it's a bad thing. The key thing that makes it GOOD is the 2nd half of my 1st sentence... "just without the violence and with a set of rules".
Elliot
Then don't vote. If you feel that way, don't participate in the system. Nobody is forcing you to be involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I prefer to excersize my rights and my controls over the government.
Elliot
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:14 AM. |