Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Then the US government is not the limited government restrained by defined enumerated powers . May as well use the Constitution as rolling papers and get high as it gets burned .

---

Tom, why do you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Is it possible that someone during the ratification process someone wanted a few words added to leave open the possibility that congress may want to pass laws that may well turn our to be necessary in the future but find themselves limited by the ones enumerated? You know something like a safety valve in case of unusual circumstances.

Wouldn't that make sense? I don't know-you know more about the history than I do.

You seem to see many things as one or the other; no in between. You don't think you are creating a false dilemma for yourself?

Tut

Tut Tom is very good at painting himself into a corner. To Tom the Congress holds the power and no one else is allowed exercise any power they have not rubber stamped. This is the righeous cause of the opposition you and I are both very familiar with the concept. They shall not pass. It is a shame the US parliament is bicameral because the house has taken on that righteous mantle and yet the Senate has the ability to make decisions too. Tom there is a mechanism where impasses can be resolved, respect it.

The Senate was seriously diluted as a useful institution with the passage of the 17th Amendment .

So what you are saying is original intent went out the window

No original intent was maintained by changing the Constitution the proper way. I think it was a better system before the change because the Senate was designed to be the States representatives . But the people decided otherwise.

17th Amendment legal definition of 17th Amendment. 17th Amendment synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

The people tweaked the system. What? You thought the ability to fire people is exclusive to the elite power brokers and party bosses? I think that was the original intent of the founders, if enough people want change there is a process to change.

I think they recognized that the constitution, and the laws would have to be able to adjust to changing circumstances, and situations so they built in a mechanism to grow. They KNEW the nation was going to grow.

Again ;I may not agree with the amendment (I think it seriously eroded the idea of federalism . ). Your link hit the nail on the head "This successful struggle marked a major victory for progressivism"

But at least it was an amendment... not some judges interpretation of what 'we the people mean' or 'general welfare' .

Now if we can just get the money out of politics, which should be the next constitutional challenge through the amendment process. There is nothing more disgusting to me than buying politicians to unfairly grease the wheels of industry, by allowing them to write legislature and regulate themselves, against the interest of the welfare and safety of the public.

As specific instances of this pollution by the energy sector that has no responsibility to correct their own mistakes. BP, Exxon, and others are well documented as having no scientific, or moral will to safeguard the people who are harmed by their lack of preventing their profits over people business approach.

Tar sand spill - Bing News

July 11 News: $800 Million Tar Sands Oil Spill In Michigan Blamed On Corporate Neglect And 'Weak Federal Regulations' | ThinkProgress

Have we forgotten BP in the gulf already? Or the Virginia miners? As Speech likes to say "its a good thing nobody got killed!".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

No original intent was maintained by changing the Constitution the proper way. I think it was a better system before the change because the Senate was designed to be the States representatives . But the people decided otherwise.

---

You think unelected Senators are preferrable to those who have to face the ballot box, it is a great pity you didn't extend this process to making cabinet members face the ballot box too. What makes you think that a Senator who is elected to represent a state by electors in that state is less able that the crony selected by members of state legislatures. It seems the people saw through the original intent of entrenching politicians

The Senate was essential as constructed at the founding . It was designed so the country could retain it's federal character. Unlike the peoples House ,which has proportional representation ;the Senate would treat all States as equal . You think that it is not democratic because it required that Senators were selected by the Legislatures of the States .But those Legislatures were all elected by the people . So no... I don't think the change made it more representative of the people.What the change did do was to move the country away from it's federalist roots towards the goal of progressives ;more central control.

What the HELL is a federal character!? Seems more a collusion between elected elite,and appointed elites to me. Good thing those progressives saw it for what it was, crony capitalism!

Settled, done, move on, nothing to see here!

If you want to repeal something, repeal the electoral college! One vote, one outcome!

Tom you attitude puts you squarely in the Tea Party camp. They want to repeal the 17th amendment and take you back to eighteenth century thinking. Will they also abolish other advances such as civil rights? Democracy is best served when the peoples voice is heard not the voices of politicians and corporations, not the voices of vested interests and those who can buy influence

Tal is cleary uncomfortable with the founding . He thinks the world began in the 20th century ;and that all the reason for the founding is out of date philosophy.

Quote:

---

Tom you attitude puts you squarely in the Tea Party camp.

---

Yup

Quote:

---

They want to repeal the 17th amendment

---

And as a bonus ,the 16th amendment .

Quote:

---

democracy is best served when the peoples voice is heard not the voices of politicians and corporations, not the voices of vested interests and those who can buy influence

---

That is exactly my point. The people cannot be heard as well from Washington as they can at the localist levels .
You are out of your mind if you think the people are served by the giant unrecognizable monstrosity that the progressives have created . Listen to them .Tal complains about Frankenstein's monster when it is the people he supports that created it .

Tom the days of cracker barrel politics are over, nothing gets done at a local level, that is why you have state governments and a federal government, because there is a bigger picture here. Yes you have to address local issues but you also have to address national issues. The way democracy works is you have elections, not appointments and you hold politicians accountable in the ballot box. I know that some of your states didn't ratify the 17th amendment, they remain stuck in the eighteenth century along with you, unwilling to change and listen to the voice of the people and please don't confuse me with Tal, not because he isn't a good guy but because you need to get it together

Tal is cleary uncomfortable with the founding . He thinks the world began in the 20th century ;and that all the reason for the founding is out of date philosophy.
Why should I be uncomfortable with history? We learn from the past for a better future as we evolve, and do better. When we don't, we get stuck in the past, and don't adjust to changing circumstances, concerns, and needs.

The people cannot be heard as well from Washington as they can at the localist levels .
Elections will make them listen if we stop the outside money from subverting the system at all levels of government.

You are out of your mind if you think the people are served by the giant unrecognizable monstrosity that the progressives have created .
Do you mean the government, of and by the people, or the rich big fat job creators that suck all the wealth from the global economy, that you worship, and protect?

Listen to them .Tal complains about Frankenstein's monster when it is the people he supports that created it .
And its we the people that will deal with it. With or without those that holler and complain. Unlike conservatives who long for the good old days because these are so lousy, progressives are always ready to get the work done that needs to be done, so we can keep it moving.

Don't worry it will help you too! Today, and tomorrow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Don't worry it will help you too! Today, and tomorrow [/B]

---

And there is the crux of the progressive attitude - "don't worry about it," because they know better than we what's good for us.

That's what it all boils down to. That's why they want conservatives silenced, why they want a return to the "fairness doctrine," why they object to corporations having a say in matters that affect them and on and on and on. If only those idiots would shut and get out of the way of "progress."

Sorry buddy, I will not go quietly and surrender my freedom while my country goes to a progressive/socialist hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Sorry buddy, I will not go quietly and surrender my freedom while my country goes to a progressive/socialist hell.

---

Speech if the content of a video in another thread is accurate then I would say your country is teetering on the edge of a conservative/fascist hell, internal searches being conducted for "illegal" aliens, non citizens in the best traditions of Europe of the nineteen thirties

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Speech if the content of a video in another thread is accurate then I would say your country is teetering on the edge of a conservative/fascist hell, internal searches being conducted for "illegal" aliens, non citizens in the best traditions of Europe of the nineteen thirties

---

Nice hyperbole.. taking lessons from Ex ? I'll tell you that being stopped entering a tunnel going into Manhattan on a very busy congested rush hour highway is much more of an inconvenience than being stopped on a low traffic desert highway. But there is a resonable purpose to both that doesn't either violate the Constitution ,or put us on a slippery slope to fascism .

And just to correct your misconception. Fascism is not a conservative philosophy .It is National SOCIALISM ;and socialism as you know is progressive left .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

And just to correct your misconception. Fascism is not a conservative philosophy .It is National SOCIALISM ;and socialism as you know is progressive left .

---

There was nothing progressive about National Socialist Germany, it was hard core right wing and the enemy of Communist Russia, a somewhat progressive socialist state. You see when conservatives move to the far right they seek to restrict and control and one of the features is subjection of minority populations

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

And just to correct your misconception. Fascism is not a conservative philosophy .It is National SOCIALISM ;and socialism as you know is progressive left .

---

Hello again, tom:

With all your political and historical savvy, you have NO idea that right wingerism verges on fascism?? Wow! The American right wing is even more dangerous than I though.. But, it does clear up some stuff, though.. You guys think the further right you go brings you closer to God, instead of the forces of evil...

I'm aghast.

excon