Originally posted by rwingett
The constitution enables us to "promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." What the "general welfare" and those "blessings of liberty" might be is open to interpretation. Our understanding of them may be different than they historically have been, but the constitution is flexible enough to encompass both.

I don't know if I'd read too much into the preamble. It's beautifully written, but I wouldn't look at it very substantively.

In any case, it's not a question of whether it's possible to amend the Constitution to insert a new Bill of Rights. Of course it's possible. The question is whether it's realistic and a good idea to grow the federal government so enormous and so all-encompassing, that it's capable of even attempting to guarantee all of those entitlements.

Originally posted by rwingett
There were those who opposed the adoption of a Bill of Rights, not because they were opposed to the concept of rights, but because they thought enumerating specific rights would mean people did NOT have a right to anything not on the list. They would lose the right to anything not specifically listed and therefore it was best not to list them at all.

Were they right?

this was the reason for the 9th Amendment - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Originally posted by whodey
Here are the original rights granted to us by our Forfathers
1. Right to free speech
2. Right to free press
3. Right to free worship
4. Right to trial by jury
5. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizures.

Now if the progressives had been in charge, I think these would have looked a tad bit different. They would have gone something like this.

1 ...[text shortened]... and seizure. The courts will then later tell you exactly if the state was "unreasonable".

You really need to stop swallowing everything the wingnut blogs feed you.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
this was the reason for the 9th Amendment - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

But there are many who seem to do just that.

Originally posted by sh76
I don't know if I'd read too much into the preamble. It's beautifully written, but I wouldn't look at it very substantively.

In any case, it's not a question of whether it's possible to amend the Constitution to insert a new Bill of Rights. Of course it's possible. The question is whether it's realistic and a good idea to grow the federal government so enorm ...[text shortened]... ompassing, that it's capable of even attempting to guarantee all of those entitlements.

FDR was stating a set of common goals for the nation to focus on reaching.

The original Bill of Rights focused on things the government could NOT do, and specific rules regarding how trials were to be conducted. It's much harder to have laws that require governments to meet broad goals -- you end up with judges drawing up complex legislation to make sure these "rights" are upheld.

But FDR's statements make sense as broad goals that a nation should seek to meet -- and all parties should be focusing on how we can reach these goals, whether it be through a government program, the free market, private charity groups, or whatever.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
a nation where everyone can meet their basic needs for things like food and clothing.

an economy people with new ideas can start a business and have it grow and thrive without having it crushed by some super-corporation bent on eliminating all competition.

a nation where everyone can enjoy good health and not have to worry that some catastrophe wil ...[text shortened]... od job that matches their level of talent.


A radical agenda if you ask me. Must be stopped.

As I said, I have no problem with the freedom to pursue such things, however, when the state steps in and mandates we have them, or else, that is the problem I have. Health care is a good example of what I am talking about. Sure, everyone wants health care yet the polls show that the majoirty do not favor the current legislation for universal health care. People are worried about the cost as well as the quality if the state steps in and tells us how it is going to be for everyone. For the sake of arugment, if the quality goes down if it is adopted, should the people complain and have the right to what they had before?

Originally posted by rwingett
That's exactly right. You have the right to free worship. You can go to any church you want. But the constitution also protects against the establishment of any religion, which means the state and church shall remain separate. Of course there are many instances where god is still uttered and seen on state owned property in violation of this principle. Protecting that wall of separation is a never ending battle.

The Founding Fathers only concern was that the state might nationalize a religion, much like what they came from. They saw the abuses as the state used the church as a tool for their personal objectives. In fact, we can see through history how the Catholic church was used as a political device to govern the masses. This is a far cry, however, from people being free to express themselves no matter where they may be unless it is on private property. In fact, according to your perspective we should go back in time as erase every reference to God in the Framers documents so as to seperate God and State.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
You really need to stop swallowing everything the wingnut blogs feed you.

Actually I came up with it on my own. Hard to imagine I am conservative and can think for myself isn't it? Just so you know, I also can do other things like dress myself and feed myself and even brush my teeth!!

Originally posted by Melanerpes
FDR was stating a set of common goals for the nation to focus on reaching.

The original Bill of Rights focused on things the government could NOT do, and specific rules regarding how trials were to be conducted. It's much harder to have laws that require governments to meet broad goals -- you end up with judges drawing up complex legislation to make s ...[text shortened]... er it be through a government program, the free market, private charity groups, or whatever.

It is the difference between being an activist government in which Big Brother makes sure you are "free and happy" verses a state that maintans law and order and protects your freedoms so you can pursue happiness on your own terms.

Originally posted by whodey
As I said, I have no problem with the freedom to pursue such things, however, when the state steps in and mandates we have them, or else, that is the problem I have. Health care is a good example of what I am talking about. Sure, everyone wants health care yet the polls show that the majoirty do not favor the current legislation for universal health care. ...[text shortened]... es down if it is adopted, should the people complain and have the right to what they had before?

People prefer the devil they know....

There's a general "fear of change" that makes people wary about doing things any differently than we do them now. Even when the current approach is leading off the edge of a cliff. On top of that, there are a lot of people being paid a lot of money by various interest groups, whose job is to scare people as much as possible.

This is why the media needs to be focused on clarifying the debate as much as possible, so we can separate real issues of concern from the irrational hysteria. But the media seems much more interested in the latest twists and turns of the stupid birther issue, or Sarah Palin's latest gaffe.

Originally posted by whodey
The Founding Fathers only concern was that the state might nationalize a religion, much like what they came from. They saw the abuses as the state used the church as a tool for their personal objectives. In fact, we can see through history how the Catholic church was used as a political device to govern the masses. This is a far cry, however, from people b ...[text shortened]... n time as erase every reference to God in the Framers documents so as to seperate God and State.

The founding fathers made sure to express religion about as tepidly as possible -- making really vague references to "God" without really saying much about what God they believed in or what that God's laws were.

Basically, they liked the idea of putting a veneer of "Godness" around the edges of the government without actually establishing a particular religion.

Originally posted by rwingett
That's exactly right. You have the right to free worship. You can go to any church you want. But the constitution also protects against the establishment of any religion, which means the state and church shall remain separate. Of course there are many instances where god is still uttered and seen on state owned property in violation of this principle. Protecting that wall of separation is a never ending battle.

I am an optimist, I'm sure religion will be marginalized in a few hundred years.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
People prefer the devil they know....

There's a general "fear of change" that makes people wary about doing things any differently than we do them now. Even when the current approach is leading off the edge of a cliff. On top of that, there are a lot of people being paid a lot of money by various interest groups, whose job is to scare people as much as ...[text shortened]... d in the latest twists and turns of the stupid birther issue, or Sarah Palin's latest gaffe.

So are you in favor of universal health care if the majority of Americans continue to oppose it? I can gaurantee that the powers that be will shove it down their throats regardless. So much for our freedoms.

I think part of the problem, and why it will be shoved down our throats, is that the current entitlement program of Medicare/Medicaid is going bust and a dismal failure. Of course, if it were not for another entitlement program to replace it, we would probably have people on here argueing that it is OK as it is, but there is no need to do that since we have a far greater entitlement program to adopt. I think that all they have to do now is go into crisis mode like they did when they shoved TARP down our throats. What is sad is they see these things coming with full knowledge of the need for change. However, they do nothing so they can shove other things down our throats that they koow we otherwise would have NOTHING to do with and done all in the name of "fixing the crisis".

That is the devil I know and I don't prefer it.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
The founding fathers made sure to express religion about as tepidly as possible -- making really vague references to "God" without really saying much about what God they believed in or what that God's laws were.

Basically, they liked the idea of putting a veneer of "Godness" around the edges of the government without actually establishing a particular religion.

That is some theory, however, can you imagine politicians using Gods name today? You would be labelled a right winged nutcase. I suppose you could say it was done because it was simply part of the culture, however, to justify using God's name now would not be acceptable politically.

Originally posted by whodey
That is some theory, however, can you imagine politicians using Gods name today? You would be labelled a right winged nutcase. I suppose you could say it was done because it was simply part of the culture, however, to justify using God's name now would not be acceptable politically.

What planet are you living on? Politicians throw the word "God" out there left and right to score political *points*