Originally posted by sasquatch672 That's the Preamble. More specific duties are laid out in the respective Articles. What's more important is, the Constitution says what the government can do - not what it can't. The Constitution further guarantees individuals' and states' rights. Power limits are therefore specifically built in to the document.
I believe this paragraph underlies many of the disputes on this forum:
"To Promote the General Welfare: A broad purpose of the government that is constantly open to adaptation and growth, is the role of the government to provide the Americna people with services and regulations that are for the public good. Such regulations may include health and food standards, public education, and consumer protection. However, in order to allow capitalism to flourish, the government leaves certain services available to private businesses (such as railroads and airline transportation), this allows market competition to thrive so that the consumer can receive the best services and prices possible. "
PS: What is the source of what you posted? I do not see a stated preference for capitalism and market competition in the Preamble.
Originally posted by sasquatch672 That's the Preamble. More specific duties are laid out in the respective Articles. What's more important is, the Constitution says what the government can do - not what it can't. The Constitution further guarantees individuals' and states' rights. Power limits are therefore specifically built in to the document.
There are no such things as State's "rights" and the Constitution never uses the term "rights" in reference to the States. States as government entities have powers, not rights.
Originally posted by sasquatch672 Well, we probably all think we know why the government chose this moment. But I think there are two sides to this. Grazing on federal land is a form of welfare rich cattlemen have enjoyed since just after the California gold rush. However, in this case, I could see the Bundy family being able to make a convincing argument based in property law that l ...[text shortened]... ve transfer of ownership.
I'm sure no1 will piss all over this, but that's his prerogative.
Bundy claims the land in question has been in his family since 1870. I don't know the details of the ruling, but can't rule out he's being wronged. In any case, the governmental pretext of a desert tortoise calls the whole thing into serious question. If the title was so certain why the obscure reference to a so called endangered species, and why an army of storm troopers?
Originally posted by no1marauder There are no such things as State's "rights" and the Constitution never uses the term "rights" in reference to the States. States as government entities have powers, not rights.
Originally posted by JS357 I believe this paragraph underlies many of the disputes on this forum:
"To Promote the General Welfare: A broad purpose of the government that is constantly open to adaptation and growth, is the role of the government to provide the Americna people with services and regulations that are for the public good. Such regulations may include health and food stand ...[text shortened]... posted? I do not see a stated preference for capitalism and market competition in the Preamble.
The broad view of the general welfare clause would make the specifics later on in the Constitution absurd.
Originally posted by no1marauder Of course, those clowns aren't actually "militia"; the militia was a government created body which every man was required to serve in. Shooting off guns at empty beer bottles while bitching about the Kenyan running the ZOG government every other weekend doesn't make you a member of the "militia".
I'll read up more about the details of the ...[text shortened]... se, but the fact is he seems to have gotten his day in court (several days apparently) and lost.
The militia is every able bodied man who can show up with his personal weapon and equipment. In times of trouble, the government provided leadership and training, usually the State government. Lots of militia people take their duties more seriously than members of the national guard.
Originally posted by sasquatch672 I get your point, and I agree with you more than you think. "Well-regulated" is an important phrase in the Second Amendment, and suggests - but by no means requires - government oversight. The literal reading of the independent clause in the Second Amendment, however, in my neolithic mind, leaves very little room for interpretation, especially when on ...[text shortened]... er he was able. That, I'm sad to say, was historically unwise, and with consequences to follow.
You don't go back far enough on the breeches of trust. The incidents leading up to the American Revolution, and the Civil War were relatively minor, each taken by itself. But the cumulative weight, over time gets very heavy and doesn't absolve any party or politicians from blame.
Originally posted by normbenign The militia is every able bodied man who can show up with his personal weapon and equipment. In times of trouble, the government provided leadership and training, usually the State government. Lots of militia people take their duties more seriously than members of the national guard.
Who created the militia, norm? Some people showing up or the government? And was membership voluntary or mandatory?
Originally posted by normbenign The militia is every able bodied man who can show up with his personal weapon and equipment. In times of trouble, the government provided leadership and training, usually the State government. Lots of militia people take their duties more seriously than members of the national guard.
In fact in the Boston area at least,, the militia men had to register their arms and demonstrate their readiness annually in a town meeting.
Powers are the results of rights. The people derive their power from their rights, whether evolving naturally or granted by government. Voting is a right conveying power. So the term State's rights derives from the powers granted the States.
Originally posted by normbenign Powers are the results of rights. The people derive their power from their rights, whether evolving naturally or granted by government. Voting is a right conveying power. So the term State's rights derives from the powers granted the States.
The Framers were careful in their language. People were endowed with "certain unalienable Rights". Governments, by contrast, "deriv[ed] their just powers from the consent of the governed". It's sloppy terminology to say that States have "rights" and the Framers would not have agreed.
Is Government too Intrusive?
11 Apr '14 17:50
Back to Top