Originally posted by Eladar We need the Constitution to limit the government.
I see, so you need a Constitution to specify what the government can and cannot do, but you don't want it specifying what the government can and cannot do.
Here's a reading tip for you:
http://www.amazon.com/Logic-For-Dummies-Mark-Zegarelli/dp/0471799416/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369851053&sr=8-1&keywords=logic+for+dummies
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Yeah, it's mainly libertarians and fiscally conservative, small-government proponents who get screwed currently, since they are forced to either vote Republican or throw away their vote.
Yeah but it is just the price you pay for being such a small minority in a country with majority-rule. Either persuade others and swell your numbers, or instead join the mainstream and try to influence from within more to your views.
In any case, vote for the viable candidate who most closely resembles your views. It may leave a bad taste in your mouth but that's the way it is with majority-rule. Moreover, there are huge differences in the Republican vs. Democrat candidates for President. Ask gays in the military.
Originally posted by MoneyManMike Almost a year ago, the US Supreme Court upheld Obamacare's Individual Mandate as a valid exercise of Congress's taxing power. NFIB v. Sebelius. The Supreme Court's holding, however, has raised a new question. Because the Individual Mandate is a tax, did Congress follow the necessary Constitutional procedures required before certain tax bills c ...[text shortened]... onald[/i]. Sorry Stevens, the Constitution means what it says!
Obamacare will be with us for generations and will become part of our culture. Here to stay for good.
Originally posted by moon1969 Yeah but it is just the price you pay for being such a small minority in a country with majority-rule. Either persuade others and swell your numbers, or instead join the mainstream and try to influence from within more to your views.
In any case, vote for the viable candidate who most closely resembles your views. It may leave a bad taste in your mouth ...[text shortened]... differences in the Republican vs. Democrat candidates for President. Ask gays in the military.
It's telling that you consider a difference in opinion on the "don't ask, don't tell"-policy a "huge difference".
This is what I call "huge differences":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Political_Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_(Netherlands)
Originally posted by no1marauder The US Constitution vastly expanded central government power from
its predecessor the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.
What does that have to do with the price of Tea in China? The power of government is the power of government, be it Federal or State.
Originally posted by Eladar What does that have to do with the price of Tea in China? The power of government is the power of government, be it Federal or State.
It has to do with YOUR claim "We need the Constitution to limit the government."
Before we had the Constitution the government was more limited, so your assertion is counter factual.
Originally posted by no1marauder It has to do with YOUR claim "We need the Constitution to limit the government."
Before we had the Constitution the government was more limited, so your assertion is counter factual.
Think about what I said in my last post. The Articles of Confederation put more power in the hands of the State government, while the Constitution put more power in the hands of the Federal government.
State and Federal are both governments. Taking from State and giving to Federal does not increase the power of government, it simply redistributes the power.
Originally posted by Eladar Think about what I said in my last post. The Articles of Confederation put more power in the hands of the State government, while the Constitution put more power in the hands of the Federal government.
State and Federal are both governments. Taking from State and giving to Federal does not increase the power of government, it simply redistributes the power.
Your argument doesn't make any sense as usual. Please read your original statement AGAIN and realize its incorrectness regardless of the goalpost moving you are attempting to do.
Originally posted by no1marauder Your argument doesn't make any sense as usual. Please read your original statement AGAIN and realize its incorrectness regardless of the goalpost moving you are attempting to do.
OK, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I believe the Costitution was written to protect people from the government, while you believe the Constitution was written to give the government power over people.
Originally posted by Eladar OK, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I believe the Costitution was written to protect people from the government, while you believe the Constitution was written to give the government power over people.
It "constituted" a government, so it did both. Our particular Constitution, however, greatly increased some governmental powers (like the power to tax and to regulate of commerce) that right wingers like yourself have a problem with.
Originally posted by no1marauder It "constituted" a government, so it did both. Our particular Constitution, however, greatly increased some governmental powers (like the power to tax and to regulate of commerce) that right wingers like yourself have a problem with.
No need to have the bill of rights or any other limitations describe in the Constitution if it simply gave power to the government. All it would have to do is describe the different offices, then say that the different branches can do whatever they want to do. I know that's how you view it, but that's because you believe in a government dominated society.
Originally posted by Eladar No need to have the bill of rights or any other limitations describe in the Constitution if it simply gave power to the government. All it would have to do is describe the different offices, then say that the different branches can do whatever they want to do. I know that's how you view it, but that's because you believe in a government dominated society.
You really don't know s**t about me; you believe things that are patently absurd about me because you have everybody who doesn't agree with your far out positions painted into a little box because such a simple (though false) view of the world is easiest for you to understand.
I have my doubts you have ever even read the Constitution; certainly you don't understand it. In the Framers' view the government only had those powers the People granted it, so your view of the Constitution is opposite of theirs.
Originally posted by no1marauder It has to do with YOUR claim "We need the Constitution to limit the government."
Before we had the Constitution the government was more limited, so your assertion is counter factual.
That the Constitution granted more federal power that the AOC doesn't mean it was a big government document. The actual problems with the AOC were mostly related to customs houses, and the collection of taxes mainly tariffs.
Curiously, the major reason for the revolution was taxation, and tax avoidance was still valued by early Americans.
Originally posted by normbenign That the Constitution granted more federal power that the AOC doesn't mean it was a big government document. The actual problems with the AOC were mostly related to customs houses, and the collection of taxes mainly tariffs.
Curiously, the major reason for the revolution was taxation, and tax avoidance was still valued by early Americans.
You've made that same absurd claim before. Having read Farrand's entire record of the Convention numerous times (unlike you who didn't even know they existed), I know that it is utter hogwash. But if you wish, you may offer some historical evidence (preferably from the mouths and/or pens of the Framers) to support it.
What did George Washington think of "tax avoidance" when practiced by Western Pennsylvania farmers in 1794? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion
29 May '13 18:11
Is Obamacare still unconst?
Back to Top