- This topic has 3 voices and 12 replies.
-
Posts
-
A scholar once wrote this:
One could argue that the states are inviolate and perpetual entities whereas the Federal government is not. The Union is perpetual and unbreakable, but the Federal government only exists to protect that union and help it function as it should. When the Federal government ceases to perform in this fashion, it is to be discarded and rebuilt so that it can.
Agree? Disagree? And do you think this is what the Founders envisioned, or should have envisioned?
Agree, and yes, I think this is what the founders were groping towards. A federal government that does not protect the rights of the governed is not fulfilling it's basic function, which is to guarantee the rights and liberties of all. When said government begins to infringe on those liberties and act tyrannical itself it is time to replace it. The danger is that such a tyrannical government is somewhat self-imposed and so it would be difficult to get enough people to agree that it is time to start over.Incidentally, I read a pretty intriguing piece the other advocating for the states to call a Constitutional Convention. I am more and more convinced that is an idea worth pursuing as it is obvious that the clowns in Washington are more intent on rent-seeking than in actually governing with the interests of the people and nation in mind.
But what about the idea of the States being more or less a commonwealth, unified in spirit, and in practice at a minimal level through the federal government. Since it would not be “perpetual and unbreakable”, the federal government would be set in place “on top of” the existing (and more permanent) union of the States.It seems like this system would echo more of a European-style cooperation of nations than what we currently have in the U.S. I think this is a very interesting idea, and more in line with what the Founders had probably envisioned, though I admit I have not done the historical research to analyze the nuances of the original vision. However, it seems highly improbable to implement this today given the extensive (over)reach of the federal government. Although the federal government has assumed powers it probably should not have assumed, it has made provided for certain conveniences and standards of living that people would not easily forgo.As for the calling of a Constitutional Convention...I got an email not long ago which warned against this. It linked to a website where you can see the dangers of what this might entail here. Here's a part:
Based on further research into existing constitutional models, parts which are already being implemented, we believe that the government created by any new constitution will be divorced from both the bedrock philosophical moorings laid out in the Declaration of Independence and from the shackles imposed by the current constitution.
So basically, the message is that while the Constitution may currently be abused, the threat is there for even greater abuse through a modified Constitution.
We don't want or need a constitutional convention. The only thing that can happen is the Constitution will get irrevocably damaged. The likely outcome is that the Constitution would be amended to water down its authority and give more power to the federal government than take anything away.
We don't want or need a constitutional convention. The only thing that can happen is the Constitution will get irrevocably damaged. The likely outcome is that the Constitution would be amended to water down its authority and give more power to the federal government than take anything away.
That is my fear as well. Perhaps the only thing saving us from ruin as it is are the provisions in the Constitution, and I could see those getting thrown away if modern liberals got their way with things.Don't get me wrong - there are certain things in the Constitution which could have been explained in greater detail (e.g. the Establishment Clause, Commerce Clause) which would have helped us avoid problems in interpretation we have now.As far as federal vs. state power is concerned, if SCOTUS interpreted the Commerce Clause more narrowly, we could see a restoration of States' right. Of course, this is not something we can expect given the Obama appointments (and others) on the bench now.
We don't want or need a constitutional convention. The only thing that can happen is the Constitution will get irrevocably damaged. The likely outcome is that the Constitution would be amended to water down its authority and give more power to the federal government than take anything away.
If not a CC then what? What can we do to get the country back on track? It is obvious that nobody in D.C. is interetsted in fixing what is broke. The option then becomes a CC or revolution as far as I can see. Tell me I am wrong.???
Scout, would you be willing to have a CC called and have it hijacked by forces which are intent on enshrining leftist ideology into the law of the land? That could turn America into something that is utterly foreign to what we know today.
That assumes the left could convince a supermajority of the several states to sign off on their lunacy. Given that Obama won less than half of the states in November, what makes you think they could get enough votes to hijack a CC? If anything, conservatives could get their ideas passed more easier than could the left.
Given that Obama won less than half of the states in November, what makes you think they could get enough votes to hijack a CC? If anything, conservatives could get their ideas passed more easier than could the left.
What makes me think that? The fact that Obama won the election. The fact that the people decided that they would rather have a community organizer guide the country out of the worst recession in a generation rather than a successful businessman and governor. The fact that enough people think that free birth control is somehow more important than fundamental things like a good economy. That kind of made me realize that lunacy is kind of in control.
Obama got 51% of the popular vote and carried 26 states. That is far from a supermajority. Granted, there seems to be plenty of retards in the country but something needs to be done or our children and grandchildren face a very bleak future.
I guess that things seem pretty bleak right now for us. True, Obama didn't have a supermajority, but the fact that his track record on the economy is rather weak and he was still voted in over a superior candidate makes me really wonder about people in general. Honestly, at this point I kind of think that the West is lost as a whole. I'm talking primarily about culture, but as I think there's a correlation between culture and economic/political achievement. Sometimes I think that the only thing that can save America and/or the west is a large-scale war/catastrophe which shakes people to their very foundations. These kinds of things seem to force people to realize what is important and what is not. It forces governments to come to terms with reality. I know I keep coming back to the issue of free government-mandated birth control (perhaps because it's so absurd to me) but in the case of a significant war, would a nation really feel compelled to pay for that, or force businesses to pay for it, for the citizens? Or would there be an expectation that people have free will, and if they want to avoid pregnancy or STDs they should simply exercise self control and avoid activities which could lead to them? Perhaps in time of war, the expectation would be that if people play with fire, they get burned; if they want to have a promiscuous lifestyle, they must live with the associated risk. That would be a free way of solving the problem and would not place an extra expense on businesses/government which would be in need of cutting costs. But this kind of thinking is foreign to our government today because we live not according to reality, but according to the values of a distorted culture.Anyway, that's my two cents. I realize I sound dour.....
It would have to be a massive catastrophe. I am thinking something along the lines of the Black Death here. People have gotten too used to the idea that Uncle Sugar will always be there to take care of them.You know I watch some of these zombie and apocalypse films and wonder if people in the West at least, would really survive. I often find myself doubting it.
