While the nation was watching football.........

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3180289
I think at this point that we're going beyond right or left.
New terminology is perhaps required in order to discuss the argument on a common sense level. I frankly don't see the Republicans as any less Globalist than the Democrats are. It was Reagan who inspired Globalism, Bush I who pushed it further by proposing NAFTA, and Clinton who approved NAFTA.
Globalist doesn't really mean socialist. The modern reality is we are a global economy. We can either adapt to that reality or get buried by those who do.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3180322
As far as the subject at hand goes driving a car is not a right, it is a privilege. To be granted that privilege you must agree to certain things like registering and insuring your car. Not the same thing.
Yes, but Life is the first of the unalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence: rights that the Constitution was, no doubt, intended to secure to the American People.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by scottnlisa
http:///forum/post/3180229
Why are all you people who are upset about this socialized healthcare start being upset about car insurance, school, postal service. They are all socialized. What happens if you have no car insurance? Hmmmmmm jail. Yep that's right
These guys where pretty dam smarty to say the least.
“ I believe there are more instances of the
abridgement of the freedom of the people by
gradual and silent encroachments of those in
power, than by violent and sudden usurpations…
This danger ought to be wisely guarded against.”
- James Madison
“ The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution
of wealth], and a community of goods [central
ownership of all the means of production and
distribution], are as visionary and impracticable
as those which vest all property in the Crown.
[These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our
government, unconstitutional.” -Samuel Adams

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3180410
Yes, but Life is the first of the unalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence: rights that the Constitution was, no doubt, intended to secure to the American People.
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution
to the federal government are few and defined….”
-James Madison
Yes its that simple.
The English language isnt that difficult to understand.
All these issues have been hammered out along time ago.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3180420
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution
to the federal government are few and defined….”
-James Madison
Yes its that simple.
The English language isnt that difficult to understand.
All these issues have been hammered out along time ago.
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
-James Madison
It isn't all so simple. There have been over 200 years of "historical background" since the Constitution was written.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3180422
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
-James Madison
It isn't all so simple. There have been over 200 years of "historical background" since the Constitution was written.
There is more than 200 years of "Historical Background" he is referring and Madison's point still holds true.Mans human nature will lead to tyranny and oppression if left unchallenged.The Constitution was meant to do just that. To give the people power over government not the other way around.
Its is a simple formula give the people the power and you have liberty,give the government the power and you have tyranny.
BTW if you examine the 200 year period of history you refer to and start looking at all that has led us to this mess we are in .You will find that it is a result of tip toeing and circumventing the Constitution .

 

[reefraff]

If you consider the text of the constitution and then compare it to the writings of those who wrote and signed the constitution is makes the case that it was written in stone even stronger.
Anyone know the reason many of the members of the constitutional convention opposed having a standing army and felt the need to enshrine our right to own guns in the bill of rights?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3180410
Yes, but Life is the first of the unalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence: rights that the Constitution was, no doubt, intended to secure to the American People.
So then abortion is unconstitutional?

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3180496
So then abortion is unconstitutional?
Not to the framers. Abortion was commonly practiced in their day, and they would not have considered banning it. Only in relatively recent times has abortion been banned.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3180464
There is more than 200 years of "Historical Background" he is referring and Madison's point still holds true.Mans human nature will lead to tyranny and oppression if left unchallenged.The Constitution was meant to do just that. To give the people power over government not the other way around.
Its is a simple formula give the people the power and you have liberty,give the government the power and you have tyranny.
BTW if you examine the 200 year period of history you refer to and start looking at all that has led us to this mess we are in .You will find that it is a result of tip toeing and circumventing the Constitution .
Actually, Madison says just the opposite. He says that if you ignore the context (history and culture) then you will have "perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." It sounds like an argument for a living constitution.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3180495
If you consider the text of the constitution and then compare it to the writings of those who wrote and signed the constitution is makes the case that it was written in stone even stronger.
Anyone know the reason many of the members of the constitutional convention opposed having a standing army and felt the need to enshrine our right to own guns in the bill of rights?
It is in the bill of particulars we know as the Declaration of Independence.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3180547
Not to the framers. Abortion was commonly practiced in their day, and they would not have considered banning it. Only in relatively recent times has abortion been banned.
Nor would they have allowed the government to tax income, reward sloth, ban guns, OR FORCE PEOPLE TO HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE.
Just to reiterate, I like the idea of making everyone pay for insurance. I just don't think it is constitutional to do so. I think a tax credit for health insurance premiums would be OK but a fine or criminal penalty wont survive a challenge to the SCOTUS unless another uber liberal is appointed in place of one of the conservatives.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by scottnlisa
http:///forum/post/3180229
The intelligence was a lie also. It didn't prove nothing but Bush wanted to go to war qith Iraq since his daddy couldn't get Saddam. Plan and simple.
Why are all you people who are upset about this socialized healthcare start being upset about car insurance, school, postal service. They are all socialized. What happens if you have no car insurance? Hmmmmmm jail. Yep that's right

So John Kerry and other lied too?
You lie too. At least in Ohio, NO jail for not having insurance.
From the Ohio BMV website;
Financial Responsibility Violator Penalties
Failure to provide proof of financial responsibility, when required, will result in the following civil penalties imposed by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles:
Lose driving privileges for a minimum of ninety (90) days and up to two (2) years;
License plates and vehicle registration suspension;
License plate reinstatement fees of $150 for first violation, $350 for second violation, and $650 for a third or subsequent violation (this includes a $50 penalty for failing to surrender the license, plates or vehicle registration to the BMV);
Require filing with the BMV (SR-22 or bond) to continuously maintain proof of financial responsibility for a minimum of three (3), up to five (5) years from the date of the suspension of operating privileges;
Vehicle immobilization and confiscation of plates for 30 to 60 days for violating FR suspension. Third and subsequent offenses could result in vehicle forfeiture and a five (5) year suspension of vehicle registrations.
Driving and registration privileges cannot be restored until all requirements of the suspension have been met.
Maybe different in your STATE, but then again isn't this what this is about?
I don't want the same people who can't run the Senate cafeteria running healthcare.
Edit:
I laugh even harder,you're in Ohio!

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3180550
Actually, Madison says just the opposite. He says that if you ignore the context (history and culture) then you will have "perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." It sounds like an argument for a living constitution.
I disagree completely.There are so many of Madisons writing to support the fact he was a student of history.He is clearly referencing the past as a reason not to Pervert
1 a : to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right : corrupt b : to cause to turn aside or away from what is generally done or accepted : misdirect
2 a : to divert to a wrong end or purpose : misuse b : to twist the meaning or sense of : misinterpret
and
Subvert"
1 : to overturn or overthrow from the foundation : ruin
2 : to pervert or corrupt by an undermining of morals, allegiance, or faith
the constitution.
Either word is a clear warning for not tinkering with the document.
In any event,you cant possibly believe that the class of clowns we have in Congress now or in the last 100 years or so would be capable of making improvements to a document as close to perfect as you can get ...Do you?
The last time they tried they had to undo it.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3180765
I disagree completely.There are so many of Madisons writing to support the fact he was a student of history.He is clearly referencing the past as a reason not to Pervert
1 a : to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right : corrupt b : to cause to turn aside or away from what is generally done or accepted : misdirect
2 a : to divert to a wrong end or purpose : misuse b : to twist the meaning or sense of : misinterpret
and
Subvert"
1 : to overturn or overthrow from the foundation : ruin
2 : to pervert or corrupt by an undermining of morals, allegiance, or faith
Either word is a clear warning for not tinkering with the document.
In any event,you cant possibly believe that the class of clowns we have in Congress now or in the last 100 years or so would be capable of making improvements to a document as close to perfect as you can get ...Do you?
To quote a famous philosopher and linguist "Yes its that simple. The English language isnt [sic] that difficult to understand." So when Madison says "Do not separate text from historical background" he must mean, according to our resident philosopher, that we must view the Constitution in isolation from historical background, with no reference to the world in which it is being manifested. Or else, English is, in this case, that simple, and Madison means exactly what he says.
On the other issue, of opening the Constitution to modification by a Constitutional convention or Congressional action - Thank God the framers made it very difficult to change the constitution, although (IMHO) by making it easier to interpret by the judiciary they reduced the need to actually change the foundational document of our government and our society. Judicial interpretation is always necessary to convert law into action. It sounds simple, but the simplest laws generally turn out to be very complex. Example - Thou Shalt Not Kill. Sounds pretty straightforward, until we realize that there is a parenthetical "sometimes" in there. It is up to the judiciary to interpret the intent of the law and its implementation. I think the framers had the same approach in mind by setting up a three legged stool for our governance. Otherwise there is no need for a Federal judiciary.

 

[reefraff]

And allowing judicial interpretation is my it is so important we elect conservative presidents who will appoint constructionist justices. Otherwise you get the liberals who see no problem creating or taking away rights out of thin air. Nowhere in the constitution is the word abortion and the right to bare arms is specifically granted yet they rule abortion is a right but guns can be banned.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3180780
To quote a famous philosopher and linguist "Yes its that simple. The English language isnt [sic] that difficult to understand." So when Madison says "Do not separate text from historical background" he must mean, according to our resident philosopher, that we must view the Constitution in isolation from historical background, with no reference to the world in which it is being manifested. Or else, English is, in this case, that simple, and Madison means exactly what he says.
Now your starting to get it.Great job Poindexter.
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3180780
On the other issue, of opening the Constitution to modification by a Constitutional convention or Congressional action - Thank God the framers made it very difficult to change the constitution, although (IMHO) by making it easier to interpret by the judiciary they reduced the need to actually change the foundational document of our government and our society. Judicial interpretation is always necessary to convert law into action. It sounds simple, but the simplest laws generally turn out to be very complex. Example - Thou Shalt Not Kill. Sounds pretty straightforward, until we realize that there is a parenthetical "sometimes" in there. It is up to the judiciary to interpret the intent of the law and its implementation. I think the framers had the same approach in mind by setting up a three legged stool for our governance. Otherwise there is no need for a Federal judiciary.
More interpretation of the English language and the Constitution .
"Even though Article IV of the Constitution says that treaties are the 'supreme law of the land,' in most instances they're not even law."
or
"Thou shall not put a cap in yo ass"
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
-Sonia Sotomayor

 

[veni vidi vici]

Lets interpret this now ....I cant wait to hear the liberal translation.
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.
James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3180325
Globalist doesn't really mean socialist.
You're using common sense. Polititians have none.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3180871
Lets interpret this now ....I cant wait to hear the liberal translation.
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.
James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792
No Liberal translation is required. Madison wrote in plain English and what he said is absolutely correct.
It's not a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of understanding the historical progression of Democratic Government. That's what Madison was trying to point out.