Author Topic: And some citizens want to get rid of it... (Read 5235 times)

Michael Bush · « **on:** January 22, 2015, 01:18:10 pm »

The description of this forum: "Many Americans forget the words that carved our country into the wondrous land it is today. The Bill of Rights and the power of the branches of government are discussed here."

And yet I am shocked to discover that some citizens of the US want to throw it out as outdated and irrelevant... Apparently they are either completely ignorant of history or have a complete case of amnesia. They have not just forgotten "the words that carved our country" they are ready to dispose of them...

I do understand that I have to explain the reason for "freedom of speech" to the Europeans... we wrote that because of their attitudes and actions... but I should not have to explain it to a US citizen... should I?

iddee · « **Reply #1 on:** January 22, 2015, 02:06:21 pm »

Maybe they aren't citizens. Let's face it, there are citizen pretenders all the way to the top.

Snowhitsky · « **Reply #2 on:** January 25, 2015, 06:01:38 pm »

Of course it's irrelevant and outdated! It's about time you kissed and made-up with Lizzie (that's Her Majesty to you rebels). I'm sure if you showed a little contrition, she'd let bygones be bygones and have you back. If you play your cards right I'm sure we could even talk the Canadians into taking you on.

Eric Bosworth · « **Reply #3 on:** January 26, 2015, 03:17:18 pm »

Quote from: Michael Bush on January 22, 2015, 01:18:10 pm

The description of this forum: "Many Americans forget the words that carved our country into the wondrous land it is today. The Bill of Rights and the power of the branches of government are discussed here."

And yet I am shocked to discover that some citizens of the US want to throw it out as outdated and irrelevant... Apparently they are either completely ignorant of history or have a complete case of amnesia. They have not just forgotten "the words that carved our country" they are ready to dispose of them...

I do understand that I have to explain the reason for "freedom of speech" to the Europeans... we wrote that because of their attitudes and actions... but I should not have to explain it to a US citizen... should I?

The scary thing is that our supreme court doesn't seem to understand the basic premise of our constitution... that the government only has certain powers and they are divided between the branches...

Michael Bush · « **Reply #4 on:** January 26, 2015, 03:28:29 pm »

>that the government only has certain powers and they are divided between the branches...

And they have forgotten that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Eric Bosworth · « **Reply #5 on:** January 26, 2015, 03:30:45 pm »

Quote from: Michael Bush on January 26, 2015, 03:28:29 pm

>that the government only has certain powers and they are divided between the branches...

And they have forgotten that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

I couldn't have said that better... It's like the 10th amendment just jumped into your post...

kathyp · « **Reply #6 on:** January 27, 2015, 03:58:39 pm »

Quote

The scary thing is that our supreme court doesn't seem to understand the basic premise of our constitution

not just the suprems. look at what congress has done over the last few years. they basically ceded power to the executive branch and through the exec, to the alphabet agencies.
we have 1/3 of our government that voted "present" for the last 6 years.

mikecva · « **Reply #7 on:** January 27, 2015, 05:55:35 pm »

If the supreme court would read the constitution and the bill of rights with the intent our founders had in mind, and not the way their political backers or PCer want, we all would be a lot better off. -Mike

Silverback · « **Reply #8 on:** September 09, 2015, 05:40:19 am »

Congress gave all powers to the executive branch through the Emergency war powers act and trading with the enemies act as amended in 1933. Every president since has continued the "emergency" through 1974. And it continues today. That act gave ALL power the the president including determining when the emergency is over.

Michael Bush · « **Reply #9 on:** September 09, 2015, 09:03:11 am »

>That act gave ALL power the the president including determining when the emergency is over.

We call that "separation of powers"... ;)

NeilTheCop · « **Reply #10 on:** September 09, 2015, 12:00:03 pm »

?As government expands, liberty contracts.?
― Ronald Reagan

kathyp · « **Reply #11 on:** September 10, 2015, 10:47:04 am »

Quote

Congress gave all powers to the executive branch through the Emergency war powers act and trading with the enemies act as amended in 1933

The war powers act is not the problem. Congress has abdicated it's powers in all thing, and failed to act when it's powers have been usurped. They have done this over a long period of time, but never more so than under this president. The old guard ends up in leadership and the old guard is lazy. They are happy to have a job with great perks and retirement and they don't give a good darn about what the people want. BUT, the people keep putting them back in there, so the people bear the ultimate responsibility.

hjon71 · « **Reply #12 on:** September 14, 2015, 02:57:05 am »

Quote from: kathyp

BUT, the people keep putting them back in there, so the people bear the ultimate responsibility.

*AH*3rdparty*CHOO*

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk

NeilTheCop · « **Reply #13 on:** September 14, 2015, 09:20:54 am »

The Government's interpretation of the Constitution has divided this country, quite literally, into two distinct classes of citizens. One class have the protection of most of the Constitution, the other class have less protection.
Let me explain.
I have read the Constitution from start to finish and nowhere does it have words to the effect "This document does not apply to convicted felons or those simply accused of certain crimes". Yet a convicted felon cannot vote or own a firearm. This would mean if these rights can be taken away, then they weren't rights in the first place, and you now have two distinct classes of citizens, one who can vote, but not own a firearm unless the Government have said it's OK, and the other class who can neither vote or own any sort of firearm

Dallasbeek · « **Reply #14 on:** September 14, 2015, 12:35:43 pm »

Quote from: NeilTheCop on September 14, 2015, 09:20:54 am

The Government's interpretation of the Constitution has divided this country, quite literally, into two distinct classes of citizens. One class have the protection of most of the Constitution, the other class have less protection.
Let me explain.
I have read the Constitution from start to finish and nowhere does it have words to the effect "This document does not apply to convicted felons or those simply accused of certain crimes". Yet a convicted felon cannot vote or own a firearm. This would mean if these rights can be taken away, then they weren't rights in the first place, and you now have two distinct classes of citizens, one who can vote, but not own a firearm unless the Government have said it's OK, and the other class who can neither vote or own any sort of firearm

And then there are people accused of domestic violence who have their guns taken away. And I've known some very high-handed judges who take away guns from any man if the divorcing wife asks for it.

Of course, I practiced criminal law for 8 years and none of my clients were murdered, then changed to family law and in 10 years eight of my clients were murdered (two in one case by her husband). So maybe there's some justification in the minds of those judges, but that is assuming every man is going to get violent. That's a pretty big assumption. But I was handling more than 1,000 divorces a year, so 8 out of 10,000+ is a small percentage, statistically. Unless you are one of the statistics, that is.

Eric Bosworth · « **Reply #15 on:** September 14, 2015, 08:52:25 pm »

Quote from: hjon71 on September 14, 2015, 02:57:05 am

Quote from: kathyp
BUT, the people keep putting them back in there, so the people bear the ultimate responsibility.
*AH*3rdparty*CHOO*

In Nevada they do not allow write in ballots. However "none of these" is a choice. In 1998 Hairless Reed won reelection by less than 500 votes. Over 8,000 people voted for none of these. My uncle lived in Reno at the time. He voted for the other choice.

OldMech · « **Reply #16 on:** September 15, 2015, 02:07:42 am »

And yet I am shocked to discover that some citizens of the US want to throw it out as outdated and irrelevant... Apparently they are either completely ignorant of history or have a complete case of amnesia. They have not just forgotten "the words that carved our country" they are ready to dispose of them...

I didnt read all the posts, but.... As far as I am concerned, those folks are not "citizens" and should be gotten rid of, rather than our constitution etc.... 4 generations of servicemen in my family right now, and we will all volunteer to help with that removal.

sawdstmakr · « **Reply #17 on:** September 15, 2015, 01:15:25 pm »

I'm with you OldMech.
Jim

derekm · « **Reply #18 on:** November 06, 2015, 10:06:08 am »

your constitution need either changing or reinterpreting so as the CEO to worker wage ratio goes back to ~50 rather the 500 and increasing it is now. Otherwise you will have another revolution and another constitution and a lot of dead. Read this
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014

Revolutions are usually started by the middle classes being made the impoverished class

sawdstmakr · « **Reply #19 on:** November 06, 2015, 01:59:05 pm »

The problem is not with the Constitution, it is the people in Washington who ignore it and spit on it. I am talking about congress who far exceeds the bounds of the constitution, the president who defies it and does what ever he wants, and the supreme court who fails to reign in the other two when they are not following it and worse yet, make laws from the bench.
If all laws on the books had to be reviewed and approved based on the constitution, our economy would flourish and employers would have to compete with high salaries to get people to work for them just like they had to do post Reagan era.
Jim

kathyp · « **Reply #20 on:** November 06, 2015, 02:40:38 pm »

Quote

Revolutions are usually started by the middle classes being made the impoverished class

The constitution has nothing to do with the ratio of worker to boss. Lets hope it never does.

If you look back at most of the revolutions since ours, they have had to do with ideology, and/or oppression. Often they are started by people who a pretty naive and have no plan for the after revolution government. Most end in more oppression. The communist revolutions of various countries are good examples. People thought they were going to get what others had. It would be "fair". They got oppression and more misery.

We don't need a new constitution. We need the one we have to be followed.

OldMech · « **Reply #21 on:** November 06, 2015, 08:34:02 pm »

We don't need a new constitution. We need the one we have to be followed.

followed as it was written, rather than how it is constantly re interpreted.

derekm · « **Reply #22 on:** November 10, 2015, 12:30:08 pm »

Quote from: kathyp on November 06, 2015, 02:40:38 pm

Quote
Revolutions are usually started by the middle classes being made the impoverished class

The constitution has nothing to do with the ratio of worker to boss. Lets hope it never does.

If you look back at most of the revolutions since ours, they have had to do with ideology, and/or oppression. Often they are started by people who a pretty naive and have no plan for the after revolution government. Most end in more oppression. The communist revolutions of various countries are good examples. People thought they were going to get what others had. It would be "fair". They got oppression and more misery.

We don't need a new constitution. We need the one we have to be followed.

oppression comes when the middle classes start kicking up.
I think you confuse the causes of revolution with the guys who then surface once it gets going. Idealogy needs the fuel of discontent.

1897 France - starvation in the face of wealth overburdening of the expense of state on the middle class
1848 lots of places in Europe - food prices unemployment contrasting with extreme wealth of nobility and the new industrial rich
March 1917 Russia starvation & middle class discontent
1940, 1950 cuba - water shortages.

Discontent is rising in the xxxx. Your wealthy classes and the middle classes are disconnecting as the plutocrats weath increase yet their proportion of the tax burden decreases while more rests on the middle classes. Typical responses from those in power are
Blaim a minority
Blaim an external third party
Start a War
History repeats, why would the U.S. be immune?

kathyp · « **Reply #23 on:** November 10, 2015, 06:24:24 pm »

Quote

Your wealthy classes and the middle classes are disconnecting as the plutocrats weath increase yet their proportion of the tax burden decreases while more rests on the middle classes.

This is a popular notion, but not true. the top 25% of earners in this country pay 85+ percent of the tax. the bottom 50% pays between 0 and 3% of the tax, and much of what they pay, they get back, some getting back more than they paid in.

It is true that the rich are making more, but that has nothing to do with anything. In this country, it is not true that if someone makes more, someone else makes less. The pool of money is not static.

The biggest problem we have right now is that the economy is stagnant. That has more to do with policies of the government, than with anything to do with business.

The US is not immune to unrest, but if it comes to a civil war now it would not be because some people are making to much money. It would be to preserve our union and our constitution, which the current administration uses as toilet paper.
redistribution to pacify the masses never works. A good economy in which everyone has a shot at doing well, always works.

Dallasbeek · « **Reply #24 on:** November 10, 2015, 07:26:29 pm »

Actually, according to a study by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, as reported by CNBC, the top 1% of wage earners will pay 45.7% of individual income taxes in 2014.

How do people who pay little or no taxes feel entitled to complain about the 1%? Easy: they feel entitled to complain about anything and everything. The real question is why those in power join them in complaining about "millionaires and billionaires" when they know that when they leave office they, like Bill Clinton, will reap millions just for giving speeches. Whipping up class envy gets votes for Democrats, but when the revolution comes and the masses start shedding blood, rich Democrats will be just as subject to the guillotine as rich Republicans. Blood lust is a terrible thing to see and I hope people tone down the rhetoric before they stir up more trouble than they can handle.

kathyp · « **Reply #25 on:** November 10, 2015, 09:22:33 pm »

Is that kind of trouble comes I think it will be coming from our new immigrants who came here for a better kind of socialism and didn't get it.

OldMech · « **Reply #26 on:** November 10, 2015, 10:21:33 pm »

The US is not immune to unrest, but if it comes to a civil war now it would not be because some people are making to much money. It would be to preserve our union and our constitution, which the current administration uses as toilet paper.
redistribution to pacify the masses never works. A good economy in which everyone has a shot at doing well, always works.

wow! Well said!

hjon71 · « **Reply #27 on:** November 11, 2015, 01:19:12 am »

I dislike going off topic but....
I think some people like to focus on income to deflect attention from the real issue, wealth.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk

hjon71 · « **Reply #28 on:** November 11, 2015, 01:22:27 am »

Duplicate post

kathyp · « **Reply #29 on:** November 11, 2015, 11:01:12 am »

Quote

I think some people like to focus on income to deflect attention from the real issue, wealth.

but again, so what? The only reason wealth would make a difference is if the pot of money was limited. It is not, and even less so in a good economy.

We'd hardly want to be without wealthy people. they are the founders of charitable groups, they hire people, they buy stuff. They are generally good for the economy and especially when the rest of us can't afford to do any of those things.

The wealthy to acquire more when times are hard for the rest of us, but again, so what?

sawdstmakr · « **Reply #30 on:** November 11, 2015, 12:13:50 pm »

That is a good chart. Now make up that same chart for every other country in the world and then compare it to our chart and I think you would be amazed by the comparison.
Jim

Dallasbeek · « **Reply #31 on:** November 11, 2015, 01:25:05 pm »

Kathy, "So what?" is the correct answer to everything. If a person is wealthy, so what? If a person is gay, so what? If he/she is racist, so what? If whatever-you-can-imagine, so what?

Philosophically, nobody owes anyone else more than that they mind their own business and not try to mind the next guy's business. So what?

hjon71 · « **Reply #32 on:** November 11, 2015, 07:21:49 pm »

"So what?"
Good question actually, even if it wasn't meant to be.

Kathy is right of course, the pot of money isn't limited. We can print all we want, funny little thing happens when we do though.....

Wealth(actually Resources) is however limited. Land, as Henry George points out is the most important and absolutely limited.
Here's an example straight from the book-
Place one hundred men on an island from which there is no escape, and whether you make one of these men the absolute owner of the other ninety-nine, or the absolute owner of the soil of the island, will make no difference either to him or to them. In the one case, as the other, the one will be the absolute master of the ninety-nine; His power extending even to life and death, for simply to refuse them permission to live upon the island would be to force them into the sea.

See the relation? The more wealth concentrates into a smaller percentage the closer we move to being on that island.

Do I want governments to confiscate that wealth and dole it out as they see fit? Are you crazy?
No. What I want is for people to understand charity and service like Minoj Bhargava. Never heard of him? Watch this-

My favorite quote comes straight from the gospel. See if you can guess what it is.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk