It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


If the Conservative Movement succeeds then What? My response!

page: 9
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 11:54 AM
reply to post by endisnighe

Okay, I'll try and keep this short.
I think we disagree on the basic supposition of the Constitution. I don't think it's sole purpose was only to limit government but rather to provide a system of checks and balances that would allow neither the people's passions nor the government's hand to go unchecked. It's an important addition.
The preamble does a nice job of summing it up:
"We the people in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It's clear from just this that a strong perfect union was always deemed to be in the best interests of a republic.

But honestly, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this huge topic. I have no problem with the ATF, no more than I have a problem with HHS. We regulate poisions, maybe we shouldn't but I don't have a problem with it.

I simply don't see the proof that suggests illegal immigration has had a negative impact on health care. If you can find some I'd read it. So does this mean you concede the work issue?

I think I see your point, other companies don't have our labor/safety standards and so can pump cheaper products into our markets. Okay, so here's the problem: our government can change, others won't. So you can try and level the playing field but in the end, the practical result of your idea will be to force a huge hike in the amount we all pay for our goods, and you're smart enough to know that.

I agree with you on the energy profits thing, but not on oil speculation. We should be spending on alternatives right now like we spent on Apollo in the 60's. Energy independence is really the holy grail of U.S. Foreign Policy, we solve that problem, we're free.

My issue with the secrets thing is this: who decides what is secret? You either throw open the flood gates and endangers lives and all of our covert ops or you allow secrets, you can't really have it both ways. And by the way there's already a commission that decides what should be secret and what shouldn't. I just don't get this, you're just creating new bureaucracy.

It's pretty clear that putting limits on corporate lobbying is likely unconstitutional. What I think you want to do is restrict the amount of money that is flowing through the system. Again this might be unconstitutional but is an easier problem to deal with. Restrict the money flow, or pay our reps way more money.

Term limits: I have a problem with solving gray problems with black and white solutions. If you impose term limits you also get rid of all the good representatives along with the bad. I just don't see that as a solution, just a sweeping idea that you perceive will solve the problem.

Of course people should have no loyalties beyond our government... but their oath takes care of that. Non-issue for me.

And yes I still think your law stuff is silly. Courts decide on Constitutionality, legislatures pass laws. This is an unnecessary restriction.

I will say again, flat taxes aren't either fair or balanced. A graduated tax system is okay with me. Flat taxes promise equitable tax but in effect are a huge windfall for the rich, study after study says so. it is also a smaller revenue stream.

So, there you go.

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 11:57 AM
reply to post by Wolf321

Sorry, but the President is Commander in Chief. I just don't agree with you on this issue.

And I just completely disagree with you on state militias. I don't want decentralized military units running around the country. The potential for abuse is too great.

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 02:30 PM
reply to post by kenochs

I could understand the powers of CinC being invested in one person, such as the president. So, while you disagree with moving the powers from the president to the CJC, how do you feel on a positional requirement of military service?

On state militias, do you think that the governors are only restrained from from having their national guardsmen "running around the country" because we have a mega standing army? Considering funding for a less centralized military would still be coming from the congress, as well as the activation orders for outside the state of origin operations, I don't see much of a risk. You think the chance of abuse is greater than the abuse at the federal level that exists now?

I don't want this to sound like an attack, or in any means disrespectful. I greatly desire the debate on the matter, and the challenge to my ideas.

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 02:45 PM
reply to post by kenochs

Well I don't agree with you. You are just silly.

All of your positions I don't understand, they are just silly.

Thanks for playing, jeeez.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:47 AM
reply to post by endisnighe

you're kidding right. I used the word silly once, in reference to your idea of forcing bill to stay at some totally arbitrary 50 page limit and this is your response.
So, because you didn't respond to any of my reasonable criticisms of your ideas I'll take it that you concede. Or maybe you're just bored and don't want to take the time and effort to defend your ideas.
That's okay, but if post it, you should probably be ready to defend it.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:56 AM
reply to post by Wolf321

First, this is the internet, I don't take anything anyone says online personal, so no big deal, I didn't see it as an attack.

But, what do you mean by a positional requirement? I hate to seem dense but I don't know that phrase.

On state militias, my general thought is that having 50 separate state militias, each with their own unique requirements and needs would be a nightmare.. especially when you begin to get into the requisition, training and deployment. For instance lets say a state militia needs new guns, well they're going to requisition them (most likely) from the manufacturers in their own state, the next state same deal, and you'd end up with 50 state militias using varying equipment, getting different training etc. etc. So my main problem with it is mainly logistical. Standardization saves gabillions.

In regards for the potential for abuse, I agree with you. The CinC should be restrained by Congress. I just don't get this, the use of our military on intl. soil should be undertaken (in my opionion) when: two nations make a formal ratified agreement on U.S. peacekeeping or base placement, or when Congress makes a declaration of war. An example, would be, while I think our use of drone attacks in Pakistan is a necessary and vital element of what we're doing in theater over there, I really don't get where we get the authority to use our military in a sovereign state when Congress hasn't said anything about it... It mystifies me...

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:36 AM
reply to post by kenochs

In regards for the potential for abuse, I agree with you. The CinC should be restrained by Congress. I just don't get this, the use of our military on intl. soil should be undertaken (in my opionion) when: two nations make a formal ratified agreement on U.S. peacekeeping or base placement, or when Congress makes a declaration of war. An example, would be, while I think our use of drone attacks in Pakistan is a necessary and vital element of what we're doing in theater over there, I really don't get where we get the authority to use our military in a sovereign state when Congress hasn't said anything about it... It mystifies me...

Why is it that you cannot debate with me like you are wolf. Actually a lot of what you are saying here, to me, goes along the same lines as what I think.

We do NOT have the right to act in another country's sovereign nation. This is blatant interventionalism.

You seem to be sincere. I will repost my adjusted positions, the first five and please try to give the purpose behind your position of why these are incorrect. I am just VERY gun shy of people here because of the trolls that purposefully attempt to derail any discussion of the problems in the US.

1 Reinstate the Constitution; any and all statutes that restrict or go against the given rights of the States or the Citizens are removed. This to be fazed in as fast as possible. Presidential Orders that do not have Constitutional backing to be removed. Any and all following ideas refer back to THIS ONE, if there are any discrepancies. Items such as the War on Drugs, licensing for beauticians, or alternative medicine are direct causal problems due to this. There are already protections from injury due to being injured. As I said, all following and questions refer back to this one.

2 Banking System-Federal Reserve to be abolished. Congress will be required to follow the Constitutional requirements to return to a commodity based monetary system. Be it Gold/Silver, or another conglomerate of commodities such as oil, corn etc. Nationalizing banks is an argument fought over many times in our past and I am sure into the future. I feel that something needs to regulate the out of control loss of value of our money. This may be repaired by reinstituting a commodity backed monetary system. Also a possible restricting of usury rates can be investigated. All assets of the Federal Reserve and any and all banks and individuals that have stolen money from the American People (e.g. Paulson with his sale of GS stock at a value of $300 million) to be used to pay off as much of the debt as possible. All of this to be determined by a trial of all involved in the fleecing of the American People. Barter and the like in no way will be infringed upon.

3 Institute and keep the regulations required to maintain the functionality of our stock market. I believe a time based regulation is required here. Economists need to hash out controls, that in no way are a detriment to a free market but are necessary to stop manipulations in said market. No mass manipulation of stocks, like the Goldman Sachs computer software allowed even near the stock market.

4 Instant removal of all Federal Agencies that are null and void in a Constitutional Government. Example Given-IRS, with the Fair Tax to be instated; ATF-all three things that are legal, why do we need an agency to enforce it? All contracts that exist right now, between the Fed and Private Corps to be reassessed and open bidding will be reinstituted. No favoritism allowed. Any contracts that are for things that are required for the Federal Government to do, will be dismissed, if it is the job of the government-do it.

5 Removal of all our troops from all foreign soil except where they want us to stay. If they want us to stay, they will pay us 75% of all operational costs. This to be phased out over a 5 year period. We will set up a strategic plan for the defense of our country. Bases that are necessary to remain open for our defense. State Militias and National Guards are sufficient for our protection in country, but a necessary defensive posture in strategic locations around the world is still a viable necessity. A necessary, non interference and retaliation for attacks Treaty will be written and signed by our country. Any and all countries wanting to join can. Our involvement in the UN will fall back to just a member nation, we will slowly completely pull out. Any involvement in any multi-national governing body is un-Constitutional. Any treaties that are now in effect that have ANY limitations on the American People, are henceforth abolished.

[edit on 1/7/2010 by endisnighe]

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 01:16 PM

Originally posted by kenochs But, what do you mean by a positional requirement?

For example, right now, to be eligible for the position, one requirement is they be at least 35 years of age. So my suggestion is to add military service as a requirement to be able to act in the role of CinC.

For instance lets say a state militia needs new guns, well they're going to requisition them (most likely) from the manufacturers in their own state, the next state same deal, and you'd end up with 50 state militias using varying equipment, getting different training etc. etc. So my main problem with it is mainly logistical. Standardization saves gabillions.

My original post on the matter take care of all of the concerns you mention. There wouldn't be 50 different standards, but one, organized and coordinated at a federal level. The only big change is the command structure and responsibility. It is almost always in-state. Day-to-day ops, training, pay, etc would all be under the state and authority of the governor, with appropriations, requirements and standards coming from the federal level. This would give the nation the trained manning and equipment should the need arise, without the open pool of resources for misuse and abuse abroad or politically.

In regards for the potential for abuse, I agree with you. The CinC should be restrained by Congress.

We seem to be in complete agreement on this. My suggestion on the addition of military service to fill the role of CinC is because they are commanding other soldiers into battle or to their known deaths, without being able to have experienced the sacrifices, commitment, brotherhood etc. A person who hasn't even followed should not be leading. Which is why, in conjunction with the other suggestions I proposed, would keep the politics out of battle as well as out of the decisions to go to battle.

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 07:13 AM

Originally posted by kenochs
Courts decide on Constitutionality, legislatures pass laws. This is an unnecessary restriction.

In my earlier post, I said that the Judiciary was granted the power of Constitutional Interpretation...I've done more research & reading of the Constitution & I found out I was wrong; Hey, it takes some guts to admit being wrong...Guts that Obama seems to lack. NO Branch, Agency, Office or Tribunal was granted the power of Constitutional Interpretation; it's simply not in there at all. The Judiciary's job isn't to interpret the Constitution, but to arbitrate it in a forum controlled by specific legal procedures so as to settle differences between Citizens! Judges don't render verdicts according to the Law & the Facts of a case, juries do!

But further research has been done on that matter...
While no Branch was delegated the specific Power of Constitutional Interpretation, they all have the use of it as a tool in maintaining the Checks-n-Balances system.

For example, if Congress legislates something Unconstitutional, the President can Veto it & the Judiciary can declare it Unconstitutional...Congress is checked.
If the President decides to enforce an Executive Order or any other kind of policy Unconstitutionally, the Judiciary can declare it Unconstitutional & the Executive Branch must stop enforcing it or risk indictment. Conversely, Congress can legislate a measure against the President's enforcement or begin Impeachment proceedings...The Executive is checked.
Should the Judiciary say that some Unconstitutional action must be enforced or legislated, both the Executive & the Legislative have the Power to nullify it by refusing to enforce it or literally firing the Judge, or Congress threatens Impeachment on the Judiciary. Yes, even though the Supreme Court has "ruled" that a term of "Good Behavior" means "for Life," they can still risk losing the seat if they display "bad behavior" under Oath...The Judiciary is checked.

For another thing, juries in trial have the power of Law nullification, which is to say that juries judge both Law & Fact during a trial. If the jury decides that the Law is Unconstitutional, they can nullify its effect on the person being tried. That is in the Law so that the Judiciary doesn't get high-handed about judging the Constitutionality of any given Law...It's part of the checks-n-balances system! In this case, We the People are the check on the Judiciary so they don't grab Power beyond the specifics in the Constitution. This is why the "trial by jury" terms are so important in the Constitution.
Also, We the People have various other Rights to keep check on all three Branches as well; the Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances, Peaceful Assembly for protesting & many others, including the 2nd Amendment when all else fails. The key to the Powers of We the People having the ultimate checks on the government come from the fact that We the People created that government & specified what jobs needed to be done...By delegating certain limited Powers among the US government, the States (which have their own Constitutions as well) & coming back full circle (through the 10th Amendment) to We the People.

Originally posted by kenochs
reply to post by Wolf321

Sorry, but the President is Commander in Chief. I just don't agree with you on this issue.

By strict construction of the Constitution, that's only in times of War as declared by Congress. Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Granted, there is allowance for the President to initiate military action, for a strictly limited time...To allow Congress time to decide upon any War Declaration in the case of a time-restricted emergency. There is nothing else in the Constitution itself that grants any specific other Power of Command to the President. This also means that, unless "called into the actual service" to command, the President has absolutely no command at all over the State Militias.

In the Law, that which is specifically included also means exclusion of anything else not mentioned; this, BTW, happens to have come from the Supreme Court...

[edit on 8-1-2010 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 09:02 AM
reply to post by gwydionblack

I like that "Law of 13" thing, that is something we can get into, I think. A governing body made up of normal, working class individuals for a term of 2 1/2 years, rotating by ranks so the older ones teach the newer ones as the come along. Having power over all corporations operating in the United States, and even have power over the governing body itself, in the case of any rights Violations against the people.

We must be very careful of any kind of Central Bank...this is where we get in trouble, and this is where bankers get greedy. I think State Banks is the way to go, that way there would be competition. Each State holds it's assets, and each State has a stake in the Stock Market, so trading can be accomplished, but individual farmers could each sell his product on the world market.

The seizure of Federal lands is also necessary, for one reason is to give back to the First Americans their native lands, taken from them with false treaties and promises.
The growing of foods and certain herbs could bring America up from her depression, provided we can produce again. If America can produce good tasting, healthy vegetables at a good price, we can feed the world. America could be first in Solar Panel Technology, and first in Alternative Fuel Technology, and in Free energy Technology.

The very first thing to do is seize all assets of the rick elite bankers who own and control the Central Banks, along with all of their off shore accounts, and their foreign investments. This will, in effect, cut the head of the snake off, depriving the New World Order of any teeth. For those of you who doubt a thing like this could, and will happen....look at how many of them there are, then look at how many of us there are.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 03:04 PM
I haven't had the time to go through the whole thread, but I would like to make these comments.

#1 Far easier said then done.

#2 I think only the U.S. government should be in charge of our coining our currency, as is stated in the U.S. Constitution, but the banking and finance industry should probable remain private. However, because banking requires a government charter, and grants special privileges to banks, I think that banks should only be non-profit businesses. Private interests should not have control over the transfer of currency on a for profit basis. This area is probably where most corporate abuse takes place, and it is all based on special privileges granted by the government that are being abused.

#3 I agree, when the stock market is ran like a gambling house, then they should pay taxes like gamblers pay. We need far stronger regulation of pension plan fund managers, where most of the abuse is taking place. People and their co-conspirators robbing these pension plans should all face stiff jail sentences for their crimes, along with fines stiff enough to not only recover all stolen funds, but to make sure the criminals pay even more back for their crimes.

#4 See above

#5 The U.S. constitution provides some fairly broad language for the role of the U.S. government in looking after the welfare of the people, and the regulation of interstate commerce, and international commerce. I am not sure which agencies you would like to eliminate.

Things our federal government does that I think should be eliminated.

End the war on drugs. This is nothing but a scam designed to eliminate individual rights, protect certain industries, and create the establishment of a police state.

End CIA black ops. It seems that the real purpose of the black ops is to support corporate aggression and empirical goals in foreign nations, most often working against the best interest of the U.S. public.

#6 Yeah, it is time we stopped being the world's policemen. In my opinion most of the military budget goes towards protecting the assets of the International corporations at the expense of the U.S. middle class. All that money borrowed by repub admins that created our huge government debt went towards protecting corporate assets overseas, so they could export our jobs for slave labor wages.

#7 I don't think we should reward illegals and their employers for their crooked activities. I think, however, that is should be the employers who make most of the reparations. This should include the companies that hired contractors who primarily provided illegal immigrants with jobs. That is where you will find the deep pockets. I think you have some decent ideas on this. I also think that immigrants who act more like invaders, rather than people who seek to merge with our culture should be sent back to their nations of origin.

#8 I think our immigration policy should deal with other countries in the same way they deal with immigration from the U.S.. If U.S. citizens can not live permanently in your country, work jobs in your country, or own property in your country, or any other restrictions, then immigrants who come from your country will be restricted in their immigration rights in the same way as in the U.S.. These one sided immigration policies only serve to cheat the people of the U.S., and we shouldn't allow it. This will include protecting the property rights of U.S. citizens abroad.

#9 Taxes on imports should be based on the conditions of the companies who produce the goods and services. If the companies do not meet our labor and environmental standards, then they should have to pay import duties. This is what creates the most problems, and our import export deficits. We all live on the same planet, and we should not tolerate production processes that pollute our planet in other countries. In addition, foreign workers who don't work in safe working environments only pull down our own labor standards, and foreign workers who do not make decent money can not afford to buy our goods and services. It is not competition when one group gets to play by a different set of rules.

skipping ahead for now.

#18 I think taxes should be based on usury. The federal government should only be able to tax sales goods and services that cross state and federal borders.

Here is the deal, private interests should not own public assets like the water supply, waters systems like lakes over a certain size, rivers, bays, ports, corridors of transportation, mineral rights, air waves, or any type of property which relies on easements where a private organization is given control of the property rights of others.

This means that power lines, communications lines, as well as water systems and sewer systems should all belong to the public. Private corporations then pay fees based on their usage of these public assets. This is where most of the abuse of corporate powers takes place.

Control of public assets based on easements essentially grants private organizations monopolies over our market system. Eliminate these special privileges controlled by these private interests, and our markets will start being competitive again, and become more efficient, where most of the wealth isn't so easily siphoned off by the super rich who control these grants of special privilege.

edit to correct a few small mistakes.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by poet1b]

top topics

<< 6  7  8   >>

log in