Limited Government?

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Gator
 


Your post has no meaning here then as you are not following the guidelines I have set forth. It's not as black and white as you would believe. For example. Obama and apparently now the Supreme Court have ruled Obamacare as Constitutional. That means, it officially is constitutional until newly elected government officials can repeal it!

You or I may not believe Obamacare is constitutional, but as law stands right now it is! Saying that we have strayed far from the constitution makes no sense with the above example. Obamacare is constitutional.

Every law unless ruled otherwise and vetoed is constitutional. It may be big government expansion, but it is constitutional. There is a difference. That's why I asked the question. What do you want in a limited government, you cannot just give me libertarian or tea party talking points without explaining.




posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Gator
That's an easy one.

Step one: Read the Constitution.

Step two: If it's not enumerated, get rid of it because it belongs to the States and the People.


Not even the people who wrote it followed that rule.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by Doc Gator
 


Your post has no meaning here then as you are not following the guidelines I have set forth. It's not as black and white as you would believe. For example. Obama and apparently now the Supreme Court have ruled Obamacare as Constitutional. That means, it officially is constitutional until newly elected government officials can repeal it!

You or I may not believe Obamacare is constitutional, but as law stands right now it is! Saying that we have strayed far from the constitution makes no sense with the above example. Obamacare is constitutional.

Every law unless ruled otherwise and vetoed is constitutional. It may be big government expansion, but it is constitutional. There is a difference. That's why I asked the question. What do you want in a limited government, you cannot just give me libertarian or tea party talking points without explaining.


Oh, but it is that black and white. Just because we don't like the answers doesn't mean that they are incorrect. We have painted ourselves into a corner and the only way I see to fix it is a hard reboot back to version 1.0. The fact that it would mean devastation for this nation is irrelevant. There is no point in fixing the roof if the foundation is crumbling.

It's funny, because obamacare being ruled partially constitutional was the exact example I was going to use to illustrate how far we have strayed from the founders intentions.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrSpad

Originally posted by Doc Gator
That's an easy one.

Step one: Read the Constitution.

Step two: If it's not enumerated, get rid of it because it belongs to the States and the People.


Not even the people who wrote it followed that rule.


You are absolutely correct. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. Limiting governmental power is great when you're on the outside, but it becomes rather bothersome when you're running the show. Maybe we are just not able to be vigilant enough to handle this much liberty, but I'm not ready to give up yet.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

1. I'm fine with auditing the fed. Let them do it. I don't care, I also think they are not going to find anything and nobody will care, the majority of Americans will continue to live their lives without knowing anything about the Fed either way...


Oh?? Well maybe you really could make a career in politics, unless the necessary changes come about.


2. So you are upset because you had to prove who you are to buy medicine? So that the pharmacy will know why you need them and that you are not going to be selling them or giving them to someone who really doesn't need them? Oh yes, some infringement. Well, I guess it's comforting and ironic that you now live in Mexico. Have fun with the drug cartels


I am not sure why and what BUSINESS it is of any pharmacy to know who I am or why I may wish to purchase a product.

Drug cartels?? I have heard about them on the news. Your CIA guys have been down here stirring up a lot of the usual US-brand violence and general BS, so it would appear. They should just stay in Mena, Arkansas or wherever else they have to go to sneak drugs into the country. Without your phoney prohibition those substances would have little value on an open market.

edit on 28-8-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


To start we cancel all foreign aid, and bring all of our troops hom from every country on earth. Then we mothball three fourths of our navy, and turn 6 of our nuclear powered ultra fast limitless fuel super sarriers, into cargo carriers, that can do more faster than any other ship in the world. This should bring the military into self sufficiency within a few years. Anything after 10 at most that can't be covered gets tossed( sorry).

We fire all federal employees at every level! Than we rehire one fourth of them at one half pay to do their same job, except this time with efficiency, because there won't be aany public sector unions to save your sorry ass if you don't.
A) every single employee of the TSA will be fired permanently, every single employee of department of education will be fired permanently( returning the teaching of students to state or local governments, as the department of education has accomplished only wasting money and NOT teaching children),every single federal level law enforcement agencie including but not limited to, the CIA, the FBI, the NSA ETC.... WILL ALL immediately begin reporting to a civillian commity, said commity will be duly elected once every 4 years, said commity will have 100% oversite of all information, monies, properties, holdings( both public and private)( foreign or domestic). In all endevorse of enforcement of the law under this new provision much flexibility and understanding must be both given and taken to ensure a smooth transition to a more streamlined "meaner greener" version. Where agents will be more like rangers, operating under authority over the entire country without ristriction or jurisdiction, to audit, analyze, scrutinize and or investigate in any lawful manner any and every known violation of the law, reguardless of position , nobody is above the law.

End part one



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by Doc Gator

Every law unless ruled otherwise and vetoed is constitutional. It may be big government expansion, but it is constitutional.


Good OP! But for the sake of discussion, your statement is not entirely correct there my friend. So says the supreme court itself.

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the court.

The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it. Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act repugnant to the constitution is void.

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is null and void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.


Congress has a very limited power to provide for the "general welfare" but only those specifically enumerated by the Constitution. If the constitution doesn't enumerate such powers, a law is not Constitutional. Period. and this is why...



It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood, if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be like tomorrow. – James Madison




The right to defy an unconstitutional statute is basic in our scheme. Even when an ordinance requires a permit to make a speech, to deliver a sermon, to picket, to parade, or to assemble, it need not be honored when it's invalid on its face. – Potter Stewart, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Walker v. Birmingham



When a legislature undertakes to proscribe the exercise of a citizen's constitutional rights it acts lawlessly and the citizen can take matters into his own hands and proceed on the basis that such a law is no law at all. – US Supreme court Justice William O. Douglas, Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U.S. 395
edit on 28-8-2012 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
No government would be best however I don't think we are at a place as of yet that continue with advancement (infrastructure, science) if everyone were not pooling resources/moving in a common direction (far, far from what we have now). Government has it's place but has just gotten way out of control.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by Doc Gator
 


What do you want in a limited government, you cannot just give me libertarian or tea party talking points without explaining.


I apologize if my original reply to your OP came off as flippant. That was not my intention. I simply couldn't think of a better way without writing thousands of pages naming ever department, position and program that needs to be eliminated.

I'm sure that I viewed your OP with a much broader perspective than you intended. But my initial thought process was: What do you do when the legislative and executive branches fail to follow the will of the people and the law and the judicial branch backs them up? Cut DHHS funding by 45% and get rid of the Department of Education? That's a start, but it doesn't fix the problem.

Again, I apologize if I took this in a direction that you didn't want to go. And for not supplying the level of detail that you were looking for.

With that said, I stand by my statements as a solution for the out of control government problem.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


In all endevorse of enforcement of the law under this new provision much flexibility and understanding must be both given and taken to ensure a smooth transition to a more streamlined "meaner greener" version. Where agents will be more like rangers, operating under authority over the entire country without ristriction or jurisdiction, to audit, analyze, scrutinize and or investigate in any lawful manner any and every known violation of the law, reguardless of position , nobody is above the law.



Oh gawds, sounds like another frikken authoritarian. More laws to get meaner and greener too? Ever heard of personal liberty?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint


So what form of government do you want?


I'm a Libertarian and in my opinion the best form of govt is self-government.



So what does this mean in real world terms? What would be cut, what would survive?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by CynicalDrivel
 


Obama thinks Obamacare is beneficial.
That is a poor talking point as well. Some laws are necessary even when you don't want them.


So did Romney when he implemented Obamacare V 1.0 in MA.


I would say for Limited gov't:
1. More power to the county and state.
2. Less power at the Federal National level.

At the Federal/ National State:
1. Infrastructure
2. Defense


Everything else probably at the county and state levels.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Limited Federal Government


(Limited Centralized Government)

The states are sovereign with only the federal government to oversee and ensure fair-trade and commerce between all of the states.

This is where we are failing, the federal government is taking-over more and more powers which should reside with the states, but there is a catch there as well, but when that happens it is best to let the Senate handle those problems or the Supreme Court.

The immigration issue and the medicinal-use of cannabis is another. Where one resident of the state is legally allowed to do something and another resident in another state is not, perhaps a dual-residency would work in this case, with the citizen being residents of both states, but for most this option is not a viable solution, and perhaps this is the time when it needs to be addressed by the Supreme Court. As for immigration, the United States of America was envisioned to be a "Light" which shines the way for others to have the FREEDOM and LIBERTY to enjoy LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS, and as our history has shown, this country is comprised and composed of immigrants, whose diversity serves not to diminish, but to strengthen our nation.

It is apparent that a fair and equitable system of allowing fellow HUMAN BEINGS needs to be put in-place. America is not a prison, it is the Home of the brave, and the land of the free. That freedom is not attainable for some, which flies-in-the-face of what we stand-for or what is guaranteed in the Constitution. It has to be more than just words. And in this case, the word "just" has a double-narrative. I'll allow each person to define it themselves, as this right is enumerated and stated in the Constitution.

A limited-central government is often referred to as: Federalism, which is a check-and-balance to keep the central government from becoming so huge it stops working, or mire the system down in red-tape where it becomes obsolete combined with partisan-political parties.

Another great way to eliminate the oligarchical / fascist / corporatist influence upon legislators would be to make a law where giving to one person or party would be illegal, and instead requiring the Super-Pacs and donations for candidates to be placed in a "blind-and-random" single account for use by candidates running for office overseen by the Election Campaign Commission. This would help eliminate or reduce the influence money and big corporations have on our congress of the people. It is very clear that huge SuperPacs are not benefiting those who desire to run for office or serve the public good since they cannot compete against huge funding used by most politicians today.

Our system of government is based on a consent to be governed, but that consent does not and has no right to take-away any ascribed status given to subjects by G_d. That is an area which should NEVER be modified or changed. Take religion out of politics, where we have Freedom OF religion NOT FROM religion. This nation of laws was founded on that principle with the understanding that "God" or whatever your definition of "God" to be is to be respected and preserved and government has no right or privilege to change that definition.

We've strayed off the path and the blind has led the blind into a ditch. The extremes of each party have led us all over the right and left sides of a cliff, and it's time to remedy this situation and "reboot" this nation of laws into what was envisioned by our founding fathers, and ultimately God. Unless we can do this, it can only get worse.

And on that note, I will leave you with this famous pledge which is more than just words:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And unto the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

edit on 29-8-2012 by trekwebmaster because: Typo Corrections
edit on 29-8-2012 by trekwebmaster because: Additional Commentary Inserted



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Government should be severely limited in the amount of laws and regulations. I dare to say most of them are not needed or create more harm than good.

Government should not be limited in the amount of taxation, tough, because then we wouldnt be able to afford various government services.

So, simple but well funded gov is an ideal, IMHO.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Not only should it be limited, limited government is the law.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by trekwebmaster

We've strayed off the path and the blind has led the blind into a ditch. The extremes of each party have led us all over the right and left sides of a cliff, and it's time to remedy this situation and "reboot" this nation of laws into what was envisioned by our founding fathers, and ultimately God. Unless we can do this, it can only get worse.

And on that note, I will leave you with this famous pledge which is more than just words:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And unto the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.


Unfortunately the pledge was written in 1882 and "under God" wasn't added to the pledge until 1954.

So feel free to recite it whenever you like but it is not something the founding fathers said.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


well now you can see why I was confused right? Self-government insists (without knowing what's going on inside your head) that there is some form of government out there! Anarchy is no government whatsoever!


What government do you advocate for?





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join