Do you really want a Constitutional Government?

I'm sure there are plenty of folks out there who can answer this question with a resounding YES but, when one of those unconstitutional laws that you rely on to get by or that you think is a good idea gets threatened, you may start singing a new tune.

Do You Really Want Constitutional Government?

Most people agree with my colleague. The average Tea Partier, for instance, will rail against unconstitutional ObamaCare, but what will happen if you mention that Social Security is also unconstitutional? You will likely hear, as I have, “Hey, I paid for it, and I have that money coming to me!”

This is a very human reaction — but it’s not a constitutionalist one. Adherence to any set of rules means that you will sometimes be inconvenienced by them. Yet the average conservative’s position is this: I believe in sticking to the Constitution.*

*[size=0]Some exceptions may apply.

These would be when the Constitution is found inconvenient, when it prohibits a benefit to which we’ve become accustomed or a program we want instituted. But do you realize that this is identical to the statist position? Sure, the Left advocates more violations of the Constitution, but this hardly matters. Once you accept the precedent of constitutional trespass, you set the stage for the wholesale violation of the document and cannot with credibility argue against such. You are then reduced simply to saying that you don’t think the constitutional violation in question is a good idea.

This brings us to a phenomenon I call Good Ideaism, something that is now a more powerful driving force in American politics than our Constitution itself. One of its corollaries is the assumption that something’s status as a supposedly good idea for everyone is reason enough for everyone’s government, the central one, to advance it. Such an assumption is also a very human reaction, but it is, again, not a constitutionalist one.

And what if something really is a good, or at least provisionally necessary, idea? Well, constitutional adherence needn’t mean casting the elderly out onto the streets or your favorite legislation into history’s dustbin. As examples, a simple, constitutionally compatible way to retain Social Security — on which many are now dependent — would be to devolve it to the states (at least as a transitional phase); and, if you really believe the ADA is a good idea, it can be adopted by the states as well. As a last resort, if having the feds assume a new responsibility is truly a good idea, we have recourse to the Amendment Process. But what is always a bad idea is doing violence to the Constitution. When this becomes accepted, you then have a nation in which people believe that the only thing necessary for the passage of law is that a majority in Congress vote for it and a majority in a de facto oligarchy, the Supreme Court, allow it to stand. And, well, welcome to the United Statists of America.

The New American


Me personally, I'd love to see the government constrained to its Constitutional roots. Nothing would do more to bring under control the massive deficit spending than to shut down all programs that exist outside Constitutional authority.

The main problem with this idea is that it would be a huge injustice to all those who paid money into the Social Security system and it would place incredibly great hardships on those who are currently dependent on government programs for their survival.

Forcing the government to live within the bounds of the Constitution would have to be a gradual change with provisions made to make those who would lose the government programs they depend on to be more self sufficient or to find a way to replace those programs on a state or local level in such a way in which it would not do violence to the Constitution. If it were determined that some federal programs were absolutely necessary, it would be best to put those programs to Amendment process to make them legitimate.


Suddenly dumping all unconstitutional programs could be deadly to many who are currently dependent on those programs and I'm sure even the most hard-core Constitutionalists out there find that there was some favorite federal program that they would miss.


Do you really think the country could survive if the government was forced to stay within its Constitutional limits?

The OBL killing news basically shot down this thread last night, right after I posted it.


I figured I'd try to give it a bump now so people who are sick of the 2000 OBL threads can have something ELSE to discuss.

Enjoy.

Hey everybody:






[size=10]IMMINENT DISCLOSURE


IS NEAR!!!!



























Maybe that will get people interested in this thread.

Reply to post by FortAnthem

They need to re-write it to be honest. To serve all the people of this NEW AMERICA


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by FortAnthem
Do you really think the country could survive if the government was forced to stay within its Constitutional limits?

The country may but a lot of it's citizens would not.For some reason americans think socialism is constitutional these days.

we do not need to rewrite anything

follow the constitution and that is it.

medicare,social security,medicaid whatever they are unconstitutional

but if people want those program pay for them yourselves.

allow me and others who want to op out.

that is what freedom and independence is all about.

and if people have a problem with that then your nothing but fascist.

this country is suppose to be about freedom of choice and that is a country that we now live in

where we have no freedom of choice

reply to post by neo96


I agree, rewriting the Constitution in this day and age scares the hell out of me. We would probably end up with a government that gives us our rights instead of recognizing them as preexisting.

The biggest problem with government today is that it is upside down; we look to the highest level of government to solve all problems when the people closest to any problem are always in the best position to come up with a wise solution. The power of government should be reduced as it grows larger and less accountable. The local government should hold the greatest power in society. That way, when they do something wrong, they can be held directly responsible by their constituents who can easily vote them out of power.

reply to post by FortAnthem


i agree with that and disagree with that somewhat

the greatest power should always remain with the individual.

any power given over you is never a good idea because that power is taken away from the individual.

reply to post by Q2IN2Y


Bad idea.
You know they will rewrite it to cater to the corporations that are lining the representatives pockets.

No, the Constitution works as is...when it's allowed to work.

People clamor about losing Social Security, forget that without regulatory agencies like the FCC or FDA means you can open and conduct businesses in a freer manner. Money making opportunities would increase, or at worst even out.

All the jobs the government used to do, like maintain roads would becomes private businesses that hire people and grow the economy.

What I'd really like to know, can anyone name a real negative that doesn't involve Soc Security or other similar government money benefits?

It seems that it's the social programs that most people have a problem with. The thing is these programs exist for a reason -- to help the citizens of this nation who may otherwise fall through the cracks -- usually the poor who need these programs to survive. There is nothing wrong with this nation supporting its' citizens on humanitarian grounds because it is the morally right thing to do.

Do we really want to disenfranchise large portions of our citizens?

If anything, we need to be more empathetic with the plights of others.

For those looking for ways to save this nation money -- do away with corporate welfare programs, industry deregulation and undue tax breaks for the wealthiest among us. There is no reason to punish the poor.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by FortAnthem

 

i agree with that and disagree with that somewhat

the greatest power should always remain with the individual.

any power given over you is never a good idea because that power is taken away from the individual.

Giving all power to the individual is the definition of anarchy. It is the total opposite of the all encompassing state we live under now and may seem preferable but, as in anything, all things in moderation is best.

People need some form of government to prevent the strong from preying on the weak but, it is also important to keep the government under control so it doesn't become too powerful and prey upon the people itself. The local government is the most accountable and the best able to come up solutions to its people's concerns. It would also be the easiest to destroy if it tried to assume too much power.

If I had to give someone power over me, I would want them to be nearby so they would have to live side by side with the people they have power over and would have to think twice about retaliation if they took things too far.

reply to post by FortAnthem


thats the key problem in this country tho

how much government is too much?

how much government is not enough?

for some reason i dont have a problem with anarchy im not the kind who preys on the weak

altho one could say that our government preys on the weak thats why its hellbent on destroying the strong

the government can not exist if people do not need them.

Originally posted by maria_stardust
It seems that it's the social programs that most people have a problem with. The thing is these programs exist for a reason -- to help the citizens of this nation who may otherwise fall through the cracks -- usually the poor who need these programs to survive. There is nothing wrong with this nation supporting its' citizens on humanitarian grounds because it is the morally right thing to do.

Charity for the less fortunate should come from the people voluntarily, not from government and extracted from the people at the point of a gun. The meaning of the word "charity" is "love" and it is love for our fellow man that should drive us to help those in need. There is no love involved in paying taxes or distributing those taxes by politicians to buy votes.

The problem is; big government takes away the means of the people to be charitable through confiscatory taxation and regulations which crush small start-up businesses. It destroys people's ability to be self-sufficient and forces them to be reliant on government hand-outs, thus perpetuating the careers of those in power.

reply to post by FortAnthem


On the contrary, this nation is beholden to its' citizens -- all its' citizens. It has a responsibility to care -- to a certain degree -- for the well being of those who may not be able to care for themselves. As it currently stands, there are far too many people in this country who are homeless, hungry and without the means of proper health care. Voluntary charity only goes so far -- it is not a panacea for all the ills of society.

Taxes are paid to cover a great many things. The very least our government can do is to extend aid to those that need it most.

Originally posted by maria_stardust
reply to post by FortAnthem

 

On the contrary, this nation is beholden to its' citizens -- all its' citizens. It has a responsibility to care -- to a certain degree -- for the well being of those who may not be able to care for themselves. As it currently stands, there are far too many people in this country who are homeless, hungry and without the means of proper health care. Voluntary charity only goes so far -- it is not a panacea for all the ills of society.

Taxes are paid to cover a great many things. The very least our government can do is to extend aid to those that need it most.

Those programs are not provided for in the Constitution.

Do you think we should amend the Constitution to allow it to perform those charitable tasks, should the states and local governments take over helping the less fortunate or should we just keep going on as we are now, ignoring the Constitution?

reply to post by FortAnthem


Article 1 of the Constitution allows Congress...

...to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

Congress has been given the power to exercise judgment in the creation of programs that benefit the general well-being of its' citizens. It's absurd to think that the care of this nation's citizens rests solely upon the shoulders of individual states.

As it has been mentioned before, relying on a strictly voluntary charity-based platform is not the solution. It is morally reprehensible for this nation to not allow for the most basic care of its' citizens. Either Congress is allowed the discretion to enable these social programs or it removes itself entirely from allowing any kind of benefit programs -- social or corporate.

I'm fairly sure that if Congress were to do away with all forms of corporate welfare, their lobbyists would be screaming bloody murder.

I'm probably one of the few people on this forum who wouldn't mind scrapping the constitution. I believe that a modified form of the Articles of Confederation be a much better document to run our country by.

Originally posted by FortAnthem
Me personally, I'd love to see the government constrained to its Constitutional roots. Nothing would do more to bring under control the massive deficit spending than to shut down all programs that exist outside Constitutional authority.

The main problem with this idea is that it would be a huge injustice to all those who paid money into the Social Security system and it would place incredibly great hardships on those who are currently dependent on government programs for their survival.

Uhhh, no. Use your head. To end SS you don't just cut off the beneficiaries and keep every dime the working public ever paid in. That would actually be theft. I have no problem with SS, but I feel like I'd be just fine had it never existed because I would have had all of that money to invest as I saw fit (which would probably be in something like bonds or CDs because I'm lame and unadventurous).

To end SS, you have to finish paying all of the beneficiaries because they've earned it. You also have to give every other citizen every dime they've ever paid in, AND adjust that bitch for inflation. Ending SS would be very costly in the short term, but ultimately it would benefit the USA's balance sheet IF the corrupt, douchebag politicians don't immediately apply the savings to tax breaks and military spending.

Originally posted by Nosred
I'm probably one of the few people on this forum who wouldn't mind scrapping the constitution. I believe that a modified form of the Articles of Confederation be a much better document to run our country by.

The Constitution is a modified form of the Articles. That problem has already been solved. The Constitution has everything it needs for the Federal government to run this country. They just need to abide by the law and kill unconstitutional programs like Social Security, the Federal Reserve, personal income tax and Obamacare.

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American


Na, the problem is within the constitution itself. It allows the Federal government to get way more power than it needs, something the Articles wouldn't do.