Accountable;1383454 wrote: You seem to think creative interpretations of plain English are simply innocent mistakes. I don't buy that for a second. Most politicians are lawyers. Lawyers are trained to view the law as an obstacle to be circumvented in order to get what you want. That's what they've done. Plain vernacular has been stretched and twisted to the point that people assume without reading that the text is ambiguous, and so (if they ever read it at all) they give it at most a cursory scan, already convinced they're not going to understand it anyway.
People have applied spin, creative interpretation, and outright violation to the Constitution in order to get what they want, rather than respecting the rule of law. You can pretend it isn't true, but what's the point?
I took some time to reread the entire Constitution, wondering if I was just missing something. Here are a couple observations:
Why would they have hundreds of people gathered together, and all the procedures, if they can't actually do much more than talk about pirates, post office, and a few other things. Is everyone is supposed to vote 'no' on every piece of legislation like Ron Paul? I can't see the point of even having a government in that case. In fact I see it a bit dangerous to put a bunch of bored guys in a room, where the only interesting toy is a big military.
I also noticed a major contradiction in the document. It bans all involuntary servitude, but then goes on to allow taxation (you work, they get your money). Also apparently it never stopped the military draft (they make war, you die, they are safe) nor modern practices on wall street (you work, they gamble/spend away your money.) A lot of monetary practices that I object to are just involuntary servitude taken to a new level of abstraction. Like in health care currently, you can essentially rob a sick person of everything they have by forcing a choice between their life or their money. That's not a free exchange of services.
Also, I'm struck by the extreme contempt that the current batch of Republican candidates in general have shown toward the Constitution. They want to dismantle the U.S. Post Office and privatize the service. They are whining about Obama's recess appointments. They whine about the income tax. And to top it off, most act like there's a religious test needed to become president.
I'm wondering, since lawyers and politicians contributed the most to writing the Constitution, if there was never a meeting of the minds on this document. It's written in such a way that people read the meaning differently. In plain vernacular the document says:
Congress has the power to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for provid[ing] for the general Welfare [health, happiness, prosperity, well-being] of the United States.
That what it actually says in plain English. Nowhere does it say what you are claiming, that points 2-17 define an exhaustive list of powers. The most it says is that if the federal goverment wont/can't do something, it's up to the states or people to decide. I know what you think it says, but it doesn't actually say what you want it to.
Obama's Speech to the Nation
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Obama's Speech to the Nation
yaaarrrgg;1383563 wrote: I took some time to reread the entire Constitution, wondering if I was just missing something. Here's a couple observations:
Why would they have hundreds of people gathered together, and all the procedures, if they can't actually do much more than talk about pirates, post office, and a few other things. Is everyone is supposed to vote 'no' on every piece of legislation like Ron Paul? Naturally, if the bill doesn't comport to the Constitution. Of course, ideally they would be knowledgeable and respectful enough of the Constitution to not try to violate it.
yaaarrrgg;1383563 wrote: I can't see the point of even having a government in that case. In fact I see it a bit dangerous to put a bunch of bored guys in a room, where the only interesting toy is a big military. Then shrink the military to the defense force it should be rather than the imperial force we have now. Congress was never meant to be a fulltime job performed by professional politicians. Blame Woodrow Wilson for starting that ball rolling. The original intent was for citizens to serve then return to their lives to live under the laws they'd passed.
yaaarrrgg;1383563 wrote: I also noticed a major contradiction in the document. It bans all involuntary servitude, but then goes on to allow taxation (you work, they get your money).Woodrow Wilson's progressive movement once again. The federal gov't doesn't need such exorbitant amounts of revenue if it acts within the Constitution.
yaaarrrgg;1383563 wrote: Also apparently it never stopped the military draft (they make war, you die, they are safe)You're mistaking the Constitution for the people who swore to protect and defend it, then broke their oaths. Arguably, since conscription is involuntary service, the Thirteenth Amendment made the draft illegal. But of course Congress has a long tradition of following or completely ignoring the Constitution, depending on which was the more convenient means to their ends.
yaaarrrgg;1383563 wrote: nor modern practices on wall street (you work, they gamble/spend away your money.) :-2 Wall Street is not government.
yaaarrrgg;1383563 wrote: A lot of monetary practices that I object to are just involuntary servitude taken to a new level of abstraction. Like in health care currently, you can essentially rob a sick person of everything they have by forcing a choice between their life or their money. That's not a free exchange of services.It's also not servitude, not an interstate transaction, and not in the purview of the US federal gov't.
yaaarrrgg;1383563 wrote: Also, I'm struck by the extreme contempt that the current batch of Republican candidates in general have shown towards the Constitution. They want to dismantle the U.S. Post Office and privatize the service. They are whining about Obama's recess appointments. They whine about the income tax. And to top it off, most act like there's a religious test needed to become president. I agree with you completely here.
yaaarrrgg;1383563 wrote: I'm wondering, since lawyers and politicians contributed the most to writing the Constitution, if there was never a meeting of the minds on this document. It's written in such a way that people read the meaning differently. In plain vernacular the document says:
Congress has the power to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for provid[ing] for the general Welfare [health, happiness, prosperity, well-being] of the United States.
That what it actually says in plain English. Nowhere does it say what you are claiming, that points 2-17 define an exhaustive list of powers.Then what is the purpose of points 2-17? Do you think they're just topic suggestions for conversation over coffee? The title of Section 8 is Powers of Congress. One really has to be willfully obtuse to claim to see something else.
yaaarrrgg;1383563 wrote: The most it says is that if the federal goverment wont/can't do something, it's up to the states or people to decide.Not "something," THOSE things in Article 1 Section 8.
Think about it, if your filters will allow: what other purpose is that list of clauses in Article 1 Section 8 if not establishing boundaries to keep Congress from claiming absolute power?
Why would they have hundreds of people gathered together, and all the procedures, if they can't actually do much more than talk about pirates, post office, and a few other things. Is everyone is supposed to vote 'no' on every piece of legislation like Ron Paul? Naturally, if the bill doesn't comport to the Constitution. Of course, ideally they would be knowledgeable and respectful enough of the Constitution to not try to violate it.
yaaarrrgg;1383563 wrote: I can't see the point of even having a government in that case. In fact I see it a bit dangerous to put a bunch of bored guys in a room, where the only interesting toy is a big military. Then shrink the military to the defense force it should be rather than the imperial force we have now. Congress was never meant to be a fulltime job performed by professional politicians. Blame Woodrow Wilson for starting that ball rolling. The original intent was for citizens to serve then return to their lives to live under the laws they'd passed.
yaaarrrgg;1383563 wrote: I also noticed a major contradiction in the document. It bans all involuntary servitude, but then goes on to allow taxation (you work, they get your money).Woodrow Wilson's progressive movement once again. The federal gov't doesn't need such exorbitant amounts of revenue if it acts within the Constitution.
yaaarrrgg;1383563 wrote: Also apparently it never stopped the military draft (they make war, you die, they are safe)You're mistaking the Constitution for the people who swore to protect and defend it, then broke their oaths. Arguably, since conscription is involuntary service, the Thirteenth Amendment made the draft illegal. But of course Congress has a long tradition of following or completely ignoring the Constitution, depending on which was the more convenient means to their ends.
yaaarrrgg;1383563 wrote: nor modern practices on wall street (you work, they gamble/spend away your money.) :-2 Wall Street is not government.
yaaarrrgg;1383563 wrote: A lot of monetary practices that I object to are just involuntary servitude taken to a new level of abstraction. Like in health care currently, you can essentially rob a sick person of everything they have by forcing a choice between their life or their money. That's not a free exchange of services.It's also not servitude, not an interstate transaction, and not in the purview of the US federal gov't.
yaaarrrgg;1383563 wrote: Also, I'm struck by the extreme contempt that the current batch of Republican candidates in general have shown towards the Constitution. They want to dismantle the U.S. Post Office and privatize the service. They are whining about Obama's recess appointments. They whine about the income tax. And to top it off, most act like there's a religious test needed to become president. I agree with you completely here.
yaaarrrgg;1383563 wrote: I'm wondering, since lawyers and politicians contributed the most to writing the Constitution, if there was never a meeting of the minds on this document. It's written in such a way that people read the meaning differently. In plain vernacular the document says:
Congress has the power to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for provid[ing] for the general Welfare [health, happiness, prosperity, well-being] of the United States.
That what it actually says in plain English. Nowhere does it say what you are claiming, that points 2-17 define an exhaustive list of powers.Then what is the purpose of points 2-17? Do you think they're just topic suggestions for conversation over coffee? The title of Section 8 is Powers of Congress. One really has to be willfully obtuse to claim to see something else.
yaaarrrgg;1383563 wrote: The most it says is that if the federal goverment wont/can't do something, it's up to the states or people to decide.Not "something," THOSE things in Article 1 Section 8.
Think about it, if your filters will allow: what other purpose is that list of clauses in Article 1 Section 8 if not establishing boundaries to keep Congress from claiming absolute power?
Obama's Speech to the Nation
Accountable;1383605 wrote:
:-2 Wall Street is not government.
It's also not servitude, not an interstate transaction, and not in the purview of the US federal gov't.
That's an interesting point, but I don't understand this distinction. Private slave owners were not part of the govt either. What is forced servitude? It's when one person does all the work and another person or group reaps most or all of the rewards. Also there is no realistic option given to the worker to escape this situation. This describes a lot of cases, ranging from abusive monopolies to the 99.9% supporting the .01% of the population.
Accountable;1383605 wrote:
Then what is the purpose of points 2-17? Do you think they're just topic suggestions for conversation over coffee? The title of Section 8 is Powers of Congress. One really has to be willfully obtuse to claim to see something else.
Not "something," THOSE things in Article 1 Section 8.
Think about it, if your filters will allow: what other purpose is that list of clauses in Article 1 Section 8 if not establishing boundaries to keep Congress from claiming absolute power?
I agree ... claiming absolute power is a valid worry, though there are proper checks and balances in this case. The *voter* chooses who goes to Congress. Which means the politician works for the voter, as an employee, to provide representation of the voter's wishes and concerns. If they don't do this, we can fire them. So, yes this really gives the voters absolute power over the country, as it should be. If the voter chooses to do something foolish, well then the true beauty of democracy is that we always get the federal government we deserve. That's where learning takes place, or doesn't.
As for 2-17, I see the list in the same light as the bill of rights. It doesn't mean those are the only rights we have, but it's a basic list to end a lot of debate by providing basic examples.
In writing it's generally taught that we start off with a broad point, followed by a set of examples, then conclude with a broad statement that summarizes all the previous points:
General point, example, example, ...., summary
I'm not trying to be obtuse, but to me it just looks like a standard composition format.
:-2 Wall Street is not government.
It's also not servitude, not an interstate transaction, and not in the purview of the US federal gov't.
That's an interesting point, but I don't understand this distinction. Private slave owners were not part of the govt either. What is forced servitude? It's when one person does all the work and another person or group reaps most or all of the rewards. Also there is no realistic option given to the worker to escape this situation. This describes a lot of cases, ranging from abusive monopolies to the 99.9% supporting the .01% of the population.
Accountable;1383605 wrote:
Then what is the purpose of points 2-17? Do you think they're just topic suggestions for conversation over coffee? The title of Section 8 is Powers of Congress. One really has to be willfully obtuse to claim to see something else.
Not "something," THOSE things in Article 1 Section 8.
Think about it, if your filters will allow: what other purpose is that list of clauses in Article 1 Section 8 if not establishing boundaries to keep Congress from claiming absolute power?
I agree ... claiming absolute power is a valid worry, though there are proper checks and balances in this case. The *voter* chooses who goes to Congress. Which means the politician works for the voter, as an employee, to provide representation of the voter's wishes and concerns. If they don't do this, we can fire them. So, yes this really gives the voters absolute power over the country, as it should be. If the voter chooses to do something foolish, well then the true beauty of democracy is that we always get the federal government we deserve. That's where learning takes place, or doesn't.
As for 2-17, I see the list in the same light as the bill of rights. It doesn't mean those are the only rights we have, but it's a basic list to end a lot of debate by providing basic examples.
In writing it's generally taught that we start off with a broad point, followed by a set of examples, then conclude with a broad statement that summarizes all the previous points:
General point, example, example, ...., summary
I'm not trying to be obtuse, but to me it just looks like a standard composition format.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Obama's Speech to the Nation
yaaarrrgg;1383636 wrote: That's an interesting point, but I don't understand this distinction. Private slave owners were not part of the govt either. What is forced servitude? It's when one person does all the work and another person or group reaps most or all of the rewards. Also there is no realistic option given to the worker to escape this situation. This describes a lot of cases, ranging from abusive monopolies to the 99.9% supporting the .01% of the population.You can't possibly be serious. I feel foolish for having let you fish me in. I tip my hat to you, sir. Well played.
Obama's Speech to the Nation
Accountable;1383646 wrote: You can't possibly be serious. I feel foolish for having let you fish me in. I tip my hat to you, sir. Well played.
I enjoyed the discussion. No play intended... just some thoughts.
I enjoyed the discussion. No play intended... just some thoughts.