Obama's Speech to the Nation
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:47 am
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.
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.
