Author Topic: "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" (10th Amendment)  (Read 7844 times)

Offline AndyJackson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5776
Re: "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" (10th Amendment)
« Reply #45 on: August 09, 2013, 05:58:28 PM »
I was talking about standards of behavior, decency, ethics, morals, fair play, etc.

Nobody, even true conservatives, are perfect in their dedication to these things.

The human nature of every person makes us all fail, often and significantly.  If you're religious.....we're all sinners to varying degrees.

We will always need some controlling mechanisms over our absolute rights.  State and local primarily, federal minimally.

If you want minimal authority, in the perfect constitutional setup, there will be states with very little.  Move there.

Such a thing actually exists now, as imperfect as our situation is today.  Like wide open spaces, guns, shooting, 100 acres , not very many cops or busybodies  ?  Go to Wyoming, Oklahoma, Idaho, Iowa.  Like just the opposite ? Go to NYC, IL, CA, DET.  Luckily, all of those stupid bastards are going broke.  And that's how the "50 Flavors" marketplace works.......shazam.

For you to suggest otherwise just shows that you're pulling our legs, or that you're completely untethered to reality.

You may actually believe that no state or local laws is awesome.  The website for that is over yonder, right next to one that has the UN setting up secret FEMA camps as we type.  Or maybe it's the same website, lol.

Trip

  • Guest
Re: "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" (10th Amendment)
« Reply #46 on: August 10, 2013, 12:45:23 AM »
I was talking about standards of behavior, decency, ethics, morals, fair play, etc.

Nobody, even true conservatives, are perfect in their dedication to these things.

The human nature of every person makes us all fail, often and significantly.  If you're religious.....we're all sinners to varying degrees.

We will always need some controlling mechanisms over our absolute rights.  State and local primarily, federal minimally.


Fortunately those "controlling mechanisms are set up as a part of our rights, and they don't need any subjective control of man.

While we have Freedom of speech, the that does not include the defamations of slander and libel.

While we have freedom of assembly, that does not include freedom to riot.

While we have freedom of religion, that does not involve our having to accept an all-encompassing social system of tyrannous dictate as a religion, particularly when it allows no freedom of faith.

While we have a right to keep and bear arms, we do not have the right to kill another in cold blood.

And while the states are viewed as having certain powers, and being a sovereign authority, those states do not have unfettered power, and most certain not any legitimate power to deny the rights of their own citizens, as the sovereign authority of those states actually comes from the cumulative sovereign authority of each citizen over themselves, but which does not extend over other citizens. 

If you want minimal authority, in the perfect constitutional setup, there will be states with very little.  Move there.

Such a thing actually exists now, as imperfect as our situation is today.  Like wide open spaces, guns, shooting, 100 acres , not very many cops or busybodies  ?  Go to Wyoming, Oklahoma, Idaho, Iowa.  Like just the opposite ? Go to NYC, IL, CA, DET.  Luckily, all of those stupid bastards are going broke.  And that's how the "50 Flavors" marketplace works.......shazam

I've a better idea.  we should pack you into a boat, ply it with pitch, light that pitch to better brighten your journey, and then give you a swift kick in the backside to speed you on your way.  There are plenty of nations across the Atlantic and Pacific that do embrace your brand of totalitarian dictate.  May you find one before you draw your last breath. 

Until that time, your claims of being any sort of a conservative are beyond a joke, and actually insulting to free Americans and the Constitution.

  • If ye love wealth greater than liberty,
    the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom,
    go home from us in peace.
    We seek not your counsel, nor your arms.
    Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
    May your chains set lightly upon you,
    and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

    ~Samuel Adams

.

For you to suggest otherwise just shows that you're pulling our legs, or that you're completely untethered to reality.

You may actually believe that no state or local laws is awesome.  The website for that is over yonder, right next to one that has the UN setting up secret FEMA camps as we type.  Or maybe it's the same website, lol.

If you actually believe I in any way advocated "no state or local laws", then your mother gave birth to an idiot.

If not, you seriously need to gather your intellect, or find some other country, and  certainly some other moniker emblazon your backside beyond "conservative".


Offline daidalos

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4215
  • Gender: Male
  • “Democracy is the most vile form of government.”
Re: "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" (10th Amendment)
« Reply #47 on: August 10, 2013, 07:38:40 AM »
Trip I think you overlook one important fact in this issue of states rights.

That being that here in America state Governments are the second closest thing to self rule. With local government being the actual self rule.

Yes the tenth ultimately preserves the right of the people. But state government was also seen as an extension of the will of the people too.

That is why the founders in my own opinion saw fit to preserve the rights of the states to do that which the federal government is prohibited in our Constitution.

One of every five Americans you meet has a mental illness of some sort. Many, many, of our veteran's suffer from mental illness like PTSD now also. Help if ya can. :) http://www.projectsemicolon.org/share-your-story.html
And no you won't find my "story" there. They don't allow science fiction. :)

Trip

  • Guest
Re: "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" (10th Amendment)
« Reply #48 on: August 10, 2013, 12:43:29 PM »
Trip I think you overlook one important fact in this issue of states rights.

That being that here in America state Governments are the second closest thing to self rule. With local government being the actual self rule.

Yes the tenth ultimately preserves the right of the people. But state government was also seen as an extension of the will of the people too.

That is why the founders in my own opinion saw fit to preserve the rights of the states to do that which the federal government is prohibited in our Constitution.

First, I really appreciate you putting obvious thought into this response.

However, I think that you are presuming things that support your conclusion in the terms. 

For instance, what is "self rule" exactly?  It is rule of self, or rule of selves? Is it popular majority ruling as the majority sees fit, or an extrapolation of each person's legitimate authority over themselves, then collectivized.

Would the Founders recognize an authority for the people or government  to do to themselves and others, that they do not see as the authority of persons to do for themselves.

While we can government our own maximum speed in a vehicle (or carriage) which is us governing  ourselves,  can we also dictate that our neighbor has too much property (too much wheat), or dictate that he his speaking too much, or dictate that he his criminal about speaking out of against what we are doing with our government  dictate upon others?

This is a crucial philosophy at the root of this country. One of the things that brought people here is the Chruch of England, and the dictate by the Crown, the head of that church, of what the only legitimate church was.  We chose something different for this country - something differen than democratic tyranny of the majority.   We chose individual freedom.

This was seen when Jefferson wrote his now somewhat famous response to the Danbury Baptists, who expressed their fear about the majority religion of Connecticut being able to impost their will on the other religions of the state, since the State's constitution had no provision for Freedom of Religion.

In his response Jefferson, as President, wrote back and spoke in favor of frreedom of Religion, but then he did a curious thing, he basically referenced that 1st Amendment to the federal Constitution, but as somewhat of a rewrite in its application to the State. Instead of indicating "Congress shall enact no law", he wrote "legislatures":

  • ..  that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Here Jefferson  is obviously referring, not just to the limited powers of the federal government, but to the powers of government in general, and he has changed "Congress" in the 1st Amendment, to "their legislature"(i.e. that of each State), and rather than referencing the federal government as "state"(lowercase), he is referencing each individual State (uppercase), in a consistency with the Constitution's capitalization itself.

By the U.S. Constitution, the federal government only has limited powers,  but the states also have limited powers, and are not boundless fiefdoms

This recognition is why we do not see any sort of expansion in the Federalist papers, that about state sovereignty (which they discuss) involving the state government's being able to create whatever fiefdoms of tyranny they might choose to create.

The rights recognized in the Bill of Rights are applied there to the federal government , and only expressed in application to that federal government because that is the purpose of the U.S. Constitution - to constitute that federal government.   However those referenced Rights are not simply applicable to the federal government alone, but from a larger "well" of rights, that are indeed applicable to "any (and every) form of government".

That is the founding principle of this country.  It is not a state sovereignty to do whatever it wants, but rather state sovereignty do what it wants without federal dictate of laws upon the people.  Those individual people of a state  have no more right to dictate the terms of religion upon their neighbors, than the States themselves do. Nor do those people of a State have the authority to confiscate other persons property in that state, or take over their self-ownership.

As I point out in this thread's OP, what I believe to be an important distinction, nowhere did the founders indicate in their recognition of rights, that it was "infinitely referable to have their rights taken by local government, rather than a federal government".    Such an idea just does not exist anywhere in the founder's lengthy public writings on the Constitution, nor in their private communications to one another!

The fact of the matter is that individual rights are recognized to be "unalienable", which has real application to the States, and oneself too.  The State governments have no such authority to deny those real rights to their citizens, than any citizen has the right to deny those rights to a neighbor, and take his property, or attack him for his religion, or dictate what food he might have, and what medicine he might receive.

While land my be taken from a person for public use under eminent domain, that public use must involve fair payment for that land, and is not done by mere statute, having removed all chances of due process.  Yet you would reduce and individual's ownership of self, the basis of each and evyer other right, to being subject to the dictate of the State, without any sort of due process, without any chance of remuneration of any kind, and with the only recourse being to flee to some other tyrannous state.

Were such an authority to exist, as you posit, then Rights themselves would have no meaning, and the founders would have only fought the Revolutionary war to create what is today Fifty Fiefdoms all the equivalent in tyranny to the tyranny of the British Crown, and that is not what they fought for.

As a result, the belief that such a state authority, "states rights",  to do whatever a State might want in that state, is a gross corruption of the 10th Amendment and nowhere implied by it.  Even that 10th Amendment itself concludes with "... or to the people" which indicates that State authority actually is contingent upon and limited by those individual rights, which do take precedent in this country, not an unbound authority of those Fifty Fiefdoms themselves.

Thus "self rule" is literally, rule of self, and does not incorporate for the State government in that "rule of self" an authority to dictate over others that each individual does not have on their own.



Offline daidalos

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4215
  • Gender: Male
  • “Democracy is the most vile form of government.”
Re: "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" (10th Amendment)
« Reply #49 on: August 18, 2013, 10:00:24 PM »
First, I really appreciate you putting obvious thought into this response.

However, I think that you are presuming things that support your conclusion in the terms. 

For instance, what is "self rule" exactly?  It is rule of self, or rule of selves? Is it popular majority ruling as the majority sees fit, or an extrapolation of each person's legitimate authority over themselves, then collectivized.

Would the Founders recognize an authority for the people or government  to do to themselves and others, that they do not see as the authority of persons to do for themselves.

While we can government our own maximum speed in a vehicle (or carriage) which is us governing  ourselves,  can we also dictate that our neighbor has too much property (too much wheat), or dictate that he his speaking too much, or dictate that he his criminal about speaking out of against what we are doing with our government  dictate upon others?

This is a crucial philosophy at the root of this country. One of the things that brought people here is the Chruch of England, and the dictate by the Crown, the head of that church, of what the only legitimate church was.  We chose something different for this country - something differen than democratic tyranny of the majority.   We chose individual freedom.

This was seen when Jefferson wrote his now somewhat famous response to the Danbury Baptists, who expressed their fear about the majority religion of Connecticut being able to impost their will on the other religions of the state, since the State's constitution had no provision for Freedom of Religion.

In his response Jefferson, as President, wrote back and spoke in favor of frreedom of Religion, but then he did a curious thing, he basically referenced that 1st Amendment to the federal Constitution, but as somewhat of a rewrite in its application to the State. Instead of indicating "Congress shall enact no law", he wrote "legislatures":

  • ..  that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Here Jefferson  is obviously referring, not just to the limited powers of the federal government, but to the powers of government in general, and he has changed "Congress" in the 1st Amendment, to "their legislature"(i.e. that of each State), and rather than referencing the federal government as "state"(lowercase), he is referencing each individual State (uppercase), in a consistency with the Constitution's capitalization itself.

By the U.S. Constitution, the federal government only has limited powers,  but the states also have limited powers, and are not boundless fiefdoms

This recognition is why we do not see any sort of expansion in the Federalist papers, that about state sovereignty (which they discuss) involving the state government's being able to create whatever fiefdoms of tyranny they might choose to create.

The rights recognized in the Bill of Rights are applied there to the federal government , and only expressed in application to that federal government because that is the purpose of the U.S. Constitution - to constitute that federal government.   However those referenced Rights are not simply applicable to the federal government alone, but from a larger "well" of rights, that are indeed applicable to "any (and every) form of government".

That is the founding principle of this country.  It is not a state sovereignty to do whatever it wants, but rather state sovereignty do what it wants without federal dictate of laws upon the people.  Those individual people of a state  have no more right to dictate the terms of religion upon their neighbors, than the States themselves do. Nor do those people of a State have the authority to confiscate other persons property in that state, or take over their self-ownership.

As I point out in this thread's OP, what I believe to be an important distinction, nowhere did the founders indicate in their recognition of rights, that it was "infinitely referable to have their rights taken by local government, rather than a federal government".    Such an idea just does not exist anywhere in the founder's lengthy public writings on the Constitution, nor in their private communications to one another!

The fact of the matter is that individual rights are recognized to be "unalienable", which has real application to the States, and oneself too.  The State governments have no such authority to deny those real rights to their citizens, than any citizen has the right to deny those rights to a neighbor, and take his property, or attack him for his religion, or dictate what food he might have, and what medicine he might receive.

While land my be taken from a person for public use under eminent domain, that public use must involve fair payment for that land, and is not done by mere statute, having removed all chances of due process.  Yet you would reduce and individual's ownership of self, the basis of each and evyer other right, to being subject to the dictate of the State, without any sort of due process, without any chance of remuneration of any kind, and with the only recourse being to flee to some other tyrannous state.

Were such an authority to exist, as you posit, then Rights themselves would have no meaning, and the founders would have only fought the Revolutionary war to create what is today Fifty Fiefdoms all the equivalent in tyranny to the tyranny of the British Crown, and that is not what they fought for.

As a result, the belief that such a state authority, "states rights",  to do whatever a State might want in that state, is a gross corruption of the 10th Amendment and nowhere implied by it.  Even that 10th Amendment itself concludes with "... or to the people" which indicates that State authority actually is contingent upon and limited by those individual rights, which do take precedent in this country, not an unbound authority of those Fifty Fiefdoms themselves.

Thus "self rule" is literally, rule of self, and does not incorporate for the State government in that "rule of self" an authority to dictate over others that each individual does not have on their own.

I agree the States are not fiefdoms free to do what they wish willy nilly.

State Government has it's limitations too. But those limitations are not imposed upon the States by the U.S. Constitution but rather the citizens themselves, and their own independent State Constitutions.

Lastly, contrary to popular belief by many today, we DO NOT live in a democracy, we live in a Republic.

In a republic such as ours yes, it is rule of the majority.

This is why the person who gets one vote more than the other guys/gals, wins public office. Our entire system is predicated upon majority rule.

And there is nothing wrong with that whatsoever, so long as that will of the majority is carried out within the bounds of our established rules of law.

And that will of the majority stops, where the individual human rights as enumerated in our bill of rights, begin.

However that said, a Republic is not what one has, when a majority as our current majority in the Executive is doing for example, simply ignores and outright violates that rule of law.

To impose it's own will upon everyone, no matter how badly it trample's the human rights of not only the minority but the majority itself to do so.







« Last Edit: August 18, 2013, 10:11:38 PM by daidalos »
One of every five Americans you meet has a mental illness of some sort. Many, many, of our veteran's suffer from mental illness like PTSD now also. Help if ya can. :) http://www.projectsemicolon.org/share-your-story.html
And no you won't find my "story" there. They don't allow science fiction. :)

Offline Mountainshield

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1934
  • Gender: Male
  • Norwegian Coffeeman
Re: "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" (10th Amendment)
« Reply #50 on: September 07, 2013, 03:49:52 AM »
Just wanted to share this here, as it ties in to the constitutional topics.


Offline Novanglus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 122
  • You can't have your liberty and eat it too.
Re: "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" (10th Amendment)
« Reply #51 on: August 04, 2014, 08:40:44 PM »

America, and the constitution, are built on a loose, almost impotent federation of unassailable state sovereignty and independence.  This was the only way to create a country that couldn't become despotic, if the constitution is actually followed.  As all other countries had fallen into before, hence the grand experiment to create something different.

The federation is only supposed to do, or coordinate, those things that 50 isolated independent states can't do for the entire land mass.  Virtually nothing, save a few important things involving continental security, defense, and interstate concerns.  And enforcing all aspects of the constitution on everyone.  Just about nothing else.  That's why you'll notice that about 98% of the damned federal govt. today is completely redundant with state agencies that do the same thing, and should be doing so without a federal clone to interfere.

Can I assume then - that you are appalled by the federal governments drug war?
(or will you use the good old "interstate commerce" argument that the Dems use for Obama care, Medicade, gun control.....ect)

Offline Novanglus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 122
  • You can't have your liberty and eat it too.
Re: "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" (10th Amendment)
« Reply #52 on: August 04, 2014, 08:51:26 PM »
You may actually believe that no state or local laws is awesome.  The website for that is over yonder, right next to one that has the UN setting up secret FEMA camps as we type.  Or maybe it's the same website, lol.

Yes, people should only discus political philosophy with other people that they agree with. That's how the free exchange of ideas works best; and it's so interesting to talk politics where everyone agrees on everything  :thumbdown:

 

Powered by EzPortal