Bloomberg: Constitution ‘must change’ to give government more power

[Platapus]

We DO need to change the way we interpret the Constitution.

We need to get back to the interpretation of the Constitution that puts limits on the powers of the Federal Government.

We need to reinterpret the Incorporation Doctrine to determine if it truly is in our best interest, and if so, properly define and place limits on it.

Absolutely we need to change the way we interpret the Constitution.

But I fear that this is not what Bloomberg meant.

Bigger government is not the solution
More powerful government is not the solution

[Skybird]

Relevant readings for this topic.

LINK: On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolutio

As the Declaration of Independence noted, government is supposed to protect life, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet in granting government the power to tax and legislate without consent, the Constitution cannot possibly assure this goal but is instead the very instrument for invading and destroying the right to life, property, and liberty. It is absurd to believe that an agency that may tax without consent can be a property protector. Likewise, it is absurd to believe that an agency with legislative powers can preserve law and order. Rather, it must be recognized that the Constitution is itself unconstitutional, i.e., incompatible with the very doctrine of natural human rights that inspired the American Revolution.

Indeed, no one in his right mind would agree to a contract that allowed one's alleged protector to determine unilaterally, without one's consent, and irrevocably, without the possibility of exit, how much to charge for protection; and no one in his right mind would agree to an irrevocable contract which granted one's alleged protector the right to ultimate decision making regarding one's own person and property, i.e., of unilateral lawmaking.

LINK: War, Terrorism, and the World State

What we see in the U.S. today is something very familiar. Governments love crises – indeed, they frequently cause or contribute to them – in order to increase their own power. Just witness the government takeover of airport security, the establishment of an office for homeland security (isn't that the task of the Department of Defense? and if not, wouldn't it be more appropriate to call the department of defense the Department of War?), and the current plan of establishing an almost complete electronic surveillance system vis-a-vis its own citizens.

In order to combat terrorism it is necessary to engage in a non-interventionist foreign policy, to have a heavily armed civilian population – more guns, less crime – and to treat terrorism for what it is: not as a conventional attack by the armed forces of another state but as essentially private conspiracies and crimes which must be combatted accordingly by police action, hired mercenaries, privateers, assassination commandoes, and headhunters.

LINK: Reflections on State and War

LINK: Why Bad Men Rule

the selection of government rulers by means of popular elections makes it nearly impossible that a good or harmless person could ever rise to the top. Prime ministers and presidents are selected for their proven efficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues. Thus, democracy virtually assures that only bad and dangerous men will ever rise to the top of government. Indeed, as a result of free political competition and selection, those who rise will become increasingly bad and dangerous individuals, yet as temporary and interchangeable caretakers they will only rarely be assassinated.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Platapus

We DO need to change the way we interpret the Constitution.

We need to get back to the interpretation of the Constitution that puts limits on the powers of the Federal Government.

We need to reinterpret the Incorporation Doctrine to determine if it truly is in our best interest, and if so, properly define and place limits on it.

Absolutely we need to change the way we interpret the Constitution.

But I fear that this is not what Bloomberg meant.

Bigger government is not the solution
More powerful government is not the solution

The problem lies in gaining consensus across America as to what the Constitution means, something which as we can see at the moment is just not happening. Depending on each persons agenda, they interpret it in different ways, like lawyers finding loopholes.
Makes me wonder how they managed to agree long enough to write it in the first place...

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Oberon

The Makes me wonder how they managed to agree long enough to write it in the first place...

They didn't. They fought over it for months, and finally only agreed on the system we have now because it was pointed out the them that they had to compromise on the points of contention or admit they couldn't do it.

[soopaman2]

As a close follower of Bloomy.

Not a believer, just someone who watcheds his bullcrap, a local observer.

I moved to NJ because of him, first off.

Second. This jerk, as a member of city council, somehow circumventedf the peoples will, by being a leading oppositional voice to Rudolph Guilianis third term, pst 9-11.

We the people wanted it, city council said no, lead by mayoral candidate Michael Bloomberg.

He then won the election, then banned smoking in bars, won another a few years later.

When it came his turn for 3rd term, it went through city council no problem, after he won the election it was finally put to vote by the people of NYC, and they struck down the more than 2 terms crap.

Amazing!!

No one tells this story, a modern day Tammany Hall. Google that one, Tammany hall was a doozy, but at least boss Tweed didn't try to ban soda.

I am a local, this scumbucket and his crap decisions hurt my everyday life.

[August]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

No one tells this story, a modern day Tammany Hall. Google that one, Tammany hall was a doozy, but at least boss Tweed didn't try to ban soda.

Boss Tweed also didn't have $25 billion clams and own a media empire. That's what makes this Tweed reincarnation so dangerous imo.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by August

Boss Tweed also didn't have $25 billion clams and own a media empire. That's what makes this Tweed reincarnation so dangerous imo.

Very true, Bloomy is a billionaire, as well as the owner of Bloomberg News.

Explains all his control fantasies...

I almost forgot to add that to his resume. Thanks

[August]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

Very true, Bloomy is a billionaire, as well as the owner of Bloomberg News.

Explains all his control fantasies...

I almost forgot to add that to his resume. Thanks

We just got the Blue State Blues Brother!

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

then banned smoking in bars

If only that was a national law. We have it in Houston and it's awesome. Unfortunately I'm soon moving outside of the city limits.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

If only that was a national law. We have it in Houston and it's awesome. Unfortunately I'm soon moving outside of the city limits.

Stop spending so much time in bars...

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

Stop spending so much time in bars...

Hah! Restaurants too. That's my main issue. Bars, yeah. They're not health clubs, you know what you're getting into when you go in there. But restaurants....man, I just wanna enjoy a meal without coming home smelling like I went to a bar.