A Return to the Constitution????

Sailor Steve · 02-19-09, 06:10 PM

Platapus, I appreciate your links to the discussions on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. What gets me is the mention that judges disagree on what rights were meant but not mentioned. It's like they are blind to the concept of "All rights belong to the people", and "Government has no rights". Or, as the the document the Constitution stems from says "...that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men."

How do they miss it idea that we make laws to protect ourselves from each other, and that's where it begins and ends?

"The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations."
-Thomas Jefferson; letter to Gideon Granger, August 13, 1800

Platapus · 02-19-09, 06:32 PM

There does seem to be a change that has been increasing since the Second World War to move from the United States of America to the United Federation of America.

But this has been a concern ever since the original Articles of Confederation, which did not work out so well.

However, a valid argument can be made that just because the Articles of Confederation did not work in the 1780's's does not mean the concept would not work in 2010.

Scholars much smarter than I have spent a lot of time studying this and have not come up with an answer.

UnderseaLcpl · 02-19-09, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

Reference Article 1, Section 8 Paragraph 1

Quote:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It is quite a loophole isn't it? Given the nature of the rest of the Constitution and what I have gleaned form the Federalist papers, which have been an important source of interperetation for the Constitution, I believe that they literally meant "welfare of the United States" in the terms of the time. That is, the welfare of the nation. That is, not welfare for the people of the nation.
As you have said, this is a source of frequent and heated debate.
My preference would be for a budget Amendment that limits Federal spending and requires that the Federal Government remain profitable. Not a perfect solution, but one that could effectively curtail their power and prevent their mistakes from passing to the taxpayers, in most cases. I'd prefer that such an Amendment limit the federal budget to a very small percentage of the GNP.
I believe that such a measure would effectively close the loophole created by article 1.

Your thoughts?

Platapus · 02-19-09, 11:23 PM

I believe that the founding fathers missed one major threat to the citizens.

It appears that the founding fathers thought that the worst thing congress could do is pass bad laws. Hence the balance of power between the three branches which would preclude congress from passing really terrible laws.

However, in my opinion, the worst thing that congress can do is spend money. There are no restrictions on what congress can spend money on... and little if no oversight. Congress is no longer interested in making laws but in how they can spend money for their agendas.

Even though I am a staunch believer in small governments, I often think it might be advantageous for there to be a fourth branch of the government.

This branch would be the only branch empowered to collect/levy taxes but is not authorized to spend money (which might cut down on the conflict of interest).

Congress, therefore, would have the authority to spend money but only the money the fourth branch gives it.

The intent is that there should not be one branch of the government with unlimited power to obtain money and have unlimited power to spend money.

Just a whacky idea.

August · 02-20-09, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

Just a whacky idea.

And not a bad one either...

Digital_Trucker · 02-20-09, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

Just a whacky idea.

And not a bad one either...

Yes, but it makes too much sense for DC's taste

Seriously it's about time government was run as a business rather than a private playground for the "public servants" (what a misnomer that is).

Platapus · 02-20-09, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

Yes, but it makes too much sense for DC's taste

Seriously it's about time government was run as a business rather than a private playground for the "public servants" (what a misnomer that is).

I disagree. I think the word "service" amply describes what the government provides to the citizens.......

Just like how a bull provides service to a cow.

02-19-09, 06:10 PM	#1
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	Platapus, I appreciate your links to the discussions on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. What gets me is the mention that judges disagree on what rights were meant but not mentioned. It's like they are blind to the concept of "All rights belong to the people", and "Government has no rights". Or, as the the document the Constitution stems from says "...that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men." How do they miss it idea that we make laws to protect ourselves from each other, and that's where it begins and ends? "The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations." -Thomas Jefferson; letter to Gideon Granger, August 13, 1800 __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo

02-19-09, 06:32 PM	#2
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,393 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	There does seem to be a change that has been increasing since the Second World War to move from the United States of America to the United Federation of America. But this has been a concern ever since the original Articles of Confederation, which did not work out so well. However, a valid argument can be made that just because the Articles of Confederation did not work in the 1780's's does not mean the concept would not work in 2010. Scholars much smarter than I have spent a lot of time studying this and have not come up with an answer. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

02-19-09, 11:23 PM	#4
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,393 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	I believe that the founding fathers missed one major threat to the citizens. It appears that the founding fathers thought that the worst thing congress could do is pass bad laws. Hence the balance of power between the three branches which would preclude congress from passing really terrible laws. However, in my opinion, the worst thing that congress can do is spend money. There are no restrictions on what congress can spend money on... and little if no oversight. Congress is no longer interested in making laws but in how they can spend money for their agendas. Even though I am a staunch believer in small governments, I often think it might be advantageous for there to be a fourth branch of the government. This branch would be the only branch empowered to collect/levy taxes but is not authorized to spend money (which might cut down on the conflict of interest). Congress, therefore, would have the authority to spend money but only the money the fourth branch gives it. The intent is that there should not be one branch of the government with unlimited power to obtain money and have unlimited power to spend money. Just a whacky idea. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.