US Governance

Let's not forget Ronald Reagan, who was constantly referring to the Book of Revelations on dealing with the 'evil Soviet Empire.'

Also I don't recall Douglas McArthur or Curtis Lemay, head of SAC in the 60's, making any bible quotes, when both have proposed wiping the Chinese or Russians off the face of the earth with nuclear weapons if they even looked at us sideways, in the name of preventative war. "How Christian!"

Obviously irrationality and thought of genocide exist in both religious and non religious forms.

SheWolf wrote:

Let's not forget Ronald Reagan, who was constantly referring to the Book of Revelations on dealing with the 'evil Soviet Empire.'

I don't remember any of Reagan repeatedly referring to the Book of Revelations in relation to the Soviet Union - I could be wrong, he didn't apologize for being a Christian. The only thing I remember relating to Reagan and the Book of Revelations was all the people out there pointing out that each of his names had six letters, ergo, "666", the mark of the beast.

Quote :

Also I don't recall Douglas McArthur or Curtis Lemay, head of SAC in the 60's, making any bible quotes, when both have proposed wiping the Chinese or Russians off the face of the earth with nuclear weapons if they even looked at us sideways, in the name of preventative war. "How Christian!"

Obviously irrationality and thought of genocide exist in both religious and non religious forms.

It wasn't a case for those men - and others - of being worried that those countries might "look at us sideways". They believed - as many analysts of the day did - that ongoing events were making a nuclear and/or conventional war inevitable. God knows (can I say that?), we came close a few times.

It might have been irrational. And it might have been them remembering that the first and foremost duty and obligation of the US government (and by extension its military) is to protect the country and its people from harm - not provide free houses, get into the banking and car manufacturing business, or worry about what other countries might think of us. Given that those men got to witness first hand what the Chinese and Soviets had done to their own populations and others in the previous 50 years, and contemplating a nuclear and/or conventional war (which the US would be unable to win at that time against either country due to the massive disparity of force), they probably thought it was a situation of be first or be first loser. Nor could they escape noticing that in China and the Soviet Union, the individual was there to serve the state, including his life, and wars of attrition had proven to be perfectly acceptable to both those countries. Putting our values and how we value our soldiers' lives in comparison to the Chinese/Soviet model to the test in conventional warfare did not bode well. I don't think they envied the idea of Americans joining the remaining German soldiers that the Soviets were still busily working to death up in Siberian "work camps" two decades after the war.

I don't agree with what they proposed, but it wasn't irrational. I know that the lifespan of a soldier in the Airborne Regiment would have been measured in minutes if the Soviet Union had ever decided to go for it and we had jumped in to oppose them as the country's ready reaction force. Technology can only compensate for so much disparity of force. NATO doctrine was/is you needed a 3:1 superiority in forces for an attack to succeed. I don't know what the disparity of force was in the 60's, but during my early years in the military, the Soviets were at something like 10:1 superiority in conventional forces. If they had ever started a conventional war, we would have been steamrolled, and that may well be what MacArthur and LeMay had in mind. It's analogous to a gunfight - if you believe the other guy has the means and intent, we don't ask our police to wait until the other guy shoots first before defending themselves. Simplistic comparison, but the same basic principle.

More relevant, US governance means the military acts on the direction of government. The military can propose a course of action they suggest - or prepare a course of action they don't agree with as directed - but ultimately the elected officials in government will determine what that military will do. Kennedy, a Catholic, didn't address whether he agreed with LeMay's assessments or not (at least as far as I remember). He is reported by members of his Administration as rejecting first strike proposals as immoral. Would he have felt the same without growing up with Christian values? If he was an agnostic/atheist like Khrushchev? Who knows.

I think we got lucky, and the Soviets didn't strike first nor did they launch a conventional war. If they had, those of us left who still managed to retain the right to freedom of speech would probably be discussing today how past presidents should have listened to MacArthur and LeMay and acted first. Meanwhile, today many are calling for massive cuts to our military. Abolishing NATO. While China is busily developing weapons specifically designed for taking out aircraft carriers while building carriers of their own as their future energy needs skyrocket. I wonder whose navy they have in mind with their anti-carrier weapons and building carrier forces of their own? Carriers forces are primarily intended to project force or defend interests and allies isolated by oceans. As China does not have interests and allies isolated by oceans, that leaves "project force". Hmmmm... But that too is another topic.

TBird1 wrote:

Rydnseek- you completely missed my point.

I thought your point was that we don't have enough choices in our votes, & we need more parties & variety. I was saying i only get one vote, & will pick the best from what's available.. not much there many time, to be sure.

"I don't care what labels they carry, but for what they stand for."

Exactly-what do they REALLY stand for? It seems that a good many modern republicrats REALLY stand for making themselves wealthy through influence-peddling. Everything else is window dressing. We live in an age where everyone lies- there is honor no longer.

This last election was somewhat encouraging to me.. lots of liberal, big govt politicians (repubs & dems) got ousted by a pissed off bunch of tea partiers. Now will they follow through & do what they were elected to do? We'll see. Then we'll have another election.

"I'll vote for whoever will stand for a return to the Declaration of Independence values."

Like I said above- everyone lies. How do you know they'll deliver once elected? How do you know if they're even competent? Just because they wave (waive?) the Constitution around?

I'll vote them out if they don't walk the walk. That's how our system is set up. Would you prefer a benevolent dictator?

"But this is more like a smoke screen.."

Exactly- from BOTH sides. Neither side wants to "rock the boat" when both sides benefit from the status quo. Just a case of good-cop/bad-cop.

The smoke screen i was referring to was your concern over a christian theocracy. All politicians (and people in general) have religious beliefs. Our constitution prevents them from imposing those beliefs on others. Now community values are different. What is done in san francisco is maybe not as socially acceptable in des moines.

"I've been leaning a lot more toward the tea party values & libertarians than any of the current parties."

Be careful what you wish for. Many libertarians are simpletons who have absolutely no ideas on how to implement their ideology. It's as if some magic date would roll around and, POOF, the White House turns into a pumpkin at midnight. More likely, we would rapidly become a country of Dickensian landscapes. Personally, I think the great majority of libertarians are just shills for big business. If the answer to all of America's problems is that simple, then I'm a big-time skeptic.

Me too. I have been cynical of politics in general for many years. I voted for mcgovern, carter, reagan, bush sr, then didn't vote again until mccain. I've been through the full rainbow of political views. But the liberal, big govt, tax & spend democrats have pushed me from the edge of apathy, & i'm wanting to get back to my civic duty to my country. I tend to agree with your assessment of libertarians in general, but they do have some good ideas, imo. I actually like their views of our war machine.. get us out of other countries. I know the extreme of isolationism, but i think a better balance can be achieved than what we're doing now, not to mention we can't afford to police the world.

"I don't see 'Christian theocracy' as a current issue that needs addressing."

Really? Bachman quotes scripture in her speeches and Old Testament at that. How does that play to the non-Christians among us? Would she speak for all of us? If a voucher system to send rich kids to private schools is passed, would Muslims be able to send their kids to Muslim schools on the tax-payer's dime? Have we really thought this through? BTW, my reference to christian "stuff" is for the Holier-Than_Thou candidates- it was not a reference to your post. I naturally question the motives of someone who wants to beat me with their Bible as the candidates do.

I suppose the voucher system would enable muslims to send their kids to muslim schools.. perhaps they could go to yemen. Personally, i'd prefer the fed govt to get out of education completely. Leave that to the states & local communities. They can have some regulations for interstate stuff, but no need for them to have this huge DOE which wastes billions & is mostly a vehicle for the unions & liberal causes.

I don't care what Bachman's religious views are.. she is free to express them, & as long as she's not advocating imposing them by law, who cares? I don't know if obama is a christian, a muslim, or an atheist, & i don't care. But i can see what he stands for, & what he's wanting to do with this country & i'm against that. BTW, it seems to me obama & his ilk are a lot more elitist & 'holier than thou' than ms. Bachman. She is much more down to earth & humble than the rock star president we have now.

I still don't see anyone pushing for a christian theocracy.. nothing like those who are pushing for a big brother, secular humanist society, or even some of the muslims goal of a caliphate.

"But America has been & still is the most open religious society in the world."

Yeah, let's work to keep it that way, for every faith.

Amen! Preach it bro!

"I will not vote for him, but for those who will limit the federal govt & stop the madness. If the newly elected officials don't do it, i will keep voting for others until someone does."

Well, we've done just that for 200+ years. Satisfied with the results? Clearly, we need a better approach to how we pick our candidates.

Perhaps a special class of experts who pick who we can vote for? This last election should at least show that candidates can come out of nowhere with passionate views & get elected. They may not be the preferred choice of others, but the system does work. But yes, i am satisfied with the results, given the alternative.

"The class war would be very short lived with right wing vigilantes coming up against academia in prius's."

You should know better than to make a remark like that. History is full of revolutions that were won by the left as well as the right. How about- the AMERICAN Revolution for starters?

Dry irony does not do well in forums. Picture a tenured professor going up against jager. Of course in a real civil war, real weapons are on both sides. I guess joking about civil war isn't very funny, even if there is a bit of irony in it.

Lastly, "i probably won't contribute any more."

Why not? We need reasonable people to forge a consensus on what the future of our country should look like. Don't you want a seat at the table? We need for the electorate to come back to a more centrist position and away from the loonies at both extremes. We need to pare the federal budget without dismantling American society. There's a lot of work to do. Not contributing won't help- it won't help society, and ultimately, it won't help you either.

Me? Reasonable? That's another sick joke that goes over everyone's head. But i did come back & answer.. though i'm still not sure why we have these kinds of debates & discussions in a moto forum.

Here's a few more ideas to mull over & think about.. still on topic, but still a strange companion to a motorcycle forum. Here are ways we can lower taxes & balance the budget.

1. End tax subsidies to religious & non profit groups. A lower tax rate won't be too demanding on their donations, & it keeps someone from having to determine if they are legit or not. Everyone pays the same, everything is fair.

2. Bring all our military bases home. ..end the 'ugly american' syndrome of our troops, saves billions, & puts their contribution to domestic benefit. Stop bombing other countries indiscriminately, make presidents get congressional approval before engaging in war acts... i.e., prove the threat.

3. End farm & business subsidies. Why pay someone to not grow food? We can have a dept of agriculture, & let them work closely with the states coordinating & keeping statistics, making recommendations on what to grow, & what is needed.

4. End the federal welfare system. This should be a local concern, & can be managed by local communities.. they will be better equipped to spot fraud & abuse, & there would be much less waste & corruption. States & cities can raise more revenues, if the fed isn't soaking everyone like they do now.

5. Phase out medicare & social security. It is rife with fraud & corruption, waste & administrative costs. Give more freedom to the individual to manage their retirement & health care costs & plans. States can implement a comprehensive plan if they want, but trying to do it nationally or globally is absurd. Can't we get it that the federal govt. is inept? Anything they do costs 10 times as much, is filled with corruption (or attracts it right away), & is generally mismanaged. The only thing they really do well is blowing things up & killing people. They should keep to the things they do well, & protect the country.

6. Flat tax or much simplified tax system. End loopholes & keep it simple. The federal govt should not be rewarding campaign contributors with sweet tax deals or juicy govt. contracts.

7. No foreign aid. If our citizens want to give aid to underdeveloped countries, they can (and they do). But most of our foreign aid lines the pockets of corrupt dictators who oppress their people. Why should we be a party to that?

There's a lot more, but i think i see a lot of tax savings here.. Let the people decide where they want their money to go, rather than some bureaucrat in washington. Tired of corruption with politicians serving special interests? Take away the money & you end most of the corruption. We need to narrow the focus & role of govt.. get back to the declaration of independence where govt is to secure our rights, not micro manage everything we do. We need law & regulations to protect all the citizens from the unscrupulous, but we don't need the bloated, inefficient mess we have now.

I'm going to catch up with jager pretty soon.. maybe start my own right wing blog..

rydnseek wrote:

1. End tax subsidies to religious & non profit groups. A lower tax rate won't be too demanding on their donations, & it keeps someone from having to determine if they are legit or not. Everyone pays the same, everything is fair.

2. Bring all our military bases home. ..end the 'ugly american' syndrome of our troops, saves billions, & puts their contribution to domestic benefit. Stop bombing other countries indiscriminately, make presidents get congressional approval before engaging in war acts... i.e., prove the threat.

3. End farm & business subsidies. Why pay someone to not grow food? We can have a dept of agriculture, & let them work closely with the states coordinating & keeping statistics, making recommendations on what to grow, & what is needed.

4. End the federal welfare system. This should be a local concern, & can be managed by local communities.. they will be better equipped to spot fraud & abuse, & there would be much less waste & corruption. States & cities can raise more revenues, if the fed isn't soaking everyone like they do now.

5. Phase out medicare & social security. It is rife with fraud & corruption, waste & administrative costs. Give more freedom to the individual to manage their retirement & health care costs & plans. States can implement a comprehensive plan if they want, but trying to do it nationally or globally is absurd. Can't we get it that the federal govt. is inept? Anything they do costs 10 times as much, is filled with corruption (or attracts it right away), & is generally mismanaged. The only thing they really do well is blowing things up & killing people. They should keep to the things they do well, & protect the country.

6. Flat tax or much simplified tax system. End loopholes & keep it simple. The federal govt should not be rewarding campaign contributors with sweet tax deals or juicy govt. contracts.

7. No foreign aid. If our citizens want to give aid to underdeveloped countries, they can (and they do). But most of our foreign aid lines the pockets of corrupt dictators who oppress their people. Why should we be a party to that?

I find nothing what-so-ever objectionable about any of those 7 points.

I would vote for you in a heart-beat.

SheWolf wrote:

Nuuuuu..... The more I read about the incredibly botched up versions of whatever you want to call the books, the more I want to gag. Wow...it's funny how things can go astray so fast in these topics.

Yeah! I'm so glad that the Jagster only gets one vote. I'll cancel out his vote every time. How long will he

taoshum wrote:

Yeah! I'm so glad that the Jagster only gets one vote. I'll cancel out his vote every time. How long will he

Hmmmm... I hadn't really taken a good look at that before. HoHumm, if I'd have noticed you were that ugly before, I'd have been beating on you a lot harder and a lot faster.

The cheery news is that I'll still be voting when you're on the other side of the grass, taking the long dirt nap or discussing socialism with Marx and Engels wherever it is socialists go when they die.

And I'll miss you. How can one not value having opponents dumb enough to be outraged at what they believe is American militarism - and as a "cure" propose that all elected officials must first serve at least four years in the military?



It's unconstitutional as hell, but amusing too. You think you'll curb what you believe is militarism by demanding that the president, the Senate, the House, State Governers, etc ALL be military veterans? Aside from the fact it would put Obama on the sidelines, do you think military veterans are going to tend to be pro military or anti-military? You like to cancel out my vote, and yet you propose a system where me and guys like me get to run for office and MotoKid only gets to sit on the sidelines, ineligible for office? Who you planning on voting for?

Now that is just plain funny aside from being (as usual) just plain dumb - but there I go again, beating on you like a red headed stepchild.

Can I add one suggestion to improve on what you were saying you wanted as qualifications for running for election?

How about we require that the President must at least have jump wings or the CIB, not just a minimum of four years of military service?

The world is covered with countries, people, religions, political systems, economic freedom, human's rights of all flavors.

In what country did most of the citizens lived their life in happiness for the longuest time ?

What country can pretend to have to best constitution when we look at the results for the citizens ?

Society is not static. It's dynamic and everyone must adjust to the changes every day. Anyone who pretends that there is ONE way is like a mule with blimkers is condemned to live like a mule.

Religion doesn't have anything to do with governance but it has a lot to do with elections. It's like any theorical rights, principles or dream. When we talk about it, one is better than the other but in real life none of them applies many times to most people. All the great ideas are parts of the electoral speeches from any politician from any party. What runs the decisions is far from the speeches. Each and every one has it's own motivations that are seldom the well being of most of the citizens.

The best way to have all freedoms is to have no law. Then the natural law of the fittest will rule. We are all free to run, either from something or to something.

"We are all free to run, either from something or to something."

The law of the jungle. Many people would welcome that. No rights, no privileges, just survival. And death.

Dancamp wrote:

Anyone who pretends that there is ONE way is like a mule with blimkers is condemned to live like a mule.

That has no relationship whatsoever to a country having a constitution - a base set of rules and principles that are inviolate but subject to constitutional change, allowing predictability in how people manage their affairs. What they do within that framework is their choice in their pursuit of happiness and does not require anybody to live "ONE way". We do this because we have replaced natural law with civil society - John Locke makes excellent reading on this point.

To have a country without an underlying constitutional structure is merely anarchy, and a poor anarchy at that, with survival of the fittest and strongest gobbling up the labours and lives of the rest. And when branches of government are increasingly allowed to twist a constitution to mean what they want on any given day, then you move towards oligarchy.

Jäger wrote:

Dancamp wrote:

To have a country without an underlying constitutional structure is merely anarchy, and a poor anarchy at that, with survival of the fittest and strongest gobbling up the labours and lives of the rest. And when branches of government are increasingly allowed to twist a constitution to mean what they want on any given day, then you move towards oligarchy.

Having a country with a static constitution doesn't lead very far either. And now the oligarchies are not related to only one country. Since the principal source of power on the globe now is economic, people of any country with enough economic ressources have more power on the governments than ordinary voting citizens.

Any unconstitutional law should be contested in court.

Anyone that takes only what pleases his views in the constitution and that can't accept everything set forth in it shows the limits of it's thinking.

Personnaly I don't think that what was wise before is still wise today. There are not many things that are eternal even constitutions. The framers like you call them were wise people who took decisions based on the environment of their time. They were wise enough to think of how to amend the constitution. By doing so, they demonstrated that even them were aware that the consitution had to change over time. When the only argument is that it is in the constitution so it is good, shows the limits of the one who says so.

On the other side, if someone want's to change the constitution without using the proper way to do it, it shows what the low level of trust they have in their arguments. The unlawful ways should be put to the attention of the competent instances.

I know you don't trust the court even if this court has been created by the same constitution you base your arguments on. As far as I know the judicial power has been created under the same constitution as any amendment.

Dancamp wrote:

Having a country with a static constitution doesn't lead very far either.

True or not, that is utterly irrelevant to a discussion of US governance. The US Constitution has never been "static" - I'm sure you're aware how many times it has been amended. That a people don't amend their constitution every week does not mean they have "blinkers on like a mule".

Quote :

Since the principal source of power on the globe now is economic, people of any country with enough economic ressources have more power on the governments than ordinary voting citizens.

I guess that is as good an excuse for a lazy electorate as you're going to get - blame the rich. George Soros has "enough economic resources" by anyone's measure, and he spends it freely in attempts to manipulate government. As you can see from the last round of US elections, all the money Soros spent didn't counter the influence of a bunch of Taxed Enough Already Americans. It doesn't matter how much money Soros, a union, etc has - in the end, each citizen gets exactly one vote. And legal entities like banks, unions, etc get exactly zero votes. If a people are dumb enough to vote recklessly, or for somebody who promises he will give everybody two gold bricks when common sense tells you it's BS, the results aren't the evil global bankster conspiracy at work.

Quote :

Any unconstitutional law should be contested in court.

Ultimately in front of a supreme court who seized a power for themselves they were never intended to have, you mean? The same court that gave us the Dred Scott decision?

Quote :

Anyone that takes only what pleases his views in the constitution and that can't accept everything set forth in it shows the limits of it's thinking.

And then there are those who have no idea or knowledge of the debates and declarations of intent that went into the Constitution, and confuse rejection of the way government is currently shredding the constitution with a refusal to accept everything set forth in it. You have read Madison's notes and speeches, right.

Quote :

The framers like you call them

If you are going to discuss the US constitution, you must know that The Framers is not a term that I came up with. It has been around for far longer than anyone here or their parents have been alive, and refers to delegates to the Federal Convention who were involved in drafting and ratifying the Constitution of the United States.

Quote :

When the only argument is that it is in the constitution so it is good, shows the limits of the one who says so.

That would be a very interesting point - except that nobody, me in particular, has said the Constitution is so good it should never be amended. In fact, what has been pointed out is that government and judges are working unendingly to twist and circumvent the Constitution - rather than go through the amending process.

Quote :

The unlawful ways should be put to the attention of the competent instances.

So when the Supreme Court subverts the intent of the Constitution and The Framers, we should bring it to the attention of... the Supreme Court? That's the reason The Framers never intended the judiciary to have a monopoly on deciding what is constitutional or not - they had gone to some pains to ensure none of the three branches of government was not checked and balanced by the others.

Quote :

I know you don't trust the court even if this court has been created by the same constitution you base your arguments on.

Why don't you read just the Dred Scott decision for one and then come back and explain why the Supreme Court can be trusted? I for one will be fascinated to hear your analysis of that one - particularly when that decision at the very least was instrumental in the outbreak of the Civil War and some historians claim it was the main event that started the Civil War. You'll find it by searching for Dred Scott v. Sandford. It also happens to be a prime case of the judiciary departing from the Constitution to make whatever law fit their purposes.

If you have any time left over after that, why don't you tell me why I should believe a Justice is neutral (never mind infallible) when that justice claims that a Latina woman can make better decisions than a white male. Tell me how I should trust that Supreme Court judge to be impartial? Where are the checks and balances on a Justice showing that level of bias and arrogance? Trust? Not even Justices of that Court trust the Court - here's what Scalia said: "What secret knowledge, one must wonder, is breathed into lawyers when they become Justices of this Court? Day by day, case by case, the Court is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize."

Quote :

As far as I know the judicial power has been created under the same constitution as any amendment.

So, given your knowledge of what we're discussing here, is it your contention that The Framers intended to create a judicial oligarchy such as we have today, unimpeded by the other branches of government?

It's tough when we have judicial activists appointed as judges.. it's also tough that their decisions are final, they are appointed for life, & they in effect 'legislate from the bench.'

Perhaps a good amendment would be some kind of ratifying procedure by the congress & executive branch. If the judiciary crosses the line, there are checks & balances. Of course, it wouldn't matter if the majority of the congress were supporting the decision. Roe v. Wade is another.. instead of congress passing laws regulating abortion, the courts rule their personal agendas, with no history or other court precedents. Justices should see themselves more like cops.. just enforcing the law. We do not want justices who actively promote their agenda, but unfortunately, we do.

The system of American govt has it's problems.. the unscrupulous can distort what has passed for proper interpretation for years. They can redefine & revise history to try & suit their agenda. But as long as the people get to vote, we can provide a balance for them. Certainly we should be open to new ideas & implement things as the times & technology changes. That is the purpose of the amendment procedure. It is a hard & length procedure, as it should be. Benevolent dictators can accomplish things faster, but what happens if they stop being benevolent?

I don't think we should compare our politicians with mules. Mules are pretty smart. They are reliable & don't need blinkers. When i was up at the Grand Canyon a few weeks back, i asked the mules what they thought of the direction our country is headed...



I think i would welcome some politicians who are more like mules.. stubborn, dependable.. & we can pass on the ones who change their policies depending on what group they're speaking to.. while promising '5 acres & a mule'.
(this is a reference to 'gone with the wind' & the carpet baggers coming into town after the civil war, promising anything to get a vote.. sorry, i shouldn't explain a punch line)

Jäger wrote:

True or not, that is utterly irrelevant to a discussion of US governance. The US Constitution has never been "static" - I'm sure you're aware how many times it has been amended. That a people don't amend their constitution every week does not mean they have "blinkers on like a mule".

Exactly my point. So saying that it is good only because it is written in the constitution shouldn't be the argument.

Jäger wrote:

I guess that is as good an excuse for a lazy electorate as you're going to get - blame the rich. George Soros has "enough economic resources" by anyone's measure, and he spends it freely in attempts to manipulate government. As you can see from the last round of US elections, all the money Soros spent didn't counter the influence of a bunch of Taxed Enough Already Americans. It doesn't matter how much money Soros, a union, etc has - in the end, each citizen gets exactly one vote. And legal entities like banks, unions, etc get exactly zero votes. If a people are dumb enough to vote recklessly, or for somebody who promises he will give everybody two gold bricks when common sense tells you it's BS, the results aren't the evil global bankster conspiracy at work.

Not an excuse, merely a constatation. And not the riches but some twisted person that use their economic power for their own use at the detriment of most of the citizens.

Jäger wrote:

Ultimately in front of a supreme court who seized a power for themselves they were never intended to have, you mean? The same court that gave us the Dred Scott decision?

I knew you would write that. When it fits your view what is in the constitution is gold when not it's shit. It is the same framers that thought it was the best way to keep the legislative part of the country on course. So if their writing is good for the second amendment you should consider that the Supreme court is as good. I rather have the court we have than individuals that are so closed minded that they think they own all the truth and the only truth. Scott's approach is a lot more intelligent and respectfull of democracy even if I don't agree with all it's political orientations. The Supreme court is composed of judges that have been nominated by government of either parties so it is balanced in time. It's not because their judgement doens't fit your greatness self that they are wrong.

Jäger wrote:

And then there are those who have no idea or knowledge of the debates and declarations of intent that went into the Constitution, and confuse rejection of the way government is currently shredding the constitution with a refusal to accept everything set forth in it. You have read Madison's notes and speeches, right.

No I didn't read Madison's speeches or any other speeches for that matter. I'm able to have my own ideas. And as long as I argue with people that wnat to argue about ideas I'm very comfortable with it. I despise the small minded people that keep insulting others that have different opinions. For that matter I read the American constitution and I also made a fast survey of the court's decision on the amendments. That's precisely why I find you are of bad faith and close minded since you think you know more than the others and tend to prove that by citing some writters.

Jäger wrote:

If you are going to discuss the US constitution, you must know that The Framers is not a term that I came up with. It has been around for far longer than anyone here or their parents have been alive, and refers to delegates to the Federal Convention who were involved in drafting and ratifying the Constitution of the United States.

You didn't came with it. You roll in it to support your views like if the fact you use the word "Framers" makes you a greatness. Just like a wolf rolls in Elk's shit to lure it's preys. As far as I'm concerned the Framers are the wisemen of their time. You are exactly the opposite of what they were. They sat with people of their time before writting the constitution and collected what would make the most people work together to make and keep alive a country where it is good to live. And the little I know is that they weren't all unanymous on every terms used. But they showed enough respect for each others that the constitution represents what would tie together a nation. And before you write it, I don't consider myself wiser than you, just more respectful of other's opinions.

Jäger wrote:

That would be a very interesting point - except that nobody, me in particular, has said the Constitution is so good it should never be amended. In fact, what has been pointed out is that government and judges are working unendingly to twist and circumvent the Constitution - rather than go through the amending process.

I guess you own the truth and most of the judges are conspiring against their country. The way you write it there is no other conclusions. Everybody should take arms and kick all these judge's ass.

Jäger wrote:

So when the Supreme Court subverts the intent of the Constitution and The Framers, we should bring it to the attention of... the Supreme Court? That's the reason The Framers never intended the judiciary to have a monopoly on deciding what is constitutional or not - they had gone to some pains to ensure none of the three branches of government was not checked and balanced by the others.

When have you been blessed by the holy light ? Who appointed you as the more knowledgeable citizen's of United States ?

When it doesn't fit your view everything is conspiration agains the country. didn't ever crossed your mind that you are the one that has it wrong ? Are you so perfect that the world revolves around you ?

Jäger wrote:

Why don't you read just the Dred Scott decision for one and then come back and explain why the Supreme Court can be trusted? I for one will be fascinated to hear your analysis of that one - particularly when that decision at the very least was instrumental in the outbreak of the Civil War and some historians claim it was the main event that started the Civil War. You'll find it by searching for Dred Scott v. Sandford. It also happens to be a prime case of the judiciary departing from the Constitution to make whatever law fit their purposes.

Just as you think you own the truth I don't think I own it. My work consists of reprenting the cmopany I work for in front of the court. Does all the decisions the render make sense to me ? No. When a decision doesn't please me I analyze what are my options. If I think it'worth going to a higher tribunal, I fight for my point. If not I move on two sides. The first is to adjust to the judgment and the second is to act politically to change the law. In no circumstances I will intice people to loose faith in our judiciary process. It might not be perfect but it is better than following ideas from illuminated minds that kept being wannabe all their lives.
If you have any time left over after that, why don't you tell me why I should believe a Justice is neutral (never mind infallible) when that justice claims that a Latina woman can make better decisions than a white male. Tell me how I should trust that Supreme Court judge to be impartial? Where are the checks and balances on a Justice showing that level of bias and arrogance? Trust? Not even Justices of that Court trust the Court - here's what Scalia said: "What secret knowledge, one must wonder, is breathed into lawyers when they become Justices of this Court? Day by day, case by case, the Court is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize."

Jäger wrote:

So, given your knowledge of what we're discussing here, is it your contention that The Framers intended to create a judicial oligarchy such as we have today, unimpeded by the other branches of government?

I wasn't born when the Framers wrote the consitution so I won't pretend I kinow what they thought. What I know is that they wrote that the judiciary was the best way to control the legislative. I don't try to twist it to make it sound any other thing. Quite simple, isn't it ? And since you're so aware of what is being done againt the consitution and that you feel shilly to observe what some rich people do. Are there some poor people that had the power to bias the government or the Supreme Court ?

I just read the Dred Scott decision and what happened there after.

It looks like whan the legislative found that the juduciary was wrong, amendements have been made with all the majority needed to do it.

I guess that a good system if better than a perfect one since if we wait for the perfect one we'll never have one at all.

Dancamp wrote:

Jäger wrote:

Ultimately in front of a supreme court who seized a power for themselves they were never intended to have, you mean? The same court that gave us the Dred Scott decision?

I knew you would write that. When it fits your view what is in the constitution is gold when not it's shit. It is the same framers that thought it was the best way to keep the legislative part of the country on course.

And I knew you would come back and display you don't know shit about what you're talking about. Which is not to be unexpected - you are, after all, Canadian, and this isn't your country's history. In fact, you live in a province taking it's civil law from French origins, not English, so much of the time you aren't even on the same book, much less the same page.

You should realize right from the beginning that the concept of a judicial oligarchy supposedly created by the Constitutional Convention is irrational, given how much time and effort they put into designing a system where the power of each of the branches was balanced and held in check by the others. Who or what do you propose holds the Supreme Court and other Federal courts in check?

Nowhere in the Federalist Papers, in Madison's speeches and writing, in the debates in the constitutional congress is there ANYTHING that indicates the Framers proposed or thought that the best way to keep the legislative branch "on course" was to create a judicial oligarchy as the final arbitrator of what legislation is and isn't constitutional. If you did have a clue about what you are nattering about, you'd know that NOWHERE in the Constitution did the Framers give the courts the power to decide whether an act or legislation was constitutional or not. If you don't agree with that, then please do point me to where in the US constitutional documents courts are given that power.

If you CAN'T point to what part of the Constitution assigns courts that power, then your claim that the Framers intended to give them that power to keep the Legislative branch on course is the only "shit" here.

And they didn't. So, as I'm sure you're aware from your constitutional studies, all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people. Meaning, if you can't show us where in the Constitution it gives the power of constitutional oversight to the federal government/federal courts, then the power of constitutional oversight belongs to the States and the people.

In fact, were you to bother to read the Federalist papers, you'd know that the Framers stated that the Judicial branch was intended to be the weakest of the three, although all three still served as checks and balances on each other to prevent any seizing power. Additionally, the judiciary was to have neither the power of purse nor sword - and they have assumed that power as well, along with the judicial oligarchy they assumed for themselves and now run.

If you want to know what the Framers actually did say about the Judiciary, let's try Jefferson for starters:
"You [William C. Jarvis] seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy . . . The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party its members would become despots... At the establishment of our constitution, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions . . . become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction .... In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account. "

James Madison refused to acknowledge the authority of the judiciary over the other branches of government.

And another little quote (I know you hate 'em): "“if the judiciary acts as a check on the legislature, then who is to act as a check on the judiciary?”

Lincoln wasn't one of the Framers, but he was a great champion of liberty. What did he have to say?
"if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

Quote :

So if their writing is good for the second amendment you should consider that the Supreme court is as good.

As the saying goes, even a blind frog catches the odd fly. It's not to be unexpected that they get it right once in a while. But clearly, they are not infallable, nor clear of bias nor agenda. And yet, while we have checks on balances on the executive and legislative branches to protect against those failings in those branches, we have none left regarding the judiciary now that they have seized the position of ultimat arbitrator for themselves.

As far as the Second Amendment goes, SCOTUS is anything but good. Heller was a bare 5/4 majority, as was MacDonald. Not exactly a confidence builder, particularly when several of the current Justices believe they SHOULD be making constitutional law the way they think it ought to read. In other words, contrary to the concept that the people and states ratify their constitutions - The People get neither a vote nor the opportunity to ratify judicial changes to the Constitution.

Quote :

I rather have the court we have than individuals that are so closed minded that they think they own all the truth and the only truth.

You are hopelessly confused. First, it is the courts who have taken upon themselves the power to decide that they alone are the deciders of what is all the truth and the only truth. They weren't given it - they took it. Second, I doubt you have the first clue about the current makeup of SCOTUS. Third, when a Latina Justice on that court says a Latina woman can make better decisions than a white guy, that is a pretty poor example of of a court who can be trusted to supposedly be not close minded.

Quote :

Scott's approach is a lot more intelligent and respectfull of democracy even if I don't agree with all it's political orientations.

You still don't know what you're talking about. The US is not a democracy; it is a republic. There is a very important difference there, even though you don't understand that. The idea that you would find the Dred Scott decision "intelligent and respectful" is... amusing. Perhaps you liked this part the best?
"It would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

Quote :

It's not because their judgement doens't fit your greatness self that they are wrong.

I feel a little more comfort that my views coincide with those of Jefferson and Washington (especially when I adopted many of my views from these men), rather than with somebody who doesn't know the difference between a democracy and a republic, and who finds the Dred Scott decision intelligent and respectful.

Quote :

No I didn't read Madison's speeches or any other speeches for that matter. I'm able to have my own ideas.

Yes, your utter and complete ignorance of US Constitutional history and US governance clearly shows that. Why read history when you can just make it up as you go and substitute what you would have done if it had been you back in that time?

Quote :

And as long as I argue with people that wnat to argue about ideas I'm very comfortable with it.

That's nice. Unfortunately for you, we're not talking about your personal philosophy. We're talking about US governance and it's historical underpinnings, not how you think a foreign country should govern itself.

Quote :

I despise the small minded people that keep insulting others that have different opinions.

And I despise those who natter on about subjects they know so little about, acting as though they do. Sometimes they claim Canadians have property rights, even though property rights were expressly excluded from the Canadian Constitution. Sometimes they claim that the Framers gave the courts unchecked and sole power to arbitrate what is and isn't constitutional. They can never provide a legal ruling to back them up, or an authority whose opinion is aligned with what they're saying. Usually, somewhere along the line, they will just weakly say something really deep like "I read the constitution" - normally just after saying something utterly inconsistent with that Constitution.

Quote :

For that matter I read the American constitution and I also made a fast survey of the court's decision on the amendments.

Oops... yup, just like that.

Quote :

That's precisely why I find you are of bad faith and close minded since you think you know more than the others and tend to prove that by citing some writters.

"Some writters"? Oh - those quotes I keep giving from the Framers themselves? I guess I do tend to prove what I'm saying by doing that instead of just mumbling about "my own ideas that I'm very comfortable with", don't I?

Yeah... dumb old me. What kind of a moron would quote what the Framers wrote and said about the Constitution they were creating and why they were setting it up as they did? Boy, you gotta be some kind of a real dummy to quote the people who actually wrote and ratified the Constitution. You'd be much smarter to just natter on about "my own ideas that I'm very comfortable with".

Just curious, but as the quotes from Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc are in agreement with what I wrote, do you find them to be "of bad faith and close minded as well"? This may shock you, but I didn't come to my beliefs by making them up as I went along - I picked those views up from the record left us by the Framers and the documents and philosophers they looked to. In other words, I'm not the originator of those ideas - they are. I just hold to those ideas and respect them until they are properly changed.

Quote :

You didn't came with it. You roll in it to support your views like if the fact you use the word "Framers" makes you a greatness.

That is the term used to refer to them. In school. In books. By intelligent people in debate. Which you obviously didn't know until recently. What would you prefer we call them to make you happy? "Seventy Some Odd Dead White Guys Who Wrote The Constitution"? That's a little long.

Quote :

Just like a wolf rolls in Elk's shit to lure it's preys.

Wolves don't do that. They don't "lure" prey - they run them down. Do you really think a wolf rolling in ungulate (big word there for you) droppings would actually conceal the fact it smelled like a wolf in the first place? So it looks like you don't even know shit about shit.

Quote :

I guess you own the truth and most of the judges are conspiring against their country. The way you write it there is no other conclusions. Everybody should take arms and kick all these judge's ass.

My, you are being a silly sot tonight. Wolves rolling in elk shit and then craftily waiting for an elk some distance away to stop and go "Hey, I smell elk shit and there's only about sixty of us here in this meadow for the last eight hours shitting and all that. I better go over and check out the source of that elk shit I smell."

My opinion is we have judicial originalists - like Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. And then we have judges who believe it is their job to rewrite the constitution, add to it, and worst of all some are barking mad statists. Kagan and Sotomayor come to mind. Furthermore, given that your reading comprehension skills are pretty weak, I've said at least once recently that there is no justification for reaching for the bullet box as long as the ballot box remains open. The option of taking up arms is only there for when there really is no other option. So no, you asshole, I am not and never have suggested or supported armed insurrection as long as regular elections are held. That would be criminal, both sedition and treason. The electorate may vote stupidly, but that doesn't give anyone the right to contest the results with a rifle.

Quote :

Jäger wrote:

So when the Supreme Court subverts the intent of the Constitution and The Framers, we should bring it to the attention of... the Supreme Court? That's the reason The Framers never intended the judiciary to have a monopoly on deciding what is constitutional or not - they had gone to some pains to ensure none of the three branches of government was not checked and balanced by the others.

When have you been blessed by the holy light ? Who appointed you as the more knowledgeable citizen's of United States ?

Why would you say something really dumb like that right after saying you'd just read the US Constitution. Please do quote for us the sections of the Constitution giving the Judiciary unchecked power and authority to determine what is and what isn't constitutional. Several of the Framers, including Jefferson, clearly said there was never any intent to give them that monopoly - I point out what somebody who was there and part of that process is on record as saying, and you come back with some dumb shit like "when have you been blessed by the holy light"?

If Jefferson's own words aren't good enough for you, whose are?

Quote :

When it doesn't fit your view everything is conspiration agains the country. didn't ever crossed your mind that you are the one that has it wrong ? Are you so perfect that the world revolves around you ?

No, I just have a fairly good idea of the subject we're discussing, while you don't. And when I relate what some of the Framers said to explain their intent and why they set up government the way they did, you pop up like a little Jack In The Box and ask me if I might be wrong.

No, I'm not wrong. Those are their quotes verbatim. What do you think is going on? That Jefferson and Madison have been misquoted? That they were wrong? That I just made those quotes up to suit my nefarious purposes, and none of them ever actually said those words?

Quote :

My work consists of reprenting the cmopany I work for in front of the court.

Jesus... now there's a scary thought! A guy who actually thinks Canadians have constitutional property rights, despite a historical record that shows they were specifically excluded, and numerous SCC decisions where the court not only emphasized that, but refused to "read in" property rights - and he apparently makes his living working in the court system. Wow.

Quote :

I wasn't born when the Framers wrote the consitution so I won't pretend I kinow what they thought. What I know is that they wrote that the judiciary was the best way to control the legislative.

Really? Well, let's hear from the Framers themselves on that, one more time. Thomas Jefferson:
"...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy . . . The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party its members would become despots... At the establishment of our constitution, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government."

It appears that Thomas Jefferson thinks you're full of shit (that substance apparently being a favorite substance of yours).

It's true that I talk about shit when I smell it and you're good at throwing it in full buckets. Buckets of propaganda that only serve to antagonise people instead of finding ways to help them work together. Your way or hell, that's the only thing that rises from your thousands of words.

First "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,'. And since through the amendment process the legislative can balance the judiciary. They didn't write it exactly the way you could understand it, they didn't know you or the extent of your closed mind.

US is not a democracy and to support that you state that it is a republic. Wow what show of knowledge. Sure US is a republic and the government is elected through a democratic way of voting.

Do you understand ? Like you can be a man and a US citizen as well. One doesn't exclude the other. "The United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered." from "An Introduction to the American Legal System".

Anyway what do you propose ? Shoot them all ? Follow Jagër and it's alike ? Since US is not a democracy, how can the citizens change things ? Takings arms and defend their states from the central government ?

It's true I am a canadian and as such I live with the decisions made by canadians. It is perfecly normal that everybody in a country doesn't hope for the same results from their government and that's why through an electoral system called representative democracy the citizens show their preferences to their representatives. The same thing happens in US I guess. The courts are not allowed to alter the constitution, they are there to decide if the point presented at them is constitutionnal or not. And that's what happend with the Scott's decision which by the way you thought I was refering to when a referenced Scott's way( I was relating to the intervention of Rydnseek). When we look at the cited Scott's decision it is important to note that it is the legislative arm that corrected the situation. They had to change the constitution so the same decision couldn't be made again by the court.

The legislative have all the power to write laws and the courts have the power to evaluate if it's constitutionnal or not. Are people trying to twist that to their own advantage ? Sure exactly like you try to do. That's why there are elections and citizens have the occasion to give power to those who they hope will represent the best what they want and throw away the others.

About the citations. All good speakers wrote and said many things and most of them must be taken in their full context not only in citations. And some of them are necessaraly wise. Jefferson or any other also made mistakes just like some judges can make from time to time. That's why the government is composed of many people and the courts of many judges. The probability of all of them making the same mistakes often is lower that way.

Keep on regurgitating waves of words so you think you look wise. I still think the citizens have the power through their votes to shape their country. What is now difficult for them is to decide which representatives a truely free from influence from other type of powers. The economic power is not in the constitution but its influence on political power or judiciary power should be limited. It's not that it is wrong to get rich, it is wrong to have more political influence when you are. The representative should represent their voters not use them to their own purposes.

Wow...you know, at least as Canadians, we learn about the rest of the world, and not just our own country's stuff. The average American still thinks we (Canadians) live in igloos up in the north pole!!

SheWolf wrote:

The average American still thinks we (Canadians) live in igloos up in the north pole!!

What?!? You guys don't?????

Right on Ed!! Take off, eh? I swear you've got the best comebacks.

SheWolf wrote:

Wow...you know, at least as Canadians, we learn about the rest of the world, and not just our own country's stuff. The average American still thinks we (Canadians) live in igloos up in the north pole!!

motokid wrote:

I thought these guys were the average Canadians, eh?


I suppose most of the world gets news about our politics more than we get news about theirs.. many reasons for this. We don't hear a lot about china & many socialist/communist/dictatorial countries because their press is state run & information is harder to come by. The internet is changing this. The whole world is getting glimpses into how other countries are doing.. sometimes with gruesome video accompanying it.

Also, it is natural for the major world powers to be in the news more, since what they do impacts the rest of the world more. Ecuador has many problems.. corruption.. drugs.. the poor.. bad health care.. but we don't hear a lot about them in the global media because they don't have nuclear weapons & their impact on the rest of the world is minimal.

Americans typically live in a dream world.. thinking the rest of the world is happy & care free like we are. We take for granted our free speech, press, guns, prosperity, etc, & wrongly assume these freedoms are enjoyed by most people in the world. We know that there is oppression, but don't really believe it is that widespread, or that bad. We also think the problems of the world are mostly economic, & that anything can be fixed if you throw money at it.

In Az our view of Canadians is they are an industrious, prosperous people. We get a lot of 'snow birds' in the winter from Canada. They have lots of money, play golf, go out to eat, shop, & generally support our economy. We do not see the other side of the Canadians.. the poor.. the tired.. the huddled masses yearning to be free.. no doubt they will soon be flooding across our northern border making their way to mexico as the drug money brings greater prosperity to them.. providing jobs like mercenaries & other support positions.

I don't think i need a disclaimer with shewolf, but please notice the attempt at humor..

Used to be the average Scotty...they took away our stubby beer bottles....

"I suppose most of the world gets news about our politics more than we get news about theirs.."

I just found about the "quiet revolt" in Iceland via a link on Facebook. Where is the American mainstream media on this? What, they're afraid we might get ideas? The people of Iceland are writing a new constitution as we speak. They're getting input from the populace via all the newer social media. It's been dubbed Democracy 2.0. They're not letting world banks run their country any more. It makes us look like has-beens.

TBird1 wrote:

"I suppose most of the world gets news about our politics more than we get news about theirs.."

I just found about the "quiet revolt" in Iceland via a link on Facebook. Where is the American mainstream media on this? What, they're afraid we might get ideas? The people of Iceland are writing a new constitution as we speak. They're getting input from the populace via all the newer social media. It's been dubbed Democracy 2.0. They're not letting world banks run their country any more. It makes us look like has-beens.

The more i think about it, the more i realize we have an unholy alliance with our financial system & the govt. The founders tried to keep it separate, but they have been moving closer & closer together over the years, & now share a bed. The fed chief should not be appointed by the president, imo. It should be an elected post, with perhaps congressional & executive nominations for candidates. They need some autonomy to make decisions, not just the next re-election campaign. This idea is full of holes & problems, too.. but somehow we need a check & balance.. & get the fed out of the govt.

Gingrich (who is a long shot) has some good ideas on this subject.. Hopefully we can get an unpartisan 'fix' for our financial system.. including a balanced budget amendment.. long overdue, imo.

Power & money go together, for sure.. but the more we can keep them offset, the better for 'we the people'.

rydnseek wrote:

Power & money go together, for sure.. but the more we can keep them offset, the better for 'we the people'.

I completely agree with that. We are trying to limit electoral spendings by entreprises so the elected people don't have to give a kickback to those who spend more money for their election. There is big resistance to that since the government is a big contract giver and policy maker that can ease or unease the operations of entreprises.

There is an economic oligarchy developing in the world and it's influence is sometimes greater than that of the majority of citizens. There is a lot of blackmailing through jobs. It's like Japan. They had a new economy mostly paid for by Americans and then they took advantage of it to invade other markets. Since then the needs of their population changed but coubntries like China and India have big markets and low cost manpower so they can invade markets where consumers have more money.

Open economy helps equalize level of life across the world but equalizing also means lower at some places. And when we speak of economy it always evaluated as a rate of growth. Since the ressources are not infinite the growth can't be infinite either. We'll have to change our way of life that's for sure.