09-07-2016, 02:31 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-07-2016, 02:33 AM by Eric the Green.)
(09-07-2016, 02:11 AM)Galen Wrote:(09-07-2016, 01:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:(09-07-2016, 01:29 AM)Galen Wrote:(09-07-2016, 01:20 AM)taramarie Wrote:(09-07-2016, 01:14 AM)Galen Wrote: I am not exactly happy with the Republicans either. Come to think, of it the Libertarian Party is pretty lame these days but they have taken to nominating Republicans these days.
All have their strengths and weaknesses. What amazes me is how polarized it can get over there. Especially culturally at times. I have never seen anything quite like it.
That is what happens when you try to make everyone and everything the same through government force. Unless you have a homogeneous society, which the US has never really had, it tends to go this way. Everyone tries to get the ring for himself. If you want to get an idea of how limited the Federal Government was supposed to be I would suggest reading the US Constitution and then take a good hard look at what it does today.
The problem with that is, society needs to accomplish things together. Individuals acting alone does not accomplish enough for society to get along or make life better. I know it is a utopian theory that individuals acting alone will by an invisible hand do what's best for society. Something like this may even work someday, if and when people are guided spiritually from within. But many people agree that this theory does not work, and that organization is needed. Decisions have to be made and laws have to be passed, and this costs money; and a minority will not necessarily agree with what's done. Those who lose at first may come back and win later. Tides change, trends take hold, and society moves forward or backward. Meanwhile, coercion may be needed against those who do not obey the law. Society works best when people obey the law voluntarily, and when the laws are fair so that people want to obey them.
Only a very limited set of powers were delegated to the Federal Government. If that is insufficient then there is an amendment process for that. I wonder how much of the power usurped by the feds would survive that process?
You might want to contemplate our current situation in light of the following quotes by Jefferson:
- Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.
- Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.
- In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids.
Being a fairly typical liberal, I would probably agree with you (if you say) that the president has usurped war-making power, using the phrase "commander in chief" and forgetting the power of congress to declare war.
Since the preamble includes "promote the general welfare" as an aim for the federal government, and allows the congress to make such laws as it deems necessary, I would disagree with you (if you say) that the federal government has no right to collect taxes for the purpose of investing in infrastructure or providing relief and assistance to the needy.
I note that my perspective is not limited to "Boomers."