Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Like all right-wingers, your poll choices betray your ignorance or hostility to the facts.
I don't know what you mean by "non-interventionist", but your item #4 is not the original intent or understanding of the Constitution. In fact, the early Americans rejected that model and adopted the Constitution because the government under the Articles of Confederation was too weak.
Last edited by jackmccullough; 04-03-2011 at 08:39 AM..
Thats why the 10th amendment was forced by many to be added. Any power not explicitly given to the federal government was given to the states.
Actually, the word explicitly doesn't appear anywhere in the 10th amendment.
Quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Which, according to Alexander Hamilton, opened the door to the 'implicit powers' of the federal government (and not without disagreement).
I've seen you make this statement on several threads. I've never understood it.
This is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution:
Now I've looked here and honestly can't find where states rights were destroyed. But maybe I'm missing something...exactly where in the above text are states' rights destroyed?
Section B of Amendment XIV - No state shall make or enforce any law abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the US.
And that congress can enforce any law that does that.
Thats what took away states rights.
Now I don't think states should be allowed to tell an ethnic group they can't vote. But to tell private business owners that they now have to serve people they don't want to serve?
And its to widely interpreted to think that if a law is written by the federal government, then it is then the supreme law with this because it could be seen as to take away the rights of an individual in state.
Like all right-wingers, your poll choices betray your ignorance or hostility to the facts.
I don't know what you mean by "non-interventionist", but your item #4 is not the original intent or understanding of the Constitution. In fact, the early Americans rejected that model and adopted the Constitutikon because the government under the Articles of Confederation was too weak.
A nation where everyone takes responsibility for themselves but at the same time look out for each other. For instance, if a neighbor sees their neighbor's children skipping school or someone stealing their neighbor's mail, the neighbor should let that neighbor know. We should also be a society that respects and looks up to those that do beneficial things for our society, rather than looking up to people like dead beat celebrities like we do now. We should also be a society that strongly discourages risky behavior such as drinking heavily or partying excessively, experimenting with drugs and sex, having children out of wedlock, cheating on your spouse/partner. A society that encourages Americans right and wrong, to be "proper", use their manners, teach children to be respectful of their parents and authority, say please and thank you, hold doors for other people. And we should also be a society that encourages strict parental/authorial discipline of children, such as letting parents spank their children when necessary, show children who's the boss, teach them to have respect for their elders and to not talk back and show boys to respect girls, make them hold doors open for girls and let them know that "ladies come first." Boys should also be taught to be able to fight and defend for themselves and girls as well.
America should be more a of family community society where everyone knows everyone.
a nation whose citizens look out for one another so that the whole country is strong.
this is how it was in the 1930 depression pre-WW2
nation where each citizen looks out for number one and good luck to everybody else.
this is how it is today as long I got mine.... then it is well too bad for you buddy type attitude.. it is not always that way but alot of the time it is
Yea... that's why Bonnie and Clyde, John Dillenger, Babby Face Nelson et all cut such a wide path.....You ever seen the movie or read Grapes of Wrath? Heard of Woddie Guthrie? The 30's sucked! people prayed on each other like a swarm of pirhana on a spider monkey....
George Washington's farewell address is often cited as laying the foundation for a tradition of American non-interventionism:
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Sorry, but a bit more American history is in order. The Articles of Confederation had a weak central govt. It did not work and it was replaced with the Constitution. Our first President, believed in a strong Federal govt. Look at the history of the Washington Administration - nationalization of the lighthouses, regulation of trade internally and externally, Federal troops - with him at the head of them, - enforcing tax collection, a national bank (precurser of the Federal Reserve) and on and on. Jefferson became his bitter foe because of this - yet even Jefferson recognized the need when he purchased Louisiana illegally from the French. From the beginning the Federal govt. was involved in American business, protecting it with high tarriffs which were focused on favoring one economic interest over another - hardly laissez-faire, and the tarriffs changed with who was in the White House. With Marshall, the Supreme Court became a power far beyond what anyone thought it would be. They were designing a strong central govt. and the clincher was the nullificaiton crisis where a states right President and slave holder recognized the need for a strong central govt.
I would suggest reading the Federalist Papers for a start.
I wasn't talking about the Articles. I was talking about the Constitution. The Articles are irrelevant because they've been replaced.
The U.S. government before 1913 was a non-interventionist one, and the states took reign of most of the functions the federal government has usurped in the past several decades. I think you need to learn more American history, not the progressive revisionist crap you've been taught
I believe that if someone operates a business in the public economic sector then he has no right to discriminate in service, sales or employment with regard to race, religion or ethnic background. To allow such activity diminishes the economic opportunities and quality of life for those who are discriminated against.
And I don't believe that any state has a right to support such discrimination.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
