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.
I guess you aren’t a fan of this concept:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Statue of Liberty
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
You probably also think the Constitution is a living document that should be changed over time to reflect the new realities.
Well, the realities when the Statue of Liberty was erected are not the same realities of today. We have a welfare system today that does more to attract the huddled masses than pure opportunity does. We have ample people within our country to fill the available jobs and maybe more, however, if the current POTUS keeps "winning" we may need to bring in more immigrants through the legal means provided.
Your fail to understand what I proposed. The 2nd Amendment would be modified, and all states would follow the Constitution - a constitution that delegates specific enumerated power (over arms) to each individual state. The lack of imagination on this thread is really quite comical. There is no ban on using the disjunctive in the Constitution believe it or not. Its not some magical untouchable document that cannot be written in any other way.
I can't help but think of the exasperated school teacher in the canteen in Pink Floyd's song (Another Brick in the Wall) who cannot conceive of the concept of a kid asking for dessert when he hasn't finished his meat. Brain does not compute. Incomprehensible. But yes - you can actually.
Yes, the Constitution can be changed. Yes, States develop their own legislation on issues. I agree 100 percent that there is a process for amending the constitution, however, in today's political climate it would be virtually impossible to modify any amendment.
Getting 2/3's of either chamber to agree on an amendment, let alone getting 37 or 38 states to also agree is about as probable as seeing three or your two tailed Bobcats.
● Under the People’s Democratic Socialist Republic (collectivism), you are a member of the glorious collective, obligated to surrender your surplus, in order to be eligible for benefits (compulsory charity). You must get permission (license) and / or pay taxes to live, work, trade, buy, sell, build a house, own land, engage in occupations, run a business, hunt, fish, treat the sick, marry and / or own a dog. You have no endowed rights, liberties, inherent powers, nor absolute ownership of private property. And you are an enumerated “contributor” (human resource) equally liable on the national debt, having pledged your labor and property as collateral.
● Under the constitutional republic (indirect democracy), you are a voluntary citizen, enjoying government privileges (civil and political liberties), but have mandatory civic duties that abrogate endowed rights. (Ex: militia duty - the obligation to train, fight, and die, on command - a violation of the right to life and liberty)
● Under the republican form of government, you have Creator endowed (natural) rights, liberties (natural and personal), inherent powers, absolute ownership of private property, and immunities that governments were instituted to secure. And only with consent of the governed, may governments do more than adjudicate disputes, prosecute criminals, and defend against all enemies, foreign or domestic.
The question is : which are in harmony with “traditional government” (right wing) and which are opposed to “traditional government” (left wing)?
Ironically, the republican form is still guaranteed, according to the laws on the books (natural rights, natural liberties, absolute ownership of private property, etc). But since consent of the governed legitimizes subject citizenship and socialist serfdom, as long as you consent, no harm / no foul. However, if fraud was used to acquire that consent, you have the right to withdraw consent and restore your endowed rights under the republican form.
Unfortunately, millions were misled by the world’s greatest propaganda ministry to ignore their own laws and submit to that which is anathema to the Founders, and thus believe they must “fight for freedom” that they unwittingly surrendered. Worse, some believe they must “fight” against the very principles that founded this nation.
Don’t be fooled into staging a slave revolt, they end badly - ask Spartacus - especially when you’re a voluntary slave. Read law. Ask questions of your public servants. Discover how and when you consented. And if fraud was used, withdraw consent, as is your right under the law. If you find that all your Creator endowed rights are restored to you, what grounds do you have to fight? And if you consent to the surrender of your Creator’s endowment, shut up, sit down, pay and obey. You have no grounds to complain.
I don't think one can pigeonhole things so neatly.
Either you have endowed rights or you consented to their loss. What's so hard to understand?
It's right there in the Declaration of Independence *1776*.
Governments instituted to secure endowed rights cannot tax, trespass nor infringe upon them EXCEPT by consent of the governed.
If you've been tricked into consenting, you have the right to withdraw consent. Of course, that only works once.
If I had a magic wand, I would obliterate political parties and make all elected officials stand for election before everyone. No more closed primaries. No more requiring people to choose a side. No more football team winners and losers mentality. No more "us vs. them" mentality.
I'm sick and tired of the "divide and conquer" political machine. One nation indivisible, just like it says in the Pledge of Allegiance.
I agree with this. Those I've encountered on the right say they appreciate the constitution and values, but it's mostly lip service and words only. Those I've encountered on the left live it authentically, without noise and grandstanding. I'm in the middle, watching it all.
You mean like all those peace loving leftists accosting Republicans in restaurants, elevators and outside their homes? Is that your idea of ‘without noise and grandstanding’?
How do I rate myself a left-winger and a liberal? I believe that governments should raise money openly through taxes and not through speed traps, petty regulations and fines, etc.
As a libertarian-leaning conservative, I agree with this completely. But this barely scratches the surface; you and I likely differ in our opinions of how much revenue the government should be raising and for what purposes.
One's opinion of the optimal relationship between citizen and government is the true test of where one lies on the spectrum between statism and libertarianism.
enlightenment age thinkers, john locke and jean rousseau, both classical liberals, were both notable inspirations for thomas jefferson's declaration of independence.
the fall of the monarchies, that was subsequent to both the french and americam revolutions, is known as the age of enightenment, an era of classical liberal and social thinking that influenced the creation of the constitution.
excuse cell unedited grammar
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.
