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.
The same way some people believe the health care law is constitutional and others don't.
It's vague to where people can interpret it in different ways.
The constitution is pretty clear, I think it is the application where things have failed. For example the Commerce clause which gives the Federal government the right to regulate commerce between the states has been more broadly interpreted than originally intended. The courts have esentially given the Federal government unlimited ability to regulate our lives. Essentially the modern interpretation of the constitution allows the government to force us to buy anything, including health insurance. This is most assuredly not something the founding fathers wanted.
So essentially the constitution is pretty clear, it is the interpretation to apply it to modern circumstances that has failed.
How can you compare adherence to the US Constitution with anarchy and have a shred of credibility?
As an American, I support the Constitution as much as any Tea Party supporter. Our current government DOES adhere to the Constitution. What are these parts that are un-Constitutional? Why hasn't anyone gone to the Supreme Court?
I didn't say anarchists were capitalist, but they do believe in little to no government.
BTW, Capitalism is an economic system, Anarchism is a political ideology. I'm strictly speaking of the political spectrum.
Ecxonomic systems fall under political theories. You would be hard pressed to find a capitalist communist. Private property and collectivism don't go together.
The idea of left/right wing really has nothing to do with government control persay. It has more to do with the idea of social change.
Left wingers generally support radical social and economic changes while right wingers do not. Both right and left wingers can support total government control to enact their policies.
Of course, this only applies to the US political spectrum.
This is what I learned from my political science class.
This is true, jut as both sides can support no government to enact their policies.
But of course, strictly based on the spectrum, those are exceptions (and probalby only unique to the US). The general theme is as I said before.
As an American, I support the Constitution as much as any Tea Party supporter. Our current government DOES adhere to the Constitution. What are these parts that are un-Constitutional? Why hasn't anyone gone to the Supreme Court?
25 states are suing the health care law as unconstitutional and they have won the latest round.
As an American, I support the Constitution as much as any Tea Party supporter. Our current government DOES adhere to the Constitution. What are these parts that are un-Constitutional? Why hasn't anyone gone to the Supreme Court?
The NFA, the anti-drug laws, etc. It was the SCOTUS that said someone growing wheat for their own personal consumption was a matter of "interstate commerce." I wouldn't count on them to keep the government in line. They also allowed the concentration camps in WWI and WWII, seperate but equal, and my favorite: they declared the tomato a vegetable instead of a fruit.
The constitution is pretty clear, I think it is the application where things have failed. For example the Commerce clause which gives the Federal government the right to regulate commerce between the states has been more broadly interpreted than originally intended. The courts have esentially given the Federal government unlimited ability to regulate our lives. Essentially the modern interpretation of the constitution allows the government to force us to buy anything, including health insurance. This is most assuredly not something the founding fathers wanted.
So essentially the constitution is pretty clear, it is the interpretation to apply it to modern circumstances that has failed.
The constitution is vague. You get ten kitchen table lawyers in a room and you'll get 10 different interpretations of the meaning of each word. Our founding fathers were smart. They set up a judicial branch of government whose only function is to interpret the constitution as it applies to law. The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court of the United States says it means and that's the way the founding fathers intended it to be.
I don't know what these pot smokers are thinking, either. If they hate government so much, why don't they just all go live in somalia.
See, there's a huge difference between a limited government and no government.
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.
