What is limited/small govt? What is the Constitution's role? (illegal, drug)

[Chimuelojones]

Originally Posted by geofra

Before its ratification the Constitution was amended ten times (the Bill of Rights).

Was it amended 10 times or were 10 amendments added???

[Willsson]

You hear a lot folks, mostly conservatives and teabaggers, about how far we've strayed from our Founding Fathers and the Constitution; how this has affected how big our govt has become.

Considering your disrespect for a qualified citizen voter, I'll just answer your question by suggesting you read the Constitution.

[dv1033]

Originally Posted by jimhcom

You could not even get the first sentence of you nonsense written before making your agenda clear by evoking inflammatory speech like "teabagger".
You are a stereotypical liberal who wants to twist every word to every law to your own meaning. You want to hide behind the Constitution when it supports you and you seek to change the meaning of the words when it does not.

Now that's the pot calling the kettle black.

You do not give a damn about the Constitution or what it represents,

You got that from what I wrote? And here I thought challenging and questioning authority was an American characteristic.

if you did you would already have the answers to your questions because you would have read it, and the writings of Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, and the rest of the men who wrote papers explaining the reasons it was constructed the way it was.

Ah yes. The same men who were reading progressive thinking literature from the Enlightenment who challenged tradition and faith (Monarchy and Catholicism) to form progressive ideas of free white males having a voice in government and then later to lay out the framework for a new government. Those guys?

The size of government is simply limited by 10th amendment, a very simple and eloquent statement that 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.

Are you some sort of constitutional scholar or lawyer or judge? Do you have any sort legal claim to this or you just another arm chair constitutional lawyer who is unaware of how history has played out in the issue of federal vs state power?

Do you really think the fundamental relationship between the Federal Government changes based on wheatear the occupation of the people are farmers or write computer code? The Constitution is the cornerstone of the Republic. It protects the individual from the tyranny that government inevitably always becomes.

Yes. I don't think we need to restrain ourselves to a literal and unchanging document written when we were a mostly agrarian society.

The attacks we see on the Constitution today are a result of the tyranny our government has become.
The words of the Constitution bear little resemblance to the government that infringes on every right the Constitution guarantees.

Give an example.

The government has broken its contract with the people, and so it attacks the Constitution as if it were the problem instead of the criminals who after swearing to uphold it; have violated the Supreme Law of the Land.

And who again gets to have the final judgement in constitutional issues? Perhaps you should google the issue and appeal to them.......

[dv1033]

Originally Posted by Willsson

Considering your disrespect for a qualified citizen voter, I'll just answer your question by suggesting you read the Constitution.

I have.... Perhaps you are confusing the Constitution with the Articles of Confederation..... As the Constitution as ratified laid the groundwork for a strong federal govt.... AKA Federalists vs Anti-Federalist....

[jimhcom]

Originally Posted by dv1033

You got that from what I wrote? And here I thought challenging and questioning authority was an American characteristic.

The Constitution is not the authority, it is the contract that protects the people against the authority, which is government. It's pathetic how little you understand.

Originally Posted by dv1033

Ah yes. The same men who were reading progressive thinking literature from the Enlightenment who challenged tradition and faith (Monarchy and Catholicism) to form progressive ideas of free white males having a voice in government and then later to lay out the framework for a new government. Those guys?

There is nothing new about a Constitutional Republic, it has been around since the days of Rome, and many aspects long before that. The limitations the forefathers put on voting, made sense then and probably still do. They were not based on race and gender as idiot liberals think, they were based on financial standing. The forefathers believed in order to vote, a person should be both educated and have some skin in the game. Today we see how right they were as the uneducated masses can be manipulated to vote any way the corporations and banks want them to vote. They are easily bribed with promises of free sh*t.

Originally Posted by dv1033

Are you some sort of constitutional scholar or lawyer or judge? Do you have any sort legal claim to this or you just another arm chair constitutional lawyer who is unaware of how history has played out in the issue of federal vs state power?

That is the beauty of the Constitution, it was written in common English, in order for it to be easily understood by the common man. You do not need to be a lawyer or judge or crooked politician to understand the contract. It says the government is subservient to the people and that the government shall not infringe on the peoples rights.
History has been the struggle for men who would be kings, to circumvent the contract, in order to have power and wealth. These men were traitors, and yet are held up to be great men in the history taught in government schools.

Originally Posted by dv1033

Yes. I don't think we need to restrain ourselves to a literal and unchanging document written when we were a mostly agrarian society.

The contract is not unchanging, but it is literal. It means exactly what it says. It is only the criminals and the charlatans who would try to deceive people into believing that they should in fact be peasants when in fact they were born free men.

Originally Posted by dv1033

Give an example.

Public entitlements is an example. The Federal Government was never given the power under the Constitution to tax the people for any purpose other than to pay the debts of the government.
To tax one man to give his money to another is not a debt, and therefore a usurpation of power not given government. Liberals try to use the general welfare clause to justify it but their argument is fallacious and easily proven untrue as the general welfare is the welfare of all the people. To take from one group in order to give to another is clearly not in the interest of the people from whom you are taking. It also presumes the government would somehow be able to justly determine fairness which is a fallacy in itself.

Originally Posted by dv1033

And who again gets to have the final judgement in constitutional issues? Perhaps you should google the issue and appeal to them.......

Since when is it wise to appeal to criminals? So long as the Supreme Court "interprets" corporations to have the same rights as citizens, then they are basically legalizing mass corporate bribery of elected office holders.
Once again if we go back and study history, we will find that the forefathers in their wisdom, mistrusted corporation as much as they did the banks. They had seen what the banks and corporation had done in Europe to make peasants of the people and monopolize the government. In fact most were of the opinion that all articles of incorporation be limited to no more than a short period of years. When you read their papers it is clear that they never intended corporations to be either permanent or to have the status of citizens.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Read the constitution then look at the government and see all of the things the government does that are not listed in the constitution. The constitution is not a limit on the people, it is a limit on the government. How to change the constitution is actually listed in the constitution, I know, pretty crazy.

Pro Tip: If you want real dialogue it is best not to demonize the group you want to in-gauge in the OP.

Since neither aircraft safety standards nor pilot certification standards are listed in the Constitution, should we consider them bad things and eliminate them?

[Ghostrider275452]

Originally Posted by dv1033

You hear a lot folks, mostly conservatives and teabaggers, about how far we've strayed from our Founding Fathers and the Constitution; how this has affected how big our govt has become.

But what is a limited govt? How small does it have to be?

Can someone give me specifics?

Like.... Should the size of the govt be a certain % of our GDP?
Does it mean public education is unconstitutional?
Should we never have put a man on the moon?
Should we not regulate motor vehicles?

Lastly, why do you think or perceive the Constitution is some unchanging document or that we've strayed far from? It was written when we had a few million people and were mostly an agrarian society.

Personally, I think it is all rhetoric by politicians and those who subscribe to their ideology. I think people use this phrase so they can arbitrarily pick and choose what a govt function should be and use the Constitution to support their own personal views. And that is fine is true, but then why hide under that pretense?

The constitution was written to be the law of the land(not rhetoric) and the federal governments role is limited as protector of the people from enemies foreign and domestic, that is all! Anything else should be left to state and local governments. The federal government role today, is in complete violation of the constitution.

[Ghostrider275452]

Originally Posted by BoomBen

yes its rhetoric when the GOP preaches limited Government. Its limited Government in their view.

Ask them to reduce our military burden or let women have access to safe abortions or my right to walk down a street without wondering if I am being spied on.
The GOP is nothing but a schill for the neocon agenda. and the tea party was just the original GOP on roids.

And this administration has done nothing to stop it and actually encourages it.

[Ghostrider275452]

Originally Posted by dv1033

now that's the pot calling the kettle black.



You got that from what i wrote? And here i thought challenging and questioning authority was an american characteristic.



Ah yes. The same men who were reading progressive thinking literature from the enlightenment who challenged tradition and faith (monarchy and catholicism) to form progressive ideas of free white males having a voice in government and then later to lay out the framework for a new government. Those guys?



Are you some sort of constitutional scholar or lawyer or judge? Do you have any sort legal claim to this or you just another arm chair constitutional lawyer who is unaware of how history has played out in the issue of federal vs state power?



Yes. I don't think we need to restrain ourselves to a literal and unchanging document written when we were a mostly agrarian society.



Give an example.

scotus

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Ghostrider275452

The constitution was written to be the law of the land(not rhetoric) and the federal governments role is limited as protector of the people from enemies foreign and domestic, that is all! Anything else should be left to state and local governments. The federal government role today, is in complete violation of the constitution.

Ever considered reading Aritcle I, Section 8?